Hello and welcome back to Rounding the Earth.
Today I'm looking around and realizing that my camera or my setup, suddenly I've got a computer in the background instead of just the Earth around me.
So I can't move things around in my office. Now I'll have to figure out how to be a hovering host circling the globe once again.
Today I've got a guest that I just talked to for the first time the other day.
She has a channel, she has a substack and a channel called Third Paradigm.
And she tackles a number of topics that I like to think about and cover.
And so I'll bring her on and let her introduce herself further. Hi, Teresa, how are you?
I'm doing so well. Thank you, Matthew. So happy to be here.
I'm glad you've joined us. So I'm going to let you tell the audience a little bit about yourself. I know that you live in a beautiful area of California.
Maybe we'll start there. Right. So I'm here in Santa Cruz.
And but I also have my childhood home in Cumberland, Maryland.
And so I go back and forth between the two, which gives an interesting perspective of for economics of looking at a place where the cost of living is much too high here and then a place where money moves too slowly.
And it's the cost of living is too low in Cumberland.
So I feel like that helps me think through issues of economics and local sovereignty, which are the things I really focus on.
And I focus on them in my book, How to Dismantle an Empire.
And that looks at how to do how to change the system so that we can have local economics.
And I do a substack called Third Paradigm and also a YouTube.
And I haven't read your book yet. I just found out that that you had one last week, maybe a day or two before we spoke.
Santa Cruz. That's actually one of the one of my favorite places that I've spent more than a week.
I was lucky enough I was invited to as part of a summer teaching program when Todd math course at UC Santa Cruz and got the trees there, the deer, you know, who walk like three feet past you.
Almost that close, you know, if you're really careful and quiet, you can creep up to them, right. But, you know, then the view down the mountain to the to the ocean. That's just really a nice place.
Well, you will have to come back and visit before it's ruined because segueing into some of the economic stuff we have now institutional buyers who are snapping up properties and Gavin Newsom, our governor in California, has made it where every city has quotas for how many units they have to build.
And if they don't build them and if they don't build them in the right places, they have something called the builders remedy. And so this means they can take any property in any neighborhood and plunk down a five story building.
So when you were here, you probably knew food bin, you know, this little hippie place that had the herb room. It's it every neighborhood should have a little bin grocery store. It's just it's adorable.
And it's what we, you know, should be going towards. But they are now putting in. They are asking permission to put in 3000 square feet of commercial real estate on the bottom and 52 units above with not enough parking.
And so this is going to be a scourge on the neighborhoods, but they're trying to push in and cram as many people as possible. And I think you, you bring up an interesting point with the university that we as a city serve the interest of the university and serve the profit of UC regions, rather than the university serving the town,
which there is really no way in which at this point, it actually brings any value to us. If you look at the jobs that are being created as ones that are serving other people's kids, while we're going into debt and our kids are going into debt in order to go somewhere else.
Yeah, we have that university hedge fund problem. Yeah, it feels like the university have become some of the most powerful financial entities around the world and they can hold their cash on nonprofit and their investments nonprofit.
A lot of people don't even know how large these entities have become, but individual universities have sometimes tens of billions of dollars in investments and patents and they're thinking about how it is to own the future.
It seems like to me, right? The students are like students in tuition at not everywhere, but at the schools that have the most money are almost irrelevant in terms of the cash of the school, which gives you an idea as to how they might stack up in the financial incentives.
You mentioned living near the East Coast and on the West Coast gives you a perspective on the difference in the economics. I've lived in what I tell people, all five regions of the country.
I've got my new cowboy hat on today. I guess I'm going to call Texas the Southwest. If I'm allowed to say maybe Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, maybe Nevada or something like that make up its own region, then I've lived in the Southeast, Northeast, Midwest, Southwest and West.
I've lived in San Diego and California for a while. I think that moving around the country, you do get to see the differences in the economics and the reasons for the differences sort of seep into your understanding of how things are in play.
In fact, in Alabama, which is where I was born and grew up, one of the things that I eventually came to understand, and at least partially because I had family in politics, was that the University of Alabama in Birmingham was the state's largest employer.
You have associated with that the medical lobby. Because Alabama is not the center of any particular industry, that lobby winds up dominating politics.
There are two large lobbies, the medical lobby and the education lobby. Because of that, you get to see where it is. I guess corruption revolves around unchallenged lobby is one of my opinions.
Yeah, yeah. I think that could segue exactly into our topic if you were ready for that.
Go right ahead. I've told Theresa, I gave her the pick of what we would talk about today. She wants to talk about what do we want from a presidential candidate, which could be an interesting conversation.
We are on the heels of RFK Jr. announcing his candidacy, which is a very unusual candidacy.
There might be some parallels in a different way to Trump announcing his candidacy a few years ago in the sense that this is an outsider who it's plausible that he can build momentum.
But yeah, I'll let you start with wherever it is you want to go. You want to talk more generally, like policy?
So in this country and really in everywhere these days, what we practice is personalitics, where we say, who do we trust? Who can we put in this position? Who's going to do the things we want them to do?
We don't practice politics. That politics would be deciding what are the policies that we most want, and then who can we get to best represent those policies, who we know is going to follow through and be the best person to implement that policy?
So what I am looking at, I had one of my readers who got the announcement who said, well, as an anarchist, I don't believe in supporting any presidential candidate because it all goes in the wrong direction.
And I think he will like my answer, because my answer is to decentralize and then get out of the way.
And what you talked about, Matthew, when we were talking privately, is that you see these Dunbar circles.
And I don't think I'm going to be using the word in exactly the same way that you are.
But I think that if you're trying to change from a top-down structure to something that is bottom-up, you have to form concentric circles of control and influence and to create the ability for self-governance.
And so I see the word anarchy as being ruled by rules rather than by rulers, going back to Greece and the archons and what I talk about in my book about democracy actually being one of the first PSIOPs,
one of the first ways that people were tripped into forming a pyramid, a hierarchy, rather than giving control back to the people who were working the land in particular,
distributing the wealth, which I distinguish from money, that wealth is the ability to control your own labor and money is the ability to control other people's labor and typically get it without giving anything back.
So my goal in everything is small-scale sovereignty, community self-governance, anarchy, whichever term is the most self-explanatory to you.
So I think that having a president who forms 12 regions, 12 regions out of the country and looks at their job as setting those up, setting up and protecting their own economic sovereignty
and then getting out of the way so that each of those can then form 12 republics, say, within them and then form 12 commonwealths is what I see as the really central level of being able to have self-governance at a range of around like 200 to 300,000 people.
So you're the math whiz. If you take 12 to the eighth power or ninth, I think we end up getting to the number of people in the United States.
Let's see, 12 to the eighth power, 400 million. It's over 400 million. Yeah, that is about the number in the United States.
I asked the right person that question. Why 12? Yeah. Oh, I'm so glad you asked that because again, I'm happy to be talking to the math geek.
I really think that wouldn't it be so much more logical if our numbering system was base 12 rather than base 10?
The duodecimal debate. Oh, goodness. I had a student about three years ago who was obsessed with the duodecimal system.
You have the first three primes that you can divide in your head. And I feel like there are vestiges of hints that that's the way it was before it got taken over by this Roman Empire system because we have 11 and 12 both as unique words rather than one teen, two teen.
And then we have dozens and then we have the whole rulers. And it just seems to me like any that the idea of, oh, people could only count on their fingers, stupidifies ancient people in a way that they do not deserve, that I think they were smarter than us and knew that base 12 just makes everything easier to do in your head.
Hmm. I'll have to think about that.
Clearly the reason that we chose 10 or at some point that 10 won out is because we have these. That's what they say. But people, when people didn't have even a written system, there's a lot of evidence that they were able to think and remember and use much more of their brain than we do now.
I think it's possible that the more symbols we've included, actually the more that we've been dumbed down. So just an idea and not particular to my theory.
But I think that 12 creates enough diversity where you can't have one that's going to dominate that in a sense, it kind of does what JFK said with, you know, with the CIA that he was going to scatter it to the, you know, the corners of the of the earth.
So it could never be put back together again. And I feel like with the United States, there is no one that you can put in charge. All of our elections are rigged. There's there's none that aren't, of course, you know, so so we're always getting someone in who essentially is an actor.
And that person is doing someone else's will. I think you could even see this, for instance, with Obama when he when he campaigned the second time at the beginning of his campaign, he knew, you know, he knew that he had been used and he had no heart for it.
He didn't want to be elected again. He was lackluster until they got to him and said, you have to do this. You know, it just his demeanor, I feel you could tell. So whether someone is naive and being suckered into it or flattered or, you know, put in power or whether they're complicit or whether they're captured, you know, those are important questions.
But in any case, I don't I don't I don't think there's an system of governance over 300 million people that can ever work and be a system of self governance.
Yeah, certainly you have that much centralization of control and
and the the the honey pots are too big. You know, the the you're going to attract the people who want massive amounts of power to the levers created within such a government. And then they're going to do potentially horrific things with it once in a while.
I agree with you about the perspective of of the leaders being actors. In fact, people here trilateral commission and they automatically start thinking conspiracy theory. But I like David Rockefeller has a nice quote.
And I don't remember it off the top of my head, but it basically goes something like this. You know, we're doing this out in the open. But, you know, Obama was the outsider candidate who was the nobody. But he happened to be mentored by one of the two founders of the trilateral commission.
And the trilateral commission candidates pretty much had 40 years of uninterrupted presidency from the time that it was founded in 1973. They backed Carter and in fact, Carter's on some of the founding documents.
So some people call him a co-founder of the trilateral commission, but they pretty much controlled the presidency. Even, you know, they're the reason George H.W. Bush was the vice president for Ronald Reagan.
They pushed him toward that. So, and then, yeah, then we have Clinton for eight years. Later on, we have Obama for eight years. The two of them were mentored by the two founders. So that's a lot of selection of what of what then appear to be people playing a role on behalf of, you know, powerful groups of people.
Right. And in a sense, it doesn't really matter because what I write about in my book is economics. So politics may say, okay, here's what we want to do. But economics determines how.
And ever for the last over 100 years, we've since the Federal Reserve System, we've had bankers who are in charge of creating the money through the mortgages. And as long as the bankers create the money, 96% of it in the case of the U.S. right now, then they're really the government.
They there's no they control our labor because in order for us to live in a place and have security, we work for them generally with dual incomes for 30 years.
And our labor ends up just being transferred from one hand as the bankers to the other hand as venture capitalists. And then they put that into the corporations that then make them more money. So the only way that people can have any security is by being servants and making the rich richer and then hoping that they can get out and still own a house and have some security.
But that, of course, is being taken from us because now I think the goal is that 40% of single family homes will be owned by institutional investors, which again means the bankers because the gig is up for them in terms of fooling us with being able to.
Is that 40%? Is that a number we're headed toward? Or by some schedule?
Yes, yes. And, you know, I wasn't sure at first whether that's 40% of rentals, but then someone confirmed that it's actually 40% of all single family homes. And I think it was pretty close, like 2040 or something that they're looking at that.
So, yeah, and here everyone's getting bought out. So I have friends who lost their homes in what they call the CZU lightning complex fires two years ago.
And my last episode was on geoengineering. And so I am looking at we never have lightning. We have an ocean right here. Lightning just doesn't doesn't happen, especially summer heat lightning.
And that time people went down to the beach because it was cool, you know, it was it. But it also had this ominous wind that felt to me like something wicked this way comes.
And then it started fires because we had had years of drought once again induced. And so people lost their homes and now they're paying $5,000 a month in rent and they can't buy again because as soon as they do, institutional investors snap them up and they pay all cash, which you and I talked about.
So so we're in a place where there's a land grab that is going on like has never happened before. It's a feeding frenzy because they know the dollars tanking.
And what they need to do is transfer that into some kind of real asset. And we need a plan that's going to be able to counter that after it happens.
Perhaps I have I have some sort of I have a hope and I mentioned this to you when we started down this this road on the phone.
There are the welfare theorems and I never quote them exactly correctly, but I'll describe the way that I view the welfare theorems, which is that maybe maybe this is the first welfare theorem.
The initial conditions of distribution of property don't matter so much as to the outcomes, right? If you run a simulation over and over again, if any have people sort of work and become specialists at things and whatever their their labor's value and they accrue wealth,
that the initial conditions don't affect the outcome of that state.
And of course, there are things that get in the way of that right. Obviously, you can just, you know, take money from people. I call it taxation and give it to other people.
So there's all kinds of ways that you can, you know, throw sand in the gears.
You know, it's a throw sand in one gear grease another gear, and you wind up with wealth shifting gradually to the places that you want it to shift to.
If you're, you know, the powerful overlords who can manage the system.
So, I actually I have some hope that if we move to a monetary system, and I'm a believer in Bitcoin, I hope that people like learn about it, educate themselves about it.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe that's that's not the solution, but I do believe that it probably is. It replaces, you know, debt based money with something that is just based on security and cryptography, unbreakable cryptography, at least on a brute force level.
And, you know, so my hope is that if you take out that aspect of it, then maybe you get a system where it doesn't matter if the oligarchs buy up so much housing and land beforehand that eventually, and it may take a generation two or three.
I'm not sure that there's any better solution like quicker way out of the problem. And you know my immediate worry, the moment you start talking about, you know, policies of a president is you and I agree that we're talking about actors.
And in fact, I would describe the age that we live in I think that we have been in a totalitarian age for generations now.
And that's going to have to work itself out. And that's something like you know buying up houses or land.
Maybe that's in a sense, the negative sign that's actually a positive sign that they know that their financial system is going away, and that they have to grab that sort of asset because we are going to have a system that is better for us.
But, you know, like I don't expect like I don't expect any possibility of reorganization from a top level position. I could be wrong about that. It could be that at the very end of this age of kleptocracy and totalitarian, well, totalitarian kleptocracy.
I don't know, maybe that should become a phrase. We need something like that, right? Right. I don't think that we can trust almost anything that comes from the government, no matter what a politician says.
I don't even know how I would believe it because there are so many things that are rearranging. They can say I want this to happen or this is our policy. A law may even be enacted. But if enforcement of that law is intentionally routed around.
And I think these days our police and courts are at peak corruption.
And I do I do recognize there are a lot of good people in that system. I don't want to make it sound like I'm hammering everybody who, you know, works in government. I've met plenty of good people or people trying to be good, whether or not they, you know, agree with X, Y or Z.
But but I think that we are at peak corruption in terms of like what a system can handle. So I guess I just I don't know what it would mean for the policy to like to even support a candidate based on a set of policies anymore.
I do think that we just have to prepare for a next system and hopefully try to engineer that as well as possible. I think, you know, I do think thinking about like organization levels, whether it's 12 or exactly or something else.
I mean, I think in the United States, I can see there being a reorganization there. I guess there's the whole greater greater Idaho thing going on. I don't know how much attention you paid to that. It's not impossible.
I think it's not impossible. I think that we that we do wind up with a reorganization of some state boundaries.
I think that we just stay the same. Right. One person's county is another country. So in Iceland, you can crowd source your Constitution, you can push back on the banker debt, you can completely control your monetary system.
But here in, say, Santa Cruz, our county is almost the same size and we can decide what color to paint our park benches. That's it. So right now, everything's top down. Like I said, you know, we've got the governor telling us how much housing will be stuffed into neighborhoods that are already over capacity.
It's we're gridlocked. So I think I've been thinking about our conversation and I think we're answering two different questions. I think the question you're asked answering is how do we protect our security and our stored labor for what we've been able to to build, you know, as this thing crashes down on us.
And I think you're right about Bitcoin and the crypto currencies being a way of being able to weather out a transition.
But my my oldest daughter got married recently and her wedding was more like a barn raising because it was very do it yourself. And I think that the couple had been cultivating this. They've been preparing for this their entire lives because they had exactly the right group of friends, friends who like to build things and make things and do things and organize things.
So everyone just like pitched in and made it happen. It was a beautiful thing. But I look at some of them all like just entering their 30s. And there's one who in particular who's really good at investments and and has some money to play with is very smart about them.
But what he's doing it for is to take over this deserted church in Detroit that bought and make it into a neighborhood hub. And so all of these guys in particular, they want to build. They want to have some land. They want to farm.
And I would say the women, they want to do things for their community. They want to they want to build families. So so I think that we need two systems. We need one that's going to be able to keep us safe to make this transition.
And then we need another one that's going to work for ordinary people where they're not having to gamble and win the lottery, essentially, in order to have a decent secure life.
Liam says I want my wedding to be a barn raising. It's efficient.
I love hearing that there does seem to be a lot of energy for community building. Funny, I told my wife that if we were to reach a point, you know that we consider retirement early enough that I would want to do one of two things.
One would either be travel around the world and teach like one person at a time how to build a business. And then we would do a different country and do it again like every two or three years.
Right. Or or try to gather enough people to build a town somewhere where that energy, you know, find people who have that energy and let them bring it in and, you know, find people who kind of agree on the idea of, you know, a town, maybe a town square, but maybe, you know, very next door nearby sort of community center where you have, you know, maybe maybe you have a stage.
Maybe the kids come play music. Maybe they can come play music all day if there's nobody, you know, on the stage, you know, people can practice their, their instrument or, or, you know, I don't know, you have a stage, you can have plays different things, all of the things that you could have in in a community, you know, going on there actively.
I'm a believer in sort of, you know, I'll call it unschooling. I guess that term is well enough known, you know, I say, I can say homeschooling. I know that people are going to co-ops, I think sort of however it is that works for you is fine.
But if you have something like that, you could have any form of co-op or complete unschooling or whatever it is that you want.
So as long as you have a community with energy, I think that then it works. So, you know, I do want whatever the transition is, I do want that. But I don't think that any protection is going to come from the government.
I think that people are, I think that knives are out fighting for the last scraps of the pie.
What need though is for government to stop protecting the bankers, that if the bankers are allowed to can create money to lend money they don't have.
That means they're the government. And if you own a house and you don't pay them, like the mafia, they have the entire police system on their side. So you have to work for them. You have to give up your entire life, your productive life in order to work for these bankers.
And that's what we have to change. So it's not so much what the government does. It's the government withdrawing this usurped power because no one ever gave the power to the bankers to create the money.
You serve that and we need to stop recognizing that. So the system I talk about in my book, the carrots with the little triangle.
You're breaking up a little bit just now. It may just be that the connection, your connection on your side went a little bit bad. I'm just going to, I'm going to go ahead and toss in a comment from Gabe. I'm personally trying to understand how much money creation powers are kept in check if they're merely allowed to fail.
And I think that that is a big point. I think that we are a few decades, you know, maybe it was the late 1990s with long-term capital management that we had the too big to fail era. Though I actually think right now, in a sense, the banks don't govern anything because it is, it is all so, you know, since quantitative easing, we didn't know what bullets were in the gun.
They cobbled that together. But I think that right now it is literally, it's not even duct tape, it's scotch tape. You know, it's, you know, it's an anvil underneath the repo markets. Over $2 trillion, I believe, you know, last night I heard or checked, haven't even bothered in a while because I know what it means. I know what it is.
I think that that there are almost no choices in a sense. I think that people have to begin with the notion that for a little while they're going to have to govern themselves.
Right. And I'm sorry about the breaking up. I don't know what to do about that in the middle of this show.
It sounds good now. I went ahead and talked for a few seconds while it is that your screen fixed itself. So we're good.
Okay. And so controlling the amount of money that's created the way that my I think we need several different kinds of economies. I think we need, say, subsistence economies for food production that we need.
And my real focus is on reciprocal community economies for the kinds of things that we do to help each other. So I look at taking back the Social Security Trust Fund and using that to capitalize public banks and then creating the currency that would repay those loans so that all the money that typically now just goes to the bankers with no benefit.
Benefit to us then would go into creating dividends that would be particular for different kinds of activities. And I look at food production and education and well care of all the ways we take care of each other and home improvement being the four areas that I'd like to give people the anarchist ability to say,
Okay, how do I want to spend this in the community to be able to reinforce those ideas so that your idea of having a stage that every neighborhood could essentially take over their own hub and say, Let's restore this. Let's make this into a coffee shop and, you know, bank you and I talked about and something that would be a
gathering place for that neighborhood and that we can create anywhere because we may have an ocean here and people keep saying, Oh, well, you need to take in more people because everybody wants to live by the ocean.
But I don't find that true. My little Appalachian hometown, which is one of the most impoverished places in the country. People are entrepreneurs and they're creating beautiful things there. And there's a freedom to it because space is cheap.
So I think anywhere that you are, you can make into that that kind of place that other people are going to want. Um, and that we can have a combination of your two dreams of edu travel of being able to travel to different places and work with people who are studying the same things
we are study with people, teach people and be able at the same time to be part of that community and move around is my dream.
I like where your values are in building the community. Are you familiar somebody in the chat mentioned Derek bros. There are two gentlemen, john bush and Derek bros, who organize people to do things like this.
Oh, right, right, right. Yes. He does the, um, the greater reset. I think is very gross. Yeah. You know, so I have an episode on, uh, the greater reset. And essentially what I say in it is that you have to start out with some multimillionaire who's going to buy a bunch of land and have everybody be there.
And then they're going to create the money so that people, while they're doing things for each other, can also trade because you and I talked, you can't, people can't live on services alone.
And that what we have right now is a services labor force. We don't produce, we don't produce goods, we don't produce food. And so we need to be able to, to nudge that and enable people to be able to do those things.
But in a way that restores the economy and the productivity of it. So with Derek grows is not looking at any kind of system change. If you're having to pay the bankers for the ability to have land and live in a house.
I just don't see any way around.
Given them free.
You're breaking up on us again. So I'll take the reins for a few seconds while your internet settles down.
Just to mention that with the greater reset guys, at least so far as I understand it, they are Bitcoiners. And I think that they that their ideas exit and build.
I think that they're expecting the, the, that part of the economy to sort of break down and reform on its own.
And, and then.
So yeah, those guys met actually as an Occupy rally.
So they definitely did want to move away from the bankers, the banking system. That's not what they talk about. So I think you do have a lot in common with them. I think that it is true that the, and know this, I think there are like 50,000 or so people involved in the freedom cells that they, that they help sort of teach, manage, whatever, how are you going to put it.
And I went to one of their events in January of last year, 15 months ago, 16 months ago, and talking with people, I do think that a few of the freedom cells are one wealthy person and then people sort of can gather around them.
I think that a number of them are also people with more equal shares of wealth. I think that it can happen either way, right? There's no like rule for all of those different freedom cells, but there, there are dozens, there are maybe hundreds at this point.
So they've got a whole bunch of different flavors to them. I think that we may have to just expect that, right? I think that there will probably be a handful of people who might, you might even call them robber barons, but, you know, I always like to point to, are you familiar with the show Deadwood?
I've heard of it. Yeah. Yeah.
Okay. I don't watch a whole lot of TV, but that's one of the shows in the last 20 years that I really enjoyed. And they had, there's a character there, Al Swearingen. He is, I mean, he's a dirty guy. And he's, you know, there are a lot of, a lot of bad things that you could say about the man.
However, in the show, what you see is very clearly the contrast between him and, oh goodness, I can't remember the name of the billionaire oligarch who rolls into town and starts, you know, taking people's gold claims, killing people.
But you've got the difference between the oligarch and the robber baron, and the robber baron has to invest in their community, right? There's an equilibrium there.
If they just, if they just were a totalitarian overlord, then they wouldn't have a healthy community.
But they have that going on. And I think that you will see more and less benevolent versions of that in some sort of a transition. And this is part of the reason why I think of, you know, why I related my mind, you know, COVID to Ovid's metamorphosis, which was a period of tumult.
Yes.
And once again, I think it's maybe answering two different questions, that what Derek Brose is answering is how do we do the things we want to do and form these communities within the existing system?
And what I'm doing is saying, okay, if you had a system change genie, and you could only make one wish, what would you wish for? And that is to say, we take back the power to create the money, create credit out of nothing that then owns our houses, is the default owner of our houses,
when they transition from one generation or person to another, that I don't see any upside to allowing that to continue. Do you?
No, but I don't think anyone has a choice at this point. I think that that we are playing out. You know, I think that the people who have lived off of the banking system for a long time are playing out its demise.
And they are, I think that they're panicked. I don't think that they know what to do. I could be wrong about this. There's always been one more bullet in the gun than we imagined. But the level of centralization, I feel like, went complete when the repo markets got backstopped, because what that said is, the banks no longer trust each other with letters of credit or with the repo market,
without the US Treasury being essentially married to the Fed. So it's all going to go down together. The only question is when.
Yes. And, you know, I have this, I have this worry that part of what they're trying to do is invest in patents and turn future taxation as they're losing the cash into some sort of a patent system.
And that then police and military forces will be paid for by that patent system. Right. And that we may, we could, if we don't manage this well, enter a new totalitarian age.
And this was, this was a lot of my interest, I guess, getting into sort of pandemic research, though I haven't said it out loud as often as I should have.
I'm going to look at the comments once again. In my experience, many of the people interested in establishing communes vastly underestimate the difficulty of starting intentional communities.
And I suspect that's true. Right. I suspect that it takes, and I actually do, like I mentioned the robber barons, because I actually do think that, that they will make it easier actually.
Even, even if some of them are people that you might think of as disgusting people, the person that you wouldn't necessarily want to associate with.
But I think that, and I'm not saying all of the communities will be this way, I think that there will be a variety. I think some will fail. I think Gabe is right that it's probably a very difficult thing to do and do well.
You have to make sure that either there are enough people to be very creative or you have some sort of a local resource that is somewhat unique, relatively unique.
With my system, I look at having all different kinds of economies and what I'm creating is a supplemental economy so that everyone for whom the dollar system is working continues with the dollar system because Gabe is right.
You can't replace, you can't go from zero, we produce our own goods and food, to 100% without tremendous, tremendous pain and suffering and learning curve.
You know, I know that with wayward youth, they send them out to Utah to, you know, be retrained by the Mormons. I think we should send them out with the migrant farmers because for one thing, they wouldn't understand the language to like listen to them whining, and they'd actually come back with some useful skills.
So we have a steep, steep learning curve to be able to have even the capacity, the tolerance for actual labor in order to be productive again.
And I think we need to make that transition as easy as possible. So what my system does is it leaves that alone, and it takes money, which taking it away from bankers is going to hurt a handful of people in the entire world.
So you take that money away and instead you restore a system where let's say you have $800 worth a month per person of all of these different pockets of productive activity that then anyone can earn.
So you know that you can make an honest living. You can do work and serve your community and make things and be able to make enough to match the cost of living in your area.
Big sigh.
I just see that, you know, I see the challenges as going to be so immense. And I'm glad that you're thinking in terms of the local level, because I just don't see even the possibility of that power coming down from a top level, right?
I think a reformation, I think that we may see the United States disintegrate and then just sort of have to reconstitute itself. There is a sense that we know that there is a national identity or that most people know that there's national identity.
I think that there will be some people with unrealistic ideas who give up on those unrealistic ideas and then want to reform, you know, something from the bottom up.
But you know, the problem of the actor, the whole, you know, are we in this sort of totalitarian state? Are we in a dark age? And I'm glad that conversation, I'm hearing it in several places now.
I've believed it since my teenage years, but I've always been very much on the minority of that conversation.
I just, you know, no matter what anyone says, I don't know if we can trust them. And in fact, even if they were totally sincere, I'm not sure that we could trust the people around them to let it happen.
Right. Absolutely.
There's too much of a veil between, you know, even the beginnings of a plan and something becoming enacted.
Well, you had another set of thoughts that you were interested in. So we were talking about this whole, this whole, you know, reality and how it plays out.
The stage of the world. We were talking about the stage of the world a little bit, and you had a couple of questions for me about substackers before this and maybe a conversation about whether or not we can trust any sort of a grand reality
before we even begin that rebuilding process.
Yeah. Yeah. And I think that this segues from what you were just saying, because I've agreed with you for a couple of decades that I've felt like, OK, I don't know what's going to be the trigger that forces the change, but here are all the sharks in the water.
You know, we've and at that time I would have said climate change. I would have looked at the dollar being, you know, the imminent collapse of the dollar.
I would have just identified all these different areas. I never would have predicted the pandemic. That wasn't even on my radar.
But that became this major cataclysmic event. So what I look at in my book is that we're at what I think is the pinnacle of 3500 years of concentration, that the purpose of money was in order to concentrate power and to trick us into serving the people who were looking to expand, that we became co-opted into the conquest of energy.
The conquest of our neighbors. And so now with the pandemic at the beginning of it, there were people who wrote things like Aaron Dottie Roy wrote the pandemic is a portal.
Eisenstein looked at, you know, the corona being, you know, this change element. And then it hasn't happened. And I think I think a lot of that is that we don't have any solidarity because the trust has been destroyed among people who are seeing that reality.
So even if there's only a small percentage of us, we still don't trust each other because there's been that way of having elements that are coming in that turn out to not be honest and not be working on the same side.
So I know you and I, you commented on video with JJ Cooey and Mark Kulak about Robert Malone. And at this point, I've done 12 different videos looking at Robert Malone not being who he says he is, looking at his history and the discrepancy between that.
And then what you and I were talking about earlier is that the blogger who goes by Sage Hanna being one of the best commentators on Robert Malone and following all of those angles and really doing a stellar job of exposing the truth.
But then as you discovered, being someone who is impersonating a woman and is doing that in order to get people to trust him in a way that they wouldn't trust if they knew from the beginning that it was a man.
So it again creates this way that we are left not being able to be honest with each other.
And maybe this has been my criticism with a lot of things that I've seen during the Plandemonium, the Died Suddenly documentary, certain people who have become 800-pound gorillas in the medical freedom movement media space. And I think a lot of that's been very sociopathically done.
I've gotten emails numerous times from people in the movement telling people that I was being sort of, that there was a subterfuge aimed at me, that there was malicious gossip attacks going on, things like that.
I even had one person admit to me that they were doing that. But yeah, it's clear that whatever is the resistance is there are probably multiple elements interested in grabbing onto that power, forming it into something that shapes their own power.
And some people are tapping into that to be role players and grifters, I think. I do think that the grifter criticism, I sometimes hate hearing it, like people just get dismissed as being a grifter without necessarily having a conversation about it, right?
I dislike that, but I do see, especially having been personally involved with a number of people, I can see a handful of people that I think are like that, or that grifting opportunities wind up possibly poisoning some wells, even where there are good people drinking.
Right?
One example is, oh gosh, I don't know if I should go into these examples. I'm just going to say this. There are, I have a list of about eight different billionaires who are involved, or deeply involved, heavily in manipulating, without their names usually being associated, right?
They're clearly standing in the background, but they have people on payrolls in various ways. You know, there are Bitcoin billionaires involved. And interestingly, they're even associated with a guy who admitted to me funding one of the mRNA vaccines using Bitcoin and investing in a Ukrainian lab to help to do testing work.
You know, there's interesting things going on. Then there's, I guess people have criticized the Canadian billionaire Colson, who's behind the wellness company. I've heard that those vitamins have made like north of $100 million, and with like a thousand percent markup.
And, you know, I hear like sniping discussions that the formulations are bad, but I'm not even sure that that's not just like bad politics fighting, you know, potential money poisoning of the mission. I don't even, you know, it's so, some of it's so ridiculous that, and it eats a lot of my time, which is why I decided to start writing about it.
And, you know, last year when I, when I worked on the military health database, the way that, that I saw propaganda images being repeated, you know, getting a million views and all these shares and commentary, when I had figured out and told people that that was the wrong story, and seeing people like Robert Malone brought me into that project, but, you know, never once corrected the story.
Right. Right. I had found that, you know, both the, that the whistleblowers, that the numbers that they had presented through Thomas Rintz and Lee Dundas at the Senator Johnson hearing were certainly wrong.
But there was a deeper story, and that story might have been the connection between the DOD and who handles the database, and were there some record manipulations involved, much smaller scale than saying 1000% increase in injury and illness or 300% increase already in cancer in January of last year.
That's just not true. Right.
But, you know, I see these interests.
I don't know what people's motivations are. Right. But it's very, very hard for me not to see an interplay going on. And then I don't know if you follow the amazing Polly.
I probably catch one of our videos every two or three months, but somebody posted a video talking about how there are, there's, you know, what looks like sort of manipulated ownership of a lot of the alternative media channels and interests, like who's investing in what and people are being
herded here and there. You've got Miles Guo who's connected with Steve Bannon being associated with, I think it's Gitter,
reported on that the other day.
A very good report.
But I can't remember the exact interest right now but you, when you see these, and then you look at the alternative media media and the way that it's formed.
It looks like one, perhaps one set of totalitarian hands replacing another, as in, it's sort of like the Uniparty stuff. Maybe it is that the Democratic Party got so much of the power through sifting process that said that said university educated
not university educated. Right. Right. And then, and then there's a split within the Democratic or people who would have been Democratic, you know, 10 to 20 or 30 years ago or something like that.
And now maybe there's a split amongst them but both branches are so used to just using totalitarian control levers, and, you know, creating giant corporations to to run for profit, that they aren't thinking about how it is that asymmetric technology
and manipulation of people has destroyed productive new technology and rounded out. And, you know, I've even, gosh, I tried to infuse sort of positive feedback loop business interests amongst a number of people including Robert Malone.
And did did a venture without talking with me I was I was basically going to try to explain how it is that he could make the feedback system loop with the decentralized medicine, people, or, and I sent him an email about, about how it is that he could run a
medical journal he talked about doing it another scientific journal, he talked about building one. And I said hey you know you may be able to do this on the blockchain didn't get an email reply, but, you know, very typically I tried to introduce, you know, the new economy
to new people and they've either gone off and done it without me and failed, or just not had the conversation or general not have the conversation it's been very frustrating. And I think that there is a lot of play for money going on.
And I think it's fatally broken. At this point I think that there's absolutely no sense actually, and even thinking of there being a resistance movement, because we all part of the same totalitarian show.
I'm glad, I'm glad you said it that way because that's where I've come to also is that I think things have been set into motion and what I've said is, you can throw yourself in front of the train, but it's not going to stop it.
Right now, I think with the vaccines, there is. We haven't seen all of the damage and death that that has set in motion. And with the money system. I think we're still in that freefall stage, where we think that we're flying, but only because we haven't hit bottom yet.
It's inevitable. And so, even by the time that this election comes around.
I think we're going to be living in a completely different world, because I think a lot of the repercussions of things that have already been done. I mean, I right now it's raining here and I, they call these even the atmospheric river.
The engineering term. That's something that they're not even pretending anymore that these are things that are natural, because we've been able to use cognitive dissonance to say, Oh, no, that couldn't be going on.
So this, I think, is an attack on the food system. There are just so many ways in which things falling apart in ways that I don't think we're going to be able to stop. I think we might as well be saying, Okay, what do we do when it hits bottom and everybody recognizes it so that at that point, we have the ability to actually change things.
So it's going to hit bottom. Why is BlackRock buying homes?
Well, because that's their way of being able to protect their money is that they know the money is going to be worthless. So I talk about them as as what I call petrodactyls that are flying around, swooping down everything with a drop of blood.
And then my system in which you have the community.
Is that what you're saying? Land, property is the least bad asset.
Absolutely. Yeah, yeah. And, and taking nature and commodifying it and buying things up under the pretense of we're protecting this for climate change, but instead, you know, we all know this that, you know, that that that's just an excuse of owning all of the land.
So, so I think that our system needs to have a way of recovering that. So that's why I give, you know, say that any Commonwealth of around, you know, 200 to 300,000 people that all the land and properties within your borders are things that you can reclaim that you can
rebuy that you can set your currency so that it has twice the buying power of something by using a trade, an exchange rate so that they can't come in and also tax what's going out so that they can't profit from your properties.
So you don't have that extractive element of all of the money leaking out so that then you as a community have to turn around and serve the bankers and sell off your resources.
There's something going on and I don't know the degree to which it changes events, or how it is to play this fence I think that we already live in in an era in which a certain number of people have exited the system.
And it's in an almost lawless way.
And I don't know how this is going to play out but I'm going to insert it to the conversation. The number of people who are squatting in homes in the US has never been hired is ramped up very quickly.
The number of people who are driving automobiles that they're not making payments on has skyrocketed. And in fact, my understanding is, we're about to see mark to market of a lot of those assets on the books of like loan companies that we're probably going to see a lot of
loan companies that have, you know, cars have been sold.
They're not getting payments for them, and it even appears that the no payment era was organized as and it was passed around some communities, you know, go out user credit now to buy a car, never make a payment on it, but they don't go out and repo the cars
why don't they go out and repo the cars, because they're not going to get the value back at auction. And they were hoping to wait out that game and play out that game. And so the margins are becoming thinner and thinner in terms of, you know, even like operating expenses
for these companies so there's going to be some sort of reckoning and it's going to happen soon.
And, you know, people who want to keep playing the game honestly. At what point do they throw up their hands and stop paying their rent and then what happens then it like will there be a forced debt Jubilee perhaps not even you know, and could it only happen in America.
Right, so, so I think that that's related to the real estate and what they did because when they went in in 2008, and did the quantitative easing. What they did was pay the money for properties that were underwater.
So those are the people who essentially should have walked away. Those people were in over their heads, they would have done better to just give up the property and go and, you know, rent somewhere else.
But instead, they kept the game going because if they would have had to take those losses and putting put them on their books, they would have been the banks would have gone bankrupt. And so that's why having these debts outstanding and not recognize them as losses is better for them.
And then they can end up doing things like BlackRock has, and go in and you know like a whale guzzling plankton, and just scoop up hundreds of thousands of homes in, you know, in one sitting buying up whole neighborhoods.
That's, that's better for them, because the debt is something that they have already sold they've already cut it into tranches and, you know, and sold that off. So it doesn't hurt them, as long as they don't have to recognize the losses.
I view this is all a game that I like to call the best slave pageant. I very often refer to our educational system is the best slave pageant.
But, you know, okay, they're buying up these homes. They're also, they're also destroying community you mentioned the mortgage bond crisis so here's a piece of it that I think a lot of people don't necessarily know.
They don't know the story or they haven't thought about how it fits in.
There was a bailout.
Right. Okay. Well who got bailed out.
Well, not everybody got bailed out fact, more institutions did collapse, then got bailed out in terms of who the big holders of that debt were.
And that those were the community banks, you know 2006.
The big investment banks were busy having high pressure salesmen go to community bank after community bank. And I don't know how they how they got them all I don't know how much of it was sweet talking how much of it was bribery, how much of it was extortion or threats.
They got a lot of community banks to swallow those toxic bonds, right at the end of the cycle after they'd made their money from them and they could get them off their own books, and, and that that feels to it really looks to me like they planted bombs and community
banks.
Those banks, and sure everybody goes Lehman Lehman class. No, it was, it was the community banks. Actually I chose, interestingly I chose what Kovia to bank in 2007.
I had moved between states I'd moved from California to Alabama for a few years, and I specifically set up my company that I built there with what Kovia literally days before what Kovia was convinced to take billions of
dollars and bonds on their books they've not done it the whole time.
Literally, right before the collapse.
It was almost as if it were planned. In fact, I can't believe that it wasn't planned. And then we got split into two banks Wells Fargo, and I can't remember who took the western half but it got absorbed into the larger banks that that had survived so it all feels like
planning to me.
But I don't necessarily know how that fits into the end game.
But without community banks out there, people are going to have to to do this without that or recreate the community bank on their own.
Right, that's absolutely true. And we need to take that public banking model which goes beyond the community bank, because it's not tied to the Fed. So, the two people who my book borrows from most heavily is David Graber.
When when you mentioned Occupy, I thought of him because he really looks at being an anarchist and saying, how do we look at debt and change this whole model from what it is now.
And the other person is Ellen Brown, who does the public banking model, but I go beyond Ellen Brown to say, we can't do this as one federal system because that's already been captured, if you're going to be part of the Federal Reserve, you're playing by their
rules, and they're still getting the benefit by it. What we need to do is separate entirely and make it where we're the only ones in the community who can create that credit to buy the properties and can also create the currency that then repays them.
I think, and I think that there's a lot of aspect of the community situation that you're right about, but I think that we're going to see like, you know, a million variations.
It will literally be different everywhere.
And perhaps, perhaps the only time that we'll see what works is when we see that in the aftermath, some areas will be fine simply because they have natural local resources, and they'll be able to, you know, think through how to use those in a reasonably, you know,
constructive or renewable way.
I think that we will automatically see more renewable efforts, because more people will have to.
That's probably a positive thing. And maybe with that we will see a renewal of a focus on technologies that are not asymmetric.
I think that we have this problem, people say, oh, the world economy is not really growing anymore. It's because we've reached all the low hanging fruit, so we're not going to see technological growth.
We're just investing in primarily asymmetric technologies, and we've invested so much in the matrix. So either we will see the matrix collapse, and I actually consider that more and more my focus with routing the earth is how do you help people see, how do you
throw a monkey wrench, how do you create a glitch in the matrix, where people can see and go, oh, that's what the system is.
And I think that's why we're sucking up all of the profit and all of the value, and it became a runaway freight train. I'm not even sure they could stop it if they wanted to.
And it's tied to the banking system. It's that whole enterprise. They can't stop it if they wanted to.
I talk in my book about the Greece financial crisis and how what they called it was the lightning strike, that you have people who see the way things really are, and then something happens, and it can be not even a big thing.
It can just be some little thing, but it suddenly illuminates the dynamic so that everyone can see it. And that's what I feel like I can't even predict what that lightning strike is going to be, but I can say it's going to happen.
It has to happen because there has to come a point in which the kinds of things that you and I and your audience are already looking at suddenly become illuminated. And at that point, we need to be the ones who can steer the narrative to say, here's how we get out of this.
I don't think of it as steering narrative as much as educating people or helping, you know, illuminating what was the narrative, I guess I can see.
But maybe there's a sense of there being a narrative in the sense of a group of people having a shared purpose.
Right.
That's what you mean by it. You know, it's interesting. We started this conversation with what do we want from a presidential candidate?
And we have, I thought I was going to be the one pushing back against you saying we want a candidate to say X, Y, and Z. And I was going to say no, I don't even think that that's meaningful at this point.
But you know what, you know what, maybe, maybe you've turned me around. And maybe, maybe now, if, if, if I wanted to hear a president say something, I want to hear a president say, you know, this is my policy.
I would want their policy to be educating people about the truth of the fact that we're going to have to rebuild.
Ah, interesting. And I think you're so right when you say you think that there's going to be 100,000 different models.
And that's what, that's what I build into my system is that I say, OK, we need the tools. The tools are we own the properties. We own our own labor.
There is nothing you can do if you don't own your labor and you're borrowing your labor from the bankers.
But once you have the tools, what you're going to do with them is going to be 100,000 different experiments in how to do community.
And some of those experiments aren't going to work. But that's OK, because there's another one next door that's going to be working better.
And you can take your ideas from them. So as long as you have it where you can recover and you can learn from someone else, because it's not one system that is, I don't think too big to fail applies.
I think too big is guaranteed to fail. What I look at is too small to fail, that if it's small enough, it can't fail in any big way that you can't recover from.
Yeah, you know, Gabe, who's in our audience right now, has a saying that I really like. The only thing that too big to fail, the only thing bigger than too big to fail is too small to shut down.
Oh, I love that. I love that. That's great. Even if there's a police system that wants to enforce something, police generally don't enforce at the smallest level of conflict.
Right, because it's not economic to do so. Right. There has to be something else going on there, which is why people have to practice being self-sovereign to some degree.
Yes. But that's going to be even more important as it is that there is friction between people trying to build something on their own.
Laws will be passed. Laws have already been passed to make some of that illegal. Right. And even when people have, I can't remember the circumstances, maybe it was somewhere in the Midwest,
farmers got together and created an economic co-op between them and they did press mint gold coins, millions of dollars worth of them.
And they had their own economy circulating, but eventually somebody caught wind of it and the government came and took that and shut them down.
That might have been 20, 25 years ago. So already people were trying to find a way out then.
Right. Well, going back to the 1920s, that was the movement. That was William Jennings Bryan, who formed the, had the populist movement.
And then the farmers were saying, what's our policy? What are the policies we want? And what they wanted was silver.
So there was a monetary system that would ease up the relationship between producers and consumers.
And they were saying, you know, it's not that we begrudge the middlemen. We just don't need them.
So that's where they went and were taking things back until they got, we got tricked out of it.
So the Bank of North Dakota formed at that point to be the only one that is outside the Fed that is, has been doing really well because they have their own backing and they don't gamble with the money.
So that's the model that I think is the starting point for what we're trying to create.
Okay. So you're a community organizer. You know, if there were a few hundred of you or people somewhat similar to you, I can see a community forming and doing well and growing and being healthy.
What about the zombies? And when I, when I ask, I'm going to go back to the best slave pageant.
I think that part of the difficulty of that, the reason that it builds the totalitarian matrix so well is you have people with, with no property and they are educated in too few things to do much on their own.
There winds up being a bidding for low cost labor for them to participate in the creation of the totalitarian matrix.
And when they fail to follow the instructions, which are kind of put out there in the ether for people to grab onto and have a little bit of money in, you know, in order to play this role in building the totalitarian matrix.
As, as that system collapses and you have these people whose, whose position in the best slave pageant was only to play that role.
Those people just walk outside, lay down and die. What do they do?
You know, I mean, the transition is, is really important. You know, how many people will become violent is this part of what we're seeing with, you know, we hit, we sort of have mob protests welling up here now and again.
What do you do to form community if there are roving mobs?
Right. And so David Graeber going back to him, he talks about how during the same time as you had the invention of coinage that served the interest of greed, you had the creation of altruism with all of these religions that said, no, be totally selfless, give everything up.
And so those two things go along need and greed. And those are the systems that we have. We have a system of corporatism and bankers that's based on greed.
And that's created these systems of governance that are based on welfare and need and that prioritize that. Neither one is a system of reciprocity.
So you're trying to change the direction of 3500 years. And I think that's going to take a generation, a generation mainly for us to improve our work ethic and learn how to do actual manual labor again, because real life, the things that we survive on require a lot more manual labor than we think.
But what my system does is that it doesn't take away. Like, I think you should never as why I would not give this power to the government, but I would give it to a system.
Because if I were to give that to the government in Santa Cruz, the first thing they would do is house all the homeless and get even more of them coming here and build more beehives for those students. And so they would create a system that essentially serves the zombies.
You know, as you're saying that that you need to leave alone and let the government deal with that from the corporate scraps that they're trying to get.
What you're doing is taking money that never existed before in the economy, and you're running it by very strict rules that say, if it doesn't create more productive activity, something that we can measure by how many times it circulates before it gets leaves the economy in a different form.
If it doesn't meet that criteria, you can secede essentially from that economy and say, no, I want to be part of a different kind of economy.
So on the opposite side of the zombies is the problem that I call the Kuhnlingida.
I don't know if you've seen any of my writing on this or if you're familiar with the word.
No.
Okay, so it was the Inuit word for psychopath.
And when asked about what they did about psychopaths, what they said was, you know, when no one was looking, someone would push them off the ice.
And, you know, what you have is a community, you know, that is governing itself, and you have elders who, you know, watch the children and, you know, there's probably something about psychopaths where they're like an evolutionarily stable part of the tribe, right?
They somehow they're like about 1% of the population.
Perhaps they help with certain tasks where a person needs to remove their level of empathy or else have it not be present. Perhaps defense, warfare, something like that, who knows?
But if somebody were out of control on that level, they would be pushed off the ice.
I think that the modern, you know, perhaps we had systems of increasing elevation of governance that were honey pots for caulkers, Genghis Khan's, Kuhnlingida, various forms.
And so we had one problem of Kuhnlingida, but then the corporations, 1600, 1602, British East India Company, Dutch East India Company, just hypercharged the problem.
Suddenly you have these corporations and you can sift for psychopaths. You can have an entire psychopathic network.
And I sort of see that as like the escape velocity for people who are either psychopathic or want to ride on those coattails.
The sociopaths are the people who are willing to be made into that mold, the people who are the winners of the best slave pageants become their new androns.
So when it all breaks down, what happens to them? Are they, you know, we're talking about how we can rebuild community.
But I don't think that it will ever work without, you know, the totalitarian slavery coming back if they escape and can reassert control or something like that.
Right. I feel I feel almost as if we should be planning for their planning.
We should be thinking about what it means to bring them back into the community, because in truth, like they're a part of it.
I think of the movie like The Dark Crystal, right. When the solution is not to defeat the enemy, it's actually to reunite the tribe.
Sure, you do have to push them off the ice once in a while, but there is a reason they're an evolutionarily stable piece of the tribe.
So as a mother, I have to ask for anyone who believes that, which one of your children would you say is a psychopath?
That I believe that psychopaths like picky eaters are made not born and that if we have a system that rewards psychopathy, that the psychopathy,
that if it rewards ruthlessness, which is what we have, that then what you're going to get are ruthless people and ruthless leaders.
We sift for it and we promote it currently.
Absolutely. Yes, yes, absolutely.
And so if you are changing the system and you're making it where it's not so much like you're not really changing anything about those psychopaths.
You're just taking away their ability to control more labor for free.
You're taking away the ability to create money out of nothing.
They're still going to have huge pots of money and they're still going to have plenty of people that they can pay.
And that's good. You want to have that happen because we need to make this transition and we're not ready to just be on our own.
But during that same time, you have an alternative where someone who wants to live in a different way and have their labor provide things for the community has that option, which you don't have now.
There is no secure way that you can live and get a job that you know you're going to be OK.
You're going to be secure and you're going to be doing something good in the world.
That just doesn't exist because if it did, that's what everybody would be flocking to.
So that's why they've had to keep raising the credentials for all of these ordinary jobs that people really would like to be doing.
So I'm going to debate the point as to whether or not psychopathy is necessarily always created.
I do know that there are there are there do from from my recollection of the literature and this is going to be vague and I haven't looked at it in a number of years.
It seemed like there were there was a bifurcation. There were people who had like traumatic brain injury who became psychopathic.
We know that people like having a nail driven into their head and they survived the experience, but they had like no emotional connection to people anymore.
They started murdering people. There are cases like that.
I think that you and I agree that children who are traumatized can be brought up, become psychopaths later on.
But I do suspect that there's just variation in brain normality.
And whether or not that's true, children can always get injured, right?
Make children rowdy. Some of them some of them are going to fall out of trees, right?
Somebody's going to bump their head whether or not it's entirely a selection of birthing.
Perhaps there's still a selection by accident one way or another.
I think that there has to be some sort of like a system of elders who disallows escape velocity in some way.
I think that that's a piece of the puzzle that we have to assume that they are a part of the tribe and have a process for dealing with them.
And maybe some of you ever seen the TV show Dexter?
I've heard of it. I don't watch things like that.
OK, again, it's one of the few shows in the last 20 years that I've actually found interesting.
But the main character is a psychopath. But his father was a police officer who raised him to having moral code.
Right. This is the way you handle what it is that you became.
Right. So don't do this. Don't do this. Don't do this.
And so he winds up killing bad guys.
It's how he resolves all this.
So, I mean, like, you know, it's an interesting thing, but it's worth thinking through in terms of, you know, can you put a moral code and have enough governance on a community level?
People haven't had to think of it that way in a long time.
Right. And I think that brings up going back to my book.
I since then, David Graber and David Wengrow came out with The Dawn of Everything, where they go back in anthropology and look at how people created societies.
And one of the things they look at is women and how societies that were had women in specific positions of decision making were able to create larger groups where they weren't predatory and where they did have systems.
Sometimes there were even brutal systems, but they took care of their own.
They were able to negotiate and have things that kept things running and kept people in line.
And that's where I would say that we're maybe at the end of 3,500 years of a false masculine system, a system where the superiority and domination that I would call toxic masculinity is something that is reaching its absolute pinnacle.
And that the direction we need to go in is a society and an economy that puts children at the center and has women who are mothers who are looking at what's the kind of world that we want to create for these children.
And having that combination that I don't think, I think femininity and masculinity are two sides of the brain that we all have, but we've been fostering the side that's masculine, whether that's in men or women.
And I think you and I talked about how with vaccines, I wonder whether autism is a feature and not a bug, that they want us to be purely dealing with the rational and not at all dealing with the emotional aspects of society.
That's interesting, or to have enough conflict on our hands that we can't turn our attention to them and control the Kundalini data.
I have one more thought. Maybe we should, we've been going for about 90 minutes. We should wrap up.
Oh, goodness, did the thought just escape my head.
Maybe it means I have to wrap up now.
The masculine, the feminine and the Kundalini.
You just talked about like an artificial masculinity for thousands of years.
It may be true that sort of the direction that we took in technology and, you know,
the large kingdom before we learned how to do it or escape of the corporations, maybe hypercharged all of this, but I like to remind people that the idea of the alpha male is actually sort of, it becomes contorted in popular culture.
That out there like in the grilly community, you have a few dozen grills living together.
The alpha is most often a male, but it's sometimes a female. And it's whatever the tribe needs.
Certainly, being able to solve conflict is part of the process, right?
But it is a political process. And so you just wind up with a balance, right?
They don't go, leaders should be male, leaders should be woman or whatever.
You have whatever helps the troops survive is simply what happens in the environment.
So there is a leaning toward, you know, there is warfare amongst apes.
There is a leaning toward males in that role.
But if the female has male support, well, then you still have sort of warriors in the tribe should they be needed.
Right. So anyhow, I like to bring that up because I like to dismiss political divisions.
By thinking about the organic. Right.
And, you know, I think that, again, we'll have a lot of experiments.
I think that if we have a million communities across America, we'll see some being led by men, some being led by women.
And we'll be we will also we'll examine the structures and the policies.
But we'll you know, we'll do some of both. We'll see it.
And I add one more thing on to that, which is which is that I think that the feminine without the masculine is also a problem.
That when I look at kind of the false feminine or that in isolation, again, I think there are some sub stackers who are not as tolerant of conflict as I would like.
That I think being able to see conflict, I say you never create conflict.
All you're doing is bringing it to the surface.
And when you bring it to the surface and expose it, I think that having too much of the feminine, we need to make everything OK for everybody.
We can't have any fighting or disagreement.
And when you bring it to the surface, that's where it happens with gossip. And I completely agree with you.
It's funny how how far we've gotten away from the simple strength of being able to say face to face.
This is this is what my issue is, or to be able to say it out loud.
Right. If somebody has a problem, they should, you know, if possible, communicate, you know, person to person one way or another.
And if you're able to go unresolved, that's where you have poisoning of the community.
And that's exactly what I've seen. I've experienced it.
I've witnessed it. And I should probably do something like show some of the emails that I've received at some times to show people how that politics is playing out.
Right. Absolutely true. Once the totalitarian veil drops, if you are not capable of even conflict,
if people would go out in the town square and talk about most of anything, people would even insult each other.
Mm hmm. Right. And you know what? You should probably be able to handle that.
But at the same time, the ability to have some sparring, some verbal jousting in the public sphere, in the public arena,
that that normality ensures that you don't have things festering underneath and, you know, sort of a false weaving of politics that allows the totalitarians to, you know,
use everybody else to weave together their narratives and do what they do. Right. I'm really glad that you said I'm really glad that you brought that up.
I think we should be ruthless in terms of challenging each other's ideas without attacking the people and that we need to be more tolerant of conflict
and also more tolerant of tension, of being able to say, OK, here's a problem. Let's live in the problem for a while.
We don't need to have a solution. We don't need to have a quick fix.
These are problems that have been thousands of years in the making and that we need to be able to see the problem without needing to resolve it immediately in order to resolve that tension.
Great point. Well, let's wrap things up on that note then, unless there's anything else that we haven't talked about that you can't prepare for.
Oh, that's great. I am so happy. Go ahead. No, I'm so happy to be here.
Thanks for joining us. I hope that all of you out there have enjoyed the conversation. Thanks for joining us and we'll see you another time.
Thank you.