Why Society Needs Rebels

[00:00:36] Oh no, we're here, I promise. Let's see. This is my bad. This is my bad. Oh man, Boomer Tech over here. Welcome back to Rise To Liberty Podcast. We have a very awesome show for you today. Today's guest is a returning guest, Adam Maxwell.

[00:00:58] But before we get into this real quick, I just want to jump in and run our sponsor real quick, which is Nadoo Shave Co. These are absolutely amazing safety razors. This is a company that actually gives a shit about you that won't sell China-made plastic multi-blade razor crap or try to, you know, get some China-made razors and try to

[00:01:28] market it as America first or the conservative brand or whatever. This is a veteran-owned family-operated business that actually cares about taking care of their customers and providing them with a quality product.

[00:01:42] It's one that I use personally and I couldn't recommend Nadoo Shave Company enough. So go ahead and scan that QR code or go to N-A-D-E-A-U-S-H-A-V-E-C-O.com. Make sure to use promo code RISE15, R-I-S-E-1-5 to get 15% off your order and make sure to let them know that I sent you over there.

[00:02:09] Now, with that out of the way, Adam, how are you doing, Adam? Thanks for coming back. Thanks for having me. I'm doing well, thanks. Of course, of course. So there's definitely two episodes that I need to make sure and put in the episode description. I've had you on before, so everybody make sure and go check those out down below.

[00:02:32] Other than that, do you kind of want to give a rundown of who you are and what you have going on with Liberty Rising and all of that? Sure. My name is Adam Maxwell. I'm the chairman and founder of Liberty Rising Group, a nonprofit organization dedicated to individual freedom, liberty, economics, think tank, etc.

[00:02:53] Personally, I am a former technology entrepreneur turned stateless refugee. We had two episodes kind of going through my story and I'm now kind of full time legal professional, mostly dealing with my case escalating things to the highest international courts and things.

[00:03:16] So that's what I'm working on. So that's what I'm working on. As part of that, I have my telegram channel at Liberty Rising Group, post lots of libertarian memes. Try and do so with not just entertainment. It's very entertaining, but also education, information and fostering that sense of sovereignty, independence and kind of what we're going to be talking about, hopefully, in this call.

[00:03:43] Right. And so that's actually where I found you and where we kind of introduced each other was on Telegram, which he has an amazing Telegram channel. I highly recommend everyone sign up if you don't already have a Telegram. And if you do make sure and go find his channel because it's awesome. It's actually one of the channels I keep pinned towards the top so I can always check.

[00:04:13] And yeah, make sure and go check out the episodes that Adam and I did where we talk about his story. Incredibly compelling, incredibly eye opening and a really important discussion, in my opinion. So make sure and go check that out. Now, as far as today's episode, we're kind of talking about the philosophy of obedience versus like rebellion.

[00:04:40] Asking the question of why is obedience typically the default for a majority of people versus rebellion? And I think there's a lot of different angles to this, which hopefully we can get into. But let's start here. So what do you believe, I guess, is the cause of people choosing to obey?

[00:05:13] Comfort and conditioning. I think that we live in highly advanced societies. And what is most advanced is their system, is the government system. For example, let's take very, very basics. Did you, were you brought up in a private education? Or did you go to what we hear is a public education? It's not a public education. Public schools aren't open to the public, accountable to the public, by the public.

[00:05:43] They're government schools. They're government educational facilities. And it's like that with everything. You know, oh, you know, I want national health care. You mean government health care. It's all these subtle framing. And it's a system of, I call it menticide, which is systematic brainwashing and conditioning. And it's something that everyone falls for. It's something that I fall for.

[00:06:11] It's something that you have to fall for. There's a great quote. You're either aware of the conditioning or you've been conditioned. And it manifests in many, many, many ways. So, again, I think obedience. Sorry. You have conformity and comfort. These are kind of the why people choose to be obedient and conform. But then you have the conditioning and this kind of matrix of false choices.

[00:06:38] And what I like to describe as a regime of manufactured consent. Interesting. Yeah, I think I would have to agree. It's definitely – so I actually made a – or tweeted something out earlier, much earlier this morning. Let's see if I can – I should have had this pulled up. But let's see here.

[00:07:05] So it was addressing just what you had brought up. Let's see. Wow, I actually post a lot more than I thought I did. Okay. So hedonism is a tool used to oppress society. If society is structured so that people can devote much of their time to the pursuit of pleasures and the satisfaction of material wants,

[00:07:29] then persuasion and conditioning will be sufficient for exerting extreme control over a population. And, you know, I think this is why we see things like the bread and circuses. Why that is such a – why that's such not only a true statement, but that it is such a valid criticism of people.

[00:07:56] And I would have to argue that I think the schools are the number one reason for this. So I don't think we disagree there. I'm actually not sure where we disagree at all. You've got schools. You've also just got media and just constant conditioning. Allow me to give the most obvious example that I recognize pretty straight away. I remember when I was in school learning about the Russian Revolution. I grew up in London.

[00:08:26] I had no hate towards the Russians whatsoever, but I remember thinking, those stupid Russians. They're communist. They're backwards. And I'm like, why is any of this? Like, that was what my mind just went to studying at 15, 16. Right. Maybe seven. Yeah. 15, 16. And, like, as I've grown older, I've looked into things.

[00:08:51] And it's like, well, no, there's, like, and then I remember in 2017, 18, when, like, my, I hear people telling me how Russia's subverting Brexit and our democracy. And I'm like, no, they're not. These are narratives. There's no, it's not proven. And I don't trust the government. I don't trust MI6 narratives or CIA narratives. Like, I think this is all fake. And it is. And it was. And it has been.

[00:09:18] It's been not just the system, not just the deep system, but the deepest intelligence of the system. These are pumping out these narratives. And we live in that fictional world, like, especially the West, especially liberal democracies. It is a regime of manufactured dissent. It is based on deception. And they're very good at it, especially the British, which is why MI6, they've been punching above their weight.

[00:09:44] And despite Washington being a greater power, Britain or London has been a more subversive power. And then, I mean, if you go and study the history of the CIA and the OSS, they learned from London how to do these things. Right. Yeah, especially with institutions such as Tavistock, which was over in the UK.

[00:10:11] And I would argue has probably had more of an impact or has allowed the CIA to have the impact that they have had, which is monsterable, if you know anything about it. But I don't think they would have quite been able to get done what they have gotten done as far as the behavior modification programs. Of course, things like MKUltra or Project Monarch.

[00:10:38] These things I don't think would have been able to be as successful as they are without the help of Tavistock. Sure. I think, you know, as much as we live in the real world, we live in this system of deception, which means we have to look into dystopian fiction, especially, to kind of understand those abstractions and how they apply to the real world.

[00:11:05] And let's just start off by saying that fiction is often a higher level of reality, because when you take Ian Fleming, for example, James Bond, Ian Fleming was a top level intelligence army officer. Right. He didn't just write James Bond out of nowhere. He based it on his own experiences. And then he wrote it into a book. And it's fantastic. George Orwell, he didn't just write his books out. It's not like writing a children's book, which, you know, first off, there can be some phenomenal children's books out there.

[00:11:35] I don't mean to at all be pejorative there. But, for example, we look at Orwell and Huxley, and they have two contrasting understandings of how the population is to be brainwashed. So Orwell wrote that books would be banned, where Huxley wrote there'd be no reason to ban books as no one wants to read them. So Orwell thought that the world would be deprived, or that the controlled society would be deprived of information.

[00:12:01] And Huxley wrote that they would give us so much information, we would be reduced to passivity. One's the truth being concealed from us, and the other is the truth being drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Kind of a captured culture or a preoccupied culture. You go, Orwell went further in 1984, adding that people are controlled by inflicting pain. And this is what MKUltra discovered.

[00:12:24] If you traumatize the population, especially if you keep them in a state of constant distress, they are easier to control, more susceptible to mind control, brainwashing. And that was kind of the major takeaway from MKUltra, as I understand it. Right. I personally believe there's a synthesis of Orwellian and Huxleyan dystopian, where oppression and subversion coexist, reinforcing each other rather than existing as mutually exclusive paradigms.

[00:12:54] The idea that the end will come as an Orwellian dystopia masquerading as Huxley's utopia is particularly compelling because it suggests a controlled collapse, a society that does not realize it's being destroyed. Because these mechanisms of control are dressed in pleasure, convenience, and an ideological righteousness. And again, if the system is based on deception, that righteousness is really a sickness.

[00:13:19] So you have both informational overload, which is Huxley, and that ensures censorship, which is Orwell. Right. And so I think I agree with Huxley a bit more because where Huxley saw – I mean, they were both anti-hedonists.

[00:13:45] But Huxley, I think, pointed out just basically like what you were saying is that there would be no need to, which is actually where I got the idea for my tweet was thinking about Huxley is he pointed out that a system built on hedonism itself will allow for people to give up their essential liberties.

[00:14:13] For their comforts, which I think is exactly what we see.

[00:14:43] And then all of a sudden they'll do something. I find that the methodology of Huxley is kind of more accurate, but I find that Orwell's predictions are more foundational, or at least they remain foundational, especially when considering how Huxley's world ensures that Orwell's world is normalized and accepted. So again, my understanding is that our true dystopia is a synthesis.

[00:15:10] You have this population that is simultaneously sedated and surveilled, enslaved not just by external coercion, but by its own willing submission to state narratives and consumer distractions, hedonism, and this illusion of progress. But there's that dialectic of control where you inflict pain on dissenters while sedating the masses with pleasure. Right. Which is kind of interesting. I think that's interesting. That's interesting.

[00:15:35] That's, you know, we get the, what is it called? I was just reading about it the other day, the Cloward Piven strategy. Please. Create a problem. And then offer the solution, basically. Which I have a, I think it's Brown. Go ahead. That government is good at one thing.

[00:16:04] Breaking your legs, handing you a crutch, and saying, see, if it wasn't for government, you wouldn't be able to walk. Right. Exactly. And I think that's exactly what we see. So. One thing. One thing. Oh, I love Harry Brown. If you've never read his, his article that he wrote the day after 9-11, I highly recommend it for everyone.

[00:16:33] But one thing I find incredibly interesting is where people, where the switch went off in people. Because even now I still meet people who are completely consumed by, I guess, the narrative machine. Where, where in your journey did you really all of a sudden like have that moment where you clicked, I guess, out of the matrix?

[00:17:03] Well, I've got a couple examples I can say. So back in 2015, 2016, I think, I went on like a youth movement a little month away. And like they, this was 2016. They're starting to introduce all the kind of progressive woke cultural ideology.

[00:17:32] And so they're like saying, oh, this isn't this, you know, this person, they're not a, this person, they're a them person. And I said, I don't. And then like, I had someone who I, who I thought was very reasonable and quite base. And he comes up to me and he says to me, look, and he tells me like the exact definition that they want him to believe to say about a specific orientation. And of course, I'd heard about these orientations. It's not like I was ignorant of them. I just rejected them. And I was like, damn, you know, they've got you.

[00:18:00] Then on that tour, this is 2016, Trump is running for office. And I see the, it's international TV. So it's either Sky News or CNN. And I see them saying stuff about Donald Trump. And I had just kind of got into politics maybe the year before, I think 2015, there was an election in the UK and I didn't care about it until everyone at school is like, oh, duh, duh, duh, duh. And I was like, oh, if you guys care about it, maybe I should look into it. I mean, you know, I thought I was being cool, like rejecting it.

[00:18:30] Maybe not. I'm not sure what the right answer is. But certainly I'm listening to what they're saying on international television. I'm like, this is completely unhinged. They're completely lying. And I didn't quite understand it yet. You know, I was 16, I think 16 years old. I knew about Trump. I liked the meme of Donald Trump. I still do. I don't like him as a politician, but as a personality, I think he's a great meme.

[00:18:59] Again, I have many disagreements with him. I dislike some of his personality. I dislike some of his policies. I don't love or hate him. He simply is. But then I was really, I noticed I was completely outside this matrix. And again, completely outside this matrix, I was still conditioned. I still was subject to conditioning. I still believed in this concept of government, say.

[00:19:25] When I was 17, preparing for advanced university admissions, and I did a, we had like an advanced class for preparation into Oxford, Cambridge and stuff. And then we had a lecture on economic, economic theories. And they're talking about this dichotomy called the Rawls versus Nozick debate. So you have this economist, Nozick, who's very free market.

[00:19:52] Then you have this guy called John Rawls, who is kind of a more welfare economist. He's not really, but he says, look, if you have a society and this is the distribution of income and you spawn in at random, would you not rather the society that's more equitable? And I remember thinking, you know, this has got merits. I'm still very right wing, very free market. And I reject these arguments, but I'm still trying to learn them.

[00:20:17] I remember being at university for economics, finance, and I did economic analysis. And the teacher says, look, here's the benefits of a monopsony, which is a single, a centralized buyer of market of goods, as opposed to a monopoly, a single seller. And he tells me some of the virtues of having, for example, a national healthcare system where you can, by buying things in bulk, like medicine in bulk, you're able to maybe get a lower price.

[00:20:47] I remember thinking that's a valid argument. Maybe I still don't buy it, but maybe might I be leaning into it? And then I do more research. I'm like, no, this is just complete, like that one potential good thing does not at all make up for all the bad things. Especially that, you know, the toxification of the central state claiming a monopoly over national healthcare means they claim an absolute right over your life in all aspects.

[00:21:16] That's not unbound to any extent. So this is, as you were saying, people, this hedonism, you know, healthcare is expensive. I would rather let the government have complete control over my entire life, everything, so that I don't have to pay for insurance in case something goes wrong. And to me, it's like, okay, that's slavery. Like, I would rather be grueling in agony and suffering seriously.

[00:21:46] I would rather go through that than be a slave. You're muted. Oh, so I actually live near a military base, fairly close, and so sometimes I have planes fly overhead. Anyways, I would have to agree. I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

[00:22:15] And I know so many people who don't feel that way, believing that a life of servitude might even be superior to not living at all.

[00:22:29] And what I find interesting is this usually comes from the people who criticize the Western civilization, but more particularly the U.S., regarding its history towards slavery. And it's like, well, how can it be so bad 150 years ago, 160 years ago? And yet you're okay with blindly walking into it.

[00:22:59] And that just has to be the cognitive dissonance. Listen, those slaves, they had a place to sleep. They got food. They didn't have to pay for, you know, food stamps. They got that, you know. They just couldn't leave, and they had to work grueling hours, and they weren't entitled to the fruits of their labor, and they didn't have choices because, you know, their masters owned them. But that's okay, right? Because, again, you have those exact same parallels today.

[00:23:26] Just instead of a landlord that owns everything, you have the central government, the central state. And they kind of go beyond even some of the cruelty of the slave masters. Maybe they don't whip you directly. Maybe they do. They do steal a lot. They do regulate everything. They do, you know, if you don't do what they say, whether or not they say is legitimate, you will be locked up. You may be tortured.

[00:23:54] You will not have any genuine remedy, like accountability. There's something we were talking about, I think, before the stream started. Look, governance is important, but the central state, the central monopoly on violent force, it means that that is what we're opposed to. Not law and order, but the chaos of government, because they're unaccountable.

[00:24:22] They exist in a state of impunity and against lawful order, because they're defined not by defensive force, but they are defined by the initiation of aggressive violence. Right.

[00:24:39] And so the thing I had mentioned before we got the stream going was that anarchy itself, I myself am closer to a anarcho-capitalist. I am definitely a free market, especially when we're comparing it to a centrally planned economy. That is just absolute garbage.

[00:25:08] It has been shown to be garbage and will always be garbage. However, I am definitely among the anarcho-capitalist mindset and that plus, you know, agorism.

[00:25:23] And the one misconception I think people have is that not only is anarchy not chaos, but it is not a rejection of hierarchy or authority in and of itself. Because it's not a rejection of legitimate authority, because there is such thing as legitimate authority. But the problem we have is the abuse of illegitimate authority above others.

[00:25:54] And so the state itself, I believe, is in direct conflict to the natural order of things, which is why we see all of this chaos in which they use to spin, say, we can take care of this chaos and make everything safe and cozy. And we will wrap everything in Nerf footballs and it will be nice and cozy. And yet they still can't keep drugs out of prisons.

[00:26:25] Well, and prison is their ideal society. It's constant surveillance. Everyone gets a set amount of exercise time, meal, everything's regulated, everything on good behavior. Right. Right. Let's just look at the word anarchy. Right. It's a or an arco. An anti meaning without and arco meaning rulers. It's not without law and order. It's without rulers.

[00:26:56] So it's it's it means that all forms of government authority are unnecessary, undesirable. And it and it instead advocates for a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups. It is not chaos. It is not lawlessness. It is based upon the principle of self ownership. The idea that you as an individual are the exclusive controller of your own body and life.

[00:27:24] And anarchy is to be peaceful, who reject initiating aggression against anyone without exception. And this is in contrast to the statist system, which is, as I said, defined by the monopoly, the central monopoly on the use of force and characterized by aggressive violence. So what is the difference between a monopoly on violence and simply exerting force?

[00:27:51] Because, you know, I have the right to live in peace, but someone can come and punch me in the face. They can violate my rights. Right. What does it mean to have a right? It means it's wrong to come and punch me in the face because you're violating my right. And it means I am then justified and punching you back and defending myself. I'm not initiating aggression. I'm exerting force to enforce my rights. Right. Rights require enforcement. The state is is different.

[00:28:20] It does not operate like this. So I think anarchy gets a bad rap because of the anarcho communists. They reject legitimate authority, including hierarchy. Whereas anarcho capitalists, our side of it, we don't reject hierarchy. Hierarchy is natural. If I do a personality test, I score like a nine or a ten on the on the authority axis. So what do you mean? I hate government authority. Yeah.

[00:28:49] But because that's illegitimate. It's not natural authority. It's not traditionism. It's not. For example, if you have if you have a workshop in your garage and you're building things out of wood. And you want to you know, you've got some capacity in your workshop and someone wants to come and join you and, you know, maybe be an apprentice. And you say, OK, you can work in my shop. I'll train you a bit. You can use my tools. But I'm going to sell what you do in my in my shop.

[00:29:18] And I'll give you some compensation for that. Do we agree? And if it's voluntary, great, that's allowed. What the anarcho-communists will say is that's not allowed because you're exploiting this this man who's voluntarily wanting to come and work with you. You're stealing the fruits of his labor. You don't own that workshop. That workshop is not private property, maybe or personal property.

[00:29:44] He should have the right to come into your workshop, use your stuff, take your tools, do all that and then take everything and do it, do what he wants with it. I say, no, that's like that's the man's private property. You can't just come in there. The point is that this that any any enterprise, anything, everything has hierarchies, especially the lobsters. So we don't reject hierarchy nor authority.

[00:30:13] We reject the illegitimate abuse of authority, which is how I describe government, especially government by fiat. Fiat is traditionally defined as rule by decree, although I have I introduced an alternative definition, abuse of power. I would definitely have to agree with that.

[00:30:37] But it's so where where did you end up finding, in my opinion, the the the only correct viewpoint as far as rebellion and obedience, which is that the anarchy side of things, where where did you end up finding these ideas? On my telegram channel, Liberty Rising Group.

[00:31:07] I mean, I do my own reading. I do my own research. I do research into libertarian principles and things and the law. And I have to argue it's legally in my case. But, you know, I've made I've been running my channel now for almost two years and I've learned a lot from people. And I've learned a lot by doing it. And I take I take my role here, even though it's running a meme channel. Essentially, it's not. It's a website for a libertarian NGO.

[00:31:38] Like I've learned a lot. And people that follow and subscribe, I hope learn a lot. And it shows. So, you know, people come in and challenge me. People come in and challenge other members. And there's discussion and the the stream of memes. Right. What is a meme? It's not just, you know, a funny cat picture. It's a medium through which you can easily communicate ideas and expressions and disperse them throughout culture and society. Right. Right.

[00:32:07] It is propaganda in and of itself, which is in and of itself a neutral, a neutral idea, a neutral tactic. It's all in the matter of how it is executed matters if it's good or bad propaganda. Like I said, I absolutely love your channel. So everyone make sure and go check it out. It is in the episode description.

[00:32:34] You can find it through his Linktree link. So was was that where you were introduced to the idea of anarchy was Telegram? Sure. As I said, I've always been the most right wing economist in my economics classes at my university and even dealing with like professionals in business. I've always I found that I've come across as very free market.

[00:33:03] Now, I haven't necessarily joined the most free market areas, although I think financial technology is a business enterprise. There's a lot of free market people. Right. But I've certainly become more radicalized through Telegram. And that's because I've been exposed to to these ideas and they make sense. Right. They're correct ideas. And then you go through the nuance.

[00:33:30] So I study a lot of history as well in my spare time. I do history, law, politics, philosophy quite a lot. Right. And, you know, so I listen to a lot of people. And I remember this one video by Tick History. It says anarchy isn't anarchy. And he references someone called Liquid Zulu, who's very focused on the legalistic. He says, look, anarchy is the application of the non-aggression principle.

[00:34:00] Everything else follows from that foundation. And he's hyper focused on that. I disagree with him on nature. But other than that, I think he's very, very based opinions. And so I listen to this. And as I said, we debate and we talk and we discuss and we are exposed to all sorts of concepts through the means and whatnot. And I study and I start and again, I take it very seriously, my job as the poster there, the admin.

[00:34:28] And then also another thing that I'm doing, I'm not very good at this right now. It's going to take some time. It's nothing's coming out soon. But I'm starting to try and write. I originally wanted to try and write some kind of not manifesto, but kind of manifesto. I wanted to define like this modern liberalism. It's not neoliberalism. It's progressed past that. It's progressive neoliberalism. What do you mean by progressive?

[00:34:57] Like Alzheimer's progressive. It's a disease that constantly gets worse and continuously so over time. Okay. So this woke Marxist liberalism, it's a new liberalism. And it's not neoliberalism because you can go and read Milton Friedman's essays on neoliberalism from the 50s or 60s or whenever it is. And it describes a completely different philosophy. So I thought I'd write something like this.

[00:35:27] Again, I take my research very seriously. I'm very forensic, methodical, systematic in my approach to things. So it was taking a while. And then I've started. I've not written even a chapter. So that's why it's not coming out anytime soon. And I hope to be able to complete it at some point and start working through it. But I'm starting to write a quasi-autobiographical novel based on my experience with the UK.

[00:35:54] And it's kind of an Orwellian, Kafkaesque, Catch-22 describing this kind of 1984 in the modern day and going through what occurred to me. So part of this fiction side of it is to say that I'm doing a lot of that fictional research. So I've got a treasure trove of this abstract analysis. And I've yet to put pen to paper.

[00:36:24] But I've done a lot of that forensic analysis over things. And it's very, very fascinating. So is that your ultimate, I guess, your endgame? At least in the near future?

[00:36:46] Well, my ultimate endgame right now, I'm just finishing up, should be finished this week, my submission or complaint to the United Nations Committee Against Torture. I've tried going to the European Court of Human Rights for my legal issues. It failed due to a procedural, like, oh, you didn't include this information and maybe it was a page too long.

[00:37:10] OK. I went to the United Nations Human Rights Council and they said, oh, nothing happened. And then I've been preparing a diplomatic pursuit of justice is how I've titled it, the DPJ, where I've prepared the documentation about my case saying here's the violations of law. And I was going to go to foreign governments and say, I invoke your legal obligations under this article, this convention, this instrument.

[00:37:37] Come and help me. I've had some developments in the UK where there's just been so much systematic corruption that I've now logged it all. And I'm able to prepare to however many pages and said, here's my case. Go to the United Nations Committee Against Torture under the instrument convention against torture. And I'm hoping I'm hoping that they're actually going to do something.

[00:38:03] And in the absence of them doing something, because here's the thing, a slave is someone who waits for others to come and save them. So I'm invoking law and I'm going to the highest authorities in the land. Do I find them legitimate? So far, no. We'll see. So I'm going to try the UN Committee Against Torture, the CAT.

[00:38:23] And then because I've got this DPJ I've described, I'm then going to try and go to foreign governments and try and invoke their obligations under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. See if I can get my matter referred to the International Court of Justice. There may be a path work through the European Court of Justice. I don't know anything about that one. And then again, the UN cap.

[00:38:48] So I need to try and I am in a very precarious situation where I've been denied legal personhood. So that's my focus. And that's why I've not been able to start writing anything much, because I do thousands of words on legal stuff. Right. And that's my my my absolute focus and priority. Right. So I do want to shift gears just a little bit. There's a couple of.

[00:39:19] Aspects of control that I wanted wanted to discuss that I thought were pretty, pretty pertinent to the discussion. One is social contract theory, which is also known as contractual theory of society. Um, let's see.

[00:39:42] So in political philosophy, the social contract is an actual or hypothetical agreement between the ruled and their rulers, defining the rights and duties of each party. It suggests that individuals originally in a state of nature, uh, form of society and government through this contract to escape an anarch, anarch existence.

[00:40:07] Um, prominent theorists like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Rousseau developed varying versions of the social contract to justify political authority and individual rights. Hobbes emphasized absolute authority for security. Locke advocated for limited government to protect natural rights. And Rousseau focused on collective will and individual freedom.

[00:40:36] Um, so kind of what's your take on the idea of this social contract theory? Sure. Um, can you please show me my signature? Can you please show me this, this contract? Right. Did I sign it by being born? Is my birth certificate that are you saying that not just babies, but newborn? Like, are you saying the moment you come, come into this world, you're, you have the capacity to consent? Like, no, of course not.

[00:41:04] This is, um, statist nonsense, unfortunately. It's a, it's an interesting philosophical concept, but it means nothing. Um, so let's just take Hobbes, for example. He was, uh, I've just looked him up, uh, 1588 to 1679. This is hundreds of years ago.

[00:41:23] I mean, if you, if you take the, the nation state and however, you know, however the, the, the form of the state back in the set in the 16th, 17th century, it is completely alien today. If you take the state a hundred years ago, it is completely alien today. What you have is not like, the point is that this evolves.

[00:41:46] Uh, and so these, these, uh, 16th century philosophical concepts, they're useful, but they're not, they're not binding. Um, like Locke is kind of the foundation of, uh, the American revolution. I actually, I wrote a sub stack on this, uh, property of the self, the Lockean foundations of the American revolution.

[00:42:09] Uh, pretty, pretty short article, but it's, uh, very insightful. Um, the point is that these things aren't, aren't, um, like they're not nonsense. They're not without foundation. They're just wrong because show me the contract. Now you said, um, it's, it's an actual agreement or you said it's actual hypothetical.

[00:42:37] Again, if it's actual, show it to me. If it's hypothetical, describe it to me. And you mentioned between the ruled and the rulers. What we've been describing is how we don't reject governance. We don't reject law enforcement. We don't reject natural authority. In fact, we purport natural law. What we reject is the, the illegitimate abuse of authority.

[00:43:02] Uh, so if there is some binding agreement between the ruled and the rulers, show me. Now I would argue that that's kind of lawful society, right? That you've got this legislation. You're going to follow the rules, right? Sure. You can follow the rules. But what happens when you are violent, your, your, your legal rights are violated by those authorities. And those authorities continue to violate those, your laws and rights. And what do you do then?

[00:43:31] Because now you'll say, well, I, I've done my part, right? Every obligation has a corresponding duty. If I have a duty, uh, not to punch you in the face. If you have the right not to be punched in the face, I have an obligation not to punch you in the face. So if I have a duty to follow the laws, then the rulers have a duty not to violate those laws. And when they do, everything breaks down. So there is no actual or hypothetical social contract. I didn't sign up to anything.

[00:44:01] Uh, the, the right framework for how society ought to govern is natural law, natural rights. Do not aggress, do not aggress unto me. Do not victimize me. Do not steal my stuff. Um, do not attack me without reason. Do not attack me. Um, that's it, right? That's the non-aggression principle. That's anarchism. And that is in opposition to the existing statist system. Right.

[00:44:29] Um, so I do know that proponents of the social contract theory, um, kind of have this idea of, uh, implicit consent, um, that just because you were born, you are agreeing to it or just because you exist, then therefore, uh, you agree to this contract, uh, which is a incredibly odd, um, concept when you really think about it.

[00:44:57] Um, it's essentially a rapists, um, uh, rationale. Right, right. Yeah. It's a, it's a very weird, uh, justification for gang rape. Um, and which is also what I think about democracy as well, at least, uh, a pure democracy. It's, uh, uh, a very, very strange justification for gang rape.

[00:45:20] So, um, so there's also this idea that kind of takes over a lot more here in the United States. Um, for, for anyone who doesn't know, uh, Adam is not in the United States. So, uh, that's why I keep, uh, mentioning the United States. Um, but there's this idea, and this is just kind of like word, uh, like a word game, but it's the consent of the governed.

[00:45:45] Um, and this actually comes from the right wing, uh, more so than the left, um, at least through my experience. Um, the definition, uh, the consent, uh, consent is a voluntary agreement to someone else's proposal. Uh, when your friend asks you to do something for them, you consent or agree by acknowledging in words, okay, or body language, blah, blah, blah, possibly a handshake, uh, partial consent is required.

[00:46:12] We give explicit consent to be married, to get healthcare, to assume risks in potentially dangerous activities, skydiving, et cetera. Um, let's see. Consent of the governed refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is justified and lawful only when consented or agreed to by the people over which that political power is exercised.

[00:46:41] Consent is fundamental to social contract accounts of political legitimacy arising as early as Plato's, uh, crito. Consent is fundamental to social contract accounts of political legitimacy and moral right to the world. So is it, is it righteous that I, you have a very nice microphone there. Is it righteous that I steal your microphone? I just take it from you, punch me in the face, take your microphone. Is that righteous?

[00:47:09] Well, it's only righteous because it's, it's ours. It's not just my microphone. It's our microphone. Right. So the point is it's not righteous. Right. Uh, how now, how about if there's 10 of me and we like that microphone, we need it more than you. Uh, it is yours. We accept that, but you know, we just need it more than you. So what we say is we're going to violate your rights knowingly, willingly because we find it justified. Uh, the point is that this is democracy.

[00:47:37] Uh, it's not lawful, legitimate, et cetera, for one individual to steal from another. But if a gang gets together and says, you know, we're going to do it. It's, uh, all of a sudden people say, okay, yeah, fair enough. Um, someone turns up to your house, two people. They say, um, give us a thousand dollars. You say, well, no, uh, I'm not going to do that. Person on the left says, look, give me a thousand dollars. I'm going to, uh, buy some ice cream and I'm going to upgrade my car.

[00:48:07] Person on the right says, uh, give me the thousand dollars. I'm going to buy you an ice cream and I'm going to upgrade my apartment. And you say, well, I don't want to give either of you a thousand dollars. This is, this is, this is coercion. This is extortion. Uh, this is democracy, right? That you are presented with these false choices, left versus right, democracy, dictatorship. These are all meaningless distractions. And that it's, um, it's illegitimate. It's unlawful. Like, uh, give me the money. No, why?

[00:48:36] Uh, I will voluntarily provide you with the money. If I find that it's in my interest that I want to, but now you're not dealing with, um, this system of aggressive governance, this is now anarchy. If it's a voluntary, uh, you know, statism is the idea that so good, it it's mandatory. And it's mandatory with aggressive violence. Right.

[00:48:59] It's, uh, ideas so good that they must be forced upon people because therefore people cannot be trusted to rule themselves. However, they can be trusted with power. Right. Uh, the, and, and not only that, because you centralize the power, this is the main problem, uh, under Ancapistan, uh, the, the idealism that there exists law enforcement, but you have

[00:49:29] private law enforcement, which means, uh, like, like I want to buy a chair. There's 10 chair suppliers. I want to, I want the law to be enforced. There's 10 law enforcement providers. The problem is that the problem is with the central monopoly. They don't have to abide by the law. They, they rule through decree. They rule by fiat. They rule with the abuse of power, which means they are unaccountable.

[00:49:55] They have impunity, uh, and they are necessarily going to violate your rights. And they're going to do that because they're a monopoly. They're going to do that job inefficiently and at a higher cost as well. Right. Um, so there is, let's see, I'm trying to get this brought up real quick. There is one thing I wanted to bring up.

[00:50:16] Um, the, the subject itself doesn't necessarily matter, but it's more of the, um, in, in regards to this conversation of, uh, you know, state authority, um, or what is legitimate authority versus, uh, illegitimate. Um, let's see here. So, okay. I can get it brought up.

[00:50:46] Give me just one second. Okay. So let's bring this up. All right. So here over in my state, uh, we actually are getting ready to wrap up our legislative, uh, session for the year. Um, one of the bills that passed, uh, is actually to ban fluoride in our public drinking water.

[00:51:16] Um, which I am in 100% favor of, um, which is interesting. Um, a lot, I hear this criticism of anarchy or anarchist a lot, especially libertarians that any, any use of government is therefore meaning that you are no longer anarchist or that you are no longer, um, like, especially with the libertarians that you are no longer a libertarian.

[00:51:46] Therefore, um, you are invalid or your points are therefore invalid because libertarians can't use, uh, the state in any form, which. Okay. That's a perfect, uh, eighth grade, uh, you know, first entry level high school take in, in my opinion, but life is a lot more complicated than that.

[00:52:12] Um, there are things, uh, I would love a perfect world to which we had no state. Uh, everyone could be, um, could be in charge of themselves. And I think a majority of people can, um, I actually believe in people to be able to take care of themselves, um, and to be able to take care of those people who actually do need help. Uh, society tends to come, come together better than any state apparatus ever could.

[00:52:42] Now. I do concede to, to the state, um, largely with the open border discussion. Um, the reason why is because even if we give up our borders, Mexico doesn't Canada doesn't. So what happens? Uh, we either become Canada or Mexico. Like it's, it's not just going to stay unowned property.

[00:53:10] Um, so therefore everyone would have to get rid of their borders. Uh, everyone would have to give up their nation and that's just not going to happen. Otherwise open borders is a death sentence. Um, as things are. I, I, I agree with what you're saying. I don't agree with your, your reasoning behind it. Um, I think that you and I likely, well, I certainly, and maybe you do align more with,

[00:53:39] uh, Hans, Herman Hop on borders. Um, Hans, Herman Hop, the triple H is a strict Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist, generally rejecting the use of state for any positive ends because the state is inherently coercive and illegitimate. However, what he says is the state already, uh, asserts a monopoly over all the land. Um, which means that, you know, without the state owning all the land, there would be private property.

[00:54:06] And so if you have the private property, for example, the border towns, you can say we, you know, you're not allowed in, right. You can enforce, you can enforce your property rights and prevent people from coming. The government says we own all this land. Um, therefore, and so Hans, Herman Hopper says, uh, because the government is already doing something and that something is evil by not taking action, by not allowing the state to take

[00:54:34] a corrective action, you are permitting this greater evil to either, uh, either recur or continue and progress. And so even though the state is completely illegitimate, it is the ultimate aggressor. Uh, it is, you know, he rejects minarchy, rejects slippery slope. Even, even then, because the state is already in a position that claims the monopoly on these lands, it is better to, um, have, have border, border control.

[00:55:04] Uh, by the state than, than not because you've got this, uh, the current state, which is, which is already distorted. Right. Um, now I, I would definitely agree with that. Um, so to progress, uh, this, this a bit further, um, let's see here. Let's stop that presentation. And then let's see.

[00:55:32] Um, so, um, for anyone who didn't read it or for, uh, our audio listens, uh, listeners, um, our blind viewers, um, it was, it was an article from KUTV to news. It's actually removed from the screen, but, uh, they had said in a post that Utah will become the first state to ban fluoride in public drinking water, despite widespread opposition from dentists and national health organizations. Um, let's see here.

[00:56:02] So earlier this morning, go ahead. This comes on the heels of just a couple months ago, uh, maybe even weeks. There was a major study that said that fluoride does absolutely reduce IQ by up to 15 points in adolescents, which is actually right here. Um, I, I had brought up, um, I had commented this on, on the post itself that, uh, nice appeal

[00:56:31] to authority, um, you know, appealing to dentists and national health advisors that, uh, we need to put fluoride in our drinking water, which is a, uh, logical fallacy. Um, fluoride has been proven to be a dangerous neurotoxin and it has zero place in our drinking water. Either nobody researched this topic before writing this, or this was intended to be propaganda.

[00:56:55] Um, and I included two screenshots, one of which two words of the government report, right? So this is not just like, and the point is that when, if, if it's even in the government reports and they are paid to try and, uh, propagate the government narrative and not necessarily they're not, they try not to be objective because they're, you know, follow the money. That's what they're being paid for. So if the government's reporting this.

[00:57:25] Right. And that, that's, that was how absurd it was to me. Uh, that, so this government report, uh, so from fluoride action network today, national toxicology, toxicology program authors published an article in the journal of American medical association, J a M a, uh, pediatrics with details underpinning the NTP report released in August,

[00:57:52] 2024 that concluded fluoride is a neuro is neurotoxic and can lower the IQ of children. Today's article adds to the science showing IQ losses can occur at exposure levels experienced by some people with artificially fluorinated, fluoridated water. Um, basically like this is like a huge meta study basically.

[00:58:16] Um, which, you know, if you've argued with anybody about, uh, issues with like COVID or anything like these meta studies are always going to be, um, argued like, oh, one study doesn't prove, uh, you need a meta study. And it's like, okay, way to move the goalpost. But, uh, this, uh, report, um, was basically a meta study out of, uh, uh, 59, uh, different

[00:58:44] studies, 52 linked higher fluoride levels to lower IQ. The average loss was seven points, uh, reduced IQ was also found in meta analysis that combined seven high quality studies, having exposure exposures below 1.5 milligrams fluoride per liter of water. Um, I mean, this is a simple, um, Google search, like Google's not even hiding it, you know,

[00:59:13] for the longest time I had been called a conspiracy theorist for many, many years over, um, topics such as just this. Now, um, with that context behind us, I want to get to what I actually wanted to bring up, but that, um, background was, or that context was, uh, oops. Let's see.

[00:59:41] Not that one, not that one. That context was necessary for the, um, post I'm bringing up now. So Derek bros, um, absolutely love this follow. Love this dude. He's, he's great at his reporting. Um, this was back in February, uh, February 25th, 2025.

[01:00:08] Uh, Derek says Utah close to fully banning fluoride in water, stripping cities ability to decide. I know this is going to be tough for some to understand, but this is not a good idea. Sure. Practically the idea that less people will be exposed to fluoride is a net positive. However, the precedent for allowing the state government to take away the voices of the, uh, localities, uh, municipalities is not a good one.

[01:00:36] I am always in favor of decentralization and localization. If some towns wants to fluoride, let them, if they don't great, but empowering the state government or federal government is not a step in the right direction. Of course, a bigger picture view of this is that democracy is flawed and it allows people who want fluoride to force their way on people who don't want it and vice versa.

[01:01:01] Um, so my question is, is what, what is your take, um, at least initially, um, hearing this? Adam, you there? Oh, okay. So while Adam, uh, we'll be right back. Let's see.

[01:01:31] So on one hand, I do agree with this. Um, the idea that a state can come in and tell a city, tell a County what to do. Um, I, I don't agree with that. Um, however, I do think this is a very interesting topic because this has now been proven to be a neurotoxin. It's, it's neurotoxic. It intentionally harms us.

[01:01:58] So the question becomes, even though, um, people should have the right, uh, municipalities and, you know, different counties, localities should have the right to be able to do what they want. Do, uh, municipalities and localities have the right to poison their citizens? So under taught law, this is, this is aggression, right? This is your hum, you're humming people. You're poisoning people, right?

[01:02:27] You're not just like, you're poisoning their brains. Um, what, what's the, what's the, what's the alternative reasoning for this? It strengthens your teeth. Yes. Yeah. It's that it, uh, it protects your, um, dental health. Um, at least that's how it was fed to us, uh, when we were in school. Um, we would actually have fluoride treatments in our government school. So listen, and toothpaste, I mean, I have fluoride free, uh, natural, whatever toothpaste.

[01:02:56] Um, but it, you know, would you like, listen, uh, let's call it 10 IQ points, seven, 15, whatever that's significant, right? Every 15 IQ points is a standard deviation from the mean. Meaning 115 IQ means you are top third or you're a third away from the means. So you're the smartest, yeah, third of the population, another 15, you're 130. This is bordering on the genius mark.

[01:03:25] Uh, you're now the top 5% of the population, 145. That's one more 15. You're now the top 0.5% of the population certified genius, right? Right. Seven, seven points is half a standard deviation. 10, 15, a whole standard deviation. What would you rather, um, maybe, maybe slightly fortified. My teeth.

[01:03:50] But you have that at the expense of, uh, of intelligence or of cognition. Um, I mean, I, I'm not, I'm not a biomedical researcher, but I do know, sorry, but I have read studies that suggest that, um, Alzheimer's for example, is the result of kind of, uh, free radicals and other, um, you know, neurotoxins and things that affect the brain as well as

[01:04:19] an absence of cholesterol, which, uh, you know, it's correct. Cholesterol is a fat. Your brain is one of the most demanding muscles. It needs fats for these things. Um, you know, it, it's kind of, there's all these suggestions that says, says all this. So the question is, would you rather like, uh, maybe, maybe your teeth fall out five years earlier, uh, or they don't, they stay in another five years. Would you rather that or, or live with dementia or, and live with dementia? Right.

[01:04:46] For example, just, you know, I'm not saying, you know, no, I hope, I hope no one gets dementia, a horrible disease. I hope your teeth don't fall out. That's unfortunate. You know, also, um, the point is the point, even if what they're saying is true about fluoride, like protecting your teeth, which I don't know. I haven't really looked into that. It's clear. It's, it's provably a neurotoxin, a poison. And I know I'm, I'm fine without it. Thanks. I'll just brush my teeth twice as hard.

[01:05:16] Maybe I'll go to the dentist a few more times. Right. Um, so I, I do find it interesting because. I, I agree with Derek. Like, I don't want the state coming in and asserting their power over, um, over, uh, localities or municipalities. But once again, I mean, this, this is not a normal subject of, of, well, you know, this,

[01:05:44] this should be, uh, like, I guess if people do want to fluorinate themselves in, in the pure sense of freedom, they should be able to. Um, however, I believe that that should be a personal choice and not a municipality or locality doing that. Um, I, I do believe that, you know, maybe it should have been presented to every county.

[01:06:09] Um, although this could have taken tons of money and resources, uh, presented saying, Hey, this is a neurotoxin. Uh, you guys need to voluntarily remove this. And anyone who doesn't, uh, we will pass a law and enforce that you do, um, or, you know, have a referendum, let the people vote on it, I guess. But I think this is a, in my opinion, since we have the state here, I do view that this

[01:06:37] is a legitimate use of government, um, as legitimate as a government can be. Um, although this is not the world that I would like to see, I would like to see maybe something like this passed with a sunset clause, um, to where, um, it's illegal until it doesn't need to be any longer. Um, but I mean, this, this goes in all many different directions is how do we make sure

[01:07:07] that it, uh, stays out of the water? Um, however, I do think that municipalities and localities that are intentionally fluoridate, fluoridating their water are attacking the people. Um, so what do we do about that? If, uh, if it was a private company supplying that water and you live in a market economy, conceivably, you'd be able to take them to court and there could be a class action. Everyone's involved. And they also listen, you're poisoning us.

[01:07:36] Uh, we're going to, we're going to compel you under tort law. You're going to pay us because you've been poisoning us. You need to stop. Uh, again, you can have private courts in Ancapistad and, and private dispute resolution organizations, but this, you know, no one has the capacity right now to go up to the municipality and say, Hey, you're, you're, uh, fluorinating our water. I want to sue you over it. And maybe Bob, uh, and Greg, you know, a few people, maybe I can get together.

[01:08:02] It's just, it's not happening again, because you have the, the present state is, is of the government of this centralized authority. You're living in that state. Um, therefore, it again, goes back to Hopper's argument, uh, that you're, you're enabling, you're, you're choosing the greater evil by not, um, having the intervention. Um, it goes to the aphorism. Um, you cannot be neutral on a moving train.

[01:08:32] Now saying this, uh, we've been talking about obedience and make, you know, hopefully I think we're going to transition into rebellion. Um, I, I am personally not a fan of voting or, uh, politics, but of agorism and, and, and, you know, living the, the anarchism. Um, uh, at the same time, I recognize the point that you've said and that of Hopper of,

[01:08:58] on, uh, border controls, um, not necessarily closed borders, but not open, open borders. Uh, and especially, you know, stop poisoning people and the less the government are poisoning people. Uh, I think universally we can agree the better. Right. And that's kind of why I wanted to bring this up because this is like pulling me out of me in both directions. Uh, I agree with Derek.

[01:09:25] I don't want the state coming in, but I mean, do localities have the right to poison their people? I mean, I guess if informed consent is truly had by the people and they choose it, then so be it. But I don't believe that informed consent has been, uh, given, uh, considering that I still get called a conspiracy theorist if I bring up fluoride. So, um, but yes, uh, I do want to move on.

[01:09:55] Um, let's see. So let's see, hold on. I was looking for, got a bunch of tabs open. Um, there was a quote I had. Um, so I guess while I look for this, what, what does rebellion, uh, mean to you? Like what, what is your definition?

[01:10:25] What is your understanding? Um, so before I go into that, I, I'm going to, uh, 1984, what they had, they had the inner party, the outer party and the proles. Um, I say society has, uh, has four tiers. You've got the subjects, apparatchiks, the elites and the sovereigns. So the subjects is the average person. They're conditioned to comply with that questioning.

[01:10:53] Apparatchiks are the, the bureaucrats, the police, the corporate elites, the media enforcers, those who maintain order in exchange for power. You've got the elites, the regime, the cathedral, the architects of society, ensuring that rebellion is seen as madness or terrorism. And then you have sovereigns, uh, those who have broken the spell and refuse to be ruled. So it is my opinion that subjects and apparatchiks fight over meaningless politics.

[01:11:23] And the real struggle is sovereigns versus the elites. So I would, I would have to agree with that. So how do you, so first off, how, how, how are you sovereign? Well, how is control engineered? You've got fear and manufactured crises. You have debt and economic servitude, surveillance and social monitoring, propaganda, thought control.

[01:11:48] Um, the state does not rule through force alone, but through dependency and perception management. So in order to break free physically from the state, you must first see through the illusion. Uh, kind of awakening is the first step of the battle. I would argue that self-sufficiency is resistance. The more independent you are, the less leverage the system has over you. You should reject the false choices of the system matrix.

[01:12:17] As I said before, left versus right, democracy versus dictatorship is all meaningless distractions. Uh, sports ball. Listen, you can have a hobby. You can enjoy your hobby. I don't mean at all to degrade anyone for their preferences. I'm sure, you know, I enjoyed something you don't. And, and, you know, I think you may think something, one of my hobbies is stupid or pointless or whatever.

[01:12:40] I, that, you know, this isn't at all demeaning anyone, but we, as we've said, it's bread and circuses. You know, the, the system, for example, in 2020, um, the system said, all of you, you are non-essential workers. Go home, don't work, watch Netflix. And I said, what? That is crazy.

[01:13:05] But most people went, okay, you know, and we're, we're going to order takeaway to stimulate the economy. I'm like, oh my, this is, this is horrendous. Um, so to be sovereign is not to be subject to these system controls is to live outside the system, uh, from financial independence, the legal loopholes, legal loopholes. It's about not playing the game. Now, I think the best way to do that is not to live in major cities.

[01:13:33] Uh, I've lived almost exclusively in major cities. I would like to not live. I would like to have the capacity to not live in a major city. Uh, presently I'm kind of compelled to, you know, my point is I'm, I'm giving kind of ideal principles and I admit that, you know, I, I presently don't have the capacity to live up to that. And I'm sure other people too. Um, the point is I'm not saying go and be a hermit in the woods, but probably don't live in the major metropolitan city capital.

[01:14:03] It's nicer, probably living where there's fresh air. Right. Good thought. Um, so I think, um, you know, resist, I think a great aphorism is resistance is fertile. Uh, true anarchy, true resistance is growing your own food, having a garden. And that's something that I would love to, to do, love to do more of.

[01:14:28] Um, I'd like to have the capacity to, you say, what's my ultimate objective, uh, like half hour ago, it would be nice to have my own, uh, self-sufficiency. Right. And in my opinion, in the world that we live in, I, I do view, um, self-reliance, um, and independence to be the true form of, um, rebellion.

[01:14:57] Uh, not only is it peaceful rebellion, um, but it actually frees pressure up on the system because any state is going to want, well, and this, this doesn't make sense to me, but I'll touch on that in a minute. But our, our states are elites, which I do not agree that they are elites. However, you know, their delusions believe that they are. We used to have aristocracy. Now we have democracy. Right.

[01:15:25] It's an appeal to the lowest denominator. So it's not a true elite, but they still do comprise the cathedral. It's like if you look at the leaders of states of past centuries and you look at the leaders of state today and you see Mark Carney is now the prime minister of Canada. Mark Carney. Yeah. Right. I mean, they, they have this, uh, oligarch, uh, technocratic attitude.

[01:15:51] Um, you, I think, I think a lot of this comes from the eugenics movement where it's, uh, we are the arbiters of truth. Uh, we, we are the great ones. Our bloodlines need to continue and we are going to take care of the earth. I don't understand why, um, they truly feel this way, but. Also the Bill Gates, uh, the world is overpopulated. Right. Here, take this experimental vaccine. Right.

[01:16:18] I'm, I'm going to bioengineer mosquitoes to, uh, be able to inject people. Like, are you insane? I want to blot out the sun, Bill Gates. Like, like. Allegedly. I was listening to someone and they said 20, 30 years ago, they used to spray pesticides to deal with mosquitoes around the USA. Then they stopped doing that because then the mosquitoes became pesticide resistant and it was causing all sorts of problems. This is not something I have any knowledge about something I heard listening to someone.

[01:16:48] That's kind of like, this is one of the problems with MRSA. Uh, it's just a, uh, disease that's running around hospitals, especially it's, it's a resistant medicine, resistant strain antigen. I don't know. That's a really difficult to deal with. Right. Right. And, you know, it, so they, they do still, um, I'm not sure if they use pesticides or herbicides.

[01:17:14] I do know in parts, uh, some parts of the country, they still do, uh, what's called mosquito embatement. Um, and it's, it's a, uh, usually a wildlife law enforcement office that takes care of it. Uh, and like a natural resources office usually. Um, and we have mosquito embatement, um, here in, in my state.

[01:17:39] Um, and it's basically a way to be able to track the population of mosquitoes, uh, test for things like West Nile. Um, but a way to be able to, uh, also control the populations. Um, and it's, it's really incredible. I'm not sure exactly, like I said, if they're still using pesticides or herbicides. If they were, it wouldn't surprise me.

[01:18:03] Um, so one thing that the state will want us dependent upon them, that increases the need for the state. Therefore they can keep increasing their, um, well, their, their funds. They can keep, uh, increasing the size. Um, they can keep increasing jobs. They can create, um, temporary government programs that never go anywhere.

[01:18:30] Um, they can create programs like social security, which ends up bankrupting us. Uh, and then they can keep printing money over and over in a fiat currency that has basically enslaved us all, um, went from, uh, you know, labor slaves, uh, work slaves to now financial slaves and they included all of us instead of, uh, just one race or group of people.

[01:18:56] And so I do believe that, uh, independence, um, whether it be learning skills, um, having the ability to grow your own food, um, purify your own water, uh, especially having your own power source, uh, uh, whether that's, uh, you know, solar, um, uh, wind, whatever it may be, the independence. The diesel generator. Right. Anything to make you independent.

[01:19:24] Um, so you are not reliant upon the state or reliant upon, um, uh, basically trade in and out of the state, anything to make you self-sufficient is a true rebellion. Um, and honestly, I, the, all of these, uh, eco-fascists should really be, you know, pushing for people to grow their own gardens. Um, considering, you know, it would take more trucks out legal or equal, uh, less pollution,

[01:19:54] all of these other things, all of these, uh, global warming people or, uh, climate change, whatever the hell they're calling it, um, you think they would be pushing for these things. Um, but they're not, which is part of the reason why, you know, it's bullshit. Um, also paying more money to the state is not going to make the weather gooder.

[01:20:15] So, um, I do view that this independence is the way that we rebel, um, setting up things through the agora, um, using agorism, um, using the free, the truly free market, uh, between each other is how we fight against this, um, to be able to set up, I guess, liberty enclaves would be a, uh, a good way. Pockets of freedom, uh, decentralized system.

[01:20:45] So there's a phenomenal book by Nima Parvini, the academic agent on YouTube and X, um, called the populist delusion. And it's really, it's a study on elite theory. Um, of course, that's what we have today. We have elites, the cathedral running things, and it's the iron law of elites. It's a phenomenal book. And I think one of the key takeaways I had is you don't, first off for any, any real

[01:21:13] revolution requires coordination and violence. So you, you take, uh, the Russian revolution, there were the Mensheviks who were the majority and the Bolsheviks who were the minority, but the minority said, let's get together. We're going to go take over the government. And they did it with overwhelming force and lots of war and won that and everything's, uh, good. You don't, you, you cannot just establish Ancapistan in the USA. You're going to, you can't defeat the state like that.

[01:21:42] Instead, you live your best life outside of state control. And you essentially replace their control mechanisms in your area with your own systems of control with your own elite. And it, and that is the, the way that you're able to replace the, the system that you're living under the proximity.

[01:22:06] Um, so the one thing I have come to learn, and this, I think this was probably the hardest pill I've ever had to swallow is that some people genuinely, truly just do not want freedom. And I, I think that is the most absurd stance to take. Um, but I, I guess they, they do have this right to object freedom of, of course, the,

[01:22:36] the standard is, is that, uh, your rights end where mine begin. So that's fine. If, uh, uh, you know, somebody wants to go ahead and pay money to the IRS, I should be able to opt out to this and not, um, be threatened with, um, you know, the loss of my freedom, uh, the loss of more of my income, which is my property.

[01:23:00] Um, you know, uh, men, uh, armed men coming to my house with guns, possibly shooting my dog, um, you know, scaring my children, like all of these different things. Like I should be able to opt out of this system if I don't want it. Um, however, we are compelled, uh, through the threat of force, um, and coercion to participate in something.

[01:23:26] And the, the worst part is, is that the state, uh, regardless of how you feel about it, whether you're on our side or a whole centrally planned economy, the state is a business that has zero incentive to, uh, provide you with any product or any, um, uh, any quality product. So they, they will never give you a quality product, um, or they have no incentive to,

[01:23:54] and they have actually no incentive to give you any product at all. I think it's Musk that said, uh, the state or the government is a corporation at its limit. Yes. And now of course he's, uh, maybe limiting government, maybe, uh, yeah. Right. Um, I, I did want to ask you, how, how do you feel about Doge? What's, what's your take? I don't believe in it.

[01:24:23] I'm not, uh, like I, I don't worship it. I don't, it's still a government agency. Uh, we still have yet to see, I think it's part of the narrative. I think it's great. I think every government should have a dedicated, uh, provision to cut down on waste, uh, efficiency management or management consultancy, less government, the better. Uh, now listen, when Malay, uh, Argentina's president took power, I think he cut 80% of the government.

[01:24:51] Uh, I think they should, I think America should cut 80 or perhaps 99% of the government. So if they're going to say we've cut, you know, a billion dollars here, a billion dollars there. Okay, good. I look at, uh, the U S debt clock, that website, and I see that not only is the debt still growing, but the deficit's still growing, even though Doge's doing all of its things. And I think, Hmm, uh, I think about Trump's first four years and why wasn't he doing any of this then?

[01:25:20] Now maybe you say, you know, he said he had four years of government. Now he knows how to govern. He had four years off to plan this kind of thing. Now there's Doge. Okay. Look, cut down the government. I don't think we should be doing studies on transgender hamsters, uh, in Malaysia. Uh, $67,000 to, uh, transgender comic books in, uh, Paraguay or like, come on. That's ridiculous.

[01:25:47] But then, you know, then they say, Oh, we're actually going to give you, you know, some of those savings. We're going to pay everyone, uh, you know, freedom dividends or Trump dividend, whatever you want to call it. We're going to give you $5,000. Well, how about you just stop stealing money? Like rather than giving multimillionaires that $5,000, just we're going to give a, you know, tax break. We don't need to take as much tax anymore because we've saved so much money.

[01:26:12] So what I would like, as you can see the, where's the, the deficit, right? Not the, so you've got the, the debt, which, which, uh, is a stock, the total debt, you can see it's rising. Then you've got the deficit, how much that goes up every year. Even though Doug is there, the deficit is still rising. It's on the second row on the right, the deficit still going up.

[01:26:39] So Doug, if it's truly saved $188 billion, which I don't believe, uh, you know, the point is if I say I'm going to do a program, it's going to cost a hundred billion dollars. I've spent one. Doug comes in, they scrap it. Have they really saved a hundred billion dollars? Maybe accounting. Yes. Um, so I, I like there's narratives there and there's the reality. I'm happy with the reality.

[01:27:06] I'm distrustful of the narratives, but yeah, on the whole, it's better to do that than not. I think the, the bigger problem is, um, governments, it was government spending rather than saving government. Um, but it's also the, the warmongering. And this is something that Trump does appear to be saying, Hey Russia, Hey China, how about we all cut back on the military spending? America's broke.

[01:27:31] Um, but you know, I, I made a post on my, on my telegram channel, I think, uh, March 7th. So that was just Friday last week, uh, about Maloney, about Zelensky, about Tusk. They're also the Europeans all saying, look, um, USA is trying to back out of this warmongering against Russia and the Ukraine. Maloney says, well, you know, Ukraine will give you the security of NATO, including article

[01:28:00] five without actual membership in the military Alliance. Tusk, uh, the PM or president of Poland says Poland should pursue nuclear and modern unconventional weapons. This is a serious race. And I'm just like, these are scum warmongers. And what do they want? Cause this is the other problem with government. They cannot back down. They have to perpetuate themselves. They have to self justify themselves. They cannot admit they're wrong.

[01:28:27] Um, so there's a, there's a common critique of anarchy in the absence of a central state. Wouldn't warlords take over? It's like, listen, uh, those, those warlords have already taken over. Right. What do we have now? Yeah. And you look at, you look at, for example, the history of England, I'll take the hundred years war with France. They, they've been doing this all the way since then, whether they, they're going to say, okay, we we've got, we've got some military capacity.

[01:28:56] We've got, they had like half of France through inheritance. And they said, we're going to wage war, uh, aggress against the rest of France. They tapped England to, to poverty for a hundred years. They lost all the territory. And, uh, England was more poor because of it, but the warlords became rich. The military industrial complex became rich. This is how the state functions.

[01:29:19] Um, and then the state, as we've described it, um, you know, the lie is that we need the state to prevent chaos. The reality is that the state is manufacturing wars, crises, and economic stability and regulatory labyrinths. None of which exist in a truly free market. We don't need to be at war with Russia, but we in the West have been, uh, we've at least been paying for it.

[01:29:45] I mean, thousands of dollars, every person's been paying, uh, economically for a war, which is completely illegitimate, uh, based on fiat, based on ideology, based on the Frankfurt school. It's horrendous. It's unjust. It's terrible. Um, so, you know, one may, one may believe that, um, you know, look in anarchy, some people will die. Some people will be, will be murdered.

[01:30:10] Some, you know, maybe the law enforcement doesn't, doesn't reach, but the, like anarchists did not carry out genocide. Anarchists did not carry out genocides, uh, against the Armenians in Turkey. They did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians. They did not create a system of death camps. Uh, they did not firebomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them. Anarchists did not carry out the Great League forward that's killed scores of millions of

[01:30:38] Chinese, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Anarchists have not murdered half a million Iraqi children this century. Um, that is the state, uh, the state is the enemy that that excerpt was from Robert Higgs, perhaps of the spontaneous order society. Again, I'm just reading off some posts from my channel. This is the state and, and they, you know, they're creating this complexity for its own

[01:31:05] survival, marking the solution, uh, making the solution to every problem more government. Right. Uh, in fact, you, you look, uh, everything's based on deception. So you're going to have these repeated propaganda lines. What the Europeans have been saying is double down. So USA said, we're going to be pulling back from Ukraine and the, in the London summit, and they've been saying it for weeks, that there's a phrase double down.

[01:31:31] And that's, uh, one of repetition is one of the, uh, greatest forms of mind control. Repetition is one of the greatest forms of mind control. Right. Right. Yeah. It's, it's definitely the most basic form of mind control. Um, repetition. Right. Um, so one, one quote I wanted to bring up, um, is what country before ever existed a century

[01:32:00] and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let's take arms. The remedy is set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a country or two?

[01:32:26] The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is natural manure. And that's from Thomas Jefferson. Um, it was a letter written to William Stephen Smith on November 13th, 1787. And I think that this is important to point out.

[01:32:50] Um, I had made the point earlier that there, there is no, there, there is no consequence for any public servant of any, of any office. Um, anytime anything goes wrong, uh, the one that's coming to mind is most recently the LA fires.

[01:33:12] Um, the, the person that was put in charge of LA County's water, um, water department completely failed, completely and utterly failed at their job. She still hasn't been fired. Actually, I think she died. I think she was killed by a lesbian partner. Really? Last week? Oh, well, uh, that does bring up an, another interesting,

[01:33:42] point that, uh, lesbians have a, the, the highest, um, uh, divorce rate out of any, any, uh, domestic abuse. Right. Wow. That's interesting though. So I didn't know that. However, um, I've not verified it, but I think it was on disclosed TV. Interesting. Well, if that is true, um, somebody please, uh, verify that if they can. However, if that is true, she was still not fired for,

[01:34:12] or completely failing at her job. Um, it, to remove her from office, it actually took her, um, being offed by a lover. So I've got it, I've got it as a, a meme. So I don't know. Right. From Daily Mail, breaking news, mystery is California fire captain is found stabbed to death in her home. And then someone said that, yeah, it was the, the, uh, the person.

[01:34:39] Um, the, the other thing is, remember we were talking about sovereignty and, uh, that you need to, you know, self-sufficiency. That's the, that's the key word. Sufficiency is rebellion. The homes that survived some homes that fires, these fires have been tragic and, uh, tragic, horrible things occurred.

[01:35:04] But there, there have been some homes that absolutely survived with confidence because they have installed their own fire systems. Um, and their own fire hydrant and they fought the fire themselves. Now, you know, it's, it's not fun that you are in a position where you might have to do that, but you cannot trust the state. Like someone breaks into your home, what are you going to do? Call the, call the police and they get there in an hour. If they turn up at all and now you're, you're dead or your things have been taken.

[01:35:32] No, you have a gun to protect yourself. If you live in a fire prone area and you cannot trust the state's fire department because you cannot, it's good to have your own provisions. I mean, you know, even a fire extinguisher at home, a fire blanket at home, uh, the very least the home fires, uh, and, you know, knowing not to put it. The oil fires in water. I've seen some horrendous videos like that.

[01:35:58] Uh, but yeah, if you live in LA or somewhere in California, you know, it may be the best investment to start to install your own, um, fire hydrant system. Right. And even still, um, preaching a, a message of self-reliance and self-responsibility,

[01:36:23] which really gets at the core of, uh, genuine libertarian philosophy, uh, especially anarcho-capitalism. And these, these sorts of ideas, these individualist based ideas, um, that this is at the core of these belief systems.

[01:36:41] And even preaching a message like that, leaving out the partisan labels of party politics, people still reject this, especially amongst a, uh, a younger generation, uh, Gen Z. Um, it seems as though, um, there are many people that reject the idea of, of, uh, personal responsibility. Um, go figure that, you know, explains a lot.

[01:37:09] Uh, however, the ones that do embrace it, uh, embrace it incredibly well. Um, there just seems to be fewer of them. Um, and that, that's just my observation. That's, that's not, uh, you know, backed up by anything, uh, necessarily.

[01:37:25] Um, but I do find it interesting that even just the idea of taking care of yourself, being responsible for yourself, um, on many different levels, um, is just even still rejected by people largely. Um, and I think that's where a lot of things like, uh, the, the effects of people like Edward Bernays comes in.

[01:37:54] Um, I think, um, or I, I guess the demoralization that Yuri Bezmenov talked about, um, to where our entire society has been demoralized in an attempt to be able to take us over. Um, because I'm not sure why, um, a, uh, a nation would be so suicidal for lack of a better term.

[01:38:22] Um, other than to other, other than not wanting to take care of themselves. Um, I just, I'm not sure why they would want to do that. I just, I really don't. Um, so there's, um, you know, I talk about subjects and sovereigns and this brainwashing is, is this mental side. It's really deep, right?

[01:38:46] So the subjects, the compliant, obedient majority, they do not just submit to the system. They defend it and they resent sovereigns because sovereigns expose the truth that their servitude is a choice. This hostility against sovereigns is not just ignorance. It's a psychological self-preservation. Uh, there is the comfort of submission, the fear of responsibility. Freedom, of course, requires accountability and that's risky and uncertain.

[01:39:15] The state offers structure, routine, and predictability, even if, uh, the safety it offers is an illusion. Um, sovereigns recognize that the security that is offered by the state is just well-managed captivity. So it seems to me that subjects don't hate sovereigns for being free. They hate them for showing that freedom is possible. So you have cognitive dissonance. You have this psychological investment.

[01:39:44] Um, I don't think it's malevolent, but it is, it is, um, just a gross form of deeply entrenched psychological conditioning. Right, right. And that, that leads me to, uh, let's see, I was just trying to pull up a quote here and we'll, we'll start wrapping up here. Cause I don't want to keep you too much longer. You've been very generous with your time.

[01:40:07] Um, also I've, I've had an incredible time, uh, honestly, just chatting and, uh, for, uh, lack of a better term, uh, just bullshitting with you. Uh, it's been, it's been a true pleasure. Um, so one, one thing I want to wrap up on is what, what have you, um, or where are you as far as spreading liberty?

[01:40:35] What, what do you think is, uh, at least one way forward? What have, what have you been promoting, um, through the work that you do? Um, what do you see as a way forward? Well, again, it's, it's the education. It's, it's, you've got the waking people up. So alerting them to the systems of control and recognizing the conditioning that's there. It's, it's a difficult and critical half of it.

[01:41:04] Uh, you know, recognizing these narratives. So, uh, you know, you talked about something earlier about the political system. I actually don't find myself, uh, believing myself to be political. I'm apolitical or I'm radically political. It depends how you define it. If politics is the art of governing and I reject governance, you know, the, the state government, am I political or apolitical?

[01:41:32] Um, so I'm not political, but at the same time, you know, I have a principled stance on issues. And I think that's, that's really the important thing. This is something that Larkin Rose talks about a lot. He's great. I recommend people watch him. Um, if you don't have principles, you are so easily subject to be caught up in, in narratives. Cause that's what narratives do. For example, uh, I don't want to give the example, but you know, we're going to pass the law.

[01:42:00] That's, uh, the, the pro freedom law, the Patriot Act. You're a Patriot. Right. Right. What, what does it do? Well, the, the anti-demoration bill where we're going to spend $200 billion. Um, so you've got to have the principles first. So it's being aware of what's going on and it's being, you know, it's preaching a message of principles first, um, applying that to real life and then, uh, spreading information,

[01:42:27] spreading radical anti-government propaganda, uh, as well as I think it's important to have the, that solution part of it. It's all very, like, I think the one criticism I have of my telegram channel is I think sometimes it's a bit too negative. I hope it's not, but I sometimes find it is. So I try on the weekends to try and post something positive or try not to post negative stuff on the weekend.

[01:42:52] Um, but you know, I make a conscious effort to talk about what you can do to increase your freedom, to be more fortuitous against and safeguard your liberties. Uh, for example, um, you know, what, what do you say when, when, uh, you were arrested? Nothing or lawyer. And that's something that, that, you know, once you're aware of it, you called that forever. You know, I, I want my lawyer. I I'm not saying anything else.

[01:43:22] I don't consent to search for seizures, you know, to have that information and have that knowledge. Fantastic. So again, I mentioned, I do a lot of, uh, legal work. Uh, I do law. Uh, so having, you know, basing that, um, information of freedom, both forensically and saying, you know, to be independent is to be free. Here's how you ought to be more independent. And we share resources and things, and we share means, information, et cetera.

[01:43:51] Uh, so education. And then I also do, um, semi-regular podcasts with, uh, someone, professor red pill, uh, straight talk. And we, we talk about these, uh, political issues. And again, there's a focus, especially towards the end of the shows on practicality. This information is all well and good. I'm now informed. So what? Right. Right. Exactly. What, what do you do from here? Um, and, uh, philosophy of obedience and rebellion.

[01:44:21] Right. Sovereign. And, and I couldn't agree more. Um, that's, that is, I noticed the, the major problem with, um, with libertarian or the, uh, I'll, I'll just encapsulate all of it, uh, the, the freedom movement or the liberty movement, um, whatever label people want to put on themselves.

[01:44:50] Uh, but the, the entire liberty movement, um, I've noticed what one of these problems is that, um, outside of the constant and absurdly stupid purity test, um, which seemed to just be constant, I swear. Um, outside of this, it is a lot of, um, pointing out what is wrong, not a whole lot of what, what do we do about it?

[01:45:19] Um, and that is actually always been partially a feature of this show. Um, what, what exactly do we do about this? Um, I have always tried to hope that I am able to provide, uh, guests to people out here, um, to provide them with information or, uh, to show off what people are doing out there,

[01:45:48] um, to be able to spread these ideas, uh, different ideas that people can, um, hopefully get behind or, uh, maybe, uh, our conversations able to spark a new idea with somebody and they can start a new program, uh, a social program, or they can start a new group, or, uh, I don't recommend starting a podcast or anything like that the market is saturated.

[01:46:14] Um, although I, I will never say don't actually ever do it because, uh, let's overload, uh, the system with Liberty based content. Um, the, the other thing to say is if that's something that you do, like by engaging in it, you learn a lot, you, you like you engage in it. Right. If you treat it as a, not as the destination, but as the journey, then, then do whatever you want. It's right. Can be massively developmental.

[01:46:44] Right. And so I think at least what, what I would say to people is. Definitely do whatever it is you want. Um, the black pill, like you were just discussing, um, that that's how I refer to it. The black pill is definitely a real thing. Um, I do believe that it is actually a genuine government psyop.

[01:47:11] And what I mean by that is that they are trying to make things seem hopeless before, uh, we're able to ever get any sort of, uh, meaningful resistance going. Things are not hopeless. Um, things are actually looking really positive in my opinion. However, it will appear that things are going to get more brutal because, uh, the, the powers that be are backed into a corner.

[01:47:37] They are a dying animal and they will, uh, start thrashing about, uh, to try and save themselves and do everything they possibly can to try and save themselves. Um, outside of that though, let's see, I just got to bring up this quote real quick. I find that a lot of, uh, the solution is if you listen to, if you read, uh, Ted Kaczynski's manifesto, uh, he talks about how, you know, the system wants you meek.

[01:48:07] It wants you hopeless, uh, meek, nonviolent, domesticated, docile and obedient. Um, and then he goes on to say that, uh, you know, if you're, you know, they, if they want you confused, anxious, and afraid, so you don't have the will to fight, if they want you financially dependent, so they can cut you off when you say, stand up for yourself, uh, it's important to become ungovernable.

[01:48:35] That means to, uh, condition your, your health, right? You stay healthy, strong, uh, self-resilient. And, uh, and that again, we talked about what does it mean to be resistant? And it's, it's to, to be self-sufficient, not to be dependent on their system, not to, uh, you know, to, to homeschool your kids, to grow your own food, to turn off the TV, support

[01:49:02] small businesses, eat healthy and exercise and spread love, not hate. Yeah, I would have to agree. Um, there are a couple of things that I can definitely say that do help. Um, a couple of things that people can do is they can definitely go down in the episode description and go click on your link tree to go pull up all of your links and go and follow your pages.

[01:49:28] Make sure and keep a close eye on what Adam is doing. Um, they can also go to risetoliberty.com slash links to pull up my links or everything in the episode description. Keep an eye on both of what we're doing and, uh, you know, along with a few other people should never get your, uh, information from just one source. Um, however, following both of us is something you can do that will, uh, that will definitely help.

[01:49:57] And we're usually open for discussions. So Adam, there was a, there was a meta study that said, if you follow rise to liberty and liberty rising, your IQ actually jumps up by 15, 20 points. No, that, no, that's, uh, I, I can confirm that that is a legitimate study. Um, on that note, um, let people know where they can find you and, uh, what, uh, any, anything you want to announce or anything at all.

[01:50:25] The best way to find me, follow me is telegram at liberty rising group. Uh, I have, and all my links are in the link tree. Uh, I, I'm not especially active on X. I find it mostly kind of dead internet theory. Uh, I am trying to be more active on YouTube and trying to write some more. Uh, I'm mostly preoccupied with my own legal stuff.

[01:50:49] Uh, just, uh, follow the telegram is the best way to support me, my work and the, uh, voluntarist freedom, movement, liberty and share. And, uh, yeah. Yeah, definitely make sure to do that. Uh, and I do want to get you back on for other discussions. Um, I really enjoy having you on and, you know, there's, there's so many different topics

[01:51:14] that we can, we can cover, um, that I would like to hear your perspective on. Uh, this was an absolute fun one. Um, a good one to, you know, jump this off and, uh, hopefully we can, uh, get another one going here, uh, in the near future. Um, hopefully it won't take so long to get us coordinated, but I think we are starting to get that unlocked. Um, one thing I wanted to end on right here is actually a quote from Edward Bernays.

[01:51:44] And the quote is, if we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business in our social

[01:52:06] conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the rel relativity, relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires, which control the public mind. Um, this is the man who, um, due to a campaign that he worked on a public relations campaign,

[01:52:35] um, basically transformed America. And now all Americans eat bacon and eggs for breakfast, which is a massive contribution. Um, he also infiltrated the, uh, the suffragette movement that, that the women's rights movement or first wave feminism, um, that, that kind of tells you how, uh, not astute that, um, that time period was and that, uh, group was, but that's a discussion for another

[01:53:05] day. Um, on that note, make sure and go check out Adam down in the episode description. Thank you once again for tuning in, make sure and leave a comment, uh, leave a like, uh, share this if you found this useful at all. Um, you know, the big tech overlords like to make sure that this show is not growing as quickly as it would if, uh, you know, they would just lift the shadow bands or any of these other things.

[01:53:32] So, and they definitely don't want these ideas getting out. So make sure hit the share like comment. And, uh, other than that, until next time, all I got to say is stay free. My friends. My friends.