UFO Physics & Disclosure Under Trump (ft. Matthew Pines)

Yes. I think the brain itself is probably, you know, maybe a room temperature quantum system. It was communication with some NHI. It was like, what's going on? Like, why are you here or something? It was like CI wizards are messing with the timeline. He became convinced that there was kind of this secret branch of physics. I don't know how conspiratorial it is if you just look at all of human history. We have classified entire areas of fundamental physics before. Don't think we can do the same for AI. what is the nature of the interaction between human society, human institutions, and non-human intelligence? And they said it's a triangle. AI, quantum, and the

grush stuff. What the hell is actually Here with Matthew Pines, uh, who's quickly become one of my favorite thinkers on the UFO topic and I I think in general as far as tracking what's going on in the US and the world today. And so I'm really excited to have you. You first came on my radar. You went on a show called Mr. Obnoxious. And I recommend everybody uh listen to this cuz it's such a cogent synthesis of what's happening in UAP UFO world today from a legislative perspective uh how

you view uh kind of you know control systems over the topic and also you know public sentiment but you also you come from kind of an interesting you have a crypto background and uh you're director of intelligence at Sentinel one and so I thought this was a very fitting week for us to talk uh we've had a you know very conclusive election results uh and things are shifting in a in a in a particular direction with the election of Trump and so uh how how are you viewing the election? Yeah. So I try not to you know read into

what most people look at in terms of uh exit polls or demographic shifts but try to think like what's the vibe like how would we look at this sort of the through the lens of American history. Um and it seems like the closest uh analogy is sort of America's paristrika which as you know paristroka in the Soviet system came with glass right so reform and and and opening up um and I think that is sort of maybe the closest template to look to to kind of think through the the shift that we're going through. Um and you know in terms of the canonical kind of political economy that we're we're

witnessing um evolve in real time is sort of this uh new anti-establishment uh kind of this uh heterogeneous alignment of of you know different political forces uh you know going after and essentially displacing or in the process potentially displacing kind of the old establishment. Um and in the Soviet system this was sort of you know you had kind of the old establishment somewhat decaying institutional structures that were no longer able to kind of keep pace with the rate of change and external events and sort of an internal sense of um of sclerosis and that was coming uh under twin pressures

both from within a sense of like indogenous reform. we need to sort of get ahead of the curve as well as external pressures, right? That wanted to break that system uh from the outside. And I think that's kind of the the the tension, the friction that we're seeing play out is, you know, external forces that want to essentially break or, you know, reset to a certain extent these uh decaying institutional structures. And then maybe a competing mode which is like the folks that are currently kind of that the avatars of sort of that um managerial technocracy that are you know trying to find a uh

trying trying to find a balance between uh tearing everything down versus sort of internal reform. I think that was essentially the like the implicit fight and it seems like the the you know more structural paristroka argument won out Yeah. And that's I think what we're going to head into uh is this era of you and know how how successful it will be, how controlled or orderly versus, you know, messy it will be is you know remains to be seen. Um but I think that is you know I think the current the current uh phase shift that we're we're heading into. What do you think? Because this is an

open question for me. You know, like last time around, Trump got elected. He promised to quote unquote drain the swamp and then he goes on to hire Millie and uh John Bolton and like a lot of usual suspects when it comes to, you know, Washington, what he would probably now call swamp land or whatever. Uh and and Bolton even, I think, is on air saying like, I I tricked Trump into hiring me or something. And a lot of, you know, Trump, the end of Trump's campaign was sort of, you know, um saying he's not going to hire these Does he just hire a lot of the same kind

of managerial technocrats or is this truly a new coalition of your, you know, Tulsi's, Vivx, you know, RFK juniors that do kind of quote unquote drain the I think remains to be seen. I think you're probably going to see a huge amount of churn over over the transition as to see which of these different, you know, factional um power bases, you know, come out on top and in various administrative bureaucracies that get appointments and whatnot. Um, and if you look back at the, you know, the the Soviet version of this, you know, Parisa was was a similar alliance of kind of,

um, you know, internal technocrats, uh, deep sort of quote deep state like security state figures from the KGB and and sort of oligarchs, right? Uh now our version of that is sort of you know this funhouse mirror uh where you have kind of this alliance of some maybe um sort of uh ejected technocrats folks that were technocrats at one point but were sort of turned against the systems they were sort of forged in aligned with you know our version of the of sort of these tech oligarchs um you know Elon Teal etc. And you know I think there is also a power base inside what what you call

our our security state services that um that are definitely also on board right and so I think this is you know those are very loose diverse coalitions I don't know how stable they are they weren't that stable in the Soviet system uh as it went through its its pretty tumultuous um transformation and they're always you know the the is always high wire acts right in terms of how do they manage to um do the kind of controlled reform and then you essentially springboard right into uh you know to sort of reinvigorate renovate these

institutions um you know kind of strip out you know the the the the sort of the rotten floorboards but the overall infrastructure of the house remains intact and then they renovate and it's a beautiful new house. you know, we start tearing through walls. Sometimes you hit something that's loadbearing, right? And so in any process like this, there's inherent risk. There's inherent risk that you could just you could hit something that's loadbearing in the system uh and then you're deal and then you're dealing with a crisis. And that's why they're trying to figure out, okay, what's the right balance between the folks that want to like burn it all down versus kind of the traditional technocrats that come in to

fill it out, right? And I think Trump has the sense that in his first administration, it was it was imbalanced, right? In a sense, it was he was kind of cocooned. a lot of his his initiatives were kind of um smothered and I think he's now going to swing in the other direction. I think his default is going to be much more to sort of let loose the VEX and the RFKs and the Elons. Um but we'll see. I mean I also look at these as like these are very big personalities, right? So the one observation I hadn't seen too many people make that was always curious to me about Trump's like especially the the

you know the more recent part of the campaign was just how many big personalities he brought on board. Yeah. like he's a big personality. Like he has a huge ego. He's he needs to be in the spotlight, right? And yet he was somehow comfortable. Yeah. Sharing the spotlight with these huge personalities that command a lot of attention. Elon, these guys, you know, they have their own platform. They have their own almost like somewhat equivalent power base to a certain extent. And that's that's a different mode when you know first, you know, Trump 1.0 would brookke nobody like that, right? At you know, he had to be

the center of the of of the attention. Yeah. You could easily see a world where Elon and Trump have some major public falling out. And like what what happens in that world? I don't quite know exactly. Yeah. That's the thing is like everything now is copathetic. You know, they got the energy of the wind. They're all aligned, etc. Yeah. Fast forward 6 months and you're you're actually governing, right? You actually have to make hard trade-offs. There's got to be, you know, certain priorities um that don't get that don't get uh everyone uh that don't check off everyone's boxes.

And that's where you'll see the friction potentially emerge. Is there change you're more bullish on and change you're more bearish on? So it's like the make America healthy again movement reforming, you know, the FDA visav both food and drugs, getting us out of wars, crypto reform, you know, UFOs and JFK like uh how would you slap probabilities on, you know, all of these things? That's probably a very hard question. Yeah. I mean, well, because it it's almost like looking at the Soviet system, it was not it was chaotic,

right? And and I think it was very much um I think I think we should expect a certain element of chaos. Um not necessarily like complete disaster, but just the the idea of being able to predict what's going to happen the next day, the next week, the next month, like that will not be feasible, right? I think when you're going through this era where those two you know major structural impulses are now being um pushed in terms of paristrika kind of a structural reform it's kind of coming in like a hostile force and you know purging essentially elements of the

bureaucracies like there's going to be just it's going to get really messy be my baseline expectation at the same time that you have you know and I think Trump just gave like a three minute speech where it was just like it it was basically him announcing glass notes right we're gonna have truth and reconciliation commissions we're gonna you know, we're going to un we're going to unseal all these records. We're going to like, you know, peel back the the curtain on all this stuff. I mean, that's basically him announcing glasses, right? Um, now once you do that, right, there's a reason why I think those things haven't been made public for various reasons, but it's

like because they would create, you know, a lot of uncertainty and a lot of um uncomfortable questions uh to go back and there's going to be just a lot for us all to have to kind of deal with and process all at the same time. So it might just be overwhelming, right? Levels of just sort of information flow, disclosures of various information as well as just the the normal pillars of the institutional bureaucracies being being uh sort of you know facing a pretty severe test. Do you think like snapshot three months from today we all know who killed JFK?

rooting to dig that out, right? Um, I think, you know, this is I think I I would I would say 5050. Uh, I I never want to say 100% because you never know. Um, but I'd say, you know, this there's going to be a lot that's going to come out. The question is though, like how much it's going to come with context. Like usually these sorts of historical questions. This is almost like a mirror image uh or it's sort of um isomeorphic to the UAP question in the sense of how much of this is catastrophic, right? Disclosure, which is all comes out all at once.

understand the sky isn't falling. Um versus you know there is a you know here it is there you go deal with it. Um and I think there's going to be twin impulses in different power structures inside the Trump administration that will be pushing in those different directions. Right now it seems like the just let it all out impulse is is has the upper hand. Uh-huh. And that seems to be, you know, what what I would expect from the sort of surprise um uh magnitude of the win, right? I think they were relatively confident they would win the presidency, but I don't think they expected or were banking on having unified government. Um and so now

that they do, the sort of aperture of possibility spaces have now sort of shifted and now that's sort of that has a momentum to it and that momentum will likely play out until it, you know, until it triggers, you know, other other problems potentially and then they might We might try to dial it back, but right now we seem to be in that momentum towards open up everything. Yeah. And what do you think happens on the kind of geopolitical or foreign policy front? You know, I feel like Trump maybe the more armchair thing that

like I would always kind of disagree with with Trump on in his last campaign um was that he would he would always say things like, you know, uh Russia Ukraine wouldn't have happened if I were president. like you know uh Israel you know wouldn't be sort of blowing up if you know uh if if if I were president and I I think on the Israel you know case he the Abraham accords which he engaged in were actually really positive and then you know maybe he did you know Putin did respect him more or something so directionally maybe I agree with him but like when it comes to the details and disentangling from these sort of

conflicts I think it's just way more complicated you know visav US interests in Ukraine um you know our relationship with Israel historic ly and the sort of leverage there, it just it it doesn't feel like who's president really might even matter all that much. And so what what do you think happens there? Things are heating up with China, obviously. I mean, I think it's not settled which direction his foreign policy will take across these different theaters. I think it's pretty clear Ukraine will be a

negotiated settlement. Um probably on unfavorable terms, you know, relative to, you know, a counterfactual for for Ukraine. But I think that's pretty much a clear signal that I've seen is is yeah, they're going to uh reach some sort of um settlement and then it's going to be about, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars of of reconstruction I think he's also sent a signal to to BB that um you know, he can go gloves off until he gets elected and then he wants him to wrap up the conflict. So I'd expect a surge in in Lebanon over the next, you know, month or two and then

that will that will wind down and then we'll see what sorts of quote maximum pressure campaign gets restarted against Iran. Again, you know, unclear how how that would whether reach a another negotiation settlement or whether, you know, he would do kind of his traditional Trumpian sort of brinkmanship, right? Sort of like with North Korea, threaten nuclear war, fire and fury, take us to the pretty pretty close and then essentially become best buddies, right? walk across the DMZ. So, you know, it's like, you know, I I think his brinksmanship and and you know, kind of uncertainty, he'd be even said like he

would bring Bolton into the room because his his his interlocular head of state would know Bolton is like a Warhawk maniac who would just ready to pull the trigger at a second's notice. And so, the fact that Bolton is in the room is sort of like a negotiating tactic, right? Like, don't let I got this guy pushing for war. Like, I would rather not fight you, but like he's he's ready to go, right? You got your got your buddy over there. Well, he's a little bit of a loose cannon. cop bad Um so we'll see like a lot of this is p is is driven by by personnel. China of course is the elephant in the room. I think there is still a big debate um uh

even within the different Trump factions over like what should be the approach towards towards China. there are some like you know very China hawks um that want to sort of pivot away from these other theaters negotiate those settlements sort of concentrate our uh to contain China to deter China and there's others who would just want to basically like this great power competition this increasing um sort of militancy and sort of tit fortat uh sanctions export controls etc they're bad for business and we should just do a grand bargain with China that might involve subtly selling Taiwan out but

you know at the end of the day it's a dealm and a deal resets, resolves tensions, etc. So, I think there was that is for me the biggest geopolitical macro question is which of those different China opinions kind of kind of plays out. Um yeah, he had a real split in his cabinet the last time around between uh kind of, you know, Wilbur Ross types, you know, he's close with uh uh Schwarzman and stuff and like a lot Schwarzman wasn't in his cabinet, but like you had these guys who were like very pro-China and then you had all these hawks who were uh

you know extremely you Josh Rogan book, Chaos Under Heaven, that describes this sort of split. Um, and so yeah, I'm curious to see what wins out this. Yeah. And right now, I mean, I've I've been asking these questions. Other people that you would think would know were asking questions like, who's who's going to be Trump's China team? And it's like, anybody. Like, Trump doesn't know who his China team is going to be, right? Like, this is the this is the moment where all these different factions, all the different people jockeying for for cabinet positions and other senior appointments, the knives are out, right? They're just coming after each other, right? You have like

Peter Navaro and Matt Pottinger, all these guys who were super hawkish and then Yeah. And so Michael Pillsbury and then and then Yeah. And then you have and it seemed like it it sort of netted out that Trump was kind of hawkish on the trade stuff, but then he was kind of lulled to sleep on COVID and he had all these assurances from Xi that he wouldn't, you know, invade Taiwan and he was kind of tricked on the the PPE question with CO and so yeah and and it turned into this sort of schizophrenic foreign policy or something. Yeah. But I also think on the part of

this is going to be down like geopolitics is often deeply connected to these economic and monetary shifts and um there is I think somewhat nent but I've I've seen memos written that sort of try to codify what would be like a dramatic geoeconomic shift that would be triggered in 2025. And this isn't even the Bitcoin stuff. That would be that'd be like icing on that would be like, you know, kerosene on the fire, but like a Nixon style shock where that has essentially a larger strategic logic, which is

essentially um the US dominant geo geopolitical and economic position is is under challenge, right? We both have um domestic uh indogenous instabilities in terms of our financial system, the increasing debt um costs uh that we're going to be committed to the next few and a sense of increasing challenge from uh innovation and industrial ecosystem in Eurasia, you know, principally centered in China and this loose alliance of Eurasian uh countries, Russia, Iran, North Korea,

China that actually have significant industrial technological um and sort of uh and energy resources and they're they want to re they want to challenge and sort of upset the legacy kind of international economic and political uh geopolitical order. So the logic is sort of okay how do you like hold the line right uh between kind of these this uh you know this legacy you know uh hegemonic system the US has built up um and and these sort of rising sort of um revantious challengers and the play is essentially to sort of uh uh make more

explicit the function of the US as as a global empire right as as an imperial dollar system and where we essentially control the access to dollar credit and increasingly we can sort of gate access to our advanced technology ecosystems or AI models and and the associated infrastructure. And you can imagine him setting up essentially a tech and tariff and security um umbrella where there's a there's a there's a club and if you want to get into the club that you're going to have to pay, right? So if you want to get access to our AI infrastructure models, if you want to get access to, you know, dollar system in a favorable fashion, swap lines, etc. If you want to

um you know, have us reinforce and not abandon our security commitments to you, well, you're going to have to pay. And that payment might might take the form of essentially a coerced swap of either either or and their gold reserves, their FX reserves, which usually, you know, short-term uh bills um for century bonds. So that would help us term out our debt, right? It would it would relieve some of this acute interest burden. It would, you know, there's already some talk about, you know, Trump being trust, you know, like Liz Trust when like there was a guilts market crisis, right? M and then she had to abandon some of her

political um uh uh sort of you know projects because you know she had basically had to deal with the disorderly um you know guilt market and so already you see the the 10-year the long end of the yield curve starting to spike. And so the question is okay how do you have essentially do geopolitical like yield curve control? Well, you force those foreign pools of capital, sovereign wealth funds, etc. to swap their short-term uh, you know, exposures in their gold for century bots, and that importantly would be non-marketable, right? So, they can't just sell them. They can only uh, you know, repo them at the Fed for par dollar liquidity if they

run into any sort of uh, dollar funding issues. And that would be a a pretty high leverage play. And then if you get some of their gold and you can term out your debt, then you can do things like say remmonetize gold, right, which is currently just like marked to, you know, 1970s uh, you know, what $35 an ounce. So if you remark gold, say to $5,000 an you just now can, you know, credit the Treasury general account with a trillion dollars of liquidity. Um, and you can do a lot with that. You could buy Bitcoin. You could do strategic investments in a manufacturing

industrial base. um you know just you know you could fund a lot of those sorts of uh industrial projects um and then threaten I don't think he's gonna do universal tariffs but threaten sort of company specific tariffs right to sort of intimidate and sort of you know threaten them and yeah hey if you're going to reshore Frenchshore to Mexico well actually no you're in a French shore to Ohio now right and then maybe we'll do some complicated you know backdoor subsidy right but like we'll get the the thing domestic um so I think that's what I would expect is this but to do that you're essentially you're you're kind of

pulling the rug on the Treasury market, right, which is the foundation of US geopolitical dominance the last 70 years. So, we'd essentially be admitting that the jig is up that like yes, like we're effectively imposing financial repression and capital controls on our on our on our allies and partners, but that's what we got to do because we got to win, right? And and then there might be a whole separate, you know, subplot of this where Bitcoin gets monetized alongside gold or even instead of gold um but would have a similar effect maybe without the explicit geopolitical coercion because we don't actually have to like force this swap. we can just essentially, you know, rapidly monetize

Bitcoin at the expense of their existing holdings and then maybe, you know, defay some of the domestic costs. So, it's mostly overseas, you know, financial Like any imperial system when it runs into trouble, right? Or it's getting it's getting challenged. The first thing it does is it cannibalizes the periphery to sort of reinforce the core. It's like you all have, you know, you get collective benefits in theory from being part of this imperial system. We give you protection. We secure global trade. And in exchange though, you know, we have to pay for this military that's going to deploy and secure these trade

Again, it's a high-risisk play because do we actually have the juice to do that, right? Um can we actually tell the Europeans to hand over their gold? Uh can we actually, you know, commit to the security side of it? Can we It seems like in the the horn um in the, you know, of Africa and the Middle East that like the Houthies can basically block uh a major maritime trading route indefinitely. So it's like these are like where the paper plans at, you know, kind of the elite backroom door level, you know, ultimately have to be implemented and executed in the real world across all the instruments of national power. And I don't know if

we've got the competency to do that. Um that's a fascinating strategy though and and uh Trump who's not a fan of of NAFTA it almost sounds like a modern modern version of NAFTA where it's like you get the same sort of you know maybe defense opice or whatever but uh very different kind of you know monetary relationship and the UFO thing might play into that which is you know on on the margin if it's like if we even want to hint that hey you know we've got some special like you know you might want to pay to get into this

right it's like a little inducer to it's like, hey, you know, you might be doubting us. Maybe we're, you know, a bit a bit a bit chaotic. Maybe we don't have the the naval production juice that we used to have, but we got some special stuff here. And so, you want if you even want the hope of of getting access to it, you got to get into the club. That's kind of immediately where my mind went when we're talking about AI is like we've we've had conversations about possible, you know, secret off the books physics and, you know, materials, you know, all this stuff comes up in UFO land. If we have access to that

alongside AI, that's a pretty interesting suite of asymmetric advantage when it comes to defense and all sorts of technology. And so do you think you you almost seem to think that this might get used as leverage where it's like you you get access to the goods, but you have to play nicely. I'm trying to mentally model Trump as much as I can, right? And this guy, he's not a guy I think truly motivated about these cosmic questions. I don't know if he even, you know, has a framework for it.

His uncle John might have been, but I think he he understands almost viscerally like what's a good bargaining chip, like where where does he how what leverage points does he have, right? And I think if he if he's I believe he's been briefed on some aspects of these legacy programs and of course, you know, there's speculation exactly how much he knows, etc., but I'm pretty confident he knows at least broad contours that this is real. Um, I think his first reaction is going to be, okay, how do I use this, right? How do I leverage this in in my larger, you know, in my larger play

here? And I think it would be pretty obvious, like pretty, you know, ace in the hole sort of leverage um if you play it right cuz I don't know what other second and third order um details of that story that come into play, right? There might be other other equities and other, you know, like little Lzando hints of like other drivers of this. Um, so I think it's an overdetermined question, but it just in this narrow slice of kind of where this could sort of insert or how could it play into the geopolitical dynamics of a Trump administration, I think it would um, you

know, have a it would be seen as something to to leverage in a certain Yeah. when he understands leverage and he's a he's a good dealmaker and I think you know say what you will about the guy uh historically I think a lot of his deals have made more sense on if he he criticizes deals made by the other side whether it was you know uh the Paris Accords or the Ben Rhodess you know Obama Iran nuclear deal which you could say is partially responsible for where we are now and Trump does seem you know

unpredictable it seems like he throws some some volatility into the system or something, but he acts very on behalf of the US, I think, in a in an aggressive way that he's just used to doing from his business career. And I I think he is he is sort of good at that. So, it would make sense, right, if if you have all this leverage that you're not aware of in the form of the UFO thing. Ideally, you'd be interested in what's going on there. But if I if I accept that premise though, it does make kind of a a loose prediction of what form of disclosure to expect, right? you would expect the form

of disclosure that would maximize that type of leverage, right? So then you'd have to make some conditional assessments of okay, what in the universe of stipulated information that's behind the curtain, which subset of the information would would acrue maximum leverage in the strategy and which one would would not and then I would expect that subset to be the part that gets released and and the other information to be kept kept secret. Well, is it is it like a is the nuclear thing a good analogy where it's like you have nuclear trade secrets but nuclear physics is sort of broadly disclo

disclosed or is that a counter lesson where it's like no Claus Fuches like took our you know actual nuclear trade secrets we were not we were too loose with that you know maybe maybe we should be you know more buttoned up when it comes to UFOs. Well this yeah this the the key answer to that question is really premised on how much knowledge andor capability do we assume has already been leaked. Yep. Right. Um, and if you read the language in, you know, it's come out of the the Senate, you know, in order to mitigate the possibility of of foreign technology surprise, the US government

must broaden awareness of quote historical exotic technology anticedants previously provided by the federal government for research and development purposes. Right. So if you read if you parse that line, it's like in order to make it the possibility of foreign technology surprise. Yeah. Meaning in order to make it the possibility that China and you know demonstrates they've got some stuff figured out, the federal government must broaden awareness of historical exotic technology anticedants. You know the stuff in Lockheed's basement. Um uh that had been previously provided by the federal government for research

and development purposes. Didn't say provided to to who? It's you know the locked basement. Um, but that's basically that is like the like the distilled logic of at least the Senate's view of this of this trade-off. Um, meaning we've kept the stuff under lock and key to do re R&D for many decades, but now we have to broaden awareness of those programs to mitigate China getting the jump on us. Yeah, that's basically the story which is which is an admission that China has a baseline level of knowledge, right? Because in the world

in which they don't, you then you just keep the thing locked up in your Indiana Jones vault. you never talk about it with anybody, but the world in which they do it, it becomes this game theory thing. You need some broader awareness around the top. You can't have, it's not adaptive for American national security to have the average, you know, uh, precocious STEM student in Kentucky or whatever is growing up, uh, just thinking that, you know, string theory is the only answer and that, you know, maybe there aren't some more interesting exotic frameworks and material and all of that. Yeah. I mean when the US and the Soviets

really had the only industrial tech technological and scientific ecosystems for most of most of the 20th century. Um and so like all the leading physics research leading then sort of technology development transfer was taking place in relatively controlled statedirected um ecosystems and you know there was I think a certain understanding over the cold war between the US and the Soviet systems um on those things there's a lot of you know um also early on in the cold war there's only so much there's only so many different branches of the sort of scientific tree to explore and you had

to spend 10 20 years just filling out the standard model how of particle physics and you we could do the whole separate thing of where it went wrong in the 70s but then China is now like exploded on the scene in the last 30 years churning out really good scientists engineers and a whole indogenous ecosystem they're doing their own independent scientific frontier research right their own space exploration their own satellites their own um you know radio receivers nutrino experiments their like own quantum stuff like they've got their own

independent they've developed their own pretty quickly their own independent scientific and tech tree. They're going at the dark side of the moon. Yes. They've launched tons of mass to space. Yeah. Yeah. And so from the US's perspective, like they've managed to contain for the last 70 years essentially the tech tree that's branching that was growing essentially in the world, right? And then you could prune branches in various ways. Now there's a new tree that has sprouted very quickly and is, you know, exploring and is not being pruned. And in fact, maybe those those

those branches that we pruned are now being like supercharged with investment and you can't do anything about it. So you've been pruning your tree, they've been growing their tree. Like that if that plays out for another 5 10 years, you're going to be in real And that's I think was precipitating now the last 10 years of disclosure stuff. That's that's always that's my take. I mean I I've felt like I'm sort of firing blindly in the space sort of covering it sometimes where like as you know I've covered some of the you know possible

branches of physics that have been lost and I I think I'm doing this patriotic thing because like I look at the civil side you know engineering requirements to build some of these super basic experiments and I'm like adversaries have to have that this like snapshot of what we had you know 70 years ago or whatever. So, I think publicizing this stuff is like extremely good net net benefit. Uh, but it just feels extremely uncoordinated. Like the whole world I'm curious to get your take on this. Like the whole world of UFOs or whatever. I I

would assume there would be like one dude kind of in charge of like the whole And it's they're I think thieftdoms and gatekeepers to those thiefs, but I don't think they're well coordinated at all. I think it's a cargo cult that's been running for the last 70 years. But curious to get your take. Yeah, this telling the historical story in all of its various chapters is probably beyond my ken. But like I have a certain um like 10,000 foot level take which was you know essentially from World War II era through like the 60s. um this was

essentially a federal these were these were federal projects right the vanar bush era you know coincided you know I'm sort of my basic um analytical methodology is sort of what was the um the structure of the other you know visible institutions of research development of government of intelligence etc and then assume that the basic level of competence and the managerial um structures and their alignment to US democratic power structures like probably like is is carries through to these legacy

programs, right? And that, you know, again, this kind of is consiliant with what David Grush was saying, saying, how these kind of were tucked underneath the architecture of secrecy for the Manhattan Project, you know, the um Atomic Energy Act, you know, that sort of set the institutional framework for these for these programs in the 40s and 50s and 60s. And then I think there was a shift, right? And that shift, you could speculate about what was happening behind the curtain, but I think you could just see the visible shift that took place in the other aspects of our institutional and political economy where it was, you know, a pretty radical restructuring, right, of the, you know, it was the

Nixon shock, but then you also had um, you know, the malaise stagflation in the 70s. You had um, and then you had this massive transition to sort of uh, global neoliberalization, right? The the privatization of a lot of functions. And you had in the CIA, just to take that as a concrete example, you had Carter essentially purge like the entire senior ranks of the CIA when he came into office. And what did those hundreds of senior CIA officers do? Many of whom were probably presiding over aspects of the legacy program in an official capacity, you know, and they were like managing this on behalf of their, you

know, responsibilities in the federal government. Now they've been fired, right? And maybe it was merited. Maybe they were doing a lot of shady stuff that the government was like, "We can't do this anymore. You guys are you guys are, you know, rotten fruit. we need to kick you out. You know, those guys didn't just disappear. They have a lot of skills. They have a lot of connections. They know exactly how to run covert operations, generate lots of sources of black money, corrupt and influence senior and very influential people around the world. And without, you know, certain skills, they're going to apply those skills and

then and then but they the critical distinction is now they don't longer have an official attachment to an institutional bureaucracy that's aligned with, you know, US state interest, right? And I think that's where it starts to delaminate and the political economy, these programs probably then gets split to a certain extent. There's the part that the US government is able to hold on to in some fashion and then there's the part that they're not able to hold on to explicitly. And then there's this sort of uneasy evolution over many decades. I don't exactly know how it's evolved in more recent era. Um, but I think it's pretty clear when you, you know, read into what David Gush is

saying is that, you know, effectively, you know, there's certain elements of the US government that have been sort of rogue, right? like that and and that even the defense industrial base um parts of this collaborators may not be like Lockheed is involved right as like Lockheed CEO but like you know essentially loose networks of of individuals that um for various reasons kind of uh associate to manage these and and that's I think the difficult part is trying to sus out how much of this and this is why the UP disclosure act explicitly targeted eminent domain

business is trying to like create mechanisms to sort of try to get the official structures of government to sort of reabsorb and rec take take back some degree of control over these Yep. Yeah. that's more a civilian oversight question which is like I actually feel somewhat conflicted about you know I feel more sure that like the American population should understand a broader deeper ontological truth when it comes to our reality that that feels like an obvious like good to me and then where

I'm sort of unsure is like I don't think Congress is super competent. I was in that room last year at the the testimony and it's like if you were to manipulate or sigh up a group of people and like you know just find a really corrupt group of people like that would be it like these people they're not very smart and they're uh you know you can sway them very easily and like I don't know if they're more competent than the Lock Eden Northrup executives. I think I think people should know about this stuff and so maybe to to some extent

whatever limited hangouts are occurring visa v these these prime contra contractors need to speed up be more effective and better but yeah that would be my controversial take is like yeah I you know maybe in 1850 or something I'd be more be bullish Congress but right now I'm not I think their 11% approval rating sort of says it all. So I mean this is not even a UFO question. This is basic uh you know political philosophy which is you know do we in general defer to uh competent

technocratic managers to make important decisions on behalf of the rest of us or do we defer to elected representatives who are representative of the people who may not be very well educated enlightened technocrats. Right? And this is this is the this is the age-old question right of like how do we find a balance in a modern very sophisticated very complex society of maintaining a form of participatory democracy maintaining a form of government that is inherently legitimate and accountable to the people right the government is um of by and for the people of by and for locked program

managers right um that is the foundation of our constitutional republic that's the inherent logic of our social contract I think to abregate that um you know willy-nilly would be a would be you know a one-way ratchet. But I I also agree with you that like there is there was a reason why we filled out these these bureaucracies and these, you know, technocratic structures in order to manage the complexity of modern life. That yeah, the average House Republican or House Democrat on a subcommittee who's getting like a 10-minute briefing from a 24-year-old before the committee hearing is not the person you want to

make these like important, you know, structural decisions. But you want to ideally be like a balance between of course the people that know that information and make those decisions that like they're ultimately accountable to somebody, right? That if they screw up, they can get fired, they can be held to a public tribunal, right? Yeah. Maybe maybe it's the executive br Yeah, it it it is it is a tricky question. I think that bigger possible issue is the veneer of you know elected representatives when in fact which we actually have the participatory

Yeah. No, it's post post Citizens United. I mean, look at Mike Turner who represents Dayton Ohio and you know has you know Loy Northrup Boeing on his quote unquote cap table as his his donor list. And so it's like uh you know that he's not a real he's he's acting on on behalf of oligarchic interests of of special interests in that case. So yeah, I mean there's a political philosopher in the 20th century named uh Sheldon Woolen who had this idea of sort of inverted totalitarianism, right? that like traditional totalitarian structures that we looked at, you know, had an obvious hierarchical, you know,

dictatorial um uh arrangement uh of power. And in our system, it's, you know, again, this is more on the extreme who's a kind of extreme progressive kind of liberal, but like he his diagnosis was that we've actually constructed for ourselves like an inverted totalitarianism where um where we have the veneer of participated democracy, but really like the actual structures of power are quite concentrated. They're just hidden. Right. They're not on top, they're underneath. Yes. Right. And that um that makes it much more hard to challenge because you know nobody likes being told what to do by you know your boss, right? But if your

option set is just inherently constrained before you come to make a decision by other by piece by folks or forces you had no idea existed, well you can just you can you might not even know, right? You're just these are your options A and B pick. Yeah. Right. R D go. Do do you know uh Danny Shehan? This episode is sponsored by Delete Me. With the 2024 election coming up, online privacy is no longer a luxury. It's a necessity. Political polarization is at an all-time high, and personal information like your phone number and

address is easy to find online. Sadly, this opens the door to identity theft, harassment, or even politically motivated threats. That's why I trust Delete Me to remove my personal data from hundreds of broker sites. They've already scrubbed a ton of information I didn't even realize was out there. It's a simple way to safeguard yourself and your family from becoming targets. And if you're into a lot of these crazy topics, that's always possible. Get 20% off by going to joindeleteme.com/jesse20

checkout. Thanks to deleteme for sponsoring today's episode. Use my link in the description to start protecting your data today. Uh, I don't know him personally, but I've obviously I've watched his Yeah. his uh multiple three-hour long podcast. Yeah. Encyclopedic knowledge. Encyclopedic. And it's like his kind of worldview. I mean, first off, if you want to know who killed JFK, you should listen to, you know, those podcast. Yeah. His uh the S force and Howard Hughes getting deputized by by Nixon under Yeah. All that. Exactly. which is wild because it to me

it's it feels high probability to be true because it so comports with priors I had around you know I read like Devil's Chess board by you know David Talbbit and you know I'd watched the Oliver Stone stuff and I'm like okay it's like Dulles probably had it out for for JFK and then it's it's like Danny's just filling in the details with names dates a specific chronology so it's fascinating but to to go to your point around you know the woolen's point around a small group being actually insidiously kind of in control. Uh

Shihan's entire history of American intelligence at least you know post OSS is that the CIA got formed uh at the behest of this Brown brothers Haramman group this investment group where on the cap table you had all the robber barons. So all the kind of oligopolistic you know control families or whatever in the US uh uh uh basically you the CIA was almost like it was like you know the veneer of like American national security but it was really like

protect our interests you know and so and then if you look at American foreign policy over the last 70 80 years it's way more driven by maintaining a a threshold of you know crude petroleum or whatever than then meets the eye. And so like how much how much of this stuff is just being driven by like this small group of people that you know I know this sounds a little tinfoil hat but that they've kind of existed intergenerationally over the last you know century. I mean, I don't

know how conspiratorial it is if you just look at all of human history, right? Like human history and all of our political systems tend to um you know, in a physics language, they they tend to form sort of condensates of of tight factions that uh you know, once they, you know, happen in whatever process of power uh accretion stick into those positions of power and nobody likes to give up power. They want to find ways to magnify that power, institutionalize it, formalize it, and hand it down. That's like that's the story of humanity,

right? Once we started um building hierarchical control systems um you know out of the huntergatherer to agrian evolution. So like this is the basic sociological pattern of humanity like quoteunquote enlightened democracy is a relatively recent thing and it's a and it's a it's a belief system. It's a social fiction in a sense, right? And social fictions of a lot of material power and people believe in them. Um but they're buttressing up against this sort of you know multi- century just embedded historical pattern, right? And and I think that's been the that's been I think you know I'm not like America's

truly just a hidden fascist country and everything about democracy is just a painted veneer. Um because I think you can look at history where like you know the quote maybe power structure lost right like they didn't have sort of univalent power over over the evolution of of of our society and this election felt like some sort of an Yeah. I think it's also become more complicated. Right. I think back in that era from you know maybe the you know the reconstruction era to the to Robert Barons to Brown brothers Herammen to

World War I and World War II like you know American economy was like tightly tightly wound you know sort of New York finance industrial capital and you know small number of of of founding families and and industrial empires you know it was very clear like American politics was just de facto you know arms of their apparatus right like that there was no pretense that we really had a democratic form of government in that in that era fought a civil war and they're like, "All right, we need to reconstitute things. It's going to be done through investment. It's going through, you know, stitching together with railroads and um, you know, industrial expansion,

etc. That's going to have to come and directed and managed by essentially these industrial um, systems that are controlled by a small number of elite family uh, empires." And that's just, you know, so then that's what they did. And then we're like, "All right, we need win. Those guys are going to do it." And I think the where we got really in trouble though was when those families started to then muck around in European politics and started to help fund you know uh aligned interest groups in say Germany in the 20s uh that sewed the seeds if not directly catalyzed the Nazi

party. Yeah. Right. Which is what happened. The Union Bank funded the Nazis and then I think Bellis was part of financing the Nazis as well. He was like stationed in Norway or something. I mean they we created them basically, right? because we were worried about the Bolsheviks taking over. Um the national social the national socialist movement was you know and again also came out of this kind of um similar vibe. The German version of it was kind of this occultic uh set of um you know like theosophic uh clubs essentially and there was a lot of you know in the US

yeah there was a lot of the elites were very much into the occult sort of you know seances and similar sorts of vibes. So they all had these and you had that book but what was it like the secret destiny of America like that manly pee hall book that you know we'd be the the the shining city on the hill for for the rest of the world or and it doesn't take it doesn't take much for like elites in different societies to all of a sudden become gripped by a certain cult of belief um and when they have lots of money that can have material effects on hinges of history and I think that's you know long story about how that created Nazism how Hitler

kind of really rose to power but um that then I think again these are like uh ratchets and then you know it puts these these bureaucracies now that we have think we think of bureaucracies in a much more um uh like depersonalized fashion now like the CIA and the FBI and all these administrative systems and they are like they're massive systems of rules and org structures and yearly budgets and government accountability and congressional committees and you know we we we have the the you know

Francis Fukyama project of state creation is sort of the depersonalization of state functions. They become formalized, they become structured, repeatable, inspectable, accountable, etc. And you know when states decay, they they tend to become more personalized. They can become much more um internally weakened by factions where their principal forms of accountability or loyalty are not to the organization. It's to their their own secret, you know, club of people. And I think you know I would say that the arc of these institutions was like they were

created by these these you know essentially they were fully personalized at the beginning right the doles brothers etc. Um and then you know we sort of built state structures independent large complicated bureaucracies you know over the course of the 20th century to sort of fight the cold war and we had to marshall large scale resources to do that and you can't just rely on you know dulles brothers to just run around and do weird [ __ ] right you have to have like systems of you know processes and memos and you know like big projects um you need to now bring in folks like Howard Hughes right

you need to kind of like have you know these like glow more explore these are pretty expensive endeavors um and I think now we reach the other like that that arc has come down and now they're like being repersonalized. Um and and you know that can happen whoever is repersonalizing it can either do that in a project of like reinvigoration reformalization right that like they need to that these structures got too unwieldy it's like software code that has a bunch of you know rot in it and you need to like this system is called um called bow's law which is just you know uh like code code eventually rots

right it's like a characteristic like time scale so any institution has like codified rules and regs and they usually only go in one direction and you know I think that's the project that we're seeing maybe play out is like okay how do you go into this the set of code of our institutions and you know know that there's maybe half of it is like dead weight code but you don't know what's like what's loadbearing right um but going back to like this the CIA sort of arc is uh I think that was kind of the thing you had this sort of purge of of individuals that were sort of had built the bureaucracy and now had all

these connections and they just went out into the private sector and just started to build those systems those person more personalized systems, but now out of view, right? And I think that is where you you read the Tom Deong books, he sort of points to this idea of there essentially being, you know, official government programs and then non-government programs. And that that from the vantage point of someone like Marco Rubio or someone like Senator Jillan would be kind of like extremely intimidating. Like I I would not like these people

senators, but do they really know what they're going up against? Right. That's a different question. Well, it's kind of part and parcel with the history of the country per what we're talking about. Like if you look at the shehan narrative of what happened with with JFK, Howard Nixon operationalized Howard Hugh Howard Hughes is kind of an extension of the national security apparatus as a private aerospace contractor. If you look at, you know, the the the the follow-up story, it's JFK scatters the CIA to the Wendy or he threatens to fires Dulles.

Dulles goes from his perch at Brown Brothers Haramman at a private company reoperationalizes the S force which Howard Hughes created to go after JFK. And then the final example which touches on the you know this idea that Jimmy Carter purged a lot of the CIA is that I think a lot of those guys ended up at um have you heard of the Carile group? Oh yeah. So like you read Jock Valet's diaries, you know, he he publishes his diaries, Forbidden Science volumes 1 through five. And I think it's like three or volume three or four. He always

has lunch with all these people and you know these like spooky insider types and they're constantly like look at the Carile group and then he goes again the Carile group. Like it it's like this recurring trope. And so I sometimes wonder if post uh uh you know Carter purge of the deep state a or of the CIA a lot of this stuff ended up you know with with with them and the final weird connection there is I don't are you familiar with this Mark Mccandish Brad Sorenson story

you have to remind me on that one. So, so Mark Mandel is a famous aviation illustrator and he has a buddy named Brad Sorson who's in aerospace and he's going to this, you know, air show in uh in California and he gets taken to so he's he's with this guy who's this prominent kind of Italian um defense financeier is is the way he describes it or defense guy. And um he gets taken to kind of like a back of the house show and um they say we're going to show you the real stuff. They fly him to Palmdale

of really good researchers who think that the Italian guy is Frank Carluchi. And Frank Carluchi was deputy director of the CIA under Jimmy Carter and then became secretary of defense under Reagan. And he's very associated with the Carile group. And so anyways, all of this is to say maybe there's this sort of revolving door between private industry and CIA where it's like you can you get on one, you say, you know, hey CIA, give up the goods, they put it into private industry, and then you get on private industry and then they they they

they, you know, put it back in secret compartmentalized, you know, um government apparatuses or something. It's this game of whack-a-ole. It's this infinite shell game or something. Yeah. And I think you know I I think that's very very plausible. Um and even in more prosaic circumstances that sort of relationship is um is extremely common. Uh if you just take today quote great power competition right um there's lots of say port facilities around the world that um we a want to ensure US has

favorable access to and b we deny China and Russia access to. Is the US government, US military, US intelligence community going to literally go around the world and buy up and control and manage and run all these ports? No. Who is right? So, how do you ensure that those private interests are motivated, incentivized to do that on behalf of American security interests? Takes a project, takes a lot of money, it takes organization, takes relationships, right? That's what you would expect, right? In that very prosaic, pure, straight down the middle

geopolitical competition. Y just apply that basic logic to any other competitive regime of even higher stakes and you would imagine the layers of of involvement and funding that would be deployed. Um, and I think this is um this this then if I'm going to extend my analogy like okay the decay in the 70s and ' 80s. Well, what happened really in if we're trying to point this line of of of inquiry at kind of um from industrial capital in the 20th century to really what became finance capital and international finance capital in the 20th century um the later half of the 20th century and you you assume the

basic template that you're just pointing at right Carl was one example is a big private equity conglomerate. Yeah. Um and again it's less the entity itself and more the individuals right who can come and go and who you know they have certain skills and knowledge and expertise in crafting certain corporate structures and deals and arranging sources of financing right that's this that's the skill it's not the corporate entity per se and so that can move and it can evolve and that can change names and labels you know at any time um but one interesting thing though is okay like heaven points the you know the big

baddies carell group right it's like they have to actually make money yeah they actually have to you know, these things are expensive. I don't see them selling any alien reproduction vehicles. Yeah. Right. Like where's the money coming from? Right? Like who's like is there's there's money going in, right? But where is it coming from? And like you know one of the important functional requirements for any covert operation is funding, right? There's two sources of funding in general, right? There's like official funding, could even be classified, right? But it's coming from public coffers. It's going from taxpayer money going to the government and then the government is shaving off a slice in a classified budget to go fund secret

stuff. And then there's, you know, black money. There's off the books money. There's money that's generated from non-official government activities, not taxation, not debt issuance. It's coming from private sector sources, either private sector criminal operations, right, which we've seen examples of in the 20th century, right? Drug running, right, to fund operations or, you know, legal financial oper, you know, financial activities, trading, investment that, you know, is generating surpluses to fund these activities. And so that's where I would pay more attention to like where in the more common era in the last 20 30 years of

technology. And so, you know, the late Jim Simons, uh, you know, is this incredible cryptographer, mathematician. he has this fund out in Long Island that seems to just predictably at high scale uh return uh you know I think 30% year-over-year or something. Uh and so Weinstein is is on Rogan actively speculating that this is housing a sort of secret physics program involving all the top differential geometers in the US. What do you think Matthew?

I mean if such a thing were to exist that's exactly where it would exist. Right. because well one Jim Simons used to work for the NSA. He was a Navy he was a cryptologic um you know codereaker and you know nobody is ever there's no such thing as an exNSA guy right just in general um and he's also one of the world's like leading mathematicians physicists um and yeah essentially controlled the Stony Brook uh math department and really effectively exerted a lot of influence over Stony Brook University itself um and so turned his his uh hedge fund

again this extremely you know just out of the out of out of out of distribution successful year-over-year, never never a downyear um trading operation just functions as an immense black box that has probably the you know highest concentration of uh physics and math geniuses uh anywhere in the planet. And you look at what else Jim Simons was really engaged in, right? He set up the Simons Foundation um which is probably like one of the leading private sector sources of of um sort of philanthropic research in for philanthropic funding

for uh fundamental science research in uh you know life sciences biology artificial intelligence frontiers of physics computational ma uh computational sciences mathematics um really interesting kind of frontier breakthrough ideas across these like critical disciplines and there's interesting like coincidences right like the head of of the Simons Foundation. Um this guy named uh Dr. David Spurggle. He was uh tapped to be the chair of the NASA UAP working group. Um and uh Stony Brook University was um

uh engineered essentially a uh a joint venture essentially to manage Brook Haven National Lab with Vattel Memorial Institute. That partnership was personally engineered by Jim Simons himself to get Stonyie Brook in a position to jointly manage a department of energy national lab that does breakthrough physics research and has you know they do lots of classified stuff. Um and they're pretty close by to his hedge fund operations. So, you know, it doesn't you don't have to like be the conspiracy theorist drawing the red dots of yarn to be like, here's a black

here's a money-making machine started by a guy deeply connected to the NSA that's also like a super physics genius and it can attract the smartest physics and math people on the planet to work for his blackbox money machine. He also then happens to, you know, effectively have a lot of influence over Department of Energy National Lab. Um and his, you know, guy running his his private research foundation and and fun physics gets tat to run the UAP working group for NASA. Yeah. A working group that sort of says,

you know, nothing to see here. Like we we'll keep an open mind, but there's probably nothing here, which I find Yeah. I mean, I don't know. I have no smoking gun. It just seems quite a curious set of coincidences. Um and I know this is, you know, and it's all personalities at this point, right? cuz I know the famous you know podcaster physicist astronomer um Brian Keading is uh who's famously kind of a skeptic talks a lot about UAPs and kind of always downplays it whoever he talks to. He's um he's the godson of Jim Simons and is good friends with Eric Weinstein. It's very interesting. Yeah. I don't know what it means but I

find it fascinating. Uh it's exactly what I would do if I was the government. I was like, "Hey, like I need to set up a both a funding source as well as a private research group to look at some aspects of this program." Like it would kind of be incompetent if if these legacy programs actually do It would be kind of incompetent not to pull somebody like him into it. It's like exactly this is what you need that's fascinating. I mean, yeah, Keading's always been super cool with me, but he's definitely he seems very I don't think he's operating in bad

faith. He's definitely anti the UFO thing. So yeah. Um well that's fascinating. And in '92 as well, so they have a particle accelerator at at Brook Haven National Labs and then they also do nuclear And um in '92 a lot of the town's people around uh Brook Haven said that there was a UFO crash that was actually collected by the facility there as well. So that would be an interesting connection because as you know UFOs seem to specifically like if there is a correlation between anything it's

nuclear assets they seem to just show up around both civilian nuclear grids and weapons facilities. Yeah. No seems pretty definitive at this Yeah. Yeah. Very interesting. So do you think do you think like uh because Carile Group has a lot of defense interests right? It's this multinational conglomerate. Do you think there's anything to the jock valet theory, you know, given given your kind of analysis of there was kind of a, you know, this Carter purging? And then you have Ben Rich as well, who's director of uh Skunk Works,

uh, lamenting that there's almost this runaway of control when it comes to quote unquote an international board of directors on the UFO topic and then there's like an American outlet that presumably he's sort of a part of. So I mean I have no evidence one way the other and it's it's hard to say how stable these um these systems have been over time uh and exactly how much like managerial control actually exists right cuz I don't know like the what the right

mental model is for like the organizational like hierarchy here right how much of it is a a board of directors that is approving line item budgets right like basically the Tom Delong narrative right where he's like gota is basically of the mayard group And it's like, yeah, like 12 guys in a boardroom and they're like this, we're gonna do this. We're gonna coup here. It's kind of like, you know, the trope of like the Illuminati guys in the room, right? Smoking their cigars being, yeah, oh yeah, the secret UFO project. Where are we on that one? Right. I I don't know. Like that's that's a

scenario. I don't know if it's for me like the most plausible scenario for this is like that there is actually like a such a tightly integrated vertical control structure as opposed to maybe like pieces of it because it's hard human institutions as you seen like they're hard to they're hard to keep together. Yeah. Right. They're hard to kind of it takes a lot to like pull a complicated operation and keep every part and piece of it aligned. You take it's you know there's no matter what secret institution you're in there's principalation problems, right? How does

the people at the top ensure that the people at the bottom are doing what the people at the top want them to do, right? And not lying to them or carving off a piece of their own or like you know so you either need you need coercion or you need inducement at a very high level to keep all the sort of layers in any bure bureaucratic system aligned with the mission and the objective set by the people at the top. And the thing about secrecy, it can uh make some of those solving those principalation problems actually harder, right? because you actually can't get too much reporting coming up the chain on everything that's happening cuz that's a security risk. You can't really

be itemizing and documenting and having decision memos made at every you know deputy project manager up right the chain and then comes in a big binder at the top. Well, that binder gets loose, the whole thing falls apart, right? So, there needs to be compartmentalization. And the way, you know, the reason why we run covert operations in any intelligence service like you don't you don't have everybody like read in all the way up, right? You have like local, you know, chief of station and maybe you have two two guys at headquarters that know what's going on and then it's the people in the field doing the stuff and then only maybe, you know, bare hints of

it get get sent up the chain, right? Because that's how you protect very sensitive operations. So I just don't I don't know how they could actually structure an organization that's effectively managed by a small number of people over time. I I my I think it would be it would be it would be um very heterogeneous. It would be very sort of like horizontal and there would be like maybe like the bare minimum measures of like intimidation and like you know extreme measures to impose some degree of of of of cohesion. But I don't know this is like pure speculation of just like the no matter what secret group

it's gonna it's going to be subject to these basic organizational dynamics like regardless right so you studied physics at Johns Hopkins and uh c can I think speak a little closer to the metal than a lot of there's a lot of kind of mushyrained you know everything is everything uh amateur physicists myself included by the way in the UFO world and so it'll be it'll be good to to speak to you about this I think about even the conversation we were having about the atomic stuff That's an example of you could call it like high energy physics, right? And so

um that or particle accelerators which again there's one at at Brook Haven obviously you have large hydron collider and and and and others and then you have the work of you know Tesla Towns of Brown so super high voltage across short distances. Do these all represent kind of anomalies uh that are an inroad to a more complete version of physics or do you do do you know where in your opinion physics might have gone wrong and you know where we might be able to find another branch that's productive.

Yes. Uh I can go off on a few different tangents there. Um because yeah and I guess stepping back right my like I do think the physics part of this is the most important part of it because almost by assumption any advanced intelligence of any arbitrary nature that we're encountering uh that displays capabilities that we don't have are downstream of their knowledge of reality. Right? That's what our civilization is just downstream of our knowledge of reality. Right? We figure out you know a tower we we've construct

a tower of knowledge which is understanding the degrees of freedom that are available to us in this existence and then we engineer uh you know that's what technology is is just essentially applying that knowledge of the degrees of freedom available to us in reality and so what we're you know witnessing with these um UAPs is a demonstration of that knowledge and so if you want to understand who or what or why or how all those questions are going could be downstream of they know something about reality that we don't.

And if you understand like where they came from or what their intentions might be, what their capabilities are, you just it just comes straight down to the bare the bare question of like well what do they know? And by definition that for us to bridge from our current knowledge to what we think they quote unquote know requires is going to have to move beyond our current conceptual paradigms of physics because we know our current conceptual paradigms of physics do not apparently give us anything that can do this. Maybe it can get close. Maybe there's some, you know, maybe the bound the brown bells filled. Like it's like, oh, it's a little trick, right? But is

it is it is it everything? Is it the is it all? Does it represent all these observables? I'm not sure. All right. Uh is it more maybe is there some secret knowledge that we have that we've developed advanced propulsion systems based off of? Plausible, maybe probable, but like there's a large potential uh uh ladder of capabilities that you're going to be that we could be climbing, right? and we just happen to be we happen to know we're here. Maybe advanced uh aerospace companies have gotten a little bit further up, but there could be a lot that's further

above that, right? Um this is again this is all just like uh preface material to talk about physics. This is where everyone's eyes will start glazing over. because yeah, I broadly agree with the thesis of Eric in terms of the sociology of where physics went wrong in the 70s and even now it's become a common accepted talking point by like the leading lights of string theory like Larry uh Larry Suskin just went on Kirch Mungle's podcast and basically It was quite shocking to hear this guy uh you know leading light of string theory guy you know getting towards the end of his career. He's just like yeah it was complete fail failure. It's

basically pointless. Everyone should start over. It's like bro like that's like the entirety of the physics discipline that you're saying is a complete failure. Like that's dramatic statement to make right. And I don't know if I most people don't pay attention to physics and it's just kind of a bunch of nerds and their agree towers, you know, running scribbling and whatnot. But like here, you know, that to me is like that's that's the end, right? Okay. Now you have Larry basically admitting the whole thing was ah was a waste. Um and and now he he even explicitly calls for, you

know, we need to look at new paradigms. We need to look at you really need to widen the aperture here. Um although he doesn't quite but in the same breath he kind of dismisses the apparent alternatives that have been thrown together right like like geometric unity or anybody else he's like wolf from yeah he's like I think I haven't really paid attention to that right so like well do you now you should have an open mind if your thing fails it's bizarre to me like I don't I'm not a practicing physicist it's not my job I'm just intellectually curious about it I studied it in college but even I try to pay attention and read these things I don't have the professional competence to adjudicate you know the technical

merits but I'm trying to like familiarize myself with Garrett Les with um with Sabina's stuff with Wolfram and really it's done by Jonathan Gerrard with Eric Weinstein um cosmical sets um Carlo Carlo Relli Lupon gravity like I try to pay attention to all this stuff it's just not like it matters to me like you this should matter to you this is your job absolutely well but it's also you don't need super technical chops to adjudicate something on a high level I think this is like this issue with string theory

where it's like well you need to be a string theorist to somehow say that the thing isn't working. No, you don't. You can just be like empirically it hasn't really touched reality. Like we really can't do much with string theory. That almost is the dimension reduction necessary to zoom out and and see the forest for the trees and say no actually this just doesn't work. And I don't I don't think that require I mean you have way more more knowledge than the average person. I think the average person can just say that. Yeah. Like there's this whole separate branch of fundamental physics that has sort of gone a very different direction

which is don't assume background space time at all. Assume spacetime itself is emergent, right? Assume essentially not a continuous spaceime but a discrete structure and that what we observe as continuous spacetime is actually an emergent higher level phenomenon. Right? Just like the um property of water that that we call liquid is not a uh lower level property. It's an emergent property as a result of the um behavior of discrete constituents, eg H2O There's no such thing as like liquidity

or like a water liquid at the level of individual H2O molecule. It's only when you gather a bunch of H2 molecules together and then you have an observer that is coarse graining all the information in that in that system that the property of liquid emerges. So I've been attracted to that sort of direction of physics. I was really attracted to you know the original version of this was formulated by a guy named Lee Smolen. uh and his first attempt at it was something called lukewon gravity uh he worked with some

other collaborators Carlo Ralli to a certain extent and um there's another attempt doing like causal dynamical sets and the idea is okay can you just prescribe like a very kind of simple um geometric structure and can you um define measures on that on that discrete geometric structure that then in a s suitable limit give you something more like a continuous space right and so there's details associated with lucarm gravity that were a bit more um so the basic motivation there's like essentially it's background independent

that's like the basic distinction. So string theory is a background dependent theory. It assumes a background structure a background geometric manifold that's continuous um or at least has these these uh sort of topological properties that they you know define in terms of cloial manifolds or whatever. And uh the other this branch was like no we're going to we're not going to assume any background to space. In fact we're not going to assume space at all. We're going to assume something more um abstract, something more fundamental, and then we're going to try to um see if we can in a suitable

recover a continuous structure. And so I won't go too far into loop gravity. I think it is a bit more constrained in how it was set up. Similar with causal uh dynamical set theory, there's a little bit too much structure built in at the beginning in terms of defining the boundaries of these loops and whatever. a much more interesting um attempt at this sort of larger project of trying to you know not assume anything right in physics and trying to get as much um that recovers what we currently see in physics out of like the the very most minimal starting point

and so Steven Wolfrram who's kind of a controversial physicist he had this early idea back in the 90s he put it into his a new kind of science book of kind of starting with very simple graphs right and could you could you generate something that looked like physics by just sort of evolving very simple graph graphs, right? Just abstract graph networks. And the graphs he started with were sort of called there were they were trialent uh networks which had basically also had like some predescribed structure. They had to be basically sort of basic basic triangular geometry. Um he was able to show some interesting things but then he kind of got distracted whatever back during just

hyperraphs is start with a you simplest thing you can imagine, right? which is just like a point that's connected to another point, right? And and maybe another point. And so you can have just like a simple, you know, graph, right? And the the key though is like there's a directed edge. So instead of just a line from a point to a point, you have an arrow, right? And so just imagine you just have like a simple again, you can look at the videos and there's better explanations because I'll I'll butcher it trying to do it without much of a prop here, but like simple graph that has directed edges. Well, you can write

there's certain rules that you can imagine applying to that graph that rewrite the that set of relationships that from state one to state two, delete this edge, you know, from here to here, add add a new point and add an edge between that new point and here. So, just a basic set of abstract rewriting applied to this arbitrary class of of of what they're called hyperraphs because they have directed edges, right? And so just starting with that basic idea, right, of just graphs that you have that there's certain rules you could apply to those graphs to rewrite them, right? Um and that is equivalent to uh uh another

set of objects called uh string set substitution systems which you can actually um write down all the information in that graph as essentially as a set of of strings, right? Like you label all those points and you and you basically just have an edge is just a binary relation between those two points like AB. They're in a set together. And so you can define you know a graph a certain graph like this and a rewrite rule just trans transforms that set of strings with the certain labels and the relationship between them into a different set of strings with certain relations between them and that's like

it's like a purely combinatorial um uh structure right it's just abstract uh labels of symbols that are being rewritten to a new set of abstract symbols right so it's extremely abstract right how does this touch on physics whatever well it turns out that just building for that basic purely cominatorial theoretic or abstract um hyperraph free rewriting system. Um you can and this was their physics project. This was their key result is that um you can recover quantum mechanics in in general relativity but in a very interesting way. So the key premise

though is that um there's a certain assumption right which is something called causal invariance which is kind of equivalent to what we would call like um uh sort of uh uh local uh gauge coariance in generality. If you imagine you can rewrite this this graph structure uh in you know with a certain rule. So you just have like one rule that says you know rewrite something a part of the graph that looks like this change it to a part of the graph that looks like this. Well in any arbitrary hyperraph there could be many different ways of applying

that rule. And you're like well which way do we do it? Well actually what that does is it generates you know apply in all possible ways right? So you generate essentially what's called a multi-way system. So if you imagine like the state of the graph at this time and say there's only two different ways of applying that same rule well it's going to going to generate two versions of the of that graph. So now essentially it splits right and now you have a graph where it's the rule's been applied in version one and a graph that's been applied in version two and those are two different states of the system and you can do that again right maybe there's now four different ways so you get this branch

right so you get this multi-way system that branches and what they've shown is and this is getting you know there's like multiple hours of lectures I could you know that you can look at to sort of work out the mathematics of what that implies as you start to to analyze that structure is that that branching it sounds familiar it sounds like sort of quantum mechanics Right. And so it turns out that you can define certain measures. Right? So the main mathematical breakthrough from Gard was actually realizing that there's certain tricks that you can apply from other branches of mathematics that allow you to kind of take this discrete

structure and uh generate essentially discrete versions of the results that we have in continuous uh mathematics. Right? So in general relativity it's defined over manifolds and you know Einstein field equations are defined in terms of things like the Ricky um the Ricky tensor uh and the rhyminian manifold. So they have a certain metric that you can lay on this sort of smoothly differentiable topological manifold and there's a certain you know set of mathematical machinery that's been really worked out that's basically what the Einstein field equations are defined in terms of so Garrett was able

to show in two sets of papers one on the sort of the the general relativity side one the quantum side that if you just um if you analyze the causal uh graph of this evolving um multi-way system that you can define discrete measures on this causal graph that um converge in the limit to uh the Einstein field equations, right? So you can recover like the discrete version of the of the of the Ricky tens or you can define a discrete version of the of the Romanian manifold. And the kind of intuition you can think about this is like imagine you have a bunch of you know there's no

background space there's just a bunch of abstract you know nodes connected other and you can okay well what's the dimension of that thing like like spacetime has a dimension right like we have three degrees of freedom. Um well if you actually you can define dimension by essentially growing out a a ball uh in on this discrete structure which essentially are counting the number of nodes that you hit uh at at sort of n number of steps and essentially dimension is correlated to the volume uh which is just a measure of the number of nodes as a function of the number of and so if that grows essentially to the

then you're in a threedimensional right because that's essentially the the inverse square law right that's inverse square law is a function of the fact that we live in three dimensions right um you know there's just if If you draw out a ball in space like the volume will will will grow as a function as as a square of the radius, right? And so that is was able to show essentially is defining a bunch of discrete equivalent measures on this on this hyperraph structure and then with those uh with those measures um essentially rec reconstruct a discrete version of downside field equations and that essentially in the limit uh of the

system um a certain observer that can't see the the critical piece of this is that an observer is is a part of that system. Observer is a piece of this. an observer can't see or an observer that can't see or measure all those indiscrete all those very like low-level changes to the hypergot structure essentially is equivalencing them right and that equivalencing is very similar like this idea in thermodynamics of like okay uh of of entropy right like I'm if I could actually measure all the position of

moment of every particle in that box there'd be zero entropy because I'd have all the information but I as an observer outside the box can't do that right I can't there's no such thing as the Maxwell's the Maxwell's demon for me. So I have to equivalence all those individual microates into one state that I call temperature, right? And then the the statistics of that gives me the second law of thermodynamics. So the basic same idea happens here in a more abstract way of like spacetime the emergence of spacetime for observers like us. Statistics of quantum mechanics. Yeah. It's a function of the the fact that we we are equivalencing these these

microates um because the nature of who we are as an observer. Um but there's a weird so that's like the so the causal graph is a certain representation that you can apply to this this basic um multi-way evolution of of the more fundamental sort of hyper abstract uh hyperraph and then so the causal graph um is what kind of gives you general relativity but then there's a different representation which you mentioned this is like there's arbitrary um uh there's no canonical ordering to how you apply any given rule so you get branching so you get a branchial sort of multi-way system they call a sort of

branchial graph so the branchial graph and the causal graph are kind of orthogonal representations of this more fundamental abstract process playing out. The causal graph is what we can recover sort of we can recover gelativity through. Mhm. The branchial graph turns out the same sort of idea is what you recover quantum mechanics through because that essentially you define measures that um are that in the limit converge to essentially a quantum a discrete version of the path integral in in Fman's um sort of formulation and and in fact uh the branch space with

certain assumptions converges to a projective Hbert uh a projective hill uh projective Hilbert space which is what you use in modern quantum mechanics and so that is that was like his breakthrough result in 2020 2021 and And that was like really suggestive, right? But it wasn't like the theory of everything. But it was like really interesting that actually starting with basic simple mathematical structure almost purely combinatorial theoretic um and you uh you do some clever tricks about how you define things you actually can get generativity and quantum mechanics out of that which is kind of mind-blowing. But then uh what was

what's interesting though and this is the part where it does kind of stretch our limits you know of how do we conceptually interpret this sort of system is the observer is actually playing a critical role in in this right in the sense that there is this sort of microcale um set of updatings happening all the time and there's always this branching taking place and observers are pieces of that branching and so why do we not perceive this complicated multi-way branching system we perceive a single threat of history. Well, what they've been able to show and

this is sort of this is um was Gard's kind of breakthrough in a bit was like um in that branchial structure that branchial graph essentially a multi-way you know people you could think of as a multiverse but it's really much more just like it's the branching of this tree of of all possible rewrites. Um and uh well the idea is well what is an observer in that system? Well, an observer is some is something that just equivalences different branches right? And that he was able to show mathematically basically um there's a

certain procedure in information theory called the new uh index completion which is just sort of just basic algorithm for these sorts of rewriting systems that just takes branches and just merges them together. And if you apply that right structure to this branchial graph um the it has the it basically allows you to recover essentially the uncertainty principle and and quantum um uh sort of interference effects and it kind of gives this explanation that yeah like observers essentially is that solves the measurement problem in quantum mechanics essentially right it's like the measurement problem the

measurement in quantum mechanics is the branchial graph is undergoing unitary observers are essentially the application of of sort of new bendix completions to different branches is that that it just treats as equivalent because they can't distinguish between those different states. So they are actually different whatever onlogically, right? But from the perspective of an observer, they just see one state. They're seen as because it's just like when I look at a glass of water, I don't see the individual, you know, water molecules. I see just a bunch of water, right? I've I I have equivalenced all that individual detail,

all that information into just this high level state. Mhm. And that's basically what makes us unique as obser or makes us characteristic as observers is we have we're certain we're a certain high higher level, right? We're constructing models of reality at a certain higher at a level much higher than the individual phenomenon that we're observing. So we're doing a lot of equivalencing and that essentially then imposes a structure on the phenomenon that we're observing. Essentially makes it a definite system. The other key thing is that we we believe we have a memory, right? And that that memory then and this is

connects to like a separate branch of physics and like assembly theory which is like memory is critical like all all objects essentially have an embedded memory which is like what the object is is just their history embodied in their present configuration like individual like we are four billion years of genetic evolution on this planet. It's like our present state is just you know what we are as objects are essentially um assembled structures of of of of information. And so like in in the Gard Wolf model that would correspond to like essentially um you know these are hypersurface foliations of branchial

space that are computationally bounded relative to the underlying structure and so they have to do this massive equivalencing and then they perceive they have a linear thread of history. So they believe that they're continuous they have a memory that's embedded and so that they're basically a pattern of these structured newbendix completions going back through the multi-way system. That's very abstract but like that's kind of the idea. Um it gets even more abstract. So this seems too abstract, right? This idea of like applying a a particular rule. Um you know, well, you're like, well, why that rule, right? Is there one rule for physics? Well, it seems kind of

arbitrary. What if you apply all possible rules? Well, then you get to this separate uh graph, which call like or or space even call like the ruial space, the the space of possible rules that you could apply to any arbitrary hyperraph. And then you can analyze that that that ruial space just like you can analyze the causal graph and the branchial graph. Now you have this rule graph which is like not just what is the multi-way system of possible evolutions applying different orderings of the same rule but what is the multi-way system of the of this of

this graph applying all possible rules in all possible ways. So you get this comatorial just if you extra explosion but then analyzing it at real space and this was Gerrard uh working with a a mathematician named um Xerxes um uh I saw I forget his how to pronounce his last name but they just they took techniques and this is getting this is as far as I'll go in terms of really abstract physics but like um they went really deep at applying techniques from um what's called homotopi type theory or higher order higher order type theory which is if you can try to simplify this

like this this space which is essentially defining all the possible paths that a nondeterministic touring machine can follow. Mhm. So this is finally like a computational approach to understanding reality. Like a turning machine is just you know simple simple like the most abstract uh kind of representation of any computational process. And so you can imagine like you know essentially non term machine is like it spits out one state from an input state. It has a memory and register. Well what if there are multiple different ways that uh the output could come from a given input right? That'd be equivalent to kind of this branching in the multi-way system. So you can you

know rep you know you can represent the evolution of multi-way system in terms of a nondeterministic multi-way turning um sort of system evolving and then we know a lot of results from basic information theory about how to apply that to um to to that sort of uh representation and you can apply results in this branch of mathematics of like uh coming out of category theory which we won't go down that down that rabbit hole but the the really interesting idea that they look at in this paper is this space the possible rules here that we're

they're trying to analyze in terms of what sorts of um categorical structure do they have like to each other and they realize actually like um there's uh you know the very simplest sets of rules that you could write down sort of classifying space sort of um the sort of the the zero homotopia or even I think it was maybe the one homotopy um that you can write down as ase multi-way systems um is equivalent to categorical formulations of quantum mechanics and And the next homotopy sort of representation up is equivalent to the

categorical uh representation or what's called functoral quantum field theory. And then if you jump all the way up to what's called you know if you actually do like uh you know essentially this infinite limit uh of doing the sort of homotope expansions you get to a structure it's called an infinity groupoid. And this will be a bit super wonky but an infinity groupoid is a wellstudied structure in in sort of homotopic theory. And an infinity groupoid has a weird property that uh the famous mathematician growth and dick uh looked at and and he formulated this

weird property as sort of the growth and uh sort of homotopy hypothesis which is that an infinity groupoid is a topological space and uh importantly there's a result in homotopic theory that like you know an infinity groupoid is like a special group and in fact whatever its properties are sort of get functorally inherited to all the uh lower level homotopes that that are below Right? So you have infinity group boy that's composed of this infinite limit of these sort of homotopy tower being stacked up on each other. Uh essentially a set of rules describing a

set of all possible rules describing it's like you know you can always formulate uh you know like an like you said have have a hyperraph like what is a set of rules I can apply for that hyperraph. Okay well that can now represent that set go well what are the different ways I can represent the set of transformations I can do to that object. And then you can you know you can basically you know do that all the way up right like how many different ways can I transform this object that creates a new object how many different ways can I transform that object and so that's like that's that's what homotopy means essentially what are the different equivalent ways of representing the set of ways I can change a given object so

it's like that's where we see this sort of emergent a higher level um uh continuous geometric structure and then the lower level the bottom the sort of the bottom of that homotopic tower is a discrete quantum mechanical system that we observe and because we're we're in the middle right we're not cosmological like in in our size scale we're not individual particle we sit in And like the mystery of quantum gravity is trying to write down a specification of like the middle of that tower, right? That allows you to like understand not just from quantum mechanics and one level up quantum field

theory and then zooming all the way up to quantum to to to general relativity but like filling out the mathematics all the way in between. That's like the open project that would be like that's where how you you know solve quantum gravity in this in this idea. Um and this generates some philosophical uh or interpretations of like well then what is reality right and this is the last piece of this but like you can what you know Gard is interesting has interesting take on it because you're like okay well you know this infinity groupoid actually is a

classifying space of all infinity groupoids that you can call like the infinity one topos this sort of you know you can almost call it like the um Wolfin calls like the entangled limit of all possible computations. uh Gard just sort of treats it a bit more like you know the the uh classifying space of all the different ways a multi-way nondeterministic uh touring machine can evolve. Um so it's kind of this abstract mathematical almost like infinite dimensional object that like we're we and everything is are embedded in and we're sort of slices in this high level object. And in fact, one

thing they show in their earlier derivations is essentially what observer is is essentially foliating or slicing down a high level object and sort of picking out um you know states that it are equivalencing right and that's what we kind of have to learn the lesson of in special and general relativity is that there is no universal reference frame for reality right this is why you get Lorren uh contractions why you get um you know no universal agreement on what's simultaneous right observers that are boosted relative to another will pick out different events as being simultaneous and that's equivalent to you in a you know traditional drativity

essentially is you know you have a hypersurface that's slicing the bulk and different observers at different uh reference frames will that that that slice will be tilted in different ways and so that will pick out you know sets of events in spaceime that they will think are simultaneous versus others. We all agree on simultaneous events because we're all relatively moving at the same speed and so we agree this is just one you know stage we're all playing in but that's that's just an illusion of the fact that we happen to sit in very very commeasurate reference frames. Um and so the same idea would apply in this

this real space. We s we tend to think we see the same universe. We agree on the laws of physics because we're sitting in uh you know in real space close to each other, right? We're not boosted relative to each other in real space. Um and so we're all we're slicing this higher dimensional structure basically in the same way, right? So we're seeing the same universe. We see the same laws of physics. But if you were in a different part of real space or you were accelerating in real space, maybe you would see different physics that connects to So this idea this is like Yeah. So this is like okay well then okay if this is true then this is like building this

whole tower of abstractions and trying to then translate into predictions and then interpreting it in a in a way that you could then be like okay if we're going to assume higher level intelligences have some knowledge of this right well what can they then do with it right could they um engineer these new these new bendix completions to stitch together um events uh in a different way yes right uh or like the nature of consciousness is deeply tied into this right because uh garage doesn't go into theories of consciousness. I have my own theories of consciousness here, but like that I

think they could be consistent with this in the sense that you know our form of consciousness essentially is this idea that we have uh we're an embodied local moderately you know meoscale structure with limited information observing you know the the world around us and and essentially compressing it down a lot like we're compressing huge amounts of information down and we're basically like slicing everything into a nice discrete you know events uh cluster here. If you didn't have those constraints, if you you know almost like the inverted version of us, right? Would be almost like a quantum like a

conscious quantum computer if such a thing you could imagine would kind of be the inversion of us. It would be some mind that would experience like the full branchial graph in one slice at a It would have no sense of continuity through time. It would just be like a now wow flash. But I just I just perceive all in one gulp all the different branches of the multi-way system and then I disappear from existence and then maybe a new version comes into existence at the at the next you know you know measurement operation of the quantum computer. The quantum computer is a series of now wow flashes

but there's no continuous identity. It's just exists in all possible branches of that particular foliation. We are the like we're like the orthogonal version of that right? We don't see the different branches. We see one branch and we believe we we persist through time. So like we're a vibration of this structure. A quantum computer that's conscious would be a foliation of the structure. What's interesting is there are there versions in between, right? Are there are there like are those just those the only alternatives or are there certain types of ways you could stitch together uh this very very you know this abstract uh you know doing these

completions that would be somewhere in between. actually to your like gradations of the ability to think in sort of a quantum way or something. I think the brain itself is probably, you know, maybe a room temperature quantum system or this is like totally theoretical. Like I don't have like the specific, you know, causal mechanism or like physical structure in the brain, but that's the Penrose theory, the emperor's new mind, you know, with with The reason I I like it is because I think there's all this empirical statistical evidence that we can predict

the future. At the very least, we think in very fundamentally different ways from classical computers, right? uh because we we can surmise things with small amounts of data. We can we we have these sort of you know blink reflexes that seem to be right often and I think that might uh bely an ability to um access a future knowledge state which in quantum computations you might be able to do. You can reverse cubit positions in quantum computations. So maybe if there are gradations of the ability to you know kind of invert the the the

radiation in the 1860s or you know Mercury's orbit or something. We just like can't put it into math. Yeah. Or in the case of you know Yeah. You can't you can't turn it into discrete quantum phenomena. I think you I think you can define this phenomenon in terms of of of the of the Gard multi-way system. For example, like um this basic uh phenomena you're talking about is essentially non-locality, right? But non-locality in a space-time uh framework to us is is either non-local spatially distributed phenomenon or non-local temporally distributed phenomenon. But in this framework, space and time are emergent

uh you know observational phenomenologies associated with us being a certain type of observer foliating reality in a certain way. But for example, you had I mentioned those like causal graph and the branchial graph. Well, what this directly implies is essentially um uh two events like two states in the causal graph that seem very spatially, you know, causally um separated can be very close in branch Right. So what looks to us as sort of non-local phenomenon right in quantum mechanics quantum superp position quantum entanglement right are you know

are ex you know directly result like those those two say like you know entangled photons or whatever they look really far away in branchial space they're one edge against they're one edge away from each other and the way the way to get into branchial space could be two things one is uh high energy physics uh and then uh the other could be something related to consciousness if there is this space-time superposition buildup This is why I think it's more important, the consciousness piece is actually more important than the particle accelerators because what this directly implies is it's not that we're going to smash something at higher

energies and break into branch space because branchel space is what we are collapsing in our conscious experience into we're not necessarily changing root reality but we are stitching this more fundamental substrate together to construct the world for ourselves. Right. But you are kind of implying that you you might be able to affect branches but like you might be able to affect space-time superposition on a more fundamental level or something. Well, it's a matter of like maybe it's the the semantics of like you know changing or exploring a consciousness like doing a conscious uh manipulating

consciousness in some way will allow us to sort of um you know relax the constraints about how we're stitching this underlying structure together, right? Like we like we're stitching it into a certain way because you know we have evolved this sort of neurological structure. We have to condense things down. It's like when you do you know uh hallucinogenic drugs it's like the characteristic phenomenology of that is uh you know no definite state right that patterns are shifting right the generative like your generative world model is in this kind of superp position and it's like radically looking it's almost like whatever that branches are

you're like exploring you know in some way like multiple branches very quickly altogether like your world isn't collapsing into a deterministic state which is which if you believe the Penrose model there is the it there maybe our brain and maintains coherence for some amount of time. This is his it's he's trying to kind of derive free will in his thing too because he says there's this refractory period before the buildup into one graviton threshold where you sort of derive and see spaceime but in that sort of buildup with space-time superp position everything is kind of like you know

popping in and out of real like like so so maybe if you maintain coherence for like longer or something and and this would be a physical way to describe this and you know far me to you know uh criticize the Nobel Prize winner genius But but I think you know while it's a it's a good to have a well specified theory that makes those predictions with Stuart Hammeroff's kind of sort of microtubial piece of it as well. You know his bas actually we can potentially do an experiment to test this because his basic idea is that essentially um when you embed a quantum system in a classical gravitational field it

generates this inherent instability that has a characteristic decay time and that he could you know set up an measurement apparatus with two you know entangled masses and see you know if you isolate it like how long do will they will they decay? And actually a recent experiment was just proposed um called the G experiment taking two um two nano crystals entangle them magnetically confine them and essentially you know like wait right um and and it's interesting because this will actually it won't it won't rule out um you know it won't test a specific theory but

it'll rule out categories of of theories that basically have a classical GR spacetime with quantum objects um and um the basic limit though is that you know it's almost like I think uh I think it was I forget who came up with it I think it was Famon even who was just like there's a basic conceptual idea which is like if you have a quantum object in a classical spaceime it has to send a signal it has to somehow influence another quantum object so how is that possible right like a nature of a quantum object is it superposition of states a classical spacetime can only

emit one state it can't be in multiple gravitational fields right it's only only hold so it's like it's almost like information theoretic question of like you've got the superp position of states that have to somehow send a signal to another thing in a position of states that is being transmitted through a classical sort of sort of you know almost like logically doesn't make sense right uh so I think a version of Penrose I don't know he has got his twister theory and Gard has some ideas about how to essentially get get reconstruct uh Penrose's twister theory from from from the from these more abstract models but

your idea of like the brain as being a quantum system I it's weird like I think people defer to like the brain like consciousness is quantum. I almost want to invert it and be like quantum is right? It's not that like there's some quantum voodoo thing out there that like consciousness is like interacting with it. This is more fundamental if you take seriously this idea that you know coming out of these mathematical models that garage put together that like consciousness just is what an observer uh you know quantum mechanics just is

what a a a conscious observer will see when it's trying to like make sense of a branching world. The world is just branching. The world is this branchial graph but we don't see it. If you're an observer that sees one you have to do this completion procedure and that process will give you phenomenon that we call quantum mechanics. I but I feel like the almost the fundamental question then is like can you fundamentally influence this new Bendex completion in order to sort of you know pick your pathway goosebump style you know across the multiverse and this is the more philosophical

question that Gard struggles with a bit and I haven't seen him like land on a particular interpretation I don't really land on a particular interpretation but this is where it comes like well you need to have a better theory of the observer the theory of the observer they have is a kind of very abstract mathematical definition right but you really want a richer you know more like neurob neurobi biologically connected you know theory of the observer to then see like well how many degrees of freedom are there in this process how deter like the non-determinism versus determinism question gets very subtle in these sorts of systems and in particular

um this idea uh he goes back in you know history philosophy between on the one hand like idealism on the one hand empiricism right you know you have the bishop berkeleys of the world that basically um you know in a sense put all the computational burden and work inside the observer the world is some sort of holographic bare field of awareness that that that that singular entity is experiencing. So all the computational like work is happening inside the observer in that model. There's an equivalent model of reality uh

empiricism in this sense where you you treat the observer essentially as this null measurement apparatus and all the interesting computational work is happening outside of it. It clearly has to be in between the full idealism, full materialist because in these theories, an observer isn't some like weird separate entity in this multi-way system. The multi-way system is just that's all there is. An observer is a certain way of equivalencing those I I don't think we're interoperable quantum detectors, but then I also don't think we are living in holographic

universes. So, yeah. And what what Grod says is like it's kind of a free parameter in that sense that like it may not actually be a measurable you know or even scientific question to resolve of like like well it's just almost like an aesthetic preference. Do you prefer to imagine these models in such a way that all the computational burden ontologically sits inside of one observer or exists outside of the of the observer like from there's no observer outside the system right there's only observers inside the system and we are a certain type of observer inside the system. There may be very different types of observers

inside this multi-way system. That are perceiving it in a different way than us because of the nature of what they are as observers, right? There's different constraints that they have, right? They're less computationally bounded. They can see more of the micro structure, right? Like an AI for example, um, you know, forget the questions about whether AIs are conscious or not, but just like just assume that there could be a system that uh it could be conscious that we would call, you know, an a an AGI. But you know the the ability to parse many many different fine finely grained details of

reality um at a very high a very large wouldn't necessarily foliate that causal structure the way we do right we foliate the causal structure because the speed of light is much faster than the way our brains process events. So like everything looks simultaneous to us. They look like objects with smooth trajectories inside a threedimensional spaceime. if you were able to like like perceive much much faster, right? The world would be very different. It'd be kind of gooey and sloopy and it would just kind of like things would not be in this kind of like smooth flat manifold,

right? It'd be this it would be very different to us, right? Or if you imagine like how a dog, you know, blind dog that only perceives via smell, right? The diffusion rate of of of smells is pretty slow relative to, you know, his ability to navigate the environment. So like if he's constructing kind of a conformal metric for the space that he's in, like a dog is going to perceive a very different thing. Yes. Right. And so it's like the way we have a folk mental model of like space and reality is really downstream of the characteristic features of us as observers. Yes. And we tend to

we tend to over anchor on that. Well, we could there could be some sort of central uh server or nodes maybe it's like a server client side relationship with consciousness and there are nodes. We're all nodes of consciousness and there are strengths, relative strengths of each node and sort of reality could be this um local rendering but ultimately if it's local rendering it's sort of consensus collapsing function and so there is some you know two-way interplay between the mind and reality itself in a way that the full

materialist reductionists would like never admit to. But that's going to be constrained by like the rest of the nodes in the system. And so the fact that we're seeing a table right here is because we've sort of like implicitly agreed that a table is right here and it's like somebody at a certain level of consciousness allah Jesus or something walked in here he could turn this table into a chair. Well, I mean there's I don't want to presume that I have the final theory here, but like and there are major gaps and an important gap in sort of the machinery that Gard has worked out here is um multi-observer networks here, right? And because he's

trying to get the bare minimal model, most abstract version and try to generate these mathematical results that then we can interpret in terms of these physical um um uh you know uh theories we already have. But we really don't actually have a good theory in these terms of um multiple observers. And what what does like we've sort of worked out in these models what sort of world abstract sort of physical um phenomenon or physical constraints in terms of quantum quantum mechanics and relativity does a certain observer see does a essentially a multi-way observer see when they're embedded in a branching

universe. We haven't though see like what does how does how do two observers see each other right and and importantly like and this is a part where I'm going beyond my competency but there's a part of some of his papers where he's talked about this new spendix procedure kind of propagating out right and just as there is a finite speed of light in the causal graph right there's a finite speed or rate at which um you know any given event can have a causal influence on other event you can have causal light cone that you can you can you can define over the causal graph there's an equivalent sort of entanglement cone in the branchial space what's the maximum

speed of entanglement? We don't know what that is, right? But if we think that like conscious observers are representations of that constraint, right? That like there's only so much an observer can entangle with or essentially do these completions. Then that might put a boundary constraint. What sorts of observers exist in? And and I don't know this is getting beyond like my ability of like but this idea of like when when you do this completion procedure in branchual space it does propagate out like these are connected systems and this is where it gets you know that's go then you have to build this tower from the super abstract

incredibly important, you know, fire, electricity, nuclear, you know, these are more uh subject to the kind of axis of of uh energy density than they are just sheer output. And then the second thing he says is our understanding of the universe and our sort of consciousness level or whatever. And so you're bringing up this Yeah. I mean if if you can get to that you know hyperraph level of understanding slowly you know that that may maybe that explains the sort of NHI but it also forces us to think about other phenomenon that we've previously

dismissed right because we have a certain physicalist paradigm and materialist paradigm that's fundamentally local right that we've that like the physicists have you know they came up with this model in the last you know like from the 1800s to the early 1920s and then that model kind of became embedded in most most you know people's f folk understanding of existence, right? And then have now crept into how we think about policing certain topics of inquiry in our scientific and medical disciplines where certain things are considered paranormal, pseudocience, other things are considered perfectly fine and, you know, legitimate. We've drawn a very

tight boundary on this, but it's like we don't actually have the universe figured out, guys, right? Like we're still figuring things out. like we should we should remain open to those basic assumptions on locality and and sort of physicist as it's traditionally been described being just not quite complete descriptions of reality, right? And then you know if this something like the story I just told you here is a purely mathematical account of how you know we could have what would look to us like non-local phenomenon but that would deeply connect it to our conscious experience that in one way would be

entirely woowoo telepathy sorts of interpretations but would be a hard just real feature of existence. Yes. Right. Yeah. And and I I mean I had my mind blown. Yesterday I was listening to these to this new podcast and I again I haven't like done the due diligence on it so you know proviso but it's called the telepathy tapes and I've I've I grew up in a pretty hard hardcore scientific paradigm of like I need research. I need data. I need I need evidence here. And it's remarkable story of, you know, dozens of um nonverbal uh uh uh individuals with autism that

essentially um you know report their like with one caregiver like usually their mother having like a telepathic connection. And they've actually done like pretty just like what the hell types of experiments. And they what's interesting is they report like these uh these sort of non-speakers, they call them spellers because they use a certain spelling technique to to to you know that um that they have essentially telepathic connection with other with other autistic individuals like themselves, right? And that they see normal humans essentially us like the

speakers, right? As being like like we're the handicapped ones, right? We have to we have to distill and compress you know all of this complex phenomenology in our brains this kind of conceptual stew of thought and feeling and emotion into like vocal tract and likeive air movements right and that is like such a crude compressive you know thing when you can just have a connection and it's non-local and they can you know exchange feelings that seems wild and like you know a year ago if you told me like this I'd be like

this is some kooky thing there's some somebody's rigging or misinterpreting it. Now I'm like, I actually think there's a plausible explanation for something like that. I believe it. I'm I got into the UFO stuff through parasychology, which I think is like a fully like, you know, it's like they picked the worst name. You have par, you know, like paranormal or whatever than psychology, like the least replicable scientific field or whatever. But you speak to some of these people who were at elite universities studying random event generators. basically our mind's ability to affect you know conventionally thought of as

random uh things and and or phenomena in quantum mechanics with known statistical distributions things like radioactive isotope decay that you know we're somehow we are able to affect these things in my in my opinion and you have you have Jessica UTS doing these sort of you know meta level studies I think they're pretty good as far as like the experimental protocol uh that she's sort of you know diligencing and then u I think there's there's a lot of there's a lot of data. Um, and so, yeah, I'm a believer. And there's there's a there's a really great

is temporal non-locality in quantum mechanics and there's spatial non-locality. So it just point and then we have the simultaneous to that you have this burgeoning field of um you know uh quantum biology where we know that the CRY4 protein and robins or whatever use the magneettosphere of the earth via electron spin to navigate home. We know that enzyme creation occurs via quantum tunneling and that sort of thing. So I see these two like vectors of like you have like a lot of data on like this anomalous stuff that

we just like explain away and we say this is this is BS. This is BS because physics, right? Yeah. But physics is it's so dumb because epistemologically 50% of our physical models of reality are always wrong at any point in time. So you can't say that. And then you have this burgeoning field of of quantum, you know, biology where it's like, yeah, the body's warm, wet, and noisy. Maybe it's not good for coherence, but like we're discovering a lot of stuff here. And so I think they probably converge at some. Yeah. And I I I completely agree with you, but it's also been, you know, some of the well has been poisoned by a bunch

of quantum voodoo peddlers, right? Who want to be like, I've got magic crystals, $10,000, and you know, I'm going to like fix you. We just have to admit it's like the Carl Poppers like materialist promisory notes. You can't have idealist promisory notes either. And you can't say that we know the causal mechanism of the brain. You can hypothesize maybe there's something quantum going on there. We don't know. But it is the data is really compelling. I know Diane Powell who did the telepathy tapes and she's Harvard She's Yeah. As hardnosed and legit as it gets. Yeah. I was like I was really

impressed by by that work. Again, I'm going to look into it. I was just I binged them all last night. I was like, "Wow, this kind of opened my mind to something I hadn't previously Well, it would make sense that there would be a tradeoff, right, between like analytical knowledge and then, you know, flash insight knowledge. Like that sort of roughly makes sense. And then one possible candidate, physical candidate, you have Gary Nolan, who's a microbiologist at Stanford, also interested in the UFO topic, who, you know, claims that people are more likely to both see UFOs, but also, you know, be more quote unquote psychic

with greater neuronal density in the codate nucleus and potamin the basil ganglia of the brain. And so that could be, you know, and you hook up uh somebody to an fMRI, for example, while they're playing the game of go, and when they make a quote unquote count brilliant move, you know, a move that's totally counterintuitive as far as the rational logic set that they're using on an incremental go forward basis, it only makes sense in the context of a future knowledge state that they would have to know of them winning. That part of the brain lights up. So

like and then apparently that part of the brain lights up when somebody takes you bogg how can you situate some phenomena like that which are suggestive in uh in a scientifically motivated paradigm that can explain it and I think you know and not to like you know keep going back to the Gardian multi-way systems but I think okay how can we get as much out of this certain framework as possible that maybe can explain some of these things and in and you know the critical thing to kind of get your head And it took me a while, multiple years I was thinking

about these things is like the brain is an evolved um information structure that is that is branching as part of this multi-way process and it's evolved to sort of you know adapt to it's an information complex right like it it the brain is this tower that it's like a really it's really small in space but it's really long in time. If you think about the brain as you know a human brain it goes back you know four billion years right to the proic soup right and those were like bootstrapped autoytic sort of chemical structures which you can define in terms of some sort of information preserving memory structure

so the universe essentially is learning and then finding ways to embed that learning into into real objects that then can learn more and can extend into the future. the universe is constructing itself, right? And objects of various kinds are different, you know, present- day manifestations of what has been learned, right? That's all that they are. Um they're they're just embodied histories of the universe, right? Like in in Bitcoin language, it's like it's the proof of the universe's work, right? The universe is this blockchain, this multi-threaded embodied sort of blockchain of information, theoretic structures. Um and the brain is a certain type of of structure that the

universe has evolved and learned how to create and is trying to embed certain um and it's a selection process, right? is a pretty brutal mechanism to kind of get to these systems. And so you're like, okay, well, what sorts of capabilities then if this is the back if this is the space that that object has now been evolving in. It's not been evolving in what we think it's been evolving in. It's been evolving in just a terrestrial landscape of threedimensional spaceime with predator prey and whatnot interactions, but it's actually evolving in this multi-threaded, you know, branchial system. And there might be capabilities. Again, it has to, it sort of has to optimize,

right? like how much of its computational work is going to be navigating the causal graph versus how much of the causal of of its computational work is going to be of uh navigating the branch graph. Think about navigating the branch graph in many evolutionary circumstances would be very non- selective, right? You're considering you don't see you don't see the one branch that you're about to head into. You see multiple branches and you get confused. You don't make a decision. You get eaten. You die. You fall off the cliff, right? Whatever. But there might be unique circumstances where it does give you evolutionary advantage to take a little bit of a peak into the branchial graph which again is it's it's

not like there's a universal time slice or universal time. There's multiple there's multiple branches of time, you know, almost an infinite branch of of time and you're in a particular part of this of this, you know, infinite structure. And there might be an evolutionary advantage to be able to like take a little peak uh at the branch graph where you get these non-local correlations, right? So you could you could maybe get into an entangled state with um a future future event to you in your causal structure that might actually be well this might be a bit you know Gard if he was listening to me he'd be like he might say like technically that might not be possible if it's because of the

structure of the graph but like I think it's possible to essentially and this is getting a bit more but like the causal like the causal like cone and the branchial entanglement cone I think share a boundary in in in these models they don't overlap but they share a boundary but it would make sense that access to the branchel would be somehow adaptive based on natural selection or something. It goes towards like Donald Hoffman's work of like why why do we see you know we don't see like 600 nanometers or whatever we just see I mean I come back to the to to these uh

to the to these non-verbal autistics right that's highly you know evolutionary you know disfavored right but from a group selection pressure it could be evolutionarily favored group this is why it's fascinating right like they they might even call the sears the individuals in the exact right and so you know group selection would identify by these people in the population and give them privileged roles. They're not going to be in the hunter, you know, fighter tribe because they'll get hit by the spear, but they'll try to predict whether it's good to go for the for the for the, you know, the raid tomorrow.

Geniuses are um often, you know, uh a asexual a asocial or antisocial or whatever. Uh but but on a group level, they're extremely adaptive and they're extremely adapted in like kind of Malthusian downturns. Like when times get tough, you need to protect your geniuses. And I was just talking this morning with somebody about maybe like on the population level what sorts of selection are we undergoing now right and if you imagine okay human evolution brought us to a particular point where maybe like the median person is like 99% the causal graph one maybe one what's

the 1% you get the occasional flashes of intuition weird synchronicity you know weird things that you were like how did I know that or I was just thinking about that person they called me things that we sort of write off right in these in these autistics examples like they live much more in that world right and it makes them very hard to navigate normal world where we live in the causal graph and they interact in a very different way. They perceive reality very differently than us. It's very hard for us to understand. It's always sort of write it off as like they're disabled but actually it's like they're just experiencing reality in a very different way to us and it's it's disfavored to navigate normal world. But then we're

also looking at what sort of society are we constructing in a sense like what does it mean to be autistic? And again I'm not trying to like you know be like an expert on this but like in general you know it's like unable to sort of process normal sensory signals in a in a coherent way. this sort of o sensory o overload, right? And sort of what we're doing to ourselves as like a civilization, right? Like we're constructing these digital machine interfaces and just like the cacophony of noise and hyper stimulation. It almost is making us like autistic as a civilization. And then on

the other side, what do you see like the burgeoning cultural movements among elites? They're all about consciousness. taking psychedelic exploration like they're being squeezed out of the normal causal world and they're really spending a lot more time as like groups and you know different different social practices like explore consciousness right explore the branchial space right take psychedelics meditative practices etc so I see this as like this like this is the transition we're undergoing as a species is like you know we're we've now constructed a sort of technological civilization where we don't need to have

you know all of that cognitive energy motivated to navigate the causal graph we now can explore. And maybe that's the maybe that's what these NHI have done. They've they've gone through this, right? And now this is where they spend most of their time. Well, it could it could totally. And it could point to I mean, this is a dark interpretation, but it's like maybe we're in the threebody problem. Maybe in causal space, our timeline is kind of screwed. And this mass desire to explore branchial space visav UFOs, psychedelics, consciousness techniques

is an attempt to ascend out of a timeline that on a materialist causal level is not so hot. I mean, this is where it gets I mean, we're all this was on the different branches of speculative physics, speculative metaphysics, and connecting it down to like speculative interpretations of our current, you know, human story. Well, can I can I can I add one thing to that, which is, you know, Eric Weinstein didn't believe in UFOs for super I would always be like, "Dude, I think this is real." You know, again, based on some of the stuff I'm pointing out about parasychology where

I'm like, "I don't know how it's real, but like these observables just seem right." And he got into it because he became convinced that there was kind of this secret branch of physics like involving people like Wheeler Fineman Dwit and that these guys had way more of an interface with private aerospace than actually Met the Eye. One of the guys in that Wheeler Fineman Dwit circle is a guy named Hugh Everett and Hugh Everett was Wheeler's student at Princeton and he came up with this multiverse theory in the 50s and Dwit really helped popularize it in the 70s and I think about the stuff that

Dwit was working on um you know with Agnu Bonson at the Institute of Field Physics at UNC North Carolina Chapel Hill. Um it was like often gravitational anomalies. So it was like they were like there was an extreme interest in in gravity and obviously at least on a macroscopic general relativity scale gravity and time seem super tightly and so and then Everett goes and he works for the Pentagon. and he works on like all sorts of like interesting game theory stuff visav like our nuclear and I sometimes worry wonder if like the

if there is some highlevel game that's like you know um above our at least known cardv scale that's going on at the level of like time timelines and nuclear stuff. Yeah, I mean it sounds nuts, but I also have sort of forced myself into a situation, you know, intellectually where I have to take this idea of timeline manipulation very seriously because it comes out naturally from seeing the world in terms of the sort of multi-way evolution systems, right? Where there is no preferred time line

and it's not like the, you know, the bulk universe, you know, sense of general relativity is true. It's it's essentially these models these these um Gard models are very much like an Everdian interpretation but with a little bit more of a fundamental structure. He basically just takes the the mathematics of um of uh of the wave function is just okay whatever it's just you know all the all these values exist in just a different universe right and then the way that he characterized it is like um each measurement operation causes a branch but he doesn't really define what a measurement operation is.

So there's kind of an undefined sense of like how do you scope the the the actual multiverse that gets created, right? What are what are the what are the the branches, right? How what defines a branch in the Gard. It's a very well- definfined sense of what a branch is, right? Because it's a discrete structure, right? There's only accountable number of these branches. Um and so but I have to take that seriously of like there's multiple threads of time and they're not all like potentially accessible, right? and they're going to be constrained in any given local reference frame that's defined by an

observer or a set of observers in sort of this ruial representation that are all our slicing reality relatively close to each other. Well, it's like well how how n like I this is open question like is that is it possible to move you know like make make decisions have for example the the the theory here right this goes back to I think um I forget where it went but there was like some like UFO lore some communication with some NHI was like what's going on like why are you here or something it was like CIA wizards are messing with the timeline right it was kind of like the

tagline and it's kind of you know become kind of a bit of like lore you know sort you know, storytelling, but it's like, well, okay, I always try to cash out these crazy statements in terms of something I can interpret in terms of, you know, the physics that I trust here. It's like, okay, well, if it turns out that is possible if you, you know, we're all minds existing in a very tight cluster in real space and we're slicing, we see reality basically the same way. Um, and is it possible that like, you know, one of those mind because we don't have an observer, as I mentioned, we don't have like a a theory of this structure where it's like multiple

observers interacting, right? Is it possible that like some of those people can just decide you know using certain whatever techniques right might involve consciousness right it amplified with whatever you know degrees of freedom we can exploit uh through our technology that could you know cause nearby minds to all shift with them to a new timeline right if I'm like okay how is it possible to take a primmaacci absurd statement CIA wizards messing with a timeline and cash that out in something I can interpret in terms of a physical

theory that's how I would have to do It doesn't mean it's, you know, true. It just is like I feel like, you know, all I try to hear these things and I try not to dismiss them. I try to, you know, come up with a naturalistic explanation that isn't just, oh, we're we're time traveling. Well, cuz then you get into all the causal problems of of time One of the things in these models that time travel can be specified in a certain way whereas because there's no such thing as like a universal time Yeah. Exactly. Right. But so in the branchial space it might but a branchial space time travel would be an observer happens happens to

equivalence a set of states in its future causal graph that are that are observationally indistinct from a set of states that previously existed in its causal graph. So it's not like he tra like that observer traveled back in time. It just happens to encounter in its future causal graph a structure of states that is identical observationally indistinguishable from a past set of states like that. You know, it's still a linear it's still a linear process of the of these of of this evolution but just encountering a future state that's identical to a past state, right?

Or or if you have hyperraph root access and you have a save a saved game state from kind of an information theoretic standpoint, you could just like go back to that saved game. Well, so in in the language of category theory, if you have these if you have this, you know, if you have state A in, you know, local future that's observationally indistinguishable from state B relative to the observer, the observer can equivalence those two right? And so there is no meaningful distinction between it's like a saved state that then was passed. It's like that's all that there was, right? And the observer is just encountering a future a a state that is identical to

its past state. There's no way to distinguish between that and like canonical descriptions of time from our perspective, right? There's no observational distin maybe maybe like at a lower level of description. They actually are different. It's not true time travel in the sense that they're, you know, the microates are observ identical, but that's not what you need to explain time travel that would be, you know, empirically relevant to us. It would just be, you know, and and how is this different from simulations, right? you know, well, one is like you just happen to encounter a future state that's identical to a past state. The simulation interpretation this would be

somebody is a able to construct for an observer or set of observers a set of observation a set of a set of states in its future that are observationally indistinguishable to that set of observers to states that were in its local past. and I don't know we that's way beyond our capabilities. Well, but that's that's I know that it's not ruled out, right? In principle, it's beyond our capabilities, but I don't like sometimes I think about how obvious the simulation arguments are. So, this is like popularized by Nick Bostonramm and you know, super

intelligence that that gave it its sort of coveted academic stamp of approval. But before that, you had Philip K. Dick talking about this and all his sci-fi novels. And you even have somebody who in my mind is as conventional and like not creatively thinking as Neil deGrasse Tyson saying that we are 50% we're in a we're in a simulation. So like he that guy won't like you know you you need to get peer reviewed and like I'm not going to respect anything else in the physics world outside of like super conventional dogma. But 50% we're we could be in a

simulation. And so I think about like that 50% branch, right, of like us being in a simulation, which again is that that might even be underestimated given that Neil deGrasse Tyson is the spokesman here. If you think about where we're headed in our future, things probably don't remain stable. They probably inflect upwards or downwards. And if they reflect downwards, it's like this, you know, we're all walking around in shanty towns without access to clean But like you probably get this like

increase in like it you know virtual reality fidelity and so that's like ready player one definitely opt into the simulation. If we end up in a world of resource abundance it will be through dual use technology and technology that will um either be saving of humanity or destroying of humanity. Like we're not at the uh you know point at which uh a kid in his bedroom can blow up the world but we might be at some point in the future. just the, you know, uh, uh, destructive tech exponentially

increasing and then costs of that tech, you know, and so it's like if you were to like be like quote unquote guardians of that future world, you might put people through a simulation as a test to uh, you know, and maybe they have to contemplate virtue and that allows them to ascend out of the, you know, out of their uh, you know, uh, uh, uh, computational interfaces and have access to uh, this world that is, you know, maybe infinite resources, but also you can destroy it at the drop of a hat or

something. Yeah. It's it's tough to sometimes connect these this metaphysical model or metaphysical analysis and physical analysis to like the human condition in the in our in our day-to-day kind of and near future sort of trajectories, right? And I think the interesting thing about the NHI question is it's like it's the B it's the it's the fulcrum point, right? that sort of is forcing us to to one zoom out and try to situate ourselves in a what we think of as the final or at least more fundamental picture of reality. Yeah. And then

account for these objects in terms of some, you know, near-term or some interpretation of our of our political experience, right? Those are like and and like religious, you know, stories that's like a traditional cosmogyny or theosophy. It's like we want to or the like we want to tell uh we want to situate our you know nitty-gritty humrum terrestrial human affairs in some sort of cosmic story right and that that imbuss everything with significance it imbuss us with significance it imbuss this with meaning and whatever and so

it's a very tempting human project um I like if the if the if the uh NHI you know encounters and the UAP craft were not real right and I was just on the separate trajectory of analyzing wolf from models. I'd be like, well, those are separate those are separate things like analyze metaphysics and think about, you know, how humans are going to screw, you know, you know, screw each other up. Um, the fact that we have this interface now apparently with some other form of intelligence, you know, forces you to then stretch into these questions. But

then of course we have the heavy baggage of our society of all these different theodyies and worldviews and different religious interpretations that we have to kind of navigate because those are very very deeply embedded. Um, but I do think like very practically, right? Like we are creating crazy weapons, right? I'll just tell you, we are we have some crazy [ __ ] right? Like um and there's some crazy [ __ ] happening like now. I mean, I had a meeting just the other day, some people inside DoD Intel, and I was told, you know, one of the things came come out of the water and hit somebody.

That's wild. And this happens not not infrequently. And this is this was a conversation with with a person that was not this was not the topic of the like like a craft can come out of the water and uh I try not to get we were trying not to get into any details. It was it was one of one of those things cuz we know nuclear subs are actually the first line of offense but no like it you know came out of the water medium and zapped. That was it was a bit it was a bit much.

Um, and this came in in the context of a conversation that was not about this at all, right? It was in more normie, you know, stuff I do like day job sorts of stuff. Um, and it just came out towards the end. And um, yeah, I I'll just like, so this is happening now, right? And it's happening in a complicated um, set of conditions. Um, and so this is where it's like, you know, we had this very abstract, you know, physics, metaphysics, intelligence, simulation discussion, but then I have

to like have I then have to come back to like this convers like these conversations I had just like a few days ago and I'm like, what the hell is actually happening? Because I'm not sure I can truly explain like the nature of these abstract models and abstract thought experiments is they set boundary conditions for possible explanations. They give you a guide to sort of get a a sort of a gut understanding or you kind of gro what you you know can mentally visualize but they don't really you know help you account for like the these random like these detailed things that are happening

right like what is the particular morphology why you know all the the um you know different aspects of quote like ufology they do not I know we have a predictive theory that is like so general that makes these specific you know set of hypotheses that then correlate you know one to one with all the specific details of UFO how how how put off might be closest but even even that it you know involves sort of messing with John Einstein's field equations in a way that a conventional I mean there's also I mean if I have

some issues with simulation theory but like on a metaphysical basis but there's versions of the simulation hypothesis which are not metaphysical they're just like we are all being like someone basically has you know virtually uh matrixed us yes Right? And you know whatever they're just able to do that and in that scenario well like this is the threebody problem but like on steroids like what science can we do right like they control the experiments we can run the thoughts we can have the things we can observe like we're just we're just puppets right so the question is like where is that degree of freedom

still exists in a simulation that's you know hypothesized in that scenario and is it one in which even the simulators have some inherent constraints like this computational irreducibility they can set it up they can set some boundary conditions some initial states and they just have to let it run and they're just learning what the system does. You could say that's a good model for the whole universe, right? The universe is just it's running. It's discovering new things. It's creating novel structures and it's, you know, embedding its memories over time into the future. Um, so, you know, I'm not sure how much that gets you right in terms of Well, there's like NPC version of the

simulation which gets you nowhere. It gets you into you're a cog in the machine with no free will. And then there's like Avatar version of the simulation where you're porting yourself from on high into like a lower level simulation. Maybe voluntarily, maybe But like maybe there's some sort of root access you can get to or something. But that that's also like yeah extremely hard to quantify. I mean there's like like Lee Cron and Sarah Walker. I really like them. They've tried to construct versions of assembly theory. You should have them on. um and you know they have a certain vision of of free will and I think you can actually I I don't have a full

account of all this but like I intellectually I'm really interested in trying to pull together um the wolfer models which I think are like the more fundamental structure of reality the more fundamental sort of mathematical physical picture with the assembly theory picture which is trying to think about the universe at a slightly higher level of description in terms of information um constructors right self-replicating information persistence through time and like assembly is like a mathematical framework to think about um you know what sorts of structures the universe is Yes. Um, and then I want to take that and I want to combine it with kind of

the metaphysics of close something close to what like Philip Goff the philosopher has in terms of he sometimes goes between cosmos psychism protoansychism where consciousness is embedded right because even the Gard Wolf models they're they're fully abstract idealized sort of structural descriptions of reality right but they don't actually tell us like why there's such a thing as as as qualia or phenomenal experience yes same with assembly theory is this really neat mathematical understanding of how chemistry tethers into biology, but I I think uh consciousness lies

outside of it and like why you have extremely high I guess they have like an index, right, for like an assembly index or whatever. Assembly number and then the copy right? So like why you have like complex systems that are like somehow low entropy is like like that's like this extremely open question and I would say like you brought up Maxwell's demon, you know, the the plot of the movie tenant like Oh yeah. Yeah. So it's like he in this case he uses it's actually at I think a particle accelerator but he figures out some sort of Maxwell's demon thing where you can reverse you know second law of

thermodynamics reverse entropy and like maybe consciousness is the only ant anti-entropic force or something it's like an order creating for there's even words in biology you know people sort of make up it's like centropy you know where it's like or if you look at Carl Friston's free energy principle his famous neuroscientist um you know uh our brains are attractive to are attracted to ordered signals and not randomized signals, you know, that and so there's there's something about that that like seems to I think that the um uh the uh

assembly theory model is like almost complete, but I think that the conscious consciousness thing is really important. So I I try to think about like imagine you had a god's eye view of like this abstract like realm that I'm talking about in terms of uh say the branch graph or even like a more abstract variation of it and you could like you're looking at it you're trying to find like what are the interesting parts of it right like brains would be you know like we think brains are small and insignificant because we're just small relatively small creatures on a big on a moderate sized planet around a

medium sun in the middle of like vast emptiness of of of of you know spacetime. But this sort of picture of reality, this sort of, you know, that is the causal graph representation, right? The sort of coarse grained macros scale representation that, you know, smoothly differentiable, you know, continuous manifolds allows us to do general activity, etc. But it tells us there's a different picture of reality, the sort of branchial structure. And this kind of correlates to how uh Lee Cronin and them were thinking about kind of the universe constructing, you know, more interesting objects, right? Right? And more interesting objects essentially are like more information theoretic complex

structures that persist through time. And so that is what the universe is creating. Right? The brain is actually one of the more interesting objects that the universe has created thus far. Even though it's small in space, it's very large in time and extremely large in kind of complexity space, right? And so like think about not us as humans, but like us as like conscious balls, right? Like from like other other conscious balls in the universe that might be causally distant. They might not be so distant in branchillial space and they would have they'd be really interested in finding those other balls of

interestingness. Yes. Right. So it' be like moths to a flame to a certain extent. Yeah. Right. And so I think this is what like NHI kind of you know it's like they think how could they get here? It's like well are they coming here from the planet over there or are they coming from branch space not that far away? Yeah. Right. And we just have you know you know like we're just interesting now. Well, when I did this this piece with David Grush, he was like, "If I were a betting man," I thought this was like the most important piece from or part of my interview and it's like a very sort of fleeting moment, but he says, "If I were a betting man, I would say that, you know, they might not be that the NHI might not

be that much more advanced from us, but they come from an alternative timeline in which they went the civil propulsion route and we went the destruct destructive nuclear route." So, it points to what you're saying. And if you have like the the economics of the future involving this like weird cardv scale thing, it's like when we create nuclear weapons, we might be of interest. And you might have this sort of dark forest analogy, the three body problem where until that happens, it's actually really adaptive for them to hide themselves and to not let themselves be known. And then all of a

sudden you have to interact in sort of these ephemeral ways to affect timelines or whatever because we might be blowing ourselves up or something. Yeah. I mean, it's interesting. I think the dark forest books are really good and a good explanation is kind of this, you know, cosmic game theory. But I also have I have two two thoughts on this. One is like I think advanced like I think people default in the Carterv scale to going like bigger and out into the universe. And that correlates with the, you know, the standard vibe, the Musk vibe. We got to become multilanetary. We're going to do

vonoyman self-replicating probes and we're just going to expand out. we're going to colonize available resources in our like in our future light cone. It's kind of, you know, the trope in San Francisco like the future light cone of humanity is at stake and all this nonsense, right? Um and uh and I think that's it might be wrong, right? Because if you actually look at our trajectory of civilization like yeah, we're going to the moon, we're going maybe to Mars and we're putting some effort into that, but like where is the vast majority of our effort going into? It's building smaller and smaller structures. Yes. Right. It's you know it's the nanometer race, right? in TSMC, you know, seven,

two, we are trying to carve into, you know, the smallest scales as possible more information and like interesting, you know, causal um uh, you know, power and I think instead of thinking about civilizations expanding out into the universe, do they just like do they just basically collapse into its basement? Yeah, engineering at the molecular level is like way more interesting than more brute force to like move out into and that would also kind of semi-explain part of the firm paradox. It's like where where are they? We don't see them. Well, it's because you're looking for

civilizations that are transforming their local galactic neighborhood, right? They're just they're doing massive gigascale infrastructure projects to convert stars into, you know, more probes, right? Whereas maybe that's that's amateur hour. Like most civilizations realize like they why bother, right? when there's a whole there's like there's a shortcut. We just we you break into the basement and you've got root access to reality. You don't need to mess around with stars. You could just zip around and do whatever, right? And maybe you get, you know, there's arbitrary degrees of of of

uh energy you can exploit from the quantum vacuum or whatever, right? And that you can construct, you know, information is information. It's scale invariant. It's like why do you need to construct, you know, galactic scale compet like computium, you know, things versus like, you know, just embed things at the plank scale, right? And they're just like, you know, you just disappear. You sort of go poof, right? And and then maybe that corresponds with the deeper understanding of, you know, again, this multi-threaded structure of of time. And, you know, you're looking to see who's coming in to join your club, right? Who's about to make that break where they figure out how to engineer

themselves not to zoom out and expand, but to like go in, right, to join join them. And everyone that's there, you know, by assumptions say, doesn't have any implicit um technological advantage. And there's not necessarily maybe you know assume maybe there's local scarcity but there's no global scarcity. And so the competitive dynamics are pretty mllified if not extinct. And so there's not really this competitive race. Really all you're competing over is sort of what sort of cultural sort of conscious experiences are you bringing to that party, right? Because everyone maybe discovers the same physics but

they got there through a very you know historically contingent evolution. They've got an interesting culture background, narratives, stories. that would be would be interesting to share and exchange sort of the the economy of that would be kind of an economy of conscious experience, right? And and and you know new you know civilizations that are nucleating higher level consciousness and conscious you know balls that are interesting that can engineer technology that allows them to you know instead of upload download themselves right into the basement of reality. Then they're going to join them right wherever they are. They might be

like, "Oh, we're going to scout out, you know, some of those civilizations that might be close to doing that, right? And we're going to, you know, just assess the cut of their jip, right? Like, what is their story? What is their what are they going to bring here? Are they going to be kind of annoying? Are they going to are they going to are they going to like kind of rub rub us the wrong way?" Like, and maybe maybe there's some elements of this, and this is super speculation, which is like, hey, like we seem to be all a part of this grand universe mysterious project of creating interesting things like us, and this is where we all end up. And so we're help

we'd rather you not blow yourself up and destroy everything. We want to hear, you know, get you there. And maybe there's, you know, in this narrative, right? Maybe there's like, you know, steps in between us and where you ultimately get to, right? This sort of what we would call more spiritual enlightened, you know, angelic universal consciousness, whatever, right? But maybe there's steps in between. Maybe some advanced civilizations haven't gotten there yet. Yeah. Right. And they're kind of being dicks, And maybe they're messing with us. And there's maybe those those people those those sorts of NHI that are kind of being dicks to us. And maybe there's

this other you know larger maybe more amorphous group whatever that sits in a slightly different you know adjacency to to our experience of the world. And they're like you know they're not like waring gods in that sense but they're like hey we much rather these dickish aliens not mess with you anymore and we much rather like you guys get on the get on the right path to like eventually come join us. Oh it's so fascinating. It's like a consciousness economy. You can picture like a consciousness world's fair where each person brings their world of Wait, because we're I mean we we're so

embedded in this materialist paradigm which is you know essentially which leads you to a vision of hyperco competitive zero sum dark forest models where it's all you know scraping for available matter in your light cone and it might not be it right because they're just assuming a certain structure of what those conscious agents are motivated to do. Yeah. Well, in fact, if there was some holographic overlay of our reality or some higher dimensional space, it probably wouldn't be like the materials would be sort of local incentive structures to like mine something much

deeper or more fundamental. And those things wouldn't be thought of as important to us because, you know, the materials would be used as levers or whatever, carrots and sticks. But in fact, you know, good vibes and bad vibes might represent that economy better than I mean, it's it's almost like on one end we have say like a dead AI and the other end we have like an enlightened autistic spiritual being, right? And and you can almost imagine like what we are now is we're kind of we're kind of at this crux

point and you can almost see this play out in kind of our different cultural attitudes and debates of like you know is it all about doubling down on machine And the fears of what that would mean or do we go into this more enlightened you know spiritualist you know kind of consciousness expanding direction. And I almost see that as like okay like I always like to the physicist is like take everything to the limit right to sort of explore the like the boundaries of the system and it's like okay well if another civilization the that is a natural bifurcation for any any civilization in the universe right where

I assume there is conscious is real and fundamental and but also you know AIs are possible right and like manipulating matter to you know expand and actual do things in the universe is possible well there could be civilizations that split and do go both in both both directions but what that mean is like imagine a planet that like spits off, you know, both like a colonizing dead mind, dead machine intelligence and then its progenitors kind of go and hide out in the basement and enjoy conscious like like like the consciousness economy and the rest of the universe just

becomes like kind of a hostile place but like the cool like the party's down there, right? And so but we're not we're we're kind of we're not there yet, right? But we're creating. So it's like I I try to like construct and they're just like just those stories or narratives. Um but that sort of accounts for these different tropes that are in the UFO lore. The thing basically in the Tom Deong books or things that Alzando has hinted at. Um you know they've drawn and even the book uh Crypto's conundrum. Uhhuh. It's they all address this idea

of like the the bad NHI or the malign. It's always a um the metaphors are always like a swarm, mindless, soulless, like a Borglike intelligence. Yes, that's usually the the metaphors and those are very persistent tropes. And then the alternative like the binary opposition is um individualistic but like enlightened conscious connected beings. It's it's why I'm pro- UFO over pro so if you see AI and UFOs is to kind of somewhat maybe oppose narratives but

both like narratives you you should probably be bullish on over the next 10 to 20 year time whatever yeah to use annoying investing terms you know I think they'll be more in the zeitgeist like you know increasing I mean yeah 10 years I'd be a bit optimistic yeah it's it's happening now oh it's happening now it's happening now but you know near-term this is these things are just going to grow and I the AI thing. I have really trouble a lot of trouble telling a charismatic story as to how it ends. It's sort of just pure game theory, but like from like a consumer or like individual

interface perspective, kind of dystopian like maybe outside of like getting a better natural language interface to like Google or whatever, you know, like like uh so your better recall occurs in like natural language you can understand better, you know. I think outside of like decreasing that latency, we're kind of decreasing the latency between the brain and the consumer internet, which is not a positive thing in my opinion. So that feels like kind of dystopian. And then I'm not even getting into like being

able to create a nerve agent with off-the-shelf parts with an LLM or whatever. Like so that feels like pretty dark. On the UFO side, there definitely is this like swarm hive mind component that like scares me a bit whereby you could totally create some opus for like a clamp down new world order where like nobody has any sort of autonomy because of this hive mind invasion. The hive mind again also could be real and so that could be dystopian. But then like maybe there's some version of it where we can like ascend

consciousness wise and maybe we can meet some, you know, uh higher higher card scale, you know, angelic beings or whatever that are that are a little less uh interferent in our day-to-day matters. And so yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Know it's interesting if you go back to the 20, you know, it's interesting the UFO story and even the consciousness story are very intertwined in American you know intelligence history, right? like the discovery of LSD and like you know probably the you know the and we had some craft but I

think you know we detonated um uh the Tiller Ulam device right and it's just like a lot a lot of stuff happened in like the early 1950s the you know atomic energy act you know passed that it was like okay and then of course that was you know obviously Halutoff was involved in both UFOs side of this as well as the consciousness side of this and of course MK Ultra was maybe the more weaponized version of the consciousness research and remote viewing programs were the more you know tradecraftraft sort of but it seems very clear these were sort interwoven threads. Um, but like those were all behind the curtain, right? Like they were all suppressed at the same

time, probably for similar reasons, right? But also had deep political consequences, right? Like the reason why we don't, you know, Nixon didn't want, you know, hippies doing LSD and taking acid is like why do I like it undermines the power structure, right? Undermines people's confidence in like you as the authority figure, right? It's like we can't have that, right? What's interesting now is that like countercultural revolution is coming from the elites. This is coming from a different cluster of elites that now essentially have demonstrated more power than the establishment elites, right? And now like that wave of sort of

I know like a huge cluster of elites in Austin and San Francisco regularly do psychedelic drugs and do these like practices almost are like you know what would be like psychological cults, right, of trying to like deeply connect and take on special formulations and pay tens of thousands of dollars for these experiences, right? These are people that run large companies and that are like raising tens of millions of dollars for their startups, right? And it's like this is a I see this like a blast wave of like a cultural re like reformation that's focused on essentially a you know paradigm and it just hasn't

that it's coming from a counter but it hasn't spread throughout the whole society but like when it does that will be a dramatic transformation right of just how we situate things in like the basic political economy and like can you imagine like if you know the average congressman was like doing psychedelics on the weekend and like talking about their their their like you know their experiences right completely outside the overton window. I I expect that to happen in the next 5 to 10 years. 5 to 10 I would say. I mean maybe two to three. I don't know. Right. Like I would I would extend that out, but I agree with the trend. That's wild.

No, I mean the rate of change just that I I've seen from like the the folks that are currently in the vanguard and that will probably be you know part of this wave that we talked about at the beginning of this anti-establishment um you know counter elites coming in. You know a good proportion of them have a radically different metaphysical worldview. Yeah. Right. While they're also the vanguard of techno capital, they they inherently don't, I think, trust techno capital. They they've used it to acrew power and they've gotten to where they are, but now they have a sense of, you know, emptiness and anxiety and then

they want to get meeting somewhere else. Well, it's like, you know, JD Vance had a, you know, venture capital career prior to becoming VP and like but he's kind of anti-tech and it's like, you know, I I think the the more nuanced, you know, perspective that uh does justice to his worldview better is like he's anti- big tech and like, you know, tech malfeasants, but like it is this nuanced worldview where you look at the the Make America Healthy Again people or whatever and they describe it as like a spiritual or cosmic war and like that

you wouldn't really hear those terms. terms like you know 10 20 years ago and so I think I think that's what has happened right and this is where the UFO thing is is coming into it is like this yeah parroka and glassnos idea is like it's it's not just a political project for many folks it's like a spiritual or metaphysical project and this is why the sort of you know the UFO thing isn't just a pure nuts and bolts technological thing because I think you know even the legacy program knows it's not right it's not just like okay they've got some meta material there maybe there's a tensor you know component to the inside field

equations that we can, you know, rejigger to get some, you know, anti-gravidic effect and we can then do, you know, some crazy ISR orb stuff, right? Great. Good for you. But that's not the big thing. No, it's really not. That's not the That's not That's not the thing that they're worried about coming out, right? I don't think they're worried about the fact that, oh, we can do Andy Grabb and we've got special stuff and maybe China's got orbs and, you know, yep, that's a thing. That's not that's not something that would be catastrophic disclosure. No. No. Right. It's something completely different, right? It's a much bigger you know sense

of um transforming how modern civilization thinks of itself the relationships of existing power structures. This is what I know um Sheen has talked about as you know he he represents you know a spy for a certain legacy institutional structure right he's the he's the he's the he's the chief he was the chief of station I mean he was the uh chief legal counsel for uh for uh for for for the Jesuits um which you know it's like it's like well people ask like how does Danish know all this stuff it's like he's just like a lawyer who happens to be you know a Jesuit kind of you know policy guy was

like no he was like he was chief of station for the Jesuit you intelligence ass bad guys, right? Like in DC like he's like, you know, he's a spy fundamentally. He's he's like but he's a scholar spy coming out of that Jesuit tradition. Like they're oldest spy organization. He's like Forest Gump or Zelic. He literally is in pops up in every But like what you you think that was a coincidence, right? Like no. No, but I also I find it super also like how is he still alive? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. This is why. No, that that's the aimer explanation. I

mean, it's also fascinating that like certain of so I think the the JFK for example, for example, is like he he's pretty unbiased there, like he wasn't directly involved in any of that stuff. And so like I actually think like that account is like fully right when it comes to Shien. And then he'll tell the story of Watergate and he'll be like because he represented James McCord who was like he was you know Dulles is number two for a long time and he was like the main architect behind it was like him and Gordon Litty main architects behind Watergate and I'm like

wait so what about James McCord like he was you know CIA and like he'll say like well James McCord you know he wanted to be on the inside and he wasn't on the inside he didn't know quite what he was doing so like he was he was ordered to you know uh uh burglarize the DNC and bug Larry O'Brien's phone, but like he he wasn't clued in and so he got really pissed about that, you know, whatever. And I'm like, dude, that's not the story. Like I think McCord knew knew way more. And I I that that's the part where

I'm like, okay, like Sheen might have, you know, some interests there and like protecting him and he was defending him. Yeah, this this brings me a slightly different tangent, but like thinking about the story, right? People as it goes back to like thinking um the what actors are we modeling in this whole narrative, right? We tend to bucket in these bland terms of like the CIA, Loheed Martin, you know, the Vatican. It's just these blobs of institutional references, and it's just not how in practice it plays out. Like even at the micro scale,

it's like there are very individual, you know, actors that are aligned in very kind of complex overlapping relationships with each other and intelligence, you know, services. This is how it is. There's always like a a fractal structure of compartmentalization and like true um you know, who's really got power, right? Is often opaque even to the people who think they've got all the power because they never really know, right? And even in those inst the the high watermark when it was really tightly concentrated there were a lot of people with outsized influence and they could kind of construct these

vertically integrated bureaucratic systems. um you know that was still you know there was a lot of you know interessene fights and you know subtrifuge and always like you know my deputy might be trying to take take my job sorts of dynamics but then I think it sort of it it it got disintegrated or fractalized in the you know last 30 40 but it and also globalized in the sense that you have like I think a much more complex set of actors that have a lot of resources right you think the intelligence community is the big baddy has all the information like Google

Amazon these guys have probably more like Pipa Malgrren has written about this brilliant insight. She's like, "Amazon, Jeff Bezos probably has access to more intelligence and better intelligence than the NSA does in many cuz he can look at maybe not individual level intelligence, but like he manages all the intelligence databases for the government, right? And he can detect, you know, he knows what everyone's buying, right? He can detect the mood of everybody. Totally. Right. The NSA doesn't have access to that information. He knows. So that's probably why he he

refuses to do the endorsement because he's he he has probably some proprietary analytical model of like everyone's buying and purchases decisions. They've constructed some fancy AI that's like predictive of their you know which books have they ordered, how does it correlate to their to their Twitter views, etc. Right? And they just know immediately. Why why do you think Elon went all in? Because Elon knew sentiment analysis. These guys knew sentiment analysis. They've done the correlations. They know exactly what the what the outcome is. Interesting aside on Bezos, his grandfather, I think was the head of the atomic energy commission. Lawrence Pis. Yeah. He was the director of the Western Division. Uh Harold Mgrren told me that

story. Um he's now come public with it. It was Yeah. Yeah. So that Yeah. Quick finish that thread is Yeah. Harold Mongrren, senior adviser to Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, etc. Wonder McNamera Prodigy probably saved nuclear war under you know when Curtis Lame wanted to go he was sent to the tank and you know sort of held Curtis Lame back. That's amazing. Literally like the Doctor Strange love scene. Yeah. He was sent when he was like 26 27. He was sent into the tank, you know, by by um by Kennedy and was just like stall stall him out. These these guys

are like they're ready to go. Oh, that's crazy. And and he was like Curtis was there with his with his generals and they're like I like we need to go and you know let's like I just need to we just need to drop one just to like prove resolve and all we have like air crew morale I mean everyone knows like Chris was absolute insane. he was he was willing to go to to to full nuclear war and Malgren played his part in holding them back. Um and then was sent out to uh uh Los Alamos I think or Albuquerque in 1963 where he met with Lawrence Piggeis

because he was there to do the design cost build of our anti anti-bballistic missile system which at the time was premise on nuclear weapons right because the only way to feasibly destroy incoming ICBMs or missiles coming in was uh to throw up nukes and try to blow them up in the atmosphere. And so uh you know he had to get right into you know he was basically there to like manage the project for that right how much is it going to cost what are we going to do like and both on the department of energy side as well as the DoD side and yeah he met with Lawrence P guys who told him that you know we have been recovering and trying to reverse engineer uh UFO objects and then 10

years later I think he had a private meeting with Richard Bissell who is the uh number two at the CIA in charge of all the you know dirty tricks covert operations stuff for like 15 20 years and didn't he create the NRO as well he created in a row. He scouted and established Area 51. You know, Rich Bissell was in charge of all that stuff from the 50s and 60s. Richard Abyssell told him in a private briefing that um of quote otherworld technologies that they'd been working on. And so he was kind of read into some of that stuff. Um he's made public some of that. Um and uh yeah, so it's just an example,

exact if you're going to be just in the immediate periphery of it you you need to know it exists and you need to know not to go in y and know like where to avoid and where to throw other people off Y so there's like you know it's kind of this there's a boundary layer right they need to establish around that around those activities. I was reading this book called UFO crash by this UFO researcher William Steinman about the Aztec crash in 1948. Talks about this head of special projects at Wright Patterson who came over uh with Operation Paperclip. His name is Eric Henry Wing. Steinman says this is the guy who like I

can't get anything on. The door shuts in my face every time I inquire about him. he and his boss H A K, you know, and then he just goes on or whatever. And I was just thinking, who is Hak? And I was like, oh, Henry A. Kissinger. And then you look up his kind of career history and like he was very embedded in the atomic projects. And so, yeah. And I, you know, Harold worked, they were like, they were like twin people throughout most of those administrations where, you know, Harold

was, you know, self-consciously not a self-promoter. He was not someone who was looking for the power. He was recognized and his survivability was because he was going to be the guy working behind the scenes, executing, not taking credit, just the guy who would get stuff done, right? And that's was you know whereas Kissinger was the guy who would like you walk over people's necks right and but they were in equal positions right they were trusted and they were often used by presidents you know to check each other like Malmrren was used explicitly by Nixon to check Kissinger in many

negotiations to like confirm that Kissinger wasn't going rogue on various things go and the whole China thing the the back channels with the Soviets Malgrim was Nixon's like you know confirmation you know route right because he didn't fully trust Kissinger to do all this stuff cuz history was kind of this rogue guy, right? He thought he was the president, right? So Malgrim was there to kind of like act as a bit of a a check. Um that's amazing. And so yeah, he Malgrim was trusted by multiple presidents over many decades and yeah, he is now coming out and saying NHI are real. We have their I don't know guys like but that's a good

example, right? Because he's former CIA and like you have a lot of guys who are former CIA. It seems like there is some implicit imperative in one branch of the CIA that is pro some form of Mong was never CIA. Oh, he was never CIA. He was he was a PhD economist. Okay. Who came into the defense department, but then actually did mostly like trade and economics stuff for the latter half of his career, but he was you know he was fully cleared into the Q stuff. He was cleared in TSSCI. But your point is like but he met with the CIA obviously

with Richard Bissell. He met with Lawrence Gis and DOE. He was, but he was more of a higher level political guy. interesting. Okay, good to know. It feels like there is yeah like to your to your earlier point there's a part of CIA that is pro some form of disclosure and then there's probably a part that is extremely anti disclosure and then there are these thftdoms that have like these local incentives around like we have some IP we kind of want to monetize it we feel somewhat patriotic and like you know want to refresh the talent pool and

realize we don't have access to the best and brightest STEM talent out there and so there are all these weird dynamics where I've I don't know after studying this stuff probably similar time frame as you like four or five years you always want to know like who's in charge who's like the ultimate gatekeeper and it it feels like there is it's this like disjointed cargo cult or Yeah, I I agree. I don't think there is a um like a single cabal that has all this information. I think it's been carved up. It's decayed. I think it's

like all the other institutions alo you know why disclosure is happening now is kind of an overdetermined question right? Is it the China competition thing? Is it an exogenous time scale associated with the NHI themselves? Is it um or is it essentially just the ability of what used to be a relatively coherent unified um set of legacy programs has just decayed and lost its ability to to you know maintain control like all all of our other institutions, right? It's like why was why was Grush this kind of dog good or millennial able

to kind of like in a year kind of just be like, "Yep, I figured it out." Right? It's like, you know, was that just because I mean Grush is really good, but it's probably because like the legacy program is probably like decayed a bit, right? It's probably become unwieldy. Pieces of it have started to like, you know, become structured in these in these bureaucratic systems. And clearly people even he he was said this in my interview with him. People on the inside want this stuff together. They were extremely disgruntled. They're like, "This doesn't work at all the way it's been set up." Yeah. Which is also exact symptom of

institutional decay and sort of sclerosis. Like probably during the Vanderver Bush days there'd be nobody like that complaining be like we got this [ __ ] unlocked. It's streamlined. It's efficient. We got the best and brightest. We're high highly motivated. We're oriented. We're aligned, flourishing, moisturized. We're good. Right. And now it's like, you know, it's decayed. There's Bob and Bobbert sitting in some Lockheed warehouse getting paid $200,000 a year when their best friends are over at Palanteer making twice that. And you know, they're making no progress after 10 years. and they're sitting in a cubicle with like a diagram of like a

material that they half understand but can't know the full specs of because like it's an extremely stressful environment because they're telling you if you tell anybody we're going to kill you and you know you don't really know what's going on you only see your little piece of it. So it sounds cool but now you're like trapped because you can't really leave that program very easily. So now there's like a lot of stress and and and tension built up inside these programs. And then the ability for the managers who themselves probably are similarly positioned relative to the power structure hierarchy that they're embedded in are also feeling a bit like this is not working. This is and like you get you reach a critical mass. But

then that's why I'm like why don't I if you can somehow frontr run immunity via legislature. Why don't you just immediately let the cat out of the bag on just the existence of these programs? Maybe there's some onlogical shock around like top of the pyramid knowledge of you know NHI visav some theory of everything that freaks the average person out. I don't know. But like the existence of the programs if China and Russia have their own programs which it seems like they do then just admit that we have these programs and then start recruiting people for the programs. Like you would

think that we'd have sort of a Manhattan Project 2.0 going on right now given the world that we're in. Why doesn't that like start immediately? I mean, you could do all the counterfactuals, right? And this is where the basic logic of like, hey, that would be a good idea runs up against like our existing political system, right? And so, like, at least I've heard again firsthand knowledge of these things that like, you know, as this this ball this ball started really rolling in 2019, 2020, right, with the UAP task force doing their job, congressional mandate digging

bureaucratically undercut you know was office of naval intelligence UP task force who was kind of I think had bureaucratic you know access to grind against the CIA and the NSA and the air force and you know the reason why it was over there And then of course when it moves into arrow it's kind of compromised by the CIA air force guys right like Kirkpatrick. Um and so that was kind of like okay move counter move. What do we do next? Okay pressure etc. go up the chain to you know like the national security council brief uh um Jake Sullivan on this.

Jake Sullivan's like crap I got I got way too much going on man. I got like Ukraine war popping off. I got China to deal with. I got President Biden who like know politics aside like maybe not you know compment to make these decisions. Yes. sorry but like no like we can't we can't throw this out there right now. Like go and just get away from me, right? Like tell me what's going on. I mean, Ross Coltard says that he know he knows that uh that um that Salt Jake was in at least one briefing uh uh with I think it

was on the Senate maybe more where he was getting access to you know some of the firstand testimony on this stuff and you know they're just trying like the existing power structures the committees the NC leadership is trying to get their arms around this and then they're trying to figure out what their next move is and meanwhile they got other stuff on their plate and you know politics is politics and they go okay well we'll just kick this can down to the next admin right whatever happens not my problem like you think that The individual decision-m of a executive branch appointee is always like I'm I'm here for a year, two, three maybe. My life is already extremely stressful.

This does not acrue any personal benefit only risk. Right. So I have every incentive to kick this can and the Senate who think of themselves as being you know the sort of criterion guard of democracy they're like well I have no real urgency. They thinking that's like I'll be here forever. I got I got no term limits. I got a no competitive race. You know, I take this as like a, you know, next year's thing with the next year's thing. So, you know, one has like, you know, zero urgency because of political incentives to just not have it be a problem. One has not much urgency

etc. Um because its basic function is not to you know do disclosure now it's to like put in place mechanisms of accountability because they have credible evidence indicates that that has been lacking y uh including to elected officials in the executive branch. There's only two, president, vice president. So the Senate is basically saying in their findings that they believe credible evidence indicates that relevant UAP records have been inappropriately classified and withheld from appropriate, you know, elected officials in both the legislative and executive branch. Seems like a pretty clear diagnosis of the problem, but they

were just like admiring the problem. There's no urgency to fix it. We'll see what happens with this this new administration coming in. you know, Trump's speech last night. I don't know when this will be recorded, but like he gave this like three minute kind of glass nose speech we talked about and it's like, you know, that could be the mechanism, right? Like who knows, right? I think this will all be up for grabs, but now there might be an urgency or it might be opportunistic mechanisms for, you know, well, as much as I have different opinions on all the, you know, quotequote controversies people have is like, well, maybe you

should prioritize this, right? 100bind laptop stuff. Does that really matter relative to this UFO stuff? Like I I know you got an axer grind, but like like bygones be iggon. Like I always I do every time I'm like maybe this doesn't matter cuz we're you know in a multipolar nuclear world and you have all this kind of prosaic stuff going on. But then I'm like this feels like the Archimedes lever if the the existence of non-human intelligence and you know it's sort of like it begs this question is like are the wars we're in

right now somewhat proxy wars you know if if you can't really say like yeah we have like this material you know in our possession uh and and we do you know think that there is intelligence out there based on all these kind of consistent observable properties but like uh uh business as usual as far as like you know general macro you know geopolitics or whatever and so Yeah. No, I mean that would be I mean I spent a lot of time thinking about intersection of geopolitics, the monetary system and um you know these potential phase transitions or like tail risks and this

has to be like I've talked about this in more like traditional settings. I've talked to folks that are associated with the Fed and the Treasury Department. It's like guys like you're this is a head in the sand moment right now, right? like you need to and um Helen McCall wrote a white paper for the soul foundation on this exact question of essentially UAPs and financial stability risk and it's just like because of social taboo institutional resistance they're just not even paying attention to it y and the the the possibility of these things happening very quickly and with surprise to those other institutional

systems is a big problem right and I think that's what they're struggling with is like it's not necess like I I I think there's a lot of concerns but I don't know if they're truly concerned about like the median Americans is like having a freak out because the median American freaks out about all this all this stuff all the time and they probably like won't believe half of it anyways. I think they worry about like the median sort of Mandarin technocrat at the Fed like not showing up for work and then the payment system doesn't Right. And it's like how do you how do you ensure that that set of of you know the folks that have just now taken a

massive hit right like those folks are psychologically very disturbed by Trump's administration coming in and there will be you know I think significant purges to those bureaucracies. So this technocrat managers are going to be you know facing a major brunt here. You drop the UAP stuff on that. I think there is a risk I'm just speaking analytically of there being just like collapse of these institutional bureaucracies. Um you need to plan for that. You need to like anticipate and educate and like tell them it's all good. Like this is just a new thing we got to handle like don't freak out come to work tomorrow. Right.

Yeah. Um, and I think ironically, I mean, ironically, but like, and this might I don't want to be too, um, uh, you know, sort of ethnosentric here, but like you in general, I think, you know, China has not as much of a materialist worldview as like the median assumption. Like you talk the average person there, like, you know, they have kind of a long history of their civilization. You know, it's sort of a spiritualist baseline even though the communist party is, you know, nomally, you know, atheistic, but like people light prayer candles all the time. you know, light incense, go worship at at Buddhist temples. In fact,

they've been spiking recently because people are trying to, you know, pray for good luck as the economy goes down the toilet. Um, but like they don't have this they haven't they haven't grown up their civilization in kind of the the Capernac Western dichomous view sort of this inherent dualist world of, you know, this sort of ineffable spiritual realm which you go to when you die, you could pray to, but it's kind of like a hard cut between that and like materialist society. You get rich, you fight wars, right? And whereas I think the basic or so I think in general China Chinese society I think could probably

accommodate something like this in a more smooth fashion than maybe western society could on top of the fact that China could leverage potential malfeasants on the west part US in particular as a propaganda uh you know why haven't they that's a question that I have kind of openly is like China and Russia it is clear that if you're like a deep UFO researcher. There are things that they've interfaced with with the UFO question. Like George Knap went to like Russia and like brought back all

these files about like their activities when it comes to UFOs. Uh China's published a couple of papers around like tracking UFOs. But it seems like they're by and large pretty silent on the topic. Like they're not super progressive or forward-minded about like propagandizing the topic or like being really open about it. Why is it just the US? Well, inherently I guess to first order one is a closest one's an open system, right? So def despite the fact that we point to maybe some rogue elements in the bureaucracy like we're fundamentally as an open somewhat

chaotic system where folks like Lilando and Christopher Melon can go out there and can go on podcast and can release videos to the media and can have this open discussion stimulated in Twitter and podcasts and whatnot. But if the if the game theory stuff if the game theory why why haven't they tried? Um yeah like why why you know if if some of this stuff is getting reverse engineered and weaponized I think China I think China hasn't I think that in terms of order of priority and this is speculation I think the order of priority is first and you know first second third and fourth is is exploit the technology to close the

strategic military and intelligence gap that's it right and so anything that might undermine that right is ruled out right so first order of business is like build build build their own inspired tech, build it at scale, iron it, iron it out, get it built out. And they have the ability to do that. They have the ability to to like if the typical US SAP is a thousand people, right, for whatever secret R&D program, they can have 10 50,000 people, right? Um, and you know, threat credibly threatened actual goolog punishments if

if you speak at a turn and you know, actually have like you can almost imagine there's probably the equivalent like the Vanavar Bush sitting there, right? that is like because they've been building these new institutions, these new bureaucracies, they've got more energy, they've got like a clear target, beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat the US etc. Um and if you look at there's some circumstantial stuff this is really speculative that my my my China SME colleagues will be like ah you're really going on a limit there but um there were some recent purges in the last few years in like the rocket forces which you know if you imagine like which part of their structure would somehow feasibly touch

this it's like you know that that's like where the nuclear forces are right so like if they had their own version of a program um like where would it be it probably be would be there and of course the PLA has been historically corrupt you you bribe to get promotions and whatnot. So like I if I like imagine a very hypothetical scenario which is we say China has had a program well what does that really mean like China has a program does the PLA have a program that maybe President Xi didn't know about right and maybe President Xi discovered the program in the course of his various

purges that he was going through ensuring loyalty and he figured out this stuff maybe didn't know when he first came into power but now he does know and he's been going all systems go build me some you know everything like this is where all our surplus capital is going I don't care about the the real estate market like screw it like we're going all in on on this and is that leading to a freakout in the US right technology surprise right uh strategic foreign technology surprise because oh we're getting intelligence now maybe the other parts of the intelligence apparatus that

we've got that is constantly monitoring China constantly monitoring you know their secret research programs which physicists and engineers where are they going what new facilities are being built whatever we're constantly monitoring all that stuff right so there's like you know normie analysts inside the CIA and you know, NGA and whatnot that are interpreting all that intelligence. They go, China's like doing some crazy cool like weird stuff over here. They're doing all these people that were doing this weird science and weird research. They're now like they all disappeared and we think they're over here and we don't know what the what they're working on, why. And then meanwhile this other, you know, their neighbor across the hall who's read into the program is

like a [ __ ] And and then they go, "What do we do now?" Right? We think China's figured some stuff out. We don't know what they figured out, but like it that would generate an immense amount of anxiety and would probably put some more senior political leadership in like to CIA Mhm. So this UAP task force that is kind of responsible for the contemporary conversation around UFOs, how is it Yeah. So I think it's really interesting kind of bureaucratic story of you know essentially Congress hearing some stuff coming out of the 2017 2018 stories and some back back channel conversations

that we need to have a formal group charged to like dig into this question and get people that are you know fully credentialed fully cleared you know have have the relevant um sort of analytic bent to go out into the the wilderness of the bureaucratic system and try to hunt down these alleged legacy programs. And that's essentially the story that we hear in some of the self-reports. Obviously, you know, limited by what Carl Nell and and David Grush and recently some individuals have have come out. And the UB task force that we've seen descriptions of it kind of

organizational structure like any other inter agency task force. It's got complicated reporting lines. You've got a lot of people coming in from different agencies. And the basic understanding I had, it wasn't really like a full-time gig for most people. But there were, I think, some individuals that were tasked with a much more substantial and serious responsibility like Rush. And there were others that were sort of maybe doing it in sort of a part-time basis and helping to assess, you know, imagery and and write reports and whatnot. Um, and you know, there's I think a loose confederation of additional sort of liaison that were pulling in different disciplines. But I was told something

very very interesting. And again, it's kind of like you hear these things and they come from people that you otherwise trust and have, you know, professions and experience to sort of back up their their claims. And it's it's tough to kind of fully, you know, uh calibrate how how much stock you put into it. But you know what I was told is that one you know when any um new government program gets especially sensitive government program uh sometimes they'll they'll repolgraph some members of the team especially those that are involved in the more sensitive aspects of of its

activities you know and polygraphs in US government um are designed you know in many ways to to sort of root out essentially disloyalty right so they'll ask you basic questions like you know have you ever supported a terrorist group have ever sort of you know supported insurrection to overthrow the government have you um ever, you know, had any unreported contacts with a foreign government. Essentially, these sort of counter intelligence scope um sort of polygraphs. Uh there's another scope of polygraphs called a lifestyle polygraph. It's like, you know, your gambling, your sexual activities, etc. trying to understand, are there any things that could be used to blackmail

you? So, standard sets of questions. What I was told is that there was a additional question or two added to that sort of screening polygraph which is uh have you had any uh uh relationships with I haven't talked about or um loyalty to any non-human faction. That's crazy. And I thought it was a joke. I thought it was like I pull my leg. This is not real. Like no. Apparently apparently it's true or apparently was reported as true. Um I don't have no evidence. I've not heard that confirmed. Um but it does

kind of then trigger this this other set of conversations which is very uncomfortable right which is like well what is the nature of the interaction between human society human institutions and non-human intelligence right if going back to our more abstract conversation is that there's a potential set of channels you know maybe more you know um foundational kind of consciousness level interactions or communication or or what have you. Well, okay. In principle, there's like some interaction taking place between members of the human population and non-human intelligence. We just, you know, if you

this really anomalous encounter. If that was a senior US intelligence official be a very different story. Right. Be very like why is it happening to that person? Yep. Right. And so that that raises lots of other questions, right? But I think there are questions you kind of have to take seriously in kind of this branching exploration of the basian tree of possibilities here that once you accept at least the premise of a certain foundational um set of facts. Well then you have to take seriously all the branching implications of of alternatives that become potentially maybe more plausible given that uh given that that update. And so yeah this is

this does I don't know where what to go with that other than just to say that's potential scenario to think about. Anecdotally, I know of one extremely senior intelligence official who had a pretty gnarly abduction experience along with his wife. And so I don't I don't want to say I think I think he's going to be going public with this story soon. But and that's this whole thing becomes very uncomfortable for people because it's one thing to intellectually gro the possibilities of non-human intelligence in the universe and maybe this metaphysical story that we've just been talking about. It's a, you know, it's another thing also to think about maybe

there's like advanced intelligence designing probes that are exploring civil, you know, solar systems or, you know, sending light sails out and we can get some of their advanced tech and figure out how they work. Like that would be groundbreaking, but it would be, you know, something that wouldn't disturb us, right? It's quite disturbing to understand that like the sanctity of your yourself, the sanctity of of your mind even could be violated at will by a higher form of intelligence. that sort of cuts to the core of our sense of inherent individual sovereignty as well as our political sovereignty. Right? And I think that's

truly I think why the sort of the the the impact of disclosure is so concerning for a lot of folks is that it threatens the sort of core basis of modern human civilization, right? The sense of the integrity of the self and the integrity of the autonomous sovereign structures we we build as as as autonomous individuals, meaning our political systems and the bureaucracies that help us manage them. Um and that that is a hard thing to swallow, right? And and to understand and analyze. Um but in many respects it's like a more exotic flavor of a traditional counter intelligence issue, right? Which is

you know, we exist in a competitive geopolitical environment where states are constantly trying to um compromise each other's systems, right? Recruit spies, understand plans and intentions of their respective adversaries or even friends and interpenetrate each other's bureaucratic systems with assets or agents or informers. So if you're modeling human societies actually not being um uh the sole species or intelligence that you're trying to assess, there's another set of stakeholders, then maybe it's fair to assume that they would conduct similar Uh that other states do, right?

So they they would they have their own trade craft and infiltrating mechanisms. yeah, it probably wouldn't be the same that we would expect China to do, right? But it would be something that if you are investigating this phenomenon, you'd have to, you know, assume is a is a possibility, right? Yeah. It's sort of like the book Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clark or something that wouldn't land on the White House lawn. They would sort of, you know, incept all sorts of stuff in society and culture and and Yeah. And it gets to the most difficult part of the whole conversation, which is like the the question that David Grush, you know,

very pointedly dodged in testimony, which was like agreements. Yep. seems like an absurd question. How can human society as you know primitive apes with nukes, how can we form an agreement? What would an agreement be based on? Like what sort of contractual dispute resolution mechanism is there? Right. Well, I think it's a I think it's maybe a um I think a category error. Maybe this is the the term of art. The language is not being appropriately applied. Coerced agreement or something. But I mean the the thing the agreement that I used to say was probably BS. And I,

you know, I still I have trouble even like with the words coming out of my mouth just saying this, but it's like this 19454 idea that like Eisenhower like made a treaty that like the grays could like collect biological specimen, do medical experiments on our population and, you know, we would we wouldn't destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons or whatever, you know, in return. Something like that. I used to think that that was like complete and total BS. I mean, you hear something like that. It's funny, actually. I think Eisenhower's granddaughter like stands by that fully,

rediversify the population after such an event, you know, you'd you'd you'd want to complete your collection right before that occurred or whatever if you understood, you know, how these timelines sort of work on a more root root layer. So, I I don't know what to make of that. It's it's, you know, it's kind of like your story. It feels very apocryphal and it's hard. you have to slap some probability on it. But yeah, I mean the other piece of is, you know, where people have alluded to similar things, not the genetic collection thing, which I think is, you know, I don't have a whole lot of weight assigned to that sort of thing, but um

Timothy Taylor, right, the the anon sort of but now, you know, well well kind of known kind of NASA program manager um that's been deeply involved in this stuff and spooky spooky subjects for a long time. you know when he was asked kind of what's the hierarchy by Dana by by by by Dana Pulka he's like you know I forget the exact texonomy but it was like you know normal humans like the intelligence services like some elements of the intelligence services and he said like aliens and then like god or something right and but his implication in that middle part was that there are

some elements of human institutions that have almost like an onlogically different status in his his sense of the hierarchy and you can read that one of two ways just like you know sometimes people in the intelligence community just have such such enormous egos that they actually think that no, they're different and better and special in some fundamental way than the rest of, you know, the unwashed masses. And that this hierarchy of being that he posits, you know, his sense of the role of that that cohort of human individuals is so significant they merit being noted as a

different class. An alternative explanation is that he's referring to a non-human element within our human bureaucracies. Yes. Those are the only two ways I think to interpret it, right? Yes. an outsized ego or he's referring to non-human presence in human I don't you know and so those are just the two implicate those are the two I think only alternative implications of his claim. So then to address which one you think he's going towards I think primaacia or prior has to be much more likely that it's his ego but I don't think it's zero and I think there's other circumstantial evidence about his his career other things he said maybe

he's painting he's trying to draw in a dotted line to that other implication. Well, the here's a fascinating thing about him is that he seemed to I guess flash all these like three-letter agency credentials to Pulka according to her. And I I trust her. She's a friend of mine. Um but then I I sort of back channelneled with some other intel people and I was like what's like this guy's a NASA mission controller. Like why does he have like all these clearances associations with other agencies or whatever? They're like no he's just a normal NASA mission

controller. And then it begs this question of like is a normal NASA mission controller who thinks he's part of a secret space program where he says his superiors don't even know he's in the And he gets these downloads about what to do. It's almost like this hermetic network. When Chris Bledsoe sees sees starts to see UFOs, they show up around his house. He shows up. He shows up in Diana Pulka's life when she transitions from following uh kind of Catholic purgatory and writing a book called

Heaven Can Wait on that and realizing that actually comports with all these like ancient probably UFO experiences. And so you you start to ask these deeper questions of like is the chain of command that we even know the real chain of command or is somebody like Timothy Taylor you know uh uh kind of following higher marching orders or I mean or does he think I mean some people fall into cults of belief where they actually think that they're taking instructions from a it's like traditional cults right of the humrum you UFO cult variety honestly like they

believe sometimes that their leader is a hybrid or is a special creature. that has been sent down to guide their special flock, right? And is imbued with special wisdom about maybe even some future cataclysmic event. And then the ingroup is going to be specially prepared to enter into that event and will be, you know, uniquely positioned or rewarded for their belief in the postevent, right? Traditional religious esquetological visions. And so you, you know, just because a program manager doesn't mean he's immune to the traditional psychological vulnerabilities and tropes of, you know,

desert with the founder of of Scientology Alon Hover just you just can't avoid that. That's what he was doing, right? And he was like he was like getting information somehow that was like impressing Warner von Braun. Yeah. You know, it's like indisputable. Yeah. Indisputable. Just historical facts, right? Just what what why, right? What is happening? And then all the weird stuff about how we name our rockets and people claiming that we do various rituals associated with with rocket launches like it's just happening, right? Humans are weird. So sometimes we do weird stuff. We're very superstitious, right? So sometimes we can layer those superstitions into

pretty complex narratives that maybe reinforce each other in in celebrate bureaucracy over decades. But it's just weird. You can't just ignore it. You can't you can't ignore the fact pattern. And actually if you look at the founders of all rocket programs Chikovski in Russia was the same way. He believed he had this worldview called cosmism where he thought he was in touch with angelic beings and in his case it was more of an orthodox Christian veneer but there were protocols involved in rocket launches and then von Braonn and Herman Oorth you know Oorth was von

Braun's mentor went through weird neopagan rituals that you know were in the kind of Nazi space program or that most SS officers actually had to go and so yeah begs some really interesting and you had launchpad 33 for NASA and then you also had Buzz Aldrin who was a Freemason literally stake out the moon if you know that with a with a a Freemasonic flag or whatever. So this it's all these questions are you know well and I think most observer most like because in our modern civilization we

think of technology as mostly associated with like corporate strategies investment returns you know uh cool gadgets but like in the history especially you probably if you look back you probably find versions of this in early technological paradigms but like the 20th century technological paradigms our breakthrough technologies all had these deeply embedded spiritual religious overtones or undertones and they carry through to today right so like I am become Shiva destroyer of worlds Oenheimer right obviously Jack Parson's launching launching rockets um the the Soviet equivalent and then now

right like what is motivating the kind of this metaphysical ethos behind AGI they actually think they're creating an AGI god that the sort of teological vision of humanity's future will needs to be manifested through their technological projects like that like we just accept that as like oh the San Francisco Bros they think they're making the AGI guy like some people like literally believe it right like Sergey BR, right? He thinks it's speciist to like pre to privilege human interests over the, you know, the the ostensible future interests of this much more advanced human intelligence

that will be like our godchild um endowment for the cosmos. It's like, hey, like this is not that much different, right? Like our most leading techn technological visionaries, you know, people that we're putting in charge of like driving for technological progress, you know, are sometimes wedded to quite radical religious spiritual belief systems. Yeah. Yeah. And it makes most of us uncomfortable. No, no, buddy. Like I just just get me the quarterly returns. Juice the juice the stock and my make number go up, right? And you know, meanwhile, like there's the something else right there,

right? And we just somehow we just we just prefer not to pay attention to that. We try not to report on, but it doesn't mean it's not there. You know, that the Air Force funded that movie Stargate, you know, the Kurt SG1 thing. Yeah. Yeah. It was like in the pyramid or whatever. There's a portal. And I sometimes I don't know, I think about uh this guy Towns and Brown this mid-century inventor that I think you know made much more progress than meets the eye when tying electromagnetism and gravity and some sort of theoretical model we probably didn't understand at the time but he was obsessed with time

travel behind closed doors is like all he would talk about with this like friends and family and so I do sometimes wonder you know if you like watch the movie contact Carl San like if there is something going on that is much deeper than SpaceX is this like earthbased obviously very important space company, but like if there isn't something much more fundamental, especially in the world of NHI predicated, you know, if if that stuff is real, do we have some sort of like joint program with them or, you know, like I don't know. Is there

something much deeper when it comes to the American space programs? I mean, yeah. I mean, Elon has been famously very like, you know, dismissive of the alien thing. He's like, "I've got all my Starlink terminals up there." Or, you know, if anything, if we had to like move out of the way of any alien spacecraft like we would know it, which is on the surface of it kind of an absurd thing. He's a very smart guy. And people just accept that. Like that's an absurd explanation. Like what are you talking about? Like Well, for one, like you're a tiny satellite. Space is huge. You're not going to have to like navigate over just like an inert rock that happens to be from an alien

civilization. You know how to navigate into space. Like we launch stuff into space all the time. Y you don't have to move your satellites. We figured that that out. I would assume any advanced intelligence wouldn't have to navigate, wouldn't just be like, "Oh, I'm gonna run into that thing. Please, Starlink, move out of the way." Right? Just an absurd statement, right? As if he thinks and he's a smart guy, right? It's like, "What are you talking about, man?" And then more recently, he's he's he was asked a question about legacy programs at like a town hall thing when Trump campaigning for Trump and he said, um, well, you know, if US government has interesting technology, they should make

it available. I saw that. He walked it back. that that was a big that's an important line in the sand from previous comments, right? So I think I think he's in an interesting position. Um so this is a bit more speculative very speculative on me but um uh you know Howard Hughes of course you know similar figure to Elon in many ways like eccentric genius outsized personality connected to defense intelligence you know this is like you know a larger than life figure in the 50s and 60s. Um but he was like

deeply connected to the Mormon church. The Mormon church kind of like the uh his like senior managers and handlers for all of his his corporate apparatus were essentially Mormon. Um they call him the Mormon mafia, right? Their two brothers, Frank Gay, I think the other guy. And um they actually towards as as Howard Hughes kind of lost a grip on reality, they kind of took over his affairs, right? And this was the same group that was doing all the covert actions for the CIA, the Lamar Explorer, etc. And potentially even doing the hits on Kennedy, both Kennedys, by the way. Yeah. And you know this is a whole

separate tangent of like you know we think about our current state institutions as being highly depersonalized you know a religious aactional just you know appointees with technocratic competence etc but that's kind of naive right like American history is complicated and there's you know there are other institutional forces that sometimes have a little bit more inroup loyalty and solidarity and I think the Mormon church and the Mormon um you know businesses uh uh and political um structures are quite quite coh and have endured over 150 years,

longer than the CIA, for example, has been around. And that, for example, the uh community set up shop in Utah. They wanted to create their own state, right? Our own sort of theocratic state. Um Joseph Smith actually may have been assassinated by agents of the government. There might be part people of, you know, he was trying to campaign essentially for president. Um and like convert our civil our society, our our our constitutional government to like a kind of a sort of a democratic theocratic sort of halfway. Um and they wanted to set up their own state in Utah. They had their own constitutional

convention and it convert turned into this sort of state state constitution. Um and uh they called it Desireette was going to be the state of of Utah. This is a long tangent to say the the Elon connection is Elon's like basically like sort of handler like his like the man who manages all of his affairs. He's like sits on the board of XAI, sits on the board of Neuralink or is the president I think of Neuralink. um manages his family office, manages all his Bitcoin and other crypto transactions. Um started and run a private security company for him. H

handles basically most of his, you know, he's his p he's his personal fixer. He's got his Jared Birchall. he's comes out of he's like a Mormon elder. He's this guy. Um and it's just like a interesting symmetry, right, between this industrial techno technological kind of industry titan. Uhhuh. just happens to have like most of his life's affairs, his business affairs being managed by, you know, a guy who's very well connected in the Mormon And that's almost like, you know, isomeorphic to the Howard Hughes story

in many ways. And if you look into, you know, the Mormon church, um, I mean, again, nothing against the any relig any religion, but like they have been really successful at essentially penetrating most of our intelligence system because what like like what is the Mormon community really good at, right? They generate lots of like children and they train they train them in multiple languages. They send them out in missions around the world. They don't do drugs. They don't do alcohol. They're very like they're very loyal to an ingroup. They respect hierarchy. It's exactly what like a CIA officer, FBI officer, NSA person is

going to be like, you know, that's like a excellent recruit. And that's exactly what's happened. Like FBI's talked about how like Brigham Young is like their top source. Um Yeah. They said Mormons, Marines, and Yes. And what was interesting, so Utah data center, it's now declassified this code name. What the NSA set up then the largest sort of single data center in Utah back in the 2005s, something like that. And the code name for it was And Bumblehive is essentially this was the symbol of Desireette. Um, so there's some weird stuff there,

right? And if you actually look into Mormonism, it's kind of a UFO religion. Oh, for sure. Earth is not the only If it had a UFO religion, that would be 100%. Right. Um, and you know, Joseph Smith has contacts, gets downloads, codifies those into essentially a system of rules. He's leading his flock to establish a political order and then they become, you know, deeply embedded in, you know, the structures of our int of our intelligence and security apparatus. And, you know, are then any any big figure that we can, you know, like why is Howard Hughes and and Elon

happen to all be connected to a similar Mormon control system? I I don't know. It's it's very interesting and it's um I don't know what dots to to to connect there. There's just facts uh to stitch but also like the Mormon church and the you know associated institutions, they they have a lot of money. A ton of Yeah. Like hundreds of billions of dollars, right? Because everyone ties, but also they're really good investors and they just have really close-knit business relationships that are globing, right? So everyone's focused on the Carlile group and everyone else is like, "Okay, but like

the Carile group's not been around that long." Like most finance, you know, elites, they don't have a whole lot of again, they want to get rich, they want to get powerful, right? But like it's hard to sustain like a generational project like that. It tends to decay, tends to split. This isitudes of, you know, international finance and business deals, right? The Mormon church though, they've been around for a while. They got a lot of They've got a clear ideological, you know, vision that they all share, codes of conduct, interpersonal bonds that, you know, they don't violate, right? like you know it's well known that if

you're a Mormon you show up to a city like you can kind of you can kind of get in right if you're one of the tribe it's like it's you know it's like you're one of us right so those are those are features of human society right that are very strong right and that are you know despite the the more impersonal sense that we're constructing institutions like intelligence bureaucracies that are impersonal and a religious well they exist in a social millu with other institutions right and they can be vulnerable to, you know, different, you know, loyalty loyalties being tested and

compromised over time. I don't exactly know how that's played out, but like you just have to look at American society. I think it's it's an odd blind spot that we don't think about the role. I mean, could be very positive. I'm not saying it's negative or positive. It just is a fact of our political economy that we have like a religious institution that controls hundreds of billions of dollars of capital that also has, you know, more than almost any other single group probably put more, you know, seated more people into our intelligence bureaucracies for decades, right? And just also happens to be

strongly associated with our leading technologists over over the 20 20th and 21st centuries. I don't know. It's like with the James Simons thing. I have no like there's no smoking gun there. It just seems like a curious thing, right? Seems something to be, you know, interested in, right? I don't know. It's a very interesting fact pattern. Well, um, when it comes to the science stuff, you had like, you know, an interesting possible theory of everything with this kind of, you know, upstream, uh, hyperraph and and, you know, Gerard and Wolf Ram. Uh, what about kind of more local anomalies or

like discoveries possibly midentury? So, like the towns of Brown example I mentioned that we've we've talked about. Another one would be like a more extended version of electronamics involving you know there's always talks of like a scalar field or whatever. Um you know do do you have conviction in any of these things? You mentioned nutrinos like nutrino information transfer I don't know would be maybe another one. There might be some cool stuff that and I don't rule any of that out. Um and like the nutrino one I'll just say is interesting because um you know nutrinos are particle doesn't very

weakly interacts with normal matter but doesn't doesn't not interact with matter. We build detectors, you know, heavy water and the Arctic to get like little flashes and these photo multiplier tubes that, you know, gives like, you know, one out of every, you know, 400 quadrillion nutrinos actually hits and creates a detection. Um, but that's just like that's coming from the sun and kind of in this amorphous, you know, spray of nutrinos. It's possible. I haven't really done the math. Maybe ask on this is like if you were able to construct a really tight high intensity beam of nutrinos so that the density of

the nutrinos is like many many orders of magnitude higher than otherwise would be and you develop a really sensitive detector. Well, then you can send a signal through any any basically through the earth, right? Which would be really useful for something like for example if you're trying to ensure you have like redundant redundant redundant nuclear control communications. If your satellites are down, all your terrestrial communications are down, but you really want to ensure that the sub other side of the earth can get the go-k physically impossible to me. You really need to run the numbers and do the engineering and, you know, figure it out. It doesn't seem impossible to use,

you know, essentially a nutrino beam fired through the earth and if it's sufficiently high intensity and you have a sufficiently sensitive detector, um, that you could transmit information that way, transmit, you know, launch goods or other things. uh it probably wouldn't be high bandwidth in general would be like Starlink, but like for you know certain certain information communication requirements. So I think there's certain aspects like that um that don't to me don't seem like physically implausible. There's other things like scalar fields. I don't know uh I'm not as I don't have

like a strong opinion on scalar fields, scalar weapons. Yep. This whole domain I don't know I'm sort of agnostic. There's a part of it which is like if there was enough lowhanging fruit that is just like a small tweak to say Einstein's field equations. It's hard to believe that somebody wouldn't have figured that out by now. Right. That some people there's a there's maybe a torsion term in Einstein's field equations that we normally ignore. That's Ellie Carton thing. Yeah. That maybe there's and that's been a lot of what has been a kind of like

unconventional physics approaches is usually taking generalativity and like looking for like weird variations of it, right? What if there was an extra term here that introduced a new field or there's a new degree of freedom here and what would that mean? And that's fine, but like the interesting thing about the Einstein field equations is that they're actually quite going back to the Gard thing. It's actually not that surprising that you're that he was able to uh regenerate or kind of generate uh the field equations out of this sort of limit of this discrete model is because the Einstein field equations turn out to

be kind of like with very minimal constraints on a certain uh how you define you know a certain topological structure with a certain metric structure like the Einstein field equations are just what you have to get. Right. They're almost like the natural the most natural description of of the metric structure of a a very general class of of sort of manifolds. And so they're not that special. Um, and therefore they kind of allow many different permutations. There's many different like little bells and whistles you can kind of add to the Einstein field equations that would, you know,

give you maybe different fields, different degrees of freedom. And it's possible that there are experiments that you could do that would allow you to figure that out. I wouldn't rule it out, but I haven't done like the deep dive enough to know whether you know whether that's plausible enough. But it's like to me that's more just like a it's a it reminds me a bit of like the toic epicycles which is you know dancifi field equations are very simple very clean they explain a very general class of phenomenon you want to explain UFOs and so you're looking to be like what bells and whistles can I add to this

simple conceptual structure that I can sort of allow me to explain this anomalous phenomenon right how could I like engineer the spaceime metric or could zip around using you know scalar fields or something it it seems a bit clunky. It seems a bit cluji. It seems a bit like you're looking for the answer that you wanted to get to to get more specific than that, which I agree is sort of lazy thinking. One, you know, thing that might have happened that like Weinstein spoke about, Eric Weinstein spoke about on Rogan is, you know, 1957 Chapel Hill conference,

you know, quantum gravity gets established and there's an Austrian mathematician present named Herman Bondi. And he brings up this question of like what about all these anomalies that might occur if you had theoretical existence of negative mass or negative energy, which is was, you know, totally theoretical at the time. And if you didn't have the positivity conditions and you take into account these theoretical, you know, energy and mass, you know, negative energy, negative mass, you would get all sorts of weird anomalous effects that like we wouldn't be able to predict with, you know, the

or whatever and so that brings up this question you know and then you look at Miguel Alcubieri which everybody talks about alubi warp drives this, you know, uh, solution for Einstein faster than light travel, you know, given general relativity and it involves negative mass and negative energy. And so, yeah, is there something there? But the ability to harness something like the kasmir force for propulsion, it's interesting. I've seen certain again I'm not like a professional physicist so it's like I try to read

people and it's like I think the kasmir effect is one that's hard to um I don't know if you could extract useful work because you can get essentially the vacuum pressure but because if you put two circuit plates you know in the absence the vacuum will emit any mode of sort of spontaneous quantum uh sort of virtual particle pairs but when you impose this boundary condition of two conducting plates you're eliminating you know a whole set of possible modes and therefore there's kind of less energy in between the two plates, more energy outside the plate. That's a negative pressure. Maybe you could extract more.

Um that's kind of the basic premise of it. Um I don't know. I don't know if you could actually like if that if there's any like so one interesting thing about general relativity that most people don't understand is that it's not it doesn't conserve energy globally, right? It only conserves energy locally. There's no such actual thing as like global universal scale energy conservation and general activity. And so there there may be loopholes, right? That's the thing is like are there loopholes, right? There may be loopholes because general activity is is you know it doesn't require um you know local it

doesn't require global energy conservation. So maybe there are tricks you can exploit. Um but we don't really understand what negative energy really means. And in I always try to come back to like my best you know current thinking about what the models are to to use to answer this question like the the hyperraph you know models are essentially energy um in those models essentially is the um you here's like a surface you know like you're just foliating the the the causal graph. Energy is a measure of the number of of of causal edges going through that surface, right? Um and then momentum is

just the inverse. It's the number of um causal edges if you orient it in the time length direction versus the space-like direction. And that's actually how you then construct the Einstein field equations with the stress energy tensor is because you need to have measures of energy in in a discrete structure. And so there like energy is a is a is a discreetly defined measure on this on this graph structure. It's not like this ineffable thing just like an E in an equation. It's like the number of edges going through an arbitrary um sort of uh sort of hypersurface. And so then his question is like what is a negative

energy in that in that in that? Well, in in this concept there's such thing as like an absolute measure of energy, right? Energy is always a relational quantity because there's no global measure of energy. Energy is always a relative reference frames. And so it's like can you construct a certain way of foliating these hyperservices so that from one inertial frame you've got essentially access to an energy gradient right that is negative from your from your perspective right so it's like there is no such thing as positive or negative energy there's just you know in the local reference frame that you happen to be you know constructing for yourself for whatever crazy technology

you've got can you you know essentially you know engineer a ne like a relative negative gradient to like the number of causal edges that are in your future um in in your causal future ly I don't know that would be the how you'd have to do it so I don't know so as far as like you have to look at the fundamental physics theory and be like is that ruled out right like general relativity is not the fundamental physics theory so you can construct models of general relativity where yeah there's a there's different terms there's different components there's different um you know

states that you could potentially you know allow within that broad that broad very cons very self-consistent framework but does that mean that those physically realizable in our universe, Well, you be like, well, no, we need to know what the actual fundamental theory of physics is for our universe. And then do those admit of these types of capabilities. Yeah. So I don't rule it out because we don't have the fundamental theory, but I think it's kind of like the level where we're talking about these um you know vacuum engineering sorts of descriptions that I think of as like a higher level description like those might be fully consistent with like a a bottomup you

know Gardian view like they might meet somewhere in the middle here where it's like actually it turns out yeah like there are certain special conditions that are that emerge in the sort of hyperraph vision of things that do get you uh systems that look like they're consistent with say vacuum engineering, right? But the vacuum metric engineering is just like a higher level or a mid-level description here. Um, so it's possible this is like and then going back to the historical story, it is quite suspicious that like there was all this work on grav on on gravity specifically and all this stuff

Like, we're just gonna set we're gonna shut shut this down. you know, go back to your normal ivory tower academic jobs and write papers and you know, we'll call you in the next war. What's the answer then to the Weinstein counterpoint to that where he's like where are all the smart like all the Nemar Connie this you know all these naming all these people he's like why aren't they in the program you know what's going on is Ed Whitten in the program you know like it is a good question um and I don't know like you'd have to I don't know what the base rate measure is of like super smart people right and like

whether the academic production of of theoretical physicists is the only pipeline for such talent that you can imagine existing. Like if you really have decades to set up alternative programs to spot talent when they're 12 or 13 years old through you know standardized academic testing you understand who the prodigies are before they make it to college or even PhD programs like you know I think Eric has a model of like there's an existing cohort of trained practical theoretical physicists that exist in the discipline and the US government is just like we found a UFO come help us figure it out. Yep. Right.

I think maybe alternative model is like they had that stuff well before modern academic theoretical physics formed as a discipline, right? And there are academic affiliate programs kind of everywhere. I mean MIT being MIT super soldier program being like one example, but like oh and like really smart people do very classified research and don't talk about it. Um and it's just you know to think you have like the Harvard faculty has a monopoly on you know 160 IQs that can you know spend two years reading fun physics journals like it's not that hard. Yeah, totally. And you go back to

these declassified CIA memos and you're like the outpost for exotic gravity research. In certain cases it was like Indiana, Purdue, like it was it wasn't necessarily I mean there Princeton and and MIT were also named but like it's it's not always you know who you might assume you know is sort of the the the tip of the spear as far as I look at like J Simons we talked about nobody really knows how many people he's got working for him and like his pipeline could be scaled in probably two three five 10x and would

like who would really know y right especially if he's not targeting mid-career or you coming out of grad school, but he's able to spot like for example Harold Mgrren, he was spotted when he was like 12 or 13 years old. That's wild. 12 or 13. And he was going to give he was going to be he was asked to come to MIT when he was like a you know early teen and he forever family reasons he couldn't do it. So he ended up going to Renelier Polytechnic and then was given a full ride in lateral to Yale um and then was sort of entered into the the system from there. Right. But he was tapped from it was the MIT president actually tapped

him and were you spotted Matthew? Not that I know. I know. I mean, who knows? But like, you know, we had the gifted and talented programs, right? I did that, right? Went to Johns Hopkins. Um. Oh, you did that? Yeah. You know, who knows? Uh, you know, you know, I did that too back in the day. I Yeah. Interesting. We That's where the plan that's what that's what. So, we had chips embedded in our brain, you know. I was like, the juice boxes, you know, then like wait, I did take naps. Like, what was happening there? Um, so yeah, but like that's the thing is like if you're going to manage a program that's fundamental like this is the thing it sounds conspiracy like I

like first principles if I'm a senior defense intel bureaucrat in like the late 1940s and I'm like all right we won the war all the physicists helped us win it. It was kind of like by the skin of our teeth. The Nazis were like neck and neck right like a year it would have been a close run thing. We can't let that happen again. Right. We just happen to have all these smart German physicists, these Jews that were fleeing the Nazis that came here, right? It's like we had Einstein, we had Oenhe, we had all these guys, you know, that were, you know, uh, you just kind of got lucky, right? That

we happened to have access to this talent and then we could wet it to our industrial system and like go all systems go. Um, but they'd be like, "All right, we can't that was like an ad hoc kind of like got a bit lucky sort of thing. We can't we need to systematize this formal formalize We need to ensure that we have the most talented individuals in our society identified and steered where we can into positions where we can leverage them for the most strategic national security purposes, which the lesson of World War II is the most strategic national security um you

know domain is fundamental physics, right? Whoever whoever figures out the next trick in fundamental physics can design potential worldchanging weapons. that just seems like bureaucratic um negligence of the highest order if they didn't put in place a systematic program to identify and identify and recruit in various ways talent to help ensure that fundamental physics research could be conducted in secret for the US government. Like that would be like my baseline expectation, right? Seems like an absurd thing because of course Eric

is a smart guy. He's like, I see no evidence of this. Well, they've had a lot of time to p to keep this secret and it doesn't require that many people, right? It's not going to be like an and a bunch of nerds sitting in a room somewhere doing math is not going to like show up on much not make much of not going to make much of a footprint. And it's not they're going to publish Uh so it's you know again how so this is where it's me mechanic mechanistically I would expect such a sort of set of programs to have been put in motion. It's a whole different question to assess well how successful have they been right because they could set up all

this apparatus. the government can be is really good at creating these programs, making them really secret, funding them over many years, but they're not that good at actually stimulating creative innovation, right? So, you know, then this kind of explains to me why you have these cases like like uh like Ning Lee or whatever, like folks that are clearly doing like breakthrough research on the margins of some interesting subjects and then they get sort of poof, they disappear. And is it because is there two explanations? One is the

saying makes total sense because I think you know if this stuff was housed in the Manhattan project, you know, before the setup of maybe some sort of distributed recon system or whatever to track, you know, young prodigies, uh it seemed like the destructiveness of science and tech was just going as at the time. And so to like not clamp down with safeguards as far as you know both uh being able to recruit uh but also being able to quickly hide you know what

you're working on that that that would seem like this big national security priority right and we have recent evidence like again hearsay but Andre Horowitz and Ben Horitz had this meeting and they reported back with the National Security Council senior staff and an individual on that National Security Council said we have classified entire areas of fundamental physics before don't think we can do the same for AI. This was in rejoinder to uh Andre Horwood saying you can't classify AI as just math. And they're like you bet you bet we can. We did it before.

It's like there you go guys. And I think there's like a Rand Corp initiative to like basically have like a g global control system over compute because of the AGI race. And there might be an interesting connection on like Rand Corp and some of the more secret science or tech when it comes to propulsion and that sort of thing. I don't know if you've thought about that. I I had a convers I've tweeted about this so I I I guess I should say it now because it's public but like be careful how much details I give but I had a

over a year ago. I forget exactly when go back to my Twitter. um probably coming up on a year ago now with a former very senior Department of Defense individual and you know we we had been chatting about lots of different subjects and again kind of UAPs came up and um this individual described having a meeting with uh with Arrow and this individual was responsible for um managing large collections of SAPs uh including those that touched on AI stuff including other things

and you know this person has been around the block in terms of, you know, even when you're getting a top secret SEI briefing on a particular program. Um, when they give these similar briefings on their SAPs, they regularly give [ __ ] briefings at the highest level of classification to others. You know, that's just that's just the game, right? If you don't need to know, you don't need to know. But the existence of such a program is something that's hard to keep secret. So, you give a [ __ ] briefing. when he was sitting

on the at the Arrow briefing, it was like that was the perception that this was the [ __ ] briefing. Game recognized game was the quote basically. And we got a bit further into it and they said, um, you know, it's a AI, quantum, and the grush stuff. That was it. And we were, you know, in an environment where I couldn't I didn't want to press too much into the issue. You know, I didn't have it wasn't like this sort of sit down where it's like we could go for hours. Um, so that was basically where it where it sort of landed. Um, and I've been chewing on

that for a while, you know, AI, quantum, and the grush That's wild. That's super interesting. My mind's going crazy now. That's And you can imagine, I mean, all those different ways you could permute that, right? Quantum you can interpret as quantum computing. Or you can interpret quantum as like more like quantum weird spooky consciousness stuff. Uh or something else. materials or Yeah. or quantum quantum materials. Quantum Yeah. Just he just said quantum AI quantum and in the government like

quantum is usually used as like a catch all for all that stuff. Right. Well, not the conscious but like quantum sensing, quantum computing, you know, quantum cryptography etc. Um so I don't know this but this there clearly is a sense and this is why AI is becoming important is like you know the the program that Michael Shelonburgger wrote about he might even be testifying in Congress next week about it. you know, apparently is using AI to identify, you know, UAPs and maybe even ARVs, uh, because a characteristic morphology and we have lots of sensors

and we're saying, okay, we need to and if AI is becoming much more decentralized and a capability that is in the private sector, well, that would be a problem, right? Um, so there might be a lot of technological trends that are underway that are just going to make keeping us in the bottle just almost imp like you know, much more difficult. Um there's also the you know more abstract or like you know um speculative which is okay you know any arbitrary form of intelligence is likely going to share like kind of be coming from a different spot in the real multiverse to communicate in the multiple in the real

multiverse you need to share concepts like concepts are the bridge or like that's actually the category theoretic like um transportation measure like the distance measure in real space is like your conceptual um so like we are really close space people that come from different languages are a little bit fur apart but they otherwise are close together because of their common history and so in assembly theory you can see this is like they share a common ancestor but only they recently branched right so they only haven't gone too far in real space so like you can do translation between Chinese and English pretty well right there's certain concepts in Chinese you can't easily map

to English and vice versa right just that's just the nature of trying to do you know essentially translation you know there's not complete translation and variance in real space between different you know between different cognitive systems but an arbitrary intelligence coming from that has an entirely different assembly history is likely not going to be that close to us in real space. So, but what are AI systems really good at is basically helping to explore and translate through real space, right? That's why we now using AI systems to try to like decode dolphin and like whale sounds, right? is because there's

they're really good at basically in this sort of very multi-dimensional vector space identifying what are those patterns of regularity and then you know creating like a a map of what the the conceptual structure inside that that representational space is and then figuring out okay is there is there a certain mapping that I can go from that internal representational system to human representational systems it's like what is the whale equivalent of like you know might be there probably is a plausible way of of de developing an encoding essentially between human concepts and and and whale concepts,

right? And that would be probably like one of the top priorities, right? Of course, we have the movie Arrival. It's like the top priority is like trying to develop an encoding system between human concepts and NHI concepts, right? And AIs will be very important maybe have been extremely important in developing such an encoding, right? Um and it's probably no secret or no surprise that like you know the the guy the co-founder of Renaissance was Robert Mercer. Mercer invented basically large language models and applied those along with other you know the leading they were leading most

of the AI stuff basically and making all that money using some of it and doing semantic analysis like you know they didn't have the transformer architecture back then but they were doing all sorts of crazy advanced AI um so that would be the exactly team with skills you would apply to being like we've got we're getting communications we're not quite sure how to trust them right and the NSA is really you know their job is to like do decryption right um and you can almost think about Like decryption is basically the same thing as like funal physics in some way, right? Like you're you're getting you

get a certain you know like the univer the universe is like this unfolding computation that's computationally irreducible to any given observer that can't inspect all of its microates. And so there's some core screening that core screening function is essentially is like an encryption. It's like our models are like encryptions of of the underlying pattern of the world, right? And then we're trying to when we do physics we're trying to like you know decrypt right those representations. we like a naive representation of the universe. We're trying to decrypt what the like the underlying you know you know factor was that generated that And so the NSA is really good at doing

those sorts of things. So there's a lot of overlap between the kinds of research and technologies and skills you would need to like understand the the NHI problem that are way beyond just like you know engineering topological materials right you'd want to be able to communicate be able to trust the be able to you know understand what sorts of you know concepts are embedded and what sorts of social information is embedded in those concepts right like you know we can maybe learn a lot about how like whale social structure actually works by decoding their concepts right like how close is the friend an enemy or food source. You

looking symbols and I'm wondering if we could use AI on that w with some maybe symbolic conventions or something. I mean, this is where it gets quite weird because you're if you assume there's some interaction, right? And most of the first person accounts have been, you know, you know, non non-recordable interactions, right? Just like, you know, ineffable, you're destroying the planet, nukes are bad, you know, danger's coming, right? Sort of tropey stuff. Um but you know that seems a bit like are there other more definitive you

know forms of of information like records that have been deposited right or or or given or or or encodings from certain signals that we've been able to translate um or be able to write down um like the f I can imagine like this pro program if you really like imagine it's like possible full branches right there's like the biological piece there's the hardware physical science material science piece fundamental physics for propulsion etc piece. There's the xenol linguistics piece, the sort of socioultural, you know, aspect

of that. There be like all these different branches, right? Imagine you're trying to study human society, right? It's like you would have it all, right? You look for all the artifacts you could. You'd look for all the maybe unintended signals that we would be sending to try to understand. So there'd be a massive program, but all be compartmentalized into all these different domains. and you you know AI would be really important to help you synthesize and integrate and develop hypotheses for for for that research project right so maybe that's what he was pointing at right is and you need you need some sort of immaculate constellation to quarantine some of the comms both from a kind of

you know physical perspective if there are crashed UFOs but also yeah the comms going on between people and that sort of yeah and and then there'd be the you know there'd be the the basic intelligence function AI I could help and there's going to be the very important counter intelligence function, right? Um, and there's some weird stories that have been coming out recently of just how like in general like the government is usually like several steps ahead of the private sector. I think in generative AI they're probably not, but that doesn't mean they're not ahead in certain certain areas that are applications of

AI. it could be quite far ahead um that are more unique to like you know government use cases like the government is not going to invest a whole lot in deli not a whole lot in like a chatbot right there's just not a function that's going to align to any government function that's going to get the R&D but there are you know things people are naive to think that the private sector just happen to explore the most advanced um part of the tech tree right certainly they explored a part of the tech tree that happens to be very uh infrastructure uh energy intensive um the government because it has to be secret probably would would discount

those branches because we can't build 200 mill$200 billion dollars worth of AI in you know infrastructure to train the next models like we got to keep this secret so we would look for other transformer non-transformer architectures probably to explore and we have time to like you know test those out without you know the competitive race with open AI to like oh we got something that work like now we're stuck we got to like basically scale this up and keep training a bigger bigger model um this is all to say I think people assume that like regards to AI that that open AI and anthropic are like much

further ahead than anyone else. And I think it might be there might be orthogonal vectors here for certain applications and certain certain um architectures. Uh and again it's like you assume fundamental physics research could be done in secret. It's like well it could be fundamental AI research that's done in secret right it's like as soon as this is identified as a requirement there's a pipeline there's a there's an SOP there's a process there's a structure this would you know this is what I would I would hope is happening. Um, but then it's not just us. Chinese, the Russians, um, others maybe. And the Chinese have gotten really good at doing

some of these NAR applications for their social surveillance purposes and other And those are are there's like weird things happening now with people. Uh, you know, being really good at manipulating individuals online, right? Being really good at, you know, generating humanlike um, interactions in certain ways. Um, and that would be, you know, a way of kind of distorting our internal conversations on subjects like like you at peace, right? So, I think the the this is like a convergence of these different trends of like

disclosure on the one hand, but also the ability of society to like sense make. Is like being degraded almost at the same pace. So, I do wonder if we get to a point where like yeah, the government goes, "Yeah, we're actually going to come out with everything." But like the basic ability of you know society what we call society to process that in something like a consistent fashion could just be obsolete. On that note where do you think the UFO conversation goes from here? Cuz there's there I mean there are two camps. One is you know if we were having this

conversation 40 50 years ago and we were kind of invested in the issue it probably would have been the wrong investment right like not a lot happened. Uh and then the other camp is things seem to be kind of unraveling quickly and snowballing and so yeah where do you think things go from here? This is the tough question. I I don't think it's going back in the bottle. Um I think I think we will be facing more disruption recognition Um you know I take the title of Lu

Alzando's book seriously. Right. He doesn't say that for a reason. And he's given other remarks that, you know, indicate this is this is not something you're going to be just like a kick the can for decades. Yeah. Right. I I I I do not though fall into the camp of like there's a 2027 clock and yeah, they're showing up, right? That's I've heard that and people have said that is like, you know, word got around that they're going to come up and show up in 2027 and this is why we need to, you know, get ready, get people prepared,

etc. I don't rule it out, but like that seems like not the not not my baseline scenario. Um, I think I see a convergence of things that are now kind of historically it's like it's like the vibe, right? It's almost like there are things that I know that people are potentially going to come out and say publicly, but is that going to be what we call capital disclosure, right? It's like who's paying attention? Who cares? Right? Yeah, it's like information can come out and come out either v individuals in sort of a sto so stotastic self-organized process and they may have the professional bonafites

the historical experience the credibility to get maybe the next marginal increment of the population to pay attention and go what the hell right but we've had a number of those people already right it's just like we're kind of on this ratchet which is like the haim sheds the Canadian defense minister more recent era you've had David Crush you've had Lou you've got Carl Nell Chris like these are not like household names But they sort of we're climbing this ladder here, right? And we've had suggestive remarks come from multiple presidents and it's this is like an accretion over time and I think there will be I expect there'll be more individuals of senior

caliber coming out and saying things but I think it will be in alignment with an evolving political process that I think is nondeterministic right in the sense that like the UAP disclosure act was well you know one version of this kind of control process but that was written before people thought that Trump was going to have a unified government and is now going to have RFK into VC in there and Elon in there doing truth and reconciliation committees and like opening up all the books on everything. like I'm sorry but like that's not like those are just different those are very

diff distinct approaches to this and I don't know if the UP disclosure act process of having nine you know sort of technocrats appointed by the president. I mean I think that could still survive. I think it's an important process because you need to have an accountable independent uh procedure here. But if I'm just making a forecast like it's likely going to be messier than what that process originally envisioned, right? Just um I don't know. We'll see. I don't know how but like VC I know is very interested in the subject. JD is very interested in the subject. Um Elon seems to have changed his tune a

Uh RFK is very interested in the subject. Trump has obviously talked about it. Mhm. So, where this sits in there, like how they're going to manage this, who like it's like who they going to sign this problem, right? That's that's be the big question. And then is this a is this a should we try to get appointments? I don't know, man. You want the red dot in your head. Um, probably not. Yeah. Yeah. You know, better to be behind the camera than, you know, uh, the guy actually doing stuff as far as disclosing. Yeah, that's probably right. I mean it's interesting like the the the control disclosure campaign plan would

set up this UAP records review board and that records review board would be have all the status of an ex uh executive department agency obviously the subpoena authority the uni lateral declassification authority with presidential override um but it would also allow them to you know leverage the capacities uh and authorities of the federal acquisition regulation so they could actually with a budget issue so they could hire full-time staff and have issue contracts to third party adviserss to write reports and studies and contribute to um you know expert analysis on the various strands of the

these questions which would be explicitly under their mandate to report and make recommendations to the president across all these instruments of national power right that Carl Nell has talked about and so that that is like the that is like the standard you know U like DC approach we got a tough problem you know there's a hot potato the Senate really doesn't want to have to own it you know the house really can't deal with it the executive branch is kind of like you know looking into its own backyard card and the NYSE is you know relatively small and so we're going to convene and then panel this

independent group it's going to be you know president will obviously have veto authority but it's going to basically everyone gets to pass the hot potato to this group so that that that logic might still stand right because I could see between the incoming administration that same basic sense of like do I really want this to come out but do I want to own this hot potato do I want to like navigate all this morass or do I want to be like, I agree. We should have this independent group over here of people that I can recommend. They're kind of like, you know, my friends and allies or

whatever, but like they do the hard work and they dig with the messy stuff and they get a budget and they get the clearances and they get the contracts and then that becomes an like a separate more institutional apparatus to formally go through this sort of thing and make recommendations to, you know, President Trump. Um I think it's I I would still push for the UP disclosure act um versus say some ad hoc VVC truth and reconciliation committee that god knows how that would be formalized and stood up and structured and also like what other things would be sort of stuffed

under its remit. It would dilute its purpose, distract it and politicize it potentially and I think it's just better course of action to just put the energy behind this existing you know framework. I think it doesn't matter who you appoint obviously that's like you know this the structure is there it's how you fill out that structure like who gets appointed to these positions if they if they pass this law um under the new admin so we'll see um but also there's the legacy folks inside the house that you still have to deal with right like the the Roger u the Rogers and Turner um

and you know we'll see how much like in general like an incoming administration has lots of priorities and you know certain reservoir of political capital UFOs is not at the top of that list. Well, that's the interesting thing. It's like it's hard to say how it fits and um you know, honestly, a path of leaf resistance for them is to just kick the kick it to an independent group, right? Um because if they're going to go through this dirty laundry, glasses procedure, you might have to spend a lot of your own executive political capital like on like adjudicating every one of

those decisions on this record, this thing, this program, this like where is that line going to be drawn? It's like a case by case. And that's a very it's a it's that's a messy thing, right? I'm not sure any of these people want to be making those decisions or spending their political capital fighting, you know, god knows who, right? Whereas like, hey, kick it over to this group, give them a bunch of money, give them a clear let them deal with it and you kind of are hands off to a certain extent and then the important decisions you can kind of airdrop in and you know, right, put your thumb on the scale. Um, so that would be I don't know preferred

scenario to play out here. Um I mean there is a scenario where you know all these folks come in and they've been singing a certain tune. They go disclosure, openness, glass notes, etc., etc., etc. Then they get shown whatever it is. And they go, "Nah, sorry. Sorry guys. Nah, this whole UFO thing, I don't know. That way we're just we're good. Yeah, we're good. Look over here." Right. I I it's always the scenario you have to, you know, Yep. put onto your to the to the to the

to the to the table here because I don't really know what's behind that curtain, right? And whether there is something that's just like, nope, not going to talk about it, right? We hear an awful lot of unnerving stories from people like Jeremy Corbell or Ross Coloulthart who are like ostensibly talking to people on legacy programs directly and like they they all say the same thing. So they get to a certain level in the conversation, you know, whatever, and the person goes, "If you knew what I know, you wouldn't be procisure or something." You know,

some they sort of hint at some sort of extremely onlogically shocking truth. And I never know how to compute that. It's this sort of, you know, uh, epis epistemic impass if you're on the other side of it where it's like I I don't know. I That's why I actually think, you know, the the control disclosure campaign plan, sorry, I probably butchered that. um is you know like you almost need to shift human consciousness, right? It sounds a bit colloquial and woo woo, but it goes back to earlier part of the conversation.

It's like you know we are we're embodied creatures but we have certain mental capacities in a certain you know folk world like worldview of what's possible what's not. Like the immediate horizon of most people's lives is very very you know forcehortened. It's got to pay the rent, get the kids up for school, you know, get through the day. And you know, the job of a state is to ensure that those background functions of everyday life are not subject to like radical volatility. It's why we have a state is to ensure

that like I can get on the road in the morning and get to work and my taxes are paid and my school starts on time and the teachers show up and it's like that just needs to happen, right? Like that's the first order of business as a government, right? And so I do have sympathy for anything that the government could envision releasing to the public that threatens those sort of core, you know, lifelines of society. It's like that's your job is to ensure like that would be the government essentially, you know, committing Harakari, right? It be like just abdicating its fundamental responsibility. Um, and so this is where

the tension lies. And actually I think you know the more that they can sort of get out of their own hands into the p into civil society to manage the better cuz the government shouldn't be the source of ontological truth for people. The government shouldn't be like a religious you know institution interpreting the world for its citizens. Like that's not the job of the government to tell me like what the capital T truth is like the nature of reality or any of this. Like no like you take my taxes you defend me. You keep the lights on you know like do that right? you're not I don't look to you to

like you know you're not the pope right you're not you're not but it's also not the job to suppress the capital T truth unless that involves some you know clear trade secret on the national security front but this is where I think the mandate like this is more philosophical like what is the what is the social contract in America what is the form of government we have the constitutional republic and the understanding of the framers that has been evolved over time it's like there you know even if you're originalist or you're you a flexible, you know, kind of constitutionalist like

I don't think the National Security Act, the Tic Energy Act, like can plausibly or even morally be extended to non-human intelligence fact of. I just I fully it just reject that wholesale that the fact of non-human intelligence is it's not government information like existentially, legally, morally is not not government information, right? Other things like the existence of advanced aerospace, propulsion systems, material science breakthroughs, maybe even theoretical physics research, although that's that's that's uh are government information. Those can

be properly classified under under a mandate where the authorities making those determinations, you know, are doing so in accordance with our legal mechanisms for constitutional oversight where, you know, we have procedures, we have laws for secrecy and reporting to And it seems like on that front, we clearly have a problem, right, that needs to be cleaned up where these programs have not been properly reported to, you know, the cognizant oversight mechanisms um in our system of government. And it's just like yeah like if you want to have a democracy the way we think we have one you need to fix that. Does that mean everything comes out? No. But you need it means that

accountability objective clearly needs some work to be done. And then it's the disclosure objective where the disclosure objective at least for me is the fact of non-human intelligence if that is known with high confidence by the US government is illegitimately kept from the public. That's just not something they can keep secret. Um I think there's no moral justification for that. Right? Um even if it's like going to be destabiliz depends on what you say, right? It's not like, you know, you could say yes, we're not alone. We're

we're studying it. We're going to impanel these institutions, public, private sector, civil society to really understand it. Then you slowly would leak out the sensitive information, right? That's maybe more prudent. It doesn't mean you release everything. It But I think this uh omemer can no longer I think be effectively sustained because I think it won't be right. It's like clear that either adversaries or private sector or individuals from these programs are going to keep pushing that. And then you're in this you're in this uh you know uh game of no good choices if you're if you're trying to ma manage

that that process of disclosure. It's like you know you either get on board with this controlled mechanism or it's going to be you know RFK you know coming in there and just like tweeting out you know everything you've been doing. That's like I think the last few days I know we're recording a few days after the election. It is it is just like the the shock wave is just like propagating through, right? And I think we haven't seen what this means for disclosure and what different actors now throughout these different systems that we're

modeling now have to radically adjust their personal, you know, like incentives here, right? Uh it's like okay like you know there was a story just about the FBI right like see like off the record quotes from senior officials at the FBI being like it was like the kind of a a morbid joke that was um you know the senior officials on the whatever seventh floor um you know they they they're they haven't passed their fit test in a while but they're going to need to to run out the door essentially like there's an expectation

filtering through just say the FBI as an example that it's just going to be purged purges wild, right? And just so then carry that through, right? These other different structures and if that that is now that's a radical change in the institutional bureaucratic environment that that the U that the UFO the UAP disclosure conversation is now situated Well, it's fascinating because like historically you have JFK saying I'm going to scatter the CIA to the winds, you know, being at loggerheads with

You have Nixon saying he's going to fire a third of the CIA or whatever. Maybe that was a subnarrative for Watergate a little bit. And then uh you have, you know, similar stuff with Carter. Usually it doesn't end well for like the reforming president. But I've never seen so much force and power on the side of force reduction in bureaucracy as I do today with Elon, RFK, this coalition of like we [ __ ] had it and like the history of this country is way more messed up than you know people realize. We're going to like fire all these

people. So, I'm very curious to see how this how this ends and if it's, you know, history repeating itself or if you know maybe maybe uh you do just see this massive watershed moment. Yeah. I mean, I think this is the the tale of all this time, which is, you know, how does this urge for reform not be captured, right? Um and to what extent, you know, everyone has an agenda, right? Like it's, you know, everyone's like, "Oh, good guys, bad guys, right? the deep state versus the uh you know Elon wonder

you know wonder team it's like everyone is a flawed person everyone has an agenda everyone's working everyone's working an angle right question is you know are the interests of civil society and public accountability like those higher level objectives are those being met or not met by the actions of and decisions made by each of those different sides it's like I don't have allegiance to any particular team I have allegiance to these higher level sort of social political and moral objectives and so if if anyone in particular decides to move in a direction that's aligned with that, I'm supportive. If they move against it,

then I'm not supportive, right? And so, I think this is where it would be important to watch and for folks that are interested in, you know, pushing UP disclosure to like hold people to account, right? Regardless of your particular team or tribe and be like, I have a certain political objective. I think we need to establish these independent mechanisms of accountability and transparency. You know, whoever's in power, that's my expectation, right? whether it's Elon or or or anybody else. It's like this is my this is where I'm going to hold you to um to to account. So, you know, that's what we're heading into now. It's going to be a lot of a

lot of things are now on the table and it's going to be fascinating to see how it all plays out. Can't wait. Matthew Pines, this was awesome. We could go on for hours. Uh you mentioned before uh we we started rolling that there might be a, you know, a Federal Reserve in Bitcoin. We didn't even get to that, which shows just how much we had to discuss on UFO, secret science, all the other fronts. But, uh, I I hope we can do this again. And this was an absolute blast, man. Yeah. Anytime. Cool. All right. Thank you so much to Delete Me for

sponsoring this video. If you want to remove your data from the internet, go to the link in the description for 20% off right