News

Porter Stansberry: Robots, Market Crashes, and the Biggest Mistakes in History

Editor — Sun, 16 Mar 2025 01:22:00 +0000

Porter Stansberry: Robots, Market Crashes, and the Biggest Mistakes in History by Matt Smith

Doug Casey’s Take [ep.#375]

Porter Stansberry joined Doug Casey and me for a conversation packed with big ideas, predictions, and blunt truth-telling. It’s classic Porter—unfiltered, provocative, and deeply insightful.

We dug into some fascinating questions:

What’s the single worst mistake made by an individual in our lifetimes? Porter’s answer may surprise you (hint: it involves Warren Buffett).
How quickly will AI and robots transform society? Doug, Porter, and I debate whether we’re facing revolution or evolution.
Porter shares a contrarian investment idea you probably haven’t heard about—but should.
And, of course, we dive deep into the newsletter business, reflecting on the lessons learned from legends like Bill Bonner, and discuss why some newsletters thrive and others implode.

As always, Porter tells it like it is—with no sugar-coating.

The post Porter Stansberry: Robots, Market Crashes, and the Biggest Mistakes in History appeared first on Activist Post.

Cognitive Dissidents: A New Dollar, World Peace (or War) & Dodgy DOGE

Editor — Sat, 15 Mar 2025 22:00:00 +0000

The Cognitive Dissidents discuss gold, bitcoin, war, the technocracy, and more!

Watch on BitChute / Brighteon / Rokfin/ Rumble / Substack

The post Cognitive Dissidents: A New Dollar, World Peace (or War) & Dodgy DOGE appeared first on Activist Post.

United Nations Sustainable Development Goals – We Need to Be Extremely Concerned

Editor — Sat, 15 Mar 2025 19:10:00 +0000

When it comes to the United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) most people have no idea what this means. That beggars belief when considering the potentially dire consequences for we-the-people in our everyday lives if these goals are achieved.

Under the guidance of the UN’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs these 17 SDG’s, to be achieved by 2030, look quite uplifting for humanity. For examples, who wouldn’t want to have a world without hunger, no poverty, have food security and global health, reduced inequalities, affordable and clean energy…

However, it’s all a perception deception: When you scratch below the surface, read the small print, it reveals deeply disturbing hidden ulterior motives diametrically opposing the so-called intentions related to their SDG’s. For instance, goal number one is “No Poverty,” but the overseers have no respect and don’t care about we-the-people. Therefore, they have no intentions of ending poverty. It’s no surprise that poverty has become an increasingly complex problem.

-Indeed, we need to be extremely concerned. Our concernment must lie mainly in the way the UN want’s to forcibly achieve these goals with their underpinnings.

Essentially, it’s an uncompromising agenda (Agenda 2030) for total global domination, in cahoots with the equally deceitful WEF (World Economic Forum); one world government, Great Reset, Davos…

The UN’s policies heavily impact and influence western world governments. Take, for instance, the United States government who had signed an agreement making themselves for most part legally obligated to follow UN policies.

-Yet another example of a government betrayal, not having the people’s best interests at heart, I digress. -People, pay attention. Wake up!

Acting under the guise of “we are here to save you” the UN comprises a number of highly untrustworthy power broker unelected oligarch bureaucrats looking to enrich themselves, while wanting to control every aspect of our lives. This will happen if we go along with their notorious “sustainable goals.”

-It’s time to face up to this harsh reality: We should not involve ourselves in anything that’s inciting, but resistance is key. Attempts to indoctrinate, coerce or even mandate us must be wholly resisted.

In relation to these SDG’s tied into Agenda 2030 (and Net Zero by 2045) there are a number of major threats that threaten the very nature of our existence and freedoms.

-For examples, traditional farms and other smaller food self-sufficiency operations are getting systematically destroyed. These time-honored traditions with their methodologies and interdependent bona fide communities are being replaced by government and corporate based interventions.

The overseers, cunningly intervening, do this by using the climate change false flag as an excuse to demonize the farmers, falsely accusing them of contributing to ‘global warming’ through increased carbon output…

BioTech, Big Pharma and Big Agri lead the way in the corporatization of the food chain with their genetic modifications, toxic agrochemicals, nutrient-depleted soil lacking in biodiversity, all contributing to food produce that no longer has the nutrition value that historically had been provided by traditional farming.

Consider this monocultural mass production environment in relation to its unhealthy effects on our bodies as consumers. For more on this, what you can do for food freedom, take a look at this excellent article.

Then there’s the push to get us to consume lab-based fake meat, replacing traditional farm-based produce. Big money has been thrown into the development of lab-grown fake meat, such as, for example, the mega-bucks from Bill Gates as funding. All done under the guise of “saving the world.”

However, fake meat products have been criticized for their unhealthiness.

-In light of this and considering the rest of the toxic crap they want us to consume, how much more can our bodies take before breaking down? And they claim that they want “good health and well-being” (goal number three)??

A number of us well familiar with the transhumanist agenda, having expressed deep concerns as it ties into UN Agenda 2030 and technocratic control, the internet of bodies and the related tyranny. Encroaching mass surveillance, a cashless society… etc.

They want to change our bodies, but what many people don’t realize however, is that transhumanism is only the half-way stage: A transition from half-human to half-robot. There are plans to fully transition us into becoming totally robotically controlled by AI.

As David Icke has stated in his book “The Reveal” ultimately, they want to upload, entrap our consciousness into a robotic virtuality reality existence… In this state, the controllers plan to keep us even more enslaved, deeper in our schism, even further controlled by the Matrix…

Our consciousness is the most precious thing. We have to defend our sovereign consciousness at all costs. The enslavement will come to an end when we become conscious.

Duly refuse to cooperate. Don’t fall victim to the fear mongering. Fascism has historically shown one major sure-fire thing: The way that the tiny handfuls at the top manage to control the so many is by giving their top-down waves of order/instruction based on fear mongering. Compliance is met by the so many through their fear of the consequences, punishment for non-compliance from authorities.

The there’s the blind unquestioning acceptance by the masses because “authorities can’t be wrong…”

The UN’s SDG’s are way behind schedule for the by-when date 2030. Given that these goals are not in place, that means that there is still an opportunity for us to oppose.

We need to create something new. Ultimately, we have to come together in our numbers

to bring in new ideas that will contribute to a new paradigm experience to take us away from the otherwise planned doom and gloom.

-Resistance isn’t futile.

Finally

This video is an interview with a whistleblower. It gives testimony to the dark agenda and hidden ulterior motives related to the UN. Download it here.

The post United Nations Sustainable Development Goals – We Need to Be Extremely Concerned appeared first on Activist Post.

Gold Jumps to New Record, for Now Winning Debate Against Bitcoin as Risk-Off Asset

Editor — Sat, 15 Mar 2025 16:19:00 +0000

The yellow metal has risen as stocks (and bitcoin) have crumbled over the past few weeks.

What to know:

Stocks are headed lower again on Thursday, pulling bitcoin down alongside.
Gold continued to shine during this big risk asset drawdown, rising to a new record and within a few dollars of hitting $3,000 per ounce for the first time.
Gold ETFs are enjoying their largest inflows since 2022, while spot BTC ETFs have bled $5 billion since February, highlighting where capital is flowing during the current market correction.

After the meekest of rallies yesterday following some soft inflation numbers, U.S. stocks Thursday are once again headed sharply lower and apparently pulling bitcoin (BTC) along for the ride.

Just ahead of the noon hour on the east coast, the Nasdaq is lower by 1.7% and the S&P 500 by 1.2% After pushing to nearly $85,000 on Wednesday, bitcoin has retreated all the way back to $81,000, off 1% over the past 24 hours.

Gold, though, is doing what it’s been doing for a thousand years — providing a haven during times of distress. The yellow metal is ahead by 1.5% to a new record high and within $10 of pushing through $3,000 per ounce for the first time ever.

Since the Nasdaq peaked for the year three weeks ago, that gauge has dropped almost 15%. Gold over that time frame has gained about 1%, while bitcoin is lower by nearly 20%.

The current outperformance might remind investors of the late summer/early fall of 2024, when crypto markets along with stocks treaded water in a sideways range while gold carved out new highs. While BTC consolidated between $50,000 and $70,000 between March and October, gold climbed almost 40% to $2,800. Bitcoin eventually rallied to above $100,000, buoyed by Trump’s election victory, while the gold gains stalled as money flowed from havens into risk assets.

Highlighting where the capital is flowing, gold exchange-traded funds enjoyed their largest 30-day average inflows since early 2022, adding 3 million ounces worth of yellow metal to the funds, according to Bold.report data.

^{Gold ETF inflows (Bold.report)}

In contrast, U.S.-listed spot bitcoin ETFs saw $5 billion in outflows in since February, experiencing the worth negative streak in their one-year history, per SoSoValue data.

The post Gold Jumps to New Record, for Now Winning Debate Against Bitcoin as Risk-Off Asset appeared first on Activist Post.

The Dark MAGA Gov-Corp Technate — Part 2

Editor — Sat, 15 Mar 2025 13:00:00 +0000

In continuing to unpack the ideologies of the oligarchs who are part of the new Trump administration, Iain Davis examines how their ideas are being translated into policy. He considers the consequent infrastructure rollout that is preparing the US and the world for an imminent Gov-corp Technate within a multipolar world.

In Part 1 of this series, we explored the political philosophies that have long been adopted and promoted by Elon Musk and Peter Thiel and considered the implications, given both men’s obvious influence on the Trump administration. Musk is a high-profile advocate of Technocracy, and Peter Thiel is an accelerationist neoreactionary who favours, in particular, the Dark Enlightenment. Before you read this article (Part 2), I urge you to familiarise yourself with the explanations of Technocracy and the NRx (the neoreactionary movement) provided in Part 1. Otherwise, many of the references here will lack context.

As we noted in Part 1, Thiel and Musk are part of the oligarchic class by virtue of being invited to join a network led by other oligarchs whose stratospheric wealth far surpasses that of the names published on the “richest people in the world” lists. Welcomed into their exclusive club, Thiel and Musk are made men. In Part 2, we will explore how the political philosophies and the associated economic theories of Thiel and Musk are shaping public policy. Keep in mind that these two men are far from alone in attempting to create an American gov-corp Technate.

Libertarian Technocrats?

Although they borrow some libertarian ideas, there is nothing truly “libertarian” about either technocrats or accelerationist neoreactionaries. Their convoluted theories, once applied, could not be more authoritarian, more anti-liberty. Just as it is an oxymoron to describe Musk as a “libertarian technocrat,” so is it absurd to think of Peter Thiel as an “anarcho-capitalist.” Yet propagandists persist in encouraging us to see them in these terms. Witness a 2014 article in The Atlantic titled “The Libertarian Capitalist’s Case for State Power and Making No Money.”

It is possible that people like Thiel and Musk self-identify as libertarians because they think “liberty” means freedom granted by — and to — the oligarchy.

In Part 1, we referenced the Venetian Republic. The Doge of Venice was the ruler of the banking, finance, and commercial empire of the Venetian Republic. That is to say, the Doge was given the liberty to rule by the oligarchs of the day. We might wonder if the naming of the Department of Government Efficiency (the DOGE) that Musk leads deliberately references the Venetian magistrate. Some say it does, while others suggest another possibility.

Created as a joke in 2013 by cryptographers Billy Markus and Jackson Palmer, the Dogecoin, a memecoin, has seen its price and market cap soar and fluctuate wildly thanks in no small measure to Elon Musk’s comments about it. Much of Musk’s talk about Dogecoin has been deliberately provocative. For example, in 2019 he declared himself the “former CEO of Dogecoin,” though that was never the case. His social media posts alone have provoked major changes in the price of Dogecoin. Musk has also aggressively hiked its value by, for instance, hinting it might become the basis of the proposed “X pay” payment system on his newly acquired ‘X’ platform — formerly Twitter.

Musk encouraged bullish investment in Dogecoin. Of course, just because someone encourages you to do something that doesn’t negate your personal responsibility to conduct due diligence. When some investors lost their shirts, as Dogecoin prices tumbled, they tried to sue Musk in 2022 with a potential $258 billion class action lawsuit. The case was dismissed last year. The judge ruled that Musk’s comments were just “aspirational and puffery, not factual and susceptible to being falsified.” Though it is worth noting the offhand comments of one man took the Dogecoin from a literal joke — a crypto parody — to achieving a market capitalisation of $14.5 billion in 2021.

If there is an in-joke to the naming of the DOGE, nominally led by Elon Musk, some argue it is Musk’s fondness for the Dogecoin that is reflected in the D.O.G.E acronym. Yet, the symbolism of “the Doge ”— one who is granted the liberty to rule by oligarchs — is perhaps more conspicuous. Just as with the term “Accelerator” — meaning high-impact investment to accelerate the growth of a startup — an obvious underpinning ideology is implied, even if rarely discussed.

In the introduction to his 2012 treatise, “The Dark Enlightenment,” political philosopher Nick Land highlighted the importance of an article written three years earlier by oligarch Thiel.

Land wrote:

One milestone was the April 2009 discussion hosted at Cato Unbound among libertarian thinkers (including Patri Friedman and Peter Thiel) in which disillusionment with the direction and possibilities of democratic politics was expressed with unusual forthrightness. Thiel summarized the trend bluntly: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”

In a related article Thiel penned, titled “The Education of a Libertarian,” he was describing himself, and yet the personal philosophy he outlined in it was pure accelerationist neoreactionism.

Thiel opined that “the prospects for a libertarian politics appear grim indeed,” given that the government’s response to every crisis was “more government.” He also claimed that the post-WWI deflationary depression in Western nations was the last “sharp but short” shock to have allowed the alleged advantages of Schumpeterian “creative destruction” to flourish. After that depression, he said, so-called “democratic” politics had stifled the opportunities to capitalise on crises. As a result, Thiel said he no longer believed “that politics encompasses all possible futures of our world.”

Asserting, in so many words, that democracies were useless, Thiel announced he had found a new life goal:

In our time, the great task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all its forms — from the totalitarian and fundamentalist catastrophes to the unthinking demos that guides so-called “social democracy.” The critical question then becomes one of means, of how to escape not via politics but beyond it.

For Thiel, the “unthinking demos” is us: the holders of the “neo-puritan faith” in progressive “social democracy” — the acolytes of the Cathedral (and the people whom Nick Land considers “inarticulate proles”). In Thiel’s view, we must embrace our “technoplastic” future, become intelligible, move beyond politics, and liberate capitalist innovation by swearing fealty to the gov-corp model.

To this end, Thiel identified three “technological frontiers” upon which he could construct his darkly enlightened aristocracy.[1] Cyberspace was the first frontier he identified. There, Thiel focused on creating “a new world currency, free from all government control and dilution.” Cyberspace would enable “new modes of dissent and new ways to form communities not bounded by historical nation-states” — and would result in a new world that would “force change on the existing social and political order.” [2] Outer space would be another Thiel frontier, where the “libertarian future of classic science fiction” could be built. [3] Seasteading would be his interim frontier, where the unclaimed oceans could be settled by humans. He called seasteading “more tentative than the Internet, but much more realistic than space travel.” Seasteading would at least give us the time to develop the outer-space ideas on earth, prior to colonising the stars.

These frontiers are necessary, Thiel insisted, because “we are in a deadly race between politics and technology.” He concluded:

We do not know exactly how close this race is, but I suspect that it may be very close, even down to the wire. Unlike the world of politics, in the world of technology the choices of individuals may still be paramount. The fate of our world may depend on the effort of a single person [Trump?] who builds or propagates the machinery of freedom that makes the world safe for capitalism. [Emphasis added.]

Between 2006 and 2012, Thiel was instrumental in organising the Singularity Summits convened by the Machine Intelligence Research Institute — originally the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence (SIAI) — in partnership with Stanford University. Thiel provided much of the funding.

Thiel cannot be both an advocate of accelerationist neoreaction and simultaneously an anarcho-capitalist — a libertarian. The two philosophies are mutually exclusive.

In Part 1, we noted the technocrats’ rejection of the notion that “all men are created equal.” In a similar vein, Land, Yarvin, Fisher, and other accelerationists consider it essential to have a ruling entity, which can only be comprised of a few human beings exercising an unequal, additional right to rule. Both the technocrats and the accelerationists fundamentally misunderstand, or misinterpret, what the Preamble to The Declaration of Independence means. They completely ignore the second clause of the relevant declaration — namely, “that they [human beings] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

“Equality,” in real libertarian thinking, does not infer a held belief that everyone is the same — though that is certainly how technocrats interpret the word.

Libertarian “equality” doesn’t deny that people have relative strengths and weaknesses. It is not a rejection of either leadership or possible forms of meritocracy. It self-evidently means that every human being has an equal right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” These rights are unalienable — or inalienable. Our rights are not decided for us by others or limited by others, and no one on earth has any more or any fewer “equal rights” than anyone else.

This idea is not difficult to grasp. It is central to the political philosophy of anarcho-capitalism, as clearly enunciated by Murray Rothbard (1926–1995):

[N]o man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else.

Anarcho-capitalism wholeheartedly rejects the initiation of the use of force — the aggressive imposition of claimed authority — by the state to coerce individual persons or seize their property. An example is the threat of fining or imprisoning someone who hasn’t paid taxes to the “proper” authorities. Anarcho-capitalism resoundingly rejects the state and all its dictatorial demands.

By contrast, the proponents of Technocracy and the proponents of the Dark Enlightenment, such as Musk and Thiel, are not interested in restricting state power, though they may say otherwise. Instead they wish to move the state from the public to the private sector and expand its power once sufficiently privatized. True, they oppose “representative democracy” and characterise it as both a “democracy” (which it isn’t) and a bureaucratic system riddled with problems (which it is), but the solutions they offer, to all intents and purposes, magnify the power of the very state they supposedly condemn.

What the believers in Technocracy and the believers in the Dark Enlightenment both propose are compartmentalised, hierarchical sociopolitical power structures that couldn’t be more state-like or more authoritarian. They seek to expand and maximise the power of the state, though in slightly different ways. Calling their new model of the state either a Technate (as technocrats do) or a gov-corp (as accelerationist neoreactionaries do) doesn’t change the nature of the tyrannical statism they desire to foist on the rest of us.

^{The Flag of Dark Enlightenment – Source}

The Technopopulist Myth

The term “technopopulism,” coined by political theorists Christopher Bickerton and Carlo Accetti, has increasingly been bandied about. While the US voters who elected Trump were offered technopopulist promises, this was clearly a sales pitch to entice them to support a gov-corp Technate.

“Populism” can be broadly defined as a political attempt to “appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.” “Technocracy” is commonly said to mean “a government or social system that is controlled or influenced by experts in science or technology.”

Neither left-wing nor right-wing, technopopulism promises a new kind of politics based on the belief that the more limited role of elected politicians is to put the appropriate teams of experts together to guide policy and to find technological solutions to social and economic problems, thereby benefiting “ordinary people.” But the apparent technopopulist offer to retain democratic accountability in the US is a deceit.

The technopopulists say they want to unleash “technocracy” — with a small “t” — for the public good. But the new government system they propose is constructing “Technocracy” — with a big “T” — to serve the interests of the “American elites.”

This is evident from The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 (aka The 2025 Presidential Transition Project), Promise to America. It claims its purpose is to “defang and defund the woke culture warriors who have infiltrated every last institution in America.” While defanging and defunding woke warriors holds allure for American voters, the Project 2025 methodology actually subverts US “representative democracy.”

The Trump administration is evidently closely allied with Project 2025 — denials notwithstanding. One such obvious tie: Trump has nominated Russell Vought to return to the post of director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and,