Speaker 1: Meaning a man like this, man letting butterfly flapping and wing.
Speaker 1: They've down in a force.
Speaker 2: Man, it gonna cause the tree fall, letting five thousand
Speaker 2: miles away.
Speaker 1: Man, nobody see, Nobody else might see.
Speaker 2: You don't need no man, don't It's like you followed
Speaker 2: another story.
Speaker 1: And you got bacted like that. That's when man got
Speaker 1: blackly not on the panel. Man, you don't no matter
Speaker 1: man anyway.
Speaker 2: This is a war of belief to theological conflict. Now,
Speaker 2: of course there is an explicitly religious element to this,
Speaker 2: what faith you follow, But also at a very basic level,
Speaker 2: this contest is not over compatible worldviews. We are not
Speaker 2: arguing about two different interpretations of the same precepts or
Speaker 2: set of facts. We are arguing incompatible worldviews. This is
Speaker 2: existential capital p politics. One will win, one will lose.
Speaker 2: It's a zero sum game. Secularism is a lie. Every
Speaker 2: system is ultimately based on unprovable assertions, unprovable facts, a
Speaker 2: reality claim for which there is no scientific explanation. Everything
Speaker 2: ultimately is based on faith. That's why this is ultimately
Speaker 2: a religious conflict. Our enemies understand this. They understand the
Speaker 2: importance of narrative. It's why they're always attacking our figures.
Speaker 2: Why they burn Roberty, Lee and Effigy quite literally, because
Speaker 2: he is a symbol of a previous order, a different god,
Speaker 2: a different instantiation of the same countries, previous civic religion,
Speaker 2: ruling order, if you will, Same reason they're going after Jefferson,
Speaker 2: same reason they're going after all the greats of European history,
Speaker 2: because they understand that those figures are more than simply
Speaker 2: men in history, they are also symbols. They're equally as
Speaker 2: strident when it comes to defending their own articles of faith.
Speaker 2: For instance, you've no doubt seen the number of guys
Speaker 2: thrown in jail for doing burnouts on rainbow crosswalks. It's
Speaker 2: not really about public disorder, it's about blasphemy. And then
Speaker 2: if you look at the terms they throw at us, racist,
Speaker 2: holocaust denier, homophobe, what these really are or other ways
Speaker 2: to say heretic, you have blasphemed my God, and I
Speaker 2: will burn you at the stake. Those terms, those invectives
Speaker 2: are particularly interesting to me because sure they function in
Speaker 2: that context as an outgroup marker, but also as a
Speaker 2: thought terminating device. They end any inquiry, Oh I don't
Speaker 2: want to know any more about that, because the only
Speaker 2: people who do, the only people who have research, the
Speaker 2: only people who dissent are heretics. It's very easy to
Speaker 2: point out the system of thought control in the medieval
Speaker 2: Catholic Church, for example. Voltaire made sort of a career
Speaker 2: out of this. But it's very difficult when it comes
Speaker 2: to progressive politics. Not difficult for us, but difficult for them.
Speaker 2: They're very uncomfortable with it because they have this internal
Speaker 2: self conception as the eternal rebel, as the guy standing
Speaker 2: up to authority, speaking truth to power. But just because
Speaker 2: they're uncomfortable with it doesn't mean that they will stop
Speaker 2: wielding power.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: I think that there's something important when we look at
Speaker 2: how these sort of civic state religions function, to say
Speaker 2: that there is a moment in which the God dies.
Speaker 2: When you perform the old rites and nothing happens. You
Speaker 2: sacrifice the bull and the harvest is bad. You throw
Speaker 2: a version into a sinkhole covered in jade jewelry, and well,
Speaker 2: sure enough she drowns, But then the Spanish show up.
Speaker 2: The religion loses its votive force, it loses its sacred,
Speaker 2: sacral nature. Once you have profaned the Holy of holies.
Speaker 2: Once you have thrown a spear at the Odin tree
Speaker 2: and you have it been struck, dumb, struck down, well,
Speaker 2: doubt begins to build. And I think that that is
Speaker 2: the moment we find ourselves in the sacred figures of
Speaker 2: the progressive state religion are losing their luster, some because
Speaker 2: they've fallen out of fashion. MLK, for example, it's relatively
Speaker 2: safe to criticize him because the only people who still
Speaker 2: cared about him were by and large American conservatives. We've
Speaker 2: seen something similar happen to George Floyd. Peace be upon him,
Speaker 2: a sort of religious figure of yester year. But the
Speaker 2: real vitriol is reserved for those who attack the real
Speaker 2: foundations of the empire, the narrative around World War Two.
Speaker 2: Just look at what happened to my friend Daryl Cooper,
Speaker 2: look at what happened to Tucker Carlson, merely through association
Speaker 2: with Daryl Cooper. They were cast out, they were burnt
Speaker 2: at the stake socially, if not thankfully literally. And our
Speaker 2: enemies understand that they're in a precarious position. It's why
Speaker 2: they are frantically trying to regain narrative control. You may
Speaker 2: remember after twenty sixteen, when they sort of realized that
Speaker 2: there was something outside of their ideological control, we saw
Speaker 2: the rise of the narrative around fake news, misinformation, disinformation,
Speaker 2: and of course conspiracy theories. And while sure there are lies,
Speaker 2: there are falsehoods spread on social media as well as
Speaker 2: through traditional media for very much aware of that. What
Speaker 2: this really is is another way to terminate thought, to
Speaker 2: end the discussion, to say you were a heretic. Go away.
Speaker 2: But when no one believes in that god anymore, of
Speaker 2: course it doesn't work. Now they still have official legal,
Speaker 2: legislative power. They can still ruin your life, deep bank,
Speaker 2: you send the ADL after you to sue you into oblivion.
Speaker 2: But they're slipping. They don't have the same extreme level
Speaker 2: of control they until very recently enjoy it. And this
Speaker 2: is why alternative discussions on World War II, nine to eleven,
Speaker 2: any civil rights era are increasing in popularity because the
Speaker 2: veil has been pulled back. It's an apocalypse, if you will,
Speaker 2: that the veil has been pulled away. Everything has been
Speaker 2: made known. Okay, it's not perfect yet, it's not done.
Speaker 2: But the very fact that I can have the conversations
Speaker 2: I am having on YouTube and my friends and family
Speaker 2: haven't totally cast me out as a heretic. Indicates that
Speaker 2: culture is shifting slowly. And of course we understand politics
Speaker 2: does not come from the bottom up, but it presents
Speaker 2: a very real problem for them for their narrative control.
Speaker 2: It's a very interesting moment and part of the reason
Speaker 2: why I decided to become a professional. I decided to
Speaker 2: cast myze, cast my lot in right, sort of voluntarily
Speaker 2: make myself unemployable by associating my face right. But I
Speaker 2: think it's a real moment for optimism because we understand
Speaker 2: change happens slowly and then all at once. That growth
Speaker 2: from zero to ten percent is gradual, but ten to
Speaker 2: ninety happens much much faster. And of course we're not
Speaker 2: evangelicals about this. We're not looking for the magical fifty
Speaker 2: plus one. We are looking for a few capable, meant
Speaker 2: decision makers, the guys that actually wield power. And look,
Speaker 2: we do not have that. We certainly don't have that yet.
Speaker 2: But it's better than it's ever been. Our ideas have promulgated,
Speaker 2: they are continuing to promulgate because they explain reality. Our God,
Speaker 2: the new God. And I'm saying this small g this
Speaker 2: is not sacrilege, can actually bring the ring. The system
Speaker 2: of values has explanatory power and information advantage. So in
Speaker 2: my mind they're kind of doomed here. Ultimately now they
Speaker 2: can do a lot of damage between now and then. Fundamentally,
Speaker 2: they are fighting against the basic rules of the universe.
Speaker 2: If you're three hundred pounds eight percent body fat, you
Speaker 2: can probably hold a beach ball under the water a
Speaker 2: lot longer than I can, but eventually it floats to
Speaker 2: the surface, it comes back up. Entropy, at least in
Speaker 2: that way, wins out over time. And this process of
Speaker 2: cultural disintegration, while certainly creating very many real problems, I'm
Speaker 2: not going to deny that has also atrophied their ability
Speaker 2: for social control. Look at medicine, look at politics, look
Speaker 2: at entertainment. The central nodes occupy nowhere near the position
Speaker 2: of prominence that they used to. And look, there are psyops.
Speaker 2: There are different attempts to control this. But I wonder
Speaker 2: if the horse has already bolted the gate is wide open.
Speaker 2: It's a provocative thought that and it's why I keep
Speaker 2: going back to these historical figures, why I'm talking about
Speaker 2: the Crusades, Why I'm talking about Vietnam, why I'm talking
Speaker 2: about World War Two. I'm talking about all of these
Speaker 2: sacred miracles right the moment when the normal order was
Speaker 2: suspended so that something special could happen. Power could make
Speaker 2: itself felt because they depend on that ideological cohesion. And
Speaker 2: so you and I, as reactionaries of some stripe, as
Speaker 2: traditionalists with a capital T, occupy a very weird position.
Speaker 2: We are at once building and destroying the left and
Speaker 2: the right hand, if you will. It's a very bizarre
Speaker 2: situation we find ourselves in. But simply there is nothing
Speaker 2: else to do. We must both be subversive and also creative.
Speaker 2: It's an venture at the very least, a lot of
Speaker 2: space for genuine agency to do many things at once.
Speaker 2: It's exciting. Part of again, why I am optimistic. It's
Speaker 2: about further ado. Let's get into the episode. I think
Speaker 2: it's a fun one, a little bit different from what
Speaker 2: I normally cover. You guys know where to find me Apple, Spotify, YouTube.
Speaker 2: If you want the episodes early in ed free, you
Speaker 2: have to throw me a few bucks. I think it's
Speaker 2: worth it. It's probably the best deal on Patreon right now.
Speaker 2: We're substacked too. You can also check out our sponsor
Speaker 2: Axios Remote Fitness and Coaching. Oh and by the way,
Speaker 2: I just garbled the last part of this, you know,
Speaker 2: or I say keep your head up the I can't
Speaker 2: last right, and that just came out all wrong. Sorry,
Speaker 2: it's multiple times a day sometimes you goof so I
Speaker 2: said it there, So when I don't say it later,
Speaker 2: just remember you already got one. Anyway, here's Joe Awell.
Speaker 2: All right, Joe Apwell, welcome to Jay Burdens Show.
Speaker 1: How you doing, man, I'm just fine, Jay. How are you?
Speaker 2: I'm doing excellent. I'm glad to have you on. It's
Speaker 2: always fun when you have an interview show like mine,
Speaker 2: because every few months or so, I have this internal
Speaker 2: dialogue that I have spoken to everyone I could possibly
Speaker 2: speak to, and then almost immediately someone asks, well, how
Speaker 2: come you haven't spoken to X, Y or Z, And
Speaker 2: immediately I'm like, oh, yeah, I completely forgot about it.
Speaker 2: So this is a conversation I've been wanting to have
Speaker 2: for a long time, and I'm glad to finally get
Speaker 2: you on the show.
Speaker 1: Hey, my pleasure, thanks for having me.
Speaker 2: So I'm familiar with your work, but my audience might
Speaker 2: not be so if you could, could you just describe, well,
Speaker 2: who are you and what do you do?
Speaker 1: Well? I mean, I'm an author and that's fortunate because
Speaker 1: being an author is something that you can be even
Speaker 1: if you're not doing anything. Once you've written a few
Speaker 1: books and you know, I'm probably best known for Caesar's Messiah,
Speaker 1: which is the best well selling book and was a
Speaker 1: documentary that was you know, had ten million people view
Speaker 1: it or more so. It was it was sort of
Speaker 1: become a part of internet culture. And from there I
Speaker 1: became more interested in doing discussions on you know, the
Speaker 1: current political situation and have a show with Tim Kelly,
Speaker 1: which you've acted, well, you've been on with Tim, so
Speaker 1: you're familiar with that. I'm a you know, someone who
Speaker 1: does not believe in the sort of current presentation of history.
Speaker 1: I mean, I really am quite the skeptic. I don't
Speaker 1: believe in Jesus as a historical person. This is well
Speaker 1: known from my books. I don't believe in Shakespeare. If
Speaker 1: you've read my other works, I have skepticism there. And then,
Speaker 1: you know, I really sort of changed politically when after
Speaker 1: nine one one, I hadn't you know, I hadn't really
Speaker 1: studied the conspiratorial world in terms of you know, current
Speaker 1: politics until then. And you know, I spent quite a
Speaker 1: bit of time studying the collapse at Building seven. I
Speaker 1: worked with friends of mine who are engineers, and I
Speaker 1: just came to the conclusion that it's just completely clear
Speaker 1: that this was you know, controlled demolition, and therefore the
Speaker 1: entire understanding we have of you know, the media and
Speaker 1: our political system was false. And I started studying it
Speaker 1: at that point. And you know, I should have been
Speaker 1: more skeptical based on my work in Caesar's Messiah, because
Speaker 1: I had I had seen how historical narrative could be
Speaker 1: used for social control. I mean, Christianity, you know, on
Speaker 1: its face is so benign and Jesus seems so you know,
Speaker 1: so beneficial to mankind. But then you see how the
Speaker 1: feudal system is generated, you know, out of the trust
Speaker 1: or partially out of the trust that the population gives
Speaker 1: to the leaders of the religion, and so the next thing,
Speaker 1: you know, you're in a slave state. So because of that,
Speaker 1: I should have been more skeptical. But following my understanding
Speaker 1: of you know, of September eleventh, two thousand and one,
Speaker 1: I became just you know, more focused on how we
Speaker 1: are controlled and who controls us. And it's funny. I
Speaker 1: write sometimes for the UNS Review, which I regard as
Speaker 1: a you know, place where there's good intellectual freedom, and
Speaker 1: I'll have an article coming out within two weeks on
Speaker 1: the meaning of September eleventh. It's strange. It's almost full
Speaker 1: circle from the beginning of the sort of introduction into
Speaker 1: the conspiratorial world, where you know, I'm sort of explaining
Speaker 1: the symbolism of it which has not really been understood
Speaker 1: in my opinion. So it's a it's just a way.
Speaker 1: The article is just a way to help people understand
Speaker 1: our world and the kind of analytic approach we need
Speaker 1: to take toward it, particularly towards the historical you know,
Speaker 1: events that were given that are are meant to model us,
Speaker 1: to shape us. I mean, like the Holocaust, like nine
Speaker 1: to one one, or you know, the the nature of
Speaker 1: the you know, the sort of political heroes. I mean,
Speaker 1: these things I think in general are you know, have
Speaker 1: our faults and they are designed for social control. And
Speaker 1: so the public in general needs to be you know,
Speaker 1: I would use the expression more socratic. We need to
Speaker 1: be more based in logic and scrutinize every single piece
Speaker 1: of you know, historical claim that comes our way. We
Speaker 1: just can't at this point, we really can't accept anything
Speaker 1: on face value. The media, mainstream, dominant media is under
Speaker 1: the control of the oligarchs, and the history that they
Speaker 1: give us is literally completely corrupt. I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: tip to stern designed to produce the inability to think.
Speaker 1: So the response at this point, particularly with more and
Speaker 1: more power going to the oligarks in terms of media control.
Speaker 1: I mean, you look at AI, you look at the iPhone,
Speaker 1: for example. The way that the amount of time they
Speaker 1: have access to our minds is just dramatically increase in
Speaker 1: the tools that they have to you know, shape ideas
Speaker 1: is more and more effective. So for us to maintain
Speaker 1: democracy in any reasonable degree, we have to develop our
Speaker 1: own skills. We have to become better citizens, which is
Speaker 1: to say, we have to be more skeptical and more
Speaker 1: we have to be able to use logic and reasoning
Speaker 1: in a more powerful way.
Speaker 2: So I'm particularly interested in nine to eleven as sort
Speaker 2: of a marker in the growing number of people who
Speaker 2: aren't on the reservation, so to speak. Obviously, you know,
Speaker 2: even earlier into the nineties, you have you know, the
Speaker 2: militia movement, a lot of the kind of very early
Speaker 2: you know, right wing dissidents, and for a lot of
Speaker 2: people that was very successfully relegated to anti government extremism,
Speaker 2: pushed out kind of socially signaled against. And for many
Speaker 2: people who are ten to fifteen years older than me,
Speaker 2: the moment they left the reservation was nine to eleven.
Speaker 2: It was a lie too great to count it. And look,
Speaker 2: in my mind, I am an older member of Generation Z.
Speaker 2: When people talk about, okay, what's the dividing line, you
Speaker 2: know XYZ, you know date of birth, and sure, you
Speaker 2: know that's helpful, but really, in my mind is it
Speaker 2: Can you remember nine to eleven or note? Is that
Speaker 2: something that entered into your conscious mind. I was alive
Speaker 2: for it, but I was so young. I was, you know,
Speaker 2: in diapers at the time. It didn't make an effect.
Speaker 2: And that kind of dramatic before or after, right that
Speaker 2: both the from what I've heard, the sort of I
Speaker 2: guess you could say mass panic, right that happened afterwards,
Speaker 2: but also the same sort of top down narrative control
Speaker 2: we saw during the pandemic, which is for my generation,
Speaker 2: the moment where many left the reservation. But you see
Speaker 2: this pattern again and again and again. Of some sort
Speaker 2: of crisis, a moral consensus forms around that, or at
Speaker 2: least there's an attempt to form a moral consensus, to
Speaker 2: push political ideas to get people alongside with a change
Speaker 2: to their life. And so I'm curious, as someone who
Speaker 2: lived through it, what was that moment of crisis, like
Speaker 2: what was being pushed sort of behind the scenes, not
Speaker 2: necessarily the yellow ribbons and you know, the kind of
Speaker 2: like obvious kind of uh you know, talk radio angle.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm embarrassed that at the actual momary event, my
Speaker 1: behavior was almost completely focused on investment, and I was
Speaker 1: looking at how to make money, buying stocks and companies
Speaker 1: that would you know, realize advantages from what I could
Speaker 1: see was going to be you know, long standing warfare.
Speaker 1: This is you know, not a strong moral position. I'm
Speaker 1: sort of embarrassed to admit, but that was just what
Speaker 1: my life was like at that time, and that was
Speaker 1: how I looked at it. I didn't really uh even
Speaker 1: become aware of, you know, sort of the truth or
Speaker 1: music movement. Uh for several years. I was just you know,
Speaker 1: I was Besides, I had been doing h uh, you know,
Speaker 1: religious and Shakespearean textual criticism, and so nine to eleven.
Speaker 1: You know, the idea of of like studying something that
Speaker 1: occurred in real life when I was doing so much
Speaker 1: textual historical document analysis was it was hard for me
Speaker 1: to switch gears and uh and oddly, you know, I
Speaker 1: I did not understand nine one one in in a
Speaker 1: symbolic sense. And this really hasn't happened unfortunately whatsoever until
Speaker 1: until uh, you know, until even even until this point,
Speaker 1: which is one reason I wrote the art this article
Speaker 1: be coming out. I'll mention, you know, the analysis and
Speaker 1: stopped me if it becomes, you know, too abstract. But
Speaker 1: what what people, what I did not understand and what
Speaker 1: was just lost completely is that nine one one was
Speaker 1: a representation of Tisha above, which is a the Jewish
Speaker 1: day of mourning, which celebrates the commemorates the destruction of
Speaker 1: the temple. And this is uh, you know, the gives
Speaker 1: you a complete understanding of the of the event. And
Speaker 1: I don't think people could really understand it if they
Speaker 1: don't understand how how the symbolism for the day was created.
Speaker 1: The Jewish Temple had been destroyed on two occasions, and
Speaker 1: it was on the basically the same day both times,
Speaker 1: you know, once by the Babylonians and in five eighty
Speaker 1: six BC, and then the Romans destroyed it in seventy,
Speaker 1: you know, five hundred years later. But according to the
Speaker 1: historian Josephas, that occurred on the same day when the
Speaker 1: Romans destroyed it. Now, this is obviously falsification of history.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just so improbable. And in fact, Josephus
Speaker 1: even mentions that it wasn't accidental, it was something that
Speaker 1: God had brought about to punish the Jews for the
Speaker 1: rebellion against Rome. So you can see that history is
Speaker 1: being used here as propaganda. Nine to one one occurred
Speaker 1: on two thousand and one because the basically the Judeo
Speaker 1: Masonic oligarchs that had organized the event were trying to
Speaker 1: reverse the prophecies are fulfilled the prophecy in a way
Speaker 1: that they wanted to of revelation. Revelation mentions these two
Speaker 1: one thousand year periods, so that the date of you know,
Speaker 1: two thousand and one was selected. And then, of course,
Speaker 1: if they're going to deliver an eye for an eye,
Speaker 1: what really motivates these oligarchs was the destruction of the temple.
Speaker 1: That was that it's the centerpiece of the Judeo Masonic
Speaker 1: sort of, you know, the things that they most want
Speaker 1: to achieve in the future would be to reverse the
Speaker 1: defeat that they experienced in the first century. So they
Speaker 1: chose that year two thousand and one, and then they
Speaker 1: put the date as of the September eleventh, because it
Speaker 1: represents nine one one, the tish Abov who occurs on
Speaker 1: the on nine one one, even though of course in
Speaker 1: the Hebrew calendar it's reversed, but in other terms of
Speaker 1: month and day, but nine one one is the way
Speaker 1: you can represent it. And that's why nine one one
Speaker 1: was chosen for the date. You know, the World Trade
Speaker 1: Center they were named that because they were again they're
Speaker 1: trying to reverse the idea of revelations, you know, the
Speaker 1: destruction of world trade, which is a concept in as revelation,
Speaker 1: you know, reveals this prophetic future. And and then just
Speaker 1: to show how misunderstood the whole day was, you have
Speaker 1: the a newscaster talking about the collapse of the Solomon
Speaker 1: Building actually uses the expression the Solomon Building collapse but
Speaker 1: nine one But the Solomon Building, you know, is literally
Speaker 1: erect and back of her while she's making the statement.
Speaker 1: So the point is is that this is just kind
Speaker 1: of a witticism of you know, that the Solomon Buildings collapse,
Speaker 1: that the that the date is really you know, referring to,
Speaker 1: and the event is really relating to, was the original
Speaker 1: collapse of the Solomon Building, which was back two thousand
Speaker 1: years ago. This is just how they how they you know,
Speaker 1: kind of organize their their symbolism. And I know this
Speaker 1: is I have a feeling that some people will have
Speaker 1: a hard time following my logic here. You have to
Speaker 1: you know, sort of see it in its totality to
Speaker 1: really make sense of it, I suppose. But this is
Speaker 1: just how they they shape our world. Nine one one
Speaker 1: was a symbolic event. It was basically to usher in
Speaker 1: it would could be called a Judeo Masonic period of history.
Speaker 1: The two thousand years of Christian history were now ending,
Speaker 1: and the they were having, you know, they were linking
Speaker 1: to the events that brought about the Christian era with
Speaker 1: their symbolism nine one one, the collapse of the Solomon Building.
Speaker 1: And you know, bear in mind that George Bush Senior,
Speaker 1: eleven years to the day, had actually talked about this
Speaker 1: and this is you know, they'd like to this something
Speaker 1: that they enjoyed doing. George H. W. Bush on September eleventh,
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety he gave his family speech, which I don't
Speaker 1: think people have really understood. But what he said was
Speaker 1: is that you know, we stand on this extraordinary moment
Speaker 1: with a new world order will emerge and the rule
Speaker 1: of law will supplant the rule of the jungle. Now
Speaker 1: this is the rule of law he's talking about, is
Speaker 1: the you know, the Noahide law, and in the rule
Speaker 1: of the jungle is, in his opinion, sort of the
Speaker 1: Christian history. And there israel malevolence in what he's saying,
Speaker 1: in the sense that he certainly knows that there's going
Speaker 1: to be mass slaughter on the on the day that
Speaker 1: he's envisioning with his speech, you know, his New World
Speaker 1: Order speech on September eleventh, and these things. When you know, Jay,
Speaker 1: Here's the thing is that any one of these these
Speaker 1: events and these assertions can be seen as circumstantial. It's
Speaker 1: easy to think of it argue it that way. The
Speaker 1: problem is you need to look at all of these
Speaker 1: things as a and when you look at you know,
Speaker 1: the George HW's New World Order speech on September eleventh,
Speaker 1: and then the more or less obvious Temple in Solomon
Speaker 1: building symbolism in two thousand and one. It is just
Speaker 1: not really clear minded to not see that they are
Speaker 1: all related and that this is basically regarding a new
Speaker 1: world order that they are heralding with the with the
Speaker 1: destruction of the World Trade Center, I mean, even Building seven,
Speaker 1: you know, the other name for the final building. I
Speaker 1: mean this is because seven is the number that this
Speaker 1: group uses for the conclusion. It's all, you know, like
Speaker 1: the world was created in seven days in the Torah,
Speaker 1: the different uses of the number of seven for conclusion.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is why it was the last building
Speaker 1: brought down. The whole thing was just this grotesque orchestrated
Speaker 1: symbolic carnage that pleases these individuals, but obviously the rest
Speaker 1: of us must suffer with. And you know, whereas at
Speaker 1: one point people could say, well, how would anyone be
Speaker 1: so evil? Why how could they possibly do this? But
Speaker 1: now with you know, when we have like the overt
Speaker 1: Gaza genocide, and particularly with the Epstein files, where people
Speaker 1: can actually see the sort of complete absence of any
Speaker 1: you know, kind of humanity. I mean, these people think
Speaker 1: that they are gods, they can do whatever they please,
Speaker 1: there's no moral restraint on them whatsoever. So you know,
Speaker 1: when I started, you know, kind of making claims that
Speaker 1: these things were occurring like twenty years ago, I started
Speaker 1: to uncover them. You know, there was a lot of
Speaker 1: office obviously, you know, it makes sense that people would
Speaker 1: not see this as plausible. But now, you know, particularly
Speaker 1: with the Epstein files, I mean, you can look inside
Speaker 1: them and you can just see who who's actually involved
Speaker 1: in what they're sort of moral restraints or lack of
Speaker 1: them they are. And so when we come to September eleventh,
Speaker 1: I think that you know, it isn't enough to think, well,
Speaker 1: it's sort of an inside job. I mean, that doesn't
Speaker 1: really take you anywhere. You need to put the time
Speaker 1: in to really understand the event. And I'm glad I
Speaker 1: can bring out this article on the symbolism because I
Speaker 1: think that'll help people start to use it and with
Speaker 1: the actual with the analytics strength that understanding the event has,
Speaker 1: so you can move forward and then start to see
Speaker 1: things like well, you know, the Gaza genocide and what's
Speaker 1: revealed in the Epstein files are very logical. They are
Speaker 1: something that we can and anticipate and in fact we
Speaker 1: can imagine these things will be more common and get
Speaker 1: even worse as we go forward if we don't stop them.
Speaker 2: So, when we're talking about nine to eleven Trutherism, whatever
Speaker 2: you want to call it, no doubt some in the audience,
Speaker 2: their mind goes to holograms, the kind of real lizard
Speaker 2: people kook stuff. And what I have seen happen now
Speaker 2: several times in my life is that when there is
Speaker 2: a moment of narrative dissonance, there's a certain number of
Speaker 2: people wavering. They don't necessarily buy, at least initially, the
Speaker 2: story that there will oftentimes be a limited hangout, a
Speaker 2: deliberately stupid version of the story, amplified seemingly in a
Speaker 2: deliberate ploy to say, oh, if you don't believe the
Speaker 2: government line, you must believe this clearly pants on hand
Speaker 2: retarded truther version of it. Is that something you've noticed
Speaker 2: as well, that there seems to be a desire to
Speaker 2: create a tar baby sort of buy association with anyone
Speaker 2: who doesn't follow the government line.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean there is a limited hangout is a
Speaker 1: good description, because people really just don't have the psychological
Speaker 1: capacity to move out of their thought world. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're in an understand. People would like to believe they
Speaker 1: have an understanding of their history, right, and this is
Speaker 1: what you know, they have confidence and they're able to
Speaker 1: go around in their world with this understanding of their history.
Speaker 1: It's important to them. Unfortunately it's false, just is flatly incorrect,
Speaker 1: and so something like nine to one one has to
Speaker 1: be put into a particular sort of format for them
Speaker 1: to bring it into their mind and accept it, because
Speaker 1: to really accept the totality of the event and have
Speaker 1: an honest understanding of what this means, it's just too
Speaker 1: great of a sort of psychological movement. Because if you know,
Speaker 1: if nine to one one was basically an inside job,
Speaker 1: which is the expression that was used, you know, when
Speaker 1: it was first criticized, Well, that means that the media
Speaker 1: is an inside job, right. I mean you couldn't put
Speaker 1: something on like this without having control over the media.
Speaker 1: And it means that the government is an inside job,
Speaker 1: because you couldn't do this if you didn't have control
Speaker 1: over you know, the whole political system. Well, that means
Speaker 1: that the world that if you accept those things that
Speaker 1: the media is controlled in false and that the government
Speaker 1: is also controlled in false, well that means your understanding
Speaker 1: of reality is false, and so it's just too great
Speaker 1: of a movement at one time. Someone cannot go from
Speaker 1: believing in sort of the American you know, historical beneficial
Speaker 1: role to seeing nine one one for what it was
Speaker 1: in one moment. It's just it's just too great a
Speaker 1: leave and so there has to be this way station.
Speaker 1: There has to be you know sort of well maybe
Speaker 1: it was done because of you know, there was there.
Speaker 1: They wanted to create a distraction from money being stolen,
Speaker 1: you know, or just whatever explanation they want to give.
Speaker 1: So this is what just as you say that there
Speaker 1: is always this sort of will when when you come
Speaker 1: to these moments, you know, where you really see the
Speaker 1: historical narrative, some major part of it is being fault.
Speaker 1: It's just not something that people can accept whole cloth.
Speaker 1: So they're going to have a way station. And that's
Speaker 1: why there which is which is fine. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: nothing wrong with that. That's actually some movement. It's it's
Speaker 1: a hard thing, and it's one of the reasons why,
Speaker 1: you know, it's so important now that you and people
Speaker 1: like you are putting on these kinds of podcasts because
Speaker 1: these are the ways it's having discussions like the ones
Speaker 1: that you have that enable people to sort of have
Speaker 1: the kind of intellectual space to be able to really
Speaker 1: make movement, make some moat, you know, take some new
Speaker 1: analytic steps to really understanding the world as it is,
Speaker 1: because they that it's when they hear all so many
Speaker 1: people discussing it openly, all of the different ways that
Speaker 1: you know, our historical, historical narrative can be criticized and
Speaker 1: to see how strong the analysis actually is, that they
Speaker 1: can sort of get the psychological capacity to move forward themselves.
Speaker 1: You know, a good example of this is the Holocaust,
Speaker 1: which was you know, so powerful and just so impossible
Speaker 1: to to critique objectively because of fear of this, you know,
Speaker 1: charge of Holocaust denial, anti semitism. But now if you
Speaker 1: look at the statistics concerning it, you'll see that the
Speaker 1: boomer my generation still to a large extent, cannot, you know,
Speaker 1: criticize the the the events that make up the Holocaust subjectively.
Speaker 1: But the younger generation, because they've been they've been through
Speaker 1: the process so many times of listening to shows like
Speaker 1: yours that they can, you know, consider it objectively, and
Speaker 1: they're the event is becoming less and less powerful in
Speaker 1: terms of social control and more and more, you know,
Speaker 1: the subject of skepticism. So this is this is why
Speaker 1: you know, when you see that way station, it isn't
Speaker 1: you know, you shouldn't be critical of these people. You
Speaker 1: should have recognize the psychological issue that they're dealing with
Speaker 1: as they move toward, you know, more clear understanding of
Speaker 1: something like nine to one one, and then recognize the
Speaker 1: power that all of the podcaster has have in a
Speaker 1: general sense, it's just to be able to talk about
Speaker 1: these things honestly and openly over and over again. That
Speaker 1: enables people to start moving into a more powerful analytic position.
Speaker 2: So there are several things there. One you're completely and
Speaker 2: totally correct. One of my favorite sort of while away
Speaker 2: the hours pastimes is to go to the forums on
Speaker 2: Reddit for teachers, and they have these sort of message
Speaker 2: boards so they can complain one to another. And of course,
Speaker 2: if they are on Reddit, quite a progressive social media app,
Speaker 2: and they are public school teachers, you know their politics.
Speaker 2: And there are dozens, if not hundreds of these despairing
Speaker 2: posts of people saying, I can't believe the kids these days.
Speaker 2: I tried to talk about XYZ historical event, and the
Speaker 2: kids all started laughing at me. A famous one where
Speaker 2: a teacher says at a conversation with a seven year
Speaker 2: old and he was shocked to learn that nine to
Speaker 2: eleven was real. He thought it was a joke, and so, okay,
Speaker 2: that's stupid. You know, that's a kid who's not even
Speaker 2: out of elementary school. That's not necessarily going to change
Speaker 2: the world. But it shows that that event has moved
Speaker 2: from being sacred sort of an article of faith that
Speaker 2: you can't touch. It's like the Holy of Holies to history, Joe,
Speaker 2: would be absurd if you and I were sitting down
Speaker 2: at a bar and I said, oh, yeah, you know,
Speaker 2: hr at work discovered my opinion on the War of
Speaker 2: the Roses, and I got fired, Right, it wouldn't make
Speaker 2: any sense. That's fully and totally within the realm of
Speaker 2: the academic And I think that we're watching that happen
Speaker 2: to nine to eleven and also to the Holocaust. It's
Speaker 2: moving out of the sort of civic state religion into
Speaker 2: being just normal history. And this is something that's happened
Speaker 2: a number of times. One of my favorite authors, Thomas Carlyle,
Speaker 2: he did this for Cromwell somewhat understandably after the restoration.
Speaker 2: Cromwell was basically Satan Hitler and Genghis Khan rapped together.
Speaker 2: You can sort of understand why it was something that
Speaker 2: you couldn't talk about. Carlisle writes a book where he
Speaker 2: has sort of a biographical sketch of Cromwell and he
Speaker 2: returns to history, he becomes less than this sort of
Speaker 2: like homunculous social monster of all evil wrap together. And
Speaker 2: I think a big part of this, and this is
Speaker 2: both a pro and a con depending on how you
Speaker 2: look at it, is that American culture is completely and
Speaker 2: totally fracturing the era of one unified pop culture where
Speaker 2: everyone is tuned into you know, even something like MTV
Speaker 2: is gone. Some of that's ethnic, you know, there are
Speaker 2: fewer and fewer Americans per se. But that has also
Speaker 2: enabled a very very quick erosion of these social narratives
Speaker 2: of control because people aren't unified or congregated around certain
Speaker 2: media figures. If you see what I'm getting at there.
Speaker 1: Joe, absolutely, yeah, And that's this little really is the
Speaker 1: critical historical process that we need to you know, accelerate.
Speaker 1: I would point out that you know, terms like conspiracy theorist,
Speaker 1: holocaust denial, trutherer, these these are invented and are promoted
Speaker 1: by the oligarchs because they well they create an ad
Speaker 1: hominine power against analysis. Right, you you bring up say
Speaker 1: you're just as an example, say you're you're critical of
Speaker 1: the amount of political power a small minority of Americans
Speaker 1: who are Jewish have in our Congress right recent Massy defeat,
Speaker 1: you know, the amount of money that AIPAC put against him.
Speaker 1: So if you bring this up as an issue that
Speaker 1: there is a kind of religious or ethnic component to
Speaker 1: you know, this this power, then the response is, well,
Speaker 1: that's anti semitism. And so if the power of the
Speaker 1: phrase is sufficient, it stops the analysis and the process
Speaker 1: you're describing will be successful or is moving toward, you know,
Speaker 1: opening up the process when instead of succumbing immediately just
Speaker 1: automatically to you know, the humiliation of being called an
Speaker 1: anti semi the person who's making you know, this concern
Speaker 1: about the lack of the fair democratic process to have
Speaker 1: such a small group with so much political power. If
Speaker 1: that person says, well, you know, let's continue to discussion,
Speaker 1: because you're saying that I am having this position because
Speaker 1: there is a mental problem, there's a racism. You know
Speaker 1: that I am confused, and my thinking is weak because
Speaker 1: I am being affected by this emotional problem that I have,
Speaker 1: this race, this hatred of Jews, okay, which which is
Speaker 1: anti semitism. But there are now the the the power
Speaker 1: cultural power of the expression is diminished enough that an
Speaker 1: individual very often will go, you know, I don't think
Speaker 1: I'm crazy. I want to continue to discussion. I'd like
Speaker 1: to I want to have more explanation of is this
Speaker 1: fair in terms of democracy or the kind of money
Speaker 1: that was spent to defeat Massey right, coming from a
Speaker 1: I pack and coming from other Jewish donors who are
Speaker 1: have this narrow, self centered, uh you know, desire, and
Speaker 1: that all the rest of us then have to accept,
Speaker 1: you know, this political consequence. So the the process is
Speaker 1: in motion and if people want to accelerate it. When ever,
Speaker 1: the terms that have been used to like end analysis
Speaker 1: are brought up, you know, and they're well known, the
Speaker 1: truth or anti semitism, conspiracy theorists, you know, there's others,
Speaker 1: is to say, well, you know, I don't think that
Speaker 1: your assertion, which which is what you're doing with these expressions,
Speaker 1: that there is some kind of mental problem that I
Speaker 1: am suffering from, is correct frankly, I would like to
Speaker 1: continue the discussion. So this is really what we need
Speaker 1: to do, is we just have to gently demand that
Speaker 1: the discussion continue and that the assertions are evaluated objectively.
Speaker 1: And we aren't. We aren't stopped in the process by
Speaker 1: the terms which frankly were invented for the purpose of
Speaker 1: ending analysis. And I just think it's going on. The
Speaker 1: process is going on very fine at this point, you know,
Speaker 1: because I'm like you, I get quite a bit of
Speaker 1: information and emails and people you know, who are communicating
Speaker 1: to me about these ideas. I can see it. I
Speaker 1: can actually see the momentum that is occurring within the
Speaker 1: younger generation. They are more and more or less willing
Speaker 1: to just you know, have the charge leveled against them
Speaker 1: of you know, psychological problem and then stop the process.
Speaker 1: They are becoming more aggressive about no, no, we have
Speaker 1: to continue the discussion. I know you think are wished
Speaker 1: to think that I have some kind of mental problem
Speaker 1: that makes me think that it's undemocratic to have forty
Speaker 1: million dollars spent in the congressional district by people who
Speaker 1: don't even live in the in the congressional area to
Speaker 1: defeat someone just because he was he's been critical of Israel,
Speaker 1: or he brought out the Epstein files. I want to
Speaker 1: continue the discussion. This is what we need to do.
Speaker 1: We need to continue to discussion. And again I will
Speaker 1: harp on this as many times as I can. This
Speaker 1: is why the shows like the one you put on
Speaker 1: are so important, even they are just geometrically important. I mean,
Speaker 1: they will expand and have benefit one hundred times more
Speaker 1: than just the audience that you're reaching, you know at
Speaker 1: any one moment, because the people who hear your discussions,
Speaker 1: they become freer to have other discussions, and other discussions
Speaker 1: follow from them. You see what I mean. It's just
Speaker 1: this is really the power that we're seeing. They are
Speaker 1: they're shutting down more and more of the podcast, but
Speaker 1: it isn't working because there are just more and more
Speaker 1: people who are springing up with and using the internet
Speaker 1: in the correct way. So you know, you're to be praised,
Speaker 1: and you know, hopefully your audience will will take the
Speaker 1: effect that you're trying to create and then use it
Speaker 1: in their own lives and have more discussions with more
Speaker 1: people and we can start moving forward. I'll just you know,
Speaker 1: finally I'll conclude the rant with the If we can get,
Speaker 1: by my estimation, like just ten percent of the population
Speaker 1: to really understand your discussions, ten percent, you couldn't have
Speaker 1: the kind of political process we do now. It would
Speaker 1: come to a stop. They couldn't do things like the
Speaker 1: Iran War because the population would be would be tipped
Speaker 1: in another direction, and they couldn't you know, put in place,
Speaker 1: you know, people like Cruise or Ted Schumer, things like
Speaker 1: there would be enough of like a tipping of like
Speaker 1: five to ten percent would would make it impossible to
Speaker 1: elect people like that in the whole political system as
Speaker 1: we experience, it would come to an end. So we
Speaker 1: just have to keep going. I think we'll start seeing
Speaker 1: good political effects out of the process, says probably in
Speaker 1: ten years.
Speaker 2: So a couple of things there. One to the audience.
Speaker 2: You know, you may assume that I brought Joe on
Speaker 2: because he's interesting, you know, he's a body of work.
Speaker 2: It was actually I'm just paying him under the table
Speaker 2: to say nice things about me. That's the whole reason here.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, In all seriousness, I've done a lot of reading
Speaker 2: of the kind of French New Left thinkers of the
Speaker 2: mid twentieth century, not because I particularly enjoy them or
Speaker 2: think that they have good ideas, But it's useful to
Speaker 2: understand what your enemies think, right, A lot of this
Speaker 2: stuff is foundational to them. And like I said, there's
Speaker 2: not a lot that I've taken away from figures like
Speaker 2: Fuco that I thought was particularly profound or worth implementing.
Speaker 2: But Madness and Civilization is a really great book because
Speaker 2: what he does is he talks about how insanity is
Speaker 2: weaponized by the state. For instance, you know, you have
Speaker 2: a samples in Russia of dissonance being declared insane shuffled
Speaker 2: off into mental asylums. And of course his argument was,
Speaker 2: this is exactly what we've done to pedophiles like him,
Speaker 2: you know, bizarre sexual minorities. That's the same process. We
Speaker 2: can disagree with that analysis and say that process of
Speaker 2: treating dissent as it is the result of a mental failing,
Speaker 2: a medical condition that needs to be corrected. Well, I
Speaker 2: mean that's one we've seen over and over and over again. Right,
Speaker 2: you mentioned the point, right, Even the term anti semitism
Speaker 2: a better one, perhaps homophobia. The idea that your you know,
Speaker 2: opinion on you know, sexual politics. If you have the
Speaker 2: wrong one, well then you have a phobia like hydrophobia,
Speaker 2: like you have rabis. Right, your political opinion has become
Speaker 2: a medical diagnosis. And look, a lot of the kind
Speaker 2: of alternative health sphere is pretty out there. It's pretty weird.
Speaker 2: Not all the ideas are correct, but I think it
Speaker 2: is an interesting sign of people rejecting that system of control.
Speaker 2: And look, okay, fair enough, a lot of people aren't
Speaker 2: necessarily looking at it in explicitly political terms, but we
Speaker 2: are seeing a widespread rejection of that system of control.
Speaker 2: COVID did a great job of delegitimizing it. And to
Speaker 2: your point about percentages, there's a really interesting and I
Speaker 2: don't remember the name for this law. Stormy who will
Speaker 2: probably be listening to this will shout at me for
Speaker 2: not remembering this, but that sort of models how a
Speaker 2: technology or idea grows that at the very kind of
Speaker 2: narrow end of the wedge, you have early adopters, right,
Speaker 2: the real kind of out there folks, the witches that
Speaker 2: get burnt, you know, the people who pay a very
Speaker 2: high cost for an information advantage. And that slowly grows
Speaker 2: to a tipping point as people who were ahead of
Speaker 2: the curve maybe not that much, start to pick up
Speaker 2: on idea, and then once it hits, depending on who
Speaker 2: you ask, ten to fifteen percent, it goes viral. You
Speaker 2: see this with technology. I distinctly remember the first person
Speaker 2: I saw with a smartphone that was a big deal.
Speaker 2: A year later, everyone has them, right. It quickly grows
Speaker 2: and we can use anti semitism as a rough proxy
Speaker 2: for not trusting the government. Put scare quotes around anti semitism.
Speaker 2: I realize that means very different things to you and
Speaker 2: to Randy Fines, but whatever, that sort of collection of
Speaker 2: ideas that has for people my age to a little
Speaker 2: bit younger, effectively become synonymous with sincerity, become synonymous with
Speaker 2: not being a part of the machine, to the point
Speaker 2: where you know, those sort of jokes are ubiquitous, and okay,
Speaker 2: does the guy making fun of his friend for being
Speaker 2: late to pay his beer tab and calling him rabbi
Speaker 2: blah blah blah? Is that a well formed political idea? No,
Speaker 2: there's not much more to it than that, you know,
Speaker 2: or photoshopping a photo of you know, you kissing Benjamin
Speaker 2: Netmyahou or the wall or whatever like it's it's a joke,
Speaker 2: of course, but that is that process of normalization that
Speaker 2: is that idea escaping containment. And so many of these things,
Speaker 2: whether it be APAK, whether it be the ADL or
Speaker 2: the uh oh ADL and the SBLC, so many of
Speaker 2: those rackets, and they are rackets, depend on a sort
Speaker 2: of social shield, depend on being seen as generally pro social.
Speaker 2: Cars for Kids is another one, right, this, this incredibly
Speaker 2: corrupt charity run out of California, where all of those
Speaker 2: require a certain preponderance of marks, right guys to take
Speaker 2: the bad end of the deal, and once that information
Speaker 2: is out there, those don't work. And now look that
Speaker 2: doesn't stop bombs raining down in Gaza, that doesn't stop
Speaker 2: up you know, Raytheon or APAC from having a lot
Speaker 2: of power and a lot of money. But it makes
Speaker 2: it exponentially harder to pull the con when people know
Speaker 2: you're pulling a con, you see what I'm getting at, Joe.
Speaker 1: Of course, and they don't know that a con is
Speaker 1: being pulled if they're sort of have don't have the
Speaker 1: ability to be skeptical, which is really what was taken
Speaker 1: away from us by the fake historical narrative. That's what
Speaker 1: they're designed to do, Yeah, I mean, they are designed
Speaker 1: to have the population end up being controlled by the
Speaker 1: blocking expression like anti semitism, climate denier, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: the homophobia. You know, the terms are in terms of
Speaker 1: the you know kind of logic are anti logic. They
Speaker 1: are they are designed to stop people from thinking and
Speaker 1: designed to stop conversation. So it's they've had a good
Speaker 1: run at it, and they have put in amazing amounts
Speaker 1: of capacity to control. I mean, television was certainly, you know,
Speaker 1: a step in the direction they wanted to take, you know,
Speaker 1: as oligarchs, and then with the idea of the personal
Speaker 1: computer and then information technology and communications, they could go
Speaker 1: beyond anything that anyone in nineteen forty five could even
Speaker 1: have imagined, you know, where everyone has an iPhone and
Speaker 1: is staring at it in a restaurant rather than the
Speaker 1: person who's sitting across the table from them. It's just
Speaker 1: horrendous what they've been able to achieve in terms of
Speaker 1: social distortion with this device. But it also has a,
Speaker 1: you know, the capacity to be used against them, and
Speaker 1: I think if you look at the statistics, it's it's
Speaker 1: working completely in the wrong direction. At this point, there's
Speaker 1: just too many people who are becoming skeptical because of
Speaker 1: the ability to share information. You know, well, yeah, it's
Speaker 1: just it's happening and we're experiencing it well.
Speaker 2: And I think the deep irony, at least from my perspective,
Speaker 2: is that sixty years ago, these were tools they loved
Speaker 2: to use. They loved to recontextualize history, to break down
Speaker 2: narrative because it was beneficial. It was a way, you know,
Speaker 2: to sort of worm in between the armor. And now
Speaker 2: they're in charge, you know, they're at the top of
Speaker 2: the pile, and all of a sudden their tools are
Speaker 2: being turned against them and they don't seem to have
Speaker 2: a defense for them. So you see this, I mean, honestly,
Speaker 2: history is you know, great for this. You know, you
Speaker 2: have the attack on sort of legacy American figures like
Speaker 2: you know, Robert E. Lee, which is, you know, okay,
Speaker 2: you can have your opinion on Lee one way or
Speaker 2: the other, but he was a foundational part of the
Speaker 2: American myth right, one of our sort of secular saints. Well,
Speaker 2: it turns out that exact same process of delegitimizing him
Speaker 2: can be done to someone like George Floyd. George Floyd
Speaker 2: is the punchline of more jokes now than almost anyone
Speaker 2: else in history. He is fully entered into being a
Speaker 2: comedic and derisive figure, and it's very funny to watch
Speaker 2: them be forced to play defense. You can tell they're
Speaker 2: not used to it at all. And again that's part
Speaker 2: of that same historical process, right of that kind of
Speaker 2: their own ideas are sort of being eaten away. So, Joe,
Speaker 2: as we come to this sort of the end of this,
Speaker 2: the conclusion you mentioned that that ten years where you
Speaker 2: think that we're going to start seeing political changes. You
Speaker 2: mentioned you mentioned Massy, and I got a lot of
Speaker 2: criticism for my commentary on Massy. Some of it justified,
Speaker 2: some of it not. But one of in my mind,
Speaker 2: I think the most interesting aspects of his race was
Speaker 2: the generational breakdown right where we saw his support shift.
Speaker 2: Because you know, if you would have tied me to
Speaker 2: a radiator, stuck a gun to my head and said
Speaker 2: where do you think think the split will be? What age? Maybe,
Speaker 2: just being a little bit pessimistic, I would have said
Speaker 2: probably about forty Right, that seems to be at least
Speaker 2: anecdotally what I'm seeing. What wasn't It was fifty five,
Speaker 2: Which that's dramatic because that means their margins are much
Speaker 2: thinner than even I right died in the whole reactionary
Speaker 2: Internet conspiracy theorist whatever term you want to use, would
Speaker 2: have said. And I think that's interesting because if you
Speaker 2: are stuck with that fifty five plus demo, to be
Speaker 2: blunt about it, that is a non renewable resource, and
Speaker 2: they're dealing with a population that is at least to
Speaker 2: some degree, you know, reproducing. There just there's a population pyramid.
Speaker 2: And so where do you think we're going to start
Speaker 2: to see these changes? Because in my mind, look, you
Speaker 2: can drop forty million dollars. Maybe you can do it
Speaker 2: a number of times, but at a certain point, as
Speaker 2: demographic trends continue, that becomes unsustainable. You see what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: There, right, You can actually do arithmetical computation and come
Speaker 1: up with, you know, with a slide rule sort of
Speaker 1: exactly the moments where their political posture is not you know,
Speaker 1: kind of realistic in terms of producing electing results. I
Speaker 1: in other words, if all of your support is in
Speaker 1: the old group and the young group is gaining every
Speaker 1: year a greater fraction of it, then the number I gave,
Speaker 1: like ten years I think is very realistic. I think
Speaker 1: at that point. I mean, you couldn't You could spend
Speaker 1: four hundred million dollars and in ten years and not
Speaker 1: defeat massive You see my point? Because the demographic that
Speaker 1: is not something you can control, is just too large
Speaker 1: of a force. And so I think the numbers you're
Speaker 1: talking about are really valuable and people should look at that,
Speaker 1: look at them and try to understand it, because will
Speaker 1: give them hope because a lot of times people say, oh, gee,
Speaker 1: it's so difficult. You know, they have all this media control.
Speaker 1: The government thinks, yeah, but they're losing what got them
Speaker 1: into power, which is the control of sort of the
Speaker 1: historical narrative. They're losing this. And when you see the
Speaker 1: younger generation so skeptical and you see the boomer're about
Speaker 1: to exit the stage, then you know, I mean, it's
Speaker 1: just not going to be that difficult to start seeing
Speaker 1: political change. What will be hard is to sort of
Speaker 1: generate the right candidates. And I think we're going to
Speaker 1: have to go through, you know, a period where it'll
Speaker 1: be almost impossible to not have co opted individuals, you know,
Speaker 1: people in other words, they'll they'll see this, they'll see
Speaker 1: the demographic chip and they'll try to get ahead of
Speaker 1: it and create heroes, you know, for this group that
Speaker 1: they can then run for office. But the problem is
Speaker 1: at this point is that process itself is now under
Speaker 1: tremendous scrutiny. You know, just because you step forward and say,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm an independent thinker. You know, there is
Speaker 1: a lot of people in the in the indepis so
Speaker 1: called independent media now who are who are also receiving skepticism,
Speaker 1: you know, like, well, what is the backgrounds of Alec
Speaker 1: Jones for example, you know, why does he have this
Speaker 1: background you know into you know, support from Zionism. They
Speaker 1: they will attempt to you know, control the opposition by
Speaker 1: leading it. But that's something that is just well known
Speaker 1: at this point, you know. And so it's it's going
Speaker 1: to be harder and harder for them. And I would
Speaker 1: just say that you're using Massy's election as a template.
Speaker 1: You know, they were able to get forty five fifty five.
Speaker 1: You can calculate the moment in time when when that
Speaker 1: the ten percent parality would be gone just under into
Speaker 1: the you know, it's just with the current trends going forward.
Speaker 1: So I think ten years on the outside, you'll start
Speaker 1: to see it'll be harder and harder to It will
Speaker 1: almost be impossible to elect anyone from the old guard,
Speaker 1: the old way of thinking. But even the new candidates
Speaker 1: that come forward will be subjected to a kind of
Speaker 1: scrutiny that isn't in existence right now. They'll that really
Speaker 1: be looked at with the possibility that they are from
Speaker 1: some kind of controlled opposition, and ways will be developed
Speaker 1: to vet that. You know, it's just a part of
Speaker 1: our the political process you have to go forward with
Speaker 1: to be good citizens is you have to have a
Speaker 1: better way of vetting. You know what I call lifetime actors.
Speaker 1: You know, people like Ted Cruz, who you know, purports
Speaker 1: to be you know, an American citizen for America, and
Speaker 1: you know, a Christian, and then there's just this Slavish
Speaker 1: Zionist you know, and you wonder, well where does this
Speaker 1: come from? I mean, are headsets you know, the Minister
Speaker 1: of War where you see video of him talking about
Speaker 1: the miracle about to occur of the restoration of the
Speaker 1: Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, and you know, you scratch your
Speaker 1: head and you go, well, you're a Christian, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, does Jesus talk about the restoration of the temple?
Speaker 1: He seems to talk about the destruction of the temple,
Speaker 1: not the restoration of it. So where do you where
Speaker 1: do you come up with these ideas? The vetting will
Speaker 1: I think, you know, it'll also have to go through
Speaker 1: a process and the public will have to you know,
Speaker 1: become wise in it. But it's going to happen, and
Speaker 1: these things are inevitable.
Speaker 2: One of the I guess you could say common stumbling
Speaker 2: blocks of Internet right wing discourse is that they're very
Speaker 2: good at picking up on plants like, oh, the Greater
Speaker 2: Israel project or whatever, and they sort of just smuggle
Speaker 2: and they assume the premise that that is something that
Speaker 2: can be done, right, that it is actually possible to accomplish,
Speaker 2: that they want to do it so they will be
Speaker 2: able to And looking at you know, the forty million
Speaker 2: dodd dollars it took to get you know, Massy out
Speaker 2: of office, my thought is, okay, that's you know, that's
Speaker 2: a relatively narrow race. Massy certainly didn't do himself any
Speaker 2: favors with other things he said and did. It's an
Speaker 2: older demographic in a ruby red area, right, so there's
Speaker 2: some variables there, but at a certain point, well, how
Speaker 2: much money does it take is there an amount of
Speaker 2: money that can make it happen? Like if you resurrected
Speaker 2: Jerry Folwell from the debt and wanted him to run
Speaker 2: for the mayor of San Francisco, how much money would
Speaker 2: it take for him to win?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: Is there an amount or is it simply not doable?
Speaker 1: Incompatible such a great question, and the answer is there
Speaker 1: there is a point where money isn't going to work,
Speaker 1: you see. And I think that's really kind of what
Speaker 1: you're alluding to. Yeah, And it's just the extent of
Speaker 1: individuals who are clear minded. It really comes down to that. Look,
Speaker 1: here's what you can see. You want to you want
Speaker 1: to have a simple thought experiment to demonstrate the kind
Speaker 1: of the validity what I'm saying here. How many people
Speaker 1: that you know have ever made the transition from kind
Speaker 1: of a normal understanding of history to being profoundly skeptical, right,
Speaker 1: which you know are are to the to the extent
Speaker 1: they're part they can understand the independent media discussions. Right,
Speaker 1: how many of these individuals have ever gone back, have
Speaker 1: ever reversed? And then we you know, I now believe
Speaker 1: you know the assertions regarding the Holocaust. For a while
Speaker 1: there I was a denier. But you know, I found
Speaker 1: other information and have you know, and I've gone back.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm in touch with this group. I've seen
Speaker 1: thousands of people have like I've never seen a single
Speaker 1: one move backwards. You say, it's impossible, the mind doesn't
Speaker 1: work this way. So so money isn't going to help
Speaker 1: when when you have enough people who who are really
Speaker 1: analytically clear, it just it won't. It won't do anything.
Speaker 1: So in fact, what it will do is it'll create
Speaker 1: mistakes on the parts of the old Arks. They'll become desperate,
Speaker 1: they'll be they'll be ham handed, draconian, they'll be you know,
Speaker 1: trying to use violence and intimonation. That's that's not going
Speaker 1: to slow the process down at all. That's just going
Speaker 1: to accelerated.
Speaker 2: So well, and I mean to that point, Joe, just
Speaker 2: look at the reaction to the protests when the Israel
Speaker 2: Hamas war kicked off. Not only taking these kids who
Speaker 2: look they're brain dead college leftists. I don't pretend to
Speaker 2: feel sorry for them, but getting clubbed over the head,
Speaker 2: ridden over with horses, and then however, many university presidents
Speaker 2: immediately got replaced like look, man, you don't have to
Speaker 2: have a tinfoil hat on to say, well, that seems
Speaker 2: like a very suspicious reaction to a protest on a
Speaker 2: college campus. Like I'm old enough to remember when there
Speaker 2: were full scale riots that didn't get this sort of reaction.
Speaker 2: And to your point, like, as more more of these,
Speaker 2: you know, oligarchs get desperate, they start just flailing around.
Speaker 2: And look, you know, a wounded animal is still dangerous.
Speaker 2: You know, a tiger and a trap can still rip
Speaker 2: your face off, So don't do anything stupid. But look,
Speaker 2: we are concerned with trend lines here. How are things
Speaker 2: evolving into the future, And well, it's not looking good
Speaker 2: for them. So, Joe, this has been a fascinating conversation.
Speaker 2: I really enjoyed it. Thanks for making time. You've mentioned
Speaker 2: the article at the UNS Review in your books, is
Speaker 2: there anywhere else people can find you?
Speaker 1: I've written, you know, dozens of articles sort of in
Speaker 1: this vein, and you can find them at Post Flaviana.
Speaker 1: The title that refers to the period of time following
Speaker 1: the Slavian dynasty, because you know you've read Caesar's Messiah,
Speaker 1: you know, that's when I identify the beginning of the
Speaker 1: you know the process of kind of mind control so anyway,
Speaker 1: so post Slaviana and you know, go to Tim Kelly's site.
Speaker 1: Are interesting times. Tim and I have a discussion every week. Gosh,
Speaker 1: you've had four hundred of them and they're available there
Speaker 1: if people want to listen to. Let me cover every
Speaker 1: single topic and over and over again. So it's you know,
Speaker 1: and I'm a public person. Just send me an email
Speaker 1: at Joe Atwell at gmail dot com. I get a
Speaker 1: lot of emails. I try to answer all of them
Speaker 1: if I can, and you can if you're interested in
Speaker 1: the books, you can go to Caesarsmossiah dot com and
Speaker 1: buy the books there.
Speaker 2: Well, Joe, I'm going to have to retract my previous
Speaker 2: praise for you saying nice things about me because you
Speaker 2: have at least set the example that I will answer
Speaker 2: all emails, which I will not make that promise. Most
Speaker 2: of you who send me emails are lunatics.
Speaker 1: I'm all seriously correspond to hate. I just deleted that
Speaker 1: and I would say, hey, this is probably seventy percent
Speaker 1: of my emails. But you know, the people who have
Speaker 1: legitimate questions, I always try to at least respond, because
Speaker 1: you know, it's just part of the process. I believe in.
Speaker 1: This is sort of what I you know, how I
Speaker 1: want to live as a human being. I want to
Speaker 1: be part of the process by which the kind of
Speaker 1: social control constructions that the of the Oligarics have placed
Speaker 1: over us are are disassembled, you know. I mean this
Speaker 1: is like our discussion, like all the discussions you've had,
Speaker 1: y I mean, they all are part of the process.
Speaker 1: So I enjoy being in that world, and that's just
Speaker 1: how I spend my time.
Speaker 2: Well great, as far as my stuff, you guys know
Speaker 2: where to find me anyway, without further ado, good night,
Speaker 2: Thank you, Rank