Our conversation begins with Aidan’s own story — hitting a breaking point during COVID after years of anxiety and depression, and discovering meditation as a gateway into the subconscious mind. He describes the subconscious as a dimension of ourselves that extends beyond what we can directly perceive, using the iceberg model and a VR simulation analogy to illustrate the relationship between conscious awareness and the deeper layers beneath it. We discuss why the subconscious is so difficult to study empirically, and why that difficulty has kept practices like hypnosis in the same category as witchcraft until relatively recently.

We then turn to the mechanics of hypnosis itself — what differentiates it from meditation, how it employs imagery, symbolism, and emotion to bypass the conscious mind’s filtering layer, and why suggestibility and agreeability are such critical factors in whether hypnosis works for a given person. Aidan walks through the surprising efficacy data: a 70-80% success rate for chronic pain versus only 40-45% for addiction, and explains why — with addiction, part of you still does not want to change, whereas with pain, all systems are on board except the one that isn’t.

The conversation goes into deeper territory as we explore past life regression. Aidan argues you don’t need to believe in reincarnation for the practice to be useful — the subconscious is essentially painting a movie you can extract wisdom from, drawing from what he describes as a collective source. He shares that people with narrow belief systems tend to regress to childhood, while those with broader frameworks have reported experiences on different planets or as pure energy. The point, he insists, is never who you were but why you had that experience.

We close with Aidan’s personal motivation — a childhood obsession with fantasy and magic that was stripped away during adolescence, and how engaging with these practices re-mystified his life. He describes ceremonial magick as “a cross-section between art and math,” and likens these practices to becoming a better surfer: they don’t take away the waves, but they make you better at riding them.

Aidan on Instagram: @hi.subconscious | @higherselfhypno

---

Listen on your favorite platform:

Spotify:

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@alexmurshak

RSS: https://feed.podbean.com/hackingstate/feed.xml

What was initially intended as a farewell letter to the film industry turned into a more profound reflection—a kind of obituary for a once-thriving sector that he believes is no longer what it used to be. Rambo candidly shares his thoughts on the decline of traditional Hollywood, describing it as a significant loss of artistry and craftsmanship.

Rambo highlights the impact of a changing media landscape, drastically altered by feminization, economics, and risk aversion. He discusses the industry's shift away from original content, with more emphasis on sequels and remakes due to a fear of financial loss. This risk-averse culture, combined with the effects of technology and changing societal norms, has led to what he describes as a disheartening era for filmmakers and audiences alike. He reflects on his experiences as a line producer, navigating the complex and often dysfunctional dynamics of film sets characterized by power struggles among executives and a new wave of corporate governance.

Rambo candidly shares his thoughts about the corporatization of the industry, attributing the dilution of creativity to a more collaborative but ultimately less decisive approach in decision-making—thanks to the impact of movements like Me Too. We explore the implications of this shift and how it has led to a creative landscape dominated by committee decision-making rather than inspired artistry. The contradictions inherent in this new environment are further complicated by the influx of technology companies entering the film space and their obsession with metrics. This has changed how stories are created and the type of content that gets greenlit, raising questions about the integrity of artistic expression.

Throughout our conversation, we reflect on the intersection of identity politics and filmmaking, discussing how diversity initiatives have prioritized representation over competence. Rambo shares anecdotes of the industry's changing dynamics, particularly the challenges of maintaining a meritocratic environment in light of new hiring practices. He draws parallels between Hollywood and the tech industry to highlight the broader implications of these shifts across various sectors.

As the discussion winds down, Rambo shares his vision for the future of entertainment—exploring potential avenues outside of traditional filmmaking and the unique opportunities for live performance. We contemplate the value that humanity places on genuine, shared experiences in a world increasingly moving toward digital isolation.

This conversation offers a multifaceted view of the contemporary film industry, reflecting on its past glory and the challenges moving forward. Rambo's insights provide not only a personal narrative but also a broader commentary on the state of creativity, audience engagement, and the future of storytelling in an increasingly fragmented media landscape.

Share

LINKS:

Rambo on X:

https://x.com/RamboVanHalen

Buy Book, Hollywood Samizdat:

https://passage.press/products/hollywood-samizdat

Subscribe now

If you enjoyed this talk, please leave a review on Spotify/iTunes.

Listen on:

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@alexmurshak

Apple:

Spotify:

RSS: https://feed.podbean.com/hackingstate/feed.xml

We cover the concept of the “parts farm,” a modular approach that sidesteps traditional machinery setups and keeps investment risk low. We discuss how falling component costs and robotics evolution have changed what’s possible, and why electronics contract manufacturing is GenFab’s current focus. Matt lays out his plans for vertical integration and proprietary production capabilities aimed at competing with Chinese manufacturing directly.

The conversation turns to what re-industrialization actually requires: not just technology, but cultural and policy shifts. We talk government investment, trade policy, the skill gaps in the manufacturing workforce, and whether America has the collective will to treat making things as essential to national resilience. Matt makes the case that manufacturing isn’t just an economic sector—it’s civilizational infrastructure.

Share

LINKS:

• Support Nick Simmons’ wife and family’s GoFundMe: https://www.gofundme.com/f/honoring-nick-simmons-life-and-legacy

• Matt Parlmer’s memorial post for Nick Simmons:

• General Fabrication website: https://www.genfab.co

• Matt Parlmer on X: https://x.com/mattparlmer

• General Fabrication on X: https://x.com/genfabco

Share

Subscribe now

If you enjoyed this talk, please leave a review on Spotify/iTunes.

Listen on:

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@alexmurshak

Apple:

Spotify:

RSS: https://feed.podbean.com/hackingstate/feed.xml

We talk about his pioneering work in systems biology at Harvard that led to the creation of Little b, a programming language for modeling biological systems with modularity and abstraction, the phenomenology of consciousness, the “hard problem” of consciousness, taking consciousness as fundamental, the limits of radical materialism, why our brains are not like classical computers, reconciling theories of consciousness with physics, the computational intractability of consciousness, the specter of AI civil rights, and Austin as the epicenter of the emerging science of the mind.

Aneil on X: https://x.com/aneilbaboo

His paper, "Programming with models: Modularity and abstraction provide powerful capabilities for systems biology"

Share

If you enjoyed this talk, please leave a review on Spotify/iTunes.

Listen on:

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@alexmurshak

Apple:

Spotify:

RSS: https://feed.podbean.com/hackingstate/feed.xml

We’re in a chaotic time for technology where, on the one hand, there’s tremendous fear about AI taking away all our jobs, concentrating capital into the hands of a few large companies and governments, maybe even bringing about the end of humanity as we know it. Lets call this The Doomer Thesis. On the other hand, there’s tremendous optimism and hype for the potential unlocks in creativity from all these cheap AI tools, growth from new startups disrupting old industries, and the potential to make everyone way more productive. Lets call this The Techno-Optimist Thesis.

How can we reconcile these two poles of tremendous fear and unprecedented optimism?

The state of AI is confusing because while its hard enough to keep up with the dizzying pace of new models, techniques, capabilities, and companies, there is also embedded in our predictions about AI these two diametrically opposite visions of what it all means and where we’re going.

Neither I, nor anyone else, can tell you exactly where we’re going, but I’m going to try to help make sense of it by positing a powerful mental model for understanding not just AI predictions, but this entire class of problems where there are two competing ideas about the world that are extreme opposites of one another.

Our model starts with a fundamental axiom of logic: the Law of Non-Contradiction. Simply, there are no contradictions in the universe. We assume, because the world is a logical, coherent whole, there can be no true contradictions. There cannot be in the same state space both X and Not X. This doesn’t mean there can’t be apparent or seeming contradictions. It means only that where such contradictions appear, what is indicated is a gap in our model of the world, or, as is often the case, a lapse in the language required to express a distinction at the proper level of abstraction.

Let me put this in concrete terms. Where there are two completely opposite ideas about the world, this indicates one of three possibilities:

1. The most common, by far, is that they’re both wrong. That our situation represents some form of black and white thinking on both sides (a common psychological defense mechanism against uncertainty), and that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

2. One or the other is correct. This is the least common case, because it’s very rare that predictions about the world follow extreme paths. It does happen. Every once in a while there’s a 1 in 1000 year magnitude earthquake, but I wouldn’t bet my life on one happening tomorrow or my soul on it never happening again.

3. Both are incorrect, but also not wrong, because our situations is being mis-stated or misinterpreted as inherently contradictory. Think of the behavior of photons in quantum mechanics where they appear to act as both particles and waves. While the exact relationship of quantum mechanics to our physical world is not entirely understood, we chalk these seemingly contradictory observations up to a deficit in our model, rather than one or the other or neither.

I am presenting to you the idea that the most likely explanation that parsimoniously harmonizes both the Doomer and Techno-Optimist positions is this third possibility.

The AI Doomers and the Techno-Optimists are both not wrong because they’re talking past each other. And it’s understandable why: there are strong incentives, true believers, and lots of money to be made on both sides. There are also serious risks: geopolitical, economic, and existential—hinging on the outcome. All of this noise and tension clouds our ability to think clearly about the nature of the concern.

And because we can’t think clearly, we’re not talking about it clearly, either.

The truth is that there is no contradiction. AI will be both a godsend for productivity, startups, and some of humanity’s biggest problems, AND an extremely disruptive force that displaces billions of jobs, turns over entire industries, and presents serious sociological and geopolitical challenges.

The sooner we inject clarity into our thinking and therefore our conversations, the sooner we can address the benefits and the risks in a level-headed way.

Let us heed Hölderlin’s famous words as quoted in Heidegger’s Question Concerning Technology: “where the danger is, grows the saving power also.”

Share

This is a reposting of this video essay, adapted and edited for the written form.

Subscribe now

Share

Kyle critiques how terms like "narcissism" and "transactional relationships" are misapplied to pathologize healthy interpersonal expectations and natural give-and-take in friendships and romantic partnerships. He argues this reflects broader cultural problems with dismissing relational obligations in favor of personal convenience.

The majority of our conversation focuses on Kyle's disagreement with the 2008 Heller case. He argues that the core holding identifying self-defense as the primary protected right is wrong on original meaning grounds. Instead, he contends the amendment's original purpose was to protect citizens' right to bear arms most useful in military service to maintain effective militias, not individual self-defense which was already protected under common law.

Kyle provides extensive historical context on the founders' deep concerns about standing armies versus citizen soldiers, heavily influenced by Roman Republic history and fears that professional armies would lead to the same factional civil wars that destroyed Rome. We explore the distinction between a "right to rebellion" versus organized resistance, the founders' view of standing armies as mercenaries, and how the militia clause connects to republican virtue and citizenship.

We conclude by examining modern challenges to Second Amendment interpretation, including 3D-printed guns and drone warfare, and how technological advances create new questions about effective citizen militia capability in the 21st century.

Horizons Review:

On X: https://x.com/horizonsreview

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@horizonsreview

Share

Subscribe now

If you enjoyed this talk, please leave a review on Spotify/iTunes.

Listen on:

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@alexmurshak

Apple:

Spotify:

RSS: https://feed.podbean.com/hackingstate/feed.xml

About 3 weeks ago I got the insatiable bug to build out an MCP server for the Congress.gov API.

This small, civic-minded project unwittingly became the catalyst for rebooting my startup, and re-grounding myself in a craft and a calling on the heels of one of the most difficult and tumultuous periods of my life.

For those of you unfamiliar, Model Context Protocol (MCP), is a new open standard created by Anthropic that allows LLMs to talk to other computer systems. What this means is that any application or server adhering to this protocol can communicate with LLMs in a way they understand. Essentially, MCP opens the entire internet, as well as local file systems, databases, IoT devices, and anything else running a computer, to LLM-powered chatbots, AI agents, and even other MCP servers.

This means anything with an API, especially a public and free API, like the one for Congress.gov, now has the opportunity to live in your LLM client (i.e. Claude Desktop, Cursor, etc…) where you can interact with it in natural language.

Seeing this as a unique opportunity to 1.) learn more about a frontier technology; 2.) be the first to build something that’s never been built before; and 3.) release a genuinely useful public utility that’s on-brand and folds neatly into my then-dormant startup, LawgiverAI—I couldn’t pass it up.

This is the story of why I built CongressMCP, how I did it in three weeks, and everything that went wrong with its release

In November 2024, as my startup and personal life were on the brink of ruin, Anthropic released Model Context Protocol. For the past 6 months I had been stretching my executive capabilities and finances thin trying to make LawgiverAI work as a first-time solo founder. By this point I had spent months building and releasing an MVP, conducting customer interviews, and trying to solicit investment. I met with angels, pitched early stage funds, had an advisor who promised to make good introductions, and none of it went anywhere. The MVP had a glimmer of something useful, and it worked, but was nowhere near mature enough to make inroads in the B2B legislative tracking space. Moreover, my intimate relationship was starting to fail as I became increasingly stressed and irritable trying to save a sinking ship, promising that it was just a patch job in the hull, with water rising dangerously close to my neck. I was exhausted, overworked, in debt, disillusioned, and losing faith.

This confluence of conditions made me so myopic that when MCP came out, I couldn’t see it as anything other than an existential threat to my startup. The MVP I had built featured a chat-with-PDF interface, in-line citations, semantic search, and intelligent tagging with a backend using retrieval augmented generation (RAG) on a vector database of every congressional bill. At conception it was an application of the latest AI tools and prompt engineering in a novel space; but by the end of the year its core features had already become commonplace, and the paradigm of development I was in—static RAG without evals, agentic flows, or proprietary data, was already seeming outdated. Such is life in an AI startup. MCP, which offered the potential for instant access and reasoning on that very same data pipeline I had worked for weeks to build, looked like the death knell for my barely fledgling startup. I was out of money, out of time, and the stress left me out of ideas. So I stepped back.

A friend and mentor, Nick Cassimatis, generously offered me a job, part time, at his startup—he knew mine was failing and this would give me the opportunity to stabilize my finances a little, buy more time to find investment, and maybe decide to stay on if things didn’t work out. He threw me a lifeline, and for that, I’m extraordinarily grateful. Within days of accepting the offer, however, my long term girlfriend pulled the trigger and broke up with me. This devastating blow left me without the emotional bandwidth to creatively pivot or pitch my way out of the hole I was in. I could work and slowly rebuild my startup, but I couldn’t work, rebuild my startup, and grieve all at the same time. I stopped working on Lawgiver completely, took a full time offer from Nick a few months later, and thought maybe I’d try again some day with something else.

While I was working my interest in MCP began to grow, not because I had a good idea of what to do with it, but because the platform we were building, a no-code collaborative database that let you chat with anything and had some very secret sauce for working with AI and structured data through a unified system of ontologies, began to look threatened by it as well. I experimented with MCP on my own time and after several conversations with Nick and our product lead about the potential of MCP, its threat to our business, and what to do about it, we determined to co-opt it by integrating MCP totally into the platform. It worked. A week of dev time and some UI decisions later, we had a system whereby anything and everything on the platform could be talked to in Claude Desktop through MCP. It didn’t solve the platform’s other problems, and it didn’t exactly present an obvious use case, but it did stave off obsolescence and it gave myself and the team an opportunity to work on something new and exciting. Then, I was let go at the end of April with a couple months severance. I began formulating what I should do next.

After several weeks of grinding job applications, learning about new AI automation workflow tools, and trying my hand at freelancing, I noticed myself returning again and again to a desire to get deeper into AI. I had experience as an AI developer, but was not quite a machine learning engineer, and given the job market for devs, was beginning to worry that what skills I had were already outdated. Worse, I had taken a non-developer role at Nick’s startup, and had stopped coding for the most part while there. In the span of 5 months my skills had degraded. I was also concerned that the proliferation and success of AI automation workflow tools like Make.com and n8n meant that even coding itself was perhaps becoming passé. Vibe coding was another trend I didn’t see favorably, since it meant junior developers, designers, and PMs could quickly spin up prototypes and even full-fledged products, in some cases, without significant experience at all. How could I differentiate myself in a market with a collapsing middle, where all the jobs and money flowed to deep specialists and ML engineers, while the bottom became swamped with AI-empowered hungry vibe-coders vying for attention and opportunities?

The answer, as cliche as it sounds, was to follow my genuine interest. Through all this I still had an interest in political philosophy and governance, in how technology changes our relationship to power, each other, and ourselves. I had taken some of my newfound free time and doubled down for a period of weeks on my Youtube channel, which was going well, but not at the level where I could draw life-sustaining income before money ran out. After earning a pittance freelancing on Upwork, having a few AI automation consulting gigs fall through, and also finding I didn’t quite enjoy the attempt at pivoting into an agency model, I decided to face the music and return to what I know best: building things. I was going to return to coding, learn the new AI developer tools, and find something worthwhile to work on that would at the very least increase my chances of landing a job.

Share

A few months back I had taken a half-hearted crack at a congressional MCP server one weekend night. I managed to get a very dysfunctional demo up in the span of 3 or 4 hours, but it barely worked at all. Shortly after leaving the company, I had spun up a comprehensive MCP server for the Podbean API, both to learn more about MCP, as well as to try to use it to maybe automate some of my post-production for the Hacking State podcast (there’s a video about it here). I resolved to return to my abandoned and half-baked project with the congressional API to see if I could make it useful.

Riding the Wave

The first thing I did was start experimenting with the new vibe coding IDEs to try to speed up development time. Much of the heavy lifting of turning an API into an MCP server involves translating very specific endpoint descriptions, parameters, and return values into function calls. This process is tedious, regular, and well-defined, a perfect job for robots instead of humans. For some reason I can’t remember why I decided to try first with Windsurf, which ended up being my coding companion for the first 2/3rds of the project.

Windsurf may be far less popular than Cursor, but its name is phenomenologically apt. After a few days of using it like a noob, I began to not only get an intuitive sense of its strengths and weaknesses, but also its optimal tempo and limits. Vibe coding is also aptly named, as the experience of working with these tools has an immersive quality all its own. Hours disappeared into days as I sat totally transfixed on the process of building with this tool. I learned tips and tricks for feeding it documentation and context, updating logs and progress reports, breaking tasks down into manageable chunks, when to have it search the internet or execute terminal commands. Each feature the Windsurf team had created: memories, rules and workflows, I discovered their purposes one by one. As the project grew larger and more complex, my facility and familiarity with Windsurf increased. I found myself spending hours and hours coding completely uninterrupted, often without even music. Its a feeling I could spend more words trying to describe, but the flow states induced by these tools at a certain level of optimal project complexity are real and ineffable. I continued using Windsurf as CongressMCP grew until the problems I needed to solve started to become too complex for it to reliably improve my productivity.

The mere translation of API endpoints from Congress.gov had, over the course of a little more than a week, ballooned into a fully-fledged remote MCP server with user authentication, API key management, Stripe integration, a Supabase database connection, rate limiting and role-based middleware, an asynchronous server gateway interface, deployment scripts and more. I learned about MCP transport layers, and how Claude Desktop uses stdio, but the remote servers use http/sse. To deploy remotely, but get it working on Claude Desktop, I had to build and publish a bridge package on NPM that would translate between the two. There was also a frontend to deal with as well. Finally, when the congressional API endpoints were all working and the server was deployed and functioning, I realized that naive translation of the congressional API into tools and resources for MCP meant creating over 90 tools, an unwieldy amount for LLMs to know what to do with. Moreover, most MCP clients allow somewhere between 50 and 100 tools at a time to be registered, meaning they’d crowd out any other MCP server, or not even fit at all. I had worked furiously to produce tons of code with Windsurf, but now optimizing my mature project required going back in and reducing tons of complexity I had created to streamline functions and make it production-ready.

Cline, Claude Code, and Cleaning Up

While I continued using Windsurf into the consolidation process, I began to get curious about alternatives. Cline promised to have a superior, though pricier, coding agent that would habitually take in more context, something I sorely needed at this level of complexity. I was in the process of turning 91 congressional tools into just 6 comprehensive legislative toolsets, and wanted all the intelligence and context management I could get. I had even started using Google’s Gemini 2.5 for its 2 million token context window (though I eventually found Claude 4.0 sonnet to be better.) Cline did a good job of ingesting massive chunks of the codebase and reasoning quite well about them. I made good progress on some tough problems using it. Cline’s greatest downfall is that its bias to consume massive amounts of context, makes it extremely expensive to use. Even in comparison to burning through Claude 4.0 credits, Cline was costing me a fortune. As a developer on a fixed budget with no idea where or when I’d be getting my next paycheck after my last, this was not a cost I was willing to absorb. After a few days on Cline, I decided to finally take the leap and get into the intimidating and deceptively simple, non-IDE intelligent CLI solution from my favorite AI producer, Claude Code.

Claude Code is imperfect, but I haven’t felt compelled to return to Cline or Windsurf since. I spent the last week or so prior to, and after, launch working in Claude Code inside regular VSCode and found it suitable, reasonably priced, and maybe this is my imagination, but it seems to work better with Anthropic models than the others. I hate that it signatures my Github commits, and it does bug out from time to time, but it gets the job done. I was able to get my server deployed, working, and reasoning across four repos simultaneously without fail. I was so used to using Claude Code that by the time release was rolling up, I had began to use it for not only code, but also conversation about business strategy, tactics, pricing, and marketing. I’m told nothing gets sent back to Anthropic’s servers, I hope that’s true.

The Botched Launch

If you’ve made it this far and didn’t get lost in my personal trials or the technical exposition, congrats, you’ve made it to the juicy part. The night before my scheduled launch on ProductHunt I had everything ready. The server was done and functional both hosted and locally. The frontend looked great. I had lists of MCP registries to submit to, copy for LinkedIn, X, and Reddit, even a comedic demo video I had spent several hours splicing together. All tests were passing.

Then, I decided to do something drastic and impulsive: I open sourced the server. This was not something I had planned or expected. My intention was to deploy it as a paid SaaS product with a free tier with limited capabilities, and paid tiers for premium features. However, as I began looking into MCP registries, I saw that the overwhelming majority of non-proprietary MCP servers belonged to public repositories. The few that didn’t, generally had a large SaaS or infrastructure platform behind them. Some MCP registries were explicitly for open source servers. I was aware that a batteries-included paid MCP server as I had built was something of an experimental model. Most MCPs are a feature of existing products that serve to increase distribution or improve workflows for existing users, not be standalone products. Additionally, the one that I had built was around a very public and very free government API, so how could I justify charging? The more I thought about it and the more I considered the feedback I’d likely receive from posting something like this as a closed-source project, the more I began to question whether I had made the right decision in not opening up the code. In a conversation with Claude Opus 4, he made it clear in no uncertain terms that the best course of action, given the circumstance, would probably be to open the source code, use the launch as a way to get distribution and raise awareness about Lawgiver, and publish it under a limited commercial license that allowed anyone to self-host, but prohibited direct competition. I concluded that this made sense, so with my ProductHunt launch scheduled to go at 12:00AM PST on Tuesday night, at 9PM on Monday, I began converting the server and its pricing, tiers, and access to an open source model.

This was a hasty surgical procedure, but not impossible under the circumstances. In fact, it would’ve gone off without much disruption had another major incident not unexpectedly coincided with my overhaul. Shortly after the ProductHunt launch started, Heroku (my backend host) went down for what would turn out to be nearly 14 hours. This alone wouldn’t have necessarily been debilitating for the launch, except that my switch to open source had revealed a bunch of exposed API keys in an early file that at some point had been committed and removed. Though it is technically a security vulnerability I should’ve dealt with, I thought the codebase would never see the light of day and hadn’t been too concerned. At that point, I had actually forgotten it had ever happened. I looked into erasing the commit history, but given the repo had been exposed for a number of minutes since becoming aware of this issue, there was an infinitesimal risk some important API keys had been leaked. I had no choice but to reset them all. After doing this, I discovered Heroku was down when I went to replace the environment configuration on my deployment. The result of this was that nothing worked. All the old keys for email, Stripe registration and payments, updating my database, querying Congress, were now expired, and I was locked out of my deployment on Heroku, unable to update them.

The next 12-14 hours I spent helplessly watching as the ProductHunt launch I had intended to drive social media traffic to sat and withered on the vine. Without any way for users to sign up, use the product, or even receive emails, I waited for Heroku to get their systems back up; hoping I’d be able to salvage the launch or that maybe the ProductHunt gods would smile upon me regardless, and it would do well anyway. No such luck. It was late in the afternoon on Tuesday when Heroku finally got their systems back online. I went in and changed the keys, but by then my ranking had fallen. I continued on Wednesday with my release, and pushed my product out to Reddit, a bunch of MCP registries, X, Hackernews, and LinkedIn; but did not drive traffic to ProductHunt, as the chance for a big push was over. It garnered some attention, and did quite well in at least one subreddit, but had an anticlimactic reception overall.

I’m proud that I put it out. A congressional MCP server is a genuine piece of civic infrastructure, and as far as I can tell, I am the first person to publish a complete and comprehensive MCP server for the congress.gov API. It taught me a lot about MCP, how to collapse a large unwieldy API into a small set of tools, what to think about when building, deploying, and trying to monetize a SaaS product, how to do launches and what can go wrong, and what I’m willing to work on day and night with uncertain hope for reward. Best of all, it reinvigorated my dormant startup.

LawgiverAI is now officially an AI-native legislative and regulatory compliance infrastructure company. CongressMCP is our first product, and a proof of concept for a suite of AI-first tools and agents that promise to transform how we interface with, and analyze public policy. This project re-lit the fire in me for the future of AI, and gave me the confidence to reboot after a grueling hiatus.

I’m positioning to raise a round with a more refined and focus thesis, and a better idea of where Lawgiver is headed. I’m still not out of the woods yet, and have a very short runway, but I’m willing to do what’s necessary to keep it going. If you, dear reader, or anyone you know are looking to:

1. Invest in an AI-native infrastructure for governance play

2. Work with Lawgiver in a B2B context for regulatory or legislative tracking

3. Use, distribute, or extend CongressMCP in some way

4. Hire, contract, or consult me on MCP, RAG, or AI agents

Please don’t hesitate to reach out to: alex@lawgiver.ai or @distantpathos on X.

In the meantime, I’ll keep exploring the possibility space of technology, humanity, and governance; speaking, writing, and podcasting to you all about it.

Thank you for reading,

Murshak

Subscribe now

Share

We explore a distinction that Charles has been developing, which revolves around the concepts of honor versus dignity cultures. Drawing insights from his Substack post titled “A Short Survey of Honor and Dignity,” we look at how this theoretical framework can help explain significant pairings throughout Western history, including the philosophical debates between Epicureanism and Stoicism, Romanticism versus Classicism, and the modern cultural divide between liberalism and conservatism.

Share

To start, Charles defines the core attributes of honor and dignity cultures. In an honor-based culture, esteem is earnestly sought and is predicated on notions of trust, respect, and earned merit. Individuals are expected to exemplify socially approved behavior to maintain their standing and reputation. In contrast, dignity cultures center around inherent worth and individual rights, grounded in the belief that all human beings deserve a certain measure of respect, regardless of their achievements or failures. This fundamental distinction, as Charles elaborates, has immense implications on behaviors and social interactions within these cultures.

As our conversation unfolds, we discuss how the perception of status differs radically in honor versus dignity systems. Honor cultures traditionally elevate status through established hierarchy, often venerating elders and those who have earned their merit. This contrasts sharply with dignity cultures, which emphasize equal rights and universal dignity upheld by rationalism, a legacy of Enlightenment thought. Charles analyzes how these two cultures negotiate relationships, particularly in contractual matters, shedding light on cultural tensions witnessed in historical and contemporary political negotiations.

Charles' Substack: https://charlesherrman.substack.com/

Diverting into the realm of risk, Charles highlights that honor cultures appear more accepting of death and risk-taking, viewing these as part of a dignified existence. This differs from the almost preventative, risk-averse mindset prevalent in dignity-based societies. The conversation probes deep into the psychology of risk, challenging us to consider how these frameworks fundamentally affect ambition and the pursuit of personal goals.

We further contemplate the adaptive qualities of these cultural systems. While Charles notes that 90% of the world's current population embraces honor-based systems, he suggests that adaptability is not inherently tied to type of culture. Rather, he points out that historical shifts—such as the changing landscapes of governance in modern China—demonstrate that various political systems can exhibit forms of adaptability.

The discourse also touches on the implications of free riding within dignity cultures, especially in the context of immigration policies in Europe. Charles critically examines how dignity frameworks, which emphasize inherent worth, may inadvertently neglect the pragmatic implications of individual contributions to society, illustrating a vulnerable point in the dignity culture paradigm.

As we wind down, the conversation shifts to the philosophical roots of dignity, questioning how secularization and the loss of metaphysical foundations may impact its future longevity. Charles argues that while dignity is a relatively recent sociocultural construct, the progress made in this aspect over the last few centuries cannot be overlooked. Yet, he emphasizes that the respect and adherence to human rights remain critical challenges that practitioners of dignity culture must navigate moving forward.

This episode invites listeners to reflect upon the nuanced interplay between honor and dignity within their own contexts. We draw conclusions on how these cultural frameworks influence our personal interactions and societal structures, highlighting the potential for mutual understanding and respect across differing cultural ideologies. Concluding our dialogue, Charles encourages the audience to explore his works on various platforms, as he captivates with further examination of these critical themes.

Share

Subscribe now

If you enjoyed this talk, please leave a review on Spotify/iTunes.

Listen on:

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@alexmurshak

Apple:

Spotify:

RSS: https://feed.podbean.com/hackingstate/feed.xml

Our conversation begins by examining what it means to be "Nietzschean" - not as an ideology, but as a methodology for approaching morality and understanding psychological patterns in society. We discuss how moral systems evolve with changing demographics, comparing the nationalist God of the Old Testament with the more universal God of later Christianity. Uberboyo presents a fascinating neurological perspective, discussing how the brain's threat detection center influences both religious belief and tribal identity, suggesting both are rising among younger generations disillusioned with modern culture.

Subscribe now

The conversation goes into the psychological distinction between "life-affirming" and "life-denying" worldviews, with parallels drawn between ancient Rome's decline and our current cultural moment. We discuss the challenges facing Western civilization, the generational divide between institutional "Boomer" thinking and the more tribalistic instincts emerging in Gen Z, and whether there might be a path forward that incorporates elements of both Christian and Nietzschean thought. Throughout our discussion, we grapple with profound questions about metaphysics, morality, and meaning in an age of decadence and cultural transformation.

Despite our challenges, Uberboyo offers a white pill of hope: the possibility that younger generations might organically develop healthier moral instincts, potentially leading to cultural renewal in the West.

Uberboyo's channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrk8Y2fsR5i_5c1iTR9tZpg\

Uberboyo's website: https://uberboyo.com/

Share

If you enjoyed this talk, please leave a review on Spotify/iTunes.

Listen on:

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@alexmurshak

Apple:

Spotify:

RSS: https://feed.podbean.com/hackingstate/feed.xml

It’s been nearly three years since the publication of Balaji Srinivasan’s book on how to start a new country. His offshoot Network School offers a temporary residency “society as a service” program for startup founders who fancy themselves part of the global networked elite who work anywhere, have ties to nowhere, and live up there (in the cloud). The stated aim of this program is to serve as a launchpad for bootstrapping future startup societies. At $1500 a month for room and board + gym, it’s not a bad deal for enterprising young founders. But detractors will say its insufficient. The Network State promised new countries, not just sleep-away camps for digital nomads. We’ve yet to see a meaningful network state under its aspirational definition:1

Its defensible that programs like these are baby steps in the right direction. That it will take some time to cultivate and search for the most viable founders and models for establishing a network state. It is a truism that all great things, even new countries, must start somewhere.

The focus on physical implementation (or lackthereof) misses the core thesis of The Network State—that the network is more powerful than the state. This confusion is borne out of necessity for marketing a concept as an investment opportunity. The internal logic of the network state as a collection of products or subscription services masks its most central and powerful idea. It is not that the network is a state, but that it supersedes the state.

What it really portends is the rise of a superior information structure. That this structure may or may not eventually own physical territory, command an army, or yield fat returns to VCs, is beside the point. These claims sell the idea and make it sexy, but obfuscate the true point of contention: whether or not the network can and will succeed the state because it has more optimal and coherent information flows. Thinking through this question unlocks the answers to all others—don’t lose the polis for the trees.

Share

Subscribe now

We explore the rise of the dissident right, Trump’s 2024 comeback, paleoconservatism, the influence of online political movements, and the challenges of building lasting alliances on the right.

Topics include: the impact of tech elites on immigration policy, generational shifts among Gen Z and Gen Alpha, the return to traditional religion among young conservatives, and the future of nationalism, populism, and right-wing strategy. Patrick also shares insights into his own motivations, his view of Trump’s evolving political instincts, and which figures he’s eager to interview next — from J.D. Vance to Nick Land.

Share

Subscribe now

If you enjoyed this talk, please leave a review on Spotify/iTunes.

Listen on:

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@alexmurshak

Apple:

Spotify:

RSS: https://feed.podbean.com/hackingstate/feed.xml

We also explore demographic challenges and the ideological conflicts between traditional values and technological solutions. Strauss advocates for a vision that integrates innovation with tradition, concluding that with strong leadership, we can navigate toward a thriving future.

Share

Arcadius Strauss:

On X: https://x.com/ArcadiusStrauss

On Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@ArcadiusStrauss

Arcadius Strauss

Techno-Nationalist | Towards Western Civilisation 4.0

If you enjoyed this interview, please leave a review on Spotify/iTunes. Support Hacking State: https://hackingstate.substack.com/subscribe

Listen on:

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@alexmurshak

Apple:

Spotify:

RSS: https://feed.podbean.com/hackingstate/feed.xml

We talk about the value of Plutarch’s “Parallel Lives”, the contemporary thirst for heroes and grand narratives, Platonism vs. Stoicism, Archeofuturist aesthetics, why futurism is ripe for our cultural moment, his Rostra group and training men in the art of rhetoric, and why our future depends on recovering the spirit of zeal.

Cost of Glory:

On X: https://x.com/costofglory

Website: https://www.costofglory.com

Share

If you enjoyed this interview, please leave a review on Spotify/iTunes.

Support Hacking State:

Subscribe now

Listen on:

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@alexmurshak

Apple:

Spotify:

RSS: https://feed.podbean.com/hackingstate/feed.xml

We discuss the relationship between individual health and the political system, his upcoming book with Passage Press, “The Last Men,” the consequences of declining testosterone levels and sperm counts, the harmful effects of environmental xenoestrogens, MAHA (Make America Healthy Again), the dangers of reliance on Ozempic and other GLP1 agonists, the iatrogenics of the medical industrial complex, and his upcoming speech at the 2025 Natal Conference.

Raw Egg Nationalist on X: https://x.com/Babygravy9

Share

If you enjoyed this interview, please leave a review on Spotify/iTunes.

Support Hacking State:

Subscribe now

Listen on:

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@alexmurshak

Apple:

Spotify:

RSS: https://feed.podbean.com/hackingstate/feed.xml

We discuss the place of the Great Books in education, a justification of political philosophy in terms of the good life, his review of Palantir's Alex Karp's and Nicholas Zamiska's book, “The Technological Republic,” the challenges posed by life mediated through technology, the interplay between great thinkers, and his upcoming book on Plato’s “Republic” and Thucydides’ “History of the Peloponnesian War”, exploring how times of decadence create a desire for revolutionary politics and drawing parallels to the pitfalls of today.

Share

Alex Priou

Personal site: https://alexpriou.com/

UATX profile: https://www.uaustin.org/people/alex-priou

On X: https://x.com/alexpriou

Subscribe now

If you enjoyed this interview, please leave a review on Spotify/iTunes.

Support Hacking State: https://hackingstate.substack.com/subscribe

Listen on:

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@alexmurshak

Apple:

Spotify:

RSS: https://feed.podbean.com/hackingstate/feed.xml

Share

Follow ARX-Han on

X: https://x.com/ARX_Han

Substack: https://www.decentralizedfiction.com/

His novel, INCEL: https://www.amazon.com/INCEL-Novel-ARX-Han/dp/B0CJLCZVCG/

If you enjoyed this interview, please leave a review on Spotify/iTunes.

Support Hacking State

Subscribe now

Listen on:

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@alexmurshak

Apple:

Spotify:

RSS: https://feed.podbean.com/hackingstate/feed.xml

We discuss:

• How Russia and Ukraine is an 18th century war

• Why Israel-Hezbollah war is the real modern war

• Europe’s demographics of death

• Why “the fertility crisis is a vitality crisis”

• War as the engine of Europe

• China’s military prospects

• The Heroic Danes

• National Service as the key to countries’ futures

Edward Luttwak on X: https://x.com/ELuttwak

Share

Subscribe now

If you enjoyed this interview, please leave a review on Spotify/iTunes.

Support Hacking State: https://hackingstate.substack.com/subscribe

Listen on:

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@alexmurshak

Apple:

Spotify:

RSS: https://feed.podbean.com/hackingstate/feed.xml

Share

We discuss:

- Factors contributing to the fertility crisis

- Why Israel is an exception among developed nations in fertility

- The power of strong pro-natal belief - Components of the “Fertility Stack”

- The Amish as the highest fertility group in America

- The importance of allo-parenting and grandparents

- The role of religiosity

-Why economic arguments don’t explain low fertility

- Embattlement as an explanation for nations’ fertility

- The limits of egg freezing and IVF

- The effectiveness of pro-natal public policy interventions

- How the housing we build affects fertility

More Births Substack: https://www.morebirths.com/

Daniel Hess on X: https://x.com/MoreBirths

Share

If you enjoyed this interview, please leave a review on Spotify/iTunes.

Support Hacking State:

Subscribe now

Listen on:

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@alexmurshak

Apple:

Spotify:

RSS: https://feed.podbean.com/hackingstate/feed.xml

The conversation delves into the current state of nuclear energy adoption, the regulatory hurdles it faces, and the hype surrounding new technologies in the energy sector. Jonathan emphasizes the need for effective communication and collaboration among stakeholders to drive meaningful progress in renewable energy. This conversation goes into the intersection of AI, energy demand, and consulting, highlighting the rapid evolution of technology and its implications for industries. The speakers discuss the increasing complexity of AI systems, the importance of bridging technical knowledge gaps in energy sectors, and the role of machine learning in consulting. They emphasize the necessity of domain knowledge in effectively utilizing AI tools and the cultural shifts affecting workforce development. Additionally, the conversation addresses recruitment challenges in a changing landscape, advocating for a more nuanced approach to hiring.

Scharf Energy Consulting:

scharfenergy.com

Share

Subscribe now

If you enjoyed this interview, please leave a review on Spotify/iTunes.

Support Hacking State: https://hackingstate.substack.com/subscribe

Listen on:

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@alexmurshak

Apple:

Spotify:

RSS: https://feed.podbean.com/hackingstate/feed.xml

The See meditation app: https://theseeapp.com/

Daniel Schwarzoff on X: https://x.com/dschwarzhoffjr

Share

Subscribe now

If you enjoyed this interview, please leave a review on Spotify/iTunes.

Listen on:

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@alexmurshak

Spotify:

RSS: https://feed.podbean.com/hackingstate/feed.xml

Share