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