#406 - “They Want to Replace God” The UFO PsyOp Just Got Real | Matthew Ehret

I listened to your podcast with Kurt Metzger and boy, that was wild. You guys covered, well, Kurt did most of the talking, but every time you chimed in, it was very interesting. So, what's your background and how did you get into all this stuff? Yeah, that's a great question. Kurt is a really fun dance partner, dialectically speaking. So yeah, that was a bit of a controlled bit of chaos that I enjoyed. My background is the arts, so I was a graphic design illustration type person until I kind of got my little shaking up as I was on the precipice of figuring out do I go into which line of work in illustration, storyboarding, comic books or whatever back in 2003 or 2004. It was around that same time that I started some of the crazy conspiracy theories of some of my friends and an ex started becoming more apparent, had more grounding in reality than I had hitherto expected as I had encountered some of my own discoveries along the way, especially around 9/11, and the idea that there was perhaps an organized intention to bring about some form of a societal reset in a very bad cataclysmic way. So that was a big shock for me, and so I spent a couple of years trying to figure out well, how do I deal with that reality of like, okay, if let's say 9/11 wasn't what we've been told about some guy in a cave, maybe there was some elements of controlled intention. In that, what do I do with that fact, like how does that change how I thought my society ran and how I negotiated my relationship with that? So that was a bit of a dark spot. Where'd you grow up? Montreal. Montreal. So from there, I guess I was just trying to figure it out and bouncing around a bunch of theories that I could try to hold on to to try to explain how there's been this transgenerational conspiracy that hasn't necessarily been noble in intention to create a certain very bad effect. And along the way, I found myself volunteering with the LaRouche organization, which is a, they had a small little, it's an American-based political organization that was very active in the United States, and they had a small little office in Montreal, usually with political tables, with like, you know, impeached Dick Cheney or something. But I'm in Canada. I'm like, what am I going to do with this fact? But I was on a smoke break, and I found myself speaking to one of these activists. And basically they had signage saying, you know, do something about the depopulation agenda. And I was like, you know what? I could speak to that. At that point, I had like gotten a bit of a handle on this idea that there was an intention to reduce the world population. And so I was like, you know, I got 50 minutes for a smoke break. Let's have a conversation. After all, even though I found that they didn't know as much as I did about the secret societies that I felt like I was probably a lot wiser than I really was at the time, but at the very least they were trying to do something proactively and I wasn't. And that kind of bothered me. And they were providing some sort of a sense of an optimistic orientation about how do you deal with this very dark sort of shadow hanging over society that I didn't have this concept. So I was like in a very dark place thing that there's no resistance, there never has been. People dialectic for centuries to bring us to this place. And I was like, oh, there's actually a way of thinking about my history and about what's going on today that I could possibly engage in. So for about a decade, I was working with them for, and there was some bad spots to that. But there was also, I think, a lot of good that I value in terms of a method because there was a sort of cultural educational program at the time, 2006 to about 2016 is when I was involved. So for the first few years, they had a very strong intention to, you know, focus on reading original writings. So on top of doing political activism, I was reading a lot of Plato doing a lot of constructive genes. You agree, Greek? No, not the original Plato. Oh, okay. No. Just what I could get my hands on, usually Benjamin Jowler or other shady Oxford translators. You can't rely on those fucking translators, they try to switch it up on you when you don't know. They do do that. But there was a general still meta story about the method of the dialectic and the zeroing in on paradoxes that is contained within all of the platonic dialogues that I definitely was able to find to value in. As far as Plato's general method of getting you to think about how do you, how do you investigate your core axioms, your core unexamined assumptions that are at the root foundation of all of the edifices of thoughts or hypotheses that we have about the nature of reality that we're trying to navigate and model and map out. So that type of process of learning how to have like external dialectics with others while at the same time learning more about how your own mind works and then learning where the paradoxes or how to smell out paradoxes where a hypothesis doesn't fit with the empirical that of reality and where the cracks are. That's like really something that even Benjamin Jowler and the dirty dishonest translators can't necessarily scrub away. And so that gave me a good, I think, just love of a way of thinking that I've been able to apply more and more to my own research. Yeah, there's a huge difference between the ancient philosophers, especially the philosophers of Greek antiquity compared to the philosophy of today. It's very different. It's very, it's much more lazy. Back then they were far more unforgiving on themselves with what they do. And now like they, like back then they would question the whole framework of science and the whole framework of thinking. For example, if you were like working on the philosophy of knowledge or like the theory of knowledge and you're studying all the history of science and how the paradigms have changed. But you, for example, you subscribe to Christian ideals or you, your model of reality is looking through everything through the Christian lens. Well, you're not going to question how the Catholic Church destroyed all of the knowledge of classical antiquity and you're not going to look at the inquisition and all this stuff. You're going to be biased. And it's the same way, like say if you're today, if you have some sort of a political bent and you look at everything through like a liberal Democrat lens or a social Democrat lens and you're thinking about human nature and all these things and how maybe different people from different races from different parts of the world may have different IQs. And maybe everyone is not created equal, right? Like you're not going to take those livers and those people back then in antiquity, I feel like they had a much more robust version of philosophy that would basically like, that would be where every single, every single part of your worldview would encompass this work and everything would be a part of a part of the whole, you know what I mean? Yeah, that's a good observation. There's definitely a lot more rigorous discipline when it comes to epistemology and there wasn't a tendency to divide. The material mechanics of an explanation of how things work from the metaphysical sort of first causes of why they are. And there wasn't like, and from, I think, enlightenment, the enlightenment period on where there was more of a lazy tendency to sort of treat the world as if you had like this, these two separate systems that had no correlation where, you know, when it comes down to the mechanics of things, then you could be an engineer, you could be a technician, you could have your opinions about, you know, how a machine works. But then that type of realm has been severed from the, like, the why is it all happening the way it is instead of some other possible, fathomable outcome. And when they do tend to get into metaphysics, like, that's the idea of the positivist repulsion to metaphysics that came out of the Ernst Mach School and other 19th century empiricists who were like really, really obsessed with just getting like empirical data that you could taste touch, you know, put on a chart. Yeah. Yeah. They hated the idea of metaphysics because it was messy and there was ideas of, like, justice and soul and, you know, God or whatever that is, like, these metaphysical things that are not expressable in the sensory domain, but are ideas that are accessible through the domain of, like, thought. And they didn't like that because you couldn't cut up justice. You couldn't cut up, you know, honor something like that. You can't weigh it. You can't measure it. Yeah. Like, a lot of the, the ancients didn't take those assumptions. They tended to see a, right, that one float from the other and back and forth. There was a reciprocity. Right. Right. Also today, even in science, you see it. Like, right? Like, scientists are, they're very pigeonholed and they have their blinders on and they work on little things here and there, right? They, they, they, they very rarely or almost never question the whole paradigm or work on the whole, like, the scientific, the scientific method or take like a zoomed out 30,000 foot view of this stuff. Yeah. And not only that, but it's, you know, it's all funded by corporations and special interests and all that. I'm sure that the Rockefeller Foundation has the greatest love of truth and cares about sir. Right. Yes. Yeah. No, absolutely. And, but that's where I was thinking too, like, usually when they do allow themselves to go into some form of metaphysics, it's messy and sloppy. And so what you tend to get are like, people who will be really, really rigorous, mathematically on a localized thing like heat engines or thermodynamics, but then, and they'll, they'll, they'll be very good at the math and just measuring systems as closed systems that you, that you get within like the second law of thermodynamics and that entire framework built up around, uh, Helmholtz and, uh, and Clausius. But then when they say, okay, well, now what is the whole universe? Why is the universe? Well, they're, they will say very quickly and sloppily, well, the whole universe must be an extrapolation of this type of heat engine, uh, system that we're seeing slowly winding down because heat engines are only going to be able to continue to function with its multiple parts serving a purpose, as long as there's like an energy distribution, which is constantly moving towards homeostasis, towards basically heat death. And then they'll say, well, the whole universe must be expressing on the, on the meta level this exact thing that I'm seeing on the, on the empirical level. level in the localized region of the universe that I happen to be, like, measuring things and, you know, in my-- So they'll say, "Thus, the whole universe is animated by effectively death," and that we thus are, like, constantly moving inexperably towards some place of ultimate-- Right. --to see death. --Right. --And it's like, "Well, I was a bit of a leap you just made there. Why do we assume that something that is useful in the localized region is also happening on the-- on the meta-narrative, like, the meta-scheme, too? And how does that account for how we have these higher systems, like us who are having conversations, and thinking about thinking? And that came out of something that seems to be, you know, a simple cell that meable, very boring thing a few hundred million years ago, which, what, then you have to account that that's all just some random anomaly, that you had all of these-- these systems that were, like, low-state, low-- like, high entropy-- systems going into lower and lower entropy over time, or vice versa. --Right, right. --And it's all just an accident that we happen to be here, you know? So-- --Yeah, applying our laws of physics to the universe, essentially, right? --Well, rather than seeing that our laws of physics are-- have to be seen in the context of something higher that may not necessarily abide by the exact same functions that we're measuring on the localized region, you know? So there might be something that we're missing, for example. --Right. --You know, so-- --Right, totally. --We're given, like, these cutouts of what the sun is, what the earth is, what all the planets are when we're in high school, and we're told that this is exactly the way it is. We know exactly that the earth has these aspects of the, you know, 2,000 miles of-- of mantle with 2,000 miles of-- --Right. --of this specific kind of, like, you know, a core that has thermal convection, and this what the sun looks like is a-- but it's like, honestly, we scratch the surface to all of these things. --Right. --And we don't have the humility to just see that, okay, there are things that we have that have been truthful discoveries, and we know that they're truthful discoveries, but they're highly flawed or they-- there's a lot of unknowns that we should take into consideration to be more honest with ourselves, until we actually figure out a way to do the work properly to dig more than, like, 16 kilometers into the earth's crust. --Yeah. Yeah, there's too much-- there's too much dogma in the science of that stuff, you know? And this is another, like, funny thing that-- another thing I get into it with George Johnny all the time when we talk about-- speaking of him, I was just, uh, having a fun conversation with him earlier-- but, um, like, the point of the universe, like, the one of the points that George Johnny makes-- well, I think it was one of the times he's on the show. We were talking about, like, the idea-- like, the idea of the universe having to be created by one person or one thing at one specific time, and he explains that this is a-- this is a logical fallacy, that the universe had to have been created by something or someone at some point in time. And the way he was explaining it was, like, the universe is in a constant state of flux. There's constantly planets, uh, being born and dying, solar systems, emerging and dying, galaxies emerging and dying, and universes emerging and dying. And now, if you even want to encompass, like, the idea of the multiverse, that same thing is happening in this constant-- basically, reality, and the cosmos as the Greek philosophers would call it-- is in a constant state of flux. Things are always emerging and-- and going away. And just because-- like, his whole point is that, um, because of that and because we know that that's true, that, like, why do we have to jump to the conclusion or have this idea that everything that was created all at once by one person? And he thinks that's a logical fallacy. I just sat there and was like, "Whoa, crazy." Well, the way I try to look for, um, I think one of the-- one of the things that I've noticed is not necessarily useful as far as extrapolating, um, dynamics that shape our empirical world that we live in. Like, we're kind of, like, born to a world that-- we were a baby, you know, before that we were fetus, before that we were really not a thing, materially speaking, then we're going to die. And everything in the material world that we're trying to map and understand, have that-- that quality of being limited and bounded within space, but also in time. So there's the space-time boundedness of all systems because everything is a system we're made up of parts as well, right? There's thousands of-- of-- of millions of billions of trillions of elements to each of the cells, right? That-- that make us a-- a unified thing. But I'm still, like, despite all of the multiple parts that make me up, which are super complex systems, I'm still, like, an-- an identity when I look-- when I look in the mirror, and I think of myself when I was, like, five years old, being angry that-- that I wasn't being given the fair amount of toys that the other kid in-- in my daycare was being given, and I felt, like, that sense of injustice. They're still at-- that certain feeling that I would say, even though I'm physically almost entirely a different person physiologically, then when I was a five-year-old kid, there's still certain feelings I have of, like, the anger of injustice, the anger of unfairness, you know, that-- that still-- are something inside of me that I associate somehow with my persona, personality that may be a femoral in many other ways, because a lot of the things I liked are one to be when I was a kid. I don't have those same affinities, or-- I don't-- I-- I like pickles. I used to hate that. But then, so the-- I-- I think when we start getting into the realm of first causes from the mechanics, we tend to bring in some of the artifacts of, like, the assumption that there must be, like, when we think about the creator and all of creation, an absolute beginning and an absolute end, because it's, like, everything I see in my world has that. Why not the entirety of the cosmos must also have a beginning moment in space and time. And then, the question is, like, is it some theological 6,000 years ago thing, or is it a bunch of modern, you know, statistical probability-fixated quantum physicist mathematicians who are, like, arguing about it, whether it's 13.7 billion years ago with a big bang or 14 billion years ago, or now I think they just discovered it must be 16.9 billion years ago, or something. They're having these, like, debates are forever, like, the-- it's kind of scholastic kind of debates of the how many angels can fit on the pinhole-- the head of a pin. Right. It's not that different in my mind. And so, for me, I try to just look at, well, the qualities first, rather than try to quantify the time or the location in some presumed infinite Cartesian box in which, you know, everything just was created by either a big guy with a beard or whether some random, spontaneous-- so they just, like, popped out of the universe, you know, with some singularity, which then has other implications to that. I could-- if I-- either one of them, I could then dance and add layers to whether a guy did it 7,000 years ago or 8,000 or 9,000 years-- 6 billion years ago. What are the young earth creationists believe? What is their time frame? I don't know. I thought there were 6,000, isn't it? Yeah, that's probably right. That's the consensus. Yeah, yeah. 6,000. But even then, there's probably some varieties of fake debate where they feel like they're having debates between how they interpret Genesis or something, yeah. But it's a waste of time. The first time I heard about Omni to Muscaria, I thought it was just some fringe head shop hippie fat. We've all seen the gas station fakes out there. Until I was introduced to Amitara, and I realized there's a bunch of science behind the real deal and how useful it is. The compound muskimal interacts with GABA receptors, the same system tied to relaxation, sleep, and nervous system balance. Amitara won me over with their education on the science and history of this botanical. They're the largest Omni to supplier in the US, and what separates them from the junk is how serious they take their quality. Full third party lab testing, transparent sourcing, and actual educational content, and over 60,000 customers at this point. What really changed the game for me is that these guys are not gimmicky at all. I swear by their blue lotus gummies, I take them most days after work. They put me in a creative, flow state headspace, which is great for work or winding down, and also great for hanging out with my family. Plus the fact that I can trust these guys because they're doing the real research and the real sourcing behind these products, it gives me real peace of mind. So if you're like me and you want to try it from a source that you can trust, go to Amitara.com/go/DJ, and use the code DJP22 for 22% off your first order. Again, that's AMENTARA.com/go/DJ, and use the code DJP22. The first things I try to focus on is what are the ultimate core qualities first before quantity that I can think about. That's why I use the example of my own body and my identity as something which transcends the sum parts, the sum total of the parts that make me up. Then I presume that there is some quality of the meta process, whatever it is that organizes the architecture of the entirety of the cosmos and its purpose and flow to whatever it is that's also organizing me as part of that, an integral part of that creation or that process. I feel like there's probably the fact that I can never know it. But I can at least conceptualize it, means that there's some correlation on some level of me in the divine, whatever that word is, whatever it means to different people. Right. And there's the guy, I was talking to Kurt about this there a day. There's that guy, Robert Sapulski, who thinks it's all a coping mechanism. Have you heard of that guy? No. So his idea of all of this stuff, this god-shaped hole in the human mind is basically what that is. This guy is an expert. He's a primatologist and what else is he? Pull him up. Neurologist, primatologist, crazy looking homeless, he looks like a homeless dude but he's really smart. Yeah, so he thinks that this stuff is all a stress-reducing mechanism and it's nature's anti-depressant. And, you know, because of the fact that we can never know this stuff, right? We have to come up with these stories in our heads, these stories that we tell ourselves to explain it to us so we can go through life and not be, like, hyper-vigilant 24/7. - Mm-hmm. You know? - Well, I'm good. - Anyway, that's his theory. - So he's a primitologist, so he's. So his stick is he's a neuroscientist and a primatologist, so he studies apes and the brain. - Oh, gosh, yeah. I don't know. I'm read his books. I just like. - I mean, it might be a certain element of. I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water. - Yeah. - And I would say that probably. It's definitely. - It's an interesting data point. I mean, it's. - It's a definite. I'd be curious to read his books and actually learn what he really thinks. - Sure. Why not? But, you know, I think that definitely when you have a sense of a reason for something, even if it's. Even if you're living in a pretty chaotic situation that's kind of scary, your emotional tone is definitely more inclined to meditative, like, okay, there's a reason for it, at least. You're less inclined to, like you said, be in a hyper. - Yeah. -. hyper. - What is stress-per-sympathetic over override. So there's an element, I'm sure, of knowing that there's a reason for things or having an idea that there might be a reason for something happening. And I'm sure that part of the creation of a lot of the mythos, the same stories are rooted in. But I wouldn't say that that would be all it is, either, because I think there is. Improvable evidence that certain stories have embedded within them, lessons that bring us into greater wisdom, and wisdom, in my mind, is not something to touch from the objective harmonics or purposes of the universe outside of us, that there's some. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. Do you think that the idea of human wisdom might have. is something completely severed from objective truth? Or is it connected in some way in your mind? I don't know. I'm not sure. So you think it's. What's what? Well, I think. I tend to think that it has something to do with increasing your power. one's power of discernment based upon standards that are connected to natural law. Like not just your particular subjective flavor of what you want things to be, but the way things ontologically are outside of yourself, that we can use to guide our discernment, our judgment of the right of force over a multitude of choices of paths that we take, and that we have to choose from every moment. So like how adaptable you are, maybe? That would fit into it. How adaptable you are to reality, or to the objective world? But you could adapt to something terrible too. Like, you know, if somebody could be hyper-adapted to a Nazi fascist regime, merging and succeed in climbing through the ladders of success, or whatever within the machinery of something that is otherwise based rooted on some core, core, core fallacies that we should have picked up on. They could be, come very successful, tear-garden for a youth and age doctor, being the unfit, and be very respected in your community and career, and be published in prestigious Nazi journals, you know? But it doesn't necessarily mean that that was something that was the best or wisest choice for you to do as a human being. So I wouldn't say that it's necessarily just adaptability, I think. Not just that, but that's certainly a part of it, right? Like, how flexible you are to new situations, new environments, new people, and being able to basically move through the world successfully, and survive, and. Or be willing to sometimes deem that it might be wiser to perhaps not be successful, not have material. I'm not talking materialism. I'm talking like successful in successful in the biological way, is in like having children and like the evolution aspect of it, and like thriving in a community, and being a part of a community, and contributing to other people's lives, contributing to your family, and like that aspect of it. I'm not talking about like a monetary. No, and that's definitely a good, but I wouldn't say that that's an absolute good thing, because there's conditions around which I could see and have seen examples of communities being, you know, you could have like a railing community, or whatever, like some community that is devoted to human sacrifice, or something like that, that you might find yourself operating with. Sure. And the question is, is that is it really such a noble thing that one is highly adapted to that particular community that they find themselves operating within, you know, or the other question, too, is sometimes with Socrates. Well, you would have to be not wise enough to say the fuck away. As well, right? That's another factor in the whole thing, too. But also, like Socrates or Cicero are two men who at different times deem that were healthier for their soul's health, to take a course that involved their bodies dying at a certain moment, in time when choices were made, and both of them could have probably have made other compromises to survive and live out many more years. And yet, they chose that based upon the objective circumstances that were around them, that it were best to take the course that they did, and drink the hemlock, or face mark Anthony, and lose your head, which is what Cicero ended up doing, as he was trying to fight to keep Rome from becoming a full-blown empire, and try to preserve its Republican aspects before it fully embraced its new destiny. Socrates, too, right, was seeing the virtuous elements of what made Athens viable from Solon's reforms onwards, slipping away, as the softest had increasingly taken over control of the government, and the government had increasingly slipped into becoming more imperial in its behavior, as it stabbed its allies in the back and created the Pelophennesian War, which was totally unnecessary. It was like taking allies and just saying, "Okay, now the sudden we're the most powerful game in town, so you're going to start paying us field tea now, and if you don't, it became like mafia logic, and we're going to basically go to war, destroy you," which annihilated the several generations of Athenians when Socrates was still becoming a man, living through that, and trying to figure out how do you redeem that society that's on its way into darkness? Yeah, but those dudes also f---ed kids too, so you can't really take it with, you got to take it with a grain of salt. They were sick fuckers. How much is slander? I mean, whatever it's that we have that Socrates actually f---ed kids. Not maybe not Socrates, but a lot of people back then. There was so much child trafficking and pirating and f---ing obsessed. They had courgees and nothing more to the sun, man, right? They were f---ing crazy about it. They were f---ing crazy. They had to balance a new thing, and now it's just, yeah, how about Liberia going for what? Yeah, right. Then you had swimming pool full of dead kids at one point or something? Well, that's, yeah, the Isle of Capri was quite the center of debauchery and a polydynacious worship of, yeah, there's a lot of human sacrifice. We've been talking about that a lot lately about like, "I'm not, that's something I've been rack-in-my-brain-on, like the connection between Epstein and the ancient Greek Roman Empire, the ancient Roman empires that were doing all this crazy shit." And Epstein was, he was, what did he have? He had people call him. What was the movie Peter Leventa told us about that Epstein modeled his island off of that he made people call him the magus. Have you heard of that? There's this movie called the magus, and it's basically the same story. Magus? Magus, yeah, like Magi. And it took place in Greece actually. And there was this dude who had an island and he had underage girls go in there. And Epstein, he had a fucking temple that looked exactly like Epstein's temple to Poseidon on his island, except he didn't have the blue stripes on it. That's the only difference. And there's emails, they're in, it's in the files where Epstein's making people email him. He's making them address him as magus. Really? Yeah, that's fucking good. I heard that there was also somebody who showed me an image to, I think it's the Cavendish family of England that have a giant estate. And on one of their states is an almost exact replica. And this is like a Norman family that came in with a Norman conquest under William. And that's one like most of the elites of England and the, you know, had had established themselves when they were granted sort of perpetual fiefdoms in the Doomsday book. And I think it was, I'm sure it was the Cavendish family I think that that has on one of their biggest estates, this exact replica of that temple, that little shrine thing. Really? Yeah, I wish I could, I don't know if you were able to pull it up, Steve, I should have. How would you find it if you searched Epstein like temple Cavendish family estate maybe? How do you spell that family? Cavendish, C-A-V-E-N-D-I-S-H. Now, it might be another family, I don't know, them screwing up. But it's definitely one of the older Norman conquest families. Yeah, I mean, as far as you go back, is that it? No, that's Epstein. No, that's the Epstein island. Chess worth house. Oh, shucks, maybe I've got the wrong British oligarchical family could be possible. Yeah, yeah, he dominated. That's okay. That's all right. That's the one in the movie, Megas. Oh, yeah? On the left. On the left, yeah, so it's not painted, but it's like it's got to save dome on top. where it's got the same sort of like geographical type thing. Like it's got on the tip of an island surrounded by water. - And what culture is this in Amash too? Is this Egyptian or is this Babylonian or what? - I think it's Greek, isn't it? - Is it Greek? - I don't know. - Oh, the temple itself. - The temple itself. - That's a good quote. I think it's supposed to be a temple to Poseidon. - It's a Poseidon temple, okay. - That's what your Johnny told me. - Well, that would be interesting 'cause that does have certain Atlantean. - Right. - Yeah, and they were obsessed with fucking her Gilae and had the Taramar shit where she was obsessed with finding Atlantis. - What's she now? - Yeah, you heard of that. - I knew I knew Taramar. - The Taramar. - The Atlantean. - Yeah, so when she went on the run after Epstein himself before they called her, she changed her name to Janet Atlantis. And I guess Janet was based on like the Janet flights and like the unmarked airplanes. And Atlantis was because she was obsessed with Atlantis and she had a submarine called the Atlantis. And she was literally trying to get permission from Castro to go dive, take her submarine down to find those ruins off the coast of Cuba. - Is that true, and she was obsessed with Atlantis. - She was obsessed with looking to this. - That's interesting. - There's a fascinating, I highly recommend George Johnny's sub-stack article on this. It's called, I think it's just called, so you can find it, just type in Jason George Johnny, Janet Atlantis on Gilae. And he breaks down the whole backstory and like all the connections she had, all the people that she met with and all the emails that she wrote about this. And she was even meeting with, she, George Johnny claims, I don't know what his source was, but he says that she had a sexual relationship with Jacques Cousteau's daughter maybe. - Really? - Something like that. Someone related to Jacques Cousteau, another woman. - Okay. - But. - Well Jacques Cousteau is another out of whack one there. I didn't know. - I don't know much about him other than he's really into the ocean. - Well also he's got the obsession with global depopulation. - Is it really? - 200 million people should be all, all that is permitted under a healthy society that's in equilibrium with nature. - Ocean Outlaw, a portrait of Gilae and Maxwell. - I'll check that out. - That's a really good. - July 20th. So that's the last story. - Last slide, right? - Okay, well that's interesting. That's very interesting. - What does it say about, okay, what does it say? - What is it? - Okay, and it's Stevenson. - No. - What does it say about Cousteau? - J-A-C-Q-U. There you go. Okay, Gilae's fascination with Atlantis and with the oceans began with her childhood on account of her father's friendship with Jacques Cousteau. - Awesome. - Not only was Robert Maxwell with Jacques Cousteau, friends with Jacques Cousteau, but Captain Bob's Lady Gilaean Yacht was also eventually fitted out with equipment designs and design features provided through channels connected through Cousteau's oceanographic network. And as reported by the journalist Cousteau, confessed to Maxwell that his lifelong exploration of the oceans was secretly and obsessively motivated by the quest to find Atlantis. Gilaean, who is bisexual according to George Johnny, tried to cultivate a relationship with Cousteau's granddaughter, Alexandra, who has denied the witness testimony, but she was on the island with Maxwell and Epstein. - Okay. - Fucking crazy. - That is interesting. Yeah, I. - So he wanted depopulation? - Yeah, he's a big. I think 200 million was his number of what should be permitted under a healthy, like a healthy homeostatic society that is in harmony, and his idea of harmony with nature, right? - Look at this, he says this. - You can go with it. Jacques Cousteau depopulation 200 million. I can't say when he said it, but it's something that's pretty well known. He was not hiding that. He wasn't liking it. It's not like his esoteric secret doctrine, you know? - Right, right. - I'm sure you'll be able to find something. - I'm not in my 20s anymore. And even though I've been improving my diet and my sleep, I still have noticed a drop in focus, energy, and motivation. And we shouldn't be relying on stimulants or drugs with unnatural additives. I just want my body working the way it's supposed to be, and that's what led me to Marsmen. A lot of guys notice changes as testosterone drops with age, less energy, slower recovery, and a harder time staying in shape. Marsmen is a natural supplement designed to support healthy testosterone levels, weight management, and exercise performance with ingredients like Toncat Alley, Shiligee, Zinc, Boron, and more. What I notice is steadier energy, better focus, and faster recovery after workouts. No caffeine spike, just a steady, consistent drive throughout the day. And I love that it keeps things natural. Marsmen is made in the USA, third party tested, and it comes with a 90 day money back guarantee. And for a limited time, our listeners can get 50% off for life, plus free shipping, and three free gifts at mengo2mars.com. That's spelled M-E-N-G-O-T-O-M-A-R-S dot com for 50% off and three free gifts when you check out. And it's also available on Amazon. After you purchase, they're gonna ask where you heard about them, and please support our show by letting them know we sent you. - I think that part of the idea of a lot of these, and we can jump back to the Atlantis pursuit thing, but when it comes to a lot of the ideals of the radical ecologists, like Jacques Cousteau, who I used to really enjoy his nature shows when I was a kid, is that, again, it comes out of this second off thermodynamics obsession that is the artifact of extrapolating the heat engine, like dynamics onto the whole universe that occurred in the end part of the 19th century around the world society. - Remind me the second off thermodynamics? - That's, that all systems are entropic, that all systems are inclined towards a heat death. - Yeah, yeah, entropy always goes up, never goes down, right? - entropy goes up, yeah, exactly, never goes down. There's never gonna be more, and that's because, when you put gasoline in a gas tank, that gas tank is not gonna produce more gasoline as it burns fuel to make the pistons move and to make it do its function, unless you go from an external source to put in from the outside more gas. - Order, order never goes up over time. - Order always goes down over time. - Yeah, exactly. - Everything gets more chaotic. - Yeah, exactly. - The singularities diminish the chances for doing interesting things diminish over time to the point of nothing really ever happening that's of interest for them. - So the norm in that type of world is that everything is assumed to be a closed system. That's one of the laws of thermodynamics that you have to assume that everything is a closed system. Now, that's not actually true. Nothing is a closed system. Like even the ecosystem on the earth is not a closed system though the Jacques Coustonians and the ecologists would like to believe it is, because it's clearly being driven by forces that are outside of the closed system, right? It's outside of the earth. You see, you have the sun filling down. Oh, there you go. - Let's try to find the actual source. - In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a terrible thing to say, but in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 300,000. Okay, how does he want to do this? - Well, usually are, so they don't actually, it's not 200 million, eh? It's a, okay, so two. - He wants to, okay, so this would be 1.3 billion over a decade killed, or what does he think is the normal quantity that should be allowed to exist based on that calculate? - Okay, so, - That's a derivative of an idea of what you think the normal should be, right? - Cousteau viewed unchecked demographic expansion as short-term thinking as a form of a societal cancer that was destroying marine and terrestrial ecosystems. - Yeah. - Okay. - This is what one guy, Gadsad, would call suicidal empathy, right? - I guess that would be very much that. Yeah, so part of the idea of the ecosystem that he would have problems with is the idea that it is actually old. It's being shaped by, like I mentioned, the sun, but you've got cosmic radiation. You've got solar flares. You've got effects from other star systems. You've got the balance of all of the planets in our solar system, which is influencing the phenomenon of what's going on in the earth in terms of like even earthquakes, different things that are going on with the ionosphere, which allows in, depending on the pulsation of the ionosphere, the weakness of the strength of it will allow in greater or lesser degrees of cosmic radiation. That's a driving force of cloud seating. - Right. - Because cloud seating is what is driving whether there's more or less clouds on average over the course of a decade is going to cause more or less heat to be accrued within the greenhouse effect. So clouds are definitely, you know, more clouds, more cold, less clouds, more warm. - Right. - And that's all being driven, and there's this movie by Heinrich, or a documentary by Heinrich Svensmark, who's a Danish scientist, who's really got his career almost annihilated, but it's a great documentary going through his work back in 2008 to 2012 proving the driving role of cosmic rays in regulating global climate. The cloud mystery is the name of it. It's a really great one. - The cloud mystery? - The cloud mystery, fantastic documentary. If you could talk to this guy, it's-- - Cloud mystery doc. - Cloud mystery documentary, yeah. Heinrich Svens. And he almost got kicked out of his university. - He couldn't get published anymore. He couldn't get grants, couldn't get anything, because he wouldn't shut up about his research, which was very peer-reviewed. It was completely, like-- - Really? - Yeah, it was really, really tight. - So what was it about again? - It's about the real causes of climate change. - Okay. - As not being really that seriously affected by human-made CO2. - Right. - But rather more being affected by these natural cycles of cosmic ray entries into our-- 'cause the ocean, the universe is an ocean of cosmic radiation, which being generated from suns, from supernova, from everything, from nebula. Quasars, everything is generating, and we don't understand most of this, but it's saturating the plasma that is most of the universe. And so what is regulating, It's flux into our own biosphere, is the Van Allen belt, is the magnetic field, which vacillates according to certain variables of which we have. The sun's magnetic field, which itself flips every 11 years. So the sun's magnetic field, which can become stronger. Sometimes it can embrace more of the planets within the solar system. It's sometimes fewer, as it diminishes in influence. So when that happens, then we, more of the external extra solar systemic cosmic rays will enter deeper, penetrate deeper into the solar system, including our own Earth, right? Which means a aurora borealis will increase in intensity. And then there's other forces too, right? Because the sun and our own galaxy is part of a cluster of other solar systems. So we have other solar systems that are also influencing on subtle, but very real ways, our own solar system. And then we've got our own galaxy. It's part of a cluster of other galaxies, like the M13, you got the Dramada. So all of these things are variables that are all contextually shaping what people would like to otherwise think is closed systems in a localized region, because it helps them sort of make sense and understand things, 'cause they can map out what are those simple cycles that-- - Right, when you zoom out, you realize it's all fucking chaos. Especially when you zoom out, look at the history, the climate on the Earth. And you see how it's been going up and down for millions of years, like insane. Like we're actually in a cooling period right now. Pull up that Washington Post article that shows that amazing graph of the climate over like the last, I think it was one million years. And it shows you like all the times, like way back, even way before like the younger driest period when the climate plunged down and then went shot way up. And I think even like the medieval, like the famous medieval warm period was way warmer. The global average temperature was warmer than it is now. - Absolutely. - And that's like one of the times where human beings have made like the most astounding artwork and like theedrals and building and construction. - So what are we looking at there? - So zooming in a little bit, Steve. So this is, okay, this is the last 485 million years right here. And we see that little hockey stick on the very, very right. - Yeah. - That's just the last, like million years. - Yeah. Well, I know that little blip up, that would be probably the halocene, the halocene warming. - Right. - So if the last like 8,000 years, since the big floods happened like what, 10 to 12,000 years ago. - Yes. - We were in, what's been in norm? I've seen graphs that zero in to the last couple of million years. This one's like a big scoped graph. I don't know how they exactly get all of that data. But I know the ones that I've seen that that localize things in like the last two, three million years. That's sort of zero in on the right side. They, like the point has been, I think pretty clearly drawn that we, the norm for the past two million years has been ice age. So we've been living most of the time over the last two million years has been ice age. And then every 80 or 90,000 years or so, you get these little blips of warming that last for about 8 to 10,000 years. And then it goes back down to the norm of 80 to 90,000 years of ice age. So the, and then in another little blip, you know, that lasts about that sort of-- 80 to 90,000 years of ice age. Of ice age. And then you got these little blips. Now there might be areas around the equator and stuff where they're still, you know, like, fully age and things. I don't think it goes to full like ice ball. I don't think it goes back to full ice ball. 'Cause that would work. Well look, we're in like one of the, according to this graph, we're in one of the coolest periods that the earth has been in. It's very, according to this graph. Yeah, I mean, that's wild. And I mean, but that would be like, when it gets really cold there, what is that, that's like 12 million years ago, halfway marked between the 25 to the present? About, yeah. So that's 25 million years, and then it starts getting colder and colder and colder. Again, it's got a lack of-- See if you can find Steve. See if you can find a graph similar to this, but just for like the last 500,000 years, or something. Or a million years. Or a million years would be better. One million years, I think, is safer. Yeah. Yeah, but from what I've read, and I'm not an expert in this stuff, I'm like, you try to make sense of like the best data and hopefully make the wisest choices along the way. So that's, I guess, an example of us trying to pursue wisdom, like we're trying to have our subjective internal thoughts be informed by objective criteria outside of ourselves as best as possible, that we can then judge when somebody is giving us a statistical line of fake reasoning that's full of flaws versus somebody who's giving us a more whole integrated value. And you also can rely on these cheap graphs posted on websites. Exactly. A lot of these, these websites are biased. Like they try to simplify shit. You know, a lot of it's wrong. Yeah, a lot of the scalar metrics that they're using are based on arbitrary assumptions that are flawed themselves, right? Like a lot of them will even use. Unfortunately, the truth of shit is a lot more boring. Well, you know, did you find the graph 2,000? There's nothing like midway that gets like a million years-- You can't find a one million year graph, Steve. How about if you ask one of your AIs? Oh yeah, get an AI to do it. Tell your AI to give you a graph. Yeah, the boring truth of stuff. It's not always easy to condense things and wrap it up in a little bow, you know what I mean? Well, it takes work and rigor. I think a lot of people, they want the easy answer, so they don't have to use the mind muscle. Yes. And that's why we have to have GPT, brother. Oh, that's good. Do your own research. We make a one-stop shop. You want to do your own research? Go ahead, do it. We give you a chat, GPT, just type in a text. We'll give you all the answers. Well, Google is even like getting rid of the fines, right? The hits now. And the objective is to just have a one-answer solution to every Google insert where you get the official AI answer to everything, and that's it. You should just be satisfied with the world brain. It's HG Wells's fantasy come alive right there, right? Cybernetic control. That's scary. That's really scary. Especially considering Google was created by DARPA. Well, as well, right? And the CIA. But I think that that's where, yeah, like, it's so important that we cherish this gift of the mind that the source of so much joy and happiness. And I think the-- whatever it is that is this nasty thing that's been latched onto humanity, whatever you want to call it, or whatever you want to identify it as that has allowed for-- has carried out such atrocities like 9/11 as something done to, as a sacrifice to people living here in the United States, in order to justify this expansionist surveillance grid and policy of a new crusade in the Middle East. And whatever else came out of that as different clusters of intention that were all bad. Whatever it is, it wants us to have lazy reason. It doesn't want us to utilize this thing that tends to, when we do water that metaphysical garden, we tend to come up with solution concepts to problems that are foreboding that we're not supposed to think about when faced with objective problems that we could then look at, think about, wrap our minds around, be informed by historical lessons, act accordingly. We tend to be a lot less inclined to just adapt to some slave cage or some choice given to us to say, OK, you can be free with a number of flavors inside this particular cage. And we don't get those types of closed system games. Right. I thought I was very interesting what you just reminded me. When you were talking to Kurt on the podcast, and you explained to me what you were describing when you said something about, you guys were talking about flat earth in the context of giving somebody another option. When you try to, when Pete wins science or when an institution or any sort of form of power tries to declare something as like being correct or being like the paradigm, right? They will create this sort of like creating an adversarial scarecrow. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. OK, like controlled dialectic stuff. Yeah, I think we were throwing out. The example I think was also Darwinism. I think we were chatting about that a little bit. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thomas Huxley, who is Darwin's manager, handler, was setting up the debate. See, that's probably it. That's what we talked more about. Yes, that's what it was. When he's framing the debates to market this new explanation, this new explanatory model of the origins of species. Darwin, first of all, wasn't equipped to go and defend his own positions in public. But Thomas Huxley was the one who carried most of the weight and was really sadonic, had a lot of weight, was really good at eviscerating his opponents. But he also made a point to set up these highly, highly covered media events with him and usually some super rigid, anglicant, rigid creationist opponent, who he would then set up as the opponent to science, which would be usually him representing Darwin. And of course, then, if you know exactly the core axioms of the creationist rigid, the Bible is the literal truth of God framework, then you can make fun of it. You can run circles around it if you've got more to play with. But then all of the other contemporaries of Darwin who were biologists who were also acknowledging the evidence of species changes, mutability, adaptability, but weren't Darwinian. They didn't have the Darwinian Trojan horse assumptions that they were carrying into their own doctrines. And you could look at people like Carl Ernst von Behr, a great German scientist. - What do you mean when you say Trojan horse assumptions? - Core axioms. So Darwin had a lot of, his account would explain empirically, a lot of the elements of what we would see species do when they adapted to environments. But it wouldn't explain number one, the environments, which we're expecting. to be the sum total of the species that make up the environment. So there was this assumption that holes are the sum of parts. That there's nothing more than the sum of parts that make up the whole ego. Number two, another core trojan horse axiom I would say about Darwinism is that there was the assumption in Darwin's mind that everything was the mutability factor was a random function on the very small. So what would give one one member of a species an advantage to have more sex or to eat more in a limited environment of diminishing returns was kind of a rolling of the dice function of something on the small, some mutation that was ultimately random in its essence. And you weren't allowed to think otherwise. You weren't allowed to have another hypothesis that maybe it's not random. Maybe there's something that is not a random function that gives that one item, that one character, the big claw to kill his enemies or to have more sex or whatever run a little bit faster. The other thing I would say is there was an assumption of no directionality. So Darwin said in his, if you want to be a Darwinian, you cannot allow the assumption that there's any directionality. There's no teleology. There's no purposefulness thus outside of the systems that you're trying to explain. It's all based upon ultimately some form of Hobbesian might make right idea of the strongest will survive, the weakest will perish. So kind of taking the laws of the British East India Company that they use practically to justify their own expansion and destruction of the darker skinned races and then to apply it now and make it scientifically a valid principle of nature as an assumption, not proven, but as an assumption thus kind of whether by designer or not, then justifying the empire's own atrocious, controlled genocides of India, which oversaw Malthusian, so the empire was constantly reducing the population of India through controlled them and so on a periodic basis over two centuries. And then it would say, well, that's just the way it is. If we weren't the most fit to survive and the Indians were, they would be the ones dominating us overseeing our depopulation. So it's not that way, is it? Thus, come on, you know, metal meets the road. And the other thing too is I would say Darwin in his own autobiography admitted that he derived his theory of a world of diminishing returns where the strongest survive and thrive and adapt and the weak perish by reading Malthus's essays on the principles of population, which is a 1799 essay that Malthus published as not an objective scientist or a social scientist the way he tried to portray himself to be because the man himself was a teacher at the Haleybury College, which was the official college that would train all of the British East India Company administrators. So it is the official college of the British East India Company that he was a disciple of trying to create some theory of overpopulation and how to act preventatively on future crises of population overrides, right? Because he was like the mathematical law that he discovered, which was never a law, was that populations, human populations will always grow geometrically, while agriculture always grows arithmetically, thus you could foresee if you extrapolate current trends into the future where the one the population will override the resources to sustain our people. And thus the wise enlightened administrator of this dismal science as it came to be known by people who were also his followers, like his students like Ricardo and John Stuart Mill and James Mill. They call it the dismal science because it was like these are tools, this mathematical ratio becomes a way to then use as he, as Malthus says, the gifts that God had given us, famine, war, the plague to organize controlled population reductions before we hit that crisis, flatten the curve. So that's like, it's all in his first edition of his essays on population. And whose essays are you talking about? That's Thomas Malthus. That's Malthus. Oh yeah. Yeah, there it is. The essays on principle of population, the population growth increases geometrically, exponentially, while food supplies only increase arithmetically. And again, he totally, so he foresaw that by the end of the 19th century, there would be a cataclysmic, like armageddon, like situation unless we acted preventatively then in whatever 1798. Oh wow. And he ignored, this is where the better theoreticians, including the enemies of Darwin, James Dwight Dana, being one major American biologist who is coming up with his own theories of civilization as a way of explaining the mechanisms of what causes the flow of new species and the adaptability based upon the increased tendency of the nervous system to biologically centralize control that take more influence from earlier species that were more quadripetal, you know, that didn't have the arrangement that the human mind or the human brain has, that there's been like this tendency in all species to organize in, like basically, okay, there's a lot, there's a lot of segues here I could take. So I won't, but all of these guys, whether it's Karl Ernst von Behr, who is looking at more the harmonics of how whole systems will tend to grow with some sense of tempering, some well-tempered harmony. So if you're a musician, you're thinking about how do you create your octave and multiple octaves. There's an idea that you can't mathematically fit all octaves because the relationship will change the harmonics and how each octave relates to each other. So you have to go for a more well-tempering thing that uses a musical instinct that will allow for the piano or whatever instrument you're trying to tune. And that was informing a lot of the best scientists. So there was an idea that musicality, harmonics was something to inform our formation of hypotheses that explain biological, physiologic, or even physics. And Karl Ernst von Behr was just a pioneering scientist who was looking at the role of creativity, how something new that was more than some total of its parts could occasionally express itself, that didn't have 100 percent precedent in previous systems. Right. Like the mammal emerging out of systems where there was no evidence of mammalian life, and then all of a sudden there was. Now there's elements where the mammal and the earlier, I don't know, I guess reptilians or whatever, previous proto-memillions. But we don't see gradualism. So there's not a gradual emergence of one species slowly, gradually evolving over time into a new species. You tend to get these quantum leaps in a sense. Like apes and us. Yeah, like there's correlations. You couldn't have us where they're not apes that appeared. Well, there's more ape like people walking around for sure. But like there's clearly like a huge gap. Yeah, at some point there was no evidence of material life on the earth than there was. And that's like that's a nonlinear leap that there wasn't material like living matter. And then there was. There wasn't photosynthesis. And then there was. Right. So these nonlinear leaps are really important. And oftentimes whole systems will change. That's another thing with Darwin. When I was talking about Trojan horse assumptions, that's another thing. He's a presuming gradualism. He's kind of banning the idea of creative leaps. Now going back to to Malthus, that's also what Malthus is doing. Because Malthus is saying, these these dismal cataclysmums that I forecast will happen if you don't have creative thought introducing new scientific discoveries that translate into new technologies that allow us to overcome those limits to growth. He's an expert at the limits. And so he's and all of these, these much more human, I would say, people who have much more intact with their human faculties who are competent administrators, scientists, economists who are advising Lincoln in those days are making very, very solid critiques. It's not me coming up with this. This is people like Henry C. Carrey and Henry Clay, like leading American statesmen who are all making the point. Malthus is ignoring the fundamental thing that humans do when we're being natural and loving and good. And we're we're we're being creative. We're being problem solvers. And we're translating new discoveries that are metaphysical into applications that allow us to overcome those limits to growth and have more people at a higher quality of life. Which Malthus denies, like ontologically denies. And Darwin also denies. Yeah, because ideas are kind of like life forms, right? Yeah. Like the something that just comes out of the pops into your brain from who knows where. I mean, people don't know where consciousness comes from, but like it seems to come out of the air. And then you can literally put it on paper, draw it, put materials together, build it, and it becomes a thing. And it gets bleeds into society. Right. And it becomes part of like the collective unconscious. And before you know, I mean, this is like that. What was I think I was just reading this on one of the Heather Lynn things or whatever when she was talking about one of her recent articles where she's talking about sigils and shit. She's talking about like corporations and stuff being like a modern day agar goers. Right. She's brilliant. She does. Yeah. She's awesome. Yeah. No, the. But like it's like it's weird, right? It is weird that like that's a fundamental thing that we still don't fucking get. Like where where where does creativity come from? What is creativity? Where do ideas come from? Yeah. It's a gift that keeps on giving that one, right? I mean, it's the muse. Well, you know, that's the thing. Well, what are the yeah. And so there's different different ways of trying to express it. This creative thing that's just so magical. And you know, there's stories of the nine uses. And there's the Asians have their own stories and nine. There's nine muses. Is it nine? That's freaky. If it's nine. I don't know. Find out any to the nine. - I thought it was gonna take me down the pooharad drive hole. (laughing) - We're all dancing around serious. No, but you know, everyone's trying to make sense of it, so they will. - I think you're just gonna. - I think it is nine. - I thought it was nine uses. Yeah. - I thought about putting one of the muses in each of these windows. - You need more windows, dude. - Wait, I know we don't have enough. I just have to pick my favorite five. - Well, you can also have a window hosting multiple muses. - You can turn them up together. - Yeah, there's nine muses. - Wow. - Yeah, you're right, Natalia. (mumbles) Yeah, exactly. So there's something quantifiable. Like this is where I think again, the value of looking at the anti-garwinian, anti-imperial school of science that is rooted in something I think more useful has value because like looking at harmony, just as an idea, it's something which has given us so much as a concept. Those who hold the hypothesis that maybe beyond chaos of something that appears chaotic, actually there's some form of discoverable reason, some purposefulness or whatever. And like the planets, right? Why are they located where they are? Well, if you read Kepler who did the most to describe and provide his three laws, he was holding the idea of Plato as outlined in the Tameh's dialogue that he cites extensively in his harmonies of the world that he published in 1619. And in that book that outlines how he came to his third law, which is one of the, one of the few elements of classical physics that still has application within the domain of quantum mechanics, his third law is still super useful. Most other things were thrown out of the Newtonian school, but his was still very useful. He shows you how, so he's setting Plato, he's setting Plato's Tameh's as what gave him the idea of the hypothesis that there is some musical tempering that is tied to some geometric ratios that are rooted in discoverability. So the sound of the square, the sound of the triangle, the sound of the pentagon, which Plato's outlining in the Tameh's dialogue. But Plato didn't have the observational data to necessarily take to the next level, whereas by the time Kepler was alive, he could. So, well, with those ratios, he's been able to then test out, well, okay, if we look at the minimum maxima of each of the planets that are knowable in his time. So take the closest and the furthest distances when the planet is moving at its slowest and its quickest speeds. You could take those intervals and then ask, are they random or is there a reason? And he was able to then demonstrate that there is a musicality that the Earth, for example, within its elliptical orbit is moving from a Mido Fah, which he makes a little joke. It's like maybe that's why there's so much misery and famine in the world. 'Cause he's living in the 30 years war, right? The world is slipping into chaos. And he's writing this in order to, and he's very clear in his opening message to James. No, this was, I forget which patron, which King was providing some sponsorship, but he was making a point, like I want you as a leader who can do something about the political climate that's going into a 30 years war, it becomes a destructive. I mean, anybody who's looked into that is disgusted by it. It was like millions of Christians killing Christians for 30 years as a bloodbath. His own father dies as a mercenary. - What was the year, what was the time frame for that war? - 1619 to 1648. - Okay. - So he could see it clearly where everything was going as a Christian versus Protestant forever war kind of. And he's trying to get across that, hey, look, we lack a sense of the higher purpose of creation. People just lack that. And so because of that lack of a sense of, like the universe being discoverable and thus, has certain attributes that we should want to admire and be more dignified in our lives and less sloppy in our thinking, that was his way of intervening on his world was to say, okay, let's prove it. Let's not just say it's some flaky statement, but let's actually prove it, which then guides the discovery of the third planetary law, which is his harmonic law that again, is based upon the idea that it's a mathematical proof that if you take the average distance of any planet from the sun, cubed, and you compare that to the temporal periodicity of the planet's rotation around the sun, squared. Together, there's a consistency of all of the planets that have that same relationship of the average distance cubed to the periodicity squared that would be maintained, right? And that's his third law. His second law was proven in 1608 or '09 with his new astronomy, which proved that of all possible shapes, it cannot be circled, the orbits must, it just, it can't be circular, they can't be oval, they can only be ellipses that account for all of the anomalies of the retrograde motions. - Right, right, right, right, of Mars and even Jupiter has its own retrograde at every 20 years. Mars is like every 1687 days. And he's like, these retrogrades, when it appears as though the planet moves back for like two weeks Mars and then back into its natural cycle to do it all over again, 687 days later at a slightly different place according to the backdrop of the fixed stars or the zodiac. The only way to account for that properly would be if we imagine that ellipses are what are shaping the behavior of those planetary orbits and not the popular dogma, which was circles, circles don't work. 'Cause that forces you then to create epicycles and circles on top of circles to account for these things, which you could, again, angels are doing on a pinhead of a needle. You could have all sorts of infinite theories that appear to be a debate. - Yes. - So again, the idea of harmonics for me and the nine uses is that in a harmony, just like Plato gets cross in the Philebas dialogue on how do we judge right and wrong and good and evil? Do we use pleasure and pain? Is our standard or do we have a better standard that is not simply pleasure and pain? He looks at the example of harmony and vowels and consonants. And so you have the idea of, that within an infinite spectrum of sound, there are certain quantized moments that we can consider to be harmonious as consonants, which then takes even further in the Temea's dialogue that each of those consonants are generated by certain shapes that are discoverable like the square to the triangle and how the square will generate a certain ratio. - Yes. - If you inscribe it within a circle of the same circumference to another circle that has a triangle within it. - Right. - And one would have, - This is work on forms, right? - It all ties into it. But yeah, in the case of the square, you'd create within one half and one. So if you have like an octave, an octave is just half the string to the whole string, right? Or half the circle to the whole circle. And then if you put a square in there, then you get three-fourths as sound. So you can hear the sound of what that three-fourths would be to the one-fourth or to the half. And then you can do the same for the triangle that has two-thirds to one-third. And then here, how does that sound in tandem with the square sound of the three-fourths, the sesquic altered to the sesquic tertia? Or then you could even take something to the pentagon. And just once you build the pentagon, and Kepler is very clear, you can't just build a pentagon, you have to discover how you built that pentagon. You have to read and look at patchy, only like he did. And you have to then figure out, okay, what is the square root five over one? And then when you build it and you discover, okay, well, I now know it. I've worked on the squares. I've looked at the, I've actually done the geometry and now I can hear the sound of the, it'll make more sense, it'll make more meaningful when I actually build that pentagon around that circle and then I hear the three-fifths to the two-fifths or the four-fifths to the one-fifth. - Dude, this stuff, the philosophers, like Plato and Aristotle and we're thinking about back then is almost alien to today. It's so fucking fundamental. And none of that, none of that happens anymore. It's so wild. Why do you ever think about like why that is? Like what happened? What was so special about the Greeks? - Yeah, I mean, I think that there's certain ways of thinking that are forbidden. That there's certain, that's where it's more important. I think it's really more important how you think than what you think about anything. So it's how you think about everything that, you can be wrong about a lot of the elements, but it's the, the potency of, is your method, a potent method? 'Cause Plato was wrong about a lot of the elements, the details. - Right. - But the method was really, really super hyper potent and you'll find that when you read the original writings, this goes back to when I was working with the LaRouche organization for a number of years and we were reading, that was the greatest thing about this old man LaRouche who passed away in 2019. Is he did have a good impulse to try to encourage, especially the younger members, to go on a curriculum, like be disciplined in the mind, read the writings of people who seem to have made discoveries and then try to think about what their mind is doing as they wrote their own words out to showcase how they are hypothesizing or in Kepler's case, he's really, really gracious 'cause he's telling you how he's even falsely hypothesized. Like how his bad hypotheses occurred so that you don't take for granted how much work it took for years to finally generate that potent hypothesis. And that's what Plato also does in a lot of his dialogues. He's taking you through a lot of the false hypotheses but he's doing it as a, he's not trying to be liked. He knows it's gonna piss people off. - He's showing you all the work that he's done to get to that aha moment. - Yeah and like, and yeah, exactly, I mean. - That's wisdom. - I think so, right? It's like a good teacher. The teachers that we like the most That instance, me at least, or those who didn't give me all the answers, they were the ones who were trying to find a way to give me the right questions so that I could figure out. They had faith that I had something inside of me that could go and do it. And we're trying to put it into me. And that's, I think, the good, healthy, the honest platenists who are authentic will tend to do that. The dishonest sort of kneel plate tonic school will tend to not do that. They'll tend to put things into, but they won't or they'll play, they'll play as though they have mysterious knowledge that when you really, really provoke them or encourage a conversation dialectically, they actually turn out that they don't have this mysterious knowledge that they want to project as an aura of like, I've got this smoky wisdom that I know, but then how did you come to that? Have a dialogue with me. When they do, there's usually an inability to demonstrate that they've earned that confidence that they've earned. Right. Right. Yeah, man. That's very true. So how did your research and this lead to all of the stuff that you're doing with this new film that you made about this giant siop of UFOs? That was done, I guess it all kind of has its place, which by the way, that your angle and your take on all of this stuff with this disclosure stuff and the whole UFO phenomenon is very unique. I don't know how I mean, I've never heard anyone come at it from this angle before or at least explain it in a way that encompasses the whole psychological or philosophical idea of it. Like, how it affects society. Well, thanks. Thank you. Yeah, what I guess I try to do, so I had originally published something in 2019, which was a smaller article for a journal I no longer write for, called Strategic Culture. And it was just basically a small article that pieced together some of my work on Lawrence Rockefeller and his involvement with the disclosure project operation that he really devoted the last years of his very long life to UFO disclosure. And I was just wondering to myself, you know, you funded Essling or a lot of the SRI operations you were funding, you were funding a lot of the Human Potential Foundation, you were funding so many Terrence McKenna's operation, you were funding Matt, the Green Earth Foundation. You were funding Terrence McKenna really? Oh, yeah, the Green Earth Foundation. And this goes back. He was originally with one of the key guys, the Rockefeller Brothers fund in the 30s, like late 30s funding the War of the World's Broadcast is, you know, that was a social agency. The H.G. Well thing. Yeah, exactly. Bankroll the buy also, the Rockefeller Foundation. That and it was overseen by the Princeton Radio Research Institute and it had a bunch of people like Haley Catrill and Robert Stanton who was at the head of CBC and close friends with Nelson Rockefeller and so this guy's got this strange career overseeing like transforming off chemically the United States from like a viable of republic in my mind that John F. Kennedy was trying to sort of defend and revive into becoming more and more like a like a seat of empire and and also funding the MK Ultra, the Jason operations at the same time, which is what I'm seeing like the whole S.L.N. program on a lot of the psychedelic work. I see that as having a direct tie to the C.I. MK Ultra work on psychedelics. Explain to I'm ignorant on the S.L.N. thing. What was that about? Oh, that was an organization in Big Sur, S.L.N., no? So S.L.N. is a- You're saying it was parallel run on parallel to MK Ultra? I would say so, yeah. I'd say a lot of the work on the role of psychedelics, the application of that for in the case of S.L.N. is more applied. So taking a lot of the the the psychochemical work that had been developed in L.S.D. and in S.L.S.I.B.N. and DMT in under the vast network of the C.I.A.'s MK Ultra program that had hundreds of not thousands of projects and sub-projects in the 1950s. So I think it's created in 1953 or '54. And it you know, involved a lot of guinea pigs in schools in Harvard, the S.L.S.I.B.N. project that generated the the uniformer and he was funding a lot of this stuff. Oh, he's funding a ton of this stuff. Wow. Yeah. But then it was just a weird thing to see that sort of shifting of the gears at that late stage of his life in '91, '92 towards his very big passion of UFO disclosure. As Clinton came into the White House, one of the first things he got Clinton to do was Clinton adopted his program for the first batch of like several million classified documents tied to FBI and other, you know, files covering UFO, UFOs in general. It didn't turn out there wasn't that much there at the end of the day, but it was a big deal. And it really did give a lot of steam to the-- Yeah. I was watching one of your videos and you showed the letter that he wrote to somebody. Yeah. Yeah. I had never seen that before. That was wild. Well, that was where he's calling for the, I think that was the one where he's talking about the importance of the Roswell story. The Roswell story, right? Yeah. We have to really hammer it, making this part of the Massesite Geist. Like that part of the mythos has to become really, really clear and present in the minds of everybody because we're going to build an entire structure that will be an organizing principle around this core story. So we have to really get, nail that, nail that. But it wasn't just that, right? He brought together people like Robert Bigelow to his ranch and I think it was a way. Steven Greer. Steven Greer was brought into this important conference, several, a big seminar that organized Linda Moulton. How was brought into it? Yeah. Number of other big names in '93 that sort of like helped sort of congeal the new phase of how the disclosure operation was going to unfold over the post-Soviet age because now the Soviets have melted down, right? '91, '92, Gorbachev has now pulled the plug on the Soviet experiment. So now America no longer has that organizing principle to build itself up around, which was the entirety of the Cold Wars, I don't have the Russia boogie man anymore. Which again was part of, the, the Estlin operation, too, that Rockefeller was funding was the American Soviet friendship operation that Estlin, Michael Murphy, was a big part of organizing the, the US Soviet friendship association where they were bringing in KGB operatives, other members of the technical, like the technocratic class of Russian, Russian mystics were being brought into Estlin to go to their retreats and then to be sent back to Russian vice versa. So you have this, this thing going that organized Gorbachev was a big patron of, of the Estlin operation inside of Russia. Yeltsin was actually brought in to California in the 80s, again, all on the bankroll, the dime of Lawrence. Well, that's fascinating stuff. So I'm just wondering like why? Yeah. Why was it so interesting? Yeah. So I'm just, in my article in 2019, I was just piecing together a lot of the connectoids, you know, and I brought in Tom Belange's operation in how a lot of those same people who are working with Tom Belange. Delong. Delong when he too, dude? Yeah. Yeah, his two stars. What was his thing called? Two stars, yeah, yeah. Academy of Arts and Science, yeah. And how certain people who were very important shapers behind the scenes were tied to Jacques Valais, to Hal Putoff, you know, and others. What is your take on Jacques Valais? It's okay. You can disparage him. He wants to hear. I think there might be certain things that he might be overlooking about what he's been engaged or interfacing with, perhaps. I'll, like, I'd like to presume that he really does honestly mean well. Mm-hmm. I just started reading his book that he recommended to Diana Pasalka the Satan book. Yeah. Is that really worth that, sorry? Kurt got me a PDF of that. I sent it to Kurt. He busted it. Oh, okay. Yeah. I'm reading it. And I'm not saying the connection. I don't know yet. I'm only 150 pages in. But is the one that was written by like these Carmel Aiden? It was written by Carmel A. Yeah. There's some French people. But the closest thing I can make is that there's like this, this phantasm connection where like, it's very, it's a very, the book's coming from a very theological framework. And it's trying to explain like how the different forms of Satan and where it comes from and like what it means and the difference between like actual satanic or demonic possession versus like a psychological disorder and how you discern the difference and the only way you can do it is like going to a priest and like how Satan allegedly controls according to the Bible, the, when they say the heavens, they mean like the upper atmosphere and can distort illusions and can alter human perception and the human senses, but it can't, he can't fuck with your soul. And it also explains like it really gets pretty deep into like like according to like the gospels who or according to like, I don't know, according to who, but it explains what Satan really was and it was interesting because it was like like and something I never really understood was the way the book describes it is like, he is like one level below God. And he's like on the hierarchy of angels, he's on the very tippy top right below God. And what makes him, what makes him Satan, what makes him a fallen angel is that he has like ultimate intelligence, ultimate power like he has, he's perfect in every way, right? In every sense of the word perfect, like it all knowing all, you can like, he's like He has all the knowledge throughout history, throughout time of everything, and has the ability to do good infinitely. But he chooses, like usually when people do evil, they do evil through ignorance or through misunderstanding or malevolence or through their upbringing or whatever happened. There's multiple things that can happen to a human being that can lead them to do evil. The thing about Satan is, and you probably already know this, I'm probably preaching to the choir, is that he understands all this. He already knows everything. He has all the knowledge of the universe, and he threw that chooses to do evil, which was, I thought that was pretty interesting, but I'll see how it connects to Ali. - Nasky, in that book that you're reading or in your other studies on the topic, why does, with all of the possible alternatives that Satan could choose, why does this entity deem that doing evil for its own sake, is the best of all possible choices that is made? So, do they talk about that, or do you? - Maybe it explains it, or maybe I don't remember, or maybe I haven't gotten there yet. - Okay. - Is there some greater good that you think that they might presume that Satan sees in doing evil or some outcome that is beneficial? - No, no, he just, no, I don't think so. I think it's, a lot of it comes to do with pride, chooses to be prideful, which is jealous of humanity. And it comes to, it actually boils into how this dualistic view of good and evil, right? And like, the default mode reality of humanity is not necessarily good. It's evil, but by accepting Jesus, you can become good. - That's what they're saying. - That's what this book is saying. Right, if you don't accept Jesus, you are essentially, I couldn't be misinterpreting it, but that is basically, like you're in the grips of Satan, unless you-- - By default. - By default, yes. - Do they explain that? 'Cause I mean, if Satan is still kind of under, is inferior in some way in their setup to their idea of God, then isn't God the creator of what, or the ultimate creator of humans make? - Yes, and the reason God let Satan, all this is all according to this book, and my, like, loose understanding of it so far, is that God let Satan do evil on people, like kill people, do genocide, give people cancer, whatever have you, because God believes that that is gonna do an ultimate good for humanity. By letting people go through the fire, it makes them stronger, it makes them more resilient, makes them have more wisdom, like that kind of stuff. That's the angle it takes. - Right. - I guess that would be a little bit weak of an idea, in some sense, because what about all of the people who just suffer, get tortured and die, without the ability to thus become better people out of the pain, you know, like the-- - Yeah, I think my guess would be that their argument would be that, you know, maybe their souls would be freed, and they would live in heaven, or their ancestors, or somebody close to them, would see that, and would decide to turn their life around for better, and devote themselves to God, or something along those lines, but I'm not sure you'd have to ask the Carmelites. (laughing) - Yeah, I will get around to you reading that. - It does seem to be a pretty seminal work. - But yeah, I'm almost halfway through. I'm not seeing, I'm not seeing what the connection is there. Maybe I don't know if it's smart enough to translate it. - The translations things, like you said, are always an issue, but I mean, the Nostek creator guide story for me is always kind of, like I try to approach things as a platenist, as a philosophical standpoint of what hypothesis creates the fewest internal contradictions to that hypothesis, when it tries to map itself onto reality. - Exactly. - Reality, yeah. - And, and also, simultaneously, increases my agency, and my ability to problem solve creatively, to be more creative into it. So that's my two sort of standards, when I'm trying to figure out, like, what plausible hypothesis of good and evil, or of whatever I'm trying to explain. I find in the Nostek world that presumes kind of two opposing deities where one is of light, and one is really this dark ignorant deity, this yal jabao, or whatever, that made the cosmos in their ignorant image, that rules the world in this evil kind of thing, that we're kind of locked into a prison planet, and prison flesh that we have to tap into this sort of light source through Nosis, but that the creator creator, the maximum creator actually has no, either has no ability to do anything, to actively live as a creative force within creation, 'cause it's not the creator that didn't do it, the creator is created by default, this yal jabao through this tertiary, luciferian kind of deity thing, or there's no, so it seems kind of like the good God, so-called that isn't animated by a desire to do evil, is impotent, and then the question is like, why is it impotent? Is it because, you know, it just can't do it, in which case, the other God seems to actually be way more powerful, which can maybe respect more, or maybe it's that everything evil has just all, must happen, that because there's gonna be a hope for good lesson to our souls after the child's been raped a number of times, in an Epstein Island dungeon or something, and then they die, and maybe we have to then have faith, rather than stopping, rather than doing the proactive thing, which is to stopping the rape, stopping the murder, so we don't do that, because we should hold back and let this happen, because maybe the kid's next life is gonna be benefited by it. Don't try to help the genocide in Africa, being carried out by these multinational corporations, by design, because maybe they all deserve it by transgressions, that all of these- - It will lead, 'cause God thinks it will lead to a greater good, so He'll permit Satan to do that. - According to this book. - Yeah, it all becomes very necessary in my mind, and that's for me- - It feels like coping. - Kind of coping, that seems more like coping with anything, yeah, a sense of self-dissimpowerment, maybe, and you just have to come up with some meta, like sacred story that will give you a reason to go to bed at night with a clear conscience, knowing what you know about the unnecessary evils being done to so many innocents. Yeah, coping. I'd say that applies. - What we're talking about before I derailed you on Jock Relay. You were talking about the Rockefellers, and you were talking about Sponding. - Well, you were talking about what got me into the thing from what I was talking about to what- So I guess the thing was that was, I have wanted to make this story, I've wanted to pull on the thread more, and I was using a lot of disparate patterns that I was just pointing together kind of haphazardly into an article in 2019. But I've wanted to dig in more deeply and make it in 2022, my wife and I started, she's a wonderful author as well, Cynthia Chung, and we started working with a filmmaker in taking some of our articles and our research making them into movies. Those filmmakers are really good. And we made like probably 20. And along the way, I've always had the desire to try to create the alien store or put the research I had done into a more dignified, rigorous skin, like skin soup, like trying to find a way to give it more expression. - Yeah. - And I'd spent about two years trying to come up with a script and it was all very rigid. It was all very, it was very much rooted in the CIA side of like the siop, the, you know, what was it about? I think I was bringing up Jay Allen Heineck, you know, one of the key patrons or teachers of valet and his work with Grudge and the Robinson panel and Project Sign and the National Enquirer, you know, Operation on the project, the blue, blue. - Well, the CIA was funding the National Enquirer. - Yeah, the CIA was funding the National Enquirer. Well, it shaped the National Enquirer. It was Frank Costello who gave the C capital to the National Enquirer, but General Sopova Jr., who founded it, was working on the Office of Policy Coordination of the CIA, which is the Psychological Warfare Department in 1951 and he did that for 14 months before then immediately going out and creating the National Enquirer. And then that created the blue ribbon panel on UFO research, sort of creating monetary incentives that lasted for a few years, co-sponsored by the NICEP and why would they fund the National Enquirer? - I think to blur people's idea of reality and fiction 'cause there was a lot of like useful, there were useful articles and investigations often published in the pages of the National Enquirer infused in with total creative writing and fiction. - Big foot and shit. - Yeah, and yeah, Lemurians from like Shasta and stuff. So yeah, and they would just, I think that was part of the thing over time if you're working in a multi-generational magic trick, you gotta think long term, right? What seems kind of fringe novelty in the moment actually might be part of something which is shaping increasingly the collective zeitgeist, the collective truth. - The subconscious mind, maybe? - Yeah, the subconscious mind. - So yeah, give your 30,000th of you this whole thing. You think it's a multi-generational magic trick? - That's the hypothesis I've been operating on is that it's a multi-generational magic trick. - Being conducted by who? - Being conducted by-- - Rockefeller types? - Yeah, yeah, I guess so. I mean, I think that there's a rose accruciation. elements, a hermetic rosacrucian element, underpinning this ritual, as far as a more neonostic movement that has been working behind the scenes to create the foundations for a reset of global culture, global religions at the end of a millennium, maybe 2033. That was a reset of global religions. Yeah, a reset of like a global mass psychological reset sparked maybe with some trauma, some shock therapy to the mass zeitgeist, maybe through an induced cataclysm or something like that. And then coming out of the fire, the scenics and kind of cleansing of the species would be hopefully in there, I think the minds of a lot of these shaman wannabes, the foundations for a new set of revamped religious beliefs that might center a little bit more on extraterrestrial gods that might have a variety of flavors to them, depending on whether you want it to masquerade for one of the Christian cults or one of the Muslim or whatever he do, whatever. But they want people to think of Muhammad or Jesus or Moses or any number of their Buddhist doctrines as being something that comes from alien gods, alien creators for either another dimension or maybe this one, but usually I think another dimension or whatever would be the. So they want to make it so that make it seem like all religions sprouted out of this stuff? Yeah, that the real gods are the aliens. And they're yeah, the real demons. Like an alien perennialism type thing. Yeah, I guess so. Yeah, that the angels and the demons, like Aleister Crowley at one said that in the future people will be speaking of aliens and demons, but they won't call them that anymore. And I think that what he understood to be what he expects people to call them will be. Yeah, I mean, just aliens. Aliens. Interesting. Yeah, I think. And it's a nice way to account for why bad things happen, why is their political injustice, why is their evil in this world? It's the shapeshifting lizards from whatever that are that just want us to be sad and sucker-fear energy to keep them going and why is their global warming in their minds? That's one thing David, I could say back in the 90s, he was making the thesis that the global warming is part of the plot by the lizards to make create a more habitable lizard-friendly world that they could then occupy over time. So I think it kind of works a little bit to get people to think about these objectively true conspiracies that are multi-generational, that people like the Rockefeller brothers and others have been a part of or initiated into. And then to move the sense of causal nexus into some place that will make us not really capable of doing what Martin Luther King Jr. was doing or John F. Kennedy or Fred Hampton or any number of these noble souls who emerge at different times with a commitment to writing the wrong, an organizing, I think. Again, it's my hypothesis, I'm not saying I know that to be true, it's just my hypothesis. So Rockefeller, he was doing this thing, he was doing all the psychedelic stuff in conjunction with MK Ultra. He was doing all this other crazy stuff. He was lobbying to get the Roswell stuff out there. And then in the 90s, he was getting together people like Stephen Greer and Linda Moltenhow and all these. And Robert Bigelow. And so you think that Rockefeller, explain to me what you think Rockefeller, like what was his ultimate goal, do you think with this? I mean, I don't think it's a purely Rockefeller designed operation. I just think that it was his motives. Well, I think his particular motives is in harmony with what his clan, what his family has been devoted to since John D. Rockefeller, the original sort of rail and oil magnet rose to power as part of the US establishment, which is a devotion to a certain class and a certain system that is ancient in character that has provided them the privilege to rise in standing with a certain dynastic guarantee, a certain limited dynasty provided to them to have a family of privilege, as long as certain patterns of behavior and certain responsibilities are maintained by various members of the clan. Right. So I don't think it's anything different so much as that his particular, I mean, he had a lot of brothers, right? The Nelson and John and David and there's one Michael or something who died of weird death was like cannibalized or something by on some anthropological trip. When he was in his 20s, was there a cannibalized? Yeah, he was like, I think was it Michael Rockefeller was cannibalized? He was the younger brother that people forget about. Yeah, he went on some weird anthropological trip. Oh, you know what I remember this. I didn't see something about this. You need tribe or something and was trying to get some human skulls that caught this cannibal tribe and was trying to buy them or something. It's kind of, it's kind of fragmentary by beverage, right? Michael Rockefeller. Oh, it's 20th-year-old. Yeah, right. He was young. He disappeared in 1961 when his catamaran capsize off the coast of Asmat, a region southwest Dutch New Guinea, now popping pop out in Indonesia. His cause of death, well, the official cause of death was recorded as drowning investigations, including the journalist calloffman's extensive book Savage Harvest revealed that the Rockefeller made it to the shore and was killed and ritually consumed by the Asmat headhunters. So he didn't get to live up to the expectations probably that we're that we're on his shoulders. Or maybe he did. Maybe he had a role to play right himself. I don't know. Yeah, it's a weird one. That's freaking really weird. Yeah. So all that to say, Lawrence, he was known as the philosopher of the group. So he had a little bit more of the responsibility to do the cultural. Well, these guys, well, as other brothers Nelson was a vice president, was playing David was playing a big role in the trilateral commission. They had a bit more of a responsibility on the political economic side of the control grid. His seemed to be a little bit more towards the psychocultural element of things. So he's known as more the, yeah, the spiritual philosopher. He used to be known as Mr. Ecology because he was the first in the 60s to really work national ecological policy making into US doctrine for administrating, you know, North America. Right. He's the one who got John F. Kennedy to sign off on this program to allocate major chunks of the US and not not to say this is a bad thing, but as national parks, that would be off limits of human development, which again, could be a very, there's a place for that. I'm not trying to say that there isn't, but there's also another element to that. If you're a Malthusian who wants to reduce the, the, the, the, the, the box in which people are living in to reduce the pathways for solutions that they might want to think about. If faced with scarcity, you might want to think, well, if I've got scarcity, lack of food production, lack of electricity going around in the future, maybe I can act now to increase the hydroelectric power availability so that the next generation doesn't have that scarcity. Maybe that would involve maybe changing certain ecological cycles within an area that might have now a dam that didn't before, but maybe the outcome for the benefit of my grandkids will be better for that or must say nuclear power. Maybe I should want to build that now. It'll take a long time. It'll be expensive. But so what was that program called? What was that thing that he wanted to do called? Was there a name for it? He wanted to preserve nature, right? With more national parks. Yeah, increase of national parks and protected lands that kind of, again, if it wasn't John D, right? No, that was, that was Lawrence. Lawrence. There's pictures of Lawrence Rockefeller and John F. Kennedy together in 1962 when he was signing off on that. So again, he was known as Mr. Conservation for a long period. That was sort of his, his wheel horse, his friends with the Mory Strong as well. So all these billionaires having these like philanthropic, like big do-gooder fucking labels that they like to stick on themselves. It's funny, right? Because they like a lot of them when you actually look at their lifestyle person. They don't want to save the world. Well, and they also act very differently. Like Prince Philip is a Mountbatten, is a founder of the World Wildlife Fund for Nature. And yet, this guys were now for hunting like white rhinos in Africa. And, you know, he's not walking the walk. Prince Barrenhardt of the Netherlands, same thing. Co-founder of the, well, the guy who sets up the Bilderberg group, co-founds with Prince Philip in 1962, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature. Really? Yeah, they're all like on safari regularly. Just fucking money laundering or arms trafficking probably. Partially, yeah, I think there's a multitude of reasons for these things to happen. But I think one of the bigger ones for me is the Malthusian idea of trying to take away from human society big parcels of potential that would allow us to overcome problems and limits to growth. Because they want to really impose a science of adaptive scarcity. But then they want to control the conditions around which the scarcity can be managed. And around which the energy, the return on energy investment can be reduced over time. And in a way that we don't recognize how the cage is getting smaller. Man, that's dark. It's very dark. But I guess it it could be seen as good like a necessary evil for the greater good if you think that human beings, if you're a misanthrope who doesn't seem to think good within yourself in the culture that you were born into and you're just projecting your own kind of misanthropy onto all of the species as a species. That's a big empirically, right? Like I'm personally not all sorts of self-hate. I've been maybe broken and abused and eaten college or whatever my boarding school conditioning was that I was born into because you feel a lot of sympathy for a lot of these, I feel I do. I feel a lot of sympathy for these members, these children of the so-called elite. And then that internal dissonance becomes something Freudian, like a Freudian projection onto the whole species as humanity. And then you think, well, then we're naturally this bestial parasite. - Yeah, you're projecting your bullshit onto us. - Yeah, and then all of a sudden anytime we try to, human beings try to solve a problem, we only can destroy every problem that we try to solve actually creates more problems. And this is where this Neomalthusian revival in the '60s came about called Problematic, which Lawrence Rockefeller was also a big follower of. Problematic is basically the science of problems. And Prince Barron Hard was a devotee of this as well who set up the Builderburg group. And the whole ecological movement was set up by these people who were adherents to Problematic, World Problematic, Alexander King, who found the club of Rome was a major leader of that school. And basically, yeah, it was basically, it was to say, okay, let's reframe the idea of scientific progress around the idea that every type of solution scientifically to problems results in more problems. And let's create a science of problems. Let's, it becomes a science of why we can't do things. Right, it basically does that. - Wild. - Yeah. - They want to create a one-world alien religion. And they want to destroy Christianity and they want to destroy all the Abrahamic faiths. So they want to create, they want to, it basically they want to create like a Scientology, a worldwide Scientology. - Yeah, I mean, I think that if you have a massive, let's say, disclosure, revelation of various governments. - See, I don't think, I don't think traditional faith Abrahamic religions and faiths will be heard at all by that. I think it will probably strengthen them. - I think it'll change their character. I think that it will amplify the demonology, the angelology side of the faiths, the supernatural stuff will be amplified, but I think a lot of the, I don't think that that's what gives value in my mind to what made the Abrahamic faiths useful or good, ultimately is, it's not those things. I think what makes it good, or what makes them the most valuable to humanity will be reduced in influence, which is I think the actual lessons of, what do you think makes the most valuable to humanity? - I think the actual core lessons of Jesus as taught, not as far as like, hey, look, I can walk on water and I can raise Lazarus. I think it's like the actual ability to learn about what it means to be a dignified loving human being that understands how much responsibility comes with being made into living image of an idea of the creator. That's a good creator, a good and reasonable creator that endowed us with these attributes to discover more and more creation and to act accordingly, to moral values. For me, those are super duper important and have been really a thorn in the side of this more evil cult that's been latched on is that when human beings tap into those lessons that express themselves in different ways, but they're the same kind of lessons in the old faiths. We become less inclined to adapt to situations of injustice and of evil. And so for me, that is what I see dissipating more and more. - You see that dissipating? - I feel like it's like resurging. - I'm not saying too much of it. I see a lot of hope to survive resurging, but I don't see a lot of, like when I look at the quality of philosophical mind when I read the speeches of Martin Luther King or Bobby Kennedy or John F. Kennedy, I was talking about Christianity. - Oh, yeah, but they're animating their identities around very Christian principles, but highly cultured and very deep philosophical thoughts associated with it. But they couldn't do what they did where it not for the Christian principles that animated their own identities and their own method of organizing systems. And so I don't see a lot of that quality of mind in the political class at this point or the influencing class in general, there's a diminishing. - No, they're trying to hijack. They're trying to hijack the religions to justify everything they do though. - Oh, that's been part of the thing. - Yeah. - That's been part of the game. - So yeah, and that doesn't seem like a thing Jesus would do would go like drop bombs on everybody, genocide people. So like as much as it can be done for good, that's the problem. That's one of the biggest problems with these religions is you hear all the bad stuff. You never hear the good stuff. Like the good stuff happens in the little communities, right? People get together and makes their life better, whatever they're happier, makes them a better person. But then like you get these fucking psychopaths that will hijack the religion and put the label of the religion on whatever the fuck they're doing to justify what they're doing. And that's the shit that makes the headlines. - Yeah. - Never hear about the good stuff. - We're talking about these controlled dialectics that are like, you know, I use the example of Thomas Huxley and the Darwin school versus the creation of school. Both sides are wrong for different reasons, but it creates this false sense of options, of choice of what the fight is. And I think that there's examples when you look at even like, throughout history, a lot of the most destructive acts that have been using the Christian skin suit to carry out acts of crusading wars, murder for Jesus kind of things or burn the witches for Jesus, you know, that all of those things usually have the hand of social engineers within the upper echelons of power at the same time as you have influencers on the bottom up. So you have both the top down and bottom up tendency to influence systems in a certain way. So that like, for example, many of the forces that ran inquisitional processes around Dominican and Franciscan grand strategists, who's usually Dominican and Franciscan, themselves seem to have unaccult underpinning within the Dominican and Franciscan orders of an esoteric inner doctrine and an exoteric outer doctrine that will then take power and use those positions of power to justify the killing of a lot of people. Now some of the people being killed are actually doing witchcraft. Some of them are just innocent people. Some of them are just women who are herbalists and they're just doing what they think of as white magic and it's not really all that dangerous. Some of them are probably actually doing the bad stuff. But there's a lot of innocent people dying along the way. And it just seems like that's not an organically emergent property of Christianity per se. It does seem like there are these mystery faults. There is witchcraft in the Bible. And there's genocide. There is genocide, especially in the Old Testament. There's lots of threats of killing people and babies and-- Oh yeah, I mean, these books are full of problems. Yeah, no, no, no, I'm not trying to say that they're not. But I'm saying that if you're trying to be a good person making sense of things, you will resonate to certain parts of the lessons of the book of Isaiah or the-- Yeah, you got a cherry pick. Yeah, I mean, as a human being, if you're-- Bless you. Because I'm tight. Yeah, and you will latch on to the more superficial or just outrage destructive stuff if you got that within you. So-- and yeah, you'll be a Benedictine or Cistercian grandstratious controlling Templars to go in, like, kill the heathens for centuries instead of the-- Right. The New Solomonic Temple of Jerusalem and then, you know, is the new hub of a world mystery cult, like what you might want to do. And justify certain aspects of the Bible to then organize dumb, down, uneducated plebs. You don't know how to use their minds and pass moral wise judgment and who will just follow whatever their guru, their local priest is telling them that they should do. Right. So yeah, I mean, that's part of the thing. It's, I think, just the battle of how do you find the good-- like, everything is a mixture of good and evil. And there's this battle with intentions by representatives of different schools that have different views of what is human beings. Are we something good? Are we something naturally evil? What are the consequences of how we plan out policy, according to which hypothesis be true? And that's why, for me, like, it really resonated with me when I joined the LaRouche organization. It wasn't so much the political organizing, although that was useful to talk to-- to try to get proactive about organizing for breaking up Wall Street banks and things like that was useful. But it was more useful for me in the long run was reading Kepler, was just spending a few years, just studying through Kepler's works, doing astronomy, reading through Plato, just getting a sense of how do their minds work, and then getting a sense in doing that, that they're all drawn from the same well using a very similar method of looking for assumptions, because self-examining their hearts, their core axioms, while at the same time trying to harmonize their soul with the objective universe outside of them, and they're trying to intervene on their world. They're not in the clouds. like they see themselves as partners. the thing that they're trying to intervene on, and they're doing a very similar type of, of, I mean, it's all unique to their personalities, but they're all doing the same kind of thing to get people to wake up to this higher way of thinking about the creation, the creator, and your purpose that helps people, that would help people to avoid calamities. Yeah, it's also interesting, when speaking of Plato, how he wanted to create this note, that noble lie, you know, that he wanted to create this sort of religion, right? Or this framework of persociety for people to live by, and even though it was fake and made up, he thought that it would make society better and meld better, and it would make more of a prosperous. Well, I got a different take on that, because I've read through the Republican number of times, and I do enjoy the Republic a lot. I've only had people tell me about that. Oh, really? It's a good read, but it's not a read that should be taken out of context, like everything is not a closed system. So Plato's corpus as a whole is not that big. It'll all fit in like one book, and his dialogue, some of them get very small, but the reason why people tend to get very frustrated with Plato is that they all recognize that he uses a non-literal mode of communication, and he uses ambiguity a lot. So he never tells you what the answer is. He gives you more problems by the end of each dialogue than you had going into it. You have more questions than you started out with, and yet it's interesting that in this one particular case of the of the Republic, he has treated as if he's a literalist by people who don't like him because he's not a literalist. So what he's doing in writing these things, they're specifically done originally for his-- He's treated as a literalist by people who don't like him because he's a literalist. They don't like him because he's not a literalist. They like people who get utilized to like finished answers. That's what people often say. Aristotle is wiser than Plato because Aristotle gives you the answers. He doesn't give you more questions. You want to know what justice is. Go read his definition. He tells you what it is, and there's one justice for the master, one justice for the slave, and one justice for the daughter, and one justice for the son, and he'll give you the closed and the finished answers. You don't have to overthink it. They like it because it's lazy reason. They're contaminated with it. Exactly. Whereas Plato will give you all sorts of hypotheses that emerge to try to account for what justice is, but he's actually never giving you the closed answer, except in this one particular anomalous location of the book, the Republic, where he is giving these closed answers. And so in this one case, the people who don't like him because he's not a literalist say, oh, he's disgusting. He's the foundation for fascist controls and the noble lie because they're taking a literal reading of what he's saying in the Republic. And I would say in coming to study Plato's mind and what he's doing in that Republic is number one, he's writing it for students of his academy. So he's trying to create philosopher kings within his academy. That's part of his. Yeah. Right. And you know what he thought? He thought the philosophers should run run the society. Well, he made a point that, are you saying this was all just some sort of a thought experiment allegory type thing, war game? I think he's taking first of all into the sausage factory because the thing that he's outlining is as far as the noble lie, the architecture of the society run by gold and silver and or defined rank, gold and silver and bronze souls, or I think it's iron souls, condemned by birth to a predestined fate according to the the quality of their their souls. Right. All of these things pre-existed Plato by a long shot. I think these are all organizing formulas for the Babylonian Empire for every major oligarchal society. As you had nobelize, you had a pre-suit class, you had the idea of organizing society by these casts that were very closed. And that you would kill a baby if it was if you found that a baby was subpar born into a higher family, that that baby should be sacrificed as Plato talks about in the public. So I think that he's number one writing it as a as an exercise as he does for all of his dialogues. For instance, he's taking you into the sausage factory. So he's showing you how the the thing actually works, which is the first time in human history that the systems of oligarchical organization were ever made transparent. They were never made transparent until this one text. So there's all of that going on. Number two, I think he gives you a key with the book one of the Republic, which is the book on the whole thing is about justice and he builds up his whole idealized state in order to try to come up with a better hypothesis to answer what is justice, which is in book one against this character Thrasimicose. And Thrasimicose is very much like Gorgius or the character of Calacles who are come up in their own dialogue earlier. They're all real people in the real world, by the way, that Plato is living in. They're not fake people that he makes up. And usually when you look at who they are, they're people causing a lot of destruction to greet to Athens in the world. So it's interesting. But in this in this dialogue in book one, he pretty much completely annihilates Thrasimicose's Hobbesian definition of justice as being the ability for the strong to dominate the weak, to increase your central gratification and punish your enemies and reward your friends, which is the oligarchical idea of the might makes right. Hardcore, Huxley, Thomas Huxley idea of justice, which again, he annihilates and people should just read this very, very nice dialogue, which I think creates the master key of the spirit for how to think about and work through the rest of the nine books of that thing in which later on you'll find the story of the allegory of the cave emerge. And the other thing too is that I'll just say it because I know people don't often have a lot of time to sit down and read something like the republic, but I will say one of the other things he does that's very uncharacteristic of Plato is that he's defining what is a human being with Glaucon. So Glaucon is his interlocutor whose Plato's actual cousin or yeah, cousin. That's the student of Socrates in the in the republic and talking with Socrates. And they try to define what is a human, what is the guardian? So the guard because our society is going to require statesmen, it requires leaders, it requires guardians to protect it to decide how do you deal with war, how do you deal with your neighbors, how do you deal with peace, how do you deal with education policy, how do you deal with, right? So how do you train the guardians? Well, first we have to define what is a human, right? And in the definition he creates, there's a tell because he has Glaucon say or he has Socrates lead Glaucon into saying, well, humans are just like guard dogs, right? Glaucon is like, yes, certainly. Yeah, like animals like anything else. He's like, yeah, and like a guardian would have to guard a guard dog would have to guard. He's like, yep, that's right. So shouldn't we train so it so we could breed our guardians the way we'd breed our dogs or let's see our carrier pigeons or whatever, right? Glaucon's like, yeah, yeah, absurd. Of course. And then they just go on, right? Like you just accepted some wildly extremely big assumptions here without any scratching. That's super uncharacteristic of everything Socrates and Plato. I'll say Plato is known for doing. He would never in any case allow such a major topic to just be thrown away like that and just be granted as an a priori acceptance around which an entire meta like structure can be built on. And so I think part of this is that you have noble intentions. We want to know what justice is. We know it's not justice. But let's figure out what it is. Now he's looking at it how it's maybe easier to see it in a society than it is in an individual. So that's where he starts to build up his his society in the mind, right? Wow. And then he says, okay, well, let's say it gets so big. We have some abundance, some affluence. At some point we're going to consume more land. Let's say all of a sudden we encroach upon the land of one of the other cities next to us. Yeah. Well, we're going to go to war, right? It's like, yeah, of course, we're going to go to war. Well, I was an assumption. Like you don't have like there's other pathways to that dialogue, but he just throws these leading questions that give you these stupid answers in some ways. Yeah. And and then you're like, okay, well, now you want this perpetually perfect society and he creates again, clues to help the mind understand where it went wrong because the intention was noble. Everything you had noble points of of mind-blowing lessons embedded without within it. But then by the end you're like, we're throwing babies off a cliff. We're like creating noble lies to organize society around according to an elite superstructure committed to stability over truth. You're like, that's uncharacteristic. And then you realize, well, this is where the Neil Platonists who are often propped up into an oligarchical like a governing class throughout human history, is you'll find people who identify as Neil Platonists who are the ones managing the shit show. And what they're doing is they're taking the actual some of the worst elements of the literal interpretation of Plato that they then use as their guide to try to manage their society and a caste system the way all the sucksly guys in the brave new world. This is why Socrates didn't want to write anything down because he knew people would just like reinterpret shit and it's like it put their own meaning on shit and change it forever. And nothing wouldn't mean anything anymore. That's exactly right. I think I think you're totally right. Same thing for Confucius too, right? He didn't write and his stuff down. It was Mensea's and his followers. Right. Try and leave it out there. Leave it out there in the ether. You can download it when you're ready. It does help. And that's why I think Plato recognized the challenge of writing literal truths down is that they're always they're always interpretable and he tried to write in them like create these control ambiguities. So he wrote it in this type of way because he knew that humans have this tendency, which also can blow up in your face because if you don't have a people who have a taste of their own what their own minds naturally do when we're making discoveries. Sure. Because let's say we've been processed in a Rockefeller funded, you know, - No. - Zoo, the education. Then we will misread what he's doing. Now they will also, you have the Straussians. - I don't know if you've heard of the Straussians. - I have, but you have to refresh me on what it is. - It's a followers of Leo Strauss who is himself teaching that Plato had a secret doctrine. So a lot of his students became like Paul Wolfsetter, Ramesfeld's Richard Pearl, like a lot of the first second generation Neocons were trained under Strauss and Strauss had what came to be known as a secret doctrine. And in his secret doctrine, he was teaching his students that there was, so his exoteric students who weren't permitted to get his inner teachings would be given the story that he's a Plato scholar and he was brought in from Europe. He's brought in to a new school in New York. And so he would teach the commonly accepted interpretation of Plato as a philosopher, right? And if he enters for the students who were special-- - Initiated. - Initiated who would come to him after class because he said certain things that he would drop as anomalies into the class, right? 'Cause he was like, oh, but the gentleman would know better and then he would go on and some students in the audience were like, who's the gentleman? Why didn't he expand on that? And he knew that they would come to him and have a dialogue and he would bring him for ice cream or whatever, you know? For a beer afterwards in his house. And he would then bring them into the idea that Socrates is Thrasymicos. So in his world, and there's been, I'll call it whistleblowers, but former students, like Shadia Dury, who is one of his disciples, who realized that this was the sick thing that he had been doing, is he was actually teaching his inner, his chosen students that Socrates is not Socrates. Socrates was just telling a lie to act like he had noble intentions for his readers, but actually was Thrasymicos, the Hobzian character, who he seems to be debunking in book One of the Republic, who says justice is, might make's right, justice is the rule of the stronger, justice is, who controls the noble lie. That's who Socrates actually is. That's his true essence is the person he thinks he's, you think that he's refuting. - Jesus. - And then that's where the neocons, all formed their strategies around the teachings of Strauss that we need to create these noble lies for the plebs to be organized around that will then get them to acquiesce to things that they would normally never acquiesce to for their own good. Like Crusader Wars, whatever surveillance needs. - Wow. - Yeah, he treated it like Scientology. You get them in, you get them in with the stuff that makes sense, and they feel good stuff. And then you do the bait and switch, which they get initiated and you tell them about Zeno. That's crazy. I had this lady on here a couple months ago, the psychologist who was explaining to me how she thinks that the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge was the written word or language. Not necessarily language, she thought it was like the written word. And because she was explaining how writing and language is inherently deceptive because of everything we just talked about. How it can be misinterpreted, how people can change it for whatever the motives they choose. And the opposite of that would be intuitive knowledge. So she was a psychologist who did a lot of research with those kids, those autistic kids, those telepathic kids, from that telepathy tapes documentary. You familiar with it? - I don't know, like the. - So there's these kids. - Do your yellow kids and stuff? - No, no, no, no, no, it's more recent. There's a, not a doc, it's some documentary, it's a podcast called the telepathy tapes. And it blew up here in America a year ago, two, maybe two years ago, where there's all these autistic kids, these nonverbal autistic children who have these telepathic powers, where they can communicate with their parents, specifically telepathically, and the parents describe this. And there's this hill they all go to, where all these telepathic nonverbal autistic kids, they can go to some metaphysical location they call the hill, where they can all play and talk to each other or whatever, like they're playing some sort of like, on some land video game network, but it's like in telepathic universe. And this psychologist was there, documenting a lot of it and interviewing a lot of those kids or whatever. She's under the belief that humans had the ability, like way, way, way long ago, to communicate telepathically like before language that was ever a thing. And she believes like this intuitive knowledge that human beings had and that animals have, to be able to sense things that we can't see or taste or touch or whatever. She believes the development of the written word and language is what began to atrophy this ancient telepathic ability that humans had or more sensory abilities that humans used to have similar to how some animals do. And so she believes that that was the forbidden fruit of knowledge was when they ate that, that was what it did. And it was a fork in the road from intuitive knowledge to the written world, which as her case that she was making was that it's inherently deceptive and that's were like way far down that road now. - Interesting. - Pretty well, I thought it made a lot of sense. - Yeah, I mean, I don't know if it's all that, different necessarily from what Blavotsky was even saying earlier on as a within her secret doctrine that human beings had in this primordial Atlantian earlier root race, these superpowers that we became detached to as we became more materialistic, which you can consider, I guess, symbolic of knowledge as an expression of the materialism, that roots us more in using logic and reason, but under a more rigid set of tools that have grammar associated with it and other things, semantics. - Yeah, exactly. - Or I guess what Elbron Hubbard might even possibly be alluding to perhaps as we're being liberated from the operating fetus composing us, maybe we're slowly learning how to use our-- - That's what these are for. - Powers. - That's what this thing is for. Have you seen those before? - I have. The emulator gives you a technological exorcism. We're in the hub of Scientology right now. Elbron Hubbard's main church, he started, his first one was right there on the street. That was the first one I believe. And his ship was parked. I know for a fact, right in that harbor right there. - That's very interesting. I didn't know that. When I got out of the hotel and I looked outside, I was telling Steve, I saw, I've seen that, that rose accruesion cross somewhere before. - This whole city is owned by Scientologists. - Is it really now? - Yeah. - Interesting, interesting. - A lot of the most wealthy people around here are Scientologists, wild. - Fascinating stuff. - Yeah, they're all real estate tycoons. - Oh really? - Yeah. - Probably just the coin savings. So, no, I mean, like, so, like, as a, again, as a Platonist, I am trying to look for things that adhere to the best accounts of causation that increases my ability to problem solve and that creates a resolution to as many internal contradictions as possible. - Yeah. - Definitely logos, when that was translated, it was mis-translated as the word, number one. But I think of the original Greek, the idea of logos is much more tied to a process. It's not like a noun, like word is a noun. And it's an object. Logos, if you think of it as a reason, well, that's something all of a sudden, much more process oriented, much more verb based. And that could then be misused to, well, do you mean simply reason as logic, right? As like how to use syllogistic logic with a priori, a posteriori lines reasoning in order to find explanations that may or may not be true, but they're logically consistent. - Yes. - That is kind of stale and stagnant. It doesn't mean it doesn't have a place. Symbolic logic and syllogistic logic is, it has a place, but it has to be used as a tool, I think, and the, like, love of truth, the love of wisdom, the love of these higher things. And that may or may not govern the application of the tool of logic. But I think wisdom or the pursuit of wisdom, which is philosophies, philosophia, right? It's not just Sophia, it's not sophistry. It's the love of the wisdom. So it's thought about, I think, in a more noble way, then you're thinking of reason as something which is tied to the heart, which is much more based on the pursuit more than the capture of the thing. And as you do pursue and learn to love the process, you find yourself actually more able to capture the targets that you're looking for, knowing that the targets that you're capturing isn't the final closed answer. - Right. - So you're actually developing more of an instinct that is more intuitive based. And it does give you, like, look at Bach, right? Like, he was a guy who, he was a fantastic piano player and a composer, obviously. But he also saw, he had a relationship to music where he saw each work that he created as a prayer. It wasn't just, he wasn't needing to make money. So he did do it for that too, though it wasn't the final reason why he was doing it. So the reason what was causing him to compose, to create was as an homage to the creator. He is, right? - Yeah. - And how he used and framed the dissonances with which he chose to infuse into various compositions were done with a purpose of resolution, with a harmony. And he would be able to play in ways that were just mind-blowing because, you know, the people would just throw a little melody at him, you know, almost as a game. And just see that within a few minutes he would come up with this incredible multi-layered polyphonic composition of counterpoint and as gorgeous, right? But he earned it. It didn't come with them as a baby and a flash. It's something that he earned. He went through the work to come to know the keys. He learned the techniques, but then with a proper knowledge that he earned, he was then more and more freed and liberated to begin to play. And a lot of people they want to skip that step. That's what kind of disgusted me about my art school background is that the philosophy governing the arts program that I found myself in university was very much based on skipping steps, like, you know, anybody, like we didn't learn any principles of artistic composition that were actually practiced by Rembrandt or by any of the Renaissance painters. So that was all treated as if it's like obsolete wisdom for the past, no longer applicable to the current age. Interesting. I'm like, I love these paintings. I'm like, can't we know more? Can't we try, we weren't allowed to use oils that was disencouraged. Really? Yeah. And ultimately, the idea was to just philosophically make your audience. If you want to be a good artist, you should want to, and this is what I was taught by many of the teachers in Fine Arts, make your audience squirm uncomfortably. Why? Okay. Well, the theory of what justified that was, I get it, I don't agree with it, but it's that, you know, if the world is basically hypocrisy and corruption by design, there's something very, they're like, that's the way the world is, that what seems beautiful in the surface in the world is actually a cover for the ugliness inside each person, inside of each society. And the purpose of the artist in their mind is an ideal would be to be a reflection of the truth. And the truth is ugly. So we should be mirrors of the ugliness and help tear down the surface appearance of the lies of beauty and the lies of order and lies of goodness that make things intelligent or whatever. And thus, we should be as disruptive and as unintelligible and as emotionally, ugly, basically, we should appeal to the ugliness. That's weird. You know, that's one of the weird things about art too nowadays, which has been, you know, you wonder how, to what extent it's been bastardized from what it was, you know, back then, is that the reason that most people pursue any sort of artistic endeavor now is for the end goal is like the money or like the audience, like how many people are going to see this? I'm going to reverse engineer this. I want to create something. I want a lot of people to see what I do and I want to make a lot of money. And let's work backwards from there, right? Right. Which definitely wasn't the case back then. I doubt that's why Picasso started fucking. No, I don't think so either. Creating his art. No, yeah. There's definitely a purpose. Well, Michelangelo did though, right? Michelangelo. Yeah. He needed money. And that was part of the reason he needed a lot of stuff. It doesn't mean you can't be an impressive artist and do it for the wrong reasons. It doesn't mean that. Oh, I said Michelangelo. I meant to say Da Vinci, I'm sorry. I think Da Vinci is maybe a little bit more pure than Michelangelo and my assessment. Okay. Both of them might work. Yeah. I don't. I've not really studied too much of his codexes. Yeah. And it does seem like he was doing some interesting, you know, that's a whole other can of what I'm saying. All right. So let's pick and choose it. I think one of the problems with this, the way that art is conducted, like I, so I went through these extremes. In Canada, we have or in Quebec, we have what are known as Siegeps. They're kind of like preparatory between high school and university. There's a Siegep. You have these three or four year programs, two three or four year programs. And if you take a three year career program, it's basically a university degree. If you take a two year program, it's like a prep thing for university. So I did the three year thing, which was illustration and design, which is much more commercial based. So that was my focus was to get into commercial arts, illustration, storyboarding, things like that. And it takes, there's a lot of technique, a lot of structure, not a lot of heart freedom, right? Yes. Yes. Most people were getting into kind of soulless gigs, who were getting gigs, which is why for me, after getting that, I was like, it's not doing it for me in my heart. I need something else. So when I went into university afterwards, I went into the Fine Arts filmmaking program. And that was the other extreme. It was like no thought, no mind, no structure, pure expression, right? So there's no precondition to learn what you're dealing with. You don't have to learn the science, like how to deal with colors properly. You don't have to deal with perspective properly, like none of these things were expected of you. You just have to be able to express yourself in an interesting way, typically with the intention of creating some form of discomfort in your audience in order to get a grant. Interesting. In that world, you can only survive principally if you have a patron who's got an art gallery that can hook you up, which means that the patron has a lot of play over like what kind of aesthetics they're going to ingress or in Canada's case, it's the Canadian, the Council of the Arts, which is a major taxpayer-funded, central committee that's been set up in the 50s in order to choose who gets a grant and who doesn't in the arts world. And that's become something that's increasingly ideologically driven by a small cast of characters who are vetted to be on the council, who have perhaps the same ideological conditioning that they've been also groomed into that gave them the ability to have such a powerful position of managing hundreds of millions of dollars that go into a selected array of artists around Canada, right? And people then, they start deconstructing themselves and who they were in order to, again, you've got to make money, you've got to make a name for yourself, you've got to make money so then they start dancing to the tune that is expected of them, and becoming the type person that the former younger self might have despised in order, but you have to live your life. Recently in that person, which they do in science too, to get the grant, you have to necessarily adopt certain assumptions about global warming, about certain assumptions about standard model, quantum mechanics or whatever, if you want to get published, you want to get peer reviewed, you want to get the grant, you want to keep your job, and the better you, that was younger, that had more neuroplasticity, more of an honest heart, increasingly dissipates as you would adapt and become successful in that type of matrix, right? You might seem on the surface to be a super successful person that people admire. But inside, you're kind of like, you're lying to yourself and you probably know it and have maybe bad dreams if you're kind of honest, right? But then it becomes a self-perpetuating thing, because then the more people admire you, the more they then emulate you as their model, as young people are trying to model what is a successful person, and then it becomes a self-feeding machine, right? As far as, yeah, like the story of the autistic telepathic kids, there's just facts I would want to know about. I wouldn't take any of that into myself as conviction, I would take it all in as information, and then I would use that as the basis to start my own investigation over, like, is this authentic data of what we're being told from what these kids are experiencing? Is there any common threads tying their families together, tying the people who are running the experiments together that may be nudging them in certain ways that I don't even know about yet? Is it investigatable? I wouldn't presume that it's true. So my first hypothesis is that there's shenanigans behind the scenes. They're absolutely us. To me, stage magic, like Yuri Geller's stuff. And yeah. So I'd start with that before I-- So do you think Yuri Geller's stuff is real? Do you think Yuri Geller really had all those powers? I don't think so. You don't think he had any of it. I think he believed he did. I think he-- to a certain degree, although I think he also knew that he was doing magic tricks, kind of like Johnny Carson, I have this clip in one of my-- in the hidden hand behind UFO episode four from Johnny Carson, whatever in 1981, I don't know if you saw that episode. No, I didn't see that one. It's the one where he brings in Yuri Geller. But in this case, Yuri Geller is very, very pissed off because he didn't-- Carson who's also a stage magician, he knows the tricks. But his team select the spoons and select the cups. And he didn't use-- He was Geller's chosen cups and chosen spoons. And Geller is really uncomfortable when he's confronted on life, carrying in front of an audience without his preferred controlled accessories. Yeah. My thing about Yuri Geller is I think I'm open to the idea. I'm open to the possibility that what he was doing was real and that he had some sort of abilities, whether it be like telekinetic stuff or any kind of this side stuff. I think I tend to believe that there was something to it, right? If Poo Hart was given all that money to study this stuff, I have to think there was something going on. And I think where it gets blurry there where the water starts to get murky is when you start to monetize it and you start to go on TV shows and you start to do like big performances. Then you have to bring it to the surface on call, right? You have to be ready to make this stuff work. And I don't think you have that much control over it. I believe if you do have these abilities and you can do it, I think it's probably something that happens randomly or at least, at the very least, you don't get to choose when and if these things work. Does that make sense? I get that. I get that. So there has to be some level of shenanigans or some level of stagecraft involved in it. If you're going to monetize it. Do you want to play that clip? It's a long clip. Yeah. - How long is it? - It's two months. - Oh, you got the, you got the core of it, eh? Okay. - Sure. - Let's put these on and hear it. - Really? - Okay. - Can I drink one of these lukewarm drinks? - Yeah, it's cradum. You want a cold one? - I know. - You're head cradum? - No. - Is it gonna like cause my head to spin or something? - No, no, no. It's like a, it's just like a very mild stimuli. But is that a cold one? - No. - I get you a cold one. Let's take a quick break. I got a pee anyways. - Okay. - We'll be right back. - All right, hit it, Steve. - We have only met-- - This scares me. - This scares you. Well, we just got some things together here and-- - I told them to provide their own props, and not to let Geller or his people anywhere near them. - So, one of our staff members did some drawings which have been sealed in an envelope, and I'd like you to take your own pace when you feel like you want to try anything. You want to try that particular experiment fresh? - Well, no, feel for it. - What do you mean? - Sure. - We start eliminating the ones that do not have the water. - All right, without touching them. - He is really suspicious. (laughing) - I'm having a hard time with you. - Okay, I don't mean to be, right? I really don't-- - Just keep looking. - Okay, let me rest a little, all right? - All right. - You know, I'm surprised, because before this program, your producer came and he read me, please, 40 questions, you're gonna ask me. - Well, I can ask you all kinds of questions if you'd like, if you'd like me to ask you questions. - I have to have time. - More to come? - Are they really breaking it right there? - All right, we are back. Your brewery was telling how you'd be-- - You don't feel right. - No, so what number five is strong tonight is that? - It's not strong. It's not-- - It's not strong tonight. - Right now I'm feeling, I'm feeling being pressed, and then I can't-- - Well, I'm not trying to press you. I really not, but-- - No, y'all can tell me well, will you try that with that? - Well, I thought that was the idea of-- (audience laughing) No, I'm not trying to put you down. (audience applauding) - That was funny. - It's like a much longer video. - Yeah, I feel for all. - Painful, but interesting. - Yeah, it is. - It's unfortunate. - Yeah. - But you can see, I mean, you could, you know, to be generous, you could see how, if those powers or those abilities were real in like a super stressful situation, they maybe won't work, or whatever, just like anything, right? - Well, I think that there's-- - I guess we need some crazy tricks that I've done before on my skateboard, and then I get like a crowd of people watching in cameras, this is a good chance. I'm probably not gonna make that. - But he's performed in live audiences quite a bit. - No, yeah, I know that, I know that. - All that to say, there does seem to be a trend of sort of hope, a fakery, even going back to, you know, the Hodgson Committee. - Yep. - Or you know about that, right? So yeah, Madame Blavatsky was renowned for selling herself as this great supernatural telepath who could interface with the Ascented Masters and even get them to give her letters and, you know, materialize cups and messages for her to give to her followers and all sorts of things. And it was discovered that a lot of it was stage magic, where they shared trap doors inside of her adiar operation, that there were all sorts of different techniques, even her own handwriting was used for some of the messages from Kutumi and Maria. And then you even had the British Society for Cycle Research carry out their Hodgson Committee, like report that did validate a lot of these claims made by certain insiders who were kind of second by the fact that they were participating in. So it's like did she know it? Did she think that this stuff was justified in order to get people to stay in a pure emotional, spiritual state of superstition, to be more receptive to the spiritual messages? I don't know how she justified it. I think to a certain degree, she definitely believed she had these powers. Just like I really do believe, if you gave him a light detector test, he would say that he does. But the power of self deceit is quite astounding as well. We could tell ourselves all sorts of amazing stories that we could end up living into, despite evidence to the contrary. Look at our society around us, right? There's so much evidence that people have are confronted with that could show them that COVID-19 was a completely different game than what they thought that they lived into. I mean, just look at the rainbow serpent tribe in Haiti. They literally believe they turn into zombies and they walk around like zombies for days after they eat the fucking pufferfish venom. It's like the power of belief, like it's insane. Oh, I see. So they're informed. They've been informed of the science of the pufferfish venom and what it can do. And they can't accept that science and then they choose to instead continue to believe the story. Yeah, well, they believe that Dexotoxin that comes out of those pufferfish when they consume it because it does actually paralyze the body for a good amount of time that they bury the people after they take it. And then when the pufferfish venom wears off, they turn into zombies. Well, their religion and their heritage is a zombie religion and they quite literally believe that this ritual turns them into a zombie. And what's the name of this tribe? Find out what it's called. It's a Haitian, it's called the Haitian, it's a Haitian voodoo zombie religion cult. And there was a researcher who was a psychedelic researcher, a chemist and a, I forget his actual term of what he studied. But anyways, he studied that actual toxin and they did a study on it and they were trying to see if that had that same effect on anybody else and it didn't. And what they came to find out was that it was because of the belief that these people had on this island that practiced that religion is what literally it affects their physiology and every part of their body and their mind to where it has this effect on them. - Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, so there's, it's an incredible thing, the power of mind and the power of myth making both for macro societies but also for individuals and what a myth can do for ourselves as far as coloring our dreams if we meditate on something that we want to believe is true. We're more likely to find it to be true even if it's not true, right? Just like if you don't believe something is true, you're more likely not to find it even if it is true. But you don't believe it. You could see-- - The Haitians, the rainbow serpent. - Oh, the Aruba, the Aruba. - A Yita Web Widow. - Okay, so it comes from West Africa. - Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever the hell happened to the Aruba's is a wild. - So does it give you a description of how the whole process works? - Is that the case where they found that people in Haiti would occasionally-- - Let me see what you searched, Steve. Let's Chris, let's, okay. Okay, type in Haiti, zombie, ritual. Haiti, zombie, ritual. Okay, here it is. The zombification ritual, the process begins when the Boko, yeah, the Boko, punishes a victim by administering the complex power of the powder. The powder is typically made from human remains, poisonous toads and pufferfish containing tetrotox, tetro, tetrodotoxin. The toxin induces a state of near-death paralysis and catalepsy so profound that the victims are often declared deceased and buried, the resurrection. Hours or days after the burial, the Boko exumes the victim and revives them to maintain control, to maintain control in a permanent catatonic state. The sorcerer administers further concoctions, often featuring dissociative and psychoactive plants, like Duturra, which contains scopolamine and the investigations. A Wade Davis, that was the researcher. He's an ethno-bottonist. So Wade Davis did a whole investigation on this tribe and the phenomenon that was happening. And yeah, what he found out is that-- - Yeah, see that it affects somebody else. - Absolutely fascinating. It doesn't have an effect on anybody else, though. - No, just people in that drive. - Belief function is playing a big role in activating the, 'cause I guess without that substance going into them, this toxin, would they still get that effect? Like, if you gave him a placebo, would they still get that effect? - Rob and maybe. - Maybe, yeah. - Here is. I know that there's a case of this fellow, I think it's Edwin, Edwin Washington Irving. Or Washington, no, it's Washington Irving. Forgot his last name. But he was a very interesting debunker of a lot of the spiritualists of the 1850s, '60s, '70s, '80s. He ends up dying in 1889, but he's made a lot of enemies. He was young, too, he's like 39. And one of his major topics was teaching how these various mediums, the spirit mediums, that were very big across all of the United States at that time, that's, you know, Blavadsky was in the US studying, actually doing spiritualism and acting as a spirit medium with all caught when they met originally at the Fox sisters, one of her displays, one of the displays, I think it was the Fox sisters. And anyway, this guy was showing how not only a lot of their tricks worked on stage for public audiences, but also how some of the toxins were used to shut down to create like catatonic states that would appear as though you were dead. And hours later, sometimes days later, you'd be brought back to life. As part of a way of conveying the image that within a lot of these rituals, the person had literally died either the person caring out. The sorcery had died and come back or that somebody that they had done. that one of their targets had come back to life, right? That made that person much more devoted as an adherent to whatever that person, whatever the shaman is gonna say, whatever the spirit medium is gonna say. - Right. - And he was actually doing these tricks on stage. Washington Irving. - Interesting. - I can forget his last name. Anyway, he ends up getting killed. And his mother is campaigning across America for years after he dies in 1889 to bring awareness to the fact that he was targeted and was murdered by his enemies because there were two doctors stationed who were both spiritualists in the front row of one of his shows in New York, who immediately, though they knew what the show was about, immediately took his catatonic body, brought it to the back behind stage and to some one room that they locked themselves in in this manner or this, whatever it was, and immediately didn't autopsy. - Whoa. - Yeah, even though he let it be known, I'm not actually dead. And he had cards and everything in for me, informing people if they find my body, doing fucking autopsy me, I'm alive, and they killed 'em, right? And that was one of the things meeting her as after he died. And I think she met Harry Houdini. So Harry Houdini was a young guy. He just came to prominence in the 1893 period as a stage magician. And it was meeting her in I think 1898 or so that he learnt of a lot of the dark operations and lies within the medium that he was becoming very good at adapting to, like he was learning all of the tricks, he was becoming the best at everything he was putting his mind to. And he ended up sponsoring the last years of her life and paying for her writings to be published across the United States. So she formed a lot of his strategy. So when he read his writings of what he's doing working for American intelligence, what he's doing working for. Even in 1907, he writes a book exposing Houdin, Robert Houdin, who's the name of a great French stage magician and medium, who he took the name from. The name Harry Houdini is a name he selected based on the naive idea he had of his hero, the great, the great Houdin, Robert Houdin. And in the book that he published in 1907, he spoke, he learnt, like he's teaching you, all of his discoveries that he made along the way into the espionage networks, the occult espionage networks that he ties Cagliostro into. 'Cause Cagliostro was Austro carrying out stage magic, acting like it was real magic while he was working in espionage during the French Revolution, setting up the Egyptian right. He was working also with Saint Germain, whoever the hell that was or whatever that was. Mesmer was also part of the same network. And so Cagliostro is being brought up directly by Houdini in that 1907 book that's available. And he carries you through a story of the occult or the role of stage magic in espionage and mass psychological formation of target audiences. - Wow. - That Houdin, who was working as well for Napoleon III as an emissary for the French for Napoleon III in North Africa in the courts of various Arab target states that were designed to be seduced by the story of the power of the magic of Napoleon III who would then create alliances that had very big political implications in the great game. So Houdini was really solid. And you know, he came out with a good spirit. He was trying to not say, he was very clear to say I'm not trying to debunk magic. I'm not trying to debunk the supernatural. I'm just noticing that there's a lot of fakery and if somebody could showcase an example to me of being an honest, medium, channeling, like doing the chromancy and channeling a message from the beyond from whatever higher powers or the dead and just do it in a way that I can't debunk, I want to believe it 'cause he was like, I have loved ones I want to talk to. And his whole life, he was very honest about that. Unfortunately, he kept on discovering how these tricks are made like even his house. He brought in some of the top psychics of his day into his house just before he dies. The last six years, he really goes full hog when he started seeing I think the spiritual, the spiritual, that's him. Washington Irving Bishop, thank you. That's him. 18, 18, 1855 to 1889. Stage, mentalist. Yes, that's right. That's right. His known for his well-known performance of the blindfold drive. Mm-hmm. Wow. And that's important where he says there, his article accused the physicist and spiritualist of William Crooks of being duped by Faye. Anna Eva Faye. Okay. That's very important 'cause William Crooks, he comes up a lot in my book, Vol. 2 of the Revenge of the Mystery Cults. He was simultaneously. He's one of the few people who had different times in his life was the president of the British Royal Society, so the science, the scientific institution. He was the president of that, but he was also the president of the British Society for Psychical Research. And it was devoted to trying to provide a scientific veneer to justify why transmediums and other things were scientifically valid. He was also a major influencer, actually that's a whole story. Read my book. So how did Houdini get involved with intelligence? That is chapter 11 of my Revenge of the Mystery Cults, Vol. 2, on, called the Rosa Crucion Golden. And it's the one that has Nicola Tesla, Elon Musk, Isaac Newton, and Charles Darwin on the cover. And what intelligence? Like what? It was originally American intelligence. So you had, I think, it seems there were several branches. You had one grouping within British intelligence that I think thought that they could use him for their advantage. So he was performing as a celebrity in a lot of the leading courts of Europe, including Russian courts. And because of the, the, the, the, I peep everyone loves magic. So that gives you access in ways that otherwise it would be impossible, right, to conversations, to relationships that you can develop with courtiers, with high-level people who you can maybe seduce if they're a bit more mystically inclined. You can get in front of the presidential dinners. You know, you, obviously, you're doing Calvin Coolidge's like Sanuses to speak to his dead kids or, you know, and all of a sudden that gives you an ability to influence what's going on inside of policymaking circles. And like Harry Houdini. So there, there were networks of patriotic American intelligence networks that people like Edgar Allen Poe and I'm pretty sure Washington Irving Bishop were also a part of, that were offshoots of the society of Cincinnati. That started off as, I think, a pretty patriotic organization that became increasingly corrupt in time because it was still hereditary and that's, that's a problem. But anyway, you, there, there were these things that Abraham Lincoln was interfacing with. I think Lincoln's original secret service. That was one of the last acts he did while in office before he gets killed by the, by the order of the Golden Circle, which is this racist Confederate secret society around Albert Pike that is, yeah, that basically carries out his assassin. They had a whole, that becomes the paramilitary group that sets up the KKK right after Lincoln is killed. But his last acting office before getting killed, before going to the play, was to sign into law the secret service. So I think the first couple of generations of the secret service had a lot more honest patriotic forces operating within that milieu than perhaps what came later around JFK's time. There were certain Masonic networks too, I think, that were still residuals who were important and who were battling the Rosa Crucian takeover of a lot of the American masonry that was really a big fight in the 19th century. And there were still residuals of, I think, the more authentic Freemasons that Harry Houdini was a, was a member of that Franklin Roosevelt. He was a Freemason? Oh, yeah, yeah. But not all Freemasons are created equal, not all strands of the movement have the same lineage in some of our outrage. I'm in outer space right now. I don't have any knowledge about what you're talking about. So I'm just sort of like going with it. So I might not have many, many good questions, but this is fascinating. So Lincoln was killed by the pre KKK, which was a paramilitary group. So John Wilkes Booth, there's a book called The City of Secrets by Barry Sheehy, that I used a lot in my research, which is a great book, 2017. And it goes through the role of the British, so British Canada was a Confederate intelligence hub throughout the entirety of the Cold War. That's right, civil war. Okay. And John Wilkes Booth has letters that have survived talking to a relative where he's describing the five-week spent in Montreal at the St. Lawrence Hall, which was I think it was run by the Metzini of America, what's his name? Saunders, George Saunders, a Colonel with the Confederacy who ran a big chunk of the Confederate operations in Canada. He was a close friend of Trotsepi Metzini and had formerly been the US consul to London under President Pierce, who was sort of the Freemasonic President in the 1850s. That was a whole Freemasonic presidency. Everybody was just high level, but on the bad side of the game. And Wilkes Booth writes, saying how the five weeks he spent are like a dream. He doesn't quite remember what happened to him, but he knows it was the most important experience in his life. And it's great. I cite big chunks of that letter in my book on that was-- That was in Clash. I wrote a book called Clash of the Two Americas, The Unfinished Symphony, Volume One. And at the 13th chapter, I cite from that book and his letters quite a bit. But he was a member of the Knights of the Golden Circle. And that was set up in 18. Booth? Booth, yeah. Okay. I think all of the executives, all of the top brass of the confederacy were all. What was the Knights of the Golden Circle? It was set up in 1852. You can probably Google that. I think that it seems to overlap with the co-founding of the Benybreath, which was set up in 1852 as well. Or 1854, yeah. Secret Society founded in 1854 by American George Bickley. Yeah, there you go. It's objective initially was to expand the United States into Latin America, adding slave states and ensuring the permanent continuance of slavery. Yeah, okay. Got it. Yeah, that's where they began their attempt to take over of Cuba, which was supposed to be if you look at the graphs that they published for their own membership, which it basically featured a. What's a golden circle? Geographically, right? And it basically has Cuba as the center sort of headquarters of this emergent island empire. Whoa. Yeah. And it would evolve. And I think Atlantis is near Cuba too. Wow, what's the fuck? What's that about? Probably no coincidence. What the fuck, dude? So we need Kurt. We gotta call it. We gotta phone Kurt. Yeah, bring Kurt on fast. Yeah, I don't know. Yeah, there it is. Yes. Oh, wow. Right. There it is. Yeah. So that's what they wanted. Had they succeeded in properly succeeding from the union, their next step. People say, "Oh, they were just going to be left alone. They weren't going to cause anybody any problems." It's like, no, they actually had a stated goal of between. There are so many deep underwater ruins right in the center of that area of Cuba too. Yeah. And that includes Bimini Road, where some people like Graham Hancock think that that was, but you know, I don't know. That's interesting. Very interesting that that I had no idea about this. It causes me a little bit of concern to see the amount of emphasis placed upon today's ambition to create like a new technique, right? A new North American technique with Cuba and U.S. dominates in Venezuela. Yeah. So I'm thinking myself, maybe that's not a coincidence. Albert Pike was a very, very high level member of the Golden Circle as well. You know, and Albert Pike's role in reshaping or reconstituting the Southern branch of the Scottish right is not insignificant. His role in also influencing the creation of the KKK. And the Ku Klux Klan is actually related directly to the Golden Circle because Ku Klux in Greek means circle. Really? Yeah. So it's just sort of a rebranding in my mind. They had about, according to their own estimates, there were about 80,000 members of this secret order in the 1850s. Probably a few more even by the time the Civil War began. And yeah, like KKK, sorry, not KKK. Pike had even though he was dead by this time, his statue was set up in Washington DC in 1902 at the same moment that McKinley was killed. And McKinley was, I think, the last authentic Lincoln Republican who was trying to revive Lincoln's true policies. So when McKinley was killed by an anarchist assassin in that right in 1902, immediately the Albert Pike statue was erected with the arrival of Teddy Roosevelt into power. Teddy Roosevelt begins what the big stick diplomacy. So he's the guy who now first comes out really embracing the Roosevelt corollary to them in road doctrine. Right. And starts using that as a justification to expand the influence of the military, industrial complex, the Rockefeller big, big oil operation everywhere across Latin America. And I think that influence is still there, considering that there's a huge rehabilitation of Teddy Roosevelt, Teddy Rooseveltism, currently into the current administration. So I'm seeing, I'm, and also the fact that Albert Pike's statue, which was taken down some years back, was just reinstated. And I think it was July of 2025. What? Yeah. And I think for those in the know, it's a direct statement of intention. That's how I'm reading that stuff is like this is like a manifesto or something. So what's your best guess on what happened during those five weeks with booth, John Wilkes booth? I don't know. There's, there's all kinds of cults and communes that have been set up across the East Coast and Canada. There's no exception by the enemies of the ideals of the Republic. Do you think they did some sort of like Manchurian candidate mind control shit to him? Probably. I mean, he was an actor. And they really like actors because they're already kind of habituated to go into outer body experience in their states. So they're much more conducive to sculpting. Right. That's interesting. Yeah. So probably I would imagine. So, um, Confederate statue toppled in Washington, January is dated October of 2025. Yeah. There you go. October, right? So that, that bothers me a little bit. That's concerning. Yeah. Yeah. And if you remember from my discussion with Kurt, um, Metzger, we, we were talking, he wanted to know a lot about the Ohnita cult. Yeah. I don't know anything about that. I did. So that's, that's volume Ohnita. Ohnita. Yeah. That's in volume three of the revenge of the mystery cults. I did a chapter on the killer of McKinley. No, Garfield. Because President after Lincoln dies, right? Yeah. Then Garfield also was assassinated in 1880. And then later on, 20 years later, McKinley is assassinated. So many presidents get assassinated? Yeah. They're all doing the same kind of thing, right? If you look at what they're doing policy wise, it's not that different. And who are the enemies that they're even though they're separated by many generations, right? JFK to McKinley separated by 60 years to Lincoln, which is 100 years to JFK. But if you look at the concrete political, economic and military policies and the overarching philosophy that is animating their, their sense their paradigm of how to interpret foreign relations, military action, political strategies, it's, it's a drawing from the exact same source and the exact same, I think, authentic reading of what the Constitution and the American system should have been and wasn't its best. Yeah. Small moments now and again. And so the enemies that they're all making are the same structures, even though it's multi-generational, right? The people are all dead who killed McKinley, who killed McKinley when JFK is getting close. Yes. But it's the same institutions. It's the same traditions that are carrying out a similar protocol, which is something that's above any sort of nation state. Yeah. It's above nation. It goes into nation states. It penetrates into, but it's not coming out of the nation state. Right. Yeah. It's above it. It's above it, but it has tentacles reaching down into it. Yeah. It's kind of like crafty in that sense. Wow. Yeah. Have any other, is there any other country who's had so many presidents assassinated? I don't think so. It's kind of a young country comparatively to have so many years. And there's, if you think about, that was actually that they drawing what caused me to team embark upon this study that became my four volume, because I did a four volume study of a clash of the two Americas over the course of a number of years. And that was one of the paradoxes that drove me forward. It was like why the hell did so many American presidents die while in office? Because if you consider four by bullet, four by mysterious means not bullet, probably poisoning, I could label them off right. You know when label them off? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We got William Harrison in 1841. After three weeks of being president, he dies, kills over. About a decade later, you got Zachary Taylor, another wig president, who's the precursor to what becomes the better Republican party in 1856. So he kills over after two and a half years. The cause of death for him is too many cherries and cold milk is the official autopsy cause of death. Oh, did he start like vomiting bile or something vomiting? Black stuff. Yeah. Yeah, vomiting, black shit. Exactly. Black sludge. Yeah. Yeah. And die painful death is terrible. But he was also the guy who was the direct enemy of the golden circle. So when he was in power, the golden circle was just getting set up. And he went to war. He imprisoned their one of their leading members who was organizing the invasion of Cuba with his whole program. He imprisoned this guy whose name I thought about this for a while. Anton Shaken did some good work. If you look at the historian Anton Shaken, I learned a lot of my research methods from this guy's work. And he created so many leads in his treason in America book that is still available for free online. It's really worth picking up. And he goes through all of the names, all of the details that are all substantiateable and proofable. So Zachary Taylor, he dies and then you have Lincoln. Clearly, we know that that one. Garfield again, 1880, his assassin, like I spoke with Kurt Kurt about this one, seemed to have been spawned out of or engineered out of the Anita commune that he was a part of. I think he was even born into it. His parents at least were a part of it that seemed to have created a brainwashed assassin. Yeah. That was then assigned as a disposable asset to go and carry out the task. Then McKinley dies in 1902. What do you got there? U.S. is the top. Oh, he's asking how many, what did you ask it? How many leaders list the top countries with the most leaders assassinated history? United States is number one. Number two is Russia. And they're not even acknowledging the poisoning, right? They're just looking at linking Garfield and McKinley and Kennedy, but in terms of those where there's enough evidence for I think, I think are like for poisoning. - These are just bullet kills. - These are bullet kills, yeah. 'Cause you get Warren Harding in 1923 or 24, 23. Warren Harding is in there for like two years. He's battling the League of Nations, which was being sold to the world as being the foundation for like the New World Order and the replacement to nation states. And he's battling that thing with bipartisan patriots from both parties who all understand what the fight is about, much better than today's political class does. - Yeah. - And they're undermining the League of Nations early on. And he gets killed. A lot of his allies also die around at the same time. FDR, I would say I would throw him on the list too. Franklin Roosevelt was just six months into his fourth term. And he dies in a very, very strange way. He gets sick super fast after Yalta. And Stalin is very convinced that he. Stalin tells Roosevelt's son, forgot the son of the name, who wrote a book. Anyway, Stalin has an interview with Roosevelt's son, who publishes the interview decades later where Stalin is quite convinced that Churchill's gang killed his father. - Really? - Yeah, they wanted to control the terms of the New World Order after World War II and turn the USA basically into an instrument for British brains that would then reconstitute the Empire under a slightly more Angler or American veneer, but not really be American in its essence. We all know about JFK. - I think we're racking it up. Bobby Kennedy would have been president, guaranteed in '68. He was collaborating at that time very closely with Martin Luther King Jr. - Right. - So that's a whole different timeline that one could imagine could have gone very, very differently. And then there's people who weren't quite president, but who died again, who had a lot of political clout over the years, who died like a guy who FDR was gonna make his attorney general. Thomas, what's his name, who basically dies the day before he was gonna be attorney general and he was on record publicly saying he was going to fire J. Edgar Hoover in 1933. - Thomas Dewey. - Nope, not Thomas Dewey. - Interesting. - Walsh, Thomas, you're fast, man. I didn't even give you that much to work with at that. Those, yeah, Thomas Walsh. - Wow. - Yeah. - That of a heart attack two days before his inauguration. - Yeah. - He was on record saying he was gonna reorganize the FBI and fire J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover was also getting a reputation as being a, yeah, man, it's, it's quite something in it. - So it's like, oh my God, dude. It's like that fucking movie. What's that movie called with Matt Damon where they basically control reality and they can like pause reality and go back and like change it. - Bureau. - Yeah, adjustment bureau. Who is this fucking shadowy organization? Like today, like right now, who are these people? And you have the president of the Trump thing, the Trump thing where he gets his earshot, the blood on his ear and like, that was like so bizarre. That almost defies all reason that that was how, yeah, it feels like stage magic, doesn't it? - It does. It does. - So who is it? Who, what is this layer? - I think that at the, at least what gets us closer to a causal nexus would be something that is closer, tied more closely to certain chivalric orders that are, that found their origins in the crusades a thousand years ago and that are tied to certain patrician families that go back quite a ways. And have their own internal set of behavioral standard, their own internal culture that is maintained for the governing class and certain belief structures, certain cosmologies, certain ideas of human nature and you know, the big things, the big questions that are maintained and reserved for those who wield power. I think again, the conduit through which they exert, that influence tends to be closer to a lot of those older chivalric orders, like the order of the golden fleece or the order of the garter or the order of malta or it's various incarnations or offshoots. The order of Templars that I think has a variety of different expressions today. I think have an inner sort of collusion for, you know, that goes back to a lot of the mystery cults, the dominant mystery cults of the ancient world. I think that it's a big topic if you want to. But I think it has more, so the way I try to think about it is through epistemology more than anything else because it's not so, at the end of the day, what do you do with these facts? Like if-- - That's the problem. - Yeah, like that's my battle with myself is like, I'm always thinking how much of this is useful getting into the weeds? Like I know a number of dominant families, I know a number of powerful institutions, a number of very old orders. But I'm like, what can people really do at this the end of the day? What I find to be more useful is what I was mentioning since at the beginning of our discussion about the epistemology fight is like, how does this thing as a species character behave? How does it think? What a method is it using for itself? And what is it promoting for others to be kept in the cave? In the shadow, in the cave of shadows of Plato's allegory? - Sure. - And by better understanding, what are the techniques and tricks that it uses for sophistry making the false appear true, both within the realm of mind, but also within the realm of, here's a magic, here's a rabbit out of my head. By getting a better appreciation for false logic, whereas the perversion of reason, then I can also counterpose that to studies of where does reason emerge in a more organic, like a healthy way in people who do walk in harmony with natural law and shape their identities and choices in life according to that by creating better choices and potentials for the species to be liberated more. What kind of myths do they create that help us better tap into our more human divine qualities that make us more dignified, self-loving, loving of others, more respectful for, and loving of truth? And what type of mythologies are created? Sometimes they're mixed, right? There's a battle over who controls the symbols, who controls the meaning of the symbol, who controls what the all-seeing eye means, who controls what the frigian cat means, right? So there's a battle from, I think, different perspectives on how do you take stories, symbolic logic, or the symbols that we use for things and either bring about the best, or in mesh people ever more into the addiction of the cave, where they think that ever more deeply that the shadow world is the true world or that the dream state is the real state. - Yeah. - That's how I think about it. - At some level too, I feel like all of this Epstein stuff being declassified and all the stuff that we're given access to feels like some sort of a stage game as well. It feels orchestrated. I know from the basic perspective, it looks like it's us fighting to get congressmen and senators and the public, the vast majority of the public really pushing to get this stuff released, these Epstein files, I mean Trump ran on doing it and I think any rational human being with a conscience would want these people to be put in prison and not to be in power in the United States. But then you have these dog and pony shows in front of Congress with people like Pam Bondi saying, "Well, the Dow is at 50. Do you not want the Dow to be up where it is right now?" Like she's basically insinuating that this will unravel the economy and Western society if we let this out. But at the same time, they didn't have to release all that stuff. Like they could have found a way around not releasing that stuff. They did that because they wanted to. And I don't, with everything else that they get away with, I just don't see, I don't see why, I feel like if they didn't want to release the stuff they did release in regards to the Epstein files, they wouldn't have. And they did. And I feel like they have a plan behind that. - Can I ask you what kind of hypotheses? 'Cause I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm just sort of working this out in real time. I don't really have a hypothesis. I just feel like all that stuff that came out, like releasing all of that crazy shit on the public with jerky and cheese pizza and like the pizza gate stuff and human flesh and profiting off civil wars in the Sierra Leone, the pictures of him, he has the American flag draped over his table using the American flag as a tablecloth and like just the emails and everything. It's so dark and so evil. And so many people were compromised in it. It's like what do we do with that as human beings and as American citizens? When, like what are we supposed to do with it? Especially when you combine that with the fact that the government and the FBI has done nothing about it, like how does the FBI not investigate this? How do they do nothing about it? I feel like it's, yeah, it's, I think it, maybe it could be a tactic to help or to make us lose hope. - I tend to think you're right. I honestly do, I'm very much in alignment with your way of thinking on this. It does seem to have, again, the more you look at what came out with the Epstein files, the stranger and stranger it gets, right? Like, there's emails that bring him directly into the causation of 4chan back in 2012. Like four years before. Was it him and Bannon that made 4chan? Not Bannon. It was Ben involved, I don't even know. I thought it was Bannon. It wouldn't be surprised. But there's another guy who comes up in the emails. So you got that, like, again, back when they're still proto in proto, Q and on mode. It wasn't in there yet, but things were starting. So you got this kind of thing already in motion. He's tied to everything, though. And it does seem to have that air of, you know, like, is he dead? No. I don't think he's dead. I don't think that there's a lot of evidence that a character like that doesn't get eliminated. No. Yeah. And then also, like, to what you just said, we have all the public evidence in front of of us to prove that he's not dead because the autopsy says he has a prostate and we have the files. They release files on us that prove that he does have a prostate because he's talking or the files, the emails with his doctors, he's talking about, I don't have a prostate. I need these drugs, these medications to help balance me out because I don't have a fucking prostate. And then his official autopsy report says that they examine his prostate. So what are they doing with that? Is that just incompetence? It might be. It might just be incompetence. It seems almost like, I hate seeing this right because I don't want to be cynical and shit, but you know, I got to acknowledge the level of, like, how far we've permitted this game to go on? Because you have to understand that this is also true. The FBI and the CIA, they're kind of like the post office at some level. There's diffusion of responsibility. These people, like, the people that are doing this stuff, there's so many employees and, you know, they're directed to do things and at some level, I'm sure shit slips through the fucking cracks. And it's not, it's not a well oiled machine, right? Well, it isn't. It isn't, right? It's highly compartmentalized cybernetics systems. So all these systems are all managed according to cybernetics principles of highly, highly bureaucratized, fragmented systems with only a small nerve center of executives that are granted the ability to see what the whole is doing. But the people who are highly specialized in the departments of the NSA and the sub-departments and the sub-departments, most of them don't know what the other department is doing. They don't know the emerging purpose of anything. It's kind of like the Manhattan Project. And they're not incentivized to go kick obese, a beehive, because they know they're going to lose their retirement or go to jail. There's so many things holding you back, yeah. And it feels like I was going to say the Obama, you know, a birth certificate story. It's, again, very similar in a feeling I'm getting to something as a contrived bit of Kubuki theater designed to get an emotional effect in a target audience that is designed to make this a high priority principle of their internal drama and what they expect in the narratives that they're going to listen to on podcasts in Congress. And the actual core principles of what is bringing us into these very bad controlled demolitions of our own of everything that that we could otherwise be problem solving, we're not paying proper attention to those things or spending our time actually dealing with okay, well, the banks are clearly going to explode. They've been designed to blow up. That's what we used to have in economy. Now we have a giant debt-based, hyper-financialized bubble and it's going to be detonated. What do we do about that? Very, very provable objective fact. If you're thinking in a healthy way, you could be like, okay, well, in the, we have these historic precedents and powers of the Constitution. We've done Glass-Steagall in the past in similar circumstances in the thirties. We broke up the banks. We forced a lot of bankers into jail. You know, there are things that practically have precedents that could be organizing principles and battle today, but people are just so pulled into the drama, these like controlled dramas. And whether it makes them cynical blackpills or whether it makes them hyper-naive, white-pilt hopiematics, you know, who would think that Trump is the savior because God willed that He turned His head just in that way that He did, or it's, you know, it's all a controlled thing. You know, that it both gets the effect of people who don't do anything, who are all like, you know, I don't have, I could just sit back and eat my popcorn. It's all good. The white hats are in control or the black hats have the black hats are controlling everything. And in both cases, you're just sitting back doing nothing with different feelings in your heart. And it seems like, yeah, that type of national inquire stuff was needed to sort of acclimate the zeitgeist to that type of attitude, especially since the '70s and '80s. Probably a lot of drugs and make your own reality, philosophies helped kind of detach people from personal responsibility for defending their societies when enemies come to the, come to the gates. Probably didn't help. But yeah, it does seem like there's kabuki theater abounding. And how do the tech companies fit it as? How do I like the Peter Teele, Elon Musk, and all these people? That's Lovatsky. That's Lovatsky. Well, it's her, it's her, it's the Silicon Valley movement. So you have to look at things like the Valarian brothers of the early 1900s that sort of created the foundations of what became Silicon Valley as a tech hub, who were part of a philosophical cult. Yeah. And the root race idea that, you know, the fifth race will emerge in California and will be able to supplement or transplant the obsolete earlier, Atlantian root races will be, that's part of Lovatsky's cosmology as well. So it'll have to be the somehow tutonic, twice in a bit of tutonic area and philosophy into those in California, which she, she's very clear, will give rise to the new humanity. She fuses a lot of Darwinian principles, even though she acts like she's anti-derwini, she's actually infusing a lot of, might makes right, you know, survival of the fittest philosophies into her cosmology. And at this point, when I look at transhumanism as a philosophy, when I look at the, as like the religion of the Silicon Valley elite, and its origins, I'm, I'm seeing principally theosophical origins, incubating it, catering it, shaping it generationally, all the way through the 20s, 30s, 40s to the, to the present. So that's sort of the way I'm looking at the, the Silicon Valley aspect of it. At what level do you think on like this hierarchy, this hierarchy of, or totem pole of, of powerful people pulling strings are people like Peter Teal and Elon Musk? Yeah. I think that their lives have probably been like Truman Show. I think that their lives have been more like, you know, Jim Carri's character in the Truman Show, where they probably feel like they've had a life, and they don't realize that it's, they were assigned before birth to, or maybe early on in their, in their very young years, to play out a certain role, according to certain adherents or relationships that their families would have had to alter forces, you know, you look at, at Elon Musk's grandfather, you know, I don't think, yeah, what's the story with him again? Joshua Haldemann. Yeah. Uh, Technocracy Inc, he, he was the president of the Canadian Technocracy Inc. movement, uh, from 36 to 41. Okay. When he got arrested for being on the wrong side of World War II. Mm. And before that, he was the head of the Saskatchewan, uh, Fabian Society, then in Canada, it was known as the, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. It was a, the political branch of the League of, the League for Social Reconstruction. Right. But in the, in the great depression to solve the, to basically create a new order that transcends the elected, the elected systems or the capitalist systems. That didn't work out for him. But he, he was interfacing with five road scholars who founded the Canadian Fabian Society. Oh, wow. I go through that in volume two of the revenge of the mystery cults. Mm. Um, so that, when that didn't work out, he wasn't getting political power. When he went in and became the head of technocracy, Inc, that called for a technique that's not that different from the golden circle mapping, and a, and basically surveillance control grid with universal basic income allocated to all of the useless eaters who would be replaced by automation. That was part of the technology program. Um, when I do it, who is that, who is the one who called, was that Kissinger, the useless eaters, quote, who's the first person I know? I thought it was Kissinger. Um, well, the Nazis were using it pretty well as a concept. Yeah, like the tear garden for doctors have testimonies that were transcribed at Nuremberg describing the useless eater idea. Um, they were referring to the, you know, the criminally minded, the, the, the defectives that were given euthanasia and sterilization in the thirties. I mean, Germany started with their own German population before they expanded to other, groups, um, but so that's the, that's the earliest example I know of the word, though I'm sure Kissinger bandied about freely in his private conversations. Uh, yeah, what was they saying? Oh, yeah, Joshua Hall the month. So he ends up after, after heading the social credit party for, of Canada, well, a scheduling for six years, he couldn't get power there. The social credit party also was a British occult, uh, so that was the name actually. People talk about social credit today. It actually goes back to this, um, it was a theosophical spin-off group under, uh, uh, A.R. Orrage, who ran the New Age magazine from 1906 until the '20s, and Orrage was a personal assistant to Gurgiev. He was also the guy who coined the term social credit as a new sort of philosophy for organizing society that was set up by this British major, C.H. Douglas, in 1918, and yeah, it's basically like an anarcho, anarcho-syndicalist idea of pseudo-liberitarianism with a top control and a mediation of, so you have like local guilds, kind of our local communal regions would then mediate the individual to the top-down controllers and they wouldn't. It was very, very ephemeral, but he was trying to sell his market his thing to Hitler, and that's what there's letters between Douglas and Hitler. - So really? - Yeah, he's like your system is the best. And it's the most harmonious system to my idea of what the world should be. - Wow. - Also called for a former UBI as well, and so that's what Joshua Haldemont was running, and when he couldn't get political power there, that's when he decided as soon as apartheid was created in South Africa in '49 to then pick up the family, his daughter May, who becomes the mother of Elon, and go and move to the freest place in the world, which is South apartheid South Africa. I don't know as much about Peter Thiel's background, except that I do know that his German father had, very high, it was a very powerful individual, I do certain forces in the uranium industry, but I don't know more than that. That's a lot more shadowy for me, but I presume that there's a bit of a Truman Show thing going on. - Yeah, it certainly does feel like that. And going back to what we were talking about in the beginning about this whole UFO magic trick, it's that certainly makes a lot of sense, and it plays right into the theme of the Truman Show, because I don't know, there's so much going on, and it's like they're breaking down our idea of reality and breaking down any hope that we have or any trust that we really have in the institutions here, not the institutions, but the government, right? So, yeah, I don't know, like I know that there's a lot of incompetence at some level when it comes to who's running it, and then all the people that are involved and all the agencies or whatever, but. - There's a method, that's the thing, there does seem to be a method of chaos behind the chaos of using contrary and messaging by design to break down our ability to form judgments, to use discernments. - Yeah. And the hot cold thing, yeah, it seems very similar to the sort of structures that you would read from what's his name, battlefield of the mind, the Tavastaki, and a lot of the lead Tavastaki and psychiatrists that informed how MK-Altua would unfold and how they would carry out their conditioning techniques on their human guinea pigs, it was, yeah, they were, they were all obsessed with how do you induce, schizophrenia on the one part, so people like Arty Langer are really obsessed with creating a science of how do you create schizophrenia to liberate people. Ultimately, his ambition was always to liberate from the hypocrisy and the fallacies of the world that imposed certain rigid structures onto us and that through his mind, he had a formula that I don't fully understand, whereby if you could bring somebody to break, to a breaking point, there's a chance now of liberating them from the structures of fallacy and create something new, which has maybe an element of truth in when you're in a crisis, you could come out of it a better person, more self-reflective, perhaps, but they're doing it all for a different reason. And so in the Tavastaki and psychiatrists, William Sargent, this is his name, for the battlefield of the mind, he writes how giving people contrary messaging induces them to break down their belief in their own judgment, so they're given orders to burn the village, then they're first to save the village, then to burn the village if you're in Vietnam or in Korea. There it is, battle for the mind. And they're given, one day, you're rewarded for doing a thing if you're in a laboratory and you're rewarded for pressing the red button, but the next day, you're being punished for pressing the red button, right? You're being shamed for pressing the red button, but yesterday you gave me twinkies as a reward for pressing the red button, and they're not given reasons why anything is happening. So this sort of thing happened a lot in World War I, that's where Tavastaki got its form, was just looking at people in shock therapy and all of these guinea pigs coming back, broken men, and discovering that they're also on top of being more fragmented. They've got survivalist fragments and personalities that they've begun to form, but they're also much more malleable and more suggestible. - Right. - 'Cause they can't, their reasonable sentinels are now broken and gone. So they're much more inclined to be suggestible to whatever. So all of these things were directly informing the CIA's MK Ultra program, how it shows to invest in what type of program that Ted Kaczynski came out of an Harvard. - Right. - You know, things like that. - So what do you think specifically is going on with all of this hubbla but with the UFO disclosure stuff? I'll say one of the biggest red flags for me is that one of the biggest names that is in front of Congress are publicly pushing for this stuff, is the dude who was responsible for the fucking Edward Snowden coming out and dropping the NSA stuff. - Really? - What's that guy's name again? - I didn't. - We just talked about him on the last three or four podcast. - Like a Congressman? - Or Senator? - No, he's like a former general, I think. - Oh, and that was coordinated. You're saying the Stone Drops. - Oh, Clapper? - Clapper, James Clapper. - James Clapper. - Yes. - James Clapper. - James Clapper is one of the main voices behind this suit, main people pushing this UFO disclosure stuff. - Yeah, that's a red alarm. - I didn't know that. - That's one of the biggest problems for me. - Yeah, also what's his name? Who are the Creepy Pizza Gate brothers? - Podesta. - Oh my God. - Are they also behind it? - John Podesta. He's one of the earliest loudest advocates. He was brought into the Lawrence Rockefeller operation with Hillary in the '90s. And yeah, he's on record since the late '90s. He started going public very, very intently and loudly on the need for UFO disclosure. So yeah, he's definitely on the inside. I don't know. Did Epstein have anything to say about this topic? Or not really? - He was definitely interested in it. I know he talked to a lot of people about it. I've had people on the show who have done like FaceTime or Skype conversations with him where they just said that he would sit there and ask them questions about it forever and never had anything interesting to say about it. He would just ask them to tell him stories and stuff. - Yeah. - Yeah, he seems to have his fingers in every problem. - He was super, he was definitely interested in like, free energy and stuff like that. He was talking to physicists. I mean, his ranch was really close to-- - The Zora ranch? - The Zora ranch was really close to Los Alamos, I think. Is that right? Am I making that up? But there was one of those big military district complex, well, yeah, one of those labs was there really close to where he was. And he was certainly interested in all that stuff. He was inviting those types of physicists out there. And you know, it's certainly true that there is programs, black budget programs that are researching this stuff. We have enough people that have come out and talked about it from physicists to researchers, to whistleblowers, former military people. So it's like, they can't all be fucking lying. Well, so one thing I suspect, and again, for people who are watching this and wanna scratch on this even more, so the four episodes of the Hidden Hand Behind UFOs, episode three goes through, it incorporates the Secret Science Program under, well, that was an Hatton project, but after World War II and how Manhattan Project took on different rebrandings and continued on in a much more virulent way. After World War II. Now it's the Department of Energy, right? It's the same thing. That's one aspect of it. But I think MK Elcher was one aspect of it. Like the mind war operate. Like so there's different. The Secret Science Program is pervasive. Right. It wasn't just German made flying saucers, which was a small part of it. There was other aspects of drone technology, I think developed out of a lot of the illegal, you know, the foreboding science, the foreboding aeronautic science that we're not allowed to think about. I think Berkland currents as well, like Christian Berkland, who developed the foundations for the entire like electric universe approach to physics. His work is pioneering over a century ago. Like he's the guy who discovered the cause of Aurora Borealis and the plasma foundations of the entire universe. So he was also killed, by the way, as he was exposing false spirit mediums in Denmark. It tends to happen with those folks. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's part of my book to chapter 12. All that to say, there's definitely a lot of this going on. The energy front, it's no different. But what I suspect they're also doing when I look at the narrative seating of how they've been framing the new tech that we should expect to be seeing more in the public civilian sector. 'Cause I think they're gonna be releasing a certain amount of tech that has otherwise been kept in the back burner, outside of our view. 'Cause they have to destroy Russia and China, and there's certain countries that are not going along with the plan the way they were supposed to some decades ago, and they have to be, a new strategy has been brought online over the past six, seven years especially, since it's become clear that not everyone is willing to just stay in the same house under the control demolition for the new Phoenix to emerge, where everybody's gonna be under the same control. So, because they have to do a more sophisticated longer-term strategy to battle, especially China, they're gonna have to release things. They would've probably have preferred be kept in the basement, and what they've been doing in their narrative seating has been to plant the concepts that JFK was killed because he naively wanted to reveal Area 51 and the Eisenhower collusion with the ETs, and that's why he unfortunately had to be killed because it was national security, cold war, would've put us at risk. - This is what the Jesuits like to say. They say that he was looking into UFOs. - Yeah. Yeah, I think that that was an enormous amount of the players who carried out his kill and his cover-up, come into the UFO disclosure operation, and I go through a number of them an episode. - Yeah, the guy for, yeah, one of the guys that was a part of Peter Levento was telling us about this. One of the guys who started the actual real ex files, Bannister, Guy Bannister, he was one of the FBI agents that was really close to Oswald. - Was he actually sort of in the UFO files? - I believe Guy Bannister, Google it. Guy Bannister, ex files. I believe he actually started the head of the ex files when it really started, like the real ex files, not the show. - Interesting. - Google, I might be completely wrong right now. I might be making all of this up. Just type in Guy Bannister ex files and tell me what comes up. - Well, he definitely plays a big role. Yeah, with David Ferry and Playshaw. Also, you got these wandering bishops as well, who are part of the Nostek Orthodox Church. So you have this offshoot of the, well, you got two different, you got the LFOs levy operation inside of the Catholic skin suit, inside of the Western Catholic church, and then you've got this spin off from the Russian side that came in in 1920s by the white Russians, who also come into play in the murder of JFK story quite a bit. And a lot of followers from both, or priests and bishops from both schools are working together on sight in Dallas, Texas, of which David Ferry is one of plethora of these characters. And some of them, yeah, they do play a role. Alan Dulles was overseeing the UFO saip going back to 1951 when he was working with Carl Jung. Carl Jung was an OSS operative in World War II and continued to be his advisor long after World War II was over. And Carl Jung was even commissioned to writing a book on flying saucers, a thing seen in the sky. Basically, there's a guidebook for social engineers to manage new myths, new legends. - Right, right. - That's a very good book to read. If you want to just get into that mind frame of somebody who's going to be responsible for the management of new myths and new sacred stories that explain deep history. And the symbolic meaning that the UFO circle has, he goes into a lot of archetypical analysis that's pretty useful. But he's advising Dulles. It's not like he's just a philosopher. He's like advising fucking Dulles. - That's crazy. - Yeah, Dulles is like at work positioning his guys who all get fired by JFK, by the way, right? So Charles Cabell, who launches project blue book under the influence of, what's his name? Tizard Sir Henry Tizard, who sets up the Manhattan Project, the British head of the director of the British Empire's science programs, is Tizard, who's also sitting up the flying saucer working party in England in 1950. And he then sets the stage for the project blue book to get underway, but that Charles Cabell also fired by JFK in '61, what's his name? Richard Bissell, who's the head of the office. - Richard Bissell, yeah. - Yeah, he's. - Area 51. - Area 51, but he's also the head of the Office of Policy Coordination, which the psychological warfare zero of the CIA, he's also getting fired by JFK. He's also overseeing how do you care, like he's the assassinations expert, you know, sitting gauntlet from M.K. Altrow, wouldn't figure out how do you overthrow Castro and get back control so that the Lansky crime syndicates can be reinstalled back into play. - Yeah. - Also, you know, the present foreign leaders abroad are being targeted by this apparatus. And they, I think they turned on JFK. And JFK knew what he was saying when he said he was gonna break the CIA into a thousand pieces and scattered into the winds. I don't think he was playing, though I think he was maybe naive about what he was dealing with. And maybe he thought because he was a war, you know, he had a warrior's background in World War II. He maybe thought he had more support from the military. - Typen, what is his connection to UFOs? Guy banister UFO connection. - Yeah, that'd be interesting. - Okay, I made it up. - The Mori Island, oh no, no, you got the Mori Island incident there. - The Mori Island incident, yeah. - The Mori Island incident in 1947. Banister was an FBI special agent in charge. - That's interesting, that's it. - Okay. - I'm actually gonna follow, I might incorporate that into my next movie. - He was involved in the initial investigation of the bizarre UFO sighting over Mori Island in Washington state, which involved claims of falling metal slag. That's what it was. - Yeah, yeah, yeah. - The men in black, okay, this is the other part. The men in black and JFK. Thea's connected, and this was Levento who told me this. Thea's connected banister to Fred Christman, a figure from the Mori Island incident. Years later, Christman and Lee Harvey Oswald both had documented ties to banisters and I cast her operation. - Interesting. - Yeah, that was great. - I get five, four, four campstreet offices in New Orleans. Okay, that's the one, okay. So yeah, that's a lot to work with. I go through a pretty big list of other players. CD Scott Jones, as well as another player who is a big, big, disclosure, UFO disclosure operative going back to the '80s, '90s, tying very closely to help Putoff and many others. But he was also in charge of eliminating the footage of what was it called, the footage of author's name for it, that proved JFK was shot from the front now. - Who's a breeder film? - That's a breeder film. So he's the guy who worked as the editor-in-chief of Time Life, bought the subredder film and then buried it in a vault in Time Life headquarters for five years when nobody was supposed to know about it until. Garrison, not William Garrison. The district attorney of Williams, who carried it. What was his name? Gary? Gary? Who Kevin Costner played? - I know who you're talking about. - I'm talking about it, thank you. So it was only when he got subpoena powers and created the first jury trial to investigate the assassination of JFK in '66 that he got the power to go in and even discover that this thing exists and made it public for the first time. He was never supposed to be public. - Man, I don't remember, my fucking memory is so shot lately, but I remember we had Scott Horton in here there today, and he was telling us to me something crazy about that was a breeder guy. - Was a breeder guy's kind of shady too, eh? - Yeah, I can't remember what he said, but I remember it blew my mind. I gotta go back to your watch. - It's funny 'cause I'm getting déjà vu. I'm also being shocked by this guy's story. It wasn't good, I don't know. - But, I mean, if we have this technology, it's like, and if you can believe those military navy pilots who were saying they were seeing this crazy stuff. - Right, and that was my point. Right, so my core point was what I see as the narrative seating is that they're trying to get across this new narrative that the tech we reverse engineered from the flying saucers that crashed at Roswell and other things should be either public or they're trying to make a whole debate now around. First, just acknowledging what I think is something which has a lot of fallacy embedded within it, which is that a lot of the tech that we're gonna start seeing comes from craft that we reverse engineered that aliens gave us the right to. To keep as long as we let them alienly probe occasional people in control. - Yeah, we made a deal, yeah. We made a deal with Eisenhower to let them - Yeah, alienly probe a few people. - Yeah, and then Majestic 12 is supposed to prove that, but it's like, yeah, but Majestic 12 is provably also a horde forgery, it's not real, provably so. They're like the separator that was used to make the Majestic 12 documents was produced in the 1960s. Not in the 1960s. - Really? - Yeah, yeah, yeah. The signature of Harry Truman. So whenever Harry Truman signs his name on the number of the Majestic 12 documents, it's the same signature to a degree of perfection that is impossible. 'Cause no two signatures, I do my signature a thousand times, not a single one will be a hundred percent the same as the previous one. - Right. - The Truman signatures are like a copy paste from almost like a Photoshop or whatever. Only soldiers do that. So this is something that was like inserted into William Moore's world in 1984, Jamie Shanderay was brought into it as a promoter. But it was done to just add more coloring to the sacred narrative that was being revived in the '70s under the National Enquirer. That was the first institution to replicate the Roswell newspaper that covered the Flying Saucer story in '47. And again, it was like then replicated in its full under the National Enquirer, while Jalen Heineck was overseeing the Blue Ribbon Committee on UFO Phenomena, also with the NICEP, which was again, NICAP the National Investigations Committee an aerial phenomena. on, was also staffed founded by the CIA, staffed by CIA officials from Hill and Coder to William Brian III, who was also from the Office of Policy Coordination. There's so many. And they're openly putting out reports, both Rand as well as the CIA, talking about the use of the belief in aerial of UFOs for psychological warfare purposes. They're talking about it in declassified reports that we can all read. The belief in UFOs for psychological warfare purposes. Yeah, that's what's the name? I cite him in episode three in his quote of the hidden hand behind UFOs, the third director of the CIA, Bidell Smith. Bidell Smith is giving direct memos to CIA operatives, talking about the value of these objects for psychological warfare purposes. Because I mean, people are seeing something. That's the thing. With the UFOs, people are looking out of their windows after World War II, especially near test airfields. And they are seeing stuff that can't explain and Air Force pilots who don't have security clearance to know what they're looking at are seeing things certainly flying about that defy laws of what they believe to be aeronautic physics. And they report it to their superior officers or people report it to the cops or whatever and what they see, but they don't know what they see. And so who's going to interpret what who's going to tell them what they're seeing? Who's going to give them that information when material is being tested from, let's say, German, Pennamonda, you know, scientists or Italian scientists who are doing this kind of pioneering work that we know exists on flying saucer technology that is being absorbed into the secret science program. Well, the story's going to be given to them. Yeah. The Benowitz story is pretty crazy. That's a sad one. That's super heartbreaking. I mean, it gives you a blueprint of how they do things. And you can map that, you can see that pattern in all over the place. Well, in the fact that you have like the key figures who played the role in brainwashing Benowitz, like William Warren and Dodie, are also involved with him. Majestic 12, just a few years later, which just adds they take a lot of what Benowitz is reported to have said or discovered from his gifted magical computer that's decrypting all of the signals that he's in cap, he's capturing. So, but I mean, who's controlling the program, the software that is that he's using, he's dependent on that's helping him decrypt these signals that's convincing him that, okay, these aliens are about to break the treaty. They're about to go to war and exterminate us. It drives the poor guy crazy. But they use his, the stories that he's because he's a famous guy in the Mufon groups in the, they knew the Soviets had penetrated Mufon and that he would be a conduit of disinfo to poison the well and Mufon. So, the Soviets, they're the Soviets off the trail of the being like secret technology. It's probably an element of it. Yeah. But then, so then these guys are also inserting them, the same players were then inserting the MJ-12 thing and building more, again, it's like a space operate. You just got infinite chapters to this infinite novella. Yeah. How many was it? One crash or four crashes or 18 crashes or the C.I. recently said it, it's been like nine crashes since 20 2002 alone is what they put up there say. Is it one species of grays or is just the venusians super beings from like Lucifer? I mean Venus, you know, or is it maybe, you know, 18 species or 98 species and are some of them, like are some of them shapeshifting lizards? It's, you can go anywhere with this. It's, it's a perfect gnostic opera of just things. Are you familiar with James Fox's documentary about the, are the Brazil crash? No. Varsgenia, Brazil? No. It's one of the, his movie is called Moment of Contact and it happened in 1994 in a town called Varsgenia in Brazil. And James Fox is an independent filmmaker who went out and he was aware of this case and he always wrote it off because he thought it was like a crazy national inquire, you know, fake shit. And then someone convinced him to finally go down to Brazil. He would travel down there with him, just himself and his filmmaker partner. And they started interviewing like locals about it because there's like this lore in that town, right? Of this thing happening. It's kind of like, there's like a flying saucer monument there about this like famous crash that happened allegedly and a being was seen. And he went around and he started interviewing people that were close to it that day or new people who were around it that day and he started getting closer and closer and closer to people that were actually eyewitnesses that day. And he interviewed probably two dozen people who were like directly involved or witnessed this event happen. Some of them which just saw the thing fucking crash and a handful of them including a surgeon at a hospital in Virginia who saw this being. And there was two little girls who were walking home from school through a field and they saw this being that was crouching in a field like next to a wall. That was like dark brown skin bright red eyes and telepathically communicating to them. This is what they drew it. This is what they thought it looked like. So do you think it's like a these child from an M. K. Ultra kind of program or something like that? And well basically what happened was these two cops saw one of them like limping across the road. One of the cops grabbed it and put it in the back of the car and brought it to a hospital. And that cop died two days later of some crazy rare bacterial infection that like took over his body and shut down his immune system. And there was surgeons and people in the hospital witnessed testimony that James went and interviewed and they said yeah the hospital smelled like sulfur for three weeks after that. Why? They said they because of the being they smelled like sulfur and it had clove and feet and it was like a biblical description of a demon. And it's fucking crazy, dude. I'll guarantee I will watch this movie. There's a second part where we interviewed the surgeon who was in the room with the thing by himself. And he describes he describes the feeling of being with this thing. He said it was like looking at him and it was like communicating feelings with him. Not words but feelings like like impregnating his mind with feelings of like love and calm and peacefulness. That's it. And he said he felt like this thing was its own child. And the dude was like but like bursting out in tears as he was describing it to James sitting in this like hotel lobby in Virginia, Brazil. And and then these people busted in and took the thing took the thing out and never saw it again. And he's never talked about it publicly until now. I thank you for sharing with me that. I have written it down and I'm going to watch it maybe even tonight if I can find it. Oh yeah. It's on my thoughts on it. I can't speak to it because I haven't looked into it. It's very interesting because it's a it's one of those stories that you're just relying on random people who live in a town who have really nothing to gain but a lot of the people he interviewed they refused to like be public like one family agreed to do the interview but they only film the back of their heads. And these are like you know like old local folks who are like have no incentive to do this whatsoever not tied to any fucking organizations no government nothing like that. And yeah it's those kind of stories that really make me think right and it doesn't stink to high heaven like when you have people like James Clapper in front of congress doing this whole dog and pony show. Yeah. I think it has to be more to those types of things. I think I think the reality of this whole thing is way stranger than the UFO files make it out to me. Yeah man look I what I can definitely say is I'm typically operating on the assumption that things are that things that we're exploring are explainable by without recourse to ET's and supernatural phenomenon in general. So that is one of my core assumptions. I could be wrong. So far it's just like like Kudini every time I tend to scratch something. Yeah. That appears to be one thing and often anecdotal testimonials tends to be something that is often used by the tricksters. I'm not saying this is the case. It's just been a tendency to use anecdotes where people have apparent conviction sometimes they do about having experienced a thought or an observation even. There's often the evidence of tricksters and cult leaders or whatever that seems to be always showing up onto the stage of my research. Yeah. I don't think you'll find any of that in this story. I'll check it out. There was one guy he interviewed who was one of the other cops that was there when the one dude grabbed the being, the guy who was driving the car, he found out where the guy lived and he showed to his house and the guy literally pulled his gun out and he was like threatening to shoot them if they didn't get off his property. Not talking to anything. Well, it's wild shit, dude. No, it's a challenge to differentiate the Kabuki theater from the legit authenticity of all. It is. So. Well, thank you for doing this, bro. This has been fun four hour. Four hour tests. Yeah. Tell people how they can find more your work, your sub-stack, your films, all that stuff. Sure. Yeah. I guess the easiest way to find my stuff is on sub-stack, Matthewerit.substack.com. CanadianPatriot.org is probably the easiest way to find our movies, our books. I say art because I do this with my wife, Cynthia Chung. And we're about to to produce or release our newest film actually, I'll just plug that here, if you don't mind. - Yeah, do it. - Sweet. So on Saturday, we're gonna drop Black Sun Rising, esoteric Nazism, past and present, just to go into, we're sort of intervening a little bit on the rehabilitation of Hitler and Hitlerism and whatever fascism was that I could see kind of people, especially on the conservative side, but also on the other side, being kind of nudged towards different flavors of the thing that emerged in the 20s following certain doctrines of Germanicized, theosophical doctrines. So we go through a lot of these elements in the film and an accompanying book we're also releasing is a 200 page special report that's now available. Same title. - Yeah. - Also goes into the theosophical roots of the Nazi UFO cults that all kind of sprang out in 1947. So that's gonna be soon and then for our more cultural educational stuff, I'll just end it with RisingTideFoundation.net is our slightly more, yeah, just educational stuff, a little bit more focused on just breathing a little bit, taking a step back from the weirdness and just looking at TV and where does it express itself? And a little bit more, yeah, tainness. So, yeah. - Fantastic, man. Well, we'll have to do this again. There's a lot of shit we didn't cover that we could definitely cover. - Yeah, a lot of threads to be pulled. - Yeah, man, well thanks again. I really enjoyed it and we'll link everything below. - Thank you. - Good night, world.