Speaker 1: And years ago HG.
Speaker 2: Well's vasualized roads such as these and his science fiction fantasies.
Speaker 1: And today there are Reality to the Afternoon to John Christ.
Speaker 3: Welcome to the Afternoon Commune with Chris Kendall and John Adams.
Today is October twenty six, twenty sixteen. If you'd like
to hear previous episodes of the Afternoon Community, you can
go to Hoaxbusterscall dot com. You'll see those posted up there,
alongside the most recent episode of Chris's Monday night broadcasts.
The original Hoaxbusters Call also posted up There are various
articles and videos. Some of those are original in nature,
so make sure you check those out. For any and
all things folksbusters, go to Hoaxbusters Call dot com. Today, Chris,
my friend, how are you doing so good? To have
you back from your hiatus.
Speaker 4: All. I'm doing well, getting back into the uh to
the flow through the uh yeah, trying to get it adjusted,
but uh yeah, it's going good.
Speaker 3: Good. I guess. We had a couple of special reports
that came out recently. Make sure you tricked those out.
The most recent punk Rock and of course Chris was
Chris and I were both in Las Vegas. Keep covering
the stay there.
Speaker 4: Yeah, still recuperating from that, still hung over.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was just you know, I still got sand
in my boots from being out of the desert there.
But uh, in any case, it's the month of October,
it's nearing Halloween, and I was feeling pretty halloweeny, and
I thought, who better to get on? You know? I
thought of the movie immediately, thought of the movie Halloween
with Jamie Lee Curtis, the first one, And of course
thought of that that really terrible movie Trick or Treat
PC on HBO like five times a day when I
was a kid. And who better to celebrate Halloween with
but our good buddy Jay Dyer from Jaysanalysis dot com.
If you're not familiar with the afternoon Commute, you will
take note that Jay has been a gift on the
after commute for every month for a very long.
Speaker 1: Time, about twenty years. I think it's our silver anniversary
coming up.
Speaker 3: Yeah, twenty years. Yeah, yeah, great, Yeah, we've been doing
this for a while. But yeah, I check out jays
Analysis dot com. His book as Coming Out as a
Cheric Hollywood. You can go there and pick up a
copy and Jay writes on all sorts of interesting subjects.
I've read a good amount of his articles over a
long period of time and probably listening to all of
his audios. So good stuff, good stuff there all around,
So make sure you go check that out.
Speaker 5: Jay.
Speaker 1: How are you doing doing great?
Speaker 6: Thank you for having me back on Hoaxtbusters. I think
you always fun, always love being on here. My CIA handler,
my CIA handlers always grant me hoaxbusters. They they say,
they say, since I do such hard work for the
deep State, that I can have a little fun on Hoaxtbusters.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's yeah, I can understand that. Well, we don't
really bash Jews too much, so and I know you're
actually a secret Jew as well.
Speaker 6: I'm every day everything. I'm sure you guys get it too,
don't you. You guys get called something you're who you're
working for?
Speaker 3: Someone HVC. I mean that sounds true. Hebrew Broadcasting Corporation.
That's oh what Chris is not telling you?
Speaker 4: It's not Hebrew, but it is Kosher.
Speaker 6: Well I got to meet Chris finally, so yeah, I could.
Speaker 1: Tell what that with that? Who knows?
Speaker 6: And how you know Chris was cheap with his money,
Chris was niggardly with so there we go.
Speaker 3: What they didn't What they're not telling you is they
meant when they said they met in Memphis, they met
Memphis like GYP.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was a Masonic meeting, right.
Speaker 4: I did complain about the parking, isn't it? Yeah?
Speaker 6: Exactly, And the truth is out. I worked for the
Area Underground.
Speaker 4: By the way, Oh is that?
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, you well you were on Red Ice recently,
so I can understand that exactly. Sure, yeah, but yes, so.
Speaker 4: Let me see here, what do we By the way,
we're just kidding, right, that's joking.
Speaker 1: Are you guys are joking me? I'm a yeah. What
do you call it? Odin?
Speaker 6: I worship Odin now? So because I went on Red Ice,
that means I worship Odin.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah right, it makes you swear an oath of
Odin where you go on?
Speaker 3: He means he means the heavy metal band from the eighties.
Speaker 4: Oh well, yeah, who is it?
Speaker 3: Yeah? He meant the I'm from decline a Western civilization too. Yeah.
So Jay, he recently did a tragedy in Hope part seven,
which is really good, and Chris posted up that Folksbusters
there and actually he'd been going over the entire book,
which which we've Chris and I have talked about a
little bit, and then actually when we get to the
last chapter, we'll definitely have to big discussion on that one.
That's okay, yeah, but uh, this is a very interesting
part that you're bringing up here in this chapter because
quickly a little bit in the last part that he did,
he starts to touch on nukes, and he's actually quite
sarcastic in his tone about when he's talking about nukes,
and so even more so in this particular thing. I'm
not gonna take up too much of the time here,
but I did find something recently that you guys might
think is interesting in a book that I'm an off
reading for probably a couple of years. I can ever,
since having children, I can never finish a book within
a year now, when I used to read like books
fifty books a year. So this book is called Knowledge, Morality,
and Destiny by Julian Huxley. Okay, now here's what he says,
you know, in a bunch of different spots. But this
is this is going to parallel what we're going to
talk about. The scientific doctrine of progress is destined to
replace not only the myth of progress, but all other
myths of human earthly destiny. It will inevitably become one
of the cornerstones of man's theology. But whatever may be
the future substitute for theology and the most important external
support for human ethics. Once men come to be concerned
with the realization of new possibilities of experience and of
personal development, rather than the simple passage of one natural
stage of life to the next, new types of ritual
or celebration are required. These may be concerned with promotions
in hierarchies of rank, or within degrees of learning, or
steps of progressive initiation into sacred mysteries. The society of
the future will need to devise new ways for coping
with a variety of such situations. Okay, it is often
asserted that science can have no concern with values. On
the contrary, in all fields of social science, and in
rather a different way, wherever the applications of natural science
touch social affairs and affects human living, science must take
account of values or it will not be doing its
job satisfactorily. The population problem makes this obvious as soon
as we recall that population is merely a collective term
for aggregations of living human beings. We find ourselves thinking
about relation between quantity and quality, quantity of the human
beings in the population and quality of the lives they lead.
In other words, values the times of the essence for
the con the of the contract. If we if before
we the end of the century, the rate of human
increase is not lowered instead of continuing to rise, so
many values will have been damaged or destroyed that it
will be difficult to recreate them, let alone build a
new and better system. It's taken ten years for the
atomic threat to affect the world through thought and action,
how long will it take for the less spectacular but
more insidious, reproductive threat to do so. Just as the
horrible destructiveness of atomic warfare is now prompting a reconsideration
of warfare in general, it seems likely to lead to
the abandonment of all out war as an instrument of
national policy. So I would predict that the threat of
overpopulation the human values like health, standard of living, and
amenity will prompt a reconsideration of values in general and
lead eventually to a new value system for human living.
All right, So I find that to be interesting on
multiple levels, especially since for a while back, I read
on multiple calls. I read a passage from a book
that's not I think it's not that too hard to find.
You can find it on Amazon. It's called The Politics
of Contraception, and it's written by Carl Girassy, the guy
who invented who's given credit credit as inventing a pill.
And so anyways, in this book, he's going over about
how the term of the pill actually was coined by
Alvis Huxley, and then he goes into the section where
he talks about how Huxley calling got the idea for
calling it the pill was actually from a speech given
by Leo Sizlard, okay, or however it is he pronounced
that anything. And si Lard is a he's an interesting
guy because he was, you know, he's a guy who's
credited one of the guys credited with inventing nuclear fission.
So he's a nuclear physicist. But he decided that he
would give up his whole nuclear fission thing and become
an advocate for population control, right, and so uh so
that that was bizarre that he, you know, fit those
two particular fields. And you tend to see this connection
here with this people who are into the you know,
into the nukes there in the beginning, who come up
with this whole fake nuke idea, and then they switch
over to this population over population myth as well, right,
And I think that the two things are connected one
because of both myths. But it's but I thought it
was interesting too that that Huxley says that the atomic
threat is going to lead to the all out end
of war entirely, right, Yeah, yeah, Now that's very interesting
because I'm wondering if down the line, and I'm just
proposing this, I'm not saying that this is happening now,
but I do think it is happening now in certain areas.
I'm probably not in Syria or places that we have
actual you know idea we can actually identify it as
having conflict, but that the threat of nuclear ward will
lead to the creation of the end of war all together.
But but we may the population may still think that
there are war is going on, kind of like in
nineteen eighty four where there really isn't any war, but
the population gets told that there's war all the time, right,
and so you have so you know, once again, nukes
are always brought up. Where Chris and I were discussing
how nukes got brought up in the debates. Russia's got,
you know, eighteen hundred nukes ready to go, and you
got to be scared of Russia again. And so there's
this constant background of of of nukes, right, And I
just wanted to read that one little passage there to
provide that, you know, Julian Hudsley's you know, Julian Huckster
more like it, that that this is that this is
something that is ongoing and quick he talks about this
in Tragedy and Hope in nineteen sixty six, and he
gives you the full background that these were not scientists,
These were not physicists managing nukes. These were bankers and lawyers,
and those were the guys who actually came up with
this whole idea of new technology, and that even the
scientists that were involved with it were controlled like that,
you know, they actually did have guys who were real scientists,
but that they were actually told what to do and
what to say yes by bankers.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, Yeah.
Speaker 6: That most amazing point that quickly makes I think in
that whole chunk of the book that I did, is
that the New Age is characterized by scientism, quantification, and atomics,
as you said, And the threat of nukes is precisely
what Quigley says is the inauguration of the new International Order.
And that's because Alexander Sachs and Bernard Baruch proposed the
creation of the UN Security Council because of nukes.
Speaker 1: So the two World Wars, which were.
Speaker 6: Pretty devastating, had to be surpassed by the next, much
more devastating, supposedly right threat, because we had one World
war and then we had one that was even worse.
And it's kind of like, remember how the shootings, the
stage shootings, the numbers just kept growing to where in
Orlando he's taken out like over one hundred.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so the system kind of has to make.
Speaker 6: It more outlandish and more science fiction oriented. And I
think that that's what they did here. Oh, the nukes
are going to cut the planet in half, you know,
they're going to destroy entire continents, They're going to do
all this nonsense, and it just put everybody into total shock,
total panic.
Speaker 2: And that's the whole basis for the UN Security Council
we've got to have, which is just a form of
an attempt to stage a business phase right.
Speaker 6: In the global government, and you're absolutely right to tie
it to population control, because ironically, a lot of these
people like you're talking about, who will be involved in
all these programs, they'll turn around and say mankind is
the disease upon this earth because he created nukes.
Speaker 1: You see.
Speaker 6: You see a lot of these grill globalist types are
the ones who support the establishment who created the nukes,
and then to say, oh, it's man that is the
disease upon Gaya planet Earth that has to be controlled, eradicated,
put into balance, whatever the propaganda is about population control,
and that's because of the danger in the thread that
he proposes to the planet because of nukes.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's interesting too that you bring that up, because well,
one from what you were stating earlier about the Helen.
Of course, that fits in perfectly with me reading that
quote Huxley because he started Genesco, so he tied into
the United stations there. He is probably one of the
most renowned writers on overpopulation myst for generating that throughout
popular culture. I've got multiple actual nineteen sixties Playboy magazines
where I got the actual Playboy magazine for the articles.
Of course, uh, with his articles in it about on overpopulation,
which is a great magazine to publish in about you know, uh,
sterilization and overpopulation, because the man who's going to be
reading that magazine is not going to be interested in
having sex because he wants appropriate So so Huxley's Julian
Huxley is tied in that way. And then also, what
was the other point he just said, I forgot darn.
Speaker 6: It that that the A lot of the proponents of
the established then turn around and point out that man
has created nukes and therefore cancer on the planet.
Speaker 3: Right, which Chucks is the genesis who created the term transhumanism.
He all about transhumanism. He was the promote He was
the prime original promoter of the idea of transhumanism. And
he's also a greene, like an early greenee, like back
in the sixties, like talking about even in this book
here there's a whole section on how he literally says
farmers are bad. He says farmers are bad because they
destroy the landscape. They're destroying the earth by farming, and
we need to create more space on the earth because
human you know, and by having less people on the earth,
then they'll be you know, there's like a beautiful beautification process.
Of course, the modern terment you know since the nineties
is rewilding. And yeah, so all of these guys are
all tied into that. So so it's like you said,
like they give you the myth of the nuke. The
nuke's bad, but see it's our fault. It's my fault
that nukes got created.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 6: I think it's great too that you mentioned quantification, because
that's a big part of that chapter. Quickly, chapter the
New Age, where he talks about rand corporation, game theory,
cybernic cybernetics, Vanovar Bush and I actually argue that this
is that's one of the most important chapters in the
book because he predicts artificial intelligence, transhumanism, all based on
this philosophy of total quantification, which is tied into materialism
of course, pragmatism, empirical philosophy and all that, and the
rise of mild industrial complex.
Speaker 1: That's what that chapter is about.
Speaker 6: Military industrial complex is run by pr people, he says,
who employ compartmentalized actual scientists. And what quickly says is
that what a lot of these actual scientists were doing,
unbeknownst to them, was basically research for actual weapons now
and that's we know that that's how we get you know,
the Internet through DARPA, which was in the sixties Arpennet
and then Darpernet, which was transferring packets of information right
across across the country for cryptography for.
Speaker 1: You know, spionage and all this kind of stuff.
Speaker 6: So the people thought, right, So in other words, you
have to create this giant perception of this you know,
evil empire that's out there that's going to sabotage the
US and destroy the American way of life, all this stuff,
and this is what motivates all the people. You know,
you John, you've talked about this with the Silicon Valley
and the uh, you know, the perception of Cold War
and how that sort of marshaled all the energy of
the conservative right wing out there in California to you know,
go into the the tech realm. And that's all just
another arm of this military industrial complex that Quigley's talking
about in this chapter. And he interesting too that another
big figure in this this whole nuke scenario is the
character of doctor Edward Teller, the father of atmospheric aer
aerosol chemtriol spring, which I do believe is real and
as I said in the talk, you know, we don't
I don't know, maybe you guys, I don't know exactly
what the whole plan of it is because they cloak
it in so much climate change talk. It's hard to
make out what they are really doing with this. And
you know, we've talked about different possibilities on the show before.
I'm not trying to fall back into debating chim trails
or anything like that.
Speaker 1: But what I'm getting at.
Speaker 6: Is that you start to see that quote Manhattan Project
and quote Atomic Energy Commission, these are just kind of
umbrella terms for a private military inditional complex that is essentially,
I would say, concerned with weaponizing.
Speaker 1: All of.
Speaker 6: Creation in a way, in other words, how can And
the reason I say that is, you know, in the
sense of say William Ingdahl's first book, The Full Spectrum Dominance,
It's like, how can we take culture and weaponize it?
How can we take the environment and weaponize it? And
weaponizing the environment may not mean, you know, turning everybody
into like a nanotech drone zombie or something. Weaponizing the
environment can be done through Agenda twenty one and the
things that we're talking about. You know, it can be
done through saying, man is the problem.
Speaker 3: Right, that's and you know that's interesting too because one
thing that I'm you know, sometimes you go back and
read this stuff that you forget about, and one of
the buzzwords I see in these guys stuff from the
sixties is ecology and this idea, yeah of know this,
you know, this new kind of this new form that
they called ecology that uh and the better the betterment
of the ecology. Of course, Gregory Bateson's book is you're
mentioning cybernetics and all that stuff. Of course, his book
is called The Ecology of the Mind.
Speaker 5: And then.
Speaker 3: Huxley talks about ecology playing a big role in in uh,
you know, the betterment of of the human existence and
all this, and transhumanism is sold on ecology, on the
idea of ecology, because you know, once everything is mechanized,
then it's going to be a better world. It's going
to be cleaner. Yeah, you know, you know, it's all
going to be Uh. That's one thing that you do
see in the green in the green stuff with the
Agenda twenty one, and the connection with with uh the
transhumanist stuff is that we're they have a cleaner world
on once you know, the singularity comes in.
Speaker 6: And that's in Marx and Ingles, by the way, if
you weren't aware, Marx and Ingles talk about the ability
of man to be reconciled to the environment, his alienation
from the environment, which industrialization causes, they say, And so
interesting too that you mentioned Huxley.
Speaker 1: They're talking about.
Speaker 6: The religious conception and then the replacement of theology with scientism,
because another way that they sell the ecology movement, the
green movement, all that now is precisely through the transference
of religious concepts not just to scientism, but also to
the environment. And quickly or excuse me, Huxley makes that clear.
Eltis makes that clear. And his other one of his
other lesser known famous books, The Perennial Philosophy, where he
outlines of this sort of ecumenical syncretist approach to where look,
he's saying, look, all the religions in a total Masonic sense,
they're all just talking about the same thing. And what
they're talking about is the environment. It's they're talking about
the world. They're talking about when when when we think
of God out there, that's just the reflection of man
projected onto you know, the newmana out there and the beyond.
But it's just mankind. And when mankind is worshiping these
forces that he believes are out there or whatever, it's
just really just the embodiment the personification of nature. And
that's the entirety of Huxley's project. That's why he's he's
that's why this ties into the ecumenical movement, because that's
the basis of the ecumenical movement is the transitioning right
of all these different religions and traditions and whatnot into
the the global sphere of the idea that we're all
just saying the same thing. And that requires of course,
I would I would argue, you know, different relativism, subjectivism, materialism,
you know, all the same culprits that I always always
bitch about, if.
Speaker 1: You if that makes sense.
Speaker 3: Yeah. And another thing too, is that in hux considered
in this book, I don't have time to find the quote,
but he talks about, uh, what what you were just
talking about there? Industrialization, like in the Marxist sense. Now
he's now he makes a good he makes a good
point because this is true. He says industrialization of a
nation causes population growth to slow right, because when the industrialized,
then you know that as the theory goes not saying uh,
this is completely and totally true, but this does get
chalked up to population growth slowliness. You know, once people
are indust are industrialized, then they stop, you know, having kids, right,
they start doing other things. They have leisure time, and
they're making money and so.
Speaker 1: To Quigal too.
Speaker 3: So so the funny thing is that, I mean, it's
not funny, but it is funny, he says. He says, well,
you know, don't get any ideas that we need to
go like industrialized places or that we don't need to
be industrialize the West. He says, actually, we need to
be industrialized, but come up with better uh contraceptives.
Speaker 5: Exactly.
Speaker 3: It's pretty funny, just like yeah, He's like, yeah, people
are talking about industrializing, like but you know, going out
and helping them people. Know, He's like, we don't want
to do that. We just need better contraceptives.
Speaker 6: What's interesting also is that if you remember in Brave
New World, he he says that the future world socialist
society will also keep certain areas in the older state
of being.
Speaker 1: Or or third world or whatever you want to call it.
Speaker 6: Old world and they had Yeah, these places are kind
of living reservations of museums, like living museums.
Speaker 1: Kind of.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he says in there in this book which I
recommend people to check. This book A Knowledge, Morality, and Destiny.
It used to actually be called at one time new
Bottle for new Wine. But he talks about uh so
he's talking about like Somatra and Bali and Java in
these areas which were which Chris and I actually discussed
on our conversation about Tiki. So these areas were being
you know, colonized, taken over and and uh, you know,
there's obviously dialectic between industrialization and uh tribalism in the
in the in the form of you know, like we
can debate like, Okay, do you leave the culture alone
and not go industrialize it, or do you know, do
you come up with like something that can help people
like that? That's debatable, right, and it's but it's only
debatable within the confines of this system that we currently
exist in, because we can't necessarily say that industrialization and
westernization of everything is good, right, but just for the
sake of argument within the within the confines of it,
of what Huxley is proposing. He's saying like, oh, yeah,
we need to keep like areas like like Bali, we
need to keep those areas pure because it's such a beautiful,
you know, it's so and he comes across as such
an elitist, such a such a prick because it's so
beautiful to like see these like you know, like people
like existing in their grass huts and they're you know,
in this old way of life, right. And I'm not
saying that that isn't that that culture, it wasn't at
one time good. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that
the way that he's seen it is from an elitist
perspective of like a Margaret Mead or an anthropologist or
something like like like from the from his brother's perspective
of brave New World. We're like, oh, yes, we're gonna
have like you just said, like we're going to have
these little areas that are untouched because we're so good,
we're so philanthropic, and uh, we need to be reminded
of this of like, you know, we're going to live
in this highly advanced technological grid where everything's controlled, but
we're going to keep like these old areas as kind
of like a zoo, like you go see like these
old ways of life, you know, yes.
Speaker 6: Exactly exactly, And it shows you too that the whole
idea for world government is older.
Speaker 1: And this is not like a new thing.
Speaker 6: It's not well, all the stuff that you hear in
like the typical alternative media patriot crowd type stuff, like
these guys have been planning this for much longer than
what most people think. And well, there was a section
I was looking for in quickly where he talks about,
oh that one thing I wanted to say too is
that And I know that you guys already know this,
but it's interesting that he says that the nuke threat
and the transition into the bipolar world. He says that
this of necessity forces the entire system to move out
of all of the older ways of doing things from
the time of the Renaissance forward. So all the older
conceptions of nation states like you would get out of
you know, Europe and the Protestant Reformation and all these
the ideas of the kings and this this little nation
state versus thirty years war and all that kind of stuff,
as well as the economics.
Speaker 5: Of ly fair.
Speaker 6: He says all of that has to go like it's
it's it's forced into a new way of doing things,
which is the planned society, the rule by experts he
talks about on the page.
Speaker 1: Eight sixty six here.
Speaker 6: And that again, what's interesting is that for Quigley or
Huxley or any of those characters, they in this sense
they agree with Marxism.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 6: So Marx said, not just that industrialization would you know,
lead to these periods of like alienation and all that.
And in Marx's mind he thought it, you know, of
course it would lead to the proletary revolution that would
bring the next stage of a big state communism, which
would then be followed by the withering away of the state.
But they actually do agree with Marxism, with Marx that
you would get this global order that would be socialists
in a sense, a Fabian type model. And what most
people forget is that Marx believes that that can come
through technological mechanization. So Marx saw the industrial revolution and
technological automation not as a bad thing, and industrialization in
Marx actually wasn't a bad thing because Marx thinks that
these things are necessary historical phases, and that's what's important
to keep in mind a lot of people don't know that.
I know I've kind of harped on that in different
talks and interviews, but it's important because people think Marxism
was something that kind of died and went away in
a sense it and it's classical form. No, there aren't
really Marxists out there, but what is out there is
this kind of morphed Medusa or not Madus.
Speaker 1: So what am I thinking of?
Speaker 6: This kind of monster that's kind of morphed into the
global democratic, capitalist, monopoly capitalist version which is setting on
top of socialism, right, so it's like socialism for everybody
down below, and then of course it's the oligarchs at
the top, and they're families that are going to have,
you know, the automation, all the benefits basically that are
that come out of the society, and everyone else is
going to be herded into megacities and all this kind
of stuff. So I mean, I'm just I know, I'm
rehashing stuff that we've talked about a lot. But what's
so important is that Quigley says that in this chapter.
He says that it's it's almost sounds Marxist, right, like
it's it's a necessary stage of history to move into
managerial rule by experts, the planned economy, global planned economy,
all of this, he says, is just the next stage.
And I think that that's part of the sigh op
to that these people operate under, is that they just
kind of declare it necessary.
Speaker 1: Oh well, this is just the necessary phase. Right. You
don't want to be on the wrong side of history,
do you.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Here's something I want to put in here at
this point is that you're talking about nukes and how
you know, they're talking about the nukes. So the concept
of nukes, So that's all you need is the concept
that there's nukes, that there's this super weapon that like say,
the Russians just as an example, have their hands on
and seeing this represents a threat to you know, the
so called civilized world. So what does that communicate is
that we'll see now these uh, these so called states
out there or nation states, you know, like Russia, them
having this ability or this capability is a bad thing.
It's a threat. And and and you know, by extension,
the whole idea of these autonomous states are bad as well,
you know. And and the same thing is kind of
the same. It's the same sort of line of reasoning
that's being put across with the like gun control, like
guns in the hands of individuals are a bad thing
because individuals can be trusted with that kind of power.
Even though there's that U n quote. I don't know
exactly where it's from, but it says that, you know,
the the private ownership of guns that it is, it's
it's it's not consistent or not keeping with the UH,
or it's in it's it's in conflict with having the
monopoly of power reside in the state, which is the
you know, the I know a butcher that quote, but
it's something along that lines a legitimate power monopoly of
the state or something like that. So it is essentially
the same concept, except for you know, we see it,
we see the same kind of reasoning or so called
reasoning being played out on you know, multiple fronts, like
with the UH, the with the geopolitics and this idea
of of nukes, and and they're very convenient for communicating
that which very same thing which has been like what
you're talking about, which is like the goal, it's an
ultimate goal. What's that again, I said, is that a
mau quote.
Speaker 3: I can't remember what the.
Speaker 4: The of I'm gonna try to look it up. I
can go ahead talking on see if I can find that.
Speaker 6: Well, you know what, what, I think it's the common
factor across the board. I think I mentioned this in
the interview with Tim Kelly a few months ago, was
that that both of the monopolistic capitalist, oligarchic fascist approach
as well as the communist Marxist socialist fabian what they
share in common and the why the CFR wanted that
convergence for so long that Quickly talks about is because
both of them share the goal of a homogenized monoculture
and standardization, so both systems have that process. And in
the sections where Quickly is treating the Cold War installing
and all this stuff, he talks about the you know,
these failed plans of the Soviets for these collective farms,
and you might think, well, that was all just a
big disaster. But interestingly, if you think about it, the
whole Soviet method of the collective farm in the attempt
to have this communist, Marxist, totally egalitarian farming situation for
millions of people, which actually resulted in the deaths of
millions of people at least according to the official story
of Stalin and all that, which I'm sure is probably
mostly correct.
Speaker 1: I don't really I guess somebody could debate that.
Speaker 6: But yeah, assuming that's correct, the reason it fails is
irrelevant because or excuse me, the failure of all the
collective farms is irrelevant because all it was was the
test bed of the system to down the road move
into the green system.
Speaker 1: You see what I'm saying.
Speaker 6: So, in other words, the methodology and approach of the
collective farms and collective agriculture that you see with Stalin
and Khrushchev, it is basically the same approach that the
ecology movement and the green movement want to do with agriculture, farming,
globalism and all this. Right, they want to have a
total global control over all of those things. And you
see this in the US with big not big Pharma,
but but big big Agra. Right, Big Agra wants to
control all the farms. They're gonna have the genetic modification,
and just like with Stalin and his collective stuff, they
sell they would sell it by all the promises.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 6: See, all the old system, the old system had all
these you know, it was all based on capitalism and
it was based on private ownership of farms, and look
at all the problems you see, So you have the
threat the problem there, right, the new system is going
to give you all these new it's all these grand promises. Right,
you're gonna have everybody's gonna be fed, everybody's belly will
be full.
Speaker 1: And now we see it with the exact same thing.
Speaker 6: So oh, Monsanto and the GMOs, they're gonna they're gonna
feed the world. Everybody's gonna be fed. We won't have
crop failures, we won't have hunger. And now it's all
it's all the exact same managed society like the Soviets, just.
Speaker 1: Like in the US.
Speaker 6: Right, there's a great documentary, I forget the name of it,
but it was comparing the cult the Soviet system with
the system in the West, and they were.
Speaker 1: Pointing out how similar it was.
Speaker 6: Right Like, so in the US you might have coke
and pepsi, but if you were to go over there,
it would be like you know, the parties Coke Party, pepsi, right,
like the pepsi of the Soviet party or is on
the right. I mean, you know, if you got light bulbs,
it would be victory light bulbs right nineteen eighty four,
Commy coke.
Speaker 5: Mister there, maybe you'd like to create some state sponsored
so the pot.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know what else?
Speaker 6: Remember that documentary on standardization and planned obsolescence light bulb conspiracy.
This this documentary I'm trying to think of. I can't
remember the title of it, but it's it's basically it
has some of the same points in it. It's like
this the Soviets system, they would actually one of the
reasons that they in certain areas couldn't compete is because
they would try to if they came up with a
light bulb, they would try to push the light bulb
that worked for a long time. But because the world
was moving into the consumerist society, which is what their
in corporation was pushing. Then if you're pushing a light
bulb that last ten years, twenty years, you're going to
be put out of business because you're not going to
make the profit that would be able to keep up
with the company that's or the world, actually the global
market that's based on planned obsolescence.
Speaker 1: So that one of all I'm saying is that it shows.
Speaker 6: It shows that the Soviet system, in my view, was
once again just to kind of test to to try
out these different things in different regions, try out different
methods of total control and see what worked best. And
since the Soviet one didn't work, that the one in
the West, which is very similar, pretty much the same one,
but it's dressed up in different garb uh, gives the
impression of a little more freedom. That one works a
lot better than the sort of top down you know,
Stalin presenting himself as a newsar right.
Speaker 1: M.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think the I think the American model of
the Western you know, we we do, indeed, I think
have in some respects more you know, quote unquote freedom.
I mean we, you know, I mean we pretty much.
I mean we could say whatever we want to say
and put it out onto kind of uh you know,
onto a podcast and what have you, or some platform
or you know, if you can get a platform, you
can talk put out whatever you want to talk about.
But it it now supposedly, you know, they have all
these kind of tight restrictions on speech, like in places
like China or you know, or Soviet Russia or the
former Soviet Union. Now how much of that is true,
I don't I don't know, or how another thing with
all of this is like, how okay, so that that's
the official position, but how strictly is all of that
enforced in those countries? And like what is the Oh somebody, yeah, listener,
don sent me a link to an article about how
sarcasm is. Uh, they want to outlaw sarcasm in North
Korea and so let's say, well, I mean that tells
you there must be a lot of sarcasm going on
in with Korea. So yeah, yeah, what's going on there?
Speaker 1: Remember remember the stories of the one child policy. I'm
not in China.
Speaker 6: I'm not saying that there wasn't a one child policy
in China. I'm sure there was, and I'm sure that
there were attempts to restrict this. But when you stop
and think about how many people are in China, so
we're told, right, well, there's like a billion Chinese people
or some you know, how if you saw them, think
about how you would enforce that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I've heard too that the one child policy that
the way to get around it is just a bribe
and official like the US a thousand thousand dollars US
or something like that, and that then you could have
you know, a third child or two children or whatever
now child or whatever. It's just a yeah, it's open
bribery there, like a right, yeah, So how do you
control a billion people? That's a real good question. And
do they and or is it just this when and
I try to make the point as frequent as possible,
it's like, yeah, I mean you're talking about government, you're
talking about it. It's it's a fictional construct that that
really only exists between our ears. The real practical uh,
you know, ability for them to enforce actually enforce or
force anything upon us, you know, they or them or
whatever you want to call it. This idea of government
and what they represent as far as a percentage of
the population, it's so insignificant that there's there's no practical
way that they could possibly enforce the so called law
on the populace.
Speaker 3: Yeah, elites said, elites in trying to have two more
than two children. So it's the same thing. So it's
the same thing like what's here where like we talked
about before, you know, with you know, someone like Hillary's
not going to get busted for doing stuff that some
something you or I would get busted for or whatever.
It's the same thing in every country most likely.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and it's the same way kind of with the surveillance,
which I think showed that the whole Snowden thing was
a SIoT, was that they're not I don't think they're
really that concerned about people finding out. In fact that
I think they wanted them to know the ability at
least or the degree or probably exaggerated abilities of the
surveillance so that people would police themselves, right, which we've
talked about of course many times.
Speaker 1: But if you think.
Speaker 6: About it too, I mean, think about how many people
it would take to police everybody's speech. I mean, it's
just like it's almost impossible. I mean, even the supercomputers
and the metadata and all that, like, it requires tremendous
resources to try to sift through this information. So and
I'm not saying that they couldn't if they wanted to
find out you know, who's saying what and all that.
I'm sure they do. But you know, it's kind of
like Jones used to always say that a lot of
the NSA stuff is primarily for the people in the
establishment to be to be surveilled, which, by the way,
is another parallel to the Stalin regime.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, they East German Stazi, they had all kinds
of machinations there to make which I would like, I've
I've looked at different stuff on that, you know, documentaries
and stuff. How much it is true, I don't know.
I wasn't there us got to say that, but what
what I gathered from looking at what they're doing much
I was like, you're touching on Jay, these are I think,
like these countries and like you're talking about all the
Soviet Russian stuff are like big open air laboratories to
pass you know, social engineering out on large scales. And
you know, they did this in East Germany with a Stazi,
with the surveillance state, and it was like, well, it
got to a certain point that it was just beyond
absurd where they had like every third person like part
of the spy.
Speaker 6: And that's, by the way, what most And again I'm
not a Stalin scholar or even an expert on Cold War,
but everybody who I've talked to, or you know, college
classes where we dealt with this, or books that you read,
pretty much everybody says that Stalin's whole thing collapsed because
of that very thing, Like everybody's worried about who's going
to spy on them and then quickly says that the
transition from Stalin to Krushchev was just basically one giant
power struggle and everybody lying and spying on everybody else,
and Stalin's power collapsed and then Khrushchev stepped into the vacuum.
Speaker 1: So the story goes yeah.
Speaker 4: And then then one thing they would show was like, Okay,
for instance, they would take these dogs that are trained
to hunt people down, and so if you got accused
where ranfl the state, like in the East Germany, like,
they would take like a cloth and set it down
in your desk chair or whatever to get your scent,
and they would seal it in a are and put
it on a shelf so that if they ever had
to like track you down with a dog, they can
pull that rag out and get a cent off of it.
And then they showed these big warehouse full of just
jars with rags in them, and I was like, oh,
I mean, you know, think about that for a minute.
It's just And they also had like they were pulling
out these file systems, and they said that it got
to the point where they were putting so many files
and so many dossier's on people, and they got so
voluminous that they they got to the point where instead
of filing they would just stuff them into like boxes
and ba and stuff and just you know, no organization
or anything. They just had just mountains of paper and.
Speaker 6: It was just it was wouldn't they they didn't they
They use poodles, didn't they?
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 6: There was there was a little poodle who had they
he would wear a Soviet commas our outfit.
Speaker 1: And that's who. That's that's who sniffed you down.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: They were called the pollt bureau poodle. Yeah, the poodle bureau.
Speaker 5: You want to make from the poodles in Russia and
very really sent goodn't have death mistic Dieter. Do you
think it's really funny? Poodles are very vicious?
Speaker 1: M hm.
Speaker 3: Actually, poodle poodles are bread, are bread to be attack dogs.
That's yeah, that is true. They are. They are. They
are vicious little bastards, that's for sure. Uh well what well, yeah, Chris,
you're talking about you know, the jars with the cross
with the Stasi and the the files and all that
type of stuff. And I just wanted to bring up
to the obvious point that this is social experimentation and
obviously to see what people you know, this is was
you know, trying to see what exactly people could what
you could get people to do to each other, like
you know, I mean they have that movie out there
that's interesting from what I remember I've seen a long
time in the lives of others. Yeah, yeah, so and
and uh, like the data collection itself is fakery. That's
tricking you because because you're thinking to yourself, oh my gosh,
there is massive supercomputers out there running algorithm algorithms on
our conversation right now, and we need to be scared
of that. We need not do anything because it's so massive.
It's so it's you know, it's like a it's like
this huge giant but see that's that's it's that's one
of its problems too. One of the problems of the
super Marnolithic state is that it becomes so massive that
you can't find anything in it. So whereas it's scaring
the Bejesus out of you because it's so monstrous and huge,
it works on most people in the back with the
background noise. I was just recently talking to someone and
uh they were they were talking about I can't remember
what they said, but they said something along the lines of, uh,
I remember I brought up we were talking about credit reports,
and I brought up how t r W back in
the eighties was a c I a front for data
collection mhm and uh that was, you know, a credit
reporting agency. But there and then you know, they had
that mo movie which we talked about a little bit,
that falcon in the Snowman movie where allegedly these guys
were it was basically like the model for Snowden in
a way, the Falcon and the Snowman. They made that
movie with Sean Penn and Timothy Hutton, and yeah, it's
these guys who work at TRW and they're giving the
Russian secrets and they're walking out with with tiles and
massive amounts of files and just giving them over to
the Russians in Mexico and uh. And so that I
was telling this to this person, they said, oh, yeah,
that that sounds like conspiracy stuff, right, And they're like, wow,
that that that was in the eighties. They're like, well, yeah,
I guess you know, they're you know, they're kind of
a liberal minded person. So they were aware of Edward
Snowden that type of stuff. They're like, yeah, I guess
it's been going a lot on a lot longer than
you know, the NSA and so I just brought up
like the Technological Society by Jacques Loel and and like,
you know, the information storing and the control grading of itself.
I mean, it's probably been around since since day one
of civilization. You know, spies are as old as you know,
spies are as old as prostitutes are.
Speaker 4: Right, and the confessionals back in the day, right.
Speaker 3: Sure, and and so so. Uh so you know, it's
it's the same, it's the same thing. But I'm sure
like back in you know, ancient times or whatever you
want to call it is uh they have these same
type of threats that you know that the state, the
all powerful state is watching over you and that you
better be scared of it. But most of the time,
for the most part, it's not really something that's happening. Yeah,
it's the it's the threats, the perception. Yeah, yeah, it's
what could possibly happen to you. I mean, it's the
same thing with not paying your taxes. I mean, you
could get in trouble for not paying your taxes. There
are people out there who have gotten in trouble for
not paying their taxes. But there is a percentage of
people that you don't know or that you've never heard of,
who don't pay the taxes and nothing happens to them.
Speaker 4: Yeah, there's a huge amount of non filers.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 6: And the reason for this, by the way, is I
think that you know this, the the people in power
have known for a long time about that principle that
we've mentioned many times that you know, Kissinger said that
it's really about perception and not what's the facts are.
And so for example, you go back to Elizabethan England
and the whole you know, the whole modern spy culture
arises out of the British intelligence, which, as we've said
many times, that goes back to John d and Elizabeth
and all that, and there would have these paints. She
would have these paintings commissioned of her, these you know,
these famous paintings of Queen Elizabeth, and she's got in
one hand, she's holding a rainbow showing her rulership or whatever,
and then the gown she's wearing is covered in eyes.
And so the painting, which presumably, I guess a lot
of people would have been seeing. The painting itself is
a kind of is a form of symbolic propaganda, kind
of telling people, hey, I've got all these spies everywhere.
And she was of course known for her vast spy network,
you know, Sir Walter Rawley and all these people and
John d and all this, and so it was the
perception that there were spies everywhere, and you know, who
knows to what degree there and weren't.
Speaker 1: But the same thing with what.
Speaker 6: They did in the eighteenth century when they studied panopticism,
and I'm sure you guys are familiar with that with
you know, Michelle Foucaud, the philosopher has written on panopticism
after the fact, and he talked about how you know,
the construct of the prisons in France and in England,
this is the ideas of Jeremy Bentham.
Speaker 1: Right where the guard.
Speaker 6: Tower is in the middle and you don't even have
to have guards in there as long as you know,
the windows are blacked out or whatever, and all the
inmate cells are facing inwards towards the tower and they're
completely open. So the idea here is that you're under
constant surveillance most likely, So you think and what they
noticed was that it just caused everybody to alter their
own behavior. So what I'm saying is that that's all
that whole, all that snowed and stuff is just the
exemplification of that principle that it doesn't mean, Yeah, it's
not possible to you don't have enough manpower right to
police all of this data. But all you need to
do is give everybody the impression that you do.
Speaker 4: Well, there's an element you can add to the panopticon
would be now, what now, just just proposing this, what
if you had inmates that weren't really inmates, they were
just moles so to speak, in and amongst the population,
so that from periodically they could go in and do
a bit of theater where they take one of them
ount and say, oh, we caught you you, we saw
you doing something. Yeah, and then the perception is created like, oh, okay,
so this is yeah, you can get you can get
you can get found out if you're so. Then they
wouldn't even have to have guards, they wouldn't even have
to have anybody watching it all, just the perception of
it exactly.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's that's something I've I've even questioned in recent
times like thinking about that is, I'm I'm sure that's
what a lot of this stuff, you know, with a
lot of the fakery and things like that, is like
like Chris just said, like you could have people plant,
you know, planted in there in a prison or something.
Then you know, guards beat guards, beat them to a
pulp allegedly, or make it look like they beat them
to a pulp, and then that scares everybody into doing
it or into obeying. And that's you know, just as
time goes on, it becomes more relevant that the fakery
is a lot easier than it is to pull things
off in real life. I'm not obviously not saying that
people don't get beat down in prison in that prison
full of mole, even though prison is full of moles too.
What I'm saying is is like, is like what I
was alluding to with the Julian Huxley quote, with the
warfare and all that type of stuff, We're getting to
a point toward people. Well, once again the stem off
of what I'm trying to say, uh pre uh giving
giving a pre explanation. So Jane and I had a
conversation over text where he had sent me a National
Geographic article or or what did you say? You said
something was in National Geographics, and then you and I
got into a conversation about how like the media is
destroying itself, like the old forms of media are dying,
but that was actually part of the plan to have
all those old forms to actually die off, like magazines
and newspapers and stuff, because you know, the Internet is
what they want everybody to be on it. But that
doesn't necessarily mean that everybody that works in National Geographic
or at the New York Times is in on it
that that those old forms of media are going to
die out. Like there's obviously people who work there who
realize that those are old forms dying, but they're not
in on the gag that that was something that was
talked about long ago, that these that these would go away, right,
And so it's the same thing with old forms of
warfare are going to go away and the old forms
of of doing things. And I think that what we've
seen in the past, you know, you know, especially in
the more recent times, is that the old forms of
doing things are are are going away. Not that they
that they didn't call off fakery in old times or
anything like that, but I do tend to think that,
you know, people really do get killed and murdered and
all that type of stuff. And when it comes to
power plays and all that and all those types of things.
I don't think everybody, every single person ever has been
shepherded off to a private island somewhere. But that goes
on a case by chase basis. That's not that's not
to say that that doesn't happen often. And nowadays I
think what what happens is is the old form, like
I was saying, the old form of warfare will eventually
go away where you won't even need to actually go
fight wars anymore. You can just tell people that that
a war is going on, and then you can also
just tell people that, oh, like we just had here
recently when I wanted, when I saw a bunch of newspapers,
I didn't even know that this happened, but I knew
I had a suspicion about being fake because on every
newspaper from the New York Times to uh, you know,
the local newspaper at the newsstand, they just got every
newspaper thirteen people killed in the bus accident in Palm Springs.
And the first thing I thought of is that it
was a fake story just because of the fact that
it was plastered on all over every newspaper. And it's like,
why would you be Why would the New York Times
have this on the front page with huge, you know
headlines like thirteen people you know die in a bus crash, right,
and and so there's something shady about this bus crash
or I'm not bringing this up to UH to talk
about that particular instance. But what I'm saying is is
now you can have these events and they don't need
to be real anymore because one no one's no one's
going to go no one's going to know either way,
and no one's going to go out there and investigate it.
There's not there's no real journalists anymore. Who that's not
necessarily true. There's no real journalists in the mainstream anymore.
Who who will go out there and get handed a
piece of paper by some you know official who's just said, Okay,
here's what happened. Right. So it has become much easier
over time to be able to just have these controlled environments,
and why not do that? Why not when you can't?
Speaker 6: It fits into everything we've been saying about the creation
of the threat, the perception of a threat.
Speaker 1: Threating have to be real.
Speaker 6: You just create you know, the stage shootings give the
impression that there are just craze mad man going on
shooting spreeze everywhere.
Speaker 1: It's just constant, you know.
Speaker 6: And then of course obviously the establishment says, up, we've
gotta have gun control.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 6: The the whole story of the nukes, right, Ah, there's
a black market nuke network that's just gone rampant across
the world. You know, what are we going to do
the aq CON nuke network which is all suspiciously connected
to the CIA.
Speaker 1: Oh, well, we've got to have a global you know.
Speaker 6: Force to to police this. Oh, we got the threat
of the spies and the Soviet moles everywhere.
Speaker 1: What are we going to do?
Speaker 6: Oh, we got to set up surveillance everywhere. We got
to have number stations everywhere across the globe. We've got
to have outposts to listen in on everything.
Speaker 1: For the nukes, for the Russians and the spies.
Speaker 6: Right, so, all these threats are just constantly Basically, we're
just giving a bunch of whole bunch of false threats,
is really what it amounts to. At For the establishment,
you know, for the establishment to extend its goals, and
it really is. I think that's simple. That's how the
system works. It runs on all these fake threats and
it has to constantly keep upping the ante and rolling
them out, you know what I mean to kind to
kind of keep it going. And that's where you get
all the stage craft and all the fakery and all this,
you know, all the hoaxery and uh yeah, I think
you nailed it right there.
Speaker 4: You'll see the Vice documentary where they went out and
went on the black market to buy a suit It
was a suitcase nuke.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I have, I've seen. Yeah.
Speaker 6: Vice is totally c a by the way, but there's
a whole bunch of things about Vice that I think
show that they're right, Like they're the you know, they're
going to embed with ISIS. Yeah right, but we can't
stop ISIS. But but Vice visus, right, Vice can go
in bed with ISIS, get and break. Yeah, yeah, And
they're going to go on the black market NEWT Network.
Speaker 1: Oh, they're going to talk.
Speaker 6: To this this secret organization called the Pink Panthers who
are behind all the diamond smuggling and all right, so
Vice can go find them.
Speaker 1: But you know, inter Pole and the CIA and none
of these.
Speaker 6: Groups can stop these all the rogue villains, right, the
rogue villains everywhere.
Speaker 1: That's a big part of the whole.
Speaker 6: And that's what you know when you grow up on
Hollywood and you watch movies and all this stuff, the
movie is always presented that way, right, there's all the
rogue villains are all out there, rogue nations, the rogue cartels,
the rogue black market, and you know, like if you
watch that, I think it's a mediocre movie.
Speaker 1: Lord of War.
Speaker 6: The good point at the end of that Nicolas Cage movie.
He realizes that he thought he was this rogue arms
trader and he was being protected somehow, and then he
finds out who's protecting him. It's like Pentagon generals.
Speaker 4: That's funny you bring that up because my brother was
telling me about that movie said that, oh yeah, you
hear that they had something come out in Clinton's emails.
That's that it said. It goes right along with the
script of that movie.
Speaker 1: Oh Lord of War.
Speaker 4: Really yeah, where some arms trader gets some kind of deal,
he gets off because he was you know, like you're
talking about and with the.
Speaker 6: I've read the book that it's based on. I'm trying
to remember that that guy's name. He's like the number one.
He's like the ben Laden of.
Speaker 1: Arms trading, they called him in the last twenty years
or so. I could go look it up.
Speaker 4: But well, yeah, that's what I was wondering if if
that film was supposedly based off of a supposedory story
or maybe it maybe it.
Speaker 1: Well, actually the story it's based off of a book.
Speaker 6: That well, roughly based off of a book that did
get sanitized and Hollywood eyzed a bit. But the book
that that I'm talking about actually calls him out as
a CIA guy.
Speaker 1: Mmkay, yeah, so so yeah.
Speaker 6: And that's the And now, to what degree you know
that guy didn't know he was working for the CIA.
I find that hard to believe because that's kind of
the way the Nicholas Cage movie presents it, like he
like he doesn't know who's really running things, and then
you know, like at the end of his career he's like, oh, crap,
I've been working for the Kinagon the whole time.
Speaker 4: Was that is that how he was able to rent
rent the nuke for his for his island party?
Speaker 7: Being in that film, Well, what John said also reminded me.
Speaker 6: I forgot about this. We don't ever we don't talk
much because we're adults. But uh, you know, video games
have a lot of programming and predictive aspects to it too,
and all that because you know, a lot of the
younger generation I don't really care about movies. They'd rather
watch or play video games and you know all these
It may be the biggest video game uh franchise ever.
Now I don't I don't really keep up with I
don't know, but you know, the Black Ops series, they're
constantly putting in these storylines that deal with global government
and you know, false flag terror and all this kind
of stuff. But the the technology that they put into
every one of the Black Ops games, which is obviously
like a recruitment thing to try to get young people.
Speaker 1: Oh you know, if you.
Speaker 6: Join the military, you can use all this cool tech
and you know, you can scale a building with this
you know, dark pages.
Speaker 1: But that's the thing.
Speaker 6: Yeah, the drones are all coordinated with the Yeah, the
soldiers implants and all that kind of stuff. Point being
John's right that even the video games show you that.
Speaker 1: I mean, the title of one of the series is
black ops. Modern warfare. Right, so modern warfare.
Speaker 6: Is not is not fought like like it used to be,
meaning it's fought with drones. Uh, you know all this
kind of this kind of high tech stuff, darpest stuff.
So the idea that you're going to have these you know,
ground forces that fought in the you know, the old
post renaissance style of warfare is ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 4: We talked about too, how they've yeah, even in the
Bond films, you know, this is and this goes back
kind of ways. Yeah, this fetish fetishizing technology, gadgetry and
stuff like that. And then yeah, of course now you're
seeing it with it within these games and all this
stuff where it's like oh yes, oh you spot your
enemy out with your little hover drone and then you
uh yeah, you can you know, kill remotely and all
this other stuff. Yes, it's just this really grotesque, uh
kind of hyper violent tech culture that's being created. And
like h yeah, now and then with the uh, with
the drones and all that too. It's interesting how it is,
you know, how how closely it parallels video games, Like
you you're watching something on a screen and it's almost
like so so even the visuals are sort of you know,
I guess like they'll use different kind of like thermal
imaging and stuff like that. So it's it's almost like
you're not looking at anything real, right, and they're sitting
in Nevada somewhere, and they're remote controlling these things and
you know, shooting people up and dropping hellfire missiles or
whatever they're doing out of these things. And it's like and.
Speaker 6: You're gonna, like so in the future, you're gonna you know,
walk up to a group of enemy combatants or whatever,
and you've got like the terminator thing in your eye.
You've got a like a Google uh Google Contacts, and
you can see the you know, enemies are going to
be identified, and it pulls them up.
Speaker 1: And then because you've.
Speaker 6: Got an implant, you know, in your brain or whatever,
or you can make the decision through retinal retinal movement,
right that the drones that are linked up to your
to your contact lenses or whatever can attack, you know,
from the sky and you can switch from your your
vision from the first person, you can switch up to
the vanished point of.
Speaker 1: The of the drone. Right, all this kind of crazy stuff.
Speaker 4: Well, yeah, I've thought this too, that maybe they could
have well, I guess this is totally at this point
technologically possible that they can have some kid, like, you know,
literally in a basement thinking that they're playing Xbox and
they're controlling a drone or what have you, but actually
it's it's uplinked to a actual drone and some actual
battlefield somewhere, and then they have no clue that they're
actually killing real people.
Speaker 6: You should write I find novels, Chris, because that is
the plot of the award winning so I Fi novel Enders.
Speaker 4: Game Enders Game huh Yeah.
Speaker 1: And there's a movie too. And what they did was
they got.
Speaker 6: This kid who is a spoiler alert, who's like the
best video game strategy type guy, and they recruit him.
Speaker 1: And they have.
Speaker 6: This big war gaming simulation exercise which is like a
tournament in the military that he's in the sort of
futuristic military thing, and he thinks he's winning a tournament,
but the dude is so good that he's actually linked
up to the actual battle at which he finds out
at the end.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 4: Yeah. So that came out in nineteen eighty five or
the book, and then they made a movie off of
it in twenty thirteen.
Speaker 1: Yep, yeah, and that is the plot.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Oh well yeah, well, I mean they have the controller
that's on the on the PlayStation.
Speaker 3: I have.
Speaker 4: I have this footage save somewhere there, and they're going,
they're talking, they're talking about they're in the battlefield and
they're interviewing like a soldier and he's talking about, you know,
he's controlling this drone or it's some kind of a
you know, like a Johnny five robot that killed the
guy in Dallas or something like that, one of those things.
And uh, it pans down and he has a freaking
PlayStation controller in his hand. It's like it is like verbatim,
the same controller like into his deal plugged into a
thing controlling this drone or it looks just like it.
I don't know if it's exact same controller, but.
Speaker 6: It well, I wouldn't be surprised because you know, all
the video game stuff comes out of the Pentagon.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it all comes out of the Pentagon.
Speaker 1: And that's the thing.
Speaker 4: Like I've done a lot of research into that and
had planned to put it, put it into a documentary,
but it just keeps on getting sidetracked. But anyway, Uh,
they they are totally responsible for the whole existence of
computer generated imagery. That all came out of uh you know,
university grants out of the Defense Department, and then it
you know, evolved into the UH stuff that later the
next computer system that was like used uh extensively in
processing of satellite supposed satellite data imagery and all that
stuff that was that that was a big initial contract
with that eventually got uh transmorgified into uh industrial light
magic and uh that and that was the start of
digital editing of film and all that stuff.
Speaker 6: And then Disney starts doing it, which I'm sure is
tied in.
Speaker 1: To all the same stuff.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and then because Pixar and all that comes out.
Speaker 6: Well remember even before that, you had tron Tron back right,
and that was something and everybody was blown away, you
know because that was like the matrix before the matrix,
you know, whoa all this computer stuff? And then they
did I remember watching the DVD commentary on the eighties
movie it's like nineteen eighty four or five called Last Starfighter,
you know, where the guy plays the video game, which
I need to do an analysis of that because that's
exactly the whole point of that movie is what we're
talking about. He plays this video game. If you remember,
he's just this poor kid in a trailer park and
he's so good at the video game that that these
beings come and they recruit him to fight in this
intergalactic you know, battle with these evil aliens, right, in
other words, the Pentagon, who are the quote beings?
Speaker 1: Right, We'll recruit people based on video games, and so
that's whole plot of that movie.
Speaker 6: But if you watch the DVD commentary, that movie was
famous because it was one of the first movies that
used entire scenes that were completely CGI. Tron still had actors,
you know, interfacing with a kind of half computer generated.
Speaker 1: Imagery and all that.
Speaker 6: But in The Last Starfighter there's entire scenes, pretty extensive
scenes too, that are completely CGI.
Speaker 1: That's one of the first or the first.
Speaker 6: It's not very good graphics now, obviously, but at the
time it was a pretty big deal. And then of
course you made the great point, and I brought this
up on boiler Room several times because the guy, the
host of boiler Room has sure he's a big tech
guy and he's done a lot of work with the
graphic design type stuff, and so he was very interested
to hear about Paul Devavac, which is you brought him
to my attention and you just look at Paul devavak
career and you know, you can see him going straight
from university to matrix to.
Speaker 1: You know, government type work.
Speaker 4: Yeah, there's a relatively recently a new project that was
set up to see what happens is you have the
military development technology. The technology of course gets adopted and
assimulated into the private sector. The private sector takes it,
develops it for different applications, mainly like you know, films,
video games, entertainment, you know type type consumables.
Speaker 1: And then it.
Speaker 4: Then then the military takes it and reabsorbs that and
uses it for like you got the example of like
the Doom three D first person shooter was one of
the very first ones of those, and then the Marines
take it and use it and do their own version
of it and use it for training, and then it
kind of goes, uh, you know, back and forth in between.
But yeah, it's it's it is all all of that.
All of our modern everything we know today is that
shapes modern entertainment came right out of these military projects.
Speaker 6: And that's what Quigley said A long time ago was
that you know, we know this now, but quickly pointed
out that the a lot so many of these tech
developments that we we think come out of competition and
you know, free market enterprise and all this kind of
stuff actually comes out of military industrial complex weapons research.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah, that's how the uh, well you'll see those
tournament games where they're all sitting at their individual computers
and they'll be in a big you know, conference hall
or something like that having these tournaments. Well that's that's uh,
the initial apps of that technology was for war game simulators,
and that's what you're looking at when you're looking at that,
you're just looking at an adaptation of wargame simulators. And uh,
you think about it, those multi multi network computers of
course that came you just got to talking about the
Internet and how that came out of the military course.
But then yeah, also the multiplayer you know, virtual environments
and stuff that you know, you have multiple multiplayers and
then you know you you have your avatar inside of
the virtual environment, and that all is uh yeah, just
a just a different uh military simulator, which war gaming
goes back even you know, prior to that, with you know,
they initially had board games and stuff like that, and
then it got later developed into you know, of course
different types of video games, and then you know, computer
assisted and then it you know, of course, then virtual
simulate environments. But there's a our I have two that
where I think it's from nineteen ninety eight or ninety nine,
and it says the military is interested in creating the
hollow deck, you know the Yeah, yeah, I've seen that. Yeah,
so they are that is one of their goal off.
I think they're probably well along to achieving that, if
they haven't already achieved it. But like the you know,
the hollow Deck, it's in the Star Trek films where
they go into like a well, the same concept that's
represented in the Matrix, right, it's the the Matrix to
the Matrix films kind of takes it onto a different
tangent where like people are actually born into it. But
the concept was already there with Star Trek and then
but you know, the idea that the military, oh got
the idea after the fact and then in the late nineties.
That's that's pretty ridiculous when you look at the actual
history where all this stuff came from. But of yeah,
that's one of the persons they wanted to recruit with
Paul Devibek and UH. He worked on the Matrix films.
He's the one that's attributed to all the UH, all
the groundbreaking special effects with the the the neo getting
dodging bullets, you know, and dodging and then he's got
the three hundred sixty degree fly around which everything you
see in the background is completely one hundred percent c
G I and UH. And then people will come back
at me and saying, you know, if you're proposing that
a lot of the footage on nine to eleven was fake,
which I believe that, you know, you're largely looking at
fabricated UH. And this was the this was the debut
of a full blown psychological operation that incorporates his technology.
And if you look at the timing of it all
it all fits. And then there's all so reference to
this very thing in films that have come after the fact,
like the film The Congress where they where they're in
You've seen that film, right, I think said that before,
where it's about taking and digitizing actors and saving the
digit file and then they could they can act in
whatever scenario or whatever movie you want. But there's a
nine to eleven reference in that scene where she's getting
scanned in, and I said, wow, that's interesting because that's,
you know, right in line with all this stuff I'm
digging up.
Speaker 1: And well, don't forget too.
Speaker 6: That might be the reason why, or a kind of
secret reason reference why the matrix has the reference to
nine to eleven. If you remember, you know, what's one
of the famous predictive programming things where Neo's birth date.
Speaker 1: On his passport.
Speaker 4: That's a good point. It's nine to eleven exactly that way.
Speaker 1: But yeah, and then what is nine to eleven?
Speaker 6: Well, it could be this manifestation of this psychological warfare
that implements like you're saying, the CGI.
Speaker 4: What interesting real matrix? That would be the Yeah.
Speaker 6: Also, the first time, I think first time I came
on Afternoon Commune, we spoke about the first season at
that time of Black Mirror, and Black Mirror season three
is just now complete, I think, with a few more
episodes than most of those seasons, And of course every
episode of Black Mirror deals with dystopic technology, and this
season is everything that we've been talking about. So the
season primarily deals with augmented reality and so if you
remember that, it makes me think of that video that
you put up a couple of months ago about the
tech guy talking about how there'll be like these points
in the future and everybody playing these little games about
oh I got more points because I brushed my teeth
this morning, and yeah, gamification of yes. So the very
first episode of Black Mirror this season is a near
future dystopia where everybody lives in these kind of ecological
friendly suburban I don't know how to describe it. It's very, very,
very weird, kind of Tim Burton esque future where, if
you remember Edward Scissorhands, like everything, everybody lives in these
cookie cutter suburbs, and the whole society, this is what's
crazy about it is a hierarchy based on how everybody's
rated everything and how you've been rated, So your points,
on your likes on Facebook or your whole your whole
Internet basically is integrated into when people walk up and
they see you, then you pop up on their phone
or in their Google goggles or their contacts and they
see you and they rate you. So the whole system
is based on like the upper class or the people
that have five stars. So it was just very very dystopic.
But that episode was really good. And then there's another episode.
The next two or three are actually just purely based
on augmented reality. And then there's another warfare episode that is.
Speaker 1: Exactly what we're talking about. Get this, where.
Speaker 6: In the future the soldiers have a chip that controls,
of course, how they perceive reality under the guise of
kind of what I was talking about earlier with this,
the idea of oh, you're like the Terminator soldier, and
you've got this screen that comes up into.
Speaker 1: Your visual area cortex or whatever.
Speaker 6: And you can, you know, you can profile people and
all this kind of stuff and get their history and
all this blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: Well, what the plot.
Speaker 6: Is that this I'm not going to spoil everything, but
it's interesting because the plot is that the soldiers are
programmed to see the enemies as these inhuman aberration but
the reality is that the people that they're attacking are humans,
but they're just perceived to be animals. And I thought
that was interesting on two levels because on one level,
obviously military people are programmed, you know, to view their
enemies as in human they're dehumanized, and then on another level,
like you could take it literally, though maybe in the
future they really will, you know, put a chip in
somebody's brain to where the perception that you.
Speaker 1: Get is augmented reality, that you actually see this being
as like a you know, in human Well, yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean that is well, that's sort of yeah, right,
that's already taking place on one level, and that just
takes it to another another integration of the same kind
of concept where yeah, instead of just propaganda methods, it's
even you know, technology, I guess feasible.
Speaker 1: To do that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean you see this game.
Speaker 6: The well, that's what the pulp, that's the Pokemon go
right moving you everybody in the direction of I guess
before total matrix, you need the the stage of augmented
reality where you're you've got contacts or something that you know,
allows you to kind of have an a synthetic overlay
right of your your visual field.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 4: And how all of this stuff is going to work
itself out into the real world, I guess is anybody's guess.
But yeah, I think the matrix probably well, I do
believe that it already exists. I mean we like one
thing that I ran across and looking into this stuff
is like, well, so people probably they got they get
they get all their you know, their ideas about what
CGI is from watching films, right, I mean, and and
a lot of it, you know, to this day is
you know, you can look at something and especially like
animals and stuff, and you say, oh, that's that's a
CGI rendering. Uh you know, maybe pretty good, but it's
fairly convincing, but it's you know, still CGI.
Speaker 1: Well we're being given older versions of it.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, I even I've even said this before. I
think a lot of this stuff, even on like Animal
Planet and stuff, is CGI rendered, uh, animals and stuff.
Because you look at some of it and I said, man,
that is just too good, Like how how how they
they captured? You know, and then you get I'm thinking
it's like, well, I mean this can be synthetically rendered
at this point because now the technology I got stuff
from like the seventies, from early you know, defense department
stuff where they're demonstrating computer generated imagery and it it
exceeds the stuff that came out in the nineties, the
early nineties with the initial sort of experimental stuff out
of Pixar. And it's like, you know, as far as
rendering quality, and it's like, well, they didn't even have Well. See,
here's another important aspect to keep in mind is the
processing power that's available. And if you're talking about an
organization that has virtually unlimited budgets like the military does,
of course they're going to have greater processing power. But see,
the principle is already there. You know, ray tracing and
stuff like that, where you can you know, simulate photo
realistic environments. The limitation on it is the processing power.
And according to the stuff I read, that you need
a petaflop, which is like, you know, standard desktop computers
are operating on gigahertz. Petaflop is what a thousand gigahertz
or something on that order, maybe even more. I'm not
exactly sure, but even official sources they've exceeded that a
long time ago. And another interesting thing is that if
you look at these big supercomputers that the military has
or the government has, uh and the chips that they use,
because there's these big arrays, you know, there's these interlinked
network computers that share processing cycles, and there'll be hundreds
and hundreds of these things and in racks, you know,
rack mounted systems, and guess what the actual chip set
that they use in these things, is the exact they
use the chip that's in the PlayStation PlayStation. Yeah, and
they say that, oh well, you know, because you know,
the question naturally comes up is like what are you
doing with all of this process and power? It's like, oh,
we will we use it to keep track of the
nuke uh inventory. It's like, yeah, yeah, that's really interesting,
keep track of the nuke inventory. You need that much
processing power to keep track of the nuke inventory? You know.
It's like, uh, I don't, I don't.
Speaker 1: Couldn't he couldn't, couldn't quick books keep track.
Speaker 4: Like an Xcel spreadsheet. It's like they need they need,
uh the road Runner super pedophalop computer to do all this.
It's like, yeah, I don't think so, but that's the
official story on it. But yeah, well it's the damn
matrix is in there. I think. Yeah, I mean you
can take uh, well, you you've seen the video games.
They're about there. As far as photo realism, it's just
like I said, the limits are the processing power to
render things fully you know, photo realistic, and uh I
think they've had it, you know, well they had it. Well,
you I think you saw the results on nine to eleven.
I mean, that's now throwing that out there. You know
why why I think that is so is because you
talk about as a knowing the nature of the military
what it really is, and the concept of perception management,
and like, you know, you gave that hissed Kissinger quote,
that's not what what's really real that matters is what's
perceived is real. It's like, of course they would that
would that would be the like an ultimate.
Speaker 1: Ultimate Yeah, exactly, the ultimate weapon.
Speaker 4: And you can make any scenario that you want anywhere
in the world that you want because you have the
world in a simulated.
Speaker 6: Yes, and who's and who's going to go investigate to
see if what you're saying is fake? And then if
even if they do, nobody's gonna believe it because they'll
have forgotten two weeks later.
Speaker 4: Right, and people are ignorant about what actually exists and
knowledge the power to keep it, keep it under wraps
and gives some just ridiculous story about why they need
all that process or exactly what they're doing with it.
Now I can I understand too. That is it's also
used for you know, modeling, you know, complex systems, and
stuff like that, which they've rented out to do that
sort of thing to you know, scientific institutions and all that,
and I understand that, but it yeah, it's I think
it's really telling that it's the uh, it's basically a
giant PlayStation four.
Speaker 6: There you go, that's the best way to put it. Well,
I didn't, yeah, exactly. And then you run simulations to
see what the most likely outcomes of different actions would be.
Speaker 4: No, I think that too. I think that's an element
of this. Well, it's been referred to as sentient world
simulation and that there's some public stuff about that. And
now you'll hear that they can predict with the over
ninety percent accuracy certain outcomes of certain things. I don't
know if that's true.
Speaker 1: Who knows that that's just propaganda right right?
Speaker 4: Could be just propaganda. And it kind of is reminiscent
of the nukes, Yeah, nukes or you know what, you know,
gauging people's reactions. I think maybe so that they could
get some accurate modeling on that. I don't know. But
then also the concept of pre crime, so they're even
saying that, oh, we can predict when a robbery will
take place in a city or something like that. It's like,
I don't know about that, but that's what they're saying.
I mean, they're saying all this stuff. They're making all
these claims surrounding this, uh these systems, and.
Speaker 6: Well, I don't think they're really actually able to predict
where the crime is going to happen. I think that
they're saying that so that they can sell the implementation
of the next level of the surveillance simulation grid.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and if you can create the belief in that, right,
then that's yeah, that's really remnant, remini is it of
I'm already report or or even like the Stazzy and
the Soviet Union kind of stuff, they would do like
come and snatch you, and it's like, oh, you're a
thought criminal or something exactly, or you know, you got
flagged in our pre crime system. You're about to commit
a rhyme. But it's like I didn't even know that
I was about to, uh take this machete and drop
down some weeds in my freaking yard. I don't know.
It's like, yeah, whatever, you know, I don't No, that's
maybe that might be a little far fetched, but.
Speaker 6: Well no, actually I've said it many times that that's
what she says it in her lectures the IBM CEO,
she says that they're going to implement. Now, I mean,
she may just be maybe may just be a selling
point for what she's trying to push, but she literally
says it's pre crime like Minority Report in her lectures
when she talks about the smart cities.
Speaker 4: Oh well, they'll they'll be pre crime programs implemented, that's
what you say. Literally, Yeah, yeah, well I yeah, well
that I guess I changed my mind just now on
that because I've certainly seen enough stuff out there where
there are creating where they're where they're creating the perception
in people's minds. I mean, you see, well, it was
one one film I watched, which I try to I
try to look at anything that's supposed to be you know,
dystopian or something like that, future science fiction and stuff
like that. I kind of like science fiction. But yeah,
you see a lot of stuff in these films and uh, well.
Speaker 1: No, I'm sorry, well the uh.
Speaker 4: I was trying to think of the name of it,
the dang oh judge dread.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, there you go. Yeah. In fact, I was
thinking about that.
Speaker 6: The other day because the topic of the the megacities
and the smart cities came up, and I was thinking, well,
show that's actually.
Speaker 1: That's a great symbolic.
Speaker 6: Presentation, because you've got everybody living in this giant high rise,
you know, and there's like eight of them, and you know,
under the guise of the fact that you know, the
population is too too huge in this megacity, so we
got to build upward because we can't build you know, outward.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 6: And then everybody's under this total police state surveillance exactly.
Speaker 4: And then like one of the characters in there is psychic,
so she can see the future.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, she works for the cops.
Speaker 4: Yeah right, yeah, she works for the cops. And then
so so she can see the future. So that's there's
another example of of getting across the concept that the well, yeah,
the cops can see in the police and the authorities
can see into the future now and all that, which
is of course the theme of Minority Report and these
other I know, there's other examples. I can't think of
him right now.
Speaker 1: But well, the.
Speaker 6: If you listen to the CEE the IBM CEO's talk,
she gives these two or three of their's on the
IBM YouTube channel. She gives these talks in Singapore and
Rio and she says, you know, in the next few years,
we plan to convert Singapore and Rio into operating smart cities.
Speaker 1: And so who is her name. Her name is Jenny Romedy.
Speaker 6: She's the CEO of IBM, and she's given these talks
and she's saying, you're basically selling it to all these
corporate tech head people and the audience of these of
these two cities, and she's saying, Oh, it's gonna be
so great because you know what we I'm not joking,
this is what she's I'm not saying that it really
they really can really do it. I'm just saying this
is her selling point is she says, we're going to
have everybody in the cities medical records uploaded to the
central database of the the AI system that's going to
run the city. All the infrastructure of the city will
be tied in, It'll be r F I D, it'll
all be you know, the net everywhere, Internet everywhere, obviously,
and she says anywhere that you go and that what
you do, you're going to be perfectly safe because we
will have the ability through the predictive algorithms to implement
pre crime, and she literally says that, Now, obviously that's
probably propaganda, and I don't think that they, like you said,
can they really predict the future with ninety percent accuracy?
Who knows, But that is her selling point for implementing.
Speaker 1: The RIO and Singapore smart Cities.
Speaker 4: Well, Jay, doesn't that make you feel safe and secure
and war them all over?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 6: I know it's true because I had a friend who
worked at low level at IBM and his job, his
whole job, this is like four.
Speaker 1: Or five years ago, before he moved on to a
new job.
Speaker 6: His whole job was to just walk in, go into
this giant room full of scanners, and his section was
tasked with scanning every soldier military records, excuse me, that
medical rec So the only reason he had to have
a security clearance was just because he was scanning soldier stuff.
But all he did all day was sit there and
take this big chunk stack, stick it in this machine
and scanned it for Xerox slash IBM.
Speaker 4: So they're So what you're saying is that they're aggregating
everybody's records as we speak right now.
Speaker 6: I believe that absolutely, and that's what Google. Google did
the same thing with you know, Google books. Remember how
they were It was in the news, you.
Speaker 1: Know A Jones Jones used to talk about it five
or six years ago.
Speaker 6: Folks, Google's putting every book. They're taking every book. Folks,
They're gonna take every book. Now, that's true. That's true
in a sense. They have digitized, not every book. I
don't know how you could. That would take forever. But
but I can tell you for a fact that you
know they've been digitizing everybody's medical records.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well that yeah, yeah, I imagine that's true. And
as the books, yeah, the but well, yeah, you can
go in and and which is actually pretty cool on
one level though, I mean the Google Books because you
can search within copies of books, which is pretty pretty
freaking fantastic. I mean, I think it's a great application
of technology. I mean, don't get me wrong. But yeah,
on the other hand, it's like, wow, this is like
one company doing all the sea. Now Google's the military,
Google's the military industrial complex. I'm pins to that.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 4: Somebody sent me something a long time ago, and it
was like, it's just one of those things I haven't
really gone and talked about or looked at. But yeah,
the location of Google and where they were, where there were,
their position in relation to like defense contract and all
that stuff. It's like, yeah, obviously just another another extension
of uh uh the complex. But yeah, it's not to
go not to change subjects, but this is something I
wanted to talk about, Like when we and John were
talking about the debates and and uh, like we we
just had like an hour there, which is not there
long enough time to kind of go go extensively into
a lot of stuff. But then I wanted to go
into pointing out that, Okay, corporations and government are the same,
Like that's that's another thing I think that needs to
be pointed out as like Okay, so you have Hillary
as a representative of government and then you have Trump
representative corporations. But they're the same. I mean, you got
the revolving door between you see it all the time.
Or you'll have someone that's prominent in corporations go into
government and back and vice versa, back and forth. Or
the attorney of Mont Santo go thehead of the Department
of Agriculture, right or stuff like that, and it it
I don't think people are that aware of that. Fact
is that, you know, you're basically essentially referring to the
same entity when you're talking about big government and big
business because they're they're so integrated and locked at the hip.
It's and and it's obvious on so many levels. But yeah,
the idea that that that Google would be just you know,
a part of the uh you know, the whole military
industrial complex and everything that that is not far fetched
at all, and that has far more explanatory power as
far as how they rose to prominence so quickly.
Speaker 1: I think, Yeah, I think that's obvious.
Speaker 6: I mean, we know of the backstory with in q
Tel and Facebook and in q Tel put money into Google.
Speaker 1: That that was in books.
Speaker 6: By CIA people back in two thousand and five.
Speaker 1: I've got the book.
Speaker 6: So there's no doubt that I think the entire all
of that whole complex in Silicon Valley, you know, it's
part of the same entity. And there's this there is
at a level, you know, this idea of competition. You know,
Google is going to compete with Facebook maybe at some level,
but not at the top, No.
Speaker 4: Way compete with Facebook.
Speaker 6: Yeah, you'll see these articles come out every now and then, like, oh,
Facebook wants to compete with Google over uploading videos, and
so Facebook's going to limit what can be done with
links to YouTube because Facebook wants people uploading directly to Facebook. Now,
I mean, I don't believe there's a real competition between
Facebook and Google for that. And you remember when Google
came out with their social networking thing, Google Plus, and
that was like, oh, Google Plus couldn't compete with Facebook
and all this stuff.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, yeah, but yeah, they want to create the
perception that there's real competition and yeah, we've talked about
that a lot before, where there is no real competition
that at a certain level. There's real competition on on
the lower level of economy for sure. But then well,
like we're talking on Skype right now, wasn't just Skype
developed by some Swedish company or something and then Microsoft
bought it out exactly, So, which is makes total sense
that Okay, they want to you know, acquire properties instead
of like going through all the expenditure of R and
D are doing something in development and then maybe it
might be a big fail or whatever. Just just acquires
something that's already successful.
Speaker 6: Yeah, at the mid level, let the competitive market happen.
That's a lot better than exactly trying to manufacture progress.
Why not let it happen and then just acquire whoever's
thing works the best.
Speaker 4: Oh do you see that article I put on Hope,
so's call dot com the AT and T is gonna
acquire Time Warner I did.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 6: In fact, I've seen that in some other news postings.
So yeah, just more consolidation.
Speaker 4: Totally, which that is tremendous, isn't. I mean that is
just over the time AT and T. Think about how
big AT T is. It's like I got and then
Time Warner, I mean, Time Warner is not too long ago.
And then that's why it struck me, was that, Yeah,
didn't we just go through a bunch of acquisitions that
Time Warner had just got to finish doing, like.
Speaker 1: Exactly too long ago. Yeah, well, Time and then Time
Warner brothers.
Speaker 4: Yeah yeah, and then they've yeah, and then a whole
bunch of other things, right yeah, and then now a
T and Time Warner are going to be one. Well yeah,
and then it goes.
Speaker 1: AT and T is the world's biggest Internet provider. I
know because yeah, I worked at AT and T for
a year or so in a T and T in
sales yeah, just selling iPhones.
Speaker 6: But I think uh, I think I mentioned it a
couple of times on like the early chats we had,
like we would take we had to take a bunch
of courses, and we went to the giant Regional Data Center,
which they even told us when we went there, Uh
in Nashville did it? It stores all the Internet traffic
for this whole region, which was like three or four states.
And you go to this facility which was a former
government facility by the way, and uh, the you can't
go to the lower levels, so you could have like
a security clearance to go down there.
Speaker 1: And then the lower levels are just all these servers
that are that's storing all the all the data.
Speaker 6: So they told us that's what they were Yeah, this
is all the Internet data and traffic for this whole region.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 6: And so by the way that we I was taking
that class at the time of the snowed and stuff
first coming out. So I'm sitting here saying, you know,
Snowed's not going to change anything, and people were arguing
with me at the time. They were like, oh, yeah,
this is this is gonna change the whole system. I
was like, dude, I just went to the fucking data
center in Nashville and stood on top of the entire
region's traffic.
Speaker 1: And I was like, that ain't going to be shut down.
It's private. It's owned by AT and T.
Speaker 6: So even if the NSA was shut down, which wouldn't
happen anyway, the private NSA, which is AT and T,
is still everywhere.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I like how they And here's the thing too, And
it's all you know, what I harp on constantly is
legal legal, legal ease. It's like, yeah, the government's not
collecting your data. It's like, okay, so they're not technically
collecting it, but AT and T is and giving it
to the government. Like, you know, big difference, right, I mean,
what's the difference? But no, I mean it now you
can with with the corporate structure and then the like
I said, they're all integrated at a certain level with
the government and corporations. They're they're defined though as distinct entities.
But in all this malleu of all these different you know,
contrivances is artificial, you know, fictions of legal ease and everything.
They can make out any statement and it's like technically
legally true, no, we didn't do that, But see now
they did do it, but they didn't do it in
the way it's going to read on paper, right because
it's legal ease.
Speaker 6: Yeah, It's like it reminds me of the people who
think that they can petition the government for a Foyer
request and that the government is like that, now we
got to tell the truth that we can't lie because.
Speaker 1: Of a request.
Speaker 4: Yeah, a foyer request. Yeah yeah, I know. I love that.
I mean, and and then you know, people will make
a lot out of it something that came out of
a FOIA request. Yeah, that's I'm glad you brought that
up because they're reminding me. Okay, this wiki league stuff.
Now I want to get your take on that. But
before I do, I want to tell you something I
heard somebody's talking about how like in the emails they
exposed the they're talking about UFOs and the disclosure project
in the so I guess it, like m on, now,
damn it. It's like I I you know, I know,
I my take on weekileage saying is a scam. I
mean it's a scam. I mean, come on. But it's
like after I heard that, I was like, yeah, so
this is just another example of how well this stuff works.
Speaker 6: I don't know what to make of it, honestly, because
I've argued all along that it is a scam and
I do think it still is.
Speaker 1: And I think that a song just fake and all that.
Speaker 6: I think a lot of those emails are real though,
so maybe the luck people like people at the level
of Podesta and campaign people, they probably don't know like
how all this stuff really works. They're you know, at
a certain level, compartmentalized level.
Speaker 1: And it could be giant theater.
Speaker 6: Which again, I do think Wiki Leaks is a like
a limited hangout sort of thing.
Speaker 1: And that's why you see by the way, Wiki Leaks
was a big deal.
Speaker 6: And then when that kind of expired, who's who took
this center stage Snowden. Snowden got old, so they trucked
out a signe again you.
Speaker 4: See, Oh, Pamela Anderson poisoned them with the vegetarian so
he's dead now, right.
Speaker 6: I don't know, I mean, I don't know. I have
no idea what is going on with all that. I
don't think it's real, but I don't know what the
deal is, like why because because I do think they're
real emails. But I've noticed that if you if you
paid attention to wiki leaks, what they've done is released
blowney crap and then a little bit of stuff like cables,
which is not that big of a deal.
Speaker 1: Uh, so they.
Speaker 6: Mix, you know, it's kind of great propaganda, Like they'll
mix a little bit of real leak in with a
bunch of crap and what is called targeted leaks. Like
there's a good article that Patrick did or somebody to
me for Central Ward.
Speaker 1: Don't remember who.
Speaker 6: Did it, but it was about the Panama leaks, which
are pretty clearly targeted leaks. So fake whistle blowing, fake
leaking is a good a classic tactic to smear people or.
Speaker 1: Divert or you.
Speaker 6: Know, make everybody, makes a certain person look look like
a bad guy on the real bad guys somewhere else.
So that could be. I mean, I'm not saying I
do think Hillary Clinton's a bad guy. So yeah, I
don't know why. I haven't figured out yet why they
would leak a bunch of stuff just on Hillary, because
I've been under the impression and I'm not saying that
Trump's real, I've been under the impression that, oh, you know,
they're going to go with Hillary and all this, So
what do you think. I don't I don't know why
they would if a song just fake? Why would they
do that? Unless maybe there's like a level of people
who just.
Speaker 1: Really don't like Hillary in the government. I guess that's possible,
but I don't know. What do you think?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I see what you're saying. It's almost like Hillary
is the clear choice, and why come out with damaging
stuff like up to the election? Why allow it to
come out? And it was even it was even alluded
to in the debates, right, Chris Wallace, Yeah, yes, right,
I I think it is because I've said this too before.
Speaker 6: It kind of goes like, oh yeah, yeah, I remember
when we were eating you said that, right, that to
get rid of the system as it is.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they want to. I think that there is how
long this is going to take. I don't know how
many more actual elections will be. I have no idea.
I'm not going to try to make any predictions or anything,
but yeah, I do think that this current political system. Now,
something you've talked about a lot too is the rise
of scientism. Right. You brought this up in Uh it
doesn't care will quickly reflect.
Speaker 6: Quiggly has been saying the system as it is has
to go. So that would seem then to include the
existing political structure, even already rigged, but to move it
into a new phase.
Speaker 4: Yeah. And then you know they've talked about to the
merger of the Soviet and UH and West, and then
that's part of the third or third wave, right or
and the Soviet means rule by council. So they have
the rise of the n G O S. And then
at the same time we're seeing this pop this heavy
move toward the popularization of like science and scientism and
the Yeah, Oppenheimer I think was the first example of
what he's like, a theoretical physicist and and you know,
a science kind of popularist, you know. Tight and then
you were saying that quickly referred to him as sort
of this public uh uh now what now what do
you say that he.
Speaker 6: Calls him and calls him a great administrator and cultural critic.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, there you go, And that's that who is
you know, Neil de Grasse Tyson and you know, uh,
those you know, Bill nine and those type people, you know,
they're not mitchell O Kaku be a better whenever he's
a he's a theoretical physicist, Yeah, they're there. They're they're
these you know popularists, you know science and you know
social commentators among other things. And yeah, they're being really
played up. I believe in this phase. At the same time,
the whole conception of politics and the political system is
being just just just disintegrated, like broken down. And uh,
I think that's part of it. And I think too
that it is adds a lot of additional drama to
the whole theatrics. That's part of the whole thing, because
I think it's inconsequential as far as Hillary supporters go.
They don't give a damn it's coming out in these emails.
It could say that Hillary Clinton gave birth to zeno
morph or something. They wouldn't do. It wouldn't matter.
Speaker 6: She sacrificed babies, and yeah.
Speaker 4: While giving birth is you know, you know, like you
know what, any any the most gruesome thing you can
think of could be in there and it wouldn't Yet
it wouldn't matter, you know, to the Hillary diehards out
there that you know, people people are people who vote
I think in generally speaking, not saying everybody, but people
who I think, generally speaking or vote are just really
just reactive you know, they're just you know, reflect they reflexively,
you know and compulsively go and get caught up in
this sort of psycho drama. It's a psycho dramas.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and it's like it's like a sports team and
you know, like people are devoted to, you know, the
Chicago Bears because they're from Chicago and they've grown up.
You know, dad took them to the football game and
all this kind of stuff.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and then you know, yeah, well we've seen the
same thing in sports too, where somebody gets brought up
on some like really serious charges, so you know about
something they did, like to beat the hell out of
their girlfriend or something they almost die or something like that,
and then they get right back out later, right or
they get they're not they're not, Yeah, they're not totally
disowned by the sports fans of the or you know.
It's it's a lot of uh yeah, even the worst
kind of crimes, it's not you know, it's different if
you're a high prominent sports figure. I always saw the
pedophile guy come out with the was the Sandusky and
uh oh yeah. People you know, make any kind of
mental gymnastics possible and make excuses for the guy because
he was a hero. He's like sports sports, what did
he actually do? He coach? He was like the coach
and stuff. So a really big deal in our society.
And it's like yeah, and it's like I don't see
politics is that much difference. It's like like, yeah, who
was like anti identity politics? You know, that's kind of
like something that who was talking about Secker? You know
Tom Secker? You ever listened to him? Like Tom Secker? Yeah, yeah,
he kind of emphasized that a lot, and he's talked
he was doing his analysis, and I said, yeah, that
that is true. That is like really being kind of
uh really fine, really focused in on now. It seems
like the kind of conception of this uh identity politics
where you know, it's like you have all these people
that simply because Hilary Clinton is a woman, yes, yeah, yeah,
and then that's of course it's a big that's a
big component of all this and that. Yeah. So when
you kind of step away and look at it and
it's like that's that's all that really to the to
the to the majority, I think that that is what
is really sort of animating though those people like, you know,
the identity politics and then what what she represents symbolically
and what he represents symbolically.
Speaker 6: Yes, he represents the patriarchal white guy, misogynist capitalist, and
then she represents the complete opposite, polar opposite, the liberal
pro woman feminists, you know, socialist.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, and yeah we brought that up before too.
How it's like these these custom crafted sort of villains
for the other side, Like like bush was like the
oil man talked with the fake Texas accident, and you know,
it's great for the left to hate. He's perfect.
Speaker 6: I used the googles, maps a lot of maps, and
the Googles the internets.
Speaker 4: I didn't know you did, Georgia bush Man. That's really good.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Have you heard that clip? That's why of the
funniest ones. Have you heard that.
Speaker 4: One where he's talking about the internets?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I just posted up something about him, and it's
got a It was a link to a clip when
he was when he was attending university or something. He's
like young, young body, and he's totally doesn't have an accent,
and he's totally talking like an Eastern Sea border and
he's like totally articulate, doesn't stumble over his words, he's
like really sharp sound.
Speaker 6: I remember Alex used to talk about that. He would say, folks,
they're not real Texans. Okay, I've seen him. I've seen
they came down here and they started they started wearing hats. Folks,
they pretend to be from Texas. It's not real folks.
They're from They're from New England.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, yeah, no, yeah, well he he allegedly went
to college or was raised in in what Midland, Texas
or whatever. But of course they're gonna be good going
back and forth between and then Mike, why doesn't his
brother have an act? I mean, come on, but it's like, yeah,
I know, it's just but what was your talking?
Speaker 1: Okay, well, I think.
Speaker 6: He was talking about he was talking about w because
W was if I recall, he was from East Coast
and then and then got into the oil business, so
then he would have to come to Texas for that.
And then they, he says, they, you know, took on
the the persona of being you know, these Texan ranchers
and good, good old Americans, but they're totally Eastern establishment,
you know Anglo files As quickly calls.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the Anglo American establishment. Yeah, they that that and
I think that Bush or Baby Bush or whatever you
want to call him went through probably extensive coaching, voice
coaching and stuff, because his accent is actually really good.
But you saw it in that video I posted with
him and that comedian impersonator. Yeah, and then Bush kind
of like really emphasizes his whole stick there to where
it's obvious.
Speaker 1: Well and w Senior doesn't really talk that way. He
doesn't have the Southern accent.
Speaker 6: So I well, I guess, like you said, that Junior
is supposed to be raised in Texas or whatever. But anyway,
I'm gonna have to go. I've got a prayer commitment.
But it's been good talk.
Speaker 4: Oh great man. Yeah, yeah, I appreciate having you on again.
And that was real good. Yeah, good conversation.
Speaker 1: Cool, all right, have a good night. It was good
to hang out and have a couple of beers too.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that was great man. I enjoyed it. Memphis. Yeah,
that's cool. Yeah, hopefully we'll be able to do that
again sometime.
Speaker 1: All right, man, have a good night.
Speaker 4: All right too,