(Not So) Deep Sh*t on UAP and the Upcoming Economic Paradigm Shift

What if we told you that credible witnesses, like pilots,  have had bizarre encounters with unexplained phenomena and could soon be testifying to Congress about it? And that could trigger a chain of events that will change EVERYTHING?

Buckle up as Chris and Steve, take you on a whirlwind tour of UFO sightings, the enigmatic "object" shot down in Alaska and its frustrating indifference in public discourse. They explore the anticipations around upcoming Congressional hearings on UAPs with actual witnesses, where stories of these strange encounters will be shared, possibly shifting the way we perceive our universe.

Then, Chris and Steve talk about the groundbreaking Galileo Project, led by Avi Loeb. This initiative could revolutionize our understanding of the universe and stoke public curiosity about all things extraterrestrial. 

But that's not all! They also probe into the concept of a universal basic income, contemplating a world where everyone pursues their passion, thus saving us from becoming irrelevant.

Capitalism, Communism, and the prospect of a new global currency - these are just some of the captivating themes Chris and Steve dive into in the latter part of the episode.  

So, are you ready to take about some deep shit?

Contact Us:

Twitter: @NotSoDeepShit

Facebook.com/NSDSChrisandSteve

Instagram.com/nsdschrisandsteve

Email: [e-mail]

Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE, LIKE and LEAVE A REVIEW for the show!

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm Chris, I'm Steve and we're talking about some
deep shit.
Yeah, what's very interestingis there is something to that

(00:33):
first shoot down that happenedin Alaska.
Something very interesting.
What is it?
I don't know.
That's what they're saying outthere is.
There's something.
That was the first one and Iwatched this as it unfolded and
I was following this closelywhen it unfolded that initial
press conference about thatfirst object.

(00:55):
Second object if you count theChinese balloon, the Chinese
balloon was object one, but thefirst other object that was
Alaska.
Reports were really strangeabout that one, and so what I've
heard various people intimateis that that was something.
The subsequent two were not.

(01:19):
They were probably hobbyballoons that were shot down.
The prevailing thought processis how do you muddy the waters?
You muddy the waters bysuddenly oh, we shot this one
down and shot this one downballoon.
Oh, they're all balloons kindof thing.
Right.
But if you go back and youactually pay attention to what

(01:40):
they say, one is they wouldn'tsay balloon, especially with
that first object.
They would not categorize it asa balloon.
The press kept saying theballoon you shot down and the
Pentagon people wouldimmediately correct them and say
it's not a balloon, it's anobject.
So that's what I've heard aboutthose is, you're right, we,
that was all in our focus and wetalked about that and then it

(02:03):
sort of moved on, just likeeverything Right, but it's the
key.
It's the cumulative buildup ofwhat has come before, and I
think that's what a lot ofpeople I get it If you've been
following this topic for a longtime.
It is frustrating.
So many times throughout theyear we thought that this would
be the thing that would triggereveryone's interest and get

(02:26):
everyone looking.
It is very easy to say you knowwhy.
Yes, you can see people justgetting bored.
They don't care, they're goingback to it.
I'm just saying that we've neverbeen here where you have
multiple like people ingovernment currently coming out
and saying things and then allit's going to take is a couple

(02:48):
of intrepid reporters and stuffto start looking back at the
stuff that's been ignored uptill now.
That is the biggest frustrationwhen I hear people say well, if
this were a cover up, how comeit's never come out?
Of course it's come out.
There have been people claimingthis sort of stuff all through
the years.
It's just usually we disregardthem because I don't know why.

(03:13):
Usually sometimes they'rereally people who are credible.
But soon as they come out withthis, we cannot underestimate
how well they did it,conditioning us to laugh at this
topic.

Speaker 2 (03:25):
Although it's funny you brought up that favor guy,
the pilot, him and Dietrich, noone really disparages them.
It's just kind of not, or.

Speaker 1 (03:41):
Ryan or Grush?

Speaker 2 (03:43):
No, the Pentagon has not come out and they have one
word no, no, but I mean thegeneral public, grush is to be
determined, to be determined.
The other ones is there'sgraves, not as much, but the
other two is video evidence.

Speaker 1 (04:00):
You want to call it video, I call it video.

Speaker 2 (04:03):
So when you have things like that, those two
together create something that'svery difficult to take down.
So you have a credible person,an intelligent person, a trusted
person.
Here is the evidence I'mtalking about Now.
When we get, I think if youstart getting more of that, that

(04:27):
is what will get the publicattention things like that
combined with other things.
Yeah, no, you're right.

Speaker 1 (04:31):
Absolutely right.

Speaker 2 (04:32):
So if that guy Grush.
If he ever says I don't know ifhe will or he won't, but if he
ever sits down, let's say thesehearings on the 26th he appears
and he says he's supposed to be.
And he says, by the way, here'ssomething I was talking about
and you can see it right here.
He can't do that, though let'sjust say let's just say to me

(04:54):
that is when now some peoplewill be swayed by what he says.
But when you combine the twothings together, that's when
people start saying, oh, youknow, and there's not enough of
the Fravor Dietrich, there's notenough of it, because I think
once you start building on that,plus what the information
you're talking about altogether,keeps creating that point of

(05:19):
you know where you're getting.

Speaker 1 (05:21):
So what I have heard is that some of the witnesses
will know, Probably probablypeople like Fravor and Dietrich,
possibly Ryan Graves, pilotswho are involved in these things
, maybe even Louis Salizando.

Speaker 2 (05:38):
People love listening to pilots and things like that,
but what if they?

Speaker 1 (05:42):
roll out a couple of pilots that you've never heard
of.

Speaker 2 (05:44):
That's fine.
That's what I mean.
I'd like that.
That's better.

Speaker 1 (05:48):
Like what if they do this?
Hey, we're going to set thestage with a Louis Salizando and
some people go.
Oh yeah, I remember he wasmaking the rounds and I may have
heard a little bit of what hesaid, but suddenly they asked
him some very pointed questions.
Oh my.
God that's really interesting,right.
And then, to kind of bring thepoint home, they bring out

(06:10):
Fravor and Dietrich and Graves,right.
Okay, again, we've heard thesebefore, but a lot of the public
maybe has, but now hasn't heardin this venue a congressional
hearing under oath, oh my God.
Now they pull a few more pilotsout, the ones that none of us
have heard before.
We don't even know the names,but they show us their

(06:30):
credentials and, oh my God,these people are pretty high
credentials and you knowwhatever, and they tell some
amazing stories.
Again, all testimony, noevidence, nobody pulling
anything out, but they'retelling these amazing stories
and questions and being backedup because the Congress people
are asking questions.
Basically, the end of thishearing.

(06:51):
You don't see a shred ofphysical evidence, because you
know what You're, notnecessarily, because that is
contingent upon getting thesethings declassified, which they
may not be able to do.
But getting them all together,getting them all to tell their
stories, it's going to be thefirst time that a majority of
people who hear it it's going tobe the first time they've heard

(07:11):
, honestly, it's going to be thefirst time they've heard any of
the stories for some people,but for a lot of them it's going
to be the first time that it'sall been together in one place.
If it happens that way, and Ithink that's what they're
shooting for, like that is whatthey said they wanted.
This hearing NASA has pulledout of this hearing.
Nasa was involved with thishearing NASA has pulled out.
Why did they give any?

(07:31):
They did not.
It's just what's what'shappening behind the scenes.
There were some witnesses,apparently, that they had to
remove because of backgroundchecks.
Now everyone jumped all overthat to say, oh my God,
background checks, that meanssome of these witnesses are
sketchy.
What could mean it could meanthat?
Well, what I've heard basicallyis that politically, you know,

(07:52):
when somebody's background it'snot something really that bad,
but you know it could be athorny issue.
And this is not.
This is not like a real lifeexample.

Speaker 2 (07:59):
Well, it's something that someone could sink their
teeth in.

Speaker 1 (08:01):
Right, let's say you were trying to nominate somebody
for a certain position and thenyou looked in their background
and you said, oh, you know they,they had some distant criminal
activity or something, somemoral thing that they did.
Whatever it is, so that's.

Speaker 2 (08:15):
Hitting their wife Exactly, I mean.
And even if they later werefound, that doesn't necessarily
mean you're not telling thetruth, but it's certainly not
something.

Speaker 1 (08:22):
Exactly, exactly.
So that's what I heard.
That it kind of is is that someof the witnesses, and you know
some, have speculated.
Maybe Bob Lazar was in that.
You know, bob Bob Lazar, he hassome issues, he has some very
real legal issues, but some ofthose could have actually been
perpetrated on him, like thereis yeah, I mean, you could.

(08:44):
Again, but his past is socheckered that doesn't matter.
You have strong opinion.
If you know of Bob Lazar, youprobably have strong opinions on
him.
Either he's telling the truthor he's a fraudster, and that's
the problem, is you don't Kindof in the middle.
I actually believe no.

Speaker 2 (08:59):
I don't.
I'm not saying I don't believehim.
I know you say no, I think thatsome of the things that he's I
don't want to say has beeninvolved in some of the things
that have been circling aroundhim.
Yeah, I don't exactly.
Great, right.

Speaker 1 (09:17):
But I also think that they're irrelevant.

Speaker 2 (09:19):
I mean, he hasn't pursued this.

Speaker 1 (09:21):
He hasn't profited off of his story.
And now, with what's coming outnow, it was in a movie.

Speaker 2 (09:26):
He had a movie.
He didn't get any money.

Speaker 1 (09:29):
He does not know the movie was.
It was a documentary.
He didn't get anything?

Speaker 2 (09:32):
No, he does not.
And somebody did a documentaryabout me.
I'd want to make some money.

Speaker 1 (09:37):
He doesn't care about the making the money.
As a matter of fact, he doesn'tdo most interviews.
He has not talked about thisfor the most part, and when,
usually when people reach out tohim, he says go away, I don't
want to talk about this anymore.
He does not like what this hasbrought him, like he.
That's why I watch that movieabout him and it really hearing
his own words Like this is oh,he's just doing it for fame and

(09:57):
fortune.
Are you kidding me?
His life has suffered.

Speaker 2 (09:59):
No, no, some people, some people's motivations are
very difficult to figure out.

Speaker 1 (10:04):
But also he's a human and so since then his life has
done certain things, and maybenot all of them are great, but a
lot of what's coming out now isvalidating original things.
He said he was one of the firstpeople to talk about gravity it
being gravity powered and nowthat's information that is like
being talked about.
He was ahead of the curve on somany things.

(10:26):
Go back and look at what hesaid back then and now.
Compare it to what we know now.
And he called a lot of things.
The more time goes on, the moreI think Bob Lazar's story gets
vindicated over and over andover again, like he was saying
stuff about how we couldn'tfigure out how it worked and how
it was gravity related.

(10:46):
Some of the things he talkedabout that element, the element
115, there was some element thathe talked about that did not
exist when he first talked aboutit.
It exists now.
I mean, they knew about ittheoretically.
They knew directly it could haveexisted, but he talked about it
as being a thing and saying, no, they have this and now we have
discovered that element.
They just can't keep it stable,but it could potentially do

(11:09):
exactly what he said it is.
His story has gotten moresolidified.
I think the people who aredismissive of him I think are
dismissive of him for either oneof two reasons.
One is back then they read itand some of it didn't make sense
and they dismissed them backthen and they've never
reevaluated, even though moreinformation has come out.

(11:30):
Or two, they've written him offbecause again he has some
sketchiness.
There was some.
I think it was somesolicitation, a prostitution.
There were some criminal things.

Speaker 2 (11:41):
I think something happened to somebody that bought
some element of material.

Speaker 1 (11:47):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (11:49):
But the point is when that stuff's clouding around
you.
That's why it's not the perfectperson to keep a movement
moving along.

Speaker 1 (12:00):
So, rather than be discouraged by that fact, I
actually think we should beencouraged by the fact that they
ejected some witnesses, that'snot to say I think it's better
Not to say that we won't everhear from them.
But right now this is the swing.
This hearing has to be heard,make some heads move, some heads
turn.
So they're gonna try to rollout.

(12:21):
They have been quoted theCongress people who are putting
this on I think Luna said it'sgonna be an all-star lineup Like
basically saying we're puttingour best out here because we've
been given one shot to do aproper hearing and get this
testimony in front of theAmerican people and then we'll
see what happens.
So let's see what happens whenthese hearings take place and

(12:46):
some things get said in it andsome people out there hear it
for the first time.
They've probably heard it before, but they didn't really hear it
, because getting it deliveredto you from a friend or from
somebody talking about it, oreven on a TV on a documentary,
that's different than having itdelivered to you via a

(13:07):
governmental hearing in theCongress.
Like it's just gonna hitdifferently and I really think
that there's a good chance thatthis, if not sparking it
completely, this will be a majorlike what the fuck?
Moment for a lot of people whowill tune in suddenly and go
wait, what's going on here?

(13:27):
You can already see ithappening.
Check the news.
You're seeing it little bitshere, stories are starting to
pop up, You're starting to seean interest in all this stuff
and I, just like I said, Icannot imagine that it won't
catch fire soon.
I've been saying that for alittle while, but I honestly
think we're gonna be living in adifferent world possibly by the
end of this year, like-.

Speaker 2 (13:48):
Jesus Christ.

Speaker 1 (13:49):
I think by the end of this year.
I think it'll be notnecessarily that like it'll all
be out, but it'll be past thatpoint.
We've talked about this before.
There's a point of no return.
There's a point where you can'tput it back.
You can't take it back when youannounce to the you can't, when
you're not saying the UnitedStates people that there's a

(14:11):
non-human intelligenceinteracting with us.
Suddenly that news is not justUnited States news, it's
worldwide news.
You cannot put that back in thebottle.

Speaker 2 (14:19):
Here's an interesting take right.
We talked about the gorillas,the silverbacks that weren't
noticed for a long time in termsof, I guess, the way history
says it is, the white peopledidn't see them right, so
somehow that's history right,but the people that lived there

(14:40):
did see them right, so they andanything they said about it was
dismissed as their life historytoo.
But when they would tell thesecolonizers, hey, be careful.
It was kind of the way peoplethink of Bigfoot now, right, so
let me get to that.
So if we are the silverbacks,let's say, and the non-human

(15:07):
intelligence is the colonizers,how would have the colonizers
have changed if they noticed thegorillas knew they were there
and they noticed the gorillaswere doing something about it?
So I think it's gonna beinteresting to see if that ever
happens.
Let me get to it as well, I'llsay it just out there.
If whoever let's just say thereis this non-human intelligence

(15:33):
that's responsible for thesephenomenon that we're seeing,
right, then they can see usobviously they're observing.

Speaker 1 (15:40):
Yes.

Speaker 2 (15:41):
And then they say hey , you know these humans, they
figured it out and they'regetting ready, they're doing
stuff.
Does that change anything?
Because I think it does rightIf we looked and said gorillas
are kind of nowhere here andthey're building stuff and
they're getting ready, like weshould do something before they
get too powerful, like itcreates so many questions and so

(16:06):
many discussions, because ifthe people that are observing us
aren't here for our bestinterests and they go, hey, you
know, they're coming up withstuff, I don't like this.

Speaker 1 (16:17):
There's precedence for that.
I mean, we have discoveredthings and not tell about.
You know, like when we brokethe Nazi code and we didn't say
we broke the Nazi code, becauseonce they knew we broke the code
, they stopped using the code.
So we pretended we didn't breakthe code.
They kept using it and welistened.
There is a precedence, for youknow, when you're spying on, as

(16:40):
soon as they become aware of you, that's when you strike.
My argument to this would be,again, I think we're
underestimating the degree towhich they're advanced beyond us
.
They know, like they know.

Speaker 2 (16:56):
This is where, again, no, but there's the school of
thought that it keeps increasingas our technology increases.
So if we then get ourcollective minds together to get
our technology to even agreater height, that might
prompt something.

Speaker 1 (17:15):
Is what it?
Yeah, no, I see exactly whatyou're saying.
My only counter to that wouldbe we have nuclear weapons.
We have a weapon that not onlycould wipe us out as a people
but it could actually causeradioactive the planet to make,
basically make the planet notthat livable either.

(17:38):
So and it starts to sound crazytown.
But then when I say that theseare things that I'm not just
saying where a congressman whatthe hell is his name?
The guy he was from Wisconsin,he was in the hearing.

(18:00):
I always play his Gallagherright.
Congressman Gallagher was on asports talk show.
Again, you know it's sportstalk but they're talking about
UFOs and he postulated sometheories about.
You know that extraterrestrialisn't the only theory.
Now this is on like amainstream sports, primarily
sports broadcast.

Speaker 2 (18:20):
They got on this topic.

Speaker 1 (18:21):
You know cause the host is interested and I can't
remember what the guy's name is,but he's out there.
He's a big sports guy wetalking about.
Millions of people listen tothis sort of thing, right?
Kind of same kin to Joe Rogan,but like in sports.
So.
But he actually postulated he'sa sitting congressman and he
postulated that one of the otheralternatives is that they're

(18:43):
extra dimensional.
Another alternative is thatthey're ultra terrestrial,
meaning that they've been hereon this planet all along.
They were here before us,they're here during us and
presumably they'll be here afterus.
And the reason why we can'tdetect them is because there are
aspects to this planet which wedo not have access aspects of

(19:08):
frequency and dimension.
And there's a whole lot ofconcepts that if you had brought
this up to most people 10 yearsago, they would know what the
hell you were talking about.
But I will say that now, if youbring these concepts up, a lot
of people will be familiar withthem from Hollywood movies, the
idea of dimensions and likethose are kind of concepts that

(19:31):
more people are aware of it,even if they're not aware of the
fact that scientifically, thoseprinciples are actually sound.
It's not all.
It's not all speculation.

Speaker 2 (19:42):
No, it's scientific theory, right, but that's they
haven't done it yet, but-.

Speaker 1 (19:46):
That's the other part of this that I always think is
interesting is, I think everyoneis on at a very binary.
They're either they eitherdon't exist or, if they do exist
, they are extraterrestrialsflying from a planet through
space to get here.
And then all of our objectionsstart to come up about well

(20:07):
distances and the speed of light.
You know it would take them toolong, but we only know what we
know.
You know what we know, right?
So we're gonna have to get overthat.
That's another hurdle becauseyou're not just introducing one
disruptor to our way, You'reintroducing tons.

(20:27):
We're not the only thing.
Technologically, we're not atthe top at all.
As a matter of fact, we mightbe way at the bottom.
Space and time don't work likewe think they do, Like it's not
just the hey, aliens are here.

(20:48):
Why can't we tell the people?
Because the knowledge trainthat that starts disrupts
everything we've ever known orthink we know.
That's a lot.
That's a lot to put on peopleand you can see how people are
dealing with it.

(21:08):
A lot of them aren't.
Have you ever brought the topicup to someone and they just
quickly change it and you get toset up UFOs and things, but you
get the sense that they justcan't handle it.
They just can't handle thethought process because it takes
them down a road that they justdon't wanna go down.

Speaker 2 (21:25):
I've spoken to people and they've actually said that.
They say you know what that'sbeyond.
Now sometimes I don't know ifthey just be nice to me, Could
be being polite.
That is a polite way of sayingthey don't wanna talk about it,
but I do think that out of 10people that say it, a few of
them really believe in theirbrain that you know what.
This is a lot for me to bethinking about right now.

(21:45):
Yeah, so sometimes I think it'sa polite way of telling me to
shut up, Steve.

Speaker 1 (21:49):
It could very well be , but sometimes I think it is
being candid.
Yeah, no, and I know I stepover the line.
I get excited about this topicI've been, you know and
sometimes I get like crazy, youknow, in talking about it, but
it boggles my mind why morepeople don't see this as the

(22:10):
most important.
I just don't to quote you knowsomething I now thought I'd do.
To quote Marco Rubio if true,this is the biggest story in
human history, like this storyis more important than anything
else we've ever discovered,because it has the implication

(22:33):
to change our trajectory fromnow going forward.
And you know, like if we didn'tdiscover we were not alone, if
we just kept on going like we go, we're on the trajectory that
we are.
Some would say we're on atrajectory to destroy ourselves,
right Cause, if we just keepfighting over the same limited

(22:53):
resources and never leave thisball of mud either, one of two
things, I'll figure out how notto need those resources.
Right.
One of two things is going tohappen Either we are going to
destroy this planet, thus us, orsomething's going to destroy
this planet Something we didn'tsee coming a solar flare, an

(23:13):
asteroid, something which couldhave happened before and that's
going to wipe us out, and thenour story is over, did you?

Speaker 2 (23:20):
see, and it's a totally different thing.
I don't know if you saw thisnews.
This was a few years ago, maybemore than a few, but there was
an asteroid that we didn't see,yes, until it already passed us.

Speaker 1 (23:34):
Which is true of any asteroid that comes from the sun
, the direction of the sun.

Speaker 2 (23:39):
We cannot see it, you can't see it.

Speaker 1 (23:40):
Right.

Speaker 2 (23:42):
So people would just think, oh well, you know, we'll
see it.
No, you don't see it until it'salready gone past.

Speaker 1 (23:48):
Yes.

Speaker 2 (23:49):
Anyway, I didn't know that until I read that there is
.

Speaker 1 (23:55):
There is a crazy amount of space objects that
pass fairly closely to us.

Speaker 2 (24:06):
After they go by they say that wasn't a threat.
Okay, you know, after we buy,it wasn't.

Speaker 1 (24:11):
There was one that missed us by like six hours,
meaning that it cruised throughand that location it cruised
through.
The earth had been there sixhours before and had it hit it
would have been a direct hit onus and it they just casually
mentioned this, it probablywould have been a planet killer.

Speaker 2 (24:31):
Like it.
This is like driving down aroad right Yep, with your eyes
closed, and every time a cargoes by you you say whoa, that
was good.

Speaker 1 (24:40):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (24:41):
We're safe.

Speaker 1 (24:44):
So I think of what Graham Hancock has said about
another analogy is that becausethe torrid meteor stream which
we go through twice a year, inlike June and I think in like
October or something like thatbut twice a year we go through
this stream and it's akin toputting on a blindfold and

(25:07):
running across an eight lanehighway and basically running
all the way across and beinglike, oh, we made it again, and
then the next time make it again, because literally this meteor
stream there's, you know it'sbig, and so there's, you know
there's.
Obviously we pass through itall the time and nothing hits us
, but it's one of those thingswhere it's only a matter of time

(25:31):
there will come a point whereone of those objects will impact
with us, and then what effectthat has we'll see.
So if we don't do something andget like to our next step of
where we need to go, then ifsomething happens to this planet
, then we're gone.
And I think that's our bigconcern is I think we need to.

(25:53):
You know, I know that's veryyou know, elon Musk has said
that for a while, but he's notwrong.
I mean, maybe Mars is wrong, Idon't know, but like we need to
start getting out there, becauseuntil we do, we're confined by
how much we can grow on thisplanet.
I mean, people are talkingalready about, you know, too
much population, which isn'ttechnically true, but certain

(26:15):
areas have too much populationand other areas don't have any
population.

Speaker 2 (26:19):
Well, because the land isn't as livable.
Right, right, so the resourcesaren't there to sustain people.
Right, so maybe that should beour first, and that's what they
used to say about the West ofthis country Right when I said
the West, not the rest, the Westthe.
West In terms of waterespecially, which is now
becoming an issue again.

Speaker 1 (26:37):
Right.
So maybe that ought to be ourfirst step.
You know, step one is try tofigure out how to better our
extraction of resources on thisplanet to not destroy it, you
know, to be able to figure out,you know, is there a way to, you
know, pump water into?
I don't know who knows, butwe're gonna do something Because
it's.

Speaker 2 (26:56):
Mars.
There's the theory that we'refrom Mars, right, because
there's a.
There's their finding elementson Mars that could only be there
if there was a nuclearexplosion, right and now it
could be a natural nuclearexplosion.
Could, be, but they say itcould also not be a natural
explosion.

Speaker 1 (27:16):
So what point if this UFO stuff is, let's just say,
let's just go on a flight offancy and it's all unreal to be
true, like like that is thetruth right?
Oh, my God, it's, there arethings, right.
So at what point do people takethe next step?
You know how I said, there's alot for them to wrestle with,

(27:37):
with their mind, with, with theexistence of a non-human
intelligence.
That's just that road.
Now start to wrestle with yourmind.
Okay, this thing that I've heardabout, that's always been said
that it's crap.
They were lying to us.
What else?
What other things have I beentaught to laugh at?

(28:00):
That?
As crazy as this sounds, thisis true.
So what other things have Ibeen taught to laugh at?
Now that turn out to be true?
You know, you have anything inmind.
I mean Bigfoot.
I don't know.
I mean what if the answer toBigfoot ends up being those are

(28:21):
creatures who are on this planet, who exist in a different, you
know, slightly differentdimensionally that we only,
which is why sometimes you seethem, you know, sometimes you
see them in the woods and theyget, you know whatever.
Somebody sees them or seestracks, but then there's no,
can't find them.
Maybe they're under the ground.
I mean, there's crazy theoriesout there that if you go down

(28:42):
and you look at, somebody did a.

Speaker 2 (28:45):
Maybe if it's interdimensionally, maybe we see
them because that's the way ourminds and eyes perceive it, and
it really doesn't really therewas a whole way.

Speaker 1 (28:56):
How much of the universe do we not perceive
because we can't pick it up,Like most of the universe is in
a spectrum that we don't.
You know Well, we could talkabout.

Speaker 2 (29:05):
we could have a whole thing about that.
I think people don't.
Well, I think a lot of peopleunderstand, but some people
don't understand that we onlysee the way that we can see
Right, right, there's, there arejust there's more.

Speaker 1 (29:23):
Kinds of light that we don't even we're not aware of
because we can't perceive it,and they say our brain can only
take in so much input, so ourbrain filters out a lot.
So there's a lot of stuff thatwe we could potentially see, but
our brain, just we filter itout because we can't take in all
the input at once.
It gets.
You know, there was a theory awhile back and look, you know,

(29:44):
if you're out there and you, youknow, google this how many
disappearances there've been incertain parts of national parks
and I have not lookedextensively into it, but I saw a
little bit about it.
But apparently, according to Ihave not validated any of this,
I just have seen the claim.
But if you look at the numbers,there's an inordinate amount of

(30:06):
people who go missing in certainareas of the world.
Certain areas geographically,even the United States tend to
be remote.
Where is this?
I don't want to go Like, likenational parks, like again
sounds crazy.
But what if we found out thatthere was something here on this

(30:27):
planet that we call Bigfoot?
But it's like these things thatoccasionally take people, like
how many people go missing?
I think when you start to runthose real numbers, that's where
the questions start to go,where how many people go missing
each year and how many peopleare never, ever, ever found.
And then, well, okay, well,people, sometimes you know

(30:50):
people, move, people, run away,people start new lives.
Okay, sometimes you know people, serial killers.
They just found a serial killeruncovered in Long Island that
had killed a bunch of people andthey just, you know, discovered
who they were.
Yeah, sometimes we'reresponsible for it.
At what point, though, when youlook at the numbers of missing

(31:10):
people who never turn up again,their bodies are never found, no
remains are ever found, notrace of them at all.
Yes, humans do nasty things toother humans, but at what point
do the numbers just don't makesense, and that's what I have
seen reported.

(31:31):
Again, I haven't looked into it, so I can't say up and down
that.
I just find it fascinating.
Like what if there are aspectsto even our daily existence that
people haven't really been ableto reconcile?
Because it's too ridiculous.
It's ridiculous.
What do you mean is?
There's things that liveunderground that take us?

(31:52):
Those are the mole people.
Again, these are all.
I'm not saying any of this istrue, and I'm not saying I
believe any of this.
I'm just saying these are thesecrazy theories that have been
around, but so have UFO theories.
So if the UFO theories turnedout to be true, could any of
these other crazy theories havesome validity to it?

(32:13):
You really, to beintellectually honest, you have
to ask that question.
You can't just dismiss it, andI know there are gonna be people
listening to this.
We're gonna say I believe inUFOs, but I don't believe in any
of the alien abduction stuff.
Well, you know that where thecrops are, so the cattle
mutilation.

Speaker 2 (32:30):
The quote unquote crazy theory that the poles are
going to shift.
The shifting.
Yeah Well, have you seen?
Then there's a new story outthat there's a study that says
we've pumped so much water outof the earth that the axis is
shifting.

Speaker 1 (32:50):
Wow, so the crazy conspiracy theories that you
hear one day become mainstreamnews articles sometime later and
nobody ever calls attention toit.
There was some article otherarticle I saw about they
discovered a sub-ocean deepunder our ocean.

(33:12):
There's a sub-layer of theycall it water, but I don't know
to what degree and the volume ofthat exceeds all the oceans on
our surface.
I'm looking at a new storyright now, all right, what do
you get?

Speaker 2 (33:27):
It says that a University of Toronto team had
created an algorithm to organizetelescope data to weed out
interference.
This new algorithm has foundeight new radio signals from
five different stars and theysay it's probably not
extraterrestrial, but they don'tknow why they're receiving

(33:48):
these signals.
It's just one story afteranother.

Speaker 1 (33:52):
Yeah, there's a whole .
There's gonna have to be a lotof questioning of our SETI, the
search for extraterrestrialintelligence radio signals.
We as a society don't use radiosignals as much as we used to.
We use them to some degree, butwe certainly don't use them to
the same degree that we did 50years ago, and there will come a

(34:14):
time that we won't use them atall, and one can presume that an
advanced intelligencecivilization does not use radio
signals.
So I really question the whole.
Well, first of all, seti'slooking for life radio signals
out there when there reallyseems to be evidence that

(34:37):
something is here.
That's one aspect of it.
But also you're looking forradio signals, which means
you're looking for a signal thatwould have to be from a
civilization roughly in our modeof development, or behind, or
behind and how long ago?
I mean roughly, meaning like us, from the time we created radio

(35:00):
to now.
And then, of course, with thehow long it takes there to get
there.
When we do detect them, it'ssuch an old signal that it
doesn't reflect Right.
You know, if someone, if ourtelevision signals are going out
there into space and they hitsome planet and they say, oh

(35:23):
geez, what is life like on Earth?
So apparently it's like I loveLucy Well, not anymore.
So there's that aspect of it.
You know, something we didn'ttalk about which is to touch on
briefly, is the whole Avi LoebGalileo project like that.
He scooped the bottom of theocean for that meteor have you

(35:44):
followed that at all, somewhat.

Speaker 2 (35:46):
He didn't really find anything that you could point
at and say whoa whoa.
In terms of what?
Grand public attention?
Yes, I mean well, he'spotentially found some
Scientists could feeldifferently about it.

Speaker 1 (36:01):
Well, all the analysis hasn't been done.
They're going to do a peerreviewed paper.
If he's doing it right, he'snot just like putting out claims
.

Speaker 2 (36:08):
You know what I mean, though it's not like they said.
Look at this what I found.

Speaker 1 (36:11):
Right, you know, but there's the potential that they
think they found somethinganomalous.

Speaker 2 (36:15):
Yes now, but it's little pieces, you know, but I'm
not disagreeing with you, Iagree.
I know you're saying like it'snot like some they hold up and
they go.
Oh my God, it's an alien helmet.

Speaker 1 (36:24):
But if he does find something anomalous, this is
going to give him the funding.
He'll have the funding to goback and do another search where
to find the object itself,because there's a quarter of
that object that hit.
So what we're talking aboutbasically is 10 years ago and a
meteor crashed into the AtlanticOcean and it was picked up by
sensors and they know that theUnited States Geospatial you

(36:48):
know the organization that keepstrack of all that they know how
fast it was moving, they know alot about it, basically, and so
, because of how fast it wasmoving, it came from outside of
the solar system, because it wasmoving faster than anything in
the solar system.
So it came from outside, so itzipped in and it crashed into
our ocean about 10 years ago.

(37:09):
So Avi Loeb, who is a professorat Harvard and he has been
raising money, he's this Galileoproject and the Galileo project
has two aspects.
He built an entire suite ofsensors on top of the Harvard
Observatory to detect everythingin the sky.
You know, infrared ultra sensor, basically detect UFOs and said

(37:31):
we're just gonna duplicate thisand then scan the sky.
And you know we don't have todepend on the government
releasing top secret files,we'll just collect our own.
So that's the first aspect ofit.
But the other aspect of hisproject is that he wanted to
raise money to go out to theocean to scoop the bottom of the
ocean floor with a magnet andpick up any residual.

(37:52):
He also scooped the bottom ofthe ocean floor outside of the
zone with a meteor crashed so hecould make sure that anything
he got the sphere spherules,which are the tiny little
metallic things that they gotthey didn't pick any of them up
outside of, so they're.
They did it like a test case tosay you know, this is where the
meteor isn't.
We're gonna scoop the bottom ofthe ocean floor, and they did

(38:14):
that in a few places, I think.
Then they scooped the bottom ofthe ocean floor in the place
where they thought the meteorhad been and they had good
information about that and theybasically found something and
they brought it back and it'sbeing.
There's gonna be by the end ofthis month again, by the end of
this month, end of July.
There's gonna be somethinginformation coming in about that
.
But initial analysis is that itis not something usual.

(38:37):
What that means, we don't knowyet, but that's huge as well.
So again, I keep saying it,it's the accumulation of all
these things that's gonna hit.
Is that?
You know, at what point doesall of it kind of connect?
And it doesn't need to connectwith everybody, it just needs to
connect with some, especiallythose who are like influencers

(38:59):
and people who are gonna likestep out and go hey, all my
followers, I'm taking aninterest in this thing.
Maybe you should too.
And that is the thing to getpeople interested.
What do the people they admireshow interest in?
And that is what you're gonnahit is these people with huge
followings who are gonna besaying I think there's something

(39:21):
here.
And the next thing, you know,everyone's gonna be asking the
questions.

Speaker 2 (39:26):
It's gonna be fun, like we talked about before.
Right, you know, use theanalogy we use today about it.
When the Gorillaz, when theSilverbacks, finally realized
what was happening, it wasn'tgood.
Yeah, you know what I mean, soI hope we're not the Gorillaz.

Speaker 1 (39:49):
Yeah, it's.
We will see what happens withthat.
Actually, I'm pausing for asecond because this volume has
been down all am.

Speaker 2 (40:03):
I we're on two and three.

Speaker 1 (40:04):
Oh, thank God.
Okay, we're on two and three,all right.
All right, we had that issuebefore.
That's right, that's right, andactually we haven't even had
these on no, so we don't evenknow what we sound like.
I've got to hope we sound good.
Yeah, I mean us discoveringthat there's something there
could trigger a next step.

Speaker 2 (40:24):
It might not be triggering it, it just might be.
You could, I mean that's.
That's the pessimistic view,but it's certainly a view that
might have some credence to it.
You know, if, if somebody issomebody, something has much
more power than we do, right,what, what?

(40:46):
Whenever you figure out whothey are?
It's not, it might not be thebest thing, that's all.

Speaker 1 (40:54):
Yeah, yeah, whatever we go through, next?

Speaker 2 (40:57):
I don't know.
I just don't know if, after allthis, we're going to say, hey,
we're collaborating with these.

Speaker 1 (41:03):
It's just.
I just don't know if that'sgoing to happen.

Speaker 2 (41:05):
I'd love it.

Speaker 1 (41:06):
Yeah, whatever we go through next, it's going to be.
It's going to be tough, likeit's.
It's not going to be an easyride.
No change ever is.
Think of any change that wehave encountered in our, our
society.
You know the printing press,like you know things that change
the world greatly theautomobile, those things that

(41:28):
change the world, how we'rereacting to social media and the
internet.
We're just really nowdiscovering that not everything
about the system we put in placefor social media, not
everything about that system,works great and it has some
unintended consequences.
And I think this is one ofthose lessons that we, as humans
, have to learn is nothing isever entirely good or entirely

(41:53):
bad.
Most things are somecombination, depending on
different circumstances.
There are some events that arevery good for some people and
very bad for others.
Even war war is really good forsome people really bad for
others.

Speaker 2 (42:08):
Well, you're looking at everything in the context of
just humans, right?
What animal on this planet,except maybe dogs, are better
off that way here?

Speaker 1 (42:21):
True Right.
Probably none Right, most dogs,no planets are better off that
way.

Speaker 2 (42:25):
here no fish.

Speaker 1 (42:26):
No, nothing, they're just right.

Speaker 2 (42:28):
They just they, if they could.
Their life would be better ifwe didn't exist.

Speaker 1 (42:33):
It's probably a reason, but there's probably a
reason why we exist and I thinkwe need to.

Speaker 2 (42:37):
we now, the answer to that could be very profound,
and I think it would be, but itmight not be as profound as we
think it might be Maybe not.
You know what I mean.
That itself, like we talkedabout what could shake people to
the core finding out we'rereally not as important as we
thought we were to this universecould seriously have an effect

(43:00):
on people's psyche.

Speaker 1 (43:01):
Yeah, well, yeah, once you, once we don't, once we
realize, or possibly realize,that we're not even that
important to this planet, right,like, let's be honest, this
planet's been around a long time.
We've only been around for avery, very small fraction of
that.
If this planet continues on andwe don't, then what are we?

(43:25):
We're just a footnote, you know, like.
And then, of course, there'sobviously a question of were we
the first and was there anythingbefore us that we don't know
about?
You know, is that have anyconnection to what we're
encountering with these thingstoday?

Speaker 2 (43:40):
Right, you were alluding to the missing link and
all that stuff earlier right.
What made us start?
What if?
What if let's say, let's justsay, because there are theories
that we are the result of somesort of genome experiment or
something like that, right, whatif that was the case?
And whatever we're seeing nowthey're coming and saying

(44:00):
because they're saying tothemselves it didn't work, right
, look, you know what guys?
We gave you a chance and wekeep giving you chances, and
look what you're doing.

Speaker 1 (44:13):
You know what?
I wouldn't blame it, and it'stoo bad because I feel like
we're missing this opportunityto be.
There's a reason why we exist.
Whatever that reason is, it'snot just to accumulate shit and
shuffle pieces of paper towardseach other.
You know, like that's reallyall we do.

(44:34):
We accumulate shit and we movelittle pieces of paper around,
call it money or call itwhatever.
We just shuffle it around, goeshere, goes there, goes there,
and that obsesses our whole life, and our whole life is built
around this idea of this.
And now, all of a sudden, youhave a disrupting agent
artificial intelligence.
Artificial intelligencesuddenly makes a large portion

(44:55):
of that thing that we thoughtmade us special.
Yeah, it can do it as well.
It can think it can do thiswork.
So maybe we have to figure outsomething different.
That's why I keep going back tothis is that we need to have a
really serious thought aboutwhat we've been doing with

(45:16):
accumulation and production, andconsumption has been necessary
to get us on the path to herewe're here now.
I think we gotta figure outsomething different.
I think and you make a verygood point human nature, greed,
yes, the only thing standingbetween us and a better future

(45:38):
is us, and it doesn't look likethat's gonna change anytime soon
.

Speaker 2 (45:42):
But we have to hey, listen, I'm a Trekkie.

Speaker 1 (45:45):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (45:46):
We need to look at the Federation.
They figured it out.

Speaker 1 (45:50):
They did figure out and you know what?

Speaker 2 (45:51):
you know, but again, it didn't come.
If you follow that stuff, itdidn't come until it was
disaster for humanity.
And I know I'm gonna get thisand the Vulcans.

Speaker 1 (46:01):
Of course, I'll get some shit for saying this, but I
have this vision.
Can you imagine if people gotup every day?
Right, we already do that.
They get up every day and fromthe point they've done nothing
and from that point they've donenothing.
But in that nothingness theyhave a place to sleep, a place
to eat.
They ain't gonna die.
You're good, you get everybodyon the level ground where

(46:22):
nobody's gonna die.
But what if our lives existedof getting up?
Yeah, we're gonna die.
Our lives existed of getting upand doing something we love and
somehow that makes us enoughresources to be able to live the
life we could, meaning thateverybody got up and did
everybody's thing that theyenjoy.
Somebody else is willing to payfor some aspect of it.
You know any hobby in the world, you know you like to fish.

(46:46):
Well, there's some people wholike to eat fish, but they don't
wanna go catch it.
There's some people who like to, you know, be taken out on
boats.
Like anything that somebodyenjoys can be monetized to some
way, to some other group ofpeople in some way shape or form
.
So there is a world whereeveryone gets up in the morning
and everyone does something thatthey actually enjoy, that they

(47:06):
actually feel strongly aboutEnjoying it?

Speaker 2 (47:09):
you can.
Why don't you monetize it?
It makes it not as enjoyablePossibly.

Speaker 1 (47:13):
but I'm saying like in the larger sense.
I guess those are all validthings, but I'm just saying in a
larger sense.
People got up and did thingsthat they who's gonna work on
the Suez for us.
Ai and that's oh okay.
This is why I was gonna say,because I don't know anyone that
probably says they enjoy it.
We are at a very uniqueposition where potentially in a
very short period of timemachines could do all of the

(47:38):
unpleasant tasks in society.
Machines could do it in manycases.

Speaker 2 (47:43):
So what would your solution be for those people
that had those jobs?

Speaker 1 (47:48):
We need to re.

Speaker 2 (47:50):
No in this context.

Speaker 1 (47:51):
In this context, we need to just say your job does
not define you anymore.
That's why a universal basicincome, that's why that is like,
not only is it a good idea, itis the only thing that can save
us.
The only thing to save us fromour own like irrelevance is to
say up until this point, whatyou did to make money to find

(48:12):
you defines all of us right Fromthe moment you become an adult.
That is the main question whatare you going to do to make
money to live?
And that is a question thatoccupies most people for their
entire life, some people retire.

Speaker 2 (48:29):
Yeah, it goes back to you know, when before there was
any of this you had to get upand go get something to eat.

Speaker 1 (48:35):
Maybe now we're at a point where that question needs
to, that needs to change and weneed to say okay, we can't
define ourselves by what we doanymore, because we could do
that when we humans were theonly ones who did those things.
Of course, everything needs tobe done by a human.
Everything that needs to getdone needs to get done by a

(48:56):
human.
Over the last bunch of yearswe've been removing more and
more things.
You know, just every time weenter a machine that's something
that a human once had to do,that a machine now does.
And now we're hitting thispoint where most tasks,
certainly most unpleasant tasks,can be done by machines.
So rather than say, well, youwho did that job, guess you

(49:17):
don't make money anymore, Ithink we need to just upset the
whole Apple cart and say youknow, none of what any of us
does matters.
In that sense, let's just getus all on the even footing.
And if people want to do beyondthat, like, I think, everyone
who ever says that, somebody wholike Universal Basic Income I
hear this all the time theywouldn't, people would be lazy.

Speaker 2 (49:40):
And some people would Some of the two would.

Speaker 1 (49:42):
Of course, some people would.
But also, if you've beenworking your whole life and you
finally get a break, oh, I'm allfor you being lazy, but why is
it that nobody ever questionsthe millionaires and
billionaires who work 12 hourdays Like, technically, nobody
who's rich needs to work.
They could all stop tomorrowand just be like, well, I'm rich

(50:03):
, I don't need to work anymore.
But very few of them do, right,I mean?
So what is it that makes themkeep going when theoretically,
they could right what is theperson who has who makes $50,000
a year?
Why do they just kind of stopat some point?
They could just stop and say,well, I make enough money.

(50:23):
No, they always want.
There's something in mostpeople who want to make more.
They want more.

Speaker 2 (50:27):
They want something different?
Yeah, because it's inherent ina person, right?

Speaker 1 (50:32):
But that's all been built around our consumption
system.
You want stuff, you must workfor stuff, and now that's all
breaking down.
You know Trek, or I have to say, have you ever seen the Orville
, which is the sort of the StarTrek kind of.
People say it's good.
Highly recommend you watch thethree seasons of it that are on
Hulu.

(50:52):
I highly recommend it becauseit's very Trek, it's very
idealistic.

Speaker 2 (50:55):
Trek.
They just keep coming out withnew Star Trek shows.

Speaker 1 (50:58):
Yes, but what I thought was interesting is and I
think Trek is kind of the sameway.
That's why I haven't watched ityou know what their currency is
Reputation, Like that's theircurrency, kind of in a way
Meaning that why do people getup there?

Speaker 2 (51:10):
I get it on some level.
Why do people get up in themorning?

Speaker 1 (51:13):
In currency.
Meaning that, why do people getup in the morning, why do
people go become stuff and dostuff in the fiction of that in
that world Is because peoplewant to be known as the greatest
or a great chef or a greatcomposer or a great this or a
great that or a great Starshipcaptain or whatever it is.
Because we as a people find ourmeaning in stuff Because that's

(51:40):
, it's impressive.
But what happens when stuff'sno longer impressive, like in
Star Trek, when they can justhit a replicator and say make me
a this.

Speaker 2 (51:49):
So on some level, on some level, the key to humanity
moving forward is that we alland I'm not saying this isn't a
bad way, I actually think it's agood way we all become hippies.

Speaker 1 (52:02):
Yeah, yeah, really, and already I can hear people's,
you know, heads exploding andimmediately yelling words like
communism, right, and this iswhere I just say communism and
capitalism, there's two sides ofa coin.
We've always been some level ofboth.

Speaker 2 (52:25):
I mean, you know, or social, let's say capitalism and
communism doesn't work onlybecause you can give the same
effort and get the exact.
You can give a different effortand get the same result.
So, that capitalism is supposedto be the opposite of that, but
you're talking about somethingdifferent.

Speaker 1 (52:40):
And I shouldn't even say let me correct myself and
say capitalism is socialism,right?
So there's the idea of thecapitalism, you know, and then
the socialism because, communism.
Communism isn't the flip sideof capitalism, it's not that
different.
But no, communism is probablythe flip side of like, because
capitalism and socialism arekind of, but capitalist,

(53:02):
communist is connected tosocialist but not Well, I mean
we're not gonna get big theorybut in this country we don't
generally have pure capitalism.

Speaker 2 (53:10):
We have modified capitalism because we have
regulations, because if youdidn't have regulations, that's
why we all know capitalismdoesn't work in its purest form.
Because if it did work in itspurest form, businesses would
need to be regulated.
Because they have to beregulated, because they'll fuck
us when they get a chance.
So you won't.
If you have to regulate it,that's government intervention.

(53:32):
So you do not have purecapitalism For anyone out there.
The things we do, we don't.

Speaker 1 (53:36):
No and also we have actually, you know, business
socialism.
Whenever businesses run intoproblems and the government
comes in and bails them out,that's socialism.

Speaker 2 (53:43):
So it's like nobody.

Speaker 1 (53:44):
Nobody ever complains when the banks are like having
trouble they come in and theysay you know right, the banks
don't complain.
So that's what I'm saying, isis that we don't, so why does it
have to be one or the other?
It isn't now like, it isn'tpure capitalism.
It pure socialism, doesn't.

Speaker 2 (54:01):
I don't think pure capitalism exists on this planet
in any socialized way.

Speaker 1 (54:06):
Why do we even need to get into a discussion of of
which is better?
Cause I think what happens alot is when somebody attacks
capitalism as being like notreally working anymore, that
attack is perceived ascapitalism never worked, and
then their defense will be well,this country wouldn't have been
built without it, they're right.
Why can't we just say you'reright, Like the system we had.

(54:27):
I'm not saying it was bad.
I used to defend that system,voraciously defend that system.
I feel like that system wasgood when it was good and it
worked great to get us here.
But be honest, look around.
Can you not see it's breaking?
Can you think of one experiencethat has gotten better?

(54:49):
I always say this airlinetravel.
Technologically speaking,airline travel should be a hell
of a lot more comfortable andenjoyable than it is.
The reason why it's not, thereason why it's being diluted,
like most things, is theconstant profit motivation.
How do you keep the profitsgoing up?

(55:10):
At some point you gotta getmore people to fly, Okay, but
everybody's flying, who's flying?
And costs are going up.
How else?
Oh, I guess we have to cutstaff.
I guess we have to, we have totrim what makes that thing
enjoyable.

Speaker 2 (55:23):
We can all be excited about getting a bag of trail
mix instead of a meal.

Speaker 1 (55:27):
That's the sort of right it used to be.
You get on a flight, you have anice six course meal for a
three hour flight.
Now it's like you get a bag ofchips for a 12 hour flight.
It's that kind of thing.
It's making the experience lessenjoyable for all of us.
We're all punking ourselves.
Everything has gotten lessenjoyable.
So can we just see at this pointand look and go, wow, wouldn't

(55:49):
it be really great if airlinesran because people need to get
places and the goal of runningthat airline was not to make
money?
The goal of running the airlinewas to run a really good
airline and you got people and,in some cases, ai, doing certain
jobs.
But however many humans, orhowever many the humans that
work in the airline industry arereally well compensated because

(56:12):
they bring value.
But where humans aren't needed,machines do the work Maybe
machines, ticketing agents andthings like that but pilots some
people still like to fly withAI assistance.
Like you could create a worldwhere the people who worked in
that industry were really wellcompensated and that anyone who
used that industry had anenjoyable time and, like I, fly

(56:35):
all the time.
It's awesome and everybodycould say that, not just people
who are super wealthy.

Speaker 2 (56:40):
I agree with you, I think the issue would be,
practically speaking,theoretically, I agree with you.
Right, practically is where italways breaks down, Right
practically my opinion is itwill never happen until it
sounds so dire.

Speaker 1 (56:57):
You gotta take everything away.
Society has to collapse.

Speaker 2 (56:59):
Has to collapse.

Speaker 1 (57:00):
Which it didn't start track.

Speaker 2 (57:01):
Right.
If you look back in history, nosociety ever fundamentally
changed until it collapsed,right.
And then it's not really.
That society is not reallychanging, it's just a new
society, so it's effed up if youthink about it.
Right, we still haven't figuredit out.
That's what I mean.
You go back in time, thebeginning of civilization as we

(57:23):
know it today, which, on thispodcast, we're always open to
new views but as we know ittoday, no society ever
fundamentally changed on its own, true?
So that's why I really wouldlove to see some traction to
what you're talking about, right.

Speaker 1 (57:44):
Who knows?
It's really gonna require aparadigm shift, but do you know
what might be enough of aparadigm shift to actually make
us start thinking?

Speaker 2 (57:53):
big ideas like that.

Speaker 1 (57:54):
Is what we're talking about.
That's why it all ties together.
That's why I think I don't know.

Speaker 2 (58:01):
That could be a reason why.
What if we discovered thispoint to it, if you wanted to be
cynical, which I think if youare a critical thinker, you have
to be cynical sometimes Right.
Optimistic is a Pollyanna of.
But that could be a reason whythe powers it be.
We always like to say thegovernment, but just to sit here

(58:23):
and say huge corporations donot influence the government,
we'd all be kind of naive, right?
Having a paradigm shift is notprofitable.

Speaker 1 (58:35):
No, you're right.
You're right and we are.
It's very easy to keep peoplelike keep our minds from
thinking big ideas.
And Noam Chomsky, inmanufacturing consent, had a
very good point about you don'tneed to control everybody's
thoughts, you just need to buildbarriers, certain areas, that

(58:57):
response the respectable peopletalk about certain things and
consider certain ideas and otherideas and other concepts and
other things are outside of thatand respectable people don't
talk about it, and that's allyou need to do.
And once you make thatframework, you say, okay, big
ideas like is perhaps are wecapitalism and communism and

(59:20):
socialism?
All these structures areartificial.
They're all created.
They're not again, they're notgravity, they're not time,
they're not you know things thateven those are actually.
Time, especially, is anartificial construct, but they
are.
They're not something that isan immutable force like gravity.
Right, they could be changed.
They were made up in the firstplace.

(59:40):
There's zero reason why wecouldn't make it up.
But you're right, we're notjust gonna come to our senses
and do that.

Speaker 2 (59:45):
I mean, at the end of the day, money is fake,
everything's fake, right?
And I, when I'll say that tofriends of something they'll say
what are you talking about?
I say how can it be real If youcan just print more of it?
It's not real.

Speaker 1 (59:59):
There was a quote, and I cannot remember where it
came from, but I thought it wassuch a great quote.
It was something like us, likea society is a group of people
who have agreed to forgetcertain things.
And it's kind of like we're, youknow, we're all the social
contract is we all kind of agreeto let some illogical things

(01:00:21):
like the fact of money, likehere is this thing really?
It's just a concept, this youknow, and sometimes, sometimes
we have something physical torepresent of it.
But now we don't.
A lot of times we don't.
It's just in our bank account,it's just it's this thing that
gets moved around.
That's not really real, butit's so important to our life
and we all just kind of acceptit.
And then when somebody likereally brings it up and goes

(01:00:43):
it's fake.

Speaker 2 (01:00:44):
You see that initial Well, versus resistance, because
, of course and I get it peoplecan have different theoretical
ways of looking at things, youknow.
But the real way they sayyou're supposed to look at money
is money comes from value, andit doesn't matter how much money
you have.
There's still just one kind ofsense of value, Right?

(01:01:08):
So if something is which we allagree, to.
If there's a billion dollarsthat can be spread around, it
doesn't matter how many dollarsyou make.
There's still only a billiondollars to spread around, and
people keep thinking you canmake more.
Yeah, people are making money,but that means someone else
doesn't have any.
So that's the way it works.
If I have more food, there'sonly enough food.

(01:01:29):
There's only like 10 hamburgers.
If I take five of them.
I don't care what you if I, howmany I cut up.
There's only five left.

Speaker 1 (01:01:37):
Right.
And that's the only reason whysomething works of being a value
there has to be a scarcity tohave it for it to be valuable
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:01:42):
Because originally it was gold.

Speaker 1 (01:01:44):
Right, and here's the gold.
I have some gold.
You don't have the gold.
I gave you the gold.
Now I don't have the gold.

Speaker 2 (01:01:50):
You have the gold, but it's a physical thing.

Speaker 1 (01:01:51):
Then gold became money and it represented it, and
then, of course, then the goldslipped away.
And so at what point?
We agree that the money has ameaning.
But I could print my owncurrency up.
I could go home and create areally cool looking $100 bill
and if I go out and try to spendit I could swear up and down
that it's real currency.
But I'm the only one whobelieves in it and nobody's
gonna take it.

(01:02:12):
But yet there's other $100 billthat has been Franklin on it.
We all accept that that one isvaluable.
It's just we all agreed to acertain sense of delusional
thinking.
We've all disagreed and go thispiece of paper has value and
everybody would look and go well, clearly it doesn't.
It's just the thing, yeah, butcan we all agree that it has

(01:02:33):
value?
All right, I guess we can agreewith that, and that works as
long as we all agree.
Once we don't, once we start todoubt, that hurts.
Once we reject, it all fallsdown.

Speaker 2 (01:02:45):
So that's it's which, in real time this, you know
this powers to be the trying todo that it's.
Have you seen?
China, russia and India SouthAfrica was part of it.
They backed out.
They're all those threecountries which are large
countries economically andpopulation-wise.
They are gonna start trying tohave their.

(01:03:10):
It's called BRICS or somethinglike that.
Bri, they are going to havetheir own dollar system backed
by gold.

Speaker 1 (01:03:21):
Yeah, so that's Competing systems.
There's already been lots ofmovement as far as, like, the
dollar and oil is a whole, likeit's all-.

Speaker 2 (01:03:28):
No, that's intertwined Right it's.

Speaker 1 (01:03:31):
We're at a very weird inflection point and, yeah,
it's gonna be fun to watch itroll out, but I really just
don't think people are cognizantof how much the world is gonna
change and even if some of thestuff they feel like they can
ignore, it comes a certain pointwhere it's gonna affect them.
Oh yeah, but all right, so wehave gone way off topic, but
this I think we still had a goodepisode here.

(01:03:54):
But, yeah, I think that's agood place to wrap it up and we
will be bringing you more,because we have AI to talk about
, we have the hearings to talkabout, we have a lot going on
and I think we need to find waysof even if we do like a remote
broadcast and stuff, we gottafigure a way to do more, because
there's gonna be a lot more forus to cover.

Speaker 2 (01:04:11):
Yes, we're falling behind, I agree.

Speaker 1 (01:04:14):
But for now, I think that's where we'll wrap it up,
so until next time, I'm Chrisand I'm Steve and we've been
talking about some deep shit,yeah.