Type 1 Humans | Joaquin Flores, EM Burlingame

Tommy: And we are recording on Thursday, June 25th, 2026 at 8.13 AM Eastern time with Mr. Ian Burlingame and Mr. Joaquin Flores. And I enjoy putting you guys, I enjoy the Zoom title... 

Did we talk about population replacement in Ukraine last time? About Ukraine? I don't think we've, I don't know if we have. 

I think we've touched replacement in the US. I don't think we've done Ukraine. Ukraine is the pattern for Europe. 

You know, they want to kill off all the native young men and replace them with colored folks from around the world. They have no roots. With slave class. 

They want slaves. I mean, Europe is all, you know, the Nazis are all in on slavery. You know, return to slavery is the base of the economy.

Well, people think, you know, terribly sorry, Joaquin, but this is something I was thinking about last night as I was going to sleep or sometime in the morning when I woke up. Give me one second. People look at history, like the Roman Empire. 

Why didn't the slaves revolt? Why did they allow slavery to go on for 300 years or 600 years or a thousand years? Well, because most of the slaves were content, right? What defined a slave? They owned nothing and they were happy. That's what they're going, this is Rome. You know, we are dealing with second Rome. 

That's what the, you know, the Reich is. So, okay. You got to replace your native peoples that for several centuries have been given the illusion and the idea, or a century at least, that they've had, you know, self-rule and the right to govern themselves and the right to private property and all of that. 

You got to end that to actually get to, you know, well, how do you end that? Well, you got to end the people. And how do you do that? Well, there's one tried and true way. It goes back thousands of years. 

You kill off the male population in war and you breed the females to foreigners. So, this is happening in large scale in Ukraine and it's on, there's like a number of different telegram channels. Because, you know, people, women, Ukraine, TikTok, they're on there and they're making little clips of, you'll see them like a year ago, the whole cemetery thing, the funeral thing, husband was in the AFU, gets killed in action. 

And then like a year later, there's like, she has a new boyfriend or she's getting remarried. It's like some dude from Africa or, you know, wherever, wherever. But I think that's mainly, it's mainly been Africa that we've seen in these clips. 

But I don't know if that's representative, but it's... India, they're flooding vast amounts of Indians in there, right? Some of those beautiful women on earth, that's true and brilliant. I think the obvious answer is you're bringing in people who don't, it's not their land, it's not their... The same way if somebody came in and just, I gave them Tommy's podcast, they wouldn't appreciate the guests, they'd show up late, they'd have no understanding or respect for people's times and, you know, whatever. It's just, they would just not care. 

And why should they? They didn't build it. That's the, I think, the primary in my estimation of what this is, is bringing people that don't give a shit and then whatever happens to the place, why would they care? They don't give... It's not their house, so they don't care if it gets destroyed. And then the other argument is that they're bringing in people with lower IQs, which is more of like a, you know, phrenology. 

But if you look at Africa and like the average IQ, it's just what it is, they're easier to control. So... Well, it's a slave class. It's a slave class, right? These are people who are used to owning nothing. 

They're used to being for the last 70 years... A dollar a day. ...sustained by USAID, you know, they've lived off the dole for the last 60, 70, 80 years through foreign aid. And they're used to owning nothing and being taken care of.

And they would be completely won over if you gave them a 500 square foot apartment with a sink. And a blonde haired, blue eyed wife. Yeah.

Who can only sustain... The only way she can sustain herself is accept this, because it's all backed and funded by all these foreign military dollars, right? Military assistance dollars for the war. That's not going into the war. That's going into all of this.

Or she goes into, you know, straight up outright into the human trafficking network. I tried to fight this with a certain family back in 2022, very wealthy family, 100 billion plus. I think it's way more than that now.

The Waltons? And it got shut down. No, I won't say who. No, you can't say. 

I don't know why. Why would I try to put that... I won't say that, but... It's Walmart, though. No.

Exactly. I won't say it's the Waltons or Walmart. Yeah.

It wasn't the Waltons. I won't tell you who it was. Yeah. 

And we won't go through the list to who it wasn't, but it wasn't them. Give me a second. So, you know, when they say you will own nothing and be happy, what is that? That's slavery. 

And we think, well, we wouldn't allow or we couldn't, you know, slavery wouldn't happen in our modern time. We're pretty much tax wage and debt slaves already. We own nothing. 

The state can take it, you know, at whim. They can take my car because I didn't register the vehicle this year. I didn't maintain insurance.

They can take my home because I didn't pay property tax. I basically already own nothing unless I paid the slave master. Right. 

We're already like in a position where we kind of have to rent the things that we own. Yes. Yeah. 

We have to pay for them. And on top of that, we have to pay an additional rent, otherwise known as the VIG, right? Yeah. Because these are all mob bosses. 

So, you know, what did we think you will own nothing and be happy actually mean? And what do we think it really looks like? It's slavery. It is a straight up return to slavery. Seems like they weren't taught almost if you want to extrapolate it a little bit and stretch it, it might be that, you know, they're not talking to the native population because you'll be dead.

No. They're talking to the new people and they actually will be happy. They'll be like, I got shoes.

Way happy. Well, and I got a blonde hair, blue eyed, beautiful Ukrainian. Regardless of that. 

I mean, I'm talking like, hey, you have your own mattress instead of sharing it with nine people. Well, you got a house and we're paying and the government's paying. Yeah. 

And they will be happy. But what you're going to do is you're going to continue to vote in these ways because that's the quid pro quo. And why wouldn't you? Because that keeps the illusion going. 

You're going to vote in these ways. And if you need you to, you're going to do violence in these ways. Why wouldn't you? So in Ukraine, they have something like a thousand funerals a day and they've they they're on overflow on all of their cemeteries and they've been creating new cemeteries across the whole country on an ongoing basis.

And and then you have these TCC guys. Have you seen the clips where they're like beating people up or pushing people into the van? And then you get like more and more. You're seeing people fight back or you're seeing people like try to intervene on behalf of their neighbor or even just a guy on the street.

You see like groups of men are going around in groups so that if the TCC tries to snag one of them, they're all kind of sticking together. There's been, I think, still random, but who knows, acts of terrorism or violence against TCC offices, the vehicles of recruiters. And I wonder if it really makes you try to figure out.

And I'm curious what Ian thinks from a military perspective. If the panic is warranted, like if they get conscripted and they're, you know, the front, is that does he think that that do you think that that's like a death sentence or is it just their concern that they'll eventually get rotated to the death sentence area? It's no, no, no. Right now.

And actually, this has been for more than a year, almost two years. The it went from 10 days of life down to about three now. And those some of those and that's not necessarily days on the front.

That's days even getting you to the front. So the average lifespan of the conscripts now is down to something like three days. Once they get through training and all of that.

That is so nuts. That is so nuts to consider. A year and a half ago in the Ukrainian parliament, in the Rada, there was they conducted a study based upon, you know, whatever the TCC issues when they had resorted to violence to mobilize somebody to get them into the van.

And in instances where they had to use a certain degree of violence, one in five of the people that were injured were so badly injured that they could never actually get to the front. That includes dead, broken back, something like that. Not just a broken leg or something that takes weeks, eight weeks, and you might.

So the scale of that is, I think, incomprehensible for anyone alive from a first world country today, you know, who didn't experience, I don't know, a major war. I'm trying to even think if there's even a analog. Turkey, the last time we saw this kind of forced conscription in the, you know, West or quasi West was Turkey in World War One, right? The Ottomans.

It's the last time we saw this type of well, and we saw some in Eastern Europe and the Soviet conflicts, et cetera. But, you know, 

this is what Merck is trying to bring to Germany. This is what the UK is that they are trying to bring about.

And I've been writing on this for several years. By the way, they are trying to bring about this conflict not to win the war, but to kill off their male population. And then and this is what the grooming gangs in the United Kingdom were all about.

And here, by the way, we just don't have gangs here. But all across the Anglosphere, these rapes are happening and judges are letting them out. Prosecutors are not charging them.

Law enforcement is involved. And give me a second. So it's happening all over the Anglosphere as well.

The what what what are they doing there? And I've written on this as well for the last several years. They are bribing these foreign men with the rapes of our women. It's I mean, that's part of the that's part of the whole draw is they've already got friends there to say, yeah, the police don't do shit.

So the word's already out that you're not going to get in trouble for anything. Yep. And doesn't matter if you don't get a job.

In fact, fuck your work. Like you're going to get twenty five hundred euros a month for breathing. And you're going to be put up in housing and you're going to be taken care of and you're going to own nothing and you're going to be way happier than you were where you came from.

That's crazy. When you think of youth unemployment in France or Germany, I mean, you you think that a society has anything, you know, if they had anything less than a few percent unemployment total, I could see a policy argument about who should we bring in or how should we plan for 20 years so that people have more children. But instead, you've had austerity, high unemployment.

And then instead of the instead of that, you know, the wages reacting to the market, to the actual labor market, they flood the labor market with potentials, with potentials. And they don't even have to work to be a part of the. They're not, but they're not going to be unemployed.

They're a slave class. And what this slave class has two obligations and two, well, three obligations. One is to demoralize the local women and males.

Two is to vote in certain ways. And the third and who's the real target of that? That is the real target of that is the princes and the oligarchs and the wealthy people, because they're the ones who's, you know, who the administrative state and those oligarchs who are who benefit from government monopolies. That's their real target is the people with the with the real wealth.

And so it's to vote in certain ways to give more power to the administrative state and their monopolist. It is to demoralize the young men and young women of the populace, break the women through rape and rape gangs and all that other demoralize the young men that any time they try to rise to the defense of the young women, they get the entire administrative state to come down on them. And then the third is that if there is a need for just enough violence to keep people uncomfortable, you know, keep both the lower classes in their place and then keep the upper classes concerned that there might be ethnic conflict.

So you better give us the administrative more power. That's the deal that they have. And we'll let you rape the young women.

You don't have to work. You don't have to do anything. In fact, we prefer you don't.

We'll put you up in housing. And who benefits from all this? The administrative state and the rent seekers, because the renting, you know, the rentier class, they make their income. They make vast amounts of income.

They don't have to worry about a decreasing population that isn't paying rents and they have apartments and houses, et cetera, sitting fallow or the home builders who don't have homes to build because the population is declining. No, no, no. Administrative state will take care of that.

Black Rock State Street and Vanguard and their equivalents will take care of that through financial fuckery. You will own nothing and be happy really means you will not exist because that's the only way to get to happiness. Yeah.

And just that same group in the world, didn't they put out like a poster or something like new studies show that like life doesn't need to have meaning. It was the most distant, but they put it out like a professional, like it's okay to be a meaningless cog. And you're like.

Was that stated from the new Obama Sardar tower in Chicago? No, it was as weird as that is. No, it was, I think it was world economic forum. There was a thing that, yeah, Harari was like, literally it's something like, Hey, like life can be a don't, you can be a, just a mindless cog and that's okay.

Like, I mean, yeah. Well, I'm glad that you mentioned Yuval Harari. This guy is obviously mentally ill, but aside from diagnosing him, you know, his psychological state, his role in all of this obviously is like some kind of strange foil, like a number of these characters, like the world economic forum was so interesting because they rolled out central casting, these characters that are so obviously the bad guy, like Klaus Schwab.

That was my first take on it. I was like, I was looking at it. I'm like, I'm like, this is casting.

Right. It's specter. It's literally they're playing out a Bond movie.

Yeah. So, and then you've got Yuval Harari. You had a number of these characters and they've been operating as effectively the think tank for the IMF, which the banks connected to the IMF, which are the same as the city of London and wall street bank square mile and, and New York.

And, and yet in all of this, they, with the pandemic and you think about what some of the purposes of that were and what some of the outcomes were, it's going to be very difficult ever to discern or figure out what the intended consequences were. And if what we got was better or worse, but it, it's so frighteningly dovetailed with what is known about these depopulation schemes, club of Rome and all of this, that the world economic forum has been publicly embracing like on its website agenda, 2030 and things like this, they keep pushing it back because they'll never, they'll never get to it, fortunately. But then it seems like on that track that they've been getting so much pushback, maybe they just need a conventional war.

And like EM was saying, Europe, they could push this to a nuclear crisis with Russia and Russia doesn't have to be in on it. In fact, it doesn't make sense that they would necessarily have to be at all. Because if it's like suicide by cop is not a conspiracy of the suicidal person to like, he doesn't call, well, sometimes he does, but he doesn't need to call the police station ahead of time to say, Hey, today you guys are actually gonna have to pull the trigger.

Just as behavior is going to force that procedural reaction from the police, just like Russia has procedural reactions, they have red lines. And it's, I wrote a couple of years ago, an essay called the power of crazy. And it was about sort of playing this game of chicken, nuclear chicken with the posture of the West, which is kind of like when you see those movies and it was like a bar fight and the guy like glasses himself first, you know, just because he's like, this is like, you think about going into a world war three type scenario.

And we started off with, let's, you know, let's liquidate a whole part of our own population with this jab. For example, like, look, like we don't give up, you know, like, Oh, you're, we're supposed to be afraid of a nuclear bomb. We're supposed to be afraid of civilian losses or, you know, you know, striking civilian targets.

Well, good luck. We've built everything out of glass and, and aluminum, steel and aluminum and glass, all of our buildings. We don't care.

They're, they're, they're there for you to nuke. In fact, we've made them so ugly so that people will say, thank you for nuking it. And then we've made all the people troglodytes.

We made all the people so retarded that the, even like the semi-normal, semi-human parts of the lower strata of the elites and the management class will be like, Oh yeah, fuck them. All right. Well, those were the retards or we needed to thin out the herd.

So you go into that, if you show that posture to like Russia or China, like we are willing like, yeah, nuke us, we're willing. Yeah. War.

Yeah. Kill us all. That's how we win.

It's insane. I don't, I think that is a small popular, when you look at who's really driving all this, it's the banking class. As you touched on the IMF, it's less the IMF.

It's far more the BIS, Bank of International Settlements, because the BIS is the clearinghouse for everything. They're the, they're basically a vast title company. So anything that gets acquired through some financial transaction or gets encumbered, gets registered with the BIS, right? Bank of International Settlements.

It's, think of a title company, just a more sophisticated, complex title company. Cause that's what the city of London is. It's a title company.

It's, you know, the Bank of England is a title company for the former British empire. But we have to understand is that for the bankers, all of those ugly things are collateral and they're, yes, there's some to what you say, cause that's, you know, the resentful's mind and ugliness and all this other stuff, but they don't want to nuke collateral. They made all these things ugly because they were cheaper to make.

And right. And they're going to get maximal rents out of these things. They don't want them destroyed.

There isn't the manpower to rebuild and there isn't the population on the other side. And oh, by the way, all these brown people and black people and yellow people, they're flooding in. They're going to kill them too.

They just need them to get rid of us, the white population first. And then they're going to eradicate them just like they did in their own countries. We killed hundreds of millions of these people around the world.

If you think we're not going to do it in our own, they're not going to do it in our own countries. This is us. Go ahead.

Wasn't that the, and I could be speaking on the term, wasn't that kind of the attraction, I believe in the nineties to the neutron bomb or the half neon bomb, the idea of the nuclear bomb that didn't knock over any structures. It just gave everyone, you know, a radiation dose that like you're dead in 12 hours. Yeah.

Yeah. A bioweapon would probably be better, but yeah. Yeah.

So what we have to think of is these are rent seeking folks. They do not. And they're, they're bankers who have need collateral.

Yeah. They want it, but they don't want to destroy the city. They don't want to destroy the city.

They'll take some damage here and there and stuff that's already dilapidated. You know, look where they've allowed this type of physical violence. It's in communities where the buildings are all dilapidated, you know, they've already got the depreciation on those buildings.

And so now they can go ahead and burn them down. They'll get insurance out of that and they'll rebuild or they won't. Right.

But, you know, you have to think as a rent seeker and government governments are rent seekers who support the physical rent seeking the actual rent, you know, Rontier class and the Rontier class believes that they're going to be able to replace people. I know people who are doing this and have been doing this for some time. By building out data centers, by building out telecom infrastructure in some in these commercial buildings, et cetera.

I know a guy's a billionaire. He became a billionaire doing that very thing. Right.

Very strategically placed, finding commercial properties, repurposing them, et cetera. The intention is to replace people with, you know, with, you know, computational machines and replace the wetware of human beings and the complexity of human beings with the predictability of machines. They're already working on how do you, you know, that's the soul.

Everybody's worried about CBDC and all these other things. Well, that's that is virtually nothing to do with humans and human control and all about how do you monetize? And I love Tom Luongo to death, but he's not really thinking down this pathway far enough. But what is the whole push in the computationalist belief system that the conversion of electricity to computation is wealth creation? They believe it.

Well, if you're a rent seeking class, you want to get rid of the people and you want to replace these complicated, expensive things called humans with machines. And you need a monetary system that monetizes that. So you stay wealthy and you grow wealth off of the computations, electricity conversion of the machines.

They talk about it openly. The Yuval Harari is just I mean, look at him physically. Look at him.

He is literally put out there intentionally for our disgust mechanisms, for our gag reflexes to kick in. Right. He and the rest of them.

I'd pay him no mind. Literally, if you watch the old James Bond, he's a character physically and everywhere else. He's a character who shows up who's adjacent to Spectre or works for Spectre in probably six of the movies.

Right, right, right. And and Klaus Schwab is like the number two or number three guy for the boss of Spectre. Yeah.

He's like he's like Blaufeld or Blaufeld. Yeah, right. Yeah.

So we don't get to see who the boss of Spectre is yet. Right. Probably never will.

Hopefully it's not that fat fuck at the BIS. Have you seen him? That's another guy who's grossly obese. Is that the is that the guy with the buttons that barely? Yeah, this guy's huge.

Yeah. Yeah. And he's a character.

He had only no role. Right. He's he's these people are intentionally put there like that.

Mac Troon. That's now the MP for Scotland for Aberrath. Right.

That's a Mac Troon. Put it. I don't know.

It might be a woman. I don't know. But it looks like a Troon.

Right. So I'm going to just call the Scots ones Mac Troons. Right.

It's the new client. There's a I mean, right. It's full of faggots and I hate it.

And I've been banned hundreds of times. What is what? Reddit. Oh, but there's a there's one subreddit and it's just called absolute units.

And it's just about the biggest, a huge dog, a huge horse. And I think the top ever thing was this guy. And I think it's what you're talking about.

So I'm trying to find it. He is a but he's he's like dressed to the nines. But he's just grossly obese.

He's it's you look at him and you're like, is this a movie? Well, here's the reason why. Right. And we'll bring this back to the Rontier class.

The Rontier class is the ones putting all these out there. Right. These caricatures, they are specifically designed to trigger our disgust mechanisms.

Why? Because disgust, the disgust mechanism in human beings, particularly heterosexual, healthy heterosexual people is the most powerful neurological circuitry that there is. And if you can trigger intentionally in specific ways, trigger disgust mechanisms, you can control people. This is a big part of the whole true movement and all this other stuff, you know, the drag shows and everything else is to trigger our disgust mechanisms, because once enough of our disgust mechanisms are triggered, they we give permission to go do some pretty horrendous things so that we can get back to beauty and right and everything else.

I just text the picture. I don't know if that's the guy. I know it's not important, but it's funny.

Yeah. When you when you have an economy and you're implementing applied technologies and expanding the productive capacity of your economy and the population is increasing, you're lowering costs on, you're lowering costs on production, but you are also shrinking the profit margin, not only the, you know, per dollar margin, but overall, of course, too. So when you think about a course for war and destruction, one of the things that the elites like about destroying capital investments, you know, what they actually get out of it is that you're turning back the hands of time so that you don't even have to rebuild.

But if you do rebuild, you're rebuilding upon economic conditions that are more resemble the past because you've wound the clock backwards on economic development and labor, human labor, more profitable in the past. So as we like move forward into the future, there's a zero point at which you can visualize or imagine everything is automated or roboticized, computerized from natural resource extraction, transportation, you know, everything. Even the robots and the machines are being repaired by robots and machines.

You have the automated trucks. There are no truck drivers. It goes to people's houses or it goes to a warehouse, like a big, you know, a big block type of store.

Anyway, so what happens is this category relies upon their relationship with government, and government will like draw from the existing tax base to subsidize their rebuilding and the aftermath of a crisis. So the amortization schedule of their initial capital investment is less so the significant part as it is returning profitability in general back to an earlier time in history. So what's interesting is sometimes we look to look at the truth or we look at answers right where the ruling class or the elites are saying we are in control.

So in other words, they're leading the charge on automation. They're leading the charge on AI, roboticization. But the end scheme, the ability for banks, for example, to finance new capital investments is based upon the projected rate of return normally.

And that rate of return, of course, is much, much slimmer the less that human labor is involved in that. So we have kind of forgotten that our whole system is a human-driven system and that the value of things, you go beyond, for example, certain concepts of conspicuous consumption and you get to what something is worth based on what a person in any subjective situation, like if you want to go in the direction of a subjective theory of value, von Hayek, you would look maybe even at the Austrians broadly. But nevertheless, you'll still find that in those individual transactions, there's a systemic average.

And in that systemic average, you can see that labor is actually creating the value. So what happens with the elites is that when they get to a point that they see that there's this future on the horizon where finance investment into capital does not offer the rate of return, you're basically relying upon more and more government subsidy, which in turn is based upon taxation of the public. In part, I mean, they also create new money, of course, in the US out of the Federal Reserve largely.

But nominally, it's debasing the currency. But you still have layers of working people. And then you have returns on investments of the global conglomerates as they exist around the world.

So without the people, though, either in the United States or wherever their empire is rooted and wherever its tentacles are, without humans necessary, they arrive at this sort of conclusion that human beings are going to be a liability. So you don't really need infrastructure to house people who aren't alive. In fact, if you reduce the number of available buildings, then that will adjust to the new market conditions for the people who do live.

So you want to reduce, in fact, buildings more so than people, in fact. That's going to be great for renters. But it's obviously just the renters part is only one part of what a bank deals in terms of the leasing business or home loans and mortgages.

But the thing is that in the West, of course, you have different verticals of power. And while they are, in the final analysis, going to be subordinate to finance capital because for various reasons, they expand production or whatever, they're going to need access to liquidity. But liquidity, in the final analysis, winds up at this zero point where liquidity transformed into made into investment, into expanding research and development, R&D, or applied new technologies.

Fucking forget about it. Like the whole thing goes up in smoke. So how I've been tracking the Great Reset and the things I've been writing about it for the past six, six-ish years, especially when it was happening, focused a lot on this what I call zero point, which was like that point in the future that the amount of human labor contained in a given commodity, whatever it is, your widget, was so low that all of the investment into building the infrastructure to arrive at that product that was made purely by automation has been amortized and paid for already.

So when we get to that point, I think that we think then about, remember the movie Highlander? There can be only one. The thing with this illness of the mind that you have among people in this direction who are the owners and controllers of these large firms, capital enterprises, can be big tech. It doesn't matter.

Well, of course, it does matter. But to the general point of the issue of greed or the issue of power is that they take for granted the fact that once we moved the Overton window in terms of disposable people, in their mind, in their cult, they've been promoting that once we get the population down to 2 billion, then that's the right number of people, or 1 billion, or 500 million. Remember that one stone in Georgia was like 500 million or something? Whatever the case may be, 2 billion, whatever.

You get that. The thing is, is that that might solve some of the problems as they understand it in terms of zero point, but ultimately, that the mentality or the way to solve problems by reducing population is ultimately genocidal in terms of the human project. And if the point is that we reduce human population in relation to automation, then you would finally just get on the planet one human being left who just pulls levers or just thinks about something and the robots come materialize it for him or whatever.

So the ruling class can see this and can project ahead. There's people who understand their money because they made it or they inherited it and they went to school or they had some good mentors or money managers, and they understand they've also been counseled about power. So the existence of the broad masses of people that anchor the balance of class forces in a society is such that if you're a, let's say you are 50 or 100 billion dollars, but you're not a trillion dollars, you're not Musk, you're not in control of even the monies in the families that you can't even speak about.

No, but Rothschilds, blah, blah, blah, right? I mean, who own so many different companies through many different shelves and fronts to come under the 5% rule. But in terms of public disclosure of stock ownership, but nevertheless, the point I'm making here is that you're going to have people with 50 billion dollars, 5 billion dollars, and they can see that after all the plebeians are fucking wiped out, that that just shifts everything around that ultimately they themselves are on the chopping block next, you know. So then you have theories of power like, well, we need to increase the number of people.

We have to keep enfranchisement, keep people voting. Then you have situations where whole layers of the Team B oligarchy or oligarchy that is not—there might be a part of the oligarchy, but they're not going to be part of the oligarchy for much longer. They have to balance this power between different vectors in society, and they can use the population on their side so long as you have constitutional norms.

So, yes. There's a—number one, the Guidestones. The official picture on Wikipedia was taken by my friend Ashley just by—hers is the one, so that's kind of funny.

I was going to say in Hitman, it's a fantastic game. There's the—story goes on. You're at an island where it's all the wealthiest people in the world, and it's about how do we survive? How do we—bunkers, whatever.

And one of the guys gets cold feet. The guy, yeah. Yeah.

Did you get the text to him? Yeah, I got this. One of the guys starts to get cold feet. He's like a billionaire, because somebody goes, you know, once everyone else is gone and we're the last hundred people on the planet, it's going to be so egalitarian.

We're all going to be the same. And in the game, the guy goes, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. They want the apex.

And I think—I don't know if that's what you were saying, Joaquin, but it's like as you chop off the bottom of a pyramid, a new bottom appears. That's right. And are they now—do they have a vested interest in the lower guys not getting chopped off? So, the highest guys are like, fuck everybody.

And the middle guys are like, to fuck them, we need to keep the bottom. That's right. That's what—I think EM's brought that up before.

Yeah, so, Joaquin, I want to disagree a little bit. No need to go down the pipe. And he wants to do that.

How can I find that we're not even talking about the same thing? Whenever you say that, I go, here we go again. Maybe, but the economic stuff's a little more complicated than that. But the point you got to is absolutely true.

Now, one of the things I want to further clarify— Are you saying that in talking for five or ten minutes that I didn't give like a thorough enough explanation of the fundamental economic mechanisms in my summary? Well, I might add some qualifications. One, we've been in a return-on-capital economy for at least 26 years, not a return-on-labor economy. We've been increasingly in a return-on-capital versus a return-on-labor economy for 40 years, 60 years, during all of outsourcing, right? But it's labor over there.

But it's labor over there where they outsource to. Well, it is. But even that labor is paid for by financialization here, right? So that we simulate through financialization and economy, well, through vice and vice, which goes in and keeps the banks afloat with cash.

And then with that, in complicated ways, simulates an actual functioning, growing economy here. And then that's used to justify the production of labor and extraction and all that other stuff elsewhere, which itself gets financed here, right? So it's these feedback loops that give the illusion of a functioning economy. But there really isn't any.

It's just consumption. And vast fortunes are made through derivatives. And anytime you need some additional wealth, it isn't just the Fed that prints money.

It's banks that come up with six different financial instruments off the same underlying, maybe 500 layers down, fundamental income, right? Actual no shit fundamental income. Most of which gets funded, supported. The illusion of which, not from actual consumption and all that, because that's a negative.

It's not even a positive gain. It gets hid in the fact that $2 trillion a year through trafficking gets laundered back in the banks. Then that gets 10 to 1 or 100 to 1 lent out.

That keeps the whole illusion of the whole thing going. Trafficking what? What's that? Humans and drugs, primarily. And then the one that makes the most... Drugs is a retail product, right? Okay.

And then that cash goes back into the banks. And then that person who buys drugs either stole the money, so that's like a transfer, or borrowed it, so that's like a transfer of wealth, or they worked for it, right? So that would be labor. No, most of the folks that are heavy under drugs like this are getting them from government.

They're on welfare. You use the government to pay welfare. But in turn, still, generally, that the welfare is not necessarily the United States, but for many countries is coming out of the tax base, which in turn is coming out of the labor that people earn income.

Yes, but again, it's far more sophisticated. It's far more complicated than that. It's the... All of it gets... Okay.

The way in which the... I didn't get to this yet, but 100 times a year, at least, of fake money that's... Well, trafficking is real cash. Yes, there is some labor involved, heavy percentage of it. 60% of all trafficking terminates in the United States.

60%. Of the world's trafficking terminates in the United States. Why? The United States is a consumer country.

It's like 5% of the world population, and it's like a quarter of consumption. A third. Yeah, a little about a third.

But when it comes to trafficking drugs and humans, 60% of that terminates in the United States because we and our massive welfare system can afford it. Well, it's come at the cost of $40-some-odd trillion in debt. And if you add states and communities, et cetera, which have their own welfare programs, it's over $100 trillion in debt.

And some have said even closer to $2 trillion if you add in all the utilities and everything else. Give me a second. The way in which the greatest fraud, the greatest illusion of an economy is sustained, however, is through the public markets and IPOs, stock market valuations, manipulate all of that.

So 100 times what they make in baseline revenues from vice that goes into the banking system to keep the banking system afloat with deposits, for all intents and purposes, that the people aren't making, but the criminal organizations are making the deposits necessary to keep the banks afloat. The thing that keeps the entire illusion of an economy going is the, you know, why do we have a tech company with 40 employees and no profitability ever in its history, and it does an IPO for $50 billion and a $300 billion valuation? That is the biggest fraud in the history of the world. And a vast number of people, you know, a good number of people, not a vast number of people, but a good number of people make a whole bunch of money off of it, billions and billions and billions of dollars.

And then algorithmic trading systems pick that up and create artificial volatility by driving us to conflict and wars in different parts of the world. And that creates volatility that then the algorithmic trading systems are creating more wealth off of. So most of the wealth that is pumped into the system, you know, the artificial wealth to keep it going is not through the Fed.

Every once in a while, the Fed will step in or somebody else will step in, interest rate controls and all of this to keep it from collapsing, right? To keep the illusion from collapsing. But most of it's sustained through vice. You know, the payments for vice, a lot of that is welfare here in the United States, in Europe, and then market manipulation.

There is absolutely no reason, you know, something like 80 percent of the companies on the public markets are dead and they've been dead for over a decade. The only reason they're still there is because they continue to borrow. They can continue to borrow because the banks, you know, because of this whole Ponzi scheme.

All right. And they just need enough human labor, et cetera, somewhere in the world to make it look like it's all working. All right.

I want to go back to something you articulated, and it's way more complicated than that, of course, and I'm barely grossly approximating, et cetera. Right. So I apologize myself.

And no need apology from you, by the way, I don't mean that. But one of the things I did a speech, I think it was last week, maybe it was a week before, who knows? When we look at the upper classes, and this has intentionally been done, they've been compressed. When we say the upper class or the elites or, you know, what we're talking about, we're actually talking about three distinct classes.

The upper middle class, the lower upper class, and the truly upper class. And we've always had them throughout all history, even if you go into tribal areas where they're, you know, classical, traditional systems, they have those three classes. And those three classes are locked in an all out war, always.

And you can see it in an animal, you can see it in baboons, you can see it in lions, you can see it in wolves, you can see this same behavioral pattern in all social species. You will always have those three classes. The upper middle class is your highly capable managerial class.

Your lower upper class are your oligarchs. And the truly upper class are the old families. And in the old ways, in the old systems, these were your nobility, your aristocracy, they're not always wealthy, terribly wealthy.

In fact, many of them aren't, but it's because that's been, they've been attacked for the last 400 years since Westphalia and the Inglourious Revolution were brought in. Right. And World War II was, World War I, and then World War II were designed specifically, World War I was to kill them off and break up empires, and World War II was to take all their lands and assets.

That's what these were, this was about, you know, those two wars were really about, plus depopulation and blowing up enough shit so they'd spend the next 30 years rebuilding and all of that stuff. Right. Those three classes, you know, the lower upper class wants to get rid of the upper class, the truly upper class, so it can be the truly upper class.

The oligarchs want to remove the hereditary folks, the truly capable folks, because the hereditary folks have a change out too. And the upper middle class wants to get rid of both of them so that it can be the, you know, the pyramids you guys are talking about. Well, the way in which the truly upper class has sustained itself throughout history is it maintains, in all kinds of sophisticated ways, the best it can, relationships with the people.

Very much to what you're saying, Tommy, because it learned over thousands of years that the only way to survive is to have relationships with the people. Because the people, and also, Joaquin, to what you're articulating, because the only way in which a functioning polis works is that there are these social classes, and the truly upper class and the lower class are working together to fight the two, you know, the upper middle class and the lower upper class in between, that is trying to wipe out everybody. Now, they're not trying to wipe out everybody, they're just trying to be the power, but in the process to what one of you articulated, or both of you articulated, the inevitable result of what they're trying to do is the eradication of everybody right down to the last man, last man standing.

So, give me one second. So what does the upper middle class and lower upper class do with everything that they, with every moment of their day and every way that they can? They try to keep the truly upper class and the people apart. They try to drive a wedge, keep, you know, do everything they can.

Part of the reason they are moving so hard to replace us in our own lands is because in times that the truly upper class, a prince, comes together with his people, the upper middle class and lower upper class gets wiped out. Yeah, in very, in different cycles, in different parts of the lifespan of a civilization, or in its cycles, you will have periods that produce different optimal class alignments based upon these types of questions. And sometimes those, when you're, when you're, let's say, when you have stability, or you can say in the nomenclature that your economy is growing, so to speak, you will see this arrangement of the moves by the upper middle class.

I suppose you're using somewhat of a Weberian framework in terms of talking about the power elites and divvying up certain, you know, groups of the power elite. You know, when you, when I think about groups of the power elite, the role of the feudal aristocracy, which, as you were talking about before, and I think the last time we talked a time before, this wiping out in World War I in particular, now that wiped out a lot of people that were landless, already landless nobles. And this was, of course, they were, there were some still landed.

But the process of the Industrial Revolution itself was the process that shifted, that provided the technical, applied technological foundation, which was, you know, realized as this displacement or overturning of the feudal aristocracy in favor of the industrial, the industrial class. Now, of course, when we talk about an oligarchy, oligarchy is a generic term. I mean, it's, you would talk about the type of oligarchy.

Is it a, is it an aristocracy? Is it a plutocracy? And so on and so forth. Plutocratic financial, plutocratic elements, of course, invested deeply in industry beyond which the capacity for the old landed aristocracy with their savings or with their land and they could sell, could invest. So even the landed aristocracy that wanted to make the conversion, so to speak, to be industrial, industrial owners, industrial elite, nevertheless still had to come under debt.

You know, they had, they needed access to liquidity. So by hook or by crook and by all these processes, the financial part of the ruling class came to dominate and had for some time in the economic history of the West. But in particular, by around, and this is going to sound a little bit late in the game, but I was surprised to see it was like in the close of the 19th century, you had a number of works expound the, basically looking at the, the cycle of production and the lending structures nationally.

And, and it was around here that the financial plutocracy overtook the industrial ruling class. So these things are, the thing is that we keep moving forward in time, right? And that's what, so we can't put the brakes on it. And they, the further that you go forward in time, the less that human labor is necessary.

And you'll often hear them talk about how a new technology is going to create new jobs. And it's always, that's always, you know, within a micro-economy or for a small period of time, it might do that. But long-term it, by definition, it must not, like by definition, less human work.

The development of the economy by definition means that you're moving against scarcity. So I think that when you think about one of the main drivers for war, like that's why I opened up talking about the war in Ukraine, is these alternatives to depopulation. And I don't even need to figure out or see, you know, what the final fruits will be of the pandemic.

I mean, like what's going to happen to all these people that took the shot? And if there's years that are off their life, we haven't quite hit that yet. But for some, we have. I mean, a lot of people died from that.

But I think, you know, a research question for me is what was actually accomplished, not the things that are tangible. We can see what they accomplished in terms of the upward shifting of wealth. We saw, you know, Facebook and Meta go from, you know, $50 billion to $100 billion overnight.

We saw that. I mean, that's clear. But in terms of depopulation, right? Depopulation.

I think there's very few things. That was my podcast for years, was interviewing all these doctors and, you know, Ed Dowd and Dr. Malone and Dr. Feintuch and I was talking to him last night, Dr. Jim Thorpe, and going over all this, you know, Dr. McCullough talking about deaths in late age and deaths that are still years off, but are absolutely from this. And then the huge thing was the one in 400,000 year chance spike of miscarriages across North America.

I'm going to butcher the numbers, but it's something along the lines of it used to be once a month, once out of every 90 babies. And after they got the shots, it went up to something like 47. And in like the numbers in Ukraine, the numbers in Gaza, they do a good job.

And they're psychopaths. But I mean, if you were going to do it, you wouldn't want it really noticeable. You would want a death by a thousand paper cuts.

That's my read on it. You go after fertility. I mean, look at the fertility collapse as well.

That's the thing. And like, where did the biolipids go? The one place they were most attracted to, and I remember Dr. Thorpe showing me this, was the endometrial lining in the female, the place where the egg or the sperm, the runway for life to start was the place where they had the highest concentration. It was designed of the shot.

Yeah. Whatever the the phospholipid bilayer would. What are the phospholipids that held the whatever the fuck had on Dr. Audity Bargaville, the envelope or whatever.

Yeah. Dr. Audity Bargaville, who's the head of research at UCSF. She campaigned for Biden.

And then she came on my show to talk about how upset she was with him, which was a huge jumper. But they're all pointing out the same stuff. They're like, it's not just that this is bad.

It fucks up everything now. It goes. It's it goes so hard at reproductive areas.

This is why they're forcing the vaccines on animals. Absolutely. The mRNA in beef.

And again, the kola herd, it just won't be born again. They're evil psychopaths from hell. I respect their approach because it is.

It's quiet. It's it's not walking into the city and going, we're shooting nine out of ten people. That's that's messy.

You have guerrilla warfare across the entire world. You can't predict exactly where it's going. Yeah, little things like that.

Just, you know, vaccine here. Oh, Ozempic. Oh, by the way, it paralyzes your stomach muscles.

Ukraine, Gaza, Iran, all these little things that maybe fentanyl. How many hundred thousand young people a year die? And those young people were probably going to have. My age, we're probably going to have families.

It's all these little tiny ways to just shrink the ball quietly in my in my estimation. And then in addition to depopulation, you also have the dumbing down of among of the population that's there. Correct.

You know, like filling their life with stress or lots of sugar, bad food, things that keep you from thinking clearly. All the birth rate attacks are primarily in in Western Europe and America. The they don't they didn't really mess with the birth rates in Africa and India.

Well, they were like their birth. They're like go wild. Don't know those actually.

They're collapsing all over. Relative collapsing. It's something like it's you're right.

They're all collapsing. Relative collapsing. They're still having something like for every one born here.

It's like 98 in India. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I don't disagree with that, but they're going to collapse them, too.

Yeah, absolutely. Need them to accelerate that. So I want to go back to.

So, Tommy, you're absolutely spot on. I'm the book I'm writing right now. I don't have the title for it is about the intentional reduction of the sophistication and complexity of our language as a way to dumb down people in a time frame, in a time where the Flynn effect has our underlying.

What's that Flynn effect? What effect? Right. Where the underlying hardware, our computational, cognitive, physical capacities are increasing about 2% per decade or something, or but our complexity and sophistication is decreasing in a, you know, inverse relationship. And then it's accelerating on the sophistication, complexity of thought.

It's not because of the hardware. We're not getting dumber. We're getting smarter.

The problem is that our language is intentionally being truncated, shortened, reduced. So that's the book I'm finishing probably next week. I'll probably publish it.

I want to go down back to something very simple that carries on from what you were saying. Before the Industrial Revolution, we had, at least in the English system, in much of the Christian world, humans were sovereign. Humans were sovereign.

Now, the English system is a little different than the rest of the Christian world. Give me a second. And considerably different.

But in the Christian world, humans were sovereign because they were built in the image of God. And so, at least in the feudalist system, the pre-industrial era, people were sovereign, even if they were in a feudalist system, etc., because they were made in the image of God. Right.

Well, the industrialists needed the people to work. You know, that made humans sovereign. Right.

Well, the industrialists needed those people. And so what did they do? They made production sovereign. To make production sovereign, you've got to reduce Christianity.

You've got to reduce this concept and idea that humans are made in the image of God. At the same time, you've got to vilify feudalism. You've got to enclose all the commons so people can't support and feed themselves.

Yeah, we talked about that last time. Right. So what happened is they shifted from human sovereignty, because humans are made in the image of God, which, by the way, even in the Norse pagan beliefs, we still believe that, too.

Right. It's just not a god. It's the gods.

Right. And the gods walk amongst us, so we're still sovereign because we're one with the divine. Right.

You know, in its complexity. So what did they do? They shifted. And this, again, you can see it starting in the 1500s, 1600s, and it gets instantiated in Westphalia.

It gets instantiated in the Inglorious Revolution, roughly 40 years later. It shifts sovereignty from individuals built in the image of God to production. Production.

Right. GDP, you know, growth, you know, gross national product. They didn't call it that back then.

But it's, you know, we're going to shift the sovereignty from the people. We're going to shift it to production. And we're going to value the success of a people in production.

Right. Industrial production. And people don't realize that the Industrial Revolution was taking off already in the early 1600s, long before Watts and the steam engine and all of that.

Right. Why do you think Watts and then put so much energy and effort into figuring out a steam engine? Because they needed it for industry. You needed to power those factories that already existed.

Correct. Workshops. Correct.

Shameless plug. Really great book, Energy, by Richard Rhodes, the guy who wrote Making of the Atomic Bomb. Energy, it goes from coal and timber all the way through nuclear.

Yeah. The, what is it, the Newcomen engine, I think. Yeah.

Yeah. Wait, going at this, they're going down into the caves where they put one guy down there with a, with a match and they're like, find where the gas is. And then the guy would get blown like over the tree line.

And they'd be like, all right, so there's gas in there. Like, fantastic book. Talk about a canary.

So, you know, the point is, is we shifted, you know, what's been happening is we've been shifting, they've been shifting what is sovereign. So we shifted from humans are sovereign, right, to production is sovereign. And what do they have to do? They have to vilify any other system that came before.

And, you know, that supported the type of sovereignty that people had before. If you read the writers, you know, Dickens and others about the conditions that labor had in, in the production era, it was vastly worse than anything that ever was occurring in the feudal era, including the bloody dark ages, which were not the dark ages. Including slave, including slavery.

Including slave labor, right? It was fundamentally worse. In the Dickensian era, my brain turned off for a second, but it's the opposite of the podcast. Sometimes I'm like, fuck, what did they just say? Because in the, in the Charles Dickens era, that shit was so much worse than what we call the dark ages.

Right, right. Oh, and by the way, in the dark ages, we got all the greatest works of art, you know, and then coming out of the dark ages, we got the only reason. Didn't feudal slaves have like 200 days of vacation a year? Yeah, about 25 hours a week.

Yeah, in the feudal era, folks worked about 25 hours. Now, yeah, there's, and there was many holidays and there were many. Correct, correct.

Makes sense that labor is the dark ages that don't, you don't want that. Don't look there. Mostly what the dark ages is, is actually comes from academia.

It's because there isn't a lot of writing from that period of time. And they said, well, it was because of the collapse of Rome. I said, motherfucker, that was like 600 years later, 500 fucking years later.

Literacy was all over the place. It's because systematically all the works and writings from that period have been burned. Right.

What was the Inquisition about? You're talking about the Inquisition. But yeah, in fact, you had the, you had the Carolingian Renaissance. You had the Merovingian Kings.

You had a lot of this stuff. Oh, and also let us not forget that the actual Renaissance began in Portugal in the 1500s because of their seafaring and everything. Right.

But we don't talk. Okay. So point is we shift.

They shifted sovereignty from humans to production. Now production is sovereign. Okay.

What did they? And that that's through the Industrial Revolution. What exactly we were talking about by the late 1800s with Morgan and all these others. And oh, by the way, it wasn't Jews that created this new financial system.

It was guys like Morgan and these German bankers. I can't remember families. It was that fricking family in Sweden that owns everything.

The Wallenbergs. Right. It was all these folks.

They're not Jews, people. They're ours. But by the late 1800s.

That's a very good point. That's a very good point to make. Right.

So by the late 1800s, and oh, by the way, you know, the Medicis and all them weren't fucking Jews. They were Italians. Right.

Romans. Right. Okay.

Yeah. Catholic, technically. Catholics.

Right. So the next transition of sovereignty went from production, and that's been happening over the last century, century and a quarter. They shifted sovereignty steadily from production to capital.

Now capital and specifically debt. Debt is sovereign. Producing debt.

Debt is the product. Producing debt. Because that's what capital is.

Capital is debt. Right. And so now they then they shift it.

Well, capital, yes, as a service or as a product, capital is debt. Well, I mean, you can say land, labor. I mean, there's capital broadly defined.

So there's capital assets. Yeah, capital assets on land, production capabilities, et cetera, things with depreciation schedules. But what I'm talking about here, capital is the debt that funds and supports all of that and is an increasing portion of the portfolio of people's wealth.

Right. Right. In one way or another, it isn't capital assets.

It's this other stuff. Yeah. Okay.

What they're doing, what they've been doing over the, and I've been in some of these conversations in early, well, I wouldn't say early Silicon Valley, but, you know, the dot-com era and leading up the dot-com era and the decades or so after, what they're doing now is, and you can see it with all the data center build out, the conversations and all of this and Harari, you know, that sock puppet, malevolent sock puppets, you know, speeches and everything else is they're trying to shift this to something else is sovereign now, and that's computation. And this is what the whole, you know, quantum finance bullshit was about. That was all a fraud anyways, you know, scam.

But what they're trying to do very hard now is shift this from capital is sovereign to computation is sovereign. All to keep this long arc going and very much working for all the reasons you articulated absolutely spot on. So the only way in which all these things, all of this stuff works is they, you know, they indoctrinate us with these concepts and ideas through complexity that we can parse out unless we have a lot of experience with a lot of these things.

And that takes decades to be that kind of a generalist. What they do is they shift in our mind. What is sovereign? What is sovereign? We went from humans were sovereign just a couple of hundred years ago to decreasing human sovereign to production sovereign.

That lasts for 150, 200 years already. Then that's shifting to capital. Debt is sovereign.

Even today, debt is sovereign. Oh, the government, some money or somebody else, some money, and you'll lose everything and go to prison, right? That's debt as sovereign. That's not used sovereign.

That's debt as sovereign, right? And now they're heavily pushing towards and then look at the valuations for these, you know, anthropic and these other things, right? The whole narrative and discussion around that capital is sovereign has failed. Production is sovereign has failed. Humans are sovereign.

It's long gone. And so now they're trying to shift to the machine. The computation is sovereign.

OK, well, if the machine and computation, which is really electricity conversion to binary code, literally, that's all it is, folks. You can look at all this other crap that comes out of it, but at its base level, it's converting electricity and heat transfer to binary code processing, period. Yeah.

So it's calories or joules or calories or joules to complexity and and to pedophiles. Yeah, the currents. Yeah.

So that's what they're trying to shift this hard to now is this new sovereign and the sovereign is the computation. And so we have got to go back to we, the people, before we get eradicated, have to remember that we are the sovereign. We human beings are the sovereign.

We have always been the sovereign. We've been giving up our sovereignty to these these artificial, illusionary systems. Right.

And we need to not allow that. And I will say this back to the conversation of the elites, the truly upper class never went for any of that stuff. They've always been the target.

And the lower upper class folks that are in alignment with them and the upper middle class folks that are in alignment with them, which are the wealthy, you know, the truly wealthy people in the world, the capital asset owning people, because that's the assets they generally go into, have always been have been through all of this, have been the real target of all of it because they've tried to maintain humans as sovereign. And that's the big fight that we're locked in right now is are we going to allow us to shift from debt as capital as sovereign to computation as sovereign? Or are we going to cut all the labels and all this crazy stuff on top of it out and go, no, no, no, no, we are going back to humans as sovereign. And not the global commons and all of that.

Let them be sovereign in their own lands. Let them be sovereign in their own places. We are sovereign here.

Our ancestors are from here. We've built these things that make all of this possible. We still sustain it, even if much of it's an illusion.

Now, we can go back to, you know, the old ways real quick. When you think about dovetailing on what you're talking about here and when you think about the power elite, however defined, you know, we're talking about in particular the financial oligarchy or the plutocracy, the globalists, so to speak. And when we deconstruct that they're in the final analysis, they require that you have in their model, you have consumers, you know, but to consume, they have to work.

Or, you know, the thing that's very interesting is that if you remove the human being from the production part of the equation and you just have, oh, well, now you have all these consumers, well, with what income do they buy? How have they earned, right? So this is in there was an economist, a Russian-born economist who was, I think, probably became a darling of the Austrians. This is Kondratiev, and he built the wave theory, capital wave. And all of these track certain cycles, but there's a long wave over the duration.

While all these smaller waves are doing their movement through time, let's say, you have a long wave. And this long wave is leading towards that point where the, you know, basically it's taking the law of diminishing returns on a macroeconomic scale, like the one big diminishing return, right? And this one big diminishing return is on the horizon, and everyone's going to be displaced from work, income. This infrastructure will have been built out in a way to provide things, but without a, there's not a profitability, there's not a direct relationship with a consumer, which you're talking about is something else.

And then you're talking about, again, why burn through the Earth's precious resources, this, you know, paradise that could be a paradise for, you know, 500 million people instead of 8 billion people, useless consumers, useless eaters. So one of the big crises of our age has been the ideological one, where we have quantified a person's value in his relationship to the market or his relationship to this industrial productive society. We haven't valued man as a man, a person as a person.

That's the core of it, though, is that so many of these projections, even though they're looking at the total machinery, the total investment, the total output in total, as a total number, as a total sum, they're not thinking about it as it should be thought about, which is as human force multipliers. So if you have a human being as your, you know, you need to have a number that's your multiplier. And without human beings in that equation, you have a bunch of industrial capacity that produces nothing for nobody.

So the impasse, kind of the—you talk sometimes about the work of Adam Smith and his more famous work, Inquiry into the Origin of the Wealth of Nations. He looks in part at this pin factory. This is this famous study of the pin factory.

And he's talking about the dehumanizing effect that the industrial mode of production has on human dignity. He's talking about the repetitive motion, like humans are doing this machine cog work. And ideologically, in the United States, there's people who want to disconnect a entrepreneur definition of capitalism, or a barter, or an initiative taking, or a personal philosophy of capitalism, or a view that your property is an extension of your labors, or that your property is a product of your labors and an extension of yourself.

But macroeconomically, the philosophy of valuing the man in his relationship to the machine created this macro hyperculture in the West, which now has reached this sort of impasse or dead end. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, so if I might, Joaquin, I'm very much in agreement with you. With respect to Adam Smith, I'm a big fan of Adam Smith. I'm a big fan of the Scottish Enlightenment more than anything else, right? The ultimate expression of Enlightenment thinking, which is not what people articulate.

It's not this modern liberalism at all. It was not anti-feudalist. It was not anti-monarchy.

It was checks and balances and corrections. It was not anti-capitalist in quite. It was extraordinarily supportive of capitalism.

And virtually all of that which became the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, which comes from the English Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence comes from previous declarations, the Magna Carta era, et cetera, and then the Constitution, et cetera. All of the founding fathers were deeply steeped in Scottish Enlightenment. And Adam Smith was one of those biggest thinkers.

Folks need to read the theory of moral sentiments before they read Wealth of Nations, because otherwise there is not the proper framing and context for the Wealth of Nations. What he states in Wealth of Nations is absolutely wonderful. But the theory of moral sentiments was Adam Smith's articulation of all the complexities of humanity and why the Wealth of Nations should be looked at in this way, right? The invisible hand of the markets and all this other stuff.

And why, very much to your point, Joaquin, why there was the dehumanization in the, you know, when production became sovereign, right? But people have got to read the theory of moral sentiments. One, it's a brilliant standalone articulation about who humans are from one of the greatest thinkers that has ever been at a period of time when the Scottish Enlightenment was at its peak. And, you know, so, OK, I want to go back to where the thinking is.

OK, so over the last 40 years, the only real wealth, new wealth that's been created has been in the tech space. In the computation space, right, how do we use, you know, energy conversion, heat extract, you know, heat conversion or movement, really not heat conversion, but heat movement and binary processing to create new wealth. That's the only real new wealth that's been created in the last 40 years.

Everything else is a shifting of wealth or artificial wealth created out of pure financialism, which, by the way, 99.9% of the tech wealth is also pure finance, right? It's all funded and supported by, OK, so for a consumption economy, which is what we build, right, because, again, we're on this path from human sovereign, production sovereign. So that's still baked in there. The capital is sovereign, debt is sovereign.

So that's still baked in there. And then we've been moving from there, right? So the concept and idea is that the machine is going to do the consumption. And these conversations have had where they thought about taxing, you know, computation, you know, taxing computational load, etc.

What does the machine consume? Well, it consumes energy, right? This is this whole, you know, the big push behind green energy was to, OK, well, how do we, we're not going to have all the humans, so we don't need all that kind of energy production. We are going to have all this land available to us and, you know, places available to us because, you know, we're going to live in our nice little gated communities, etc. So we're not even going to go to these parts of the world where these wind farms and everything else are.

We just need enough natural energy production to feed the machines because that's capital, right? You don't need humans, very much what you're saying. If the machines are producing the machines and the machines are repairing the machines, all we need is electricity. And raw material inputs.

OK, so the machine is... But to produce what and for who? OK, so I'm getting there. OK, so the conversations that were being had 20 some odd years ago were about was very much that 26, 27 years ago in Silicon Valley. It was very much that.

Well, if we're not going to have if the population is not going to be here, who's going to consume? Well, the machine, because the machine is going to do ever more complicated computations for us because we have all this complex, you know, computational requirements, administration, finance, modeling, all this other stuff that we have all these people that we pay to do now, PWC and, you know, governments and etc. So we're going to put all that into the machine and the machine is going to have to be increasingly sophisticated to handle all of this complexity that we need for our wealth to grow and sustain and manage, etc. So that's what the machine is going to compute.

Well, we realized probably about 15, 16 years ago, that's not enough. And I want to tie in another piece. We also realized very much to what one or both of you stated that very quickly we realized, well, when you don't when the people aren't sovereign and you're not worried about your people, we're going to fight with each other.

We're going to go to war with each other and only that's already happening, right? That happens all the time. You know, the resentfuls and responsibles in those three upper classes are constantly at war. What's that? What's that quote? If man doesn't have a fight, he'll fight himself.

Like, that's right. Yeah, yeah. So then it started, you know, back about 15, 16 years ago, it started to shift to, well, holy shit, we're going to be at war with one another.

We're not going to have people. So what do we need? We need robotics and we need drones and we need all this other stuff. Okay, well, that's going to require a lot of computation.

More machines, more machines, processing more electricity, moving more heat and doing binary code processing. Oh, well, that's a good consumer. That's a good consumer, right? Oh, what do we need for that? We need forever war.

Isn't that what they talk about? We need forever war. We need total forever war. Okay, we started algorithmic warfare in the financial markets back in 2007, 2008.

When I left and I went into special forces, we were already doing algorithmic financial warfare that required billions of dollars per year by companies, individual financial entities to invest in their algorithmic and computational infrastructure and telecom infrastructure and access to power and all that, which, oh, by the way, people got in the way of because they need power and water and all this other shit. And we needed it for our algo warfare. Can't hear you.

Can you explain succinctly algorithm warfare? Okay. Financial algorithm warfare. Yes.

So, okay. So, again, sovereignty is shifted to these different systems. Debt is sovereign, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

A massive portion of the debt as sovereign is the capital markets, right? Because people, very wealthy people don't sell their stock. They borrow against it. But the stock needs to be increasing at a certain rate in order for them to borrow against it.

And then they use that to go buy revenue generating assets, companies, etc. And then they pay the debt with that. Yeah, that's like how Jeff Bezos lives, like from day to day.

Yeah, correct. Right. And you might sell a little chunk here and there because you need a large capital and you don't want to tap into your revenue streams, right? Your income, your income flows.

Okay. By 2007, 2008, we were already, we had already gone from maximizing, optimizing our machines, our computations, our data centers, communication systems, etc. to gain arbitrage in our software programming, you know, complex or optimization, all that kind of stuff, right? We had already done that to where, you know, gaining a 12, 40 millisecond advantage in some financial trading arbitrage situation somewhere in the world.

We'd already, we were running up against other people who had this. I remember reading. What's that? They're stacked and corrupt at the trading houses and people with their orders and what they privilege and allowing the programs to run.

It's funny as you're saying in 2007, I remember I was in high school reading Popular Mechanics. I remember reading, I was like, I thought it was cool that, you know, Goldman Sachs invested whatever $3 billion in some slightly better fiber optic because they cut off a hundred milliseconds, which to them resulted in like 88 billion more in revenue. And I just thought it was cool.

I just thought it was the coolest thing. Like it's so, it's so wild. Yeah.

Well, and, and Joaquin's also right. The market makers get preferential access and the big brokers, etc, get preferential front running access, etc. So there's all kinds of that too.

But what I'm getting at is this by 2007, 2008, because we, you know, because we were up against the, you know, big money people playing the same game and we were getting, you couldn't, you can only fraction off so many milliseconds and still have an advantage. Right. So what are we, what was already happening? We were creating algorithms that could listen to and watch for the signals of other algorithms and figure out their strategy and then figure out initially it was, well, how do we get ahead of that? Or how do we, you know, how do we figure out some complex arbitrage, you know, related to more sophisticated portfolios? Okay.

Well, by about 2000, 2008, we were already at a place where we had algorithms that were triggering their algorithms because then that would create fluctuations in other parts of the market, other markets, etc. We'd make money off of that. Right.

Right. Yeah. And then by about 2012, 2015, we had algorithms that were hunting other algorithms.

Yes. And I got caught in this in, starting 2016, no, that would have been 2018, 2019, I got caught in this hard because I was in futures and futures trading and all of a sudden, I remember it was very early in the morning, somebody dropped a, you know, just war, informational war in the oils futures markets. And it went to, not chaos, it went to chaos in terms of the signals, but somebody was in there with vast amounts of money and computational capabilities.

And they were literally taking people like me and others off the table, just wiping us out intentionally. Right. They were hunting us down so that they didn't have random signals in the oils markets.

This was 2019, 2020, I think, right? It rationalizes it for them. Yes. So they were getting rid of us so that they, exactly, so that their algos and what they were doing in the real world by using military forces, using Iran, Venezuela, and others and terrorist activities, etc.

They were creating signals then that would move the oils markets in certain ways that then benefited them and them alone. But the point I was getting at is this, who is the consumer that you're asking about? It's the machines. But what do the machines require? They require this fifth generation total warfare.

The target of fifth generation total warfare is not the people. It's other machines. It's this capacity to make money off of algorithmic high frequency trading, predictive markets, etc.

Right. And how do you introduce noise? We think it's noise, but it's intentionally introduced signals in complex signals introduced into this computational framework so that you get your enemy gets their algorithms get down, you know, downturned, and yours get played up, right? Or their signals get muddied, and they can't make a trading strategy, you know, execute on a trading strategy that benefits our trading strategies. It's okay.

All of that's been happening. Point is, though, is that that's not enough either. And what you wind up with is which one of you said, and forgive me, my memory's not so good.

Would you wind up those more overt direct house on house competition? Because all of that stuff starts to balance. It's already happening, right? There was a war game done back in 19 or 20, you know, 2019, 2020, might have been 2021, 2022. It was 17 nations.

They say it was 17 nations, but really, it was a big investment firms. And they did a study on, you know, a red, you know, red team kind of study on if there was economic, you know, if we went to total war, how would the markets be impacted? Right? How would you, how would the warfare? And they realized fairly early on, yes, in a couple, you know, within, you know, the first couple days, there would be some adverse actions, but then our algorithmic systems and theirs would all balance out again. Because they got just as smart of people programming, and they've got just as much compute power.

Yeah, it becomes like a jello mold. The vibrations become like a jello mold. Yeah, correct.

Now, here's the crazy thing. Algorithmic high frequency trading all that was initially introduced through market makers and others actually to regularize the markets and get rid of, you know, the artificial exuberance. Of course, that very quickly gets hijacked for by malevolent people who are like, well, we can make a lot of money here.

We can actually do this stuff. Yeah, we can actually do it. But over time, those systems tend to regularize themselves because you're going against other super smart people who know how to not counter you to play in that space.

And then it just, it tends to balance. Okay, so then what do you need? Well, now you need drone warfare, and you need robotics warfare and all that because you've got to go after people in the real world. Well, that look at the correlation where that all took off all this robotic warfare, drone warfare, etc, took off about the same time we realized we wouldn't win the war with algorithmic warfare in the markets.

Okay, where we need to test all that, though, because it's one thing in the labs, etc. Okay, well, let's go kick off this war in Ukraine. There's all kinds of other reasons there.

But what have we been heavily testing there this whole time, drone warfare? Well, what have we been finding out there? Well, that kind of tends to regularize too. I'm very proud that like a month or two after the war started, I did a solo episode just running my thoughts. And my final conclusion was, oh, this is a playground for drones that are eventually going to be used domestically.

I hope I'm not right. Well, it's to be used. And again, they're working through all these other ways to get rid of the domestic.

What they're setting up for, and I've been saying this and people like, we have already returned to feudalism. We it's in the form of family office, you know, the new manorial states are not land based, their investment portfolio based. Their family offices, you know, the new.

We don't have the Duke of this or this. We have, you know, this family who has a multi generational multifamily family office that's got six trillion dollars in it directly or indirectly. And it's got its charitable works through its NGOs.

And it's got this. That's that is a feudalist system. Unless you undo all the legal stuff, break all the trust, the trust and all that other kind of stuff.

And that's really hard to do. It's easy to do. But OK, point I was getting at is this, the the reason they're moving so hard to remove humans is because they've been working for so long to make the machine and machine production the consumer.

And this is what they're talking about specifically, is that real wealth production is energy conversion. And again, I love Tom to death, but Tom's talked about this a bit overtly because others have about real wealth is conversion of energy. Well, it's absolutely true.

Historically, though, was energy created by human beings in their own bodies in the form of ATP and the Krebs cycle and all that that then was converted to labor and the labor produced things or labor work things. And that created all of this. Now it's just pure machines.

And so the intention is you can infinitely increase the complexity what the machine has to compute. This is the other piece. These people behind this, at least the key think, you know, key thinkers, not the social planning.

None. No, no, no. But the tech people have Nick Bogstrom's superintelligence book in their mind every minute of the day.

Right. I don't know if you've read Superintelligence. Yeah.

By Nick Bogstrom. Yeah. A couple of months ago, I did.

It's foundational, brother. You really need to read it. OK.

And it's not too long. There's audio book, too. They have that in their mind that there is this near, you know, type one civilization, type two, type three, type four civilization, et cetera, the Kardashev scale that we don't need humans.

The machine, as long as we can shift what's sovereign, because what's sovereign is where wealth is the representation of wealth. What is the wealth in? Is it in the people? Is it in production? Is it in capital? Or now is it in computation? The only thing is shift what's sovereign so that at least they agree to it and they're fighting over it, et cetera, then. And that's in computation.

That's an infinitely expandable space, because as you approach type one, type two, type three, type four civilizations, you have, you know, vastly, vastly, vastly more energy that you can use. And if you're like Musk talked about, mentioned this the other day, you put data centers in space, you don't deal with heat issues. I mean, you do actually doesn't quite work as simple as all of that.

But, you know, you don't have the limitations of electricity production and water and heat dissipation and movement of the planet. Now you've got it out there in space. So for them, they can, the consumer is the machine that's consuming energy to produce, you know, to just do binary code product, you know, processing and all these complex argument ways.

And that is an infinitely expandable space. If you get rid of the need for humans, because humans are not an infinitely expandable space, there are hard limitations and restraints. So terribly sorry.

No, no, no, just to, so the, yeah, get it space, great heat sink, getting it up there, very expensive. You know, I know they've reduced the pound to orbit by like, you know, orders of magnitude. Sure.

I've always thought wouldn't, is the best heat sink not, I'm sure everyone in the world's thought about this. Is it not the ocean? Here on Earth? No, because life depends on the circuit ambulation and all that other kind of stuff. No, you're talking about the ocean.

What if you just found like one lake? What if you just took Lake Baikal? Well, that's the freshwater. You still got to transfer the heat. It's still got to move.

You're all you're doing. That's what I mean. Here's like, is, is, is, is, but it's a heat sink here on Earth versus putting it in orbit.

You're saying get it off Earth. You got to get it off Earth. If the system is the Earth and the energy is the correct.

And they want to live here, right? Yeah, because it turns out we're probably never going to be multi-planetary because humans at the cellular level require Earth's gravity and electromagnetic field to function for a long, you know, people leave the planter probably never coming back. They leave it to move and they may not survive there long. So give me a second.

Again, back to the book, superintelligence. What is, what is the superintelligence do? Once it starts replicating, it gets off planet and it starts converting all matter to compute and energy production and compute. Computronium, the theoretical element that is the most, you know, and then that goes when it saturates the whole universe.

That's the Omega point where Tayshard, Tayshard and Dalish, I can't remember his name. Yeah, it's, it's AGI to ASI to the Omega point, which is, I guess, the end of the thing where the entire universe becomes the most efficient computer. And then the idea is then you go to the multiverse.

And at that point, you just kind of feel like you're back at single cells, dividing it. You need to hit an acid for that. And the problem is, is that for these people, this is a religion.

They believe this, right? This is the new religion. So for each one of these transitions of sovereignty, we've had to have a new religion, right? So we had humans as sovereign. That's the old Christianity religion.

Production is sovereign. That's the, the bureaucracy, the, you know, this is where Marxism comes out of, you know, this is bureaucracy managerial systems as a religion. That's the Westphalian world.

That's the, you know, the Protestantism, etc. From there, you transition to capitalist sovereign. Well, that's financialism.

And you can lay these down on top of each other belief system. I've written on this, and it's actually in the book I'm writing right now. And now we have computationalism.

And folks can find my article on that on Substack and X, and it'll be in the new book that's coming out. Now they have this computationalist belief system, the underlying concept and idea for this computational belief system. And it is a religion.

I mean, listen to people talk Bitcoin and talk cryptocurrencies and talk aspects, you know, robotics and drones. They talk like religious adherence. Underneath that, the core, you know, the New Testament, shall we say, for, you know, computationalist is Nick Boggs from superintelligence.

We've boxed out Joaquin for a bit. I apologize. Joaquin, hop in here.

No, it's interesting to hear you guys talk about. I haven't read the book. I'm familiar with the ideas and type O, type I, type II civilization.

You know, the total, we were talking earlier about calories or joules. And, you know, are you using the total energy of the earth? Or are you, and then are you using the total energy of the sun? Are you using the total energy beyond the sun? The galaxy. Yeah.

Can you, you know, at what, and, you know, in terms of like projecting forward who or how you would have a client or a consumer for the good, the machine as the consumer, you can see in a, if you have a fractured, if you have a, if you have a fractured power elite that has inherited the legal superstructures of a prior age, such that you have those divisions, you know, you can think, for example, like to make an analogy, if you had like a paper mill, but if you didn't own the forest, or if you weren't in the timber business, you know, the timber guys in the paper industry, their interests align, but then there's a point where they don't align. But if it was a single conglomerate that controlled both the, that owned the forest and ran the timber company and produced the paper itself, that changes the equation. And likewise, with machines as the consumer, the total net point of a power elite to maintain power in a post, in an economic reality in which the only other people alive are other power elites.

And you're what you're governing over. I mean, you, we exist physical territorially. So we, we're as human beings, we're physical, we pertain to a domain where we perambulate around, or we drive around.

And is that our security zone? Is it our property? You know, it's, it's so, so this is an interesting, not philosophical point, but practical one that we draw upon the philosophical inference. Because if you have power elite in competition, they have to convert raw materials into something that gives them power over the other. And if you have a system of norms, but then you're pointing towards like a supra system where there's a supra power, or some other mode where agreements are honored, or there's some other mechanism such other than brute force.

And it seems to me that in the final analysis, that all of the, all of the taking robots, automated production, and then, you know, using computers to optimize, talking about so-called AI, or, you know, large language modules to find the, let's say, find the efficiencies at the very least and maximize or optimize the efficiencies. You're still, you're, this is a human being at the center of this network of computers and military industrial complex facilities producing weapons. What we've seen in the war in Ukraine is drones, and then anti-drone drones.

We've seen drones now, we're seeing, of course, the retrofitting of older stuff to be basically radio controlled or to be drone controllable. You're going to have all of this. So you're going to have, this is the same thing.

This is the, the drone component is little more than the physicalization of the algorithm wars. And this is basically the energy taking on matter. You know, now you have the, the, but now the same energy computations go into the mass production.

Now it's in the real world. It's it, now it's growing. It's into the real, right.

The demon, the demon, or whatever you want to call it. It's, I fucking, I fucking hate Harry Potter because I think it's fucking gay. It's the sorcerer's apprentice.

He finally gets enough power that he's just, he doesn't exist in the void. Now he has to say, how does AI take over? Well, it needs a lot of, it needs fingers, robots, cars. It needs, now it's in the world.

So this is Bogstrom, right? This is Nick's bog. So again, and this isn't nearly infinitely expandable space. It has literally all of space and everything in it to expand into.

And as long as they can convince us that computation is sovereign, they've got this whole, you know, this, that wealth is real, that wealth is produced. Sorry, I got cat up here, but that talk about a physical demon actually, he's a sweeter. Um, as long as they can convince us that, you know, humans aren't sovereign and that machines and computation is sovereign, they have a nearly, and that therefore wealth is created by computation and machines.

They have a nearly infinite space in which to expand. And we're all, and very much to what you guys are both saying, you know, Joaquin, brilliant, absolutely brilliant. That is exactly where they are going.

It's exactly what's happening. They don't need people for that. They need them in a decreasing scale.

In fact, humans get in the way, particularly us in the West. Why? Because we do remember when humans were sovereign, particularly in the Anglosphere. That's why they're targeting the Anglosphere the most, because individual sovereignty was coded into our system by, by Kings and nobles specifically who held themselves to that.

And yeah, we had a couple here and there we had to deal with, but we dealt with that. So I want to, if I might, gentlemen, I developed the Anthropini Energia, right? Human energy scale. We can, you know, how do we return humans as sovereign? One, we need to stop believing the computation is real wealth or that any of that shit's real.

You know, we need to stop chasing down the magic of all this complexity and get back to life itself. But there is a pursuit that we could be about that is equal to an even greater, far greater than, you know, this, this drive towards Kardashev. Because tied with Bokstrom's, you know, super intelligence is, you know, as a belief, as the core of the belief system for the computationalist is also the Kardashev scale, right? Elon and others talk openly about our getting to a type one civilization.

Oh yeah, Michio Kaku used to talk about this decades ago in his talks. So these are foundational things, right? Is how do you get to type one civilization? Well, humans are incapable because we, you know, they're dumb, they're stupid as part of the earlier conversation, which isn't true again, because the Flynn effect, which has been simplifying language so we control the mass. Okay.

There is a way for us, you know, so they believe they have to increase the complexity and sophistication as a machine to compensate for the decrease in human intelligence or the lack of human intelligence, et cetera. Right. And oh, by the way, a lot of the folks that think in these complex ways are autist.

So they don't really understand humans to begin with. That's right. That's, that's a fundamentally important point.

Right. So give me a second, because you, you have to be a bit autistic, even on the bureaucratic managerial side to rise up in these complex systems. Right.

Okay. There is a way for us to achieve type one civilization, which personally, I think the Kardashev scale is something we need to pursue, but we don't have to pursue Bockstrom's approach of super intelligence because we have it in the form of humans. That's right.

Right. That's right. Okay.

So my, I wrote pieces on this. It's in the new book. It's what the new book is about is why don't we instead as a populace, as a, as a people return humans as sovereign and work on getting us to become type one human beings.

And what is that? Well, that's using all of our internal capacities or internal energy or internal energy conversion, our internal computational capabilities, et cetera, to expand and improve ourselves, you know, the individual and other individuals. And so I've worked on this. I built a scale that's similar to Kardashev, but it's for humans.

Here's the other reason why. And this Tommy gets about the conversation you and I, and the dorks had, you know, the dork web had the other day. What's happened with Q, right? The Q phenomenon is it demonstrated, aside from all the other things, is it demonstrated in a very short period of time that you put a number of people together and you give them access to information or tools that they could use for information that's already available.

And they will outthink the machine like that. The machines aren't even getting close to that sophisticated and ability to process and compute. OK, why aren't we focusing on type one? You know, we as a populace, as a species, as a polis, why aren't we working towards becoming type one human beings? And instead, we're trying to create, you know, a type one civilization with machines.

That's profound, right? Very good. Because it's no, it's super interesting what you're saying, Ian. I really look forward to reading that.

I think with human beings, there's something so unique, something so special about human beings that each person is capable of producing for more than himself. So we're already, you know, we're already like type one bloop. We're like DNA to be type one, you know, and we're systems.

They can be complex. They can be designed and led by super intelligent people. But fundamentally, the human is being drained and each human is producing less than his own capacity.

I think they're still producing more, but it's being sucked into the machine. Yes, I'm saying, yeah, not the gross. I'm saying that or net for that person and the people in there.

Yeah, totally agree. Yeah. I mean, even Marx and exploitation is the surplus values being.

Yes, yeah. But I think that this is a very interesting turn for the show. We're going to have to talk again.

We're almost out of time, but we're in about two hours. But yeah, that was a trip. There's a fucking sometimes you show you like, yeah, it's kind of kind of go this way.

That was sometimes I forget I'm doing the show. I'm like, that was great. That was great.

Then I'm like, oh, wait, I'm the host. I feel like I have to check. I'm like, I don't like the like the, you know, like the quiet and kind of there's a law.

And I'm like, yeah, oh, fuck. So, yeah, no, I mean, we've been going for almost two hours. But guys, that was awesome for everybody listening.

Go to description links to everything. And absolutely, I would love to do it again. That was that was that was genuinely appreciate it.

I like that. That was that was a mental exercise. So I appreciate it.

Appreciate it, Joaquin. You have a great mind, Joaquin. I really appreciate it.

Likewise. I appreciate bouncing things off for if I might, guys, we really need to put in all of our conversations. Let's stop trying to become a type one machine civilization.

Let's start trying to become type one human being civilization. That reframe seems simple, but it's profound because what does that require? It requires humans become type one humans. We'll use the Tommy's podcast, Rolodex and library.

There you go. I think that's our title. Type one humans.

Type one humans. There you go. All right, perfect.

All right. That was awesome. Gentlemen, I'll send it to you guys.

We'll be up in a minute. And thank you for your time. Thanks, Tommy.

Guys, thank you so much for your time. Everybody, thank you.