Digital Alchemy: The greatest opportunity is upon us.
I turned 39 when I entered the Internet with my Mosaic browser, Macintosh and experienced html 1.0 for the first time in 1992.
As it was with the Internet, (I was there at the birth) the pundits and critics claimed it was too complicated and would never succeed. It surged forward and changed the world, made many wealthy and laid the foundation for millions of new inventions. It certainly changed my life. I made a few million myself, but was quick to squander it in those early days.
It was at this frontier I built the first self-replicated website, the first online interactive application, the first self-replicating PDF and by 1996 had built the first automated marketing system, which had the first email auto responder, the first of what was called Traffic Portals and the first massive broadcaster (The Hammer) all of which was the foundation of what is known today as Inbound Marketing. I custom built (private labeled) these Automated Marketing “Social Networks” for over 70 MLM companies in the 90s.
Then came Google.
Like Search Engines and “nobody ever envisioned Google would crush Yahoo” and surge forward delivering more technologies and again changed the landscape of business.
I know I was there.
Next was the emerging Social Networks. Pundits claimed they would represent Web 2.0 and change the industry and become a trillion dollar industry and it did. First to claim notoriety was “MySpace” soon to be crushed by heavy weight Facebook. Imagine buying a piece of Facebook back then like Peter Theil did. He dropped $500k into FB and is now worth Billions. LinkedIn, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, Youtube all and mush more turned snot nosed visionaries into billionaires.
I know I was there.
My Bitcoin perspective goes way back to the beginning of the Internet. I remember folks saying the Internet was too complicated and would never really amount to anything. Perhaps many of you do as well.
Fast forward to 2009 and the birth of Bitcoin occurred. It had many ups and downs but it surge forward. If you or I had purchased $1000 worth of bitcoin in 2012 at.008 cents per coin, today that purchase would be worth $93 million today, cash, based on the USD.
It is now being projected Bitcoin will reach $1 million, PER COIN! Many experts agree: Raoul Pal (former GLG Global Macro Fund and Goldman Sachs funds manager) thinks Bitcoin could be worth $1,000,000 USD sooner than later.
The bitcoin future may be the greatest door to wealth ever.
Only education will direct us in the right direction.
So let us get educated!
Check the calendar for coming events.
Founder and CEO
Bitcoin: The True Democracy
Stefan Molyneux and Jeffrey Tucker
Do you want the option to turn $50,000 into $3 million? Wait, and also received $100,000 in private stock in a rising emerging state of the art Market Network, and that $3 million potentially turning into billions within a few years even within one year?
Visionaries, Internet Geniuses, and Network Wizards will be hosting the next webinar where you will understand what the Brexit effect, the Trump effect represent in the economies of 2017 and how you could make a modest investment today and become a multi-millionaire next year.
If you had invested $50,000 into Bitcoin at its beginning you would be worth $4.8 billion today. That was the first wave of what is to become a series of waves each one a bigger wave than the last one.
We are now staring at the next wave. It is right in front of us.
The True Democracy how the Blockchain not only brings wealth to the common man and woman, it also prevents war. Because the blockchain ends usury and usury is needed to finance war. So the blockchain architecture ends the ability to wage war.
Stefan Molyneux (A brilliant and very nice guy) discusses why war becomes obsolete in the decentralized world of the blockchain.
Make sure to join our conferences, you can find the calendar for our meetings in our calendar here.
News that Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has requested a recount in Wisconsin, and will likely do the same in Michigan and Pennsylvania, has raised faint hopes among Hillary Clinton supporters that somehow Donald Trump will not become the next president of the United States.
Now that Clinton's campaign has said it will participate in the recount efforts, those supporters' hopes have been lifted even higher.
To put the matter bluntly: They should give up that hope.
There is essentially zero chance that the recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will change Trump's lead, which number in the thousands, not hundreds, in all three states. Trump is winning Wisconsin by a little more than 27,000 votes; his lead in Michigan sits at around 11,000; and his lead in Pennsylvania is insurmountable at over 68,000.
This is not Florida 2000. On Election Night in 2000, George W. Bush held a 1,784 vote lead over Al Gore in Florida's election for president, representing just 0.031 percent of the 5.8 million votes cast in the state. After a recount — which the US Supreme Court halted by a 5-4 vote — Bush ultimately won Florida by 537 votes, securing the presidency. Yet even if the Court had allowed the recount to proceed, the margin would not have swung by much.
This is not Washington 2004, where a recount reversed the result, handing Democrat Christine Gregoire a 129-vote win over Republican Dino Rossi after he initially had a 261-vote lead on election night.
This is not Minnesota 2008, where a recount gave Democrat Al Franken a 225-vote win over Republican Norm Coleman, reversing Coleman's initial lead of 215 votes.
All of these recounts had one significant fact in common: the margin of victory was in the hundreds, not thousands. And the shifts in vote totals after the recounts were very small.
In the past 15 years, a statewide recount has reversed the winner from the election-night tally only three times — in the Washington 2004 governor's race (a 390-vote shift), the 2008 Minnesota US Senate race (a 440-vote shift), and a 2006 election in Vermont for Auditor of Accounts, which initially had a 137-vote margin on election night that changed to a 102-vote win for the other candidate after the recount (a 239-vote change).
FairVote, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for electoral reform, found that from 2000-2012 there were only 22 statewide recounts across the country, and the average shift in those recounts was just 0.026%.
But, a Clinton supporter might say, what if the machines were hacked? What if the election was actually rigged? It is an ironic sentiment given that Trump was the one claiming widespread election rigging before the election and Clinton supporters blasted Trump for refusing to say whether he would honor the results.
Irony aside, there is simply no evidence of election hacking, as Clinton's top lawyer, Marc Elias, himself conceded. Of course, now that Stein has begun the process, it is perfectly reasonable for Clinton and her lawyers to stay involved. But her supporters should not take that fact as a sign that the election is still in question.
Prolonging the campaign by seeking a recount breeds unwarranted doubt about the legitimacy of our elections — without any real evidence to back it up. Our democratic system relies on everyone accepting the result. That legitimacy suffers when mere speculation calls the result into question with little evidence of rigging and Electoral College vote totals that decisively determine a winner.
Moreover, all of this talk of recounts and election rigging obscures the more important fact about our elections: We impose too many obstacles on voters for no good reason. We need to work harder to eliminate onerous voting laws and make voting easier, not focus on long-shot recounts that provide only false hope. For instance, this recount effort does nothing to address issues surrounding Wisconsin's controversial voter ID statute, which improperly prevented some people from voting.
While Stein's futile recount effort should give no solace to Clinton supporters, there is a silver lining to the current debate: It might finally prompt Congress and state legislatures to devote greater resources to election technology.
We desperately need better voting equipment and stronger post-Election Day audits. Going into this election, experts warned about the woefully out-of-date equipment that most states use. Indeed, old machines — especially if they do not allow for a paper trail — raise the possibility, however small, of election hacking. Old machines can lead to long lines, lost votes, and other Election Day problems.
Updated voting technology can increase turnout by making voting easier. As just one example, Doña Ana County, New Mexico uses Voting Convenience Centers instead of precinct-based polling places, meaning that anyone in the county can vote at any of the 40 centers instead of having to go to their assigned home precinct. This makes it easier to vote near work or school and eliminates the possibility of having to vote via a provisional ballot — which could potentially not count — if a voter shows up at the wrong place.
This system shows that improved technology can both enhance the integrity of our election system — a standard Republican talking point — and also make voting more accessible to more people, thereby increasing the electorate — something Democrats usually strive to achieve.
The recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will do nothing to assuage the fears of Clinton supporters who recoil at the thought of a Trump presidency. But at a minimum, they should force politicians on all sides to re-examine how we run our elections.
Like it or not, Donald Trump will become our next president. Hopefully, when he runs for re-election in four years, we will have a stronger election system that makes voting easier, more convenient and accessible, less susceptible to manipulation, and more easily verifiable. That's the closest to a "win" that Clinton and her supporters can expect.
Blockchain opens 10 millionth bitcoin wallet after Brexit and Trump boost
London-based bitcoin wallet provider Blockchain has opened its 10 millionth digital wallet.
It comes almost two weeks after the company's cofounder and CEO Peter Smith told Business Insider the company would "pretty easily" have its biggest ever month for activity in November, following a surge in use after Donald Trump's shock election victory in the US.
He told BI shortly after the election: "People are basically hedging against economic instability. It's a worrying time to be holding a lot of British pound or if you're America — people flee to safe haven assets. Bitcoin is one of those."
Smith says in an emailed statement on Wednesday: "Hitting this milestone at this particular moment isn’t a coincidence. In the wake of the Brexit vote, the US Presidential election and a weakening Yuan, we have seen unprecedented levels of activity and transaction on our platform, which further suggests that people are embracing the need for a more globally accessible currency system, and one that does not exclude over one-third of the world’s population.
"We are excited to play such an important role in powering the world’s shift to a more open, fair and accessible financial system."
Blockchain lets people download software onto their computer that lets them open a digital wallet to store cryptocurrency bitcoin. The wallet, which lets people store their own bitcoin rather than hold it with Blockchain, can also be used to pay for things using bitcoin.
Blockchain employs around 25 people in London but also has offices in Luxembourg and New York. The company is the world's biggest provider of digital wallets for bitcoin, with over 50% market share, and processes over 150,000 transactions a day on average. It has raised over $30 million (£23.9 million) to date.
12 years ago I owned a home in La Jolla, had 4 cars (BMWs and a Jeep) a yacht, 4 companies and a 7 figure income. And then it slowly started collapsing, higher regulations, deeper debt, etc. Then the housing crash, etc. Obama took over, huge spending and great corruption. Bottom line, right now I have nothing but one new ready to launch company (Markethive). All debt gone but all income gone too. I am just hanging in there.
Now Trump arrives and I am more than hopeful. I am cleaning the rain gutters, digging the irrigation ditches deeper and restoring the reservoir dams.
Do you know why I say that?
It is the prophesied revival, the biggest renaissance in human history. The Rise of the Entrepreneur I have been preparing for over 20 years. (I am a bit of a prophet myself)
Reagan was only the foreshadowing of this event. It is during this revival Israel becomes the biggest energy country in history and a giant economic engine. (America is just an extension of Israel)
It is during this time the true Jews are restored to their home (hint: they aint white).
Trump is prophetic, even his name suggests that. He has already torn the deceptive veil back to reveal to the world the depth of corruption at hand.
We are on the cusp of an amazing economic nuclear explosion. Get your house in order!
Entrepreneurs are busy people. Many of us do realize the importance of business of writing and publishing an ebook, but we simply feel we don’t have the time to write a book, especially if you are already producing a lot of content with our blog(s).
I can think of many types of books you can write fast—especially by blogging them—and turn them into short ebooks. I am an active blogger as you probably know by the volume I produce in Markethive.
Case in point (and feel free to swipe them and make your own Ebook. An eBook on Inbound marketing.
The same can be done for email, social marketing, SEO, etc. utilizing my and others who allow swiping in Markethive. You see, you have no excuse.
Short ebooks can be anywhere from 15 to 100 manuscript pages in length. The completed book might be between 4,000-35,000 words long. This is, indeed a short book you write fast.
Create a content plan for you short ebook, and then don’t make more work for yourself than necessary. Keep your chapters short. Don’t write more than necessary. Blog your book, or write it as if you were blogging it; sit down each day and write 500 words. Then make each chapter 1,500-2,500 words long, for example. Each chapter will consist of 3-5 blog posts (each averaging 500 words). If you have 10 chapters, you’ll end up with a 15,000-25,000 word book.
By employing one of these seven short-book structures, you’ll write or blog your book fast. You’ll then be ready to get it edited, have a cover designed, and convert it into an ebook format. Before you know it, you’ll be using your short ebook (and maybe even a printed book, too) to promote yourself and your business.
How To Publish A Kindle eBook Today On Amazon
Fast and Easy eBook Template in Word
Create Stunning eBooks & Lead Magnets In 30 Seconds
Many ebook publishers (and this could easily be you) make $200 or more per day selling their story, their knowledge, etc. in a ebook format. Combined with the viral and marketing power of Markethive many of you will learn how to produce a yearly income in excess of $70,000 a year.
What would that mean for you? It would give you the needed revenue to build additional businesses, right? After all we are entrepreneurs!
I (we) are pursuing funding for Markethive. It is a long and winding road. In this quest, we have met very innovative amazing people. Case in point James Wilfong a partner owner of an upcoming crypto coin company called MyCryptoWorld has an amazing system that is to the Crypto Coin market as Markethive is to the Inbound Marketing world.
The friendships between MyCryptoWorld, Markethive and Greenfire is growing and is opening up some amazing possibilities. This is what we are talking about this Sunday.
Come join me as I run the workshop system that lifts you up into entrepreneurial exceptionalism!
Markethive is a Market Network. That means it is basically broken down into 3 facets all integrated.
A market platform for conducting business
A social network primarily for entrepreneurs
A SAAS (Software as a Service) Inbound Marketing platform
All systems (Facebook included) have a learning curve. Our focus, our goal, is to deliver to you a gentle intuitive fun and rewarding learning process. We are in the process of turning the entire process into an automated structure. Regardless, this learning structure is designed to build you into a powerful , wealthy, successful entrepreneur.
Are you an entrepreneur? Good question. Not necessarily easy to answer. So here are a few definitions:
The classic definition (I do not totally agree with)
noun: entrepreneur; plural noun: entrepreneurs
a person who organizes and operates a business or businesses, taking on greater than normal financial risks in order to do so
Most people would agree that an entrepreneur is a person who has started his or her own business. But that basic definition barely scratches the surface. It does little to capture the true essence of what it means to be a risk-taker, innovator and individual willing to carve his or her own path in a world that doesn't always take kindly to people who fail to follow the status quo.
Are you itching to venture out on your own, but you wonder if you have what it takes to choose the road less traveled? Check out what these company founders and business leaders think makes a truly successful entrepreneur.
However, before we venture further defining what exactly is an “entrepreneur” and other aspects breaking it down and related concerns like “venture capital” and the proverbial “entrepreneurial ecosystem, let me direct you along the paths of getting quickluy up to speed, as I believe that is exactly what you need. To succeed, attain structure, stability, vision and ultimately wealth.
Getting into our Workshops:
I made this simple little instructional video so you clearly see how easy it is to assimilate this ecocenter and huge powerful platform.
OK now about being an entrepreneur!
"Entrepreneurship is all about embracing challenges. When you're building something from the ground up, you need to get into the weeds and problem solve. All the weed whacking often allows you to better hone in on a better big-picture strategy — why did this happen? How do I solve it? How do smarter people than me solve it? With a young company, when you experience a new challenge, it's usually a growing pain. So while it can be difficult to get through, it's for the best possible reason — your company is getting bigger!" – Jennie Ripps, CEO of Owl's Brew
"To me, entrepreneurship means being able to take action and having the courage to commit and persevere through all of the challenges and failures. It is a struggle that an entrepreneur is willing to battle. It is using past experiences and intelligence to make smart decisions. Entrepreneurs are able to transform their vision into a business. I believe this process is at the core of any true entrepreneur." – MJ Pedone, founder and CEO of Indra Public Relations
"Being a successful entrepreneur requires a great deal of resourcefulness, because as an entrepreneur, you often run into dead ends throughout the course of your career. You need to be able to bounce back from losses if you want to be successful. Know that there will be much more disappointment than progress when you first start off, and you need to have a short memory in order to put the past behind you quickly. It's imperative to stay optimistic when bad things happen." – Vip Sandhir, founder and CEO of HighGround
"Entrepreneurship is the ability to recognize the bigger picture, find where there's an opportunity to make someone's life better, design hypotheses around these opportunities, and continually test your assumptions. It's experimentation: Some experiments will work; many others will fail. It is not big exits, huge net worth or living a life of glamour. It's hard work and persistence to leave the world a better place once your time here is done." – Konrad Billetz, CEO of Frameri
"To me, entrepreneurship is completely dedicating yourself to creating something out of nothing. It's not simply taking a risk and hoping to realize big rewards. Creating something out of nothing also tends to present numerous challenges and roadblocks which seem insurmountable. I believe the great entrepreneurs, who I look up to, can help their team push through those roadblocks and find solutions." – David Greenberg, CEO of Updater
"Entrepreneurship is the mind-set that allows you to see opportunity everywhere. It could be a business idea, but it could also be seeing the possibilities in the people that can help you grow that business. This ability to see many options in every situation is critically important; there will be unending challenges that will test your hustle." – Preeti Sriratana, co-founder and CEO of Sweeten
"It is not about making a quick buck or deal. Successful entrepreneurs look past that 'quick buck' and instead look at the bigger picture to ensure that each action made is going toward the overall goal of the business or concept, whether or not that means getting something in return at that moment." – Allen Dikker, CEO of Potatopia
"Entrepreneurship is a lifestyle, in that being an entrepreneur is ingrained in one's identity. [It] is the culmination of a certain set of characteristics: determination, creativity, the capacity to risk, leadership and enthusiasm. I don't think you can be an entrepreneur without these qualities, and for me, that idea was ingrained in me very early on. An entrepreneur is part of the foundation of who I am, and who I strive to be." – Eric Lupton, president of Life Saver Pool Fence Systems
"Entrepreneurship is an unavoidable life calling pursued by those who are fortunate enough to take chances [and are] optimistic enough to believe in themselves, aware enough to see problems around them, stubborn enough to keep going, and bold enough to act again and again. Entrepreneurship is not something you do because you have an idea. It's about having the creativity to question, the strength to believe and the courage to move." – Jordan Fliegel, founder of CoachUp
"The journey of entrepreneurship is a lifestyle for many of us; we are wired this way and have no choice. We are driven by an innate need to create, build and grow. In order to be a successful entrepreneur, you must have an underlying positivity that enables you to see beyond the day-to-day challenges and roadblocks, always moving forward. You must also be a master plate juggler, able to switch between thinking, genres and activities moment to moment. Most importantly, you must not be afraid to fail, and you must be comfortable living with risk and unknowns — a state of mind which is certainly not for everyone!” – Justine Smith, founder and CEO of Kids Go Co.
"Being an entrepreneur is about giving everything you have when the going gets tough and never giving up. If you truly love and believe in what you're doing, then you must hang in there. Entrepreneurship is not knowing everything about your business. You must humble yourself and not work from your ego. Always be willing to grow, change and learn." – Jennifer MacDonald and Hayley Carr, founders of Zipit Bedding
"Entrepreneurship is seeing an opportunity and gathering the resources to turn a possibility into a reality. It represents the freedom to envision something new and to make it happen. It includes risk, but it also includes the reward of creating a legacy. Anti-entrepreneurship is satisfaction with the status quo, layers of controls and rules that hamper forward movement, and fear of failure." – Maia Haag, co-founder and president of I See Me!
"When it comes to being a successful entrepreneur, I think one must possess grit. The stakes tend to be high, the bumps in the road frequent. Remaining focused, regardless of the obstacles, is paramount. That said, being an entrepreneur means being in full control of your destiny. If that's important to you, then all of the challenges associated with striking out on one's own are but a small price to pay.” – Mike Malone, founder of Livestock Framing
Reid Hoffman Tells Charlie Rose: "Every Individual Is Now An Entrepreneur."
Facebook, Twitter and Instagram all started life as revolutionary networks that brought existing real-world relationships online. Today, they are aging utilities, powering an outdated version of the social internet.
As social networks like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram grow larger, they skew disproportionately toward supernodes—celebrity, meme and business accounts. An estimated 8% of of all accounts are fake spam bots. The average Instagram user posts 2.69 times a day, while the average user with over a million followers posts 8.58 times. 80 million photos are posted a day, but the average engagement rate per post is 1.1%. On Instagram, 50% of posts are generated by less than 3% of accounts. Facebook is a bit more stable because it has a cap on the number of friends you can have. Still, original sharing like posting photos to your Facebook feed or updating your status is decreasing 21% year over year.
Today it’s no longer enough to “connect the world.”
If you want to survive, don’t just build a network. You have to build a hive, and eventually a hivemind.
The Existential Crisis of the Network
Even though some social networks have grown to include billions of people, the ramp up in communication hasn’t increased proportionally. Even as you add friends or follow users, you can only talk to so many. Facebook users with over 500 friends only actively communicate with between 10 to 20 people. Similarly, Twitter users who have follower counts of over 1,000 share strong ties with fewer than 50 of their followers.
Myspace’s rapid user growth precipitated an equally rapid decline. It’s a cautionary lesson that growth in the network doesn’t equate to growth in business value. Networks can’t just be neutral. They have to be instrumental.
A network connects different people and gives them many points of contact for communication and transaction. A network is a neutral description of how connections between composite parts form a system. As networks mature, we’re starting to see something completely new emerge.
When it comes to car travel,
Google Maps gives us the distance between point A and point B, but Uber moves us from A to B faster.
When it comes to socializing,
Facebook gives us a way to connect, but Messenger helps us to communicate.
When it comes to shopping,
eBay allows us to buy anything online, but Amazon Prime gives us what we want when we want it.
The value of being connected isn’t in being networked. It’s having an opinion and taking action toward an outcome.
A single honeybee weighs around 1/10th of a gram. Add up all the honeybees in a hive, and you get around five to eight pounds worth of honeybeesâ—âbut you don’t get a hive. The beehive is an 80-pound mass that includes every individual bee, but is much more.
The hive is a smarter, evolved network that is bigger than the sum of its parts. The hive:
Increases the frequency of interactions between nodes and creates more touch-points within the hive. It’s how the hive learns and makes informed decisions in response to a changing external environment.
Decreases friction between nodes and creates a higher level of synchronicity between members of the hive. This produces stronger ties between individual members and allows the hive to act collectively.
Because of the increased frequency of interactions, a hive behaves more intelligently, and because of the decreased friction between nodes, a hive can do more than transfer data. It responds and evolves based on that data. The hive isn’t just more networked. It’s more densely populated with organic, living components.
Though not obvious, the hive is becoming central to the way we think, behave and interact. The best way to understand emergent human hives is to observe how hives operate in nature.
Increasing Frequency of Interactions: Ant Colonies Move as Liquids and Solids
An ant colony is so in sync that a mass of them can stick together to form solids or melt into fluids as a single body. By simply holding onto each other or letting go, the viscosity of a cluster of ants changes. They’re able to do so because of the high frequency of interaction between ants in a colony.
For ants, communication is survival. If you apply pressure to a ball of ants, the ants nearest to the top will begin to act as though they are dead, increasing the fluidity of the writhing mass of ants. The harder the ants are pressed, the more fluid they become to absorb the pressure. The more ants there are linked together, the more pressure they can collectively withstand.
What allows ants to adapt so quickly isn’t the content of a transmitted message, but the way one ant presses against another triggers a chain reaction through the entire cluster. It’s how ant clusters can form rafts to avoid drowning and build bridges out of their bodies to cross gaps.
The fluidity of ants allows them to thrive in almost any environment. They’ve colonized every continent except Antarctica, making up 15–25% of terrestrial animals on Earth.
Consumerization of the Enterprise: Mass Alignment in the Workplace
Tools like Google Apps for Work, Slack and Github are making us more like ant clusters. They increase the frequency of interaction within an organization. People can communicate and switch tasks faster, make smarter decisions based on data and use smarter tools that talk to one another.
Rather than being individuals sitting alone in cubicles, we’re like a cluster of ants crawling and moving around and on top of each other with shared tools that everyone can access.
The image above on the left shows how email communication patterns follow organizational hierarchies at an HP research lab. The image on the right shows the pattern of developers collaborating over chat. With a network model like email, you have to jump from one person to the next to get the information you need. In a hive, real-time communication occurs seamlessly between people.
The high frequency of interaction gets everyone on the same page and working in sync:
People to people interactions: With the hive, a higher frequency of interactions means that work can be assigned on an ad-hoc basis with a tool for real-time chat like Slack. People can switch jobs more rapidly based on what the hive needs. One study shows that the top 20% of developers were also the ones that chatted the most frequently.
People to data interactions: What was specialized knowledge accessible via technical interfaces is now common knowledge exposed through conversational interfaces. Think Lookerbot for analytics and internal company data.
Data to data interactions: The workplace hive gives us insight where we once only got reports. Tools that everyone in the company uses creates massive amounts of data, which helps people use tools more efficiently. This workflow data used to be valuable only as a system of record. Today, it produces actual business intelligence.
The net result is a vastly smarter organization aligned around shared goals. With more interaction between workers and tools, a business can transform from solid to fluid depending on the needs of the hive.
Decreasing Communication Friction: Bee Swarms Operate like Neural Nets
A swarm of bees on the move resembles the movement of neurons in the human brain. That’s how they’re able to colonize new nesting sites within hours of leaving their old one.
This doesn’t happen through a centralized intelligence where the queen bee shouts down orders. Instead, it’s through the low-level communication of scout bees that reduces friction for the entire hive and allows for rapid and collective decision-making.
A hive has around three days to find a new nest site before it dies. Finding the right home means exploring possible sites in a one-mile radius of the queen. The queen can’t go out and look at sites on her own, and doesn’t have the bandwidth to process every possible location that the scouts find and make a good decision quickly.
Instead, scout beesâ—âwho represent 3% of the entire hiveâ—âare responsible for choosing the new hive. When it’s time for the hive to move, around 50 scouts are sent out to look for a promising home. When a scout finds one she likes, she does a “waggle dance” to signal the location to the other scouts. Scouts check out a variety of sites and dance around the one they think will help the hive survive.
As soon as 30 or so scouts gather around a new nest site, the rest of the hive is already lifting off into the air.
The decision-making process of bees reduces friction for how a massive collection of individual parts can evaluate a variety of inputs quickly and intelligently. Ultimately, 30 bees decide the fate for 10,000.
Mobile Messaging: The Formation of WeChat’s Hive
While networks like Instagram and Twitter are beginning to wear thin, messaging apps like WeChat are frenetic hives of activity that build economic empowerment. Like honeybee scouts, messaging apps decrease the friction of centralized nodes in the 1:1 communication between individual nodes and allow for emergent behaviors.
WeChat began five years ago as a messaging service. Today, you can use it to pre-order dumplings from a street-vendor, call a taxi, read the news, and even buy a house.
With WeChat, we see the evolution of a consumer product through the three stages of want, need and utility to the hive. At each stage, WeChat focuses on reducing friction by providing infrastructure for users. On WeChat, all it takes is a critical mass of people adopting new behavior to turn it into a utility that benefits the whole hive.
Wantâ—â2011: When WeChat launched, it let you send messages, voice clips, photos and that’s about it. Over the next year, as China moved from 2G to 3G, WeChat gave users the ability to make voice and video calls. It automatically compressed videos people uploaded to save cellular data. People wanted to use WeChat because it allowed you to easilyâ—âand cheaplyâ—âtalk to other people.
Needâ—â2012: WeChat users in China were often reluctant to download standalone apps because of high data costs. The launch of “official accounts,” or chatbots, emerged within these constraints. People could read the news or check bank statements via text message to an official account. Their needs were met entirely within WeChat’s platform.
Utilityâ—â2013: The addition of mobile payments and WeChat Wallet provided a new layer of utility for users and drove the wide scale adoption of commercial behavior onto the platform. One group of Chinese students built a fruit delivery business on WeChat because other fruit stands on campus were expensive, poor quality and inconvenient. In an interview, one student points out that “WeChat is a bit more agile [than Taobao]. Asmall entity can still have its own brand.”
As WeChat grows, new utilities emerge on the platform. Each increases the time users spend on WeChat’s platform thus reducing friction between users. The latest progression of this is the launch of Applets, which will allow developers to build full HTML5 apps on top of WeChat.
What drove WeChat’s growth wasn’t the launch of any one feature. It was the individual fruit vendors, taxi cabs, and mom-and-pop shops that WeChat made life easier for. In the long run, this might be the winning strategy.
In 2015, 12,000 new companies were born on platforms like WeChat every day. The hive isn’t created from access to new functionality. It’s how new functionality creates new economic opportunity.
The Transformation of the Network to the Hive
The increase in the frequency of interaction and decreased communication friction of the hive can be traced to a move toward synchronicity between people over history. Once, a story passed down verbally from father to son turned into myth after a thousand years. The invention of writing and the first spread of literacy allowed the transmission of the first written history.
As technology has advanced, the delay between the transfer of information has decreased. Paved roads allowed couriers to deliver messages, while cables wired along those roads enabled telegraphs and then radio broadcasts. Eventually, you got email, instant messaging, SMS, camera phones, all the way up to live video.
As information networks become distributed from giant data centers to cellular towers and the cloud, the amount of bandwidth available to the individual continues to rise. We’re no longer limited to a broadcast radio model, where one signal is received by many nodes. Today, we send and receive higher quantities of data at higher frequencies, through texts, photos and videos. We sync with each other instantaneously, and all the time.
This is what allows networks to converge into hives, from the individual to the organization.
Instrumentalizing the Social Network
The function of the social network is to connect people and to grow the size of the network. What originally came about through increasing connections is now focused on delivering a better, more immediate experience.
Facebook in 2012:
Our mission is to make the world more open and connected.
Facebook in 2016:
Our top priority is to build useful and engaging products that enable people to connect and share through mobile devices and personal computers.
In 2012, Snapchat described itself on its website as:
Snapchat is the fastest way to share a moment on iPhoneâ—âup to 10x faster than MMS!”
Today, the renamed Snap Inc.’s website reads:
We believe that reinventing the camera represents our greatest opportunity to improve the way people live and communicate.
Facebook and Snap Inc. are both converging around how we communicate and share experience, and they’re doing it by building a family of brands.
From the beginning, Snapchat has built itself around the camera and user experience. As the company moved from 1:1 communications to a broader platform for sharing experiences, this has not changed.
Facebook’s efforts to mimic Snapchat’s ephemeral messagesas well as its initiatives on products like Instagram Stories and its move into virtual reality through the acquisition of Oculus Rift all demonstrate a move away from the network, and toward a moments-driven hive.
The original experience of Facebook was more connected, but also a lonely experience. You put one version of yourself online and lived another one in real life. The original Facebook showed a version of you that you wanted to see.
Rather than alienating people, Facebook and Snap Inc. today are moving toward a vision of the future around creating real, shared experiences that actually bring people together.
Google, Uber, Tesla and Autonomous Vehicles
The map is possibly the most literal rendering of the network. A map connects physical locations together, and shows you how to navigate from one point to another. The autonomous car is built on top of the map, but it’s instrumentalized around actually taking you between points.
Autonomous vehicles can be imagined because they’re built on top of the information networks of Google’s Maps and Streetview, projects that Google undertook to organize the world’s information.
At Tesla, they’re building autonomous electric vehicles on top of their network of vehicle sales, service centers and Supercharger stations. Self-driving Teslas have already collected 100 million miles of autonomous driving data and 780 million miles of human driving data from the sensors it builds into each vehicle.
Meanwhile, Uber is moving towards autonomous cars through the ride-sharing marketplace it has built. Through the Uber app, the company collects 100 million miles of driving data each day. In contrast, the average American only drives 15,000 miles a year.
Why are all these vastly different companies converging on the autonomous car? That’s because for these companies, it’s about platform and hive, not just about roads without drivers.
Google’s 10-K, 2016:
From the start, the company has always strived to do more, and to do important and meaningful things with the resources they have.
Uber’s blog, 2016:
The old Uber was black and white, somewhat distant and cold. This belied what Uber actually isâ—âa transportation network, woven into the fabric of cities and how they move. To bring out this human sideâ—âthe atomsâ—âwe’ve added color and patterns.
For Google, the search giant, it’s about putting information to work. It is leveraging its massive data sets, of roads, driver behavior, and physical objects, and continuously feeding data back to the system. Uber, meanwhile, has evolved from a white glove black car service into a transportation hive. Through logistics and cleaner, cheaper interfaces, Uber directs human actions more efficiently through algorithms. The autonomous car was the next logical step.
By allowing cars to get from A to B more predictably, autonomous cars will reduce the number of cars on the road, and the number of deaths in car accidents, and even the amount of money for insurance. The hive is what gives us a shot at collectively solving these seemingly impossible problems.
The Future is the Hivemind
A network’s value is traditionally tied to the idea of more—this is what’s known as a “network effect.” The more people and things there are networked, the more possible connections there are between nodes, and the more valuable the network grows.
And yet, the world we’re moving to will be defined by the idea of more with less. Global warming and drought mean fewer resources to work with. At the same time, population growth is beginning to stall across America and Europe, and with it the “free lunch” economic growth that comes with a rising population.
A hive is more than the sum of its parts. Through the hive, a network of drivers and riders also work as a turnkey resource that other services can be built on top of. For companies that operate as hives, sheer quantity matters less than it did for older generations of companies. By increasing interaction and decreasing friction between nodes, they accelerate growth through virtually unlimited, real-time access to data and people.
Hives colonize instinctively as they grow, which is why we’re seeing so many companies converge around the similar trends. But the sequence that they grow in matters. The next big companies will have to do more than just pick the right trends. They’ll have to nail the right timing by moving in sync with their composite parts.
They won’t just be hives. They’ll be hiveminds.
Markethive has already reached this hive mind level. Interesting that others are suspecting this phenomena and here we are! The original and first Market Network.
Founder, Creator and CEO
FBI Document Dump Proves This Woman Has No Business Anywhere Near Power
I'm guessing that many of you do not know this, but there was another dump of 100 pages from the FBI yesterday relating to the investigation of Hillary Clinton. Folks, I'm here to tell you, there is no way this woman ought to be anywhere near the Oval Office. She ought not be anywhere near the White House. I don't care what Donald Trump's faults are. I don't care what people think of Donald Trump. This woman has no business. I can't believe, after looking at these documents
This is astounding what the FBI dumped yesterday. Why this hasn't been dumped earlier is obvious. It is damning! It is destroying of Hillary Clinton, as a person, as a secretary of state. I go through all these emails. Have any of you who've spent any time going through any of the emails, part of the WikiLeaks dump, are you seeing anybody that works for her talk about what a nice person she is? I am not. I see references to friends of Bill that need this and friends of Bill that need that. I don't see any references to friends of Hillary.
I'm reading a bunch of people who are doing what they can to advance this woman's career because it is their job and because through her they maybe get to advance what their agenda is; but I'm here to tell you, there doesn't appear to be any personal attachment beyond Huma in any of these, including Podesta. You know, Podesta is actually a Bill guy. Podesta was Bill's chief of staff sent over there, runs the Center for American Progress, a leftist think tank, and is now over there steering the Hillary campaign.
I'm telling you, folks, it's incredible. And this 100 pages — and most of it's redacted. The stuff that they haven't redacted is damning. It makes Watergate look like Romper Room. And I'm wondering, what in the hell were they doing at the FBI when they decided none of this was actionable? This goes so far beyond quid pro quo. Of course that's a big, big deal.
But all the stories that we heard back when the Clintons were in the White House about Hillary disliking the Marines, disrespecting the Marines, throwing ashtrays, apparently it's true, because she did it at the State Department. She was so mean to people that State Department security agents, which they have, every bureaucracy has security agents that travel with the ambassadors, with the secretary of state. None of them wanted to work for her. They all quit over the four-year time she was in the secretary of state's office. None of them.
The people that ended up on her detail were brand-new and had no idea. They were the last ones to go there because everybody else begged off, because she was just plain and simple mean and rude and disrespectful. She was violating protocol at every turn. As an example, one of the parent protocols is that when the secretary of state's traveling, you get off the plane and you always join the ambassador to whatever country you're in. The ambassador gets in a limo with you, it's a security thing, too, from the airport into the embassy or wherever you're going.
In other words, when you get off the plane in a foreign country, you are joined at the hip with the ambassador. She never would do it.
The only person allowed to get closer to is Huma Abedin and whoever this guy that runs around with her, this big, big black guy who is there rubbing her back and telling her just keep talking, just keep breathing. He's obviously some medic, and he's constantly around her. Other than this guy and Huma Abedin, she just blows off everybody and everything. You can't find any references, or very few, to people with any affection for her. They're all working for her and they're all trying to rig the game for her, but there doesn't seem to be any affection.
It's amazing what's in these 100 pages alone, and these are from the FBI. This is not WikiLeaks. This is not the result of a hack. They can't say that the Russians are behind this. Now, I don't think that any of this is gonna end up in the Drive-By Media. Because they are part of this. Well, that's part of the WikiLeaks dump, too. But reporters are sending their stories to John Podesta for vetting before they're published. One guy, Glenn Thrush from Politico says (paraphrasing), "Hey, look, now that I've become a (hack) for you guys, I've got this story. Here it is. Make sure it's right before I run with it."
This is happening constantly, not just recently, but constantly with Mrs. Clinton. He's not the only one. All of them, practically everybody in the mainstream media is on her team and coordinating with her and her campaign about how to do stories, what stories to do, what to leave out of them and so forth.
Now to the FBI document dump.
It's a hundred pages and it's dynamite, and it's just astounding, folks. You look at this and you wonder how in the world did this woman not get charged? How in the world did this not get sent to the grand jury? Of course, we know. President Obama didn't want it. He didn't want any of it going anywhere because he's implicated in it. He lied. He said he learned about Hillary's private server while watching the news just like all of us, except that's not true.
He was regularly communicating with her via her private server and all this suspicious email activity using a fake name, a pseudonym, if you will. He was fully aware. And that's why to go after her would have included him, and ah, ah, ah, ah, not going to happen. I did as much looking into this as I could, and I have to tell you, John Hinderaker at Power Line has probably put together the best summary of this.
Yesterday "the FBI released another 100 pages relating to its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State." This was not just an investigation that was limited to her emails and server. By definition, it ended up including her conduct as secretary of state. Why it has taken so long for the FBI to review, to redact, and publish — I mean, a hundred pages is a small quantity. It's dynamite. What's in these 100 pages, even what is not redacted is dynamite. But the question, why it has taken so long for the FBI to review, to redact and publish a hundred pages is inexplicable.
The pages that were released yesterday are explosive, big-time explosive. Folks, it's serious stuff. And it all — you can't conclude anything other — this woman ought not be anywhere near the levels of power. This woman is as corrupt as anybody. This makes Watergate, as I say, look like Romper Room. Now, you may have seen headlines that Hillary's State Department tried to pressure the FBI to say that various documents located on her home server were not classified. That was critical. It is critical, obviously, because one of Hillary's lines of defense was to claim — falsely, as it turned out — that she never sent or received classified documents on her off-the-books email system.
She said that in her first press conference that she held at the U.N., and she said it subsequent times. (imitating Hillary) "I never dealt with. I I I I I I never sent or received classified documents. It was a mistake, I'll never do it again, I learned from it, but I never sent classified documents."
But to get the full impact, you have to see the relevant portions of the FBI investigation, and they're all here, in all cases. They've been published and I'm gonna just read to you a so-called executive summary of them. "In the first page, an unidentified FBI employee says he was 'pressured' to change the classification of an email to render it unclassified. This pressure came from someone within the FBI."
This is in FBI documents. This is not somebody's speculation. It was in what was released yesterday. You remember, now, she has denied trafficking in classified documents, sending or receiving. And yet in one of the pages yesterday, an unidentified FBI employee says he was pressured by someone within the FBI to change the classification of an email to render it unclassified.
This person within the FBI "who said he had been contacted by Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy, who 'had asked his assistance in altering the email’s classification in exchange for a "quid pro quo."'" You may see people denying this left and right at the State Department. It's in the FBI documents. It happened! Somebody within the FBI called over to state, talked to Patrick Kennedy and asked for his help in changing the classification of the email in exchange for a quid pro quo.
And what was the quid pro quo? "The quid pro quo was that, if the FBI would say the email was unclassified, the State Department would allow the FBI to 'place more Agents in countries where they are presently forbidden.' Subsequently, the interviewee was summoned to an 'all agency' meeting at the State Department to discuss the classification review of the Hillary Clinton emails. This fact," and that's what it is, "is astonishing: the meeting was attended by representatives of the State Department, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency 'and other government agencies,' including, obviously, the FBI."
So you had an all-agency meeting at the State Department to discuss reviewing the classification of Hillary Clinton's emails and changing from classified to unclassified, with all of these government agencies at the meeting. "Patrick Kennedy presided. Someone asked whether any of the Hillary emails that were being reviewed for production were classified. Kennedy replied, 'Well, we’ll see.'"
Meaning, when we get through here, after we've declassified a bunch of 'em, probably not. So they had classified emails, agency-wide meeting with all of these different elements of the government to discuss declassifying certain Hillary emails. Why would they do that? To protect her. To protect them. To protect Obama. There were classified emails. She was trafficking in classified email on her unsecure server that she had lied about and denied doing, that Obama claimed he knew nothing about when he did.
And so it was an all-agency meeting where they circled the wagons and after the fact they're gonna change from classified to unclassified email by email by email in exchange for a quid pro quo for the FBI.
"Following the all agency meeting, Undersecretary of State Kennedy renewed his effort to pressure the FBI to change its classification of the document in question. The FBI representative wouldn’t budge." The FBI said, "No, we are not gonna help you declassify this classified document."
"So Kennedy asked who else at the agency he could talk to. The interviewee gave the name of Michael Steinbach." All of this was in these hundred pages dumped yesterday. "The interviewee then participated in a call with Kennedy and Steinbach, in which Kennedy 'continued to pressure the FBI to change the classified markings on the email to unclassified.' Steinbach refused. What happened next is — deserves to be, anyway — a bombshell.
"Prior to ending the conversation, Kennedy," of the State Department, "asked whether the FBI or State would conduct the public statements on the matter. Steinbach advised Kennedy that the FBI would not comment publicly on the matter."
Well, I mean, folks, right there is corruption admitted to. Here you had an all-agency meeting to discuss the declassification of an email in order to protect Hillary's claim that she had not trafficked in them. And everybody at the meeting admits to and knows what's going on. And the FBI says, "Don't worry, we're not gonna talk about it. Steinbach of the FBI told Kennedy we would not comment publicly on the matter." Meaning, whatever you do, nobody's gonna know about it. We're not gonna blow the whistle on you. Whatever you do, go ahead, we're not talking.
"That was enough for the astonishingly corrupt Hillary Clinton. This is what happened next: The conference call ended and, according to [ ], the Associated Press (AP) published the story within the hour. Former Secretary of State Clinton appeared in front of the press shortly thereafter to deny having sent classified emails on her private email server."
So before she goes out and speaks, they had this agency-wide meeting to declassify something classified, it ends up happening in exchange for quid pro quo. The FBI sitting in on the meeting, "Okay, we're not gonna say a word.' That's the signal to Hillary to go out and lie that she had never sent classified emails on her private email server.
What you have here, folks, is a clear pattern of corruption that, as I say, makes Watergate look like Romper Room. Hillary's aide at the State Department, Patrick Kennedy, tried to bribe the FBI with the promise of a quid pro quo, tried to bribe the FBI to change the classification. It was a Benghazi document, by the way. What's being discussed here is a Benghazi document.
So Patrick Kennedy, Hillary's aide, tried to bribe the FBI to change the classification of a Benghazi document so as to enable Hillary to lie and say that she did not send or receive classified information on her illegal home server. The FBI refused. James Comey was not involved at this stage, by the way. This was before the serious investigation even began. But they learned of it. Comey learned of this later on. He wasn't involved at this point.
"Hillary’s aide then asked whether the FBI would be saying anything publicly about the classification issue," what they just had, the all-agency meeting. "Once assured that the FBI would be silent –" Steinbach said don't worry, we're not saying a word "– Hillary took the stage and alleged publicly, and falsely, that she never used her illegal home server to send or receive classified information."
They had just taken a classified document and agreed to declassify it just because they needed to for her, not because it deserved to be. It was still a classified bit of information, but they declassified it, enabling her to go out and lie. This is just one document. How many critically important documents have been given the same treatment, have been discussed in the same way? The State Department has put some documents, archived them way back down in the basement, nobody to ever see them again
Folks, this is just one element of what's in this hundred page dump. But this one, this story illustrates the full-fledged corruption of Hillary Clinton's State Department, working with the FBI. She says she never trafficked in classified data, sending it or receiving it. She said that after an agency-wide meeting, an all-agency meeting in which a document about Benghazi was declassified.
Richard Nixon only dreamed of this kind of stuff. On the surface it may not sound like it's that big a deal when treated to governments doing things, our government especially in private, prying eyes don't see it. She's been lying through her teeth. Everybody on her side, everybody has been lying about what went on, trying to maintain the idea that she never trafficked in classified documents.
She did, she knew she did. She knew she was lying about it. She corrupted a bunch of agencies to collude and get together to change the classification on her behalf so that she could go out and lie. She was enabled as a liar with the mass participation of a bunch of other government agencies.
An O.S.H.I.T. Moment? Folks the USA appears far more corrupt than even Russia or Venezuela!
Guess what, my friends? Obama's got a press conference, or just finished one with the prime minister of Italy in the Rose Garden. He was asked about what I just shared with you. Question by Kevin Freking of the AP. "Mr. President, does it distress you that folks at the FBI and State Department talked about the proper level of classification of emails that were on Secretary Clinton's server? Would you acknowledge the appearance of impropriety and should the State Department officials look into this further."
OBAMA: You've heard directly from both the FBI and the State Department that the notion or the accounts that have been put out there are just not true. And, you know, you can question them again, but based on what we have seen, heard, learned, some of the more sensational implications or appearances, as you stated them, aren't based on actual events and based on what actually happened and I think derive from sort of overly broad characterizations of interactions between the State Department and the FBI that happen a lot.
He's flat-out calling everybody involved in this a liar. He's saying it never happened. The evidence is from the FBI, documents released from the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's conduct as secretary of state, deriving from and originating with her email server. So here's Mr. Obama who told us that he didn't know about any of this until he heard about it on the news, which is a lie because he was emailing Mrs. Clinton. By definition, everything he sends is classified. Everything the president sends, everything he writes, it's classified at origin by virtue of the fact he's sending it. "I didn't know 'til I read about in the news, just like all of you."
He was using a fake name! The man who said you like your doctor, keep your doctor, you like your plan, keep your plan. The man that told you your premiums are gonna be reduced $2,500. The man has lied I don't know how many times about how many things. He and Hillary are in a race to see who's the king or queen of lying, plus we know this is a corrupt bunch! He's just called everybody involved "Oh, they have these interagency meetings all the time, you know, these rivalries, they've already denied it." The allegations were not even made. The information comes from the FBI in a 100-page document dump yesterday, and he just called everybody involved a liar. "It isn't true. They said it didn't happen." Come on, folks, come on. We know what's going on.
For the record, ladies and gentlemen, there are four people, at least four people who have talked about the pressure to take a classified Benghazi document and make it unclassified. Two of the people at the FBI, two of the people the State Department. Four people independently have said they were pressured to do this. Barack Obama has just called them liars as well.
RUSH: Well, there seems to be some confusion where these hundred pages came from. They are official. And the best I have been able to determine is that the FBI released these 100 pages that everybody's talking about. (interruption) Well, I usually am. But some people are saying, "No, no, no. The FBI didn't officially do it. Somebody at the FBI did it 'cause they're ticked off and they think Hillary should be arrested."
In other words, somebody's trying to tell me that a rogue element released documents. Everything I've seen is the FBI itself did this and that Comey was not aware or involved. Comey wasn't involved in this all-agency meeting that took place. Look, let me summarize this and try to tell you why this matters.
This is standard operating procedure for Bill and Hillary Clinton. This is a woman who destroyed subpoenaed documents in a court case way back in the nineties. These are the people that hid billing records and other relevant documents sought by a court for years that mysteriously turned up on a table in the Map Room in the White House during their first term in the White House. Then the whole Lewinsky scandal happened, and we know how everything was — if it hadn't been for that blue dress — seriously, folks.
I'm not trying to be funny here. If it hadn't been for that blue dress Bill Clinton would have gotten away with saying (Clinton impression), "I never had sex with that woman, not a single time, not ever, and I never asked anybody to lie," he would have gotten away with that. We would have never known the truth. If it hadn't been for the fact that Linda Tripp, I think it was, convinced Lewinsky to give up that blue dress, and she kept the blue dress because it was historical, it was a souvenir. She loved the guy and having his semen was, I guess, a memento.
So there it was. This is how the Clintons operate. They accuse. This is a woman who was thrown off the Nixon Watergate committee as a Democrat lawyer. She was thrown off by Peter Rodino, the chairman, because she was trying to engender things that would deny Nixon and his legal team constitutional rights during the Watergate investigation. This woman is every bit the Alinskyite that Barack Obama is. She was an Alinskyite before Obama was. Her thesis, and she was at Wellesley, was on Alinsky.
But the woman is dishonest. She is dishonest and she is corrupt. Look at the Clinton Foundation. This is an organization set up to take donations in the multiple millions of dollars from foreign governments and foreign wealthy individuals while she was secretary of state and while she's campaigning for president. Now, folks, the people giving the Clintons money are not doing it 'cause they like her. They're not giving her $300,000 to make speeches at banks because, wow, she says such interesting things. They are buying the Clintons. They are buying access because the Clintons have made it known their entire public life they can be bought.
The Clintons do not do much of anything aboveboard.
At any rate, so there's a history, a documented history. Now, if you're a Millennial — Millennials do not know of the existence and the nature and the truth of Soviet communism. It's not been taught to them. So "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," the Berlin Wall falling, the Cold War and its meaning and relevance all during the sixties is irrelevant to them.
They simply don't know. They haven't been taught about it. And that's, of course, by design. If you're not gonna teach communism, if you're not gonna teach what it really is, it makes selling socialism easy. This is exactly what they've done. Same token here. Millennials, a young group of people, do not know of the Clintons of the nineties. To you and me, we know it like the back of our hand. But young people don't. And some low-information people don't as well.
So, in addition to all of the things starting with Whitewater, all moving forward, everything the Clintons have done — well, can't say "everything" — the vast majority of what the Clintons have done has had many purposes, but at the top of the list is personal enrichment.
Do you know that she also stole furniture from the State Department when she left? That's in this document dump. She stole furniture from the State Department when she left just like they stole furniture from the White House when they left. She just picked up and took what she wanted. Violates all kinds of protocols. Would not hang around with ambassadors, would not travel with them, would not give them the perk of appearing with the secretary of state, would not let them fly in the plane, would not them ride in the limousine.
Only Huma Abedin was allowed body contact. Nobody else. The security agents for the State Department all wanted to quit her detail. She was so rude, mean, disrespectful, none of them wanted to work for her over the course of her four-year term as secretary of state, which comports with everything we'd heard about the way she treated Secret Service agents in the White House and Marines and other uniformed military personnel. The woman is a viper and she's dishonest and corrupt. And it's the way of the world in that world the Clintons occupy.
So just to review, hundred pages released by the FBI yesterday clearly detail an all-agency meeting wherein the State Department and a guy named Patrick Kennedy attempted to persuade other government agencies, including the FBI and the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency and others to go along with changing the classification of, in this case, one particular document detailing Benghazi, from classified to unclassified, so that Mrs. Clinton could go out and do a press conference and claim that she had never trafficked in classified information.
And in exchange for doing this, the FBI was offered, in exchange for doing this, an increased presence in foreign countries to do investigations and other things. You remember what the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia were blown up, the FBI's right there investigating, because American citizens were dead. So the FBI can go, but they are limited in what they can do. State Department has purview. So a carrot was dangled that allowed the FBI a little bit more access and power in exchange for going along with declassifying a classified document.
Four people — two state, two FBI — have added to what's in these hundred pages claiming they were pressured to go along with this. Now, President Obama just had a press conference concluded recently at the White House with the Italian prime minister in which he was asked about this. Now, there's two sound bites.
So here's the question. "Mr. President, does it distress you that people at the FBI and the State Department talked about the proper level of classification of emails that were on Secretary Clinton's server? Would you acknowledge the appearance of impropriety, and should the State Department look into this further?"
OBAMA: You've heard directly from both the FBI and the State Department that the notion or the accounts that have been put out there are just not true. And, you know, you can question them again, but based on what we have seen, heard, learned, some of the more sensational implications or appearances, as you stated them, aren't based on actual events and based on what actually happened and I think derive from sort of overly broad characterizations of interactions between the State Department and the FBI that happen a lot. It happened between agencies.
The short version of that is "It didn't happen. It's all made up, not true, uh, these things happen all the time." So he's denying, calling people liars. This is in an FBI document dump. This is not something that some right-wing website found and is publishing. This is from the Obama FBI. And he's claiming everybody involved — and there are independent people. As I say, four others who are claiming they have been pressured to go along with the declassification of classified documents on Mrs. Clinton's server.
I can imagine some of you, "What does that matter? There's so many other things, what does it matter?" It matters because, folks, it's a culmination of things. The cumulative effect of behavioral patterns here that indicate this woman is dishonest, is corrupt and has no business even taking the oath of office because she cannot honestly do it. She has no business being president of the United States.
She uses the power that you get as an elected official or appointed official at the upper echelons of U.S. government to artificially alter and change things in her favor outside of courts of law, things that no one else could do or try. Things for which we have forced a president to resign simply because he thought he wanted to. Richard Nixon and Watergate, that's nothing compared to what has actually gone on here, but it gets better.