Speaker 1: This is a clip from Raised by Giants. You can
Speaker 1: access the entire episode now on our website and all
Speaker 1: podcast platforms. I've been doing a lot of research into
Speaker 1: the true nature of this reality. What is this place?
Speaker 1: You know, what force or entity created it? To what
Speaker 1: ends what we might call God? What is the true
Speaker 1: nature of this entity or force called God? What is
Speaker 1: this place in which we find ourselves? Isn't it absurd
Speaker 1: that at some point in early childhood we become vaguely
Speaker 1: conscious of the fact that we exist and there's a
Speaker 1: world that we live in, but beyond that, there are
Speaker 1: no clear answers as to what we're doing here. I mean,
Speaker 1: lots of people claim to have the answers. You'll get
Speaker 1: one religious minister that will say, my holy book has
Speaker 1: all the answers, my messianic figure is the one to
Speaker 1: revere and worship. And then immediately you'll have another religious
Speaker 1: minister who will pop up and say, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: you're a heathen. That's blasphemy. Relig just figure is the one,
Speaker 1: and my religious text is the one to go with.
Speaker 1: And then a third guy will pop up and say,
Speaker 1: you're both wrong, you're both wrong. It's my faith. Mine
Speaker 1: is the one, and you're supposed to make sense of
Speaker 1: all of this somehow. There's no manual, there's no guidebook.
Speaker 1: You're just stumbling around in the dark and left to
Speaker 1: make the best of it. So I've been asking these
Speaker 1: big questions, which I think any human being owes it
Speaker 1: to themselves to ask. Well, they've got the opportunity within
Speaker 1: these lives. I'm not claiming that you're going to get
Speaker 1: the answers, but you can at least ask the questions.
Speaker 1: So there's one movie that I've been revisiting which somebody
Speaker 1: directed me to just recently, which is The Truman Show,
Speaker 1: which I think is a really great allegory for the
Speaker 1: human condition these lives. So, if you think about it,
Speaker 1: Jim Carey's character is representative of all of us, of
Speaker 1: people humans because he finds himself in this reality where
Speaker 1: he realizes he's being monitored and surveiled, and that could
Speaker 1: be a metaphor for perhaps the way we're watched by
Speaker 1: entities I don't know, you know, in unseen realms, and
Speaker 1: he gradually comes to realize that the people around him
Speaker 1: are all actors playing roles. So this fits the idea
Speaker 1: of NPCs that we hear about you know, non player characters,
Speaker 1: these normy figures who seem to just float through life,
Speaker 1: and they don't seem to ask these big questions that
Speaker 1: many of us do, and many of them don't seem
Speaker 1: to have the full range of emotions within their you know, capabilities.
Speaker 1: And gradually the Jim Carey character comes to realize that
Speaker 1: this world in which he lives is nothing like he
Speaker 1: thought it was, and it's actually illusory and it's not
Speaker 1: the real it's not real life, it's not the real world,
Speaker 1: and so he attempts to escape from it all. I mean,
Speaker 1: there are Gnostic overtones to this, so many people have
Speaker 1: been interpreted it as a Gnostic allegory, so it kind
Speaker 1: of sits in line with many Gnostic teachings as to
Speaker 1: what the nature of this realm is. And you've got
Speaker 1: the christoph character who's the Handler, the controller played by
Speaker 1: Ed Harris in that film, and within this metaphor, he's
Speaker 1: representative of what, in Gnostic terms, was described as the Demiurge,
Speaker 1: this entity known as yelderbey Off, which was like a
Speaker 1: lesser God, a pretender God, a usurper who has somehow
Speaker 1: hijacked this reality and made it its own or created
Speaker 1: it in the first place, and the Ed Harris. Harris's
Speaker 1: character in the film seeks to maintain that sort of
Speaker 1: control over Truman because he's like his creation, his pet project,
Speaker 1: and he doesn't like the fact that Truman is starting
Speaker 1: to question where he is and what the true nature
Speaker 1: of his life is. So that's one movie that springs
Speaker 1: to mind in terms of asking big questions or possibly
Speaker 1: answer in them as to what the nature of this
Speaker 1: reality is. Because I think when you've been in conspiracy
Speaker 1: research for long enough a number of years, like as
Speaker 1: many years as I have, all roads eventually converge at
Speaker 1: one singular point. So you can look into secret society networks,
Speaker 1: and you can look into the New World Order master
Speaker 1: Plan and the methods and tactics that are used to
Speaker 1: control and surveil us and enslave us. You can look
Speaker 1: into the banking and financial scams, and you know, the
Speaker 1: builder Berg Group and the Trilactoral Commission, all of these.
Speaker 1: But there comes a point where all of that just
Speaker 1: becomes information and data and names and places and dates,
Speaker 1: And what's really important is going beyond that several levels
Speaker 1: to ask what is the nature of a reality in
Speaker 1: which any of that sort of stuff can take place
Speaker 1: in the first place, you know, that facilitates these kind
Speaker 1: of activities playing out into apparently physical manifestation. So that's
Speaker 1: where I am asking those kind of questions at this
Speaker 1: point in my life, having done the conspiracy thing for
Speaker 1: many years, and that movie speaks a lot to me
Speaker 1: in that regarding in terms of considering these very big
Speaker 1: questions in life.
Speaker 2: Have you seen the controversy that's surrounding Jim Carrey at
Speaker 2: the moment when he showed up to the Paris Awards
Speaker 2: show last week and he looks completely different. He looks
Speaker 2: like his face has had a bunch of work done
Speaker 2: and a bunch of plastic surgery, which doesn't make a
Speaker 2: lot of sense based off of the things that he
Speaker 2: had said up into this point that it doesn't seem
Speaker 2: like he would be the person that would want all
Speaker 2: of that cosmetic surgery, which has alled people to believe
Speaker 2: that that's not really Jim Carrey, that he's somebody else,
Speaker 2: that someone's impersonating him, or that he's been cloned and
Speaker 2: all of that. But what is really strange about that
Speaker 2: entire scenario is that he does look like a different person.
Speaker 2: He's obviously had work done if it really is him.
Speaker 2: But what's the most odd about it was at the
Speaker 2: end of his speech at the awards ceremony, he says
Speaker 2: the ending line that he says at the end of
Speaker 2: the Truman Shop in case he doesn't.
Speaker 3: See you, good evening and good night, in case I
Speaker 3: don't see you, good afternoon, good evening, and good night.
Speaker 2: In case I don't see you, good afternoon, good evening,
Speaker 2: and good night. And I'm like, wow, if that's not
Speaker 2: really Jim Carrey, what a play that you just did
Speaker 2: in front of everyone. It's like a metaphor within a
Speaker 2: metaphor within a metaphor.
Speaker 1: Right, I mean anything as possible. Could Jim Carey have
Speaker 1: been replaced? Sure, they've done it before. Did it with Pullartney.
Speaker 1: They did it for a period with Madonna in round
Speaker 1: about twenty twenty one, or starting in twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: where they wheeled out to my thinking, at least three
Speaker 1: different Madonnas. So there was a young one. I can't
Speaker 1: remember if we talked about this on the show last time,
Speaker 1: but there was a young one who looked no more
Speaker 1: than about thirty with pink hair, and that quite obviously
Speaker 1: was not the real Madonna. Who by that point was
Speaker 1: supposed to be about sixty five years of age sixty three,
Speaker 1: I think. Then there was another one who was short
Speaker 1: and fat and dumpy as she appeared on stage in
Speaker 1: a dance routine in Columbia, and she could barely pull
Speaker 1: any dance steps and looked completely out of shape, so
Speaker 1: that clearly was not the original Madonna. And then there
Speaker 1: was a sort of older, grizzled, haggard sort of one,
Speaker 1: and it was much more plausible that that could be
Speaker 1: the real Madonna, but it still wasn't. And then the
Speaker 1: real one appears to have come back. She's got this
Speaker 1: very distinctive gap in her teeth, so when she smiles,
Speaker 1: you know it. So we appear to have the original
Speaker 1: Madonna back. But they played complete mind fuck games on
Speaker 1: us by putting out these three replacements for a period,
Speaker 1: And who knows why they did that. Maybe it was
Speaker 1: to see how many people would notice, whether they could
Speaker 1: get away with it, whether the fans would call it out,
Speaker 1: how many truth researchers would draw attention to it. Maybe
Speaker 1: it was a little social experiment in that way. Who knows.
Speaker 1: And I hear all these claims that famous people have
Speaker 1: been replaced by clones or doubles or whatever. I've heard
Speaker 1: it about Jim Carey, And sure those pictures that surfaced
Speaker 1: recently do not look like the original Jim Carey. But
Speaker 1: for every person you'll get who claims that he's been replaced,
Speaker 1: somebody else will pop up and say, oh, come on,
Speaker 1: Jim Carey is in Hollywood, And in Hollywood there's plastic surgery,
Speaker 1: there's all kinds of work you can have done, there's
Speaker 1: makeup that gets applied in in film type scenarios, and
Speaker 1: that's just Jim Carey trying to stave off aging. So
Speaker 1: it just goes to show that they are never any
Speaker 1: clear answers to anything. Nothing is ever clear cut because
Speaker 1: somebody is always going to pop up and be contrary
Speaker 1: and oppose any kind of claim that you might choose
Speaker 1: to make. So it just makes this work very, very difficult.
Speaker 1: You've got to have a lot of time on your hands.
Speaker 1: You've got to be pretty good at forensic analysis and
Speaker 1: comparing facial structures and distances between eyes and ears and
Speaker 1: ear shapes and things like this to be able to
Speaker 1: make sense of it. I mean, with some it's easier
Speaker 1: than with others. As far as I'm concerned with Paul McCartney.
Speaker 1: It's a clear cutcase there have been at least two
Speaker 1: individuals playing the public role of Paul McCartney. You can
Speaker 1: see they're very different in photographs and film footage. You
Speaker 1: don't need to be a forensic expert to see that.
Speaker 1: But with some of these others, I think it requires
Speaker 1: a much deeper level of expertise if you're going to
Speaker 1: come out and make bold kind of claims like that,
Speaker 1: because when you make a bold claim, people require bold
Speaker 1: evidence to back it up, And like I said, you've
Speaker 1: got to have a lot of time and a lot
Speaker 1: of resources on your hands to be able to back
Speaker 1: up these kind of claims when they get made.
Speaker 2: I think that they did the same thing with the
Speaker 2: Britney spears that that you just explained that they did
Speaker 2: with Madonna. I'm convinced that the Britney spears we see
Speaker 2: right now that just got arrested apparently. I don't know
Speaker 2: if you saw this, but you just got arrested for
Speaker 2: a dui I believe is what it was. I don't
Speaker 2: believe that that's the same Britney spirits, and I don't
Speaker 2: believe that that has been the same Britney spears since
Speaker 2: around two thousand and eleven't.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well that's quite possible. Like I say, I can't
Speaker 1: rule it out. Another thing is that during the COVID
Speaker 1: era they started using a double for Prince Charles or
Speaker 1: King Charles as he is now. It quite clearly was
Speaker 1: not him. He appeared on a Sky News broadcast in
Speaker 1: the middle of COVID and it was so obvious it
Speaker 1: was an actor, but most people within the British public
Speaker 1: didn't notice or didn't care. Like George Carlin once said,
Speaker 1: nobody seems to care. Nobody seems to notice. They got
Speaker 1: away with it. It's just incredible to me. I mean,
Speaker 1: somebody like Madonna. You could argue that not many people
Speaker 1: pay attention to Madonna, or you know, she only appeals
Speaker 1: to certain demographics or whatever. But this is the frigging King.
Speaker 1: Not that I'm suggesting people should pay attention to the King,
Speaker 1: but you know, he's a pretty public figure, a pretty
Speaker 1: important figure within the United Kingdom, and they got away
Speaker 1: with using a double for him, no explanation as to
Speaker 1: why it was done. And then the original Prince Charles
Speaker 1: popped back up again. To my thinking, that's him. We've
Speaker 1: got him back. So this double was put in for
Speaker 1: a period, and I don't know where they getting their
Speaker 1: mind control topped up in a lab somewhere and they
Speaker 1: need to put somebody out there. Do they have a
Speaker 1: bad reaction to certain chemical compounds that they may have
Speaker 1: been ingesting, or is it a simple social experiment? Like
Speaker 1: I said, Are the social engineers doing this to see
Speaker 1: how many people notice and what they can get away with,
Speaker 1: or is it to make those who do observe the
Speaker 1: change and draw attention to it look crazy. So if
Speaker 1: they try and tell friends and family that's not the
Speaker 1: original Prince Charles, they've replaced him. That's a double, that's
Speaker 1: an actor. And then the original pops back up and
Speaker 1: you can see that's the original. Your family and friends
Speaker 1: are going to say, you're crazy. Of course that's him.
Speaker 1: Look there he is right there.
Speaker 2: What have you been drinking?
Speaker 1: What have you been spoken?
Speaker 2: Man? Yeah, it's a double double. And then when it
Speaker 2: comes to like cryptic and symbolic movies, but things that
Speaker 2: are also in your face is the movie Death Becomes Her,
Speaker 2: which is all about immortality and colts, and we know
Speaker 2: that the elites are into immortal you know, alchemy, elixir,
Speaker 2: of life, the philosopher Stone blood rituals for youth or
Speaker 2: even transfer of blood. This goes back hundreds of years,
Speaker 2: but this one's a little different. In this movie, they
Speaker 2: have this little vial that has a substance in it
Speaker 2: that reminds me actually of the movie Substance, which is
Speaker 2: basically a way darker version of that movie that revolves
Speaker 2: around the same type of thing. It's a modern horror
Speaker 2: take on it, but it's like an injection instead of
Speaker 2: a liquid that you drink.
Speaker 1: Wow, wow, Mark.
Speaker 2: Imagine that, and an injection to keep you young. What
Speaker 2: a coincidence that is. And with those zimpeg and all
Speaker 2: these weight loss drug injections that are so popular right now,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna have to save that one in my memory
Speaker 2: bank for later. But anyway, the movie Death Becomes Her,
Speaker 2: they have this drink and what a bunch of people
Speaker 2: describe as adrenochrome. And what adrenochrome is. It gives them
Speaker 2: immortality from this super old witch that looks like she's
Speaker 2: like thirty years old, but it's probably more like over
Speaker 2: one hundred years old. And this witch runs this hidden
Speaker 2: network of elite power players that she has supplied the
Speaker 2: substance to over the years, and at the end of
Speaker 2: the movie, you got all of these people that have
Speaker 2: taken this substance that has been reportedly dead for a
Speaker 2: really long time but is alive and is at this
Speaker 2: party which includes Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Andy Warhol,