Speaker 1: The music. It is necessary for the recording of sound
Speaker 1: to convert the sound waves to corresponding changes in light.
Speaker 1: The sound waves produced by my voice are transmitted through
Speaker 1: the air to the microphone, where these sound waves are
Speaker 1: converted to changes in an electric current. These variations in
Speaker 1: the electric current are then amplified and used to control
Speaker 1: the light. This varying beam of light falling on the
Speaker 1: photoelectric cells produces variations in the electric current which are
Speaker 1: directly proportional to the variations in the light. Themes the crack.
Speaker 1: As the varying electrical current in the photoelectric cell is small,
Speaker 1: a ventuum tube amplifier is required to increase it to
Speaker 1: the point where.
Speaker 2: It will operate a loud speakers.
Speaker 1: Contrack.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Occult Rejects. This episode, we will be
Speaker 2: covering something that's actually very interesting to me because of
Speaker 2: how it basically does lead back to things that me
Speaker 2: and Luck's Actually we're bringing up a lot in our
Speaker 2: first year of the Occult Rejects. You might see some
Speaker 2: interesting names being brought back up again. But as you
Speaker 2: can tell on the title, we are covering Robert Maxwell's
Speaker 2: medical monopoly and tell you the truth. This was actually
Speaker 2: a really kind of like eye opening topic for me
Speaker 2: in many ways because this actually wasn't my idea. This
Speaker 2: was actually Lisa's idea. It was something that she thought
Speaker 2: was actually really important and kicked the topic to him,
Speaker 2: and I was looking at it, I was like, oh,
Speaker 2: I didn't know all this, And then when I even
Speaker 2: started looking into these other things, I was like, this
Speaker 2: guy like like basically between him and nazis like they
Speaker 2: sculptured the medical world that we're in today. Right, This
Speaker 2: is actually wild to me, you know. Plus again, you know,
Speaker 2: seeing the usual suspects that we used to see back
Speaker 2: in the day, CT Corp, you know, Corporation Company and
Speaker 2: USA Corpse start popping up again under their registered agents,
Speaker 2: it starts to seem very interesting. And for people who
Speaker 2: don't know what those companies or those registered agents are,
Speaker 2: I just just watched the series and we'll get to it,
Speaker 2: but I will definitely show how I've come across them
Speaker 2: before in the past as well. So but I guess
Speaker 2: since you know this is Lisa's topic, you can go
Speaker 2: ahead and like, you know, maybe started off. I'll let
Speaker 2: everybody know, like, what's your plan here? Yeah?
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, no, absolutely, you know.
Speaker 2: Why you even picked it. Why what did you even well,
Speaker 2: And I'll.
Speaker 3: Give you a little bit of back story. So basically,
Speaker 3: one night I was scrolling through Twitter and I came
Speaker 3: across this article and I started reading it. And it's
Speaker 3: a twenty seventeen article published by the Guardian and it
Speaker 3: had to do with scientific publishing. So I went ahead
Speaker 3: and started reading it, and I was completely floored. I
Speaker 3: think I've mentioned to you that I've spent some time
Speaker 3: in science and academia, but I had never even heard
Speaker 3: of this connection. So, you know, you have the dissenting
Speaker 3: voices on one side of the scientist saying, oh, the
Speaker 3: scientific publishing industry is just you know, exploitative, and then
Speaker 3: you hear about Robert Maxwell. You know, he's a horrible person.
Speaker 3: But I had never heard the two in the same sentence. So, like,
Speaker 3: I want to kind of set at the stage kind
Speaker 3: of giving a little bit of information on scientific publishing industry,
Speaker 3: not too long, but just very briefly. But I think
Speaker 3: that it's very important to kind of set that stage
Speaker 3: because this topic, I think is very important and quite frankly,
Speaker 3: it's like not discussed at all. I've never heard of it.
Speaker 3: I never even heard of a connection between the two,
Speaker 3: and I had no idea how influential Robert Maxwell was
Speaker 3: on the current model of scientific journal or publishing journals
Speaker 3: and how they operate and the business model that they use.
Speaker 3: So hopefully you'll see why I think it's a big deal.
Speaker 3: So just a little bit of background to kind of
Speaker 3: set the stage. Like I mentioned, there is in so
Speaker 3: in academia and scientific publishing. Publishing is going to be
Speaker 3: the lifeline of every scientist. There is a common saying
Speaker 3: that's called publisher perish, and it's a phrase that's urd
Speaker 3: often and you hear it being used often, and it's
Speaker 3: used to describe the enormous amount of pressure that is
Speaker 3: placed on scientists to publish and publish often. So their career,
Speaker 3: their funding, their promotion, overall professional success depends on if
Speaker 3: they publish and the free quency of publishing. So this
Speaker 3: is kind of the only way that scientists can stand
Speaker 3: out amongst others and basically demonstrate like their talent or
Speaker 3: you know, how well they set up an experiment and
Speaker 3: can put data out there. So it it if they
Speaker 3: can publish often, it reinforces like a positive feedback.
Speaker 2: No, I was going to say that too. I was
Speaker 2: going to say, just from some things that I've watched recently,
Speaker 2: I feel like, you know, you also have like a
Speaker 2: lot of other people who will like mention like because
Speaker 2: of this person's work, you know, like it just does
Speaker 2: seem like it kind of like I sometimes wonder like,
Speaker 2: are they pumping all this out because they're like, oh,
Speaker 2: I just have something I want to share anyway with
Speaker 2: a scientists or other right, other people, Right, even if
Speaker 2: it's just like a small little thing that they're putting
Speaker 2: out two weeks later or a month or two later. Yeah,
Speaker 2: sometimes I do think it's just to like kind of
Speaker 2: like again, I guess what I was getting at is
Speaker 2: that like a lot of times recently, I'll hear people
Speaker 2: that have in some important stuff I think to say
Speaker 2: that are referencing back to other works from even other
Speaker 2: people that they're expanding on or that I'm taking that
Speaker 2: theory in that model and I'm running with this and
Speaker 2: that's how I'm getting this.
Speaker 3: Well, it's a way to communicate with each other. Yeah,
Speaker 3: And it's and it's also you're showing, oh, I'm interested
Speaker 3: in your work and you influenced me, or hey, I
Speaker 3: did this experiment you were completely wrong and it's it's
Speaker 3: a way to kind of bridge the gap or communicate
Speaker 3: across lines. But then also in terms like what you said,
Speaker 3: there's there's all the other angle that you know, you
Speaker 3: want to put something out because of the pressure to publish.
Speaker 2: So especially if you're being paid to perform.
Speaker 3: Oh absolutely, And so the the whole thing about publishing
Speaker 3: you look good, but your institution also looks good, and
Speaker 3: it kind of brings notoriety to the institution itself. And
Speaker 3: the way that you're rewarded is that you get more
Speaker 3: money to basically continue the project that you're publishing in.
Speaker 3: And so sadly, if you're not really interested in your topic,
Speaker 3: but that's what's getting published, you're kind of married to
Speaker 3: putting out data kind of like content creators to publish
Speaker 3: because it's not going to get published any other way,
Speaker 3: and you want to keep your job. So like if
Speaker 3: you have professors, for instance, that love teaching or mentoring,
Speaker 3: that doesn't give you any publications. So if you publish
Speaker 3: less because you devote more time to teaching, you're going
Speaker 3: to kind of find yourself out of a situation where
Speaker 3: you're no longer teaching and mentoring. So publishing is like
Speaker 3: your lifeline. But because of this whole publish or perish,
Speaker 3: this whole model behind it all has shown that the publishing,
Speaker 3: the model for publishing within the scientific industry has not
Speaker 3: so very good consequence or it has consequences rather for
Speaker 3: the industry itself. For the scientific publishing industry itself, it's amazing,
Speaker 3: it's great, because the more pressure you put on scientists
Speaker 3: to put out stuff, the more papers are going to push,
Speaker 3: and the more journals they're going to have to create.
Speaker 3: So it's just like a money making churning out and
Speaker 3: and they're just basically, you know, making money off of
Speaker 3: these journals. And I'll tell you why in a second.
Speaker 3: But for science itself and by default the scientists, it's
Speaker 3: led to and I think you were kind of getting
Speaker 3: on this tangent, is that it's led to potentially wasteful
Speaker 3: research research it's not even going to benefit society, but
Speaker 3: it's fresh, it's new, and it's being published, so that
Speaker 3: everybody starts to gravitate towards that. There's also like a
Speaker 3: bias that is created towards just doing the research that's publishable.
Speaker 3: So the research may be done, but it has no
Speaker 3: real application into society. Itself.
Speaker 2: That's funny. I was watching you know that debate that
Speaker 2: I had sent you. I think one of the guys
Speaker 2: up on the stage I think was into it, and
Speaker 2: like the bold guy was like, I think the dude's
Speaker 2: batshit crazy. Yeah said that about this person, But I
Speaker 2: think they were saying that there was some interesting things
Speaker 2: about it. But the whole thing is is it's actually
Speaker 2: not applicable to anything. So like he was like saying,
Speaker 2: it's almost like a waste of time. Yeah, well, like
Speaker 2: it doesn't really help anything because we would have to
Speaker 2: change everything to this, And he's like, I don't see
Speaker 2: this having enough merit to even think about doing that.
Speaker 2: He said, Not that I'm against changing the whole way
Speaker 2: we look at science, he says, it says we better
Speaker 2: have some damn good reasons. Why.
Speaker 3: Yes, no, absolutely, And not only that, but I think,
Speaker 3: and on to that point, is that there are certain
Speaker 3: things that are only going to get published. And I
Speaker 3: keep saying that, but say, for instance, you run an
Speaker 3: experiment and you find that none of the variables are correlated,
Speaker 3: or your data shows no significant data. That is still
Speaker 3: important because if you don't publish that, then you're going
Speaker 3: to have laboratories around the world doing the same experiment
Speaker 3: coming to the same dead end, and that's waste of money,
Speaker 3: that's waste of time, and that's waste of so many things.
Speaker 3: When you could have just published it and said no,
Speaker 3: I didn't see any correlation and people can move on.
Speaker 3: If anything, it eliminates, Hey, this didn't work. But journals
Speaker 3: don't publish no data. That's I think that's the whole
Speaker 3: point in that whole end. But the other thing is like,
Speaker 3: say that you have an experiment, you turned out data,
Speaker 3: and here it is. It's published. Because everybody is trying
Speaker 3: to publish something fresh and new and get published. The
Speaker 3: likelihood of somebody repeating the experiment to see if someone
Speaker 3: in Arizona got the data. Whatever. Now someone in Switzerland's
Speaker 3: going to repeat it and see if they get the
Speaker 3: same data. The reason that that's important is because you
Speaker 3: set up a hypothesis and you say this is what
Speaker 3: I think happened. Somebody else has to be able to
Speaker 3: reproduce that scenario in order for that hypothesis to now
Speaker 3: evolve into a theory. If no one replicates that hypothesis,
Speaker 3: it stays like that. It never gets it never moves on.
Speaker 3: In the progression of theory to law to whatever. But
Speaker 3: because everybody's trying to publish, nobody's wasting time repeating experiments
Speaker 3: because if it's a repeat of experiment, themselves will probably
Speaker 3: not publish it. So now you're starting to see how
Speaker 3: it's all starting to bias itself, and that scientists are
Speaker 3: basically motivated to only publish as a survival mechanism to
Speaker 3: keep their job. So you have so you have all
Speaker 3: of that right, and you have scientists that are saying, hey,
Speaker 3: this model doesn't work. This model is actually detrimental to science.
Speaker 3: The whole publish in Parish is threatening the quality of science.
Speaker 3: That you know, you have smaller universities that aren't as
Speaker 3: like affluent with their laboratory techniques or technology or equipment
Speaker 3: or whatever, and they cannot compete with like say Harvard,
Speaker 3: where they're getting all the journal publications, whereas these smaller
Speaker 3: ones are not because they don't have the equipment and
Speaker 3: they you know, you have that bias in or whatever.
Speaker 3: And then also the politics, so everything is kind of
Speaker 3: like in this mismatch area and it's all kind of
Speaker 3: in this bias sense. And if you don't tap into
Speaker 3: what they call a magical formula on how to get published.
Speaker 3: You're kind of out out of a situation for publishing,
Speaker 3: and this was all kind of geared during this whole
Speaker 3: publisher parish motto or whatever, and so for all even okay,
Speaker 3: so even all of that, all of the dissenting voices
Speaker 3: saying all this and saying it's biased, saying that science
Speaker 3: isn't growing, No one that I have seen or at
Speaker 3: least genuinely address who was responsible for the paradigm shift
Speaker 3: in scientific publication and the model they use it today.
Speaker 3: So they'll say, oh, well it started here or so
Speaker 3: and so was the one that kind of influenced it
Speaker 3: all or whatever, but they don't really go into in
Speaker 3: depth as to who it was, why it was, and
Speaker 3: how come it's like that now, or even his his
Speaker 3: basic you know, affiliations with what's going on in the
Speaker 3: news right now. So just quickly, in science, it started
Speaker 3: off with oral history. They basically would get together, discuss,
Speaker 3: do a discourse, and share ideas, share their experiments, and
Speaker 3: that was it. You had other places that were handwriting
Speaker 3: their manuscripts, their findings, their discoveries, their experiment designs, and
Speaker 3: that was another section. If you're handwriting your manuscript. I
Speaker 3: doubt you're going to turn out one hundred of them
Speaker 3: to disseminate to all these people, So that was also limited.
Speaker 3: But with the or what they call the post print paradigm,
Speaker 3: what really kicked it off was actually the printing press
Speaker 3: in the late nineteenth century to where you could actually
Speaker 3: get you know, information onto whatever and then disseminate. So
Speaker 3: that's kind of the progression of like oral history in
Speaker 3: through going into the journal sense or journal publications. So
Speaker 3: what really I think kind of kicked it off what
Speaker 3: was going on in Europe, and we'll discuss it here
Speaker 3: in a bit, also was kind of happening in the US.
Speaker 3: And I think it's important to identify what was happening
Speaker 3: in the US because it kind of served as an
Speaker 3: influence on why everybody started to invest in what was
Speaker 3: going on in Europe and what we're going to discuss
Speaker 3: here in a bit. But so during World War two,
Speaker 3: they needed scientists to basically invent things and to assist
Speaker 3: the war and help the Allied win the war. So
Speaker 3: what ended up happening is that scientific research in academia
Speaker 3: started to be based upon two principles of self governance.
Speaker 3: You needed autonomy in that scientist needed to be free
Speaker 3: to pursue whatever topic they wanted to do. You can't force,
Speaker 3: ultimately force someone to do it, otherwise you've compromised the
Speaker 3: entire experiment or the science. And then you also had
Speaker 3: to have internal accountability. Not only are you yourself doing
Speaker 3: the science, but you had to have somebody qualified that
Speaker 3: could look at what you're doing and say, yes, it's good,
Speaker 3: no it's not. And that they felt that the government
Speaker 3: should fund the science because that data was going to
Speaker 3: be used for the public as a whole, and they
Speaker 3: didn't want want the private sector to fund it because
Speaker 3: you can't expect the private sector to fund all kinds
Speaker 3: of research, and also it would bias it, which we
Speaker 3: see now in terms of you know bias research. So
Speaker 3: during World War Two you had this. You had Van
Speaker 3: vere Bush from MIT that basically was in charge of
Speaker 3: the US Office of Scientific Research and Development, and he
Speaker 3: goes on later to be the director of the Manhattan Project.
Speaker 3: But he's famous for kind of setting the groundwork and
Speaker 3: telling the governments, hey, you need to fund scientists so
Speaker 3: that they can turn out, you know, data, and that
Speaker 3: in order to do this, the continuous flow and substantial
Speaker 3: flow of scientific knowledge will will be there for our country,
Speaker 3: and they have to be able to choose whatever they
Speaker 3: want to do, Otherwise you compromise the science and that
Speaker 3: all that data would benefit society. Hence why the government
Speaker 3: themselves would fund the research. And when I say the government,
Speaker 3: I mean federal or state. Right, So you had scientists
Speaker 3: that we're doing this stuff, but you still needed to
Speaker 3: judge how their work was benefiting society and if it
Speaker 3: was of quality work, And the only way to do
Speaker 3: this what they felt at the time, was through scientific publication.
Speaker 3: So that's how we start to see how publications come
Speaker 3: circle back into how it plays into experiments and the
Speaker 3: lifeline of scientists in general. And so the way that
Speaker 3: they could, I guess, judge each other is that if
Speaker 3: other scientists were peer reviewing the publication, Right, you write
Speaker 3: it up, you give it to another scientist, Yes it
Speaker 3: sounds good, it sound or whatever. But what happened with
Speaker 3: this whole thing is that by default, for all intents
Speaker 3: and purposes, how and the whole process of publication and
Speaker 3: the publication industry is now going to become the significant
Speaker 3: but invisible influence over science and science policy. So the
Speaker 3: publication companies are now in a position to where they
Speaker 3: can say, no, we're not going to publish your work,
Speaker 3: or yes we are if you play politics, or if
Speaker 3: you don't play politics, if if this is hot right now,
Speaker 3: this virus is hot right now in this year, we
Speaker 3: only publish this, you know. And they are in that position.
Speaker 3: And a majority of those publication companies are not even
Speaker 3: scientists themselves. They're businessmen and so they want to see
Speaker 3: you know, they want they want to have that profit margin.
Speaker 3: So one of the things that ended up, I guess,
Speaker 3: coming out of this, is that the publication industry would
Speaker 3: and as we see now does own science. They dictate
Speaker 3: it all, they shape all of it. They shape the
Speaker 3: publisher parish motto for sure. And what that's contributed to
Speaker 3: is an oligopoly of the publication industry. So you're seeing
Speaker 3: now how you have these scientists, but they're all kind
Speaker 3: of being funneled into this way of thinking, way of
Speaker 3: thought in order to keep their job. And it's through
Speaker 3: by design, through a business model. So the business model
Speaker 3: really quickly is that imagine that you receive raw materials
Speaker 3: from your customer for free. The customers themselves carry out
Speaker 3: the quality control of the materials for free, and then
Speaker 3: the customers buy back the final product and an extremely
Speaker 3: elevated price that just keeps rising and there is no cap.
Speaker 3: That is essentially the scientific publishing industry in a nutshell.
Speaker 3: So you're not paying your scientists, your writers, and you're
Speaker 3: definitely not paying your editors, and then you're selling it
Speaker 3: mainly to libraries at a price that keeps increasing every year,
Speaker 3: and there's no cap because the libraries aren't going to
Speaker 3: tell you no, because they're scientists need the journals in
Speaker 3: order to continue conducting research. So it's a for profit
Speaker 3: oligopoly that functions within a government funded, largely regulated organization.
Speaker 3: So it it kind of it's one of those things
Speaker 3: to where you kind of just how do I say this.
Speaker 1: It is?
Speaker 3: I think it is, and you hear about this, you know,
Speaker 3: in academia, in school or whatever, how it's it's predatory,
Speaker 3: how it's exploitative, but no one really says or does anything.
Speaker 3: I think they're trying to go the whole Well, it
Speaker 3: should be open access, and there's a lot of push
Speaker 3: for that, and of course there's a lot of pushback
Speaker 3: for that, but no one's getting really paid so to speak.
Speaker 3: The only payment that comes to the scientist is getting
Speaker 3: the job at the university, which is a set pay.
Speaker 3: It's not you know, the more articles you push out,
Speaker 3: you know, the more commission.
Speaker 2: You get that you know what, you know what this
Speaker 2: actually very much reminds me of And I'm just going
Speaker 2: off of something that you even said before real quick.
Speaker 2: And you know, I hate to sound like an ass,
Speaker 2: but it really does sound like the same thing, and
Speaker 2: I've made jokes about it. It's pretty much the same
Speaker 2: thing as a person who considers I'm a content creator
Speaker 2: but only has guests on and receives money. M hm,
Speaker 2: because you're not paying your guests.
Speaker 3: Who did the research. Guess your guests who did the research.
Speaker 2: They didn't get paid tod they No, that's very fucking weird.
Speaker 3: So it's a it's like an oligopoly. It's where all
Speaker 3: of this side is free, but you're making money off
Speaker 3: of nothing. Really, I mean, I turned.
Speaker 2: On the mixer and flapped my mouth and I should
Speaker 2: stay home now. No, it was just that. It just
Speaker 2: but you know, to get off the joke, like and everything.
Speaker 2: That really is like a really screwed up situation.
Speaker 3: No, it is. And and so when you say science
Speaker 3: is being pimped out. Yeah, but this, this is one
Speaker 3: one avenue how you can completely prove how biased science is. Not,
Speaker 3: in my giving the benefit of the doubt, not so
Speaker 3: much that the scientist it's himself, him or herself is
Speaker 3: biasing it on purpose, but is biasing it so that
Speaker 3: they can keep their job, or they can continue funding,
Speaker 3: or they can continue doing research or what have you.
Speaker 3: So it essentially it it's it's a bias, and you
Speaker 3: can prove it because of this business model. But you're
Speaker 3: basically they're basically providing a free labor force for a
Speaker 3: job that requires them and only them to check do
Speaker 3: the quality check, and none of none of them get
Speaker 3: paid for it, which is Yeah, I thought that was
Speaker 3: that was pretty So with all that, I kind of
Speaker 3: wanted to throw some numbers at y'all in terms of
Speaker 3: profit margins. Oh so, corporate publishers exists as only a
Speaker 3: large handful. So there's only like maybe two or like
Speaker 3: three to five top dogs in all of the scientific industry.
Speaker 3: They own almost all the journals.
Speaker 2: Oh, I think I even came across something that called
Speaker 2: it like the Big three or the Big something. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it even like clumped like a group of publishing companies
Speaker 2: as being like the big something Yeah.
Speaker 3: Right, no, no, no, exactly, And we're going to talk
Speaker 3: about I think one of them later on, especially in
Speaker 3: the uh who owns what and who contributes what? But
Speaker 3: so most of the coveted journals, So that was another thing.
Speaker 3: Journals are not all the same. They all have levels
Speaker 3: and they're called impact factors. And so if you get
Speaker 3: your if you get your paper put into a journal
Speaker 3: that has the highest impact factor, pretty much can like
Speaker 3: you know, dictate where you're going to go because it
Speaker 3: made it to that top tier. So they themselves have
Speaker 3: also initiated like a like a hierarchy as well that
Speaker 3: you were trying to constantly chase and.
Speaker 2: They sounds like podcasting again.
Speaker 3: It's true. So you've run it up first. So just
Speaker 3: this one company, Elsie you.
Speaker 2: Gotta get that one guest, I gotta get so and
Speaker 2: so to retweet me and have.
Speaker 4: Me on exactly exactly exactly, but so say you have
Speaker 4: so say, we're going to talk about one of the
Speaker 4: publishing companies, which is el Sieber and now it's been
Speaker 4: renamed a Relics Group or something like that.
Speaker 3: So this one in particular, these are stats for twenty twenty. Yeah,
Speaker 3: for twenty twenty, they received one point eight million article
Speaker 3: submissions to their two thousand, five hundred journals that they own.
Speaker 2: No, when everybody was dying, these motherfuckers seemed to be
Speaker 2: doing okay and they were working out as well.
Speaker 3: Huh, No, one's not them, fuck exactly. They have twenty
Speaker 3: thousand editors, and these editors feel honored to be asked
Speaker 3: to be a peer reviewer. No money given. They disseminate
Speaker 3: close to twenty percent of the world science articles and
Speaker 3: they reap in three point three billion dollars in revenue
Speaker 3: where subscriptions which libraries pay, university libraries pay, so it's
Speaker 3: government funded, constitutes seventy four percent of the revenue. As
Speaker 3: of twenty twenty, forty six thousand, seven hundred and thirty
Speaker 3: six academic journals we're publishing worldwide. In the last ten years,
Speaker 3: the number of journals has grown close to thirty percent.
Speaker 3: So Elsieverer, this one, you see, it's at the top
Speaker 3: basically in terms of revenue. It it has annual revenues
Speaker 3: exceeding billion. I believe it's in British pound. Total revenue
Speaker 3: is more than nineteen billion British pounds. And mind you,
Speaker 3: it's a narrow audience. Not everybody's picking this up off
Speaker 3: the sand. It's just catered to scientists, and that's it.
Speaker 3: Scientists don't make the majority of the population on Earth,
Speaker 3: but yet they're banking. The amount of revenue that they
Speaker 3: garner falls in between industries such as the film and
Speaker 3: recording industry. They rank at that level, and in twenty
Speaker 3: ten they had a thirty six percent margin that outpaced
Speaker 3: it was higher and outpaced Google, Apple, and Amazon that year,
Speaker 3: and yet no one's talking about it, which is weird
Speaker 3: to me.
Speaker 2: Okay, so yeah, I like how you aided that up
Speaker 2: in the corner. I was looking at that when it
Speaker 2: first came on and I was like mm hmm, like
Speaker 2: they really killed it then.
Speaker 3: Huh yeah, and there and and it and going and
Speaker 3: it's still going. I mean, if anything, more journals have
Speaker 3: been created because of you know what happened in twenty twenty,
Speaker 3: so overall.
Speaker 2: You know, one thing I was just thinking real quick,
Speaker 2: I wanted to say, I mean, this is totally out there,
Speaker 2: and it's like a far out there idea, but like
Speaker 2: maybe just because of like being an Italian from New York,
Speaker 2: and Long Island. Whenever somebody seems to be making too
Speaker 2: much money on something they aren't probably supposed to your question,
Speaker 2: there's their money laundering or you're actually selling something else.
Speaker 2: So I mean, like, could this even just be like numbers?
Speaker 2: Like well, like what I'm getting at it is like
Speaker 2: what you're saying, like, how are you even making this
Speaker 2: much money with such a small audience exactly? So where's
Speaker 2: that money coming from?
Speaker 3: Well, it's mainly from libraries, from universities.
Speaker 2: I mean, what is it like ten thousand dollars a
Speaker 2: fucking book? You know what I'm getting at, Like, how
Speaker 2: do we know this is like like fucking just running drugs?
Speaker 2: And I don't know, it just seems really that's a
Speaker 2: lot of money.
Speaker 3: And I believe it works like cable subscriptions in that
Speaker 3: here's the package. I know, you don't want to see
Speaker 3: nine hundred channels, you just really want to see thirty,
Speaker 3: but it's cheaper if you get this package with the
Speaker 3: nine hundred channels, even though you're never going to see them.
Speaker 3: I think that's how it works with the libraries, and
Speaker 3: that these publishing companies will push the subscription for them
Speaker 3: to take on this entire package deal even though no
Speaker 3: one is asking for that. And then the other thing
Speaker 3: is that say the libraries themselves say, oh, we're only
Speaker 3: going to do it for one year. Then the publishing
Speaker 3: company says, well, you don't get access to the previous issues,
Speaker 3: even though you may have paid last year for the subscription.
Speaker 3: So they kind of like punish the libraries for not
Speaker 3: having a renewal rate or a renewal on it and
Speaker 3: not getting the full package deal. And they can because
Speaker 3: who else is doing it. There's only three or four
Speaker 3: of them or five.
Speaker 2: Oh that's another thing.
Speaker 3: They pretty much dictate it all.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 3: That to me, I thought, in and of itself was
Speaker 3: was significant to kind of establish because once we get
Speaker 3: into who made that model, it kind of it's alarming,
Speaker 3: I think so. But yeah, that was when terms of
Speaker 3: El Sieber, and I think you had looked at El
Speaker 3: Sieber right in terms of Jamatria, Yes I have.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I did find some some interesting things that I'll
Speaker 2: read off. I really you know, when it came to
Speaker 2: the numbers for the word itself, I didn't really notice
Speaker 2: anything too alarming in the numbers like that just seemed
Speaker 2: like a number that pops up. But I'm gonna read
Speaker 2: them if anyway, you have nine to fourteen for Hebrew,
Speaker 2: five seventy for English, and then ninety five for Simple.
Speaker 2: The Hebrew Jamachi does I thought was interesting, does Matcho,
Speaker 2: wed Las Vegas, The Apocalypse, Encoded, Lying Spirits, Democrat Party, Family,
Speaker 2: Cursed King, and then like when I went over to
Speaker 2: the English and Simple, I mean to get its time serious,
Speaker 2: Halloween Scorpio, Kundalini, Son of God, heineal Gland, Neptune, Pentagram,
Speaker 2: Mandala Effect, Nintendo Einstein Nightmare, the Tool Empress. Thought that
Speaker 2: was kind of interesting, and the Queen Peter Pan and
Speaker 2: the Elo him and I think if I forgot to
Speaker 2: say it, if I already did say it, Mandala effect.
Speaker 3: Those are interesting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, just I mean there are things that we
Speaker 2: have gotten before covering something else I just can't remember,
Speaker 2: h ya, which would then make me wonder that there
Speaker 2: is sign against to those numbers. But it is not
Speaker 2: popping out in my head, you know. I feel like
Speaker 2: the value of however you say that company.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it's and and it's it's interesting because some
Speaker 3: of the stuff that you've mentioned, you you wonder, you know,
Speaker 3: how much of it was whenever they renamed this company.
Speaker 3: How much of that played into Oh yeah, you know.
Speaker 2: I mean everything. Just looking at their logo, I mean
Speaker 2: that could be exactly you know, it's a little kind
Speaker 2: of looks like art that we've shown recently, and just
Speaker 2: put it that.
Speaker 3: Way, I think, yeah, I definitely think that there's something
Speaker 3: much more to that than than just the logo itself.
Speaker 3: So Q and Robert Maxwell, and I'll make the connection
Speaker 3: here a bit. I'm gonna give you a little bit
Speaker 3: of background on him and kind of, you know, move
Speaker 3: you in through the timeline as to how he comes
Speaker 3: into play with all this. So Robert Maxwell was born
Speaker 3: Jan Ludwick Hyman bin i'm in Hook on June tenth
Speaker 3: of nineteen twenty three in Solo Tepino, Czechoslovakia, which today
Speaker 3: is Ukraine. He was born to a poor Yiddish speaking
Speaker 3: Orthodox Jewish family, most of which were said to have
Speaker 3: died in Auswitz, and has stated that he joined the
Speaker 3: Czech resistance resistance and escaped to France and in May
Speaker 3: nineteen forty changed his name to Leslie du Marier. Oh
Speaker 3: that's how you say it, and then fought in the
Speaker 3: British Army in World War Two. To me. I was like,
Speaker 3: why are you changing your name? Like, I don't know why.
Speaker 3: I just then when he promoted to lieutenant, he was
Speaker 3: stationed near Brussels, and he changed his name again.
Speaker 2: See like stuff like that. I would wonder if that's
Speaker 2: because the spy work.
Speaker 3: I think so. I definitely think so, which we'll see
Speaker 3: that he was. He changed his name to Ian Robert Maxwell.
Speaker 3: He was captured by a machine gun post near Parlo
Speaker 3: on January of twenty ninth. January twenty ninth in nineteen
Speaker 3: forty five, and he was awarded the Military Cross and
Speaker 3: won British citizenship. Sometimes I wonder if people do this
Speaker 3: on purpose to get an easy citizenship, like they can't
Speaker 3: get it anywhere else. So I'm gonna go into the military,
Speaker 3: pay my dues, I ciently get shot and they give
Speaker 3: me a green card. Two months later, he marries Elizabeth Minard,
Speaker 3: which was a French Protestant, on March fourteenth, nineteen forty five.
Speaker 3: They had four sons and five daughters. After the war,
Speaker 3: Maxwell went into the business of selling scientific publications until
Speaker 3: nineteen ninety four. I'm sorry, nineteen forty nine. And then
Speaker 3: we'll talk about how he found a permot Press in
Speaker 3: fifty nine, and then he also stood for parliament as
Speaker 3: a labor candidate for Bunkingham. I think he won in
Speaker 3: sixty four and sixty six or whatever. But we'll go
Speaker 3: into that either on the next episode or later on.
Speaker 3: I want to mention this incident real quick, and then
Speaker 3: we're going to kind of come back on the timeline.
Speaker 3: So in nineteen seventy one he receives a nickname the
Speaker 3: Bouncing Check, which I think is a good play on words.
Speaker 2: I don't know why, but I think what kind of
Speaker 2: happened on the end, right Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, yeah, exactly, I just got it right now.
Speaker 3: I mean, sorry, it's not funny, it's kind of funny.
Speaker 3: It So after the scan, there was a scandal with
Speaker 3: an American entrepreneur, Saul Steinberg out of Alasco Data Processing Corporation,
Speaker 3: when he wanted to purchase a subsidiary of Pergramon that
Speaker 3: sold Encyclopedias. Maxwell had purposefully inflated the price of the share,
Speaker 3: making it appear more profitable by using transactions between Pergramon
Speaker 3: and his own private family business. Well, when Steinberg discovers
Speaker 3: the con he withdrew his offer, sparking an investigation from
Speaker 3: the part of Trade in Britain, to which was declared
Speaker 3: that Maxwell was not to be relied upon to exercise
Speaker 3: proper stewardship of a publicly quoted company. Well, the Director
Speaker 3: of Public Prosecutions declined to press charges against Maxwell and
Speaker 3: he recovered well from the scandal, and therefore his nickname
Speaker 3: was born the Bouncing Check, so he had that to
Speaker 3: his name. So kind of going backwards a little bit,
Speaker 3: I wanted to, you know, when you talked about his
Speaker 3: time during the war and then changing his name. Yes,
Speaker 3: so some to kind of give you a little bit
Speaker 3: of history. There was some top British scientists who were
Speaker 3: kind of complaining about the publication process in Britain. You
Speaker 3: had Fleming, who was the guy who came up with
Speaker 3: a vaccine no yes vaccine, And then you had Charles
Speaker 3: Darwin's grandson, Charles G. Darwin, who was a physical assist
Speaker 3: that basically they're putting out top tier British science, yet
Speaker 3: they can't showcase it because it's not being published fast enough,
Speaker 3: or it's not being published at all, or just basically
Speaker 3: the publishing sector was lacking in Britain. So what was
Speaker 3: known at the time was that scientific publishers were known
Speaker 3: for being broken and efficient. It just wasn't happening and
Speaker 3: the journals are being cheaply made and everything was backlogged,
Speaker 3: and they relied on cash handouts to even do the
Speaker 3: process itself. So the way that the Britain governments solved
Speaker 3: this was to pair Butterworths, which is now owned by Elsieber,
Speaker 3: with the German publisher Springer, because Springer was good at
Speaker 3: this and had been doing it doing it for a while,
Speaker 3: so Buttersworth would learn to turn a profit and get
Speaker 3: it science out faster by acquiring Springer. What's interesting is
Speaker 3: that Robert Maxwell was currently working for Springer. So if
Speaker 3: he was a Jew, how is he in working for
Speaker 3: German company. I don't know. I don't know how that works,
Speaker 3: but it just seems odd as well. So Robert Maxwell,
Speaker 3: having served as an intelligence officer in Berlin after the war,
Speaker 3: Maxwell had established his own business helping Springer, the German
Speaker 3: publisher ship scientific articles to Britain. British publishing house Buttersworth directors,
Speaker 3: who were also ex British intelligence hired Maxwell to help
Speaker 3: manage the company. So all this is like an op
Speaker 3: to me, right, It's all intelligence base. It's all intelligence backed,
Speaker 3: I think, right, And these are the people that are
Speaker 3: putting out scientific journals.
Speaker 2: Even like when we get into other people that are
Speaker 2: is disassociated with just right, something ain't right, I don't think.
Speaker 3: And again I'm reading this article, I'm like, how have
Speaker 3: I never heard of this? And how are people not
Speaker 3: in the streets like saying this is not right or whatever?
Speaker 2: Oh, because they're too worried about a fucking list that's
Speaker 2: nothing going to end up in interrest anyway, right, I mean,
Speaker 2: that's like even another thing I hate to get off
Speaker 2: of it because of Epstein. But I was like saying
Speaker 2: it to my brother last night, and I was like, Yo,
Speaker 2: how come on, like nobody's asking about his eugenics shit.
Speaker 2: They're so stuck on this list that nobody's ever going
Speaker 2: to get arrested for what's up with the eugenics? Epstein
Speaker 2: was into, can we find out about that instead of
Speaker 2: a set of a you know, just what of a
Speaker 2: triggered shit to post around online?
Speaker 3: Well, and I wonder, because then we'll find out later
Speaker 3: that Robert Maxwell started schmoozing all of these scientists in
Speaker 3: order to get them on his journals. So I wonder
Speaker 3: if Epstein positioned himself with Julaane Gislane because of this,
Speaker 3: because he was in good with the top tier scientists,
Speaker 3: what better way, right, I think, Yeah, So this whole
Speaker 3: happened whenever Robert Maxwell becomes a managing director of the company.
Speaker 3: It's at the time when Vanavar Bush is basically saying, oh, no,
Speaker 3: government should fund scientists and we should allow them to
Speaker 3: explore whatever, and we need to increase publication and disseminate
Speaker 3: all the scientific knowledge on people. And so science was
Speaker 3: right about to go into that boom, like huge boom,
Speaker 3: and Maxwell was sitting right on it and about to
Speaker 3: basically be in a perfect position to reap the benefits
Speaker 3: of all that.
Speaker 2: So, yeah, did you want me to go into uh?
Speaker 3: I think you Yeah, Yeah, I think.
Speaker 2: That I'm next for that. I do have uh. I'm
Speaker 2: going to try to see if maybe I could actually
Speaker 2: pull up the other one right now as we're recording,
Speaker 2: there was an issue where it did seem like I
Speaker 2: need to saw this name as butter Worth, but as Worth,
Speaker 2: So it was a little bit of confusion at one point.
Speaker 2: I think I did go somewhere and it is actually
Speaker 2: without an S. But so right now, like the notes
Speaker 2: that I have, I this is but a Worth Springer
Speaker 2: and that is nineteen ninety six for Hebrew, sixteen fifty
Speaker 2: six for English and two seven six and Simple, and
Speaker 2: then Butterworth itself is sixteen twenty five, ten seventy and
Speaker 2: one seventy at. Some of the matches that I did
Speaker 2: get with Jewish Dematria was Weston Powers the Key of
Speaker 2: Knowledge seventeen zero, so that was weird. Twin Flames Reunion Project,
Speaker 2: Quantum Leap, lift up your Eyes. I thought that was
Speaker 2: interesting to put in there because of the eye symbolism,
Speaker 2: Gay Way to God, English and Simple, World War three,
Speaker 2: the shape of Water Russell Crowe. I thought that was interesting.
Speaker 2: Cyrus the Great Divine bloodlines January sixth, Robert Wilson and
Speaker 2: born Anti Crime and Lord of the Rings. Then Springer
Speaker 2: by itself I have three seventy one six, three six
Speaker 2: and one zero six. And some of the things I
Speaker 2: did get for the Simple sorry the Jewish was a
Speaker 2: Raptor Stanford Ottoman Differeth Cincinnati, Ohio, Sociopath April third, Madam
Speaker 2: X and then for English and Simple like a Metatron
Speaker 2: Divine plan, which I found is interesting that like I
Speaker 2: know I've mentioned before like a lot of eights, you know,
Speaker 2: it seemed weird, and like even with with Hitler, I
Speaker 2: had like the h h. Now Divine Plan is matching
Speaker 2: the Simple and English with the six thirty six in
Speaker 2: the one oh six, but its Hebrew is eight eight eight,
Speaker 2: So you have three creates there, and hal Hitler does
Speaker 2: also match the English and Simple for uh, Butterworth. So
Speaker 2: Butterworth and hal Hitler both match. And I just thought
Speaker 2: it was interesting how like even whatever that word I
Speaker 2: just said, I just lost myself that had the eighty
Speaker 2: eight eight. I just found that interesting.
Speaker 3: And it's Germany.
Speaker 2: They had the divine Plan instead of like eighty eight
Speaker 2: that you had to represent him Divine Plan is eight eighty. Yeah,
Speaker 2: this is weird. This is weird. Yeah, yeah, because even
Speaker 2: Divine Plan is even still matching the hole Hitler with Butterworth,
Speaker 2: you know, with English and simple Jamatra and I wonder
Speaker 2: if they's six thirty six and one six that matches
Speaker 2: all of them.
Speaker 3: And I think we'll see later on, especially in the
Speaker 3: next episode, how all of this there's there. It's not
Speaker 3: a coincidence that they're picking these names because they're matching
Speaker 3: the Jamatria.
Speaker 2: Also matches Diamond Hands, which I find interesting. Fox Knew,
Speaker 2: Rose Garden, Monolith, Nefertiti, Muslims, nuclear bomb, OnlyFans destroy, Michael J. Fox, Calculator,
Speaker 2: snuff film, Columbus middle Finger, Mike Lindell, the Crown in
Speaker 2: Saint Germain. I'm done, you know.
Speaker 3: And when you said Fox News, Robert Maxwell was constantly
Speaker 3: being compared to Rubert Rupert Murdoch who owned Fox News.
Speaker 2: And then we have the Murdoch family ends up getting
Speaker 2: his boat that will cover at some point.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm exactly. So the the thing with with.
Speaker 2: U, oh, you know what's actually sorry to interrupt you.
Speaker 2: I meant to think I meant to tell you because
Speaker 2: we're working on this already. Within the last few days,
Speaker 2: I'm pretty sure Fox News actually compared Maxwell to Murdoch. Yes,
Speaker 2: it was like, that's so funny because Fox News even
Speaker 2: pops up.
Speaker 3: Yeah no, And and I will say this, Rupert Murdoch
Speaker 3: is that's a whole other dives it. Yeah, that's that
Speaker 3: multi multi series on that one. But every time you
Speaker 3: look up Robert Maxwell, almost every single article has the
Speaker 3: name Rupert Murdoch in it as a comparison to Robert Maxwell,
Speaker 3: and so I don't know if rup and Rupert Murdoch
Speaker 3: obviously was the US you know kind of Robert Maxwell.
Speaker 3: Robert Maxwell was British Rupert Mardock, well, he was Australian,
Speaker 3: but he was the US answer I think to Britain's
Speaker 3: Robert Maxwell. That's what I think, and they constantly, you know,
Speaker 3: we're competing against each other. So it's yeah, it's interesting
Speaker 3: that that that would come out as well. So Robert Maxwell,
Speaker 3: in terms of the business model for the scientific publication,
Speaker 3: has been quoted as, uh, there was no one more
Speaker 3: transformative than Robert Maxwell, who turned scientific journals into spectacular
Speaker 3: money making machine that bank rolled his rise in British
Speaker 3: society and notorious figure in Britain at that. However, few
Speaker 3: people in the last century have done more to shape
Speaker 3: the way science is conducted today than Maxwell, and the
Speaker 3: fact that he receives that quote to me speaks of
Speaker 3: his influence. But as well as that, the paradigm has
Speaker 3: yet to be challenged. Even at that, you would think
Speaker 3: that somebody at some point would have brought this up,
Speaker 3: challenged it and turned it over, especially with everything coming
Speaker 3: out with the news and all that other stuff. So
Speaker 3: yeah it again, reading that article, I I was kind
Speaker 3: of floored at it altogether. So Maxwell goes on becomes
Speaker 3: the company manager, and then in nineteen fifty one, Butterworths
Speaker 3: decides to abandon that project of merging with Springer or
Speaker 3: even the Springer conglomerate merger whatever, and so Maxwell offers
Speaker 3: thirteen thousand pounds thirteen one thousand pounds for Butterworths and
Speaker 3: Springer shares and it would be enough to give him
Speaker 3: control of the company. It happens, and he hires on
Speaker 3: Paul Rosebaum, who, as he was the previous science director
Speaker 3: on the other project, who Paul you'll talk about here
Speaker 3: in a bit, was also intelligence. But he basically starts
Speaker 3: programon with Paul, and they rename the new venture company
Speaker 3: after a coin from ancient Greek city Pergramon Press. The
Speaker 3: coin that they're talking about features Athena, the goddess of wisdom,
Speaker 3: and it was basically used as their logo to represent
Speaker 3: money and wisdom. So to me, it's interesting that they
Speaker 3: would even pick Pergamo, and they would pick something like that.
Speaker 3: And I believe even when we did the gilg thing,
Speaker 3: Pergamo itself was pinging, was it an w root beer.
Speaker 2: And it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and so it it just seems an odd name
Speaker 3: to choose, in my opinion. And then what what's really
Speaker 3: interesting is that like the Pergramo altar that was in
Speaker 3: Greece is now in Germany. So you almost wonder like
Speaker 3: he was there in Berlin, he was doing all the
Speaker 3: negotiations and then he names it Permo. It just it
Speaker 3: seems very very odd. So yeah, and that's all I
Speaker 3: have for Pergamo.
Speaker 2: And then I go into my numbers, right, all right,
Speaker 2: I got a Pergamon press and one sixty six the
Speaker 2: Hebrew English and simple oh with the Jewish Jamatria. Did
Speaker 2: get the number of man Manifestation of God August, connect
Speaker 2: the docs, connect the dots rr like the incense, God
Speaker 2: of the Beasts, the false Prophet, the mug shot. I
Speaker 2: just included that because it's just like, you know, it's
Speaker 2: like at some point, like it's like where does Trumpell
Speaker 2: fit in on this too?
Speaker 3: And he does?
Speaker 2: Yeah, because like both of them, I mean even with Murdoch,
Speaker 2: you know what I'm saying, And it's like the mugshot,
Speaker 2: it's like that's that is. The mugshot was a thing recently.
Speaker 2: It's true Hannity and the Fox News United Nations Assassin's creed. Uh.
Speaker 2: And then for the English and Simple, you do get
Speaker 2: a twin Towers. It's an interesting case, is like, oh
Speaker 2: Trump was pretty involved with that, you know, Like for
Speaker 2: New York, he was like pretty much on the news
Speaker 2: stations like right away talking about it. He sent people
Speaker 2: down there to help clean up. Very vocal, very mister
Speaker 2: nine eleven tech a Gramatan that'soughtways interesting to mention, uh,
Speaker 2: Travis Scott, John Benet, Ramsey, Transformers, Praying Mantis, Eternal Darkness,
Speaker 2: and Rudolph Steiner, M Yeah, interesting. Then I did pergam
Speaker 2: On by itself real quick two seven, three, five, three
Speaker 2: four and eighty nine. The Jewish Jamatria that I thought
Speaker 2: was interesting was King Charles, Mother Oranges, Angel of Light, Democrat,
Speaker 2: red Door Talbot and initiate the English and Simple, you
Speaker 2: got August again. You and I Argentina, mister poole Osyrus
Speaker 2: look here, Summer Virginia, Yaldebouth, King James, Alexandria, Fallen Angel,
Speaker 2: the Beehive, Da Vinci Code, Delta Force, seraphim end Times
Speaker 2: and Mystic and Gift of God. Interesting press itself, which
Speaker 2: I did find interesting when I ran the numbers on
Speaker 2: that you get three two, five, four six two, But
Speaker 2: it's as simple as seventy seven. I find that interesting
Speaker 2: in a little bit, especially like Crole had seven and
Speaker 2: seven and seven.
Speaker 3: Well, you know it's in the before you go any further.
Speaker 3: Permo is mentioned as the Satan's throne in Revelation I believe,
Speaker 3: chapter twelve, verse thirteen, and he offered thirteen thousand for
Speaker 3: the company that he would later turn into Permo. I
Speaker 3: thought that was very odd.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all right, And then on Press I read a
Speaker 2: few of these things off and I'll actually started like
Speaker 2: reading some of my notes Press. Yeah, for the Jewish
Speaker 2: Demonser Stolen Marduke, Francis Bacon, Green Comet, the clip off,
Speaker 2: which is kind of like the reverse tree, supposed to
Speaker 2: be like well demonic or whatever, considered like shells or whatever.
Speaker 2: It's it's hard to explain female orgasm Goldstein. Then the
Speaker 2: English and Simple Christ Samantha Swift, Alyssa, Caroline Molly Stars
Speaker 2: believe it in that. Something I did find interesting with
Speaker 2: that is that there was like a lot of female
Speaker 2: names that I'm not even gonna read of, but like
Speaker 2: that was something that was like it seems to be
Speaker 2: like very feminine names were coming up, you know I did.
Speaker 2: I normally don't notice the difference that much to ever,
Speaker 2: like you know, to point that out before USSR net sock.
Speaker 2: I found that interesting because like you did say something
Speaker 2: about you say something about Venus before or uh aprod Athena. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean it's still a feminine god. I could possibly
Speaker 2: see her on net sock even though like people probably
Speaker 2: argue with me, I'd probably actually see her more on
Speaker 2: Gooboora because like I mean, she was like warlike, she
Speaker 2: just wasn't doing the killing, you know, she was like
Speaker 2: planning them. Yeah. Yeah, Sometimes I even look at that
Speaker 2: and wondered like if her and Aris were like, well
Speaker 2: Scorpio when aries really Yeah, and the like kind of
Speaker 2: like was just like the feminine aspect of that energy
Speaker 2: and Arias is the male aspect of that energy. Something
Speaker 2: along those lines. It also matches walking Caduceus and yadey
Speaker 2: Vade and Jester and Hexagram too on leave that and
Speaker 2: Court Court don't want to forget that one. Because of
Speaker 2: Jester and Court. I thought that was pretty interesting. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and there was uh the guy virgin and the guy's
Speaker 2: name Virgil from The Walking Dead came up and there
Speaker 2: was walking in here before? Was that all right? But
Speaker 2: now now I'm up to Uh, I'll get into Paul
Speaker 2: rose Pod or however you even say his name, and uh,
Speaker 2: that would be right here. That's him with Samuel Goldsmith.
Speaker 2: We'll get into eventually myself, all right. Ul Rosebud again,
Speaker 2: if I'm even saying, was a metal urgist and a
Speaker 2: scientific advisor for Springer Vorlog in Germany before and during
Speaker 2: World War II. He continued in science publishing after the
Speaker 2: war with Pergamon Press in Oxford, England. In nineteen eighty six,
Speaker 2: Arnold Kramish revealed the undercover work of Rosebud for the
Speaker 2: British during the war in the book The Griffin. Before
Speaker 2: the outbreak of war, Rosebud hurried into print Otto Han's
Speaker 2: work on nuclear fission in a German science journal in
Speaker 2: January of nineteen thirty nine. Rosebud realized the vast destructive
Speaker 2: potential of what Han, Strassmann and Meetner, if I'm saying
Speaker 2: that correct, had discovered, and he knew that the research
Speaker 2: had been done in Germany. He wanted the rest of
Speaker 2: the world to know the significance of the work, at
Speaker 2: least as soon as the Nazi planners did. By rushing
Speaker 2: into print with Hans's manuscript, he was able to alert
Speaker 2: the world community of physicists. Sometimes like I mean, isn't
Speaker 2: that like kind of like a double edged sword, though
Speaker 2: in itself not saying that should keep it, I just private,
Speaker 2: But it's just like now you're just handed it to
Speaker 2: more people that could be potential assholes about it.
Speaker 3: Exactly. Okay, you're putting the recipe out there, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, like you know, it's funny, like real
Speaker 2: quick and like this is I guess like a perfect example.
Speaker 2: There was somebody that I came across. I don't even
Speaker 2: know how I came across it. I think I was
Speaker 2: like trying to see about like something to do with
Speaker 2: spirit boxes, and somehow like going from one click to
Speaker 2: the next, I ended up on some guy's YouTube channel
Speaker 2: who was like trying to He was more of like
Speaker 2: somebody was just into tech and just randomly, I guess,
Speaker 2: like maybe I don't know, just thought it was funny
Speaker 2: or interesting kind of just like wanted it shit on.
Speaker 2: I guess on a ghost hunter and covered his spirit
Speaker 2: box and pointed out somebody that they think specifically like
Speaker 2: designed it probably like it's not right, and that they
Speaker 2: actually think that when they use it and show their evidence.
Speaker 2: He's like, this is how I actually think he's faking
Speaker 2: his evidence, and was like showing you how like you
Speaker 2: could even like fake like the sound of like voices
Speaker 2: coming in and out of the ghost box, and I'm like,
Speaker 2: this shit looks I mean to me, I was like,
Speaker 2: if I heard this on Ghost Adventures, well, ghost Adventures,
Speaker 2: I questioned it anyway, but like if I heard it
Speaker 2: somewhere else, I'd be like, yo, like that sounded pretty
Speaker 2: fucking legit. And I'm like, you know, you showed everybody
Speaker 2: how well and easy to do this, Yeah, like you
Speaker 2: know you're probably actually going to get people who are
Speaker 2: going to use this.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no exactly.
Speaker 2: I was just like, yeah.
Speaker 3: What he was trying to do was the opposite.
Speaker 2: Because I was even thinking that for me. But I
Speaker 2: was like, yo, I guarantee you there's people that I
Speaker 2: know if they sent this to them, they'd probly be dumpting,
Speaker 2: especially when you're like trying to chase shit and make money.
Speaker 3: You know, oh absolutely, yeah, all right, Uh so I
Speaker 3: just don't want to throw that.
Speaker 2: I just was like, you know, as I was reading
Speaker 2: like the information about the guy and read that, I
Speaker 2: was like, I get it, Like he was trying to
Speaker 2: be like a whistleblower, I guess, But I was like,
Speaker 2: I don't know if it really worked out.
Speaker 3: Play I think you have to play it out all
Speaker 3: the way out, twenty paces out and see. I know
Speaker 3: you think you're doing good, but yeah, I.
Speaker 2: Mean, I'm sure I've made that mistake with my own show.
Speaker 2: Otohan was a German chemist who was a pioneer in
Speaker 2: the fields of radioactivity and radio chemistry. He's referred to
Speaker 2: as the father of nuclear chemistry and the father of
Speaker 2: nuclear fission. Han and Lys Meetner discovered radioactive isotopes of radium, ethereum, protactium,
Speaker 2: and uranium. He also discovered the phenomena of atomic recoil
Speaker 2: and nuclear isomerism, screwing it up, and pioneered rubidium strong
Speaker 2: drawn to him. Then, in nineteen thirty eight, Han and
Speaker 2: lie and Fritz Strassman discovered nuclear fission, for which Han
Speaker 2: received the nineteen forty four Nobel Prize for Chemistry. Nucleush
Speaker 2: fission was the basis for nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons.
Speaker 2: So I mean, I thought it was interesting to mention
Speaker 2: that nuclear weapons. A graduate of the University of Marlburg,
Speaker 2: which awarded him a doctorate in nineteen oh one, and
Speaker 2: Hans studied under Sir William Ramsey.
Speaker 3: The you William Ramsey.
Speaker 2: Even highlighted that. So I remember to like laugh at
Speaker 2: it at University College London and at McGill University in
Speaker 2: Montreal under Ernest Rutherford. And just because I said that
Speaker 2: doesn't mean saying anything about William Ramsey's name. I just
Speaker 2: thought it was funny. I was like, I should cover
Speaker 2: this guy if there's anything interesting about it, just to
Speaker 2: see if William Ramsey is like, what the fuck is that?
Speaker 2: What he is he saying, yeah, and I'll name it,
Speaker 2: like who is the will real William Ramsey? So when
Speaker 2: he sees it pop up here like what the fuck
Speaker 2: You're like, I was fucking shitting on me. Next, Now
Speaker 2: what did I do? Faking like, well, it doesn't good.
Speaker 2: Maybe I should retweeted I should drop it myself, all right,
Speaker 2: Gradua I graduated, yeah, I said with William Ramsey. Though
Speaker 2: his work at Springer Verlag, rosebud knew much of the
Speaker 2: scientific community in Germany, and as a presumed Nazi uh
Speaker 2: he had sources of vital intelligence relating to weaponry. In
Speaker 2: nineteen thirty eight, he had his Jewish wife, Hilde and
Speaker 2: there if I'm saying that right, hild Or Holed and
Speaker 2: their only daughter Angela sent to the UK to keep
Speaker 2: them safe from Nazi harassment. Rose Bud was also invited
Speaker 2: to stay in the UK, but he decided to keep
Speaker 2: working in Germany to undermine the Nazi regime. Now, I
Speaker 2: mean supposedly. I think they were saying that he was
Speaker 2: like kind of undercover in the Nazis. I think that's
Speaker 2: what they're saying with this guy, right. In addition to
Speaker 2: his own Rosebud helped a number of other families flee
Speaker 2: the Nazis, including that of the well known Jewish physicist
Speaker 2: Lies Meaner. Again just so happens to help with I
Speaker 2: think was he one of the people with nuclear or
Speaker 2: maybe he was, Maybe it wasn't.
Speaker 3: I think, yeah, I think he was, because.
Speaker 2: There was like I think two people involved with.
Speaker 3: Yes it was, it was Otto Han and it was
Speaker 3: Lee's Meetner and Fritz Strassman that discovered nuclear fission and
Speaker 3: got the no Bell Orhan got the Nobel for it.
Speaker 2: So yeah, he saved the guy who helped make a
Speaker 2: good fan.
Speaker 3: Or at least that, or at least it was he
Speaker 3: sent in to go get him specifically.
Speaker 2: Or it's like it's like this does the nukes even exists?
Speaker 2: And it's like we just came up with a theatrical
Speaker 2: way to make the fucking people believe that they exist,
Speaker 2: like because like some people do even question if those
Speaker 2: things exist. And sometimes I do hate to say it.
Speaker 2: I know that might sound ignorant, but sometimes I do
Speaker 2: wonder lake if it's like, I mean, I just I
Speaker 2: don't I would like to know what kind of fucking
Speaker 2: cameras they were using that didn't get blown away by
Speaker 2: the nuclear bass blast when they or the atomic bomb
Speaker 2: when they dropped it. Like I just I need that camera.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, everybody does.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just weird. It's just weird to me. I
Speaker 2: don't understand fucking with the house is blown in fucking
Speaker 2: smithereens and the camera's fucking still.
Speaker 3: It was made out of the same bone company that
Speaker 3: the Moon called the president.
Speaker 2: Oh god, no, no, no, they just you know what
Speaker 2: they did. They just painted it blue. Now it can
Speaker 2: with stand direct energy weapons. We're good.
Speaker 3: Not that one that one.
Speaker 2: Okay, enough about that, all right? Sorry? Oh but where
Speaker 2: was h Yeah? To keep him safe from Nazi harassment? Uh,
Speaker 2: including Yeah, he was. Uh. He was assisted in his
Speaker 2: work saving Jews by the fact that he was run
Speaker 2: by a British agent, Frank Foley and the m M
Speaker 2: sixteen AM I six AM I AM I six stations
Speaker 2: chief in Berlin, Eric Welsh and presumably also fully were
Speaker 2: rose Bud's contacts and SI S and six. After the war,
Speaker 2: Rosebud took up residence in England. He worked for Butterworth Springer,
Speaker 2: a company set up in response to a scientific advisory
Speaker 2: board that included Alfred Egerton, Charles Galton Dorwyn who I
Speaker 2: think you mentioned before, right, Edward Salisbury and Alexander Fleming.
Speaker 2: When the Butterworth company decided to pull out of the
Speaker 2: English German liaison, Robert Maxwell acquired seventy five percent, while
Speaker 2: twenty five percent rested with Rosebud. Wow, how would you
Speaker 2: say his name? The company name was changed to Pergamont Press.
Speaker 2: The partners cooperated and establishing new academic journals until nineteen
Speaker 2: fifty six. After a disagreement, Rosebud left. Maxwell said Rosebud
Speaker 2: was an outstanding editor of the European type from whom
Speaker 2: I learned some of the trade in the early days.
Speaker 2: So at least they you know, they're trying.
Speaker 3: To sound they maybe.
Speaker 2: I'm sure they both played made enough well.
Speaker 3: He knew about nuclear fission, so he might need him later.
Speaker 2: Yeah, real quick. I did want to touch on those
Speaker 2: names that I kind of like, you know, highlighted before.
Speaker 2: Sir Alfred Charles Glenn Egerton I was a British alchemist.
Speaker 2: After enlisting in the Coldstream Guards, he was second to
Speaker 2: the Department of Explosive Supply and did research into munitions.
Speaker 2: After the war, he studied He studied the vapor pressure
Speaker 2: of metals before his interest turned into turned to combustion.
Speaker 2: He pioneered the use of liquid methane as a fuel.
Speaker 2: I found that pretty interesting that he was born in uh, god,
Speaker 2: I don't even want to say this. He was born
Speaker 2: in Wales and he was the fourth son of Colonel
Speaker 2: Sir Alfred Mordaunt Egerton or No, Officer of the Rifle
Speaker 2: Brigade and the Royal Horse Guards and Comptroller to the
Speaker 2: Duke of Connaught and strath Hearne, and his wife, the
Speaker 2: Honorable Mary Georgina ormsby Gore, the oldest daughter of William
Speaker 2: ormsby Gore second Baron Harlock. I mean just you know,
Speaker 2: just the names, and like it's like they were important.
Speaker 2: Who knows if they were. And you know, you're a comptroller.
Speaker 2: I mean that's kind of like somebody who's like handling
Speaker 2: the money.
Speaker 3: Yeah, important money, not just any money.
Speaker 2: And this guy also was tootled to learned from Sir William.
Speaker 3: Ramsey, so he was a big dude back then.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I love it real quick with Sir
Speaker 2: Charles Galton Darwin. He was an English physicist who served
Speaker 2: as a director of the National Physical Laboratory and pl
Speaker 2: during the Second World War. He was the son of
Speaker 2: the mathematician George Howard Darwin and a grandson of Charles Darwin.
Speaker 2: Becoming the first date Professor of Natural philosophy at the
Speaker 2: University of Iidenberg in nineteen twenty four. He was working
Speaker 2: on quantum figic physics, quantum optics sorry, and magneto optics effects.
Speaker 2: I don't know what the fuck that even means, Joe,
Speaker 2: what is magneto optic effects?
Speaker 3: I wonder if that has to do.
Speaker 2: With the I Yeah, that's really weird. Like sucking the
Speaker 2: light out of your rivals.
Speaker 3: That's interesting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, well, I mean magnets will bend light
Speaker 2: and like, I mean, I mean, it does come out
Speaker 2: of your rise. But if you were to actually, like
Speaker 2: literally bend the light, that was even that's fucking weird.
Speaker 3: He was there was no blood in your eyes because
Speaker 3: of the metal, the iron. It would cause a change.
Speaker 2: He was the first in nineteen twenty eight to calculate
Speaker 2: the fine instructor of the hydrogen atom under Paul Dirax
Speaker 2: theory of the electron. He was assisted at the university
Speaker 2: by doctor Robert Slapp. That means anything to anyone real quick.
Speaker 2: Darwin asked fellow physicist Max Bourne if he would consider
Speaker 2: becoming his successor a tate professor, an offer that Born
Speaker 2: promptly accepted. He then resigned his post and he started
Speaker 2: doing he'd be. Came the director of the National Physical
Speaker 2: Laboratory on approach of war in nineteen thirty eight. He
Speaker 2: served in the role into the post war period. I'm
Speaker 2: afraid to seek improved laboratory performance through reorganization, but spending
Speaker 2: much of the war years working on the Manhattan Project,
Speaker 2: coordinating the American, British, and Canadian efforts. Darwin was appointed
Speaker 2: KBE in nineteen forty two, and the KBEs the most
Speaker 2: excellent Order of the British Empire, and it is a
Speaker 2: British Order of Chivalry rewarding contributions to the arts and sciences,
Speaker 2: work with the charitable and welfare organizations, and public service
Speaker 2: outside the civil service. It was established by King George
Speaker 2: the fifth and compromises five classes across both civil and
Speaker 2: military divisions, the most senior, two of which make the
Speaker 2: recipient either a Knight if he's a male, or a
Speaker 2: Dame female. That was a little interesting. Sir Edward James
Speaker 2: Salisbury was an English botanist. I had to bring him
Speaker 2: up as soon as this with a botany that just
Speaker 2: seems like a common thing with some Nazis and ecologists.
Speaker 2: Graduated in botany from University College London nineteen oh five.
Speaker 2: Nineteen thirteen, he obtained a I don't know what this is.
Speaker 2: Maybe you do know. It's a d dot SC dot
Speaker 2: a DSc, I don't know what that means with a
Speaker 2: thesis on fossil seeds, and was appointed as senior lecturer
Speaker 2: at East London College. He was elected a Fellow of
Speaker 2: the Royal Society on March fifteenth, nineteen thirty three, and
Speaker 2: won the Society's Royal Medal in nineteen forty five for
Speaker 2: his notable contributions to plant ecology and to the study
Speaker 2: of the British flora. In nineteen thirty six, he was
Speaker 2: awarded the Veach I'm saying that correctly Memorial Medal of
Speaker 2: the Royal Horticultural Society and acknowledgment of his book The
Speaker 2: Living Garden that was done in nineteen thirty five, which
Speaker 2: was supposedly very popular. He received the Commander of the
Speaker 2: Order of British Empire, and in nineteen forty six he
Speaker 2: was knighted.
Speaker 3: I think the DSc. I think that's Doctorate of Science.
Speaker 2: Okay, I think so. Yeah, I just I wasn't sure.
Speaker 2: I figured ask you.
Speaker 3: Everybody calls it something different in different countries.
Speaker 2: Well that was the whole thing too. I was like,
Speaker 2: I would have to even specify over there. I was like,
Speaker 2: I'll just ask you when I read it. Sir Alexander
Speaker 2: Fleming was a Scottish physician a microbiologist, best known for
Speaker 2: discovering the world's first broadly effective antibiotic substance.
Speaker 3: I got it wrong, I said, he was vaccine. I
Speaker 3: compused him with Edward Jenner, so he was the penicillin guy. Sorry,
Speaker 3: my bad, my correction, thank.
Speaker 2: You, which he named kind of cilling. For this discovery,
Speaker 2: he shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in
Speaker 2: nineteen forty five with Howard Floury and Ernest Boris Chain.
Speaker 2: He also discovered the enzyme lysozyme from his nasal discharge
Speaker 2: in nineteen twenty two, and along with it bacterium he
Speaker 2: named Micrococis, yeah, Micrococcus I just last, I'm a lysodicticus,
Speaker 2: and Micrococcus luteris. I don't even know what the hell
Speaker 2: these things are, but you found these things. Fleming was
Speaker 2: knighted for his scientific achievements in nineteen forty four. Another
Speaker 2: knighted person in nineteen ninety nine, he was named in
Speaker 2: Time magazine's list of the one hundred most Important People
Speaker 2: of the twentieth century. Twenty twenty two, he was chosen
Speaker 2: in the BBC's television poll for determining the one hundred
Speaker 2: greatest Britons, and in two thousand and nine he was
Speaker 2: also voted third greatest Scott an opinion poll conducted by
Speaker 2: SCTV behind only Robert Burns and William Wallace. But I mean,
Speaker 2: you know, so these people too. I mean to me,
Speaker 2: they sounds you got import people rolling with you that.
Speaker 3: So if you think about it, Paul and Robert Maxwell
Speaker 3: are rubbing elbows with these people, and these are intelligence
Speaker 3: people like I can't overemphasize.
Speaker 2: That make you know, you know what? That makes me
Speaker 2: think about? Who is that guy? That weirdo that was
Speaker 2: supposedly diddling kids and was knighted too. Oh they had
Speaker 2: that crazy hair too sometimes. Yeah, he had that uh
Speaker 2: that show at the music that were bands that would
Speaker 2: play on it, Top Pops or some shit like that. Yes,
Speaker 2: I can't remember his name. Jimmy something, Jimmy Seville, Jimmy
Speaker 2: Jimmy Savill, Jimmy Saville. It's like he got knighted too.
Speaker 2: How do you how do you know that guy wasn't
Speaker 2: fucking yeah this this shit too? You know?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Obviously there, I mean, he.
Speaker 2: Was intelligence even though he played like a fool.
Speaker 3: Mm hm exactly.
Speaker 2: This is the best, that's it seems the best way
Speaker 2: to make people really blinded by who you truly are
Speaker 2: is just fucking make him laugh constantly. You'll have no
Speaker 2: you'll just consider him stupid and never never think twice
Speaker 2: about him.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's probably how he was even getting away
Speaker 2: with the six ship that he eventually got quote for doing.
Speaker 2: Playing a fool.
Speaker 3: Yeah, nobody was thinking. I was just joking. It was
Speaker 3: just in jest.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Oh, he's too fucking dumb to think about that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Uh.
Speaker 2: And then we'll get into uh, the person up on
Speaker 2: the page finally that I did mention in the cop
Speaker 2: Samuel Goldsmith. He was uh. Samuel Abraham Goldsmith was a
Speaker 2: Dutch American physicist famous for jointly proposing the concept of
Speaker 2: electron spin with George Eugene hewling Beck in nineteen twenty
Speaker 2: Goldsmith studied physics at the University of Leiden under Pohl Urnfest,
Speaker 2: where he obtained his PhD in nineteen twenty seven. During
Speaker 2: World War Two, he worked at the Massachusetts Institute of
Speaker 2: Technology as a scientific head of ALSOS mission. He successfully
Speaker 2: reached a German group of nuclear physicists around Werner, Heisenberg
Speaker 2: and Otto han At these names Hyitenen in advance of
Speaker 2: French physicist Jews rocarn. He was also also was also
Speaker 2: part of the Manhattan Project as well, and was designed
Speaker 2: to assess ALSOS was also designed to assess the progress
Speaker 2: of the Nazi atomic bomb project.
Speaker 3: Well. I think also's mission was an intelligence op and
Speaker 3: they were that's when they were trying to look to
Speaker 3: see how far advanced the Nazi scientists were. This might
Speaker 3: have been the precursor to picking teams or draft recruitment. Yeah,
Speaker 3: for Operation Paper Club. The dossier on each one of them,
Speaker 3: I'm assuming, I'm assuming why would you?
Speaker 2: All right, And I guess we'll probably just leave it
Speaker 2: there because the other stuff that I do have will
Speaker 2: probably run on for about another twenty to thirty minutes.
Speaker 2: It is going to be kind of like a weird
Speaker 2: cycle of companies that start popping up that I had
Speaker 2: mentioned again that was commonalities amongst shady companies or even
Speaker 2: secret societies. You know, like when me and lux were
Speaker 2: covering in like season well our first year season, the
Speaker 2: first year they were out, you know, we cover like
Speaker 2: a lot of secret societies or into Nordica. You know
Speaker 2: a bunch of things that we got very big into,
Speaker 2: like the business aspect and checking who owned these places,
Speaker 2: the registered agents and all this stuff. And you're going
Speaker 2: to see the same exact ones that popped up for
Speaker 2: Secret Societies and the Nordica shady stuff, same ones. Again.
Speaker 2: It's just very, very weird. But it's going to take
Speaker 2: some time, especially to like kind of show like the
Speaker 2: whole circle and show all the slides so that one. Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: you're gonna have to wait till part two. And uh,
Speaker 2: Lisa has some other stuff upper sleeve as well, so yes, uh,
Speaker 2: part two will definitely be probably about another whole hour
Speaker 2: and you know, fifteen hours worth, you know, so it'll
Speaker 2: be a whole other episode. The crazy thing is is
Speaker 2: that I swear, really swear to I almost did you
Speaker 2: did come up with this idea before this the whole
Speaker 2: shit with these Yes.
Speaker 3: No, absolutely it was you. It was I believe.
Speaker 2: Actually, you know, you could probably check the data when
Speaker 2: you shared the document with me.
Speaker 3: It's true. I believe it was. I will tell I
Speaker 3: think I think we had we were working on something
Speaker 3: and I mentioned I'm working on an article I just
Speaker 3: came across. I think I'm gonna share it as Twitter post.
Speaker 2: Oh yes, that sounds and you.
Speaker 3: Said what is it about? And so I told you
Speaker 3: and you were like, no, we should totally do an
Speaker 3: episode on that. And of course in my head, I'm like,
Speaker 3: is it really relevant? I mean I literally thought that
Speaker 3: is it even relevant? And then now with this whole
Speaker 3: Epstein thing.
Speaker 2: Oh, once I stopped with the numbers because I did
Speaker 2: that first just to get it out of the way.
Speaker 2: Once I started like kind of getting into it, I
Speaker 2: was like, oh, that's when I started with the screenshots.
Speaker 2: I was like, this was from you know, the moose slatch.
Speaker 2: It was just really weird, right, And then I was like, oh, no,
Speaker 2: this is this is interesting. So we do have a
Speaker 2: you know, we got some bangers for the next one,
Speaker 2: so definitely keep an eye out for that. Like again,
Speaker 2: this is gonna drop as an extra show. It's Friday.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna try if I can't get it dropped for tomorrow,
Speaker 2: definitely by Sunday, and hopefully we'll be recording part two
Speaker 2: next week and that will just drop, you know, Saturday
Speaker 2: a Sunday as well. You know. And to be totally
Speaker 2: honest with you, because of this being in you know,
Speaker 2: a topic and honestly, I do want to try to
Speaker 2: at least expose a little bit, no I he'p using exposed,
Speaker 2: maybe shine a light more on like what this was
Speaker 2: really going on? Over here with this name that's not
Speaker 2: really being talked about because it's just automatically associated with
Speaker 2: something else. Right, It's like, you know, this is a
Speaker 2: good time to maybe put out the name, but with
Speaker 2: something of actual, some depth and rabbit hole shit to
Speaker 2: it that you can prove and not be like I
Speaker 2: just think.
Speaker 3: And I think that's I think that's what the conversation
Speaker 3: we had is that everybody talks about how Robert Maxwell bad,
Speaker 3: Robert Maxwell bad, but nobody says.
Speaker 2: Why yeah that too, or that too?
Speaker 3: Yeah, actually show why you may say, oh, well he's
Speaker 3: just laying's dad or because whatever. No, no, no, But
Speaker 3: I think this proves the sinisterness in an industry that
Speaker 3: everybody relies on.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. When I, like you said, when I had
Speaker 2: looked at you know, really kind of started reading the
Speaker 2: article and then started looking into like what you were saying,
Speaker 2: I was like, this is pretty screwed up, because like
Speaker 2: even the the I think the thing that seemed weird
Speaker 2: to me and like you're seeing it here is that
Speaker 2: even when I was recording MK Ulture with Thrash, It's
Speaker 2: say she started to see how many like Nazi scientists
Speaker 2: or people that were associated with that that were actually
Speaker 2: known for coming up with a lot of shit too,
Speaker 2: And it just, I don't know, it just seemed like, really,
Speaker 2: you know, my whole thing.
Speaker 3: Is why is intelligence even even involved in science? And
Speaker 3: now you're saying, you're telling me that science is being
Speaker 3: dictated by publishing companies that were started by intelligence.
Speaker 2: Like, yeah, something shady, But thank you very much. I really,
Speaker 2: like I said, I truly enjoyed looking into this topic.
Speaker 2: You know, really blew me away. To even see you
Speaker 2: know that again, like to even see publishing companies actually
Speaker 2: that we're gonna be talking about that. I was like,
Speaker 2: what the fuck me and lux are talking about this
Speaker 2: two years ago?
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, it's just.
Speaker 2: Like something that's got you would be up with these
Speaker 2: companies that are constantly coming up associated with like just
Speaker 2: weird shit. You know. It's like they always come up
Speaker 2: like down some like one of those rabbit holes that
Speaker 2: you just kind of brush upon but don't go too
Speaker 2: deep into. It's like it's constantly these names when it
Speaker 2: comes up with fishy shit.
Speaker 3: It's true.
Speaker 2: So yeah, that's that's enough. I'm done running my mouth again.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Lisa. I had a really good time doing this.
Speaker 2: Uh you know, it's an awesome idea for a topic, regardless,
Speaker 2: even regardless, at the times I thought it was really
Speaker 2: interesting to begin with, So thank you and uh until
Speaker 2: the next one. Everybody be well later