Speaker 1: Oh bed of Fred, Hello and welcome to the show.
Speaker 2: This is the Cult of Conspiracy, and my name is Jonathan,
Speaker 2: I'm Jacob, and today we are continuing this deep dive
Speaker 2: of a journey into the Tavistock Institute, mainly as far
Speaker 2: as the music industry and pop culture goes.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the uh I mean, don't get me wrong, this group,
Speaker 3: this institution has done so much we could probably just
Speaker 3: do an entire pod based on them. To be honest
Speaker 3: with you, we are only hitting the keynotes. We started
Speaker 3: off talking about how they implemented their brainwashing tactics into
Speaker 3: the American government, right and they pulled back the tariffs,
Speaker 3: they implemented the irs. Then they got everybody involved in
Speaker 3: world wars, and this was to break down the monarchical
Speaker 3: status of Europe. Then they decided, all right, if America
Speaker 3: is the biggest dog in the fight right now, how
Speaker 3: can we crumble this empire? So then they decided to
Speaker 3: start coming after the American culture. They started trying to
Speaker 3: dissolve the nuclear family. And then in between from World
Speaker 3: War Two to the sixties, the fifties were like that lull, right,
Speaker 3: A lot of people and I'm not necessarily one of them,
Speaker 3: but a lot of people would consider that to be
Speaker 3: peak America, right, the Golden era. If you think of
Speaker 3: like America around the country, you think of big bodied,
Speaker 3: chevy bel airs, dudes with the grease or haircut, single
Speaker 3: income households, you know, the whole nine. The fifties were
Speaker 3: seen as the quote unquote pinnacle of American culture.
Speaker 4: Right the decade after Roswell, you.
Speaker 3: Mean, indeed, indeed, and then immediately after that, we have
Speaker 3: the anti war movement. We've got Vietnam, We've got hippies,
Speaker 3: We've got a whole lot of things on the musical
Speaker 3: scene that had never really been there before, a lot
Speaker 3: of different messages that we're trying to be conveyed to
Speaker 3: the American youth into the newly formed term called teenagers
Speaker 3: that had never been pushed in that regard. So all
Speaker 3: of these things can be traced back to the Tavistock Institute. Now,
Speaker 3: yesterday we talked a little bit about Jim Morrison, we
Speaker 3: talked about the Beatles, we talked about the Stones, and
Speaker 3: now we are talking about the Laurel Canyon situation. How
Speaker 3: many artists came out of this area, how many of
Speaker 3: them were involved with Tavistock. How many of them conveying
Speaker 3: messages that were told to them by Tavistock.
Speaker 5: So let's see where we left off.
Speaker 3: Yesterday we were talking about Steven Stills right from the
Speaker 3: band Crosby Stills in Nash right, and we were talking about.
Speaker 5: Them a little bit.
Speaker 3: Now we're gonna continue on with the Laurel Canyon, and
Speaker 3: we're gonna continue talking about the mamas and the papas,
Speaker 3: specifically one of the mamas named cass Elliott.
Speaker 2: I do want to say, though, for anybody that's just
Speaker 2: tuning in that doesn't listen to every episode. I know
Speaker 2: we put out a lot of shows, we do a
Speaker 2: lot of deep dives, we have a lot of conversations.
Speaker 2: But if you would like a little bit more of
Speaker 2: Jacob's famous bricked up word context as to what we're
Speaker 2: talking about, then go and listen to the previous Tavistock
Speaker 2: Institute episodes that we had done. It actually should be
Speaker 2: the two previous Cult of Conspiracy episodes on the Cult
Speaker 2: of Conspiracy podcast. So if you want to dive all
Speaker 2: the way into this rabbit hole, or maybe you just
Speaker 2: want to start right here, we'll do our very to
Speaker 2: try and keep everybody caught up. But essentially, this is
Speaker 2: a book that was written by an alleged former MI
Speaker 2: six agent who was able to kind of break a
Speaker 2: lot of this down and kind of kind of like
Speaker 2: a whistleblower in a sense. If you really think about it,
Speaker 2: it's like, what was this guy in the eighties?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 3: He started publishing his work in the early nineties, I'm
Speaker 3: not mistaken.
Speaker 2: Oh, and I think this book came out like two
Speaker 2: thousand and two or two thousand and four or something
Speaker 2: like that.
Speaker 4: But he has a lot of information.
Speaker 2: And I know that there's a lot of conspiracies out there,
Speaker 2: and a lot of them are very hard to prove,
Speaker 2: but this guy was able to be very specific, much
Speaker 2: more specific than your average run of the mill conspiracy theorist.
Speaker 2: Like this guy absolutely was fully immersed in all of this.
Speaker 2: So either he was a full on one of the
Speaker 2: most intelligent, deranged lunatics who comes up with these amazing
Speaker 2: out of this world fantasies, which there are people out
Speaker 2: there like, let's just.
Speaker 3: Be d indeed, but this you can also a fact
Speaker 3: check him and you can pull back and see what
Speaker 3: happened on what date and with what person and where
Speaker 3: and apparently your boy hasn't missed yet.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, so uh, really really cool, really cool information here,
Speaker 2: especially if you're somebody that really wants to know. This
Speaker 2: is the motherload of conspiracies. Like, if all of this
Speaker 2: is true, this is the motherload you want to talk about.
Speaker 2: Literally every thought that you have has been construed in
Speaker 2: a way that they want you to think that way.
Speaker 2: It goes into the moral compass and you're subconscious and
Speaker 2: like your day to day thoughts are literally being controlled
Speaker 2: or at least suggested to in a way that it dude,
Speaker 2: it's so sinister.
Speaker 4: It's so sinister. So I love this kind of stuff.
Speaker 2: But let's get get started back to where we finished,
Speaker 2: it says before arriving in Laurel Canyon and opening the
Speaker 2: doors of his home to the soon so the soon
Speaker 2: to be famous, the already famous, and the infamous, such
Speaker 2: as the aforementioned Charlie Manson, whose quotes family also spent
Speaker 2: time at the Log Cabin and at the Laurel Canyon
Speaker 2: home of Mama cass Elliott, which, in case you didn't know,
Speaker 2: sat right across the street from the Laurel Canyon home
Speaker 2: of Abigail Folger and Void Tech Frakowski.
Speaker 4: But let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Speaker 2: That's one of the biggest like parentheses side notes that
Speaker 2: I've ever seen. So John Edmund Andrew Phillips was shockingly enough,
Speaker 2: yet another child of the military intelligence complex. The son
Speaker 2: of US Marine Corps Captain Claude Andrew Phillips and the
Speaker 2: mother who claimed to have a psychic in telekinetic powers.
Speaker 2: John attended a series of elite military prep schools in Washington,
Speaker 2: DC area, culminating in an appointment to the prestigious US
Speaker 2: Naval Academy at Annapolis. Another of those icons in one
Speaker 2: of Laurel Canyon's most flamboyant residents, is a young man
Speaker 2: by the name of David Crosby, founding member of the
Speaker 2: Seminole Laurel Canyon bands the Birds as We as well
Speaker 2: as of course Crosby stills in nash Crosby is not
Speaker 2: surprisingly the son of an Annapolis graduate in World War
Speaker 2: II military intelligence officer Major Floyd Delafield Crosby. Like others
Speaker 2: in this story, Floyd Crosby spent much of his post
Speaker 2: service time traveling the world. Those travels landed him in
Speaker 2: places like Haiti, where he paid a visit in nineteen
Speaker 2: twenty seven, when the country just happened to be coincidentally,
Speaker 2: of course, under military occupation by the US Marines. One
Speaker 2: of the Marines doing that occupying was a guy that
Speaker 2: we met earlier by the name of Captain Claude Andrew Phillips.
Speaker 4: Dude, that's the thing.
Speaker 2: It's that, you know, you think that a lot of
Speaker 2: movements and a lot of like your pop cultures and
Speaker 2: the people who are speaking out because you think that
Speaker 2: what they're saying is right, and you really want to
Speaker 2: get in that vibe and riff with them, and oh
Speaker 2: my god, yeah, he's actually he's preaching some shit, right,
Speaker 2: And then you find out it's like, why do they
Speaker 2: all have like former CIA parents or you know, military
Speaker 2: intelligence parents.
Speaker 4: It's always this way.
Speaker 5: What's that?
Speaker 3: What's that one nasty ass hippie wanna be influencer chick.
Speaker 5: Shannon Blake right like her, I bet you do?
Speaker 3: She all she sings about high vibe things and hippie
Speaker 3: dippy things and all that.
Speaker 5: Then you find out that her.
Speaker 3: Dad is a contract pilot quote unquote for Lockheed Martin
Speaker 3: and he's absolutely a part of the military industrial complex.
Speaker 3: And it's like wait, oh, oh, so you are a plant.
Speaker 3: So Shannon Blake, there's nothing special about her. It's not
Speaker 3: like the lyrics of her song or something that most
Speaker 3: New age type people don't say on a daily basis.
Speaker 5: It's just that.
Speaker 3: She's objectively pretty and she her TikTok algorithm was boosted
Speaker 3: in such a way to.
Speaker 5: Make her famous. Ah gotcha.
Speaker 3: And the same could be said for all these people
Speaker 3: that we're talking about here, all these artists from back
Speaker 3: in the sixties, like and I love Jim Morrison, right,
Speaker 3: and I loved the Beatles, and I loved listening to
Speaker 3: these musics. Buffalo Buffalo, Springfield was brought up here, Crosby Stills,
Speaker 3: and Nash Credence, Like, they're bringing up bands that I
Speaker 3: absolutely love. But with that addendum, pretty much all of
Speaker 3: their parents were a part of military intelligence in some way,
Speaker 3: shape or form. And it's like, ooh, okay, so does
Speaker 3: Jacob actually like these bands? Or is it that these
Speaker 3: bands music was engineered in such a way to where
Speaker 3: we're still singing their songs sixty years post recording.
Speaker 4: You see what I'm saying, right right? It's like you
Speaker 4: talk about it all the time.
Speaker 2: What's that one like Church band that got Hill song, Yeah,
Speaker 2: got like super big because they know exactly which rhythm
Speaker 2: and which light show and which words to say in
Speaker 2: order to make everybody think that the Holy Spirit is
Speaker 2: all the way around them whenever they're playing their music
Speaker 2: Like that is the level of subconscious, like tinker, and
Speaker 2: so it's down to a science, Like they understand how
Speaker 2: the human mind works. They understand what makes a person
Speaker 2: do certain things and think certain things and counteract and
Speaker 2: all these kind of things. So whenever, whenever we say
Speaker 2: that there are legit like crisis actors, like it's not
Speaker 2: a joke, Like it's absolutely the first of all, there
Speaker 2: are absolutely crisis actors. We talked about the crisis actor
Speaker 2: school a time or two before.
Speaker 4: But there are also.
Speaker 2: Even the people that are being controlled in ways that
Speaker 2: they don't even know that they're being controlled, that are
Speaker 2: carrying out whatever the government or the elites want you
Speaker 2: to carry out, you know. And that's where it gets
Speaker 2: really sick, because it's like there is no original movement.
Speaker 3: I mean, somebody had to originate the thought, right, somebody
Speaker 3: had to think, all right, we want this to happen.
Speaker 5: Let's talk Hegelian dialectic real quick.
Speaker 3: We want the public to feel this right, or we
Speaker 3: want this group of people to feel this way.
Speaker 5: How do we get there? What chain of events?
Speaker 3: What domino effect can we instill to make sure that
Speaker 3: we get this result out of this group of people, right?
Speaker 5: So they formulate the.
Speaker 3: Plot, they put it all together, and then yet that
Speaker 3: one thing that kickstarts at that one flick of the
Speaker 3: first domino that sets everything else into effect. Apparently, and
Speaker 3: by all of our research that we can find, and
Speaker 3: I have done more research behind.
Speaker 5: The scenes on this one.
Speaker 3: I can't find anything to dispel the Tavistock Institute being
Speaker 3: in fact, the oldest on record brainwashing institute on Earth
Speaker 3: that is still operating in.
Speaker 5: That way today.
Speaker 3: And they get hired not just by governments, dude, They
Speaker 3: get hired by companies and ad agencies to tell them
Speaker 3: what color scheme this ad should be, What images should
Speaker 3: this ad show? What things would help us sell this
Speaker 3: new brand of candy more than the others like this?
Speaker 5: This is what they do.
Speaker 3: So when we find out that they were implemented and
Speaker 3: pivotal in the hippie movement of America which started the
Speaker 3: dissolving of the American.
Speaker 5: Culture, it's like, oh, yep, I absolutely could see it.
Speaker 4: Yeah for sure.
Speaker 2: And even think about, like all the companies out there
Speaker 2: that pay millions of dollars for the simplest of logos, right,
Speaker 2: like this is because the people that are creating those
Speaker 2: logos are very well versed in symbolism and and you know,
Speaker 2: certain color schemes that are going to play to the
Speaker 2: subconscious mind and stuff like that. And even think about,
Speaker 2: like on two and a half men, right, Charlie Sheen,
Speaker 2: he wrote jingles. That's what he did, right exactly, And
Speaker 2: those people that are writing those jingles.
Speaker 4: It's not just a catchy tune, dude.
Speaker 2: It is literally like tickling the the fucking ivories of
Speaker 2: your subconscious mind whenever these songs are being played.
Speaker 4: Like, why is it that you know you?
Speaker 3: You?
Speaker 2: I can't remember my mom's phone number, but I can
Speaker 2: tell you Gordon McKernan Law Offices phone number of Baton Rouge.
Speaker 5: How is that fair? Well? How about this?
Speaker 4: Have you seen the card game logos logos? No?
Speaker 3: Okay, So if you want to look this up as
Speaker 3: a matter of fact, this is to prove the point
Speaker 3: of how it's like sigil magic, it's color schemes, it's
Speaker 3: patterns and all of this.
Speaker 4: Oh essentially, I know what you're talking about.
Speaker 3: Okay, Yeah, it's a card game where you see it
Speaker 3: gives you a portion of some colors on it, but
Speaker 3: it doesn't show the word, it doesn't show the company name.
Speaker 3: And based on how well you know, that's how you
Speaker 3: win the games. If you can call out the logo
Speaker 3: that that's supposed to look like right now, tell me
Speaker 3: that you've been brainwashed without telling me you've been brainwashed,
Speaker 3: if you're able to win that game against your contemporaries, right.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, yeah, like even like the the Boeing logo,
Speaker 2: you know what I mean, Like these these types of
Speaker 2: things that like why would First of all, most people
Speaker 2: really don't care too much about Boeing for example, let's
Speaker 2: just throw that out there. Boeing is not that's that's
Speaker 2: more of a military thing, right where, well airplanes, but
Speaker 2: I mean most people aren't well I mean, and who knows,
Speaker 2: Like I mean, you're gonna have your airplane enthusiasts that.
Speaker 4: Know, you know, numbers and names and all that shit.
Speaker 2: It's like the people that are addicted to like like
Speaker 2: freight trains and cars and shit like that. The autists
Speaker 2: yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, and Uh, I don't know. It's
Speaker 2: it's strange how certain logos like that stick in our
Speaker 2: mind even when we're not trying to learn them. And
Speaker 2: that's really the that's the thing, like, that's the magic.
Speaker 2: You don't need to learn about it. It's something that
Speaker 2: you're subconscious is always recording. It's your subconscious is always
Speaker 2: fucking on and even whenever you're not consciously paying attention,
Speaker 2: you're subconsciousnes and so it's it's fucking wild, dude. The
Speaker 2: actual brain science behind all this, it's dude, it has
Speaker 2: to be rooted in even before like Nazi occult. I
Speaker 2: know that we always talk about Project paper Clip, but
Speaker 2: that didn't even happen until what the fifties.
Speaker 3: Right, No, no, no, Tavistock goes before Nazism, right right,
Speaker 3: And that's why they implemented the Frankfurt Institute or the
Speaker 3: Frankfurt Universe very experiments earlier, because that was like the
Speaker 3: predecessor to what would become the grand scheme of Tavistock.
Speaker 3: But it was the same engineers, the same psychologists that
Speaker 3: were operating both programs at the same time. So yeah, absolutely,
Speaker 3: I think the Tavistock was in the post or pre
Speaker 3: World War One world But then they didn't really take
Speaker 3: root into the brainwashing aspect until they got World War
Speaker 3: One veterans and they started doing experiments on these dudes
Speaker 3: to see what they could do to push them to
Speaker 3: their breaking point. Guys that had already been in the
Speaker 3: trenches and were already mentally not in the strongest and
Speaker 3: most stable of mindsets. They were just kind of seeing
Speaker 3: what they could do to poke the bear to get
Speaker 3: a response out of them.
Speaker 2: Oh, now, absolutely like long game because it started what
Speaker 2: nineteen thirteen, and then they didn't really even start implementing
Speaker 2: a lot of it until the fifties.
Speaker 3: Right, exactly exactly, But that was the thing that was
Speaker 3: in England. They were doing this with World War One vets.
Speaker 3: They made their way to America in the twenties and
Speaker 3: in the thirties. Well, I say that Wilson. They had
Speaker 3: him in the teens, the nineteen teens, and they got
Speaker 3: him to dissolve the tariff agreements and make the ir rest.
Speaker 3: But that was like step one of a one thousand
Speaker 3: step plan.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, whoever it is. This is why people say,
Speaker 2: dude on some real shit, if you really think about it.
Speaker 2: This is why people say that reptilians run the world
Speaker 2: because allegedly, reptilians live a lot longer than humans would.
Speaker 2: And so if you're if you're going to be somebody
Speaker 2: that's going to see this process carry out over time
Speaker 2: and have all the patients in the world, well, I mean,
Speaker 2: if you're a reptilian and you're living fucking you know,
Speaker 2: seven hundred years or whatever it is, then you know
Speaker 2: what I mean, Like, maybe maybe that's a thing, But
Speaker 2: I don't know. I still don't know what I feel
Speaker 2: about reptilians, to be honest with you.
Speaker 3: So, yeah, I believe there's a greater than zero percent
Speaker 3: chance that there are reptilians walking around in human skin
Speaker 3: suits that have injected themselves into the upper echelons of
Speaker 3: human society and power. Shit, there's a greater than zero
Speaker 3: percent chance of that, right, I mean, because.
Speaker 4: They're shape shifters, so that that would be the story.
Speaker 3: But I also believe that, with that being said, the
Speaker 3: Tall Grays and the Pleiadian group and the Alfred Draconians.
Speaker 3: The same way that I believe that there is more
Speaker 3: than one race of human being, I believe there's probably
Speaker 3: more than one species of alien and different races of
Speaker 3: those species, like all subreddits of each other. So yeah,
Speaker 3: with the whole conversation with reptilians and all, I could,
Speaker 3: I could see it. I'm not saying I fully endorse
Speaker 3: that theory, and I'm not saying that I go out
Speaker 3: of my way to try to debunk it either.
Speaker 5: I kind of put in that area of Yeah, probably
Speaker 5: could be sure.
Speaker 4: Fucking see one, though, you know, I don't want to
Speaker 4: be able to confirm it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 3: I feel like in the next few years, a lot
Speaker 3: of more of this, uh, the debunking and the whistleblowing
Speaker 3: that's going on from certain members of certain intelligence groups
Speaker 3: and military groups and things like that.
Speaker 5: I feel like we're gonna get a real good picture of.
Speaker 3: What these aliens actually are versus what speculation tells us
Speaker 3: they are here in the next few years.
Speaker 5: I could be so wrong here.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I hope. So I think that.
Speaker 2: And that's the thing, Like the problem with all the
Speaker 2: alien shit is that who are you to believe? Because
Speaker 2: there's people that believe that they're all good, some people
Speaker 2: believe they're all bad. Some people believe that there's good
Speaker 2: and bad. Some people don't even believe that there are aliens.
Speaker 2: Some people believe that there are aliens, but that's just
Speaker 2: a new name for demon, you know what I mean. Like, so,
Speaker 2: where are you getting your information from and who's pushing it?
Speaker 2: And that's why it's you know, it's sketchy waters unless
Speaker 2: like you were to meet one or see one and
Speaker 2: then you'd be able to form your own opinion as
Speaker 2: to what they may be and what they may be,
Speaker 2: you know, here for or whatever.
Speaker 5: And we talked about that. I don't believe in just me.
Speaker 3: I understand a lot of people are going to disagree
Speaker 3: with what I'm about to say.
Speaker 5: That's fine. Everybody's entitled to their opinion.
Speaker 3: I don't believe that it's going to be a Project
Speaker 3: Blue Beam type situation whenever aliens make their presence known
Speaker 3: to humanity. I don't believe it's going to be a
Speaker 3: hologram or something like that put on by our powers
Speaker 3: to scare the people. I am of the belief that
Speaker 3: we are absolutely gonna have real physical contact, undisputed. The
Speaker 3: world is going to acknowledge that this is a real
Speaker 3: thing very soon.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 2: And that's the weird thing is is that whenever you
Speaker 2: think of, like the term hologram, it's like, all right, well,
Speaker 2: now we're thinking of hologram the way that we see
Speaker 2: like Tupac as a hologram on stage. And I don't
Speaker 2: even necessarily think that that's exactly what they mean by
Speaker 2: hologram whenever they're talking about like Project Bluebeam.
Speaker 4: It may be.
Speaker 2: But now that you know, now that we know like
Speaker 2: within quantum physics and stuff like that, what they've proved
Speaker 2: is that essentially everything that we are and everything that
Speaker 2: we see is holographic in nature. That it's not physical
Speaker 2: reality as we always thought it was. So if you're
Speaker 2: looking at it like that that, if this whole entire
Speaker 2: reality is a hologram, then how do you make how
Speaker 2: do you call a hologram in a hologram?
Speaker 5: You know?
Speaker 3: Bro? One of our cult members that hit us up
Speaker 3: on Patreon, which, by the way, if anybody wants to
Speaker 3: get in direct contact with me, I'm the one that
Speaker 3: runs the messaging on Patreon, so come check it out there.
Speaker 5: We can go like that shameless.
Speaker 3: But also one of our cult members sent the article
Speaker 3: showing a series of mirrors completely negates the observer effect
Speaker 3: from quantum mechanics.
Speaker 4: What do you mean?
Speaker 3: So you know how we understand foreshore through the double
Speaker 3: slit experiment and all these stuff that atoms react differently
Speaker 3: whenever they're being observed by somebody versus when they're acting
Speaker 3: on their own. And we talked about how in the
Speaker 3: realm of the computer age, they are trying to send
Speaker 3: light back and forth to each other through photons, through
Speaker 3: fiber optics and all that, and they're now able to
Speaker 3: tell if they've been watched or observed by a third party,
Speaker 3: a hacker, if you will, because they are responding differently
Speaker 3: when they get back to where they're trying to go.
Speaker 3: The observer effect, quantum mechanics, all these things apparently. You
Speaker 3: know how if you've ever been to one of those
Speaker 3: mirror houses and you got like a mirror behind a
Speaker 3: mirror and it looks like an infinity loop they're looking into.
Speaker 3: If you do that properly, it negates the observer effect.
Speaker 2: That's the what is it called all the fucking tesseract,
Speaker 2: Like have you ever looked at a testsaact before, which
Speaker 2: is essentially like mirrors and mirrors and mirrors. It's like
Speaker 2: multi dimensional fucking it's the closest thing to like a
Speaker 2: four D or a five D shape. That we would
Speaker 2: be able to understand in the three D reality to
Speaker 2: where it looks like it literally goes on for infinity. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that's that's interesting. So wait, are you saying that the
Speaker 2: mirrors are would essentially like, uh, get.
Speaker 3: It the quantum mechanics to make it not know if
Speaker 3: it was observed or not, so it continues behaving its
Speaker 3: natural state way.
Speaker 2: So it only reacts in a certain way if it's
Speaker 2: directly observed.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Interesting, But I mean.
Speaker 3: Directly or indirectly, right, And they're still doing studies on this,
Speaker 3: so where it's not like a human being has to
Speaker 3: put eyes on this light photon for it to react differently.
Speaker 2: It could be even a camera. It notices that observation too.
Speaker 3: Exactly, unless you put it through a series of mirrors,
Speaker 3: and then it ever even checks up and it doesn't
Speaker 3: act like it's being observed whatsoever.
Speaker 4: That's fucking awesome. I love that even more.
Speaker 3: Now is it awesome or does it mean that now
Speaker 3: they've found a way to hack the unhackable?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean I would actually suggest that the photons
Speaker 2: that are being observed, they that when you put it
Speaker 2: in the context of well, they act differently whenever they're
Speaker 2: being observed, and they also act differently whenever they're being
Speaker 2: indirectly observed. That would prove to me that there's some
Speaker 2: sort of sentience to the photons. Sure that it's not
Speaker 2: necessarily scientifically cut and dry, that it's almost like some
Speaker 2: kind of consciousness or sentience that is somehow coordinating with
Speaker 2: you in the energetic field in a sense, just to
Speaker 2: get a little crazy here and so now it's not
Speaker 2: necessarily interacting with a thing, and maybe that's maybe that's
Speaker 2: how you're able to trick it. That's probably how we're
Speaker 2: being tricked too, if you really think about it, like
Speaker 2: if you know you hear about you know, like who's
Speaker 2: watching us? And you know all these like higher dimensional
Speaker 2: type entities we talked about string theory and all the
Speaker 2: different dimensions and what's capable in those different dimensions and
Speaker 2: shit like that. Maybe that's why the unseen is so
Speaker 2: unseen to us, because they're looking at us through a
Speaker 2: series of mirrors or something like that. Sure, there's just
Speaker 2: no way to say, there's no way of knowing we're
Speaker 2: we're the fucking rats in the maze, dude.
Speaker 5: It's it's insane, bro.
Speaker 3: I will say this as far as the mirrors being
Speaker 3: able to negate the observer effect for the principle of
Speaker 3: science being able to observe how these photons and how
Speaker 3: just matter in general acts when it's not being observed
Speaker 3: as long as you're using mirrors like it, it's like
Speaker 3: watching somebody through a double pay mirror. They don't know
Speaker 3: they're being watched. They're acting the way that they're going
Speaker 3: to act regardless. Right for the science of it, I
Speaker 3: think that's wonderful, and I'm with you it's badass. We
Speaker 3: could do more studies into it, figure out more of
Speaker 3: these secrets.
Speaker 5: I'm with you.
Speaker 3: Other side of that, that gives us a whole nother
Speaker 3: realm of how we won't know if the information was
Speaker 3: observed by a third party or a nefarious party, I
Speaker 3: should say, or not, because now this information's out, So
Speaker 3: it's like the cat and man.
Speaker 5: Excuse me, the cat and mouse game has now begun.
Speaker 3: As far as quantum mechanics goes, it's fascinating.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's and I don't even want to say sentience.
Speaker 2: I don't even think that's the right word, but I
Speaker 2: guess the consciousness. The more correct term would probably just
Speaker 2: be awareness, which is consciousness which which yeah, which some
Speaker 2: people would say that would be considered consciousness, but you
Speaker 2: know what I mean, Like I don't want to get
Speaker 2: into semantics and stuff like that, but just the fact
Speaker 2: that it's aware that it's being monitored, and sometimes it's
Speaker 2: not aware that it's being monitored through literally like smoke
Speaker 2: and mirrors.
Speaker 4: Literally.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's that's pretty cool.
Speaker 5: I agree.
Speaker 3: All Right, we gotten off topic here anyway, back to
Speaker 3: Laurel Canyon.
Speaker 4: All right, we'll re rate here.
Speaker 2: But David yeah, yeah, all right, So but David Crosby
Speaker 2: is much much, is much more than just the son
Speaker 2: of Major Floyd Delafield Crosby. David Van David Van Courtland Crosby,
Speaker 2: as it turns out, is a scion of the closely
Speaker 2: intertwined Van Cortland, Van Shullier and Van Rensailor families. See,
Speaker 2: these are the names that you never know. This is
Speaker 2: like you know, we always talk about it's not the
Speaker 2: Rothchild or the Rockefellers. It's the higher up kind of
Speaker 2: names that you're never going to be really aware of.
Speaker 4: I think these.
Speaker 3: Actual powers that be the shadow government and the families
Speaker 3: that actually run the world that you've never heard of before.
Speaker 5: One percent.
Speaker 2: And while you're probably thinking the Van Who families, I
Speaker 2: can assure you that if you plug those names in
Speaker 2: over at Wikipedia, you can spend a pretty fair amount
Speaker 2: of time reading up on the power wielded by this
Speaker 2: clan for the last oh two and a quarter centuries
Speaker 2: or so. Suffice it to say that the Crosby family
Speaker 2: tree includes a truly dizzying array of US senators and congressmen,
Speaker 2: state senators and assemblymen, governors, mayors, judges, Supreme Court justices,
Speaker 2: revolutionary and Civil War generals, signers of the Declaration of Dependence,
Speaker 2: and members of the Continental Congress. It also includes, I
Speaker 2: should hasten to add, for those of you with a
Speaker 2: taste for such things, more than a few high ranking Masons.
Speaker 2: Stephen van Rensailor the third, for example, reportedly served as
Speaker 2: a Grand Master of Masons for New York. And if
Speaker 2: all that isn't impressive enough, According to the New England
Speaker 2: Genealogical Society, David van Cortland, Crosby is also a direct
Speaker 2: descendant of Founding fathers and Federalist Papers authors Alexander Hamilton
Speaker 2: and John Jay Wow.
Speaker 3: So as far as a pedigree for this guy, Crosby
Speaker 3: of you know, the music industry, or so we think,
Speaker 3: has a long standing history within American politics. So when
Speaker 3: this institute was trying to find a new plug, they
Speaker 3: didn't have to look far. And again, all these other
Speaker 3: bands that we've listed here today all came from Laurel Canyon,
Speaker 3: all came from nk Ulture, which all came from Tavistock.
Speaker 5: It all connect. It's not even like a crazy line
Speaker 5: on the court board.
Speaker 3: It's it's if at this point, it's more like a
Speaker 3: metal chord, not a not a yarn. It's insane. It's
Speaker 3: like welded in place. How connected they are?
Speaker 4: Yeah, this is more than a coincidence.
Speaker 5: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: Another shining star on the Laurel Canyon scene just a
Speaker 2: few years later will be singer songwriter Jackson Brown, who.
Speaker 4: Is are you?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 4: Are you getting bored as?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 2: Are you getting as bored with this as I am?
Speaker 2: The product of a career military family, Brown's father was
Speaker 2: assigned to postwar reconstruction work in Germany, which very likely
Speaker 2: means that he was in the employ of the OSS,
Speaker 2: the precursor of the CIA. As readers of my of
Speaker 2: my understanding, the F word, I guess is that a
Speaker 2: book or something that he wrote.
Speaker 5: Maybe I think it's another article that this author wrote.
Speaker 2: May recall US involvement. Is post war reconstruction in Germany
Speaker 2: largely consisted of maintaining as much of the Nazi infrastructure
Speaker 2: as possible while shielding war criminals from capture and prosecution.
Speaker 2: Against that backdrop, Jackson Brown was born in a military
Speaker 2: hospital in Heidelberg, Germany. Some two decades later he emerged
Speaker 2: as Oh never mind, I love this guy. Let's talk
Speaker 2: about the three other Laurel Canyon vocalist who will rise
Speaker 2: to dizzying heights of fame and fortune. Gary Jerry Beckley,
Speaker 2: Dan Peak and Dewey Bunnell. Individually, these three names are
Speaker 2: probably unknown to visually all readers, but collectively as the
Speaker 2: Banned America, the three will score huge hits in the
Speaker 2: early seventies with such songs as Ventura Highway, A Horse
Speaker 2: with No Name, and The Wizard of Oz themed the
Speaker 2: Tin Man. I guess I probably don't need to add
Speaker 2: here that all three of these lads were products of
Speaker 2: the military intelligence community. Beckley's dad was the commander of
Speaker 2: the now defunct West Royce Slip USAF base near London, England,
Speaker 2: a facility deeply immersed in intelligence operations. Bunnell's Bunnell's and
Speaker 2: Peaks fathers were both rear Air Force officers serving under
Speaker 2: Beckley's dad at West roy Slip, which is where the
Speaker 2: three boys first met.
Speaker 3: I'm telling you, dude, they brought up earlier, like two
Speaker 3: days ago, we talked about how this institute, Tavistock is
Speaker 3: super super involved with the United States Air Force Intelligence
Speaker 3: as a whole. Now, yeah, have we brought up some
Speaker 3: Naval intelligence as well and some other branches, but the
Speaker 3: Air Force Intelligence is kind of in its own classification right,
Speaker 3: and that makes sense because they're the ones that are
Speaker 3: involved with satellites and things with space and all this.
Speaker 3: So to show that all of these bands fathers were
Speaker 3: involved with Air Force Intelligence, again, I don't believe that
Speaker 3: there is a coincidence with this one. I believe this
Speaker 3: was kind of a part of the plan.
Speaker 4: And I'll even go as far as to say that
Speaker 4: there's a possibility that these kids were unaware.
Speaker 3: Dude, Okay, if you were to say one band, maybe
Speaker 3: three of these bands were unaware that all of their
Speaker 3: dads happened to be veterans and whatever and worked out
Speaker 3: that way, I.
Speaker 5: Could get down with it.
Speaker 3: We are talking about the majority of the movers and
Speaker 3: shakers of the hippie movement. Dude, there's no way that
Speaker 3: this was a coincidence.
Speaker 2: But I'm saying, what if there was a gentle nudge
Speaker 2: to influence their kids of thinking this way? Like, think
Speaker 2: about it, Like everybody else during this time listening to
Speaker 2: this music were very easily hypnotized by the music and
Speaker 2: didn't really think anything of the certain movement, the certain
Speaker 2: movements that sprang from it. I mean, if you were
Speaker 2: trying to really push a movement, would you necessarily tell
Speaker 2: your kid the entire story as to why they're being
Speaker 2: promoted or I feel like, you know, if you keep
Speaker 2: them in the dark and keep them genuine about what
Speaker 2: he's or what he or she or they are doing,
Speaker 2: then I think that it's more likely that they're they're
Speaker 2: going to stay with it kind of thing.
Speaker 4: Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
Speaker 3: I do, But I can't imagine a world and where
Speaker 3: all these retired Air Force intelligence officers are trying to
Speaker 3: nudge their kids into the arts.
Speaker 5: I just I can't see that.
Speaker 3: Like I said, if you were to show one band,
Speaker 3: even a small group of bands that happenstance, all of
Speaker 3: their dads were members of the military at some point. Okay,
Speaker 3: I could see that as a coincidence, and even a
Speaker 3: few of them with the intel side of the military. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 3: I could. I could imagine a world where there's like, statistically,
Speaker 3: you're gonna have that. We're talking post World War two.
Speaker 3: A lot of people served in World War Two. I
Speaker 3: get it, bro for this level and to go this hard.
Speaker 3: And it's not like some of these guys were involved
Speaker 3: in country and Western music and some of these guys
Speaker 3: were involved in the duop groups. No, no, no, all
Speaker 3: of them were a part of the hippie movement, which
Speaker 3: was systemically anti war and anti military and led protests
Speaker 3: and all these things. I'm not saying I can't imagine
Speaker 3: veterans did that with their kids.
Speaker 4: I guess.
Speaker 2: I'm not trying to say that they're entirely left in
Speaker 2: the dark. But maybe they just thought that they had
Speaker 2: more power than what they thought in a sense.
Speaker 4: So look at it like this.
Speaker 2: Diddy probably believed that he was the kingpin of all
Speaker 2: the shit that was running through him. He probably believed
Speaker 2: that he was the gatekeeper.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 3: He absolutely was not even a thought. He absolutely was,
Speaker 3: But who.
Speaker 4: Was allowing that to happen?
Speaker 2: Even higher up than Diddy that allowed them to throw
Speaker 2: Ditty under the bus?
Speaker 3: Tatistock, And did he even know that? I don't think so,
Speaker 3: not until it was too late.
Speaker 4: That's what I'm saying about these guys.
Speaker 3: If it wasn't for somebody coming out about the the
Speaker 3: atrocities that Diddy had committed, he'd still be at large
Speaker 3: right now, because he has been for the past few decades.
Speaker 5: But see, that's the other conversation.
Speaker 3: This article is mostly going to talk about the hippie
Speaker 3: bands of the sixties and seventies and all of that.
Speaker 5: But bro, we could That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: We could probably do an entire show, like an entire
Speaker 3: new podcast separate from the Cult to Conspiracy, completely dedicated
Speaker 3: to Tavistock and probably never run out of things to
Speaker 3: talk about because of how many things they had been
Speaker 3: involved with. We've and they brought it up in this
Speaker 3: article about the gang wars in LA in the sixties.
Speaker 3: They're negating the entire East West Battle of the nineties
Speaker 3: and eighties, right, They're completely negating When NWA was brought
Speaker 3: into a room with some high level execs and they said, hey, listen,
Speaker 3: y'all talking about some gangster rap things. We need you
Speaker 3: to lean more heavily into that, and we're gonna boost
Speaker 3: your sales. We're gonna do this for you and all that,
Speaker 3: which everybody in the music industry acknowledges that that meeting
Speaker 3: took place, but no one can confirm who these quote
Speaker 3: unquote officiating bodies were that told them to lean more
Speaker 3: heavily into it. I am of the belief, especially after
Speaker 3: learning everything we've learned so far, that was Tavistock agents.
Speaker 2: Yeah, one hundred percent. That's what I'm trying to say
Speaker 2: is that the people that are being thrown under the
Speaker 2: bus are clearly not the ones that have construed this
Speaker 2: plan from the very the very beginning.
Speaker 5: Yeah no, no, no, no way, no did he wasn't
Speaker 5: he was.
Speaker 3: He played his role beautifully, right the same way the
Speaker 3: Beatles played their role beautifully.
Speaker 5: They weren't the masterminds of it.
Speaker 2: Oh, the same way Tupac played his role beautifully, literally
Speaker 2: beautiful actor, dude, a gay actor at that, And then
Speaker 2: he puts on this whole persona and this whole facade
Speaker 2: about how he's a gangster and he's from you know,
Speaker 2: the West Side, and you know what I mean. Like all,
Speaker 2: it's all a show, and so in that show was
Speaker 2: designed for a certain reaction in order to be able
Speaker 2: to influence the American people in.
Speaker 4: Multiple types of ways.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, so, continuing on it says we could also I
Speaker 2: suppose discuss Mike Nesmith of The Monkeys and Corey Corey
Speaker 2: Wells of the Three Dog Night who both arrived in
Speaker 2: la not long after serving time with the US Air Force.
Speaker 2: Nesmith also inherited a family fortune estimated at twenty five
Speaker 2: million dollars. Graham Parsons, who would briefly replace David Crosby
Speaker 2: and the Birds before fronting the Flying Burrito Brothers, was
Speaker 2: the son of Major cecil Ingram cecil Ingram Coon Dog
Speaker 2: Connor the second, a decorated military officer in Bob Pilot
Speaker 2: who reportedly flew over fifty combat missions. Parsons was also
Speaker 2: an error on his mother's side to the formidable Snively
Speaker 2: family fortune, said to be the wealthiest family in the
Speaker 2: executive in the exclusive enclave of winter Haven, Florida. The
Speaker 2: Sniveley family was the proud owner of Snively Groves, Incorporated,
Speaker 2: which reportedly owned as much as one third of all
Speaker 2: the citrus groves in the state of Florida.
Speaker 3: So we're talking about guys that came from big money,
Speaker 3: old money right, and now all of a sudden, all
Speaker 3: of their kids are a part of this new wave, new.
Speaker 5: Cultural movement in America.
Speaker 3: Again, there's way too many red flags on the plate
Speaker 3: to ignore him.
Speaker 4: As it goes.
Speaker 2: As one scrolls through the roster of Laurel Canyon superstars,
Speaker 2: what one finds far far often than not are the
Speaker 2: sons and daughters of the military intelligence complex and the
Speaker 2: sons and daughters of extreme wealth and privilege, and oftentimes
Speaker 2: you'll find both rolled into one convenient pack. Every once
Speaker 2: in a while, you will also stumble across a former
Speaker 2: child actor, like the aforementioned Brandon de Wilde or Monkey
Speaker 2: Monkey Mickey Dolans or eccentric prodigy Van Dyke Parks. You
Speaker 2: might also encounter some former mental patients, such as James Taylor,
Speaker 2: who spent time in two different mental institutions in Massachusetts
Speaker 2: before hitting the Laurel Canyon scene, or Larry Wildman Fisher,
Speaker 2: who was institutionalized repeatedly during his teen years, once for
Speaker 2: attacking his mother with a knife, an act that was
Speaker 2: gleefully mocked by Zappa on the cover of Fisher's first album. Finally,
Speaker 2: you might find the offspring of an organized crime figure
Speaker 2: like Warren Zevon, the son of William Stumpy zevonn a
Speaker 2: lieutenant for infamous La crime lord Mickey Cohen, So and Cohen.
Speaker 5: That would be the Jewish mafia. Just so we're all
Speaker 5: on the same page here.
Speaker 3: But I mean, most groups had their mafia at the
Speaker 3: Italian Mafia, the Italian Mafia, the Russian Mafia, the Jewish mafia.
Speaker 3: Everybody had their group, right for sure. But I didn't
Speaker 3: know this before we read this. That sweet baby James
Speaker 3: James Taylor, Oh fucking I've seen Fire and I've seen
Speaker 3: rain himself.
Speaker 4: Beautiful song. I love that song.
Speaker 3: But he was also a Lauren Canyon guy. Yep, and
Speaker 3: it been institutionalized twice. Now, let's talk about some more
Speaker 3: of Tavistock Institute in the United States.
Speaker 2: You know, I've actually before we get into that, I've
Speaker 2: heard a certain like rap artists and record label owners
Speaker 2: and stuff like that. They they've a lot of them
Speaker 2: been coming out of the woodworks telling everybody exactly how
Speaker 2: all that shit's really gone down. And there was a
Speaker 2: conversation I can't believe, I can't remember who it was between,
Speaker 2: but they were saying something along the lines of like,
Speaker 2: do you know how many people in this world are
Speaker 2: amazing at rapping? Like it's not sure, it's not even
Speaker 2: really like that complicated. Once you get in, once you
Speaker 2: are you know, are familiar with it, and you're practicing
Speaker 2: it every day, it comes like really easy to some people, right,
Speaker 2: not to everybody.
Speaker 4: I'm not saying I could.
Speaker 3: Rap, no, no, but I can show you on every
Speaker 3: construction side I've ever worked on, probably twenty dudes that
Speaker 3: could spit harder bars than name your rapper, right. And
Speaker 3: the reason why is because they've been doing it since
Speaker 3: they were kids. Once you are witty enough to come
Speaker 3: up with things off the top of your dome and
Speaker 3: you can get a flow to it and you have
Speaker 3: a rhythm with your words, boom, there you go.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: And so the point behind that is it's not that
Speaker 2: the rappers that are on that are in the rap
Speaker 2: scene with you know, all the glitz and glam and
Speaker 2: all the spotlights on them, are that amazing. It's just
Speaker 2: that they could have just been a regular ass dude
Speaker 2: who was decent at rapping that decided to go along
Speaker 2: with the whatever narrative is trying to be pushed, right,
Speaker 2: And that's the thing is that there are so many
Speaker 2: people out there with amazing voices, talented lyrically and musically
Speaker 2: and everything else.
Speaker 4: All they do they have their crop to pick from,
Speaker 4: you know what I mean?
Speaker 3: Like ever example is Travis Scott, perfect example, right, And
Speaker 3: me and my son were just having this conversation the
Speaker 3: other day. He's super into Kendrick Rayer right now, which
Speaker 3: I love Kendrick Lamar. Don't get me wrong, I do.
Speaker 3: I don't like listening to him every single day. But
Speaker 3: like if you even if you go back to Mad
Speaker 3: City to now, okay, he is he actually is a
Speaker 3: true rap artist.
Speaker 5: Okay, I can get down with this.
Speaker 3: But he was having this argument with me about who
Speaker 3: is the biggest rap artist in the world right now,
Speaker 3: A quick Google search will tell you still to this
Speaker 3: day as of time recording, Drake, Kendrick, Travick Scott. Now,
Speaker 3: real quick, two of those three were planted in there, okay.
Speaker 5: And I'm not even saying the Kendrick was or wasn't.
Speaker 3: I'm personally of the belief at this moment that he
Speaker 3: wasn't new information might come out later.
Speaker 4: There's no way he wasn't.
Speaker 2: I mean, you get a fucking spot at the super
Speaker 2: Bowl halftime show and you just somehow get there organically.
Speaker 3: Bro come on, well no, no, but he's been in
Speaker 3: it since the late nineties. He's not like some up
Speaker 3: and coming star that nobody knew about ten years ago.
Speaker 3: You know what I'm saying, But that's my point. Drake
Speaker 3: was an actor who got in with the right crowd,
Speaker 3: play the right game, Let Diddy diddle him. It's a
Speaker 3: whole thing, and now he's number one at the top.
Speaker 3: Travis Scott is another example of this. No one knew
Speaker 3: who he was until Kylie Jenner.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 3: You can find him being featured in a couple of
Speaker 3: songs a few years back, but there's nothing that set
Speaker 3: him apart from his contemporaries. He's not good. He's decent
Speaker 3: at best. Now, how is he the number three biggest
Speaker 3: on earth right now? Because he started dating Kylie Jenner,
Speaker 3: he released an album, she told all of her fans
Speaker 3: to go check it out, and then boom, it goes
Speaker 3: triple platinum. Now everybody wants Travis Scott on their next track,
Speaker 3: and it's like, for what.
Speaker 5: But that's the point.
Speaker 3: Stars can be made or broken overnight based off of
Speaker 3: how the culture moves. The Kardashians are masters of understanding
Speaker 3: how the culture moves.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, they're they're for sure, you know, gatekeepers in
Speaker 2: some kind of way. But even still like, and I
Speaker 2: was actually having this thought the other night, you know,
Speaker 2: because whenever you meet new people, you go out to
Speaker 2: you know, have a conversation with somebody at Walmart, in
Speaker 2: line or whatever, and some some people will ask you, well,
Speaker 2: what do you do? I feel very reluctant to say
Speaker 2: that I'm a professional podcaster. Now, the optics of it
Speaker 2: is is that we are. You know, we do this
Speaker 2: for a living, we do this every day, so by all,
Speaker 2: by standard definition, we are professional podcasters. I don't feel professional, like,
Speaker 2: I don't feel like it's something that is that I
Speaker 2: don't feel that it's something that almost anybody can do.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: I do feel like it's something that almost anybody can do,
Speaker 2: which is why we always try and tell everybody, you know,
Speaker 2: get on this podcast. I don't necessarily think that we're
Speaker 2: far and above anybody else. So to call yourself a
Speaker 2: professional at something that literally we made up like and
Speaker 2: that's the same thing with with music industry and with Hollywood.
Speaker 2: And yes, you can sharpen your craft over time, but
Speaker 2: you're just a fucking guy making up along the way
Speaker 2: and you're trying to find your footing to call yourself
Speaker 2: a professional anything. So that's that was kind of like
Speaker 2: my argument against the whole kenjuck lamar. Well, he's a professional,
Speaker 2: he's been doing it for so long. He's just a
Speaker 2: guy that is saying words and a rhythmic like nature
Speaker 2: that happens to be a little creative. There's nothing really
Speaker 2: that special about him, just like there's nothing really that
Speaker 2: special about anybody that is that is, you know, big
Speaker 2: in the scene within media or music or in podcasts
Speaker 2: or anything like that. It's just that our curiosity is
Speaker 2: honestly like our greatest weapon at that point.
Speaker 3: But that's the that's the dichotomy of being an artist, right.
Speaker 3: I'm not necessarily saying that you and I are artists, right,
Speaker 3: but as far as like the music industry goes, a
Speaker 3: guy makes jelly roll, perfect example, right, ten years ago,
Speaker 3: he was not who we think.
Speaker 5: Of as jelly roll.
Speaker 3: He blew up because people on SoundCloud, found him and
Speaker 3: love his music.
Speaker 5: That's music he.
Speaker 3: Creates, he makes it up, he writes it down, he
Speaker 3: sings it, and people want to spend millions of dollars
Speaker 3: to go see him play and buy his music. Right,
Speaker 3: it's the same thing. So yeah, to say that you
Speaker 3: are a professional podcaster, yeah, I'm with you on that.
Speaker 3: You get a little bit of imposter syndrome a little
Speaker 3: bit with it, and maybe that's what it is. But
Speaker 3: I also i'm with you on that, Like, it's nothing
Speaker 3: that sets us apart. It's not like we're somehow more
Speaker 3: special or more in tuned or more intelligent than any
Speaker 3: other person. We've just been doing it consistency, consistently, rather
Speaker 3: for longer.
Speaker 2: I guess that's the thing is too, is that you know,
Speaker 2: before I started podcasting, I used to look up to
Speaker 2: a lot of podcasters. I used to be like, oh
Speaker 2: my god, they're so good. I can't imagine meeting them.
Speaker 2: We put these people on pedestals and then you talk
Speaker 2: to them and you're like, oh wait, they're just like us.
Speaker 2: They're just normal fucking people who just have a genuine
Speaker 2: curiosity about what we're being lied to about it. It's
Speaker 2: not necessarily that they're not special or that they are special.
Speaker 2: It's just that they're nothing really sets anybody else apart.
Speaker 5: You know. It's a decad with a microphone, same as us.
Speaker 2: That's and the same thing goes for probably actors, you know,
Speaker 2: the same thing goes for probably musicians and everybody else.
Speaker 2: It's like we hold certain people in such high regards
Speaker 2: because of how amazing they are in something, but deep
Speaker 2: to their core, they're nothing different than anybody else.
Speaker 5: Dude.
Speaker 3: When I was in DC, that that mole got shattered
Speaker 3: for me for a lot of things.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 3: I met a lot of high ranking military members, high
Speaker 3: ranking politicians, a lot of actors, a lot of musicians
Speaker 3: that would come in and out of DC for dinner,
Speaker 3: gallows or whatever the case was.
Speaker 5: And you would get the opportunity or I would.
Speaker 3: Anyway, just because of the job that I was doing
Speaker 3: to kind of not have these long and depth conversations
Speaker 3: with them. But more often than not, I would find
Speaker 3: myself having a cocktail with somebody that I've seen on
Speaker 3: the news and somebody I have seen on TV and
Speaker 3: all these things.
Speaker 5: You know what I learned.
Speaker 3: They put their pants on one leg at a time,
Speaker 3: like everyone else. Everybody's got a mama. Everybody deals with
Speaker 3: getting the stomach flu when it hits. Everybody is just
Speaker 3: a fucking person, dude. Now, they may be better at
Speaker 3: certain things than others, Like there are certain people that
Speaker 3: are way better at interviewing people than others, but that's
Speaker 3: also because they've been conducting interviews for twenty fucking years.
Speaker 5: Right, Right, there's a right, There's some.
Speaker 3: People that are way better at playing guitar than others,
Speaker 3: but that's also because they've been playing it since they
Speaker 3: were ten and now they're fifty. You see what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: But that doesn't they're not heroes by any means. It's
Speaker 3: it's a lot of well some are. There are some
Speaker 3: heroes out there. My point is, everybody is just a person, dude.
Speaker 3: These actors, these people that we put up on these
Speaker 3: pedestals and we.
Speaker 5: Think of the you know, we think the world of
Speaker 5: these people.
Speaker 3: They're just a person that happens to have been doing
Speaker 3: what they're doing so well and for so long that
Speaker 3: they have made a living doing it.
Speaker 5: That's it.
Speaker 2: And whenever you actually meet the people in real life,
Speaker 2: that's whenever it becomes more obvious, you know, Like I've
Speaker 2: I've met certain people who I used to put on
Speaker 2: such a high pedestal, Like, for example, I'm a huge
Speaker 2: Steelers fan, right, and I used to work at this
Speaker 2: one pizza place in Baton Rouge called Rotolo shout Out,
Speaker 2: even though I got fired from there four times. But ye,
Speaker 2: but shout out over there. I met a former Steeler
Speaker 2: and his name's Ryan Clark. He's a big personality on
Speaker 2: ESPN and all that shit now. But whenever I saw him,
Speaker 2: I was like, this guy's really not that much of
Speaker 2: a specimen, you know what I'm saying, Like it's just
Speaker 2: the TV makes them pop a little bit more.
Speaker 4: And the same thing.
Speaker 2: Dude, I met Chad Michael Murray at a best Buy
Speaker 2: look like a regular fucking guy. I was on the
Speaker 2: set of twenty one Jump Street as an extra. I
Speaker 2: met Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum. Dude, whenever I met
Speaker 2: Channing Tatum, I was like, Dude, you look like you
Speaker 2: have the same body as I do. Like we're the
Speaker 2: same height, We're not that you know, we're not that
Speaker 2: different and stuff like that. And so there's just something
Speaker 2: about movie magic that really like builds this fantasy in
Speaker 2: people's minds. And obviously I think that the same thing
Speaker 2: is with really anything could be if you get TikTok
Speaker 2: famous or Instagram famous or podcast famous or anything like that.
Speaker 4: It's like, dude, everybody's the fucking same, you know, bro.
Speaker 3: And you watch these people in interviews, right, this person
Speaker 3: it could be an influencer, it could be at or
Speaker 3: whatever the case is, and not the one where they're
Speaker 3: all glitzed and glammed up to promote the movie, because
Speaker 3: at that point they still have it turned on, right,
Speaker 3: But you could watch them in these podcasts. And that's
Speaker 3: another reason why I love podcasts so much, is because
Speaker 3: it's very informal. Right, it's not so much lights, camera
Speaker 3: action more often than not, but it's more personal, right,
Speaker 3: and you get to who this person actually is. More
Speaker 3: often than not, they're just a dude, or they're just
Speaker 3: a chick that has happened to fall into this line
Speaker 3: of work, and they're just they're cool, you know what
Speaker 3: I mean. Sometimes they do get a little too big
Speaker 3: for their bridges. Sometimes they do get a little too
Speaker 3: full of themselves and they believe that they are apart
Speaker 3: from everyone else. An example that would be Taylor Swift,
Speaker 3: by the way, Piece of shit. But then you get
Speaker 3: others that have they're just no, dude, I'm just a guy.
Speaker 5: I make music.
Speaker 3: And they could talk about kind of what the inspiration
Speaker 3: was behind this song or some of their favorite parts
Speaker 3: of the tour. They just went on or oh this
Speaker 3: one part, I remember when we filmed this movie. This
Speaker 3: thing happened behind the scenes, and this and this, but
Speaker 3: and you know, in the dressing room it was so
Speaker 3: fucking hilarious and by bab and you learn they're just people.
Speaker 3: They're just people that hole never meet your heroes kids.
Speaker 3: Sometimes that's true, because sometimes your heroes do turn out
Speaker 3: to be pieces of shit. The other side of that
Speaker 3: coin is that you learn that your heroes are literally.
Speaker 4: Just like you, right right, And the same thing goes.
Speaker 2: It's like like certain people will will meet you know,
Speaker 2: you or I outside of the show, just for example,
Speaker 2: somebody some people will meet us for the first time,
Speaker 2: and it's almost like they built up this fantasy of
Speaker 2: who we are because we just so happen to be
Speaker 2: in this bubble only talking about conspiracies, right, and so
Speaker 2: that's who we are, that we know everything about conspiracies,
Speaker 2: and and that's just literally all we talk about.
Speaker 4: All day long, every single day.
Speaker 2: We eat, sleep, breathe, and fuck conspiracies, right, and it's like,
Speaker 2: you know, we also got other shit going on, like
Speaker 2: there's more to us, and so it's it's almost like
Speaker 2: you got to tear down the the enigma of whatever.
Speaker 2: I don't know, I'm not trying to get all crazy,
Speaker 2: but my point is, My point is is that that's
Speaker 2: how a lot of these people are promoted is because
Speaker 2: everybody are just They're just people, and certain people can
Speaker 2: be put on certain high pedestals, and you shouldn't be
Speaker 2: putting anybody on a pedestal because everybody's made up of
Speaker 2: the same shit's record, so you can put anybody else
Speaker 2: up there. It's not that crazy. Like whenever you see
Speaker 2: a Kendrick Lamar or a Drake or an Eminem or
Speaker 2: a fucking Tom Hanks or an Adam Sandler, it's like
Speaker 2: it's just people that have been honing on their craft.
Speaker 2: They're still like fucking just regular dudes.
Speaker 3: And perfact example of that, how many pictures have we
Speaker 3: seen of Adam Sandler in New York dress like a bum,
Speaker 3: like literally dressed like he not homeless, but dressed like
Speaker 3: just an average Joe blow. Anybody wants to walk up
Speaker 3: on the street and talk to him for him, and
Speaker 3: he's there.
Speaker 5: He sure, He's just a guy, you know what I mean.
Speaker 3: And it's not saying that we're on some sort of
Speaker 3: a level of celebrity with these people by any means. No,
Speaker 3: even the people that have like met us in the wild, right,
Speaker 3: please approach us, say what's up, tell us that you
Speaker 3: love the show, tell us what you do love about
Speaker 3: the show, whatever the case.
Speaker 5: Like, yeah, we're not. We are not celebrities.
Speaker 3: We are too dumbassies with microphones that just so happened
Speaker 3: to have been doing this for coming up on five years,
Speaker 3: Like that's that's all this is. And we've had people
Speaker 3: do that. Yeah, we've had people walk up to be like,
Speaker 3: oh my god, all the guys, it's up, homie, We chill.
Speaker 5: We're just normal dudes.
Speaker 3: And I don't think we're ever gonna change that, to
Speaker 3: be honest with you, I can't. I can't imagine a
Speaker 3: world where I start thinking of myself as some sort of.
Speaker 5: Upper echelon motherfucker, Like I just don't have it in me.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: My point is is that we're we're in that same
Speaker 2: you know, kind of category is everybody. You know, certain
Speaker 2: people will make up a caricature of you and they
Speaker 2: think that that's who you are and all you're about,
Speaker 2: and that's all there is to you. But there's a
Speaker 2: lot more death, just like everybody listening, Like everybody has
Speaker 2: a lot more depth than just what they're interested in
Speaker 2: talking about. And so that was kind of my point,
Speaker 2: and the same thing goes with everybody else as far
Speaker 2: as you know, fucking Hollywood and all that music industry bullshit.
Speaker 3: You've heard that, Like, you're more than your hobbies, right,
Speaker 3: This was a hobby that became a side hustle that
Speaker 3: became the main job that has now become the career.
Speaker 4: Still a hobby, it's still a hobby.
Speaker 5: It's still a thing that's fun as hell.
Speaker 3: And even if the you know, the ad revenue and
Speaker 3: whatever went away, we would still be doing this because
Speaker 3: we thoroughly enjoy it.
Speaker 5: This is a passion of ours.
Speaker 4: But we did it for free for years, right exactly.
Speaker 3: It still would continue regardless of what the future holds,
Speaker 3: you know, So I just, yeah, I do love this though,
Speaker 3: best job I've ever.
Speaker 2: Had, oh dude, Like it's top notch for us anyway,
Speaker 2: it might not be something for everybody, you know, because
Speaker 2: remember even you know, my original co host had it
Speaker 2: became too much for him, you know, not because it
Speaker 2: was difficult or hard, you know, just getting on camera
Speaker 2: and talking into a microphone wasn't that.
Speaker 4: It was just that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, whenever you dive into these rabbit holes, it can
Speaker 2: be a little bit scary, and it can crash the
Speaker 2: illusion that you built of what reality actually is. And
Speaker 2: that's really the point of this entire show is to
Speaker 2: break the illusion of the reality that you think you
Speaker 2: live in and stop trusting in people that you shouldn't
Speaker 2: be trusting in kind of thing. So yeah, anyway, I agree,
Speaker 2: get back to it. So the Tavistock Institute in the
Speaker 2: United States, now we're getting a little bit more personal
Speaker 2: for all of our americanos out there. Flow Laboratories gets
Speaker 2: contracts from the National Institutes of Health. Merle Thomas Corporation
Speaker 2: gets contracts from the US Navy. Analyzes data from satellites.
Speaker 2: Walden Research does work in the field of pollution control
Speaker 2: planning research. I thought it was getting ready to go
Speaker 2: and planned parenthood Planning Research Corporation, Arthur D. Little Tempo
Speaker 2: Operations Research Incorporated, part of approximately three hundred and fifty
Speaker 2: firms who conduct research and conduct surveys, makes recommendations to government.
Speaker 2: They are part of what President Eisenhower called a possible
Speaker 2: danger to public policy that could itself become captive of
Speaker 2: a scientific technological elite. Indeed, indeed, Brookings Institution dedicates its
Speaker 2: work to what it calls a national agenda. Wrote presidents.
Speaker 2: They wrote President Hoover's Program, President Roosevelt's New Deal, the
Speaker 2: Kennedy Administration's New Frontiers Program, A deviation from A deviation
Speaker 2: from it may have cost JFK's life and President Johnson's
Speaker 2: Great Society. Brookings has been telling the United States government
Speaker 2: how to conducts its affairs for the past seventy years
Speaker 2: and is still doing so.
Speaker 3: The heights the Brookings Institute being one of these think
Speaker 3: tanks that is a subsidizary, a subsidiary excuse me of Tavistock.
Speaker 5: It's one of their American outlets, if you will.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, So it's all constructed, is what they're what
Speaker 2: he's trying to say here, And.
Speaker 3: If you want to go back two episodes where we
Speaker 3: listed all of the institutions that conduct these polling surveys
Speaker 3: and conduct these thought tanks.
Speaker 5: The Heritage Foundation is one of them. Project twenty twenty five.
Speaker 3: The Heritage Foundation is a subsidiary of Tavistock.
Speaker 5: It's all a part of the plan, y'all.
Speaker 2: I'm not even shocked by that. I mean, because they're
Speaker 2: known for their think tanks exactly.
Speaker 3: Now, not everything that the think tank produces gets put
Speaker 3: through to fruition, but please understand that they have been
Speaker 3: moving and shaking the American political system and the American
Speaker 3: culture and all of the propaganda that we have gotten
Speaker 3: for going one hundred years now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, dude, Yeah, it's a constructed reality, not constructed by us.
Speaker 5: Exactly.
Speaker 2: The Hudson Hudson Institute. This institution has done more to
Speaker 2: shape the way Americans react to political and social events, think, vote,
Speaker 2: and generally conduct themselves than perhaps any except the Big Five.
Speaker 2: Hudson specializes in defense policy research and relations with the USSR.
Speaker 2: Most of its military work is classified as secret. One
Speaker 2: idea during the Vietnam War was to build a mote
Speaker 2: around Segon. Hudson may be properly classified as one of
Speaker 2: the Committee of three hundreds brainwashing establishments. One of its
Speaker 2: largest clients in the in the US Department of Defense,
Speaker 2: which includes matters of civil defense, national security, military policy,
Speaker 2: and arms control.
Speaker 3: Indeed, indeed, now there's a little bit of an editor
Speaker 3: note on that one. Now let's move on to the
Speaker 3: National Training Laboratories.
Speaker 2: The National Training Laboratories, one of the key institutions established
Speaker 2: for this purpose is the United States was the National
Speaker 2: Training Laboratories, founded in nineteen forty seven by members of
Speaker 2: the Ta Tavistock network in the United States and located
Speaker 2: originally on an estate in Bethel, Maine. The National Training
Speaker 2: Laboratory had its explicit purpose the bra brainwashing of leaders
Speaker 2: of the government, educational institutions, and corporate bureaucracies in the
Speaker 2: Tavistock method, and then using these quote unquote leaders to
Speaker 2: either themselves run Tavistock group sessions in their organizations or
Speaker 2: to hire other similarly trained group leaders to do the job.
Speaker 2: The quote unquote nuts and bowls of the NTL operation
Speaker 2: revolves around the particular form of Tavistock degenerate psychology known
Speaker 2: as group dynamics, developed by German Tavistock operative Kurt LeWinn,
Speaker 2: who immigrated to the United States and the nineteen thirties,
Speaker 2: and whose students founded the NTL.
Speaker 3: And we did talk about Kurt Lohan in the first
Speaker 3: episode when we first delved into Tavistock.
Speaker 5: It all connects, y'all.
Speaker 2: In a lunite brainwashing group, a number of individuals from
Speaker 2: varying backgrounds and personalities are manipulated by a group leader
Speaker 2: to form a consensus of opinion, achieving a new group identity.
Speaker 2: The key to the process is the creation of a
Speaker 2: controlled environment in which stress is introduced sometimes called dissonance,
Speaker 2: to crack an individual's belief structure using the peer pressure
Speaker 2: of other group members. The individual is cracked and a
Speaker 2: new personality emerges with new values. The degrading experience causes
Speaker 2: the person to deny that any change has taken place.
Speaker 5: In that way, oh, I'm sorry, ed.
Speaker 2: In that way, an individual is brainwashed without the victim
Speaker 2: knowing what has taken place. This is what I was
Speaker 2: talking about as far as the bands and the group
Speaker 2: members that maybe they didn't even fucking know that's how
Speaker 2: they would do it.
Speaker 3: I think their parents were brainwashed in that regard, and
Speaker 3: then they basically put their children or let their children
Speaker 3: run this way as Lambsford slaughter. But all of these
Speaker 3: kids came out of Laurel Canyon. Right, Their parents served
Speaker 3: in different places all over the world. Now, how did
Speaker 3: all of these US Air Force intelligence officers, all of
Speaker 3: them from all over the world, some in London, some
Speaker 3: in Germany, in some in Annapolis, Maryland, which is a
Speaker 3: navalist To set the point, how did all of their
Speaker 3: kids individually end up in Laurel Canyon to become brainwashed
Speaker 3: and then start the hippie wave. You see what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying that you're off base. Maybe they brainwashed
Speaker 3: their own children. Maybe the parents were brainwashed and didn't
Speaker 3: even realize that it was happening to them. Maybe it
Speaker 3: was all complicit in the plan. Like, I don't know,
Speaker 3: but I do love how they said this. Right, they
Speaker 3: manipulated by a group leader to form a consensus of opinions,
Speaker 3: achieving a new group identity.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 3: The creation in ald environment in which stress is introduced
Speaker 3: sometimes called dissonance. So are we talking about political dissonance
Speaker 3: aka political stress? And you get a group of people, right,
Speaker 3: Let's say you get just a ballpark example here, you
Speaker 3: get ten people that are of one political opinion.
Speaker 5: Doesn't matter.
Speaker 3: It could be gun rights, could be what doesn't matter right,
Speaker 3: And you get one person who is vehemently against them
Speaker 3: all and you lock them in a room for hours,
Speaker 3: there's gonna be a little bit of stress on that
Speaker 3: one individual. By the end of this conversation, they're gonna
Speaker 3: come out of there with a completely new idea. It
Speaker 3: may not have been one hundred percent in favor of
Speaker 3: gun rights, but they're gonna be a lot more softer
Speaker 3: towards the conversation of gun rights. Right, And now all
Speaker 3: of a sudden they believe that it's their opinion without
Speaker 3: ever realizing that they have been brainwashed. That can be
Speaker 3: used tried, rins and repeats for a planned parenthood, for
Speaker 3: gay rights, for a new war that America needs to
Speaker 3: get involved with because those people need some freedom. Never
Speaker 3: mind the fact they got really good oil. Right, This
Speaker 3: is the point. This is how this goes. It is
Speaker 3: a form of Tavistock brainwashing, and they know how to
Speaker 3: do it to perfection.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's essentially subtle suggestions. Because here's the thing, as
Speaker 2: far as and this is why suggestions are so powerful
Speaker 2: within hypnosis.
Speaker 4: And I know a lot about this.
Speaker 2: The reason why suggestions are so powerful within hypnosis is
Speaker 2: because if you tell somebody to think something. They're less
Speaker 2: likely to think that way because they know that they're
Speaker 2: being controlled. However, if you suggest something as if like, ah,
Speaker 2: give or take it, you know it's not necessarily my opinion,
Speaker 2: but it could be yours if you decide to latch
Speaker 2: onto it. Now they can now it's theirs. Now they
Speaker 2: can stand on something.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 2: They didn't steal that idea from anybody else. It's almost
Speaker 2: their own. Meanwhile, the people who are hypnotizing threw that
Speaker 2: suggestion in there so the you would come to that
Speaker 2: level of understanding. And that's where suggestion can be so sinister.
Speaker 2: Now that being said, within my past life aggressions, I
Speaker 2: don't suggest anything because I know just the power that
Speaker 2: it has. And any good, you know, good hypnotist that
Speaker 2: is really just trying to search for what's in your
Speaker 2: subconscious without planting anything, knows not to suggest Jack diedly shit,
Speaker 2: because you're not trying to steer anything, whereas these people
Speaker 2: absolutely are through the power of suggestion.
Speaker 3: Would you call yourself a hypnotherapist or a hypnotist. I
Speaker 3: feel like there's a difference.
Speaker 4: Same thing.
Speaker 2: I'm hypnotizing, yeah, and it is therapeutic, but also I'm
Speaker 2: not like I personally, I don't believe in the stage hypnosis.
Speaker 2: I don't believe in that because yes, more people are
Speaker 2: suggestible than others, But to say that they're in such
Speaker 2: a hypnotic trance that they have absolutely no idea that
Speaker 2: they're up on stage making themselves look like fucking buffoons,
Speaker 2: like you're doing that if you let's just say that
Speaker 2: somebody is up there and they are very suggestible, and
Speaker 2: they are up on stage and they're told to quack
Speaker 2: like a duck. There's still a piece of you, as
Speaker 2: you know, whenever I hypnotize you, you know you're still there.
Speaker 2: If you wanted to say no, you could. It's just
Speaker 2: that some people would rather go along with the mystique.
Speaker 2: And you know, the the imagination of hypnosis, all that
Speaker 2: shit is not really what you think it is. Like
Speaker 2: you're you're never going to be able to You're never
Speaker 2: going to be able to hypnotize somebody. Legit, you're not
Speaker 2: going to be able to hypnotize somebody into like giving
Speaker 2: you a million dollars and then they snap out of
Speaker 2: the hypnosis and by like, oh my god, where did
Speaker 2: my million dollars go?
Speaker 4: That's not how it works at all.
Speaker 3: But that's and I'm not trying to like steal man
Speaker 3: you here, strawman or the fuck, but that is your
Speaker 3: training in hypnotism, right, that has taught you how to
Speaker 3: do it in this way. You're saying there is no
Speaker 3: form of hypnosis to where it could be to that
Speaker 3: extreme or is it just that you haven't been shown
Speaker 3: something like that yourself? And I'm speaking completely out of
Speaker 3: ignorance here.
Speaker 2: So we're talking about essentially, whenever you're hypnotized, you're you're
Speaker 2: put into a trance, and which essentially that's what little
Speaker 2: kids are always in, right, Yeah, so you can always
Speaker 2: go tell like I tell my daughter all the time,
Speaker 2: hey go take out the trash, or hey go put
Speaker 2: this in the sink or whatever. It's not that she's like,
Speaker 2: let me try and think of a good example here, because.
Speaker 3: I've experienced your hypnosis and I can tell you all
Speaker 3: good cult members that want to experience a past life regression. No,
Speaker 3: it's not, it's not suggesting anything. It is one hundred
Speaker 3: percent you are steering your own hypnosis. If well, I
Speaker 3: want to say you are like the individual, you're not
Speaker 3: steering it. You're more or less observing what you are
Speaker 3: seeing right, Jonathan is not steering the conversation. He's not
Speaker 3: telling you what to see. He's asking you questions about
Speaker 3: what is around you. And that's it, right, It's it's
Speaker 3: very very light trance kind of conversation.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: The idea is that your conscious mind is out of
Speaker 2: the way and your subconscious mind is at the fourth front,
Speaker 2: but still your conscious mind is always in the background,
Speaker 2: like it's all I was there.
Speaker 3: But I would argue that there is a type of hypnosis,
Speaker 3: one that you probably haven't been taught because the Lors
Speaker 3: canon didn't do this type of hypnosis, right, But the
Speaker 3: type of Tavistok does, or other groups that are nefarious
Speaker 3: or evil minded, that can absolutely make someone do something
Speaker 3: against their will in a hypnotic trance.
Speaker 5: I think that that exists to.
Speaker 4: Get up on stage and bark like a dog, though,
Speaker 4: and you have not.
Speaker 3: On stage, because I mean that's like saying stage magic
Speaker 3: isn't real magic. Well, like, well, yeah, it's an illusion, right,
Speaker 3: it's for the show. And I could agree with you
Speaker 3: on that, But do you think that there's no type
Speaker 3: of hypnosis where it's to that level, not on stage
Speaker 3: nefarious actors hypnotizing somebody to carry out a deed or
Speaker 3: a task or whatever the case.
Speaker 2: Yeah, of course, and that's what we talked about with
Speaker 2: MK Ultra. There's there's that torture involved in all these
Speaker 2: other techniques. It's not strictly hypnosis. If hypnosis itself was
Speaker 2: so strong, you wouldn't need to torture anybody.
Speaker 5: That's true, you.
Speaker 3: Know, it wouldn't any difference between hypnosis and brainwashing though, right.
Speaker 2: One hundred percent. So brainwashing, there's all these different tactics
Speaker 2: and techniques that you have to employ in order to
Speaker 2: fully carry out whatever it is. Whereas a simple hypnosis,
Speaker 2: like even dating back to the old school, where you
Speaker 2: would take like a pocket watch you're getting very sleepy,
Speaker 2: and just stare into it and you would do that
Speaker 2: for a half an hour until the person falls into
Speaker 2: a deep trance. Even then you're you're not gonna be
Speaker 2: able to convince somebody that is something that they wouldn't
Speaker 2: necessarily even agree to. Whenever they're they're in the conscious mind,
Speaker 2: like the conscious mind is always in the back, and
Speaker 2: so that's where the torture techniques really come in because
Speaker 2: they're trying to hammer that fucking conscious mind so that
Speaker 2: the only thing left is the subconscious, and that's where
Speaker 2: you get like the glossed over eyes and I don't know, I.
Speaker 4: Turned into a zombie and I'll do whatever you want.
Speaker 4: Just don't fucking beat me anymore, don't electrocute me anymore,
Speaker 4: don't make me dissociate reality anymore.
Speaker 2: Like that's it's it's more, you know, treacherous kind of ways.
Speaker 2: That's how you would brainwash, brainwash, brainwash.
Speaker 3: I feel you, okay, But now back to the whole
Speaker 3: Tavistock Institute.
Speaker 5: What they're talking about here.
Speaker 3: This is, like I said, it's to sow dissonance in somebody, right,
Speaker 3: And it's a form of brainwashing, but it's a very
Speaker 3: light form brainwashing. There was no torture that was needed,
Speaker 3: there was no mental hammering that was needed. You basically
Speaker 3: got them based off of a consensus and group think.
Speaker 3: And now they come out of this group meeting with
Speaker 3: maybe not a one to eighty flip, but now they're
Speaker 3: a little softer towards a certain standpoint than what they
Speaker 3: once were. You do that over the course of a
Speaker 3: few months, a few years, and all of a sudden,
Speaker 3: this person is singing an entirely different tune than they
Speaker 3: used to and they believe that they're standing on a
Speaker 3: hill of their own design, right, And that's why we
Speaker 3: have always said, if you're going to take a stance
Speaker 3: and you're going to die on a hill, please let
Speaker 3: it be a hill that you understand and fully, not
Speaker 3: one that you just heard regurgitated on the news a
Speaker 3: million times and now you believe this to be truth
Speaker 3: when you did no research into it yourself.
Speaker 5: We've said that so many times on this show.
Speaker 2: One hundred percent. Like, uh, here's here's a good example.
Speaker 2: My dad had this this really awesome friend from work
Speaker 2: that we used to hang out with all the time.
Speaker 2: He's a black guy, right, like super funny. He had
Speaker 2: a sweet ass house. We would always go and hang
Speaker 2: out over there with him. We would watch football games
Speaker 2: and shit like that. Right, Well, black lives matter starts,
Speaker 2: and all of a sudden, he cannot stand the side
Speaker 2: of a white person. Okay, this is the brainwashing. That's
Speaker 2: exactly what it is. Because it's just a year ago.
Speaker 2: They were fucking thick as thieves, bro, and now all
Speaker 2: of a sudden, well, you know you and in your
Speaker 2: white privilege and you're you're you're holding the black man down,
Speaker 2: and you know, you're part of the You're part of
Speaker 2: the reason as to why black men were held down
Speaker 2: in the first place. It's like, bro, there's not a
Speaker 2: living person today that was a during the slave times
Speaker 2: in America. Like that person is that whole fucking group
Speaker 2: of people died off that had nothing to do with
Speaker 2: either one of us.
Speaker 4: Why are you putting that on me? That's the brainwashing.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, absolutely, that's the group think, that's the consensus mind.
Speaker 3: It's literally what we are talking about here. And so
Speaker 3: when we talk about that being done in the sixties,
Speaker 3: what exactly did that look like?
Speaker 5: Let's keep reading.
Speaker 2: This method is the same with some minor modification used
Speaker 2: in so called sensitivity groups or tea groups, or in
Speaker 2: the more extreme rock drugs sex counterculture form touchy feely groups,
Speaker 2: such as the kind popularized in the nineteen sixties onward
Speaker 2: by the Issalin Institute, which was set up with the
Speaker 2: help of the NTL. From the mid nineteen fifties onward,
Speaker 2: the NTL put the majority of the nation's corporate leaderships
Speaker 2: through such brainwashing programs, while running similar programs for the
Speaker 2: State Department, the Navy, the Department of Education, and other
Speaker 2: sections of the federal bureocracy. There is no firm estimate
Speaker 2: of the number of Americans who have been put through
Speaker 2: this process in the last forty years at either NTL
Speaker 2: or as it is known, the NTL Institute for Applied
Speaker 2: Behavioral Sciences, which is based in Rosland, Virginia, or its
Speaker 2: West Coast base of operations, the Western Training Laboratories and
Speaker 2: Group Development, or in various satellite institutions. The most reliable
Speaker 2: estimate is that it is in these several millions.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, this is group think, and they got involved with
Speaker 3: our education system, they got involved in our politics, they
Speaker 3: got involved involved in corporate America, they got involved in everything.
Speaker 5: Everything has had these How many times have.
Speaker 3: You heard that, Oh, yeah, this new corporate office over here,
Speaker 3: we have to go to sensitivity training this year, we're
Speaker 3: implementing a new sensitivity training model and we have to
Speaker 3: have a big corporate meeting. HR is putting on a
Speaker 3: sensitivity training seminar this weekend.
Speaker 5: What the fuck is that? Right? And these days it
Speaker 5: has been politicized.
Speaker 3: It is to be inclusive to us and demographic of
Speaker 3: people A people of a sexual orientation who whatever the case,
Speaker 3: whatever the case.
Speaker 5: This all stems from Tavistock.
Speaker 2: Bro They literally made people believe that racism, like you
Speaker 2: can't be racist towards white people, Like, think about how
Speaker 2: ridiculous that actually is, Like think about it, like the
Speaker 2: modern day white people are not holding anybody down for
Speaker 2: slavery or anything like that, Yet I can't be considered
Speaker 2: you can you can be quote unquote not racist, I
Speaker 2: guess to me because of my forefathers had something to
Speaker 2: do with holding down your people. And it's like, how
Speaker 2: silly is that? That's so ridiculous that, But people latch
Speaker 2: onto it because you know what I mean, it's more
Speaker 2: of like a it's it's all mind control. I'm not
Speaker 2: trying to get into too far into it. I know
Speaker 2: that a lot of people are gonna disagree with what
Speaker 2: I'm saying, but I'm saying, if you fucking use your
Speaker 2: actual brain, you can be racist to anybody.
Speaker 5: Dude.
Speaker 4: It's a race issue, not a white issue.
Speaker 3: When everybody was saying that Trump was laterally Hitler, meanwhile
Speaker 3: he was saying, fuck your feelings.
Speaker 5: This is what this boils down to. He's not Hitler.
Speaker 3: He is doing nothing of Hitler, right, But why did
Speaker 3: the media blast that in the way that they did
Speaker 3: for years? Meanwhile, he's saying that, Yo, you're basing your
Speaker 3: shit on feelings. I'm basing it on facts. This is
Speaker 3: literally the blowback, if you will, to somebody trying to
Speaker 3: reject Tavistock but also using Tavistock for their own means
Speaker 3: in their own right.
Speaker 5: It's all a part of it, ma'am.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, it's pretty wild.
Speaker 2: So anyhow, one of the groups that went through the
Speaker 2: NTL mill in the nineteen fifties was the leadership of
Speaker 2: the National Education Association, the largest organization of teachers in
Speaker 2: the United States. Thus, the NEA's look or outlook has
Speaker 2: been shaped by Tavistock through the NTL. In nineteen sixty four,
Speaker 2: the NTL Institute became a direct part of the NEA,
Speaker 2: with the NTL's setting up group sessions for all of
Speaker 2: its affiliates. With funding from the Department of Education, the
Speaker 2: NTO Institute drafted the programs for the training of the
Speaker 2: nation's primary and secondary school teachers and has a hand
Speaker 2: as well in developing the content of educational reforms, including
Speaker 2: OBE also known.
Speaker 3: Is it possible that this is a reason why Trump
Speaker 3: wanted to dissolve the Federal Bureau of Education.
Speaker 5: I don't know that.
Speaker 3: For a fact, But I also could understand why he's saying, no,
Speaker 3: quit brainwashing our Board of Education now fuck that. We
Speaker 3: don't need federal dollars going towards this. This needs to
Speaker 3: be a state issue. Why do we have an office
Speaker 3: in Washington, d c. For National education? That's ridiculous, but
Speaker 3: that has been implemented for so long that that's why
Speaker 3: so many people were pissed off about it.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah.
Speaker 2: Also known as the International Institute for Applied Behavioral Sciences,
Speaker 2: this institute is a brainwashing center in artificial stress training,
Speaker 2: whereby participants suddenly find themselves immersed in defending themselves against
Speaker 2: vicious accusations. NTL the takes in the National Education Association,
Speaker 2: the largest teacher group in the United States. While officially
Speaker 2: decrying racism, it is interesting to note that the NTL,
Speaker 2: working with ne EA, produced a paper proposing education vouchers
Speaker 2: which would separate the hard to teach children from the
Speaker 2: brighter ones, and funding would be allocated according to the
Speaker 2: number of difficult children who would be separated from those
Speaker 2: who progressed at a normal rate. The proposal was not
Speaker 2: taken up in the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Finance,
Speaker 2: and Commerce, founded by Eric trist one of the brain
Speaker 2: trusts of Tavistock, Wharton has become one of the more
Speaker 2: important Tavistock in so far as behavioral research is concerned.
Speaker 2: Wharton attracts clients such as the US Department of Labor,
Speaker 2: which teaches how to produce cooked statistics at the Wharton
Speaker 2: Economic Forecasting Associates Associates Incorporated. This method was very much
Speaker 2: in demand as we came close came to the close
Speaker 2: of nineteen ninety one with millions more out of work
Speaker 2: than was reflected in the USDL statistics, Wharton's echoechno ecchnometric
Speaker 2: There we go. Wharton's ecnometric modeling is used by every
Speaker 2: major committee Committee of three hundred, Committee of three hundred
Speaker 2: company in the United States, Western Europe, the International Monetary Fund,
Speaker 2: the United Nations, and the World Bank Institute for Social Research.
Speaker 2: Among its clients are the Ford Foundation, US Department of Defense,
Speaker 2: US Postal Service, and the US Department of Justice. Among
Speaker 2: its studies are the Human Meaning of Social Change, the
Speaker 2: youth in Translation, and how Americans view their mental health.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and if anybody doesn't know, Wharton is considered a
Speaker 3: very prestigious IVY League school. But they also are teaching
Speaker 3: kids at the college level how to cook numbers for
Speaker 3: their statistics. And then they kind of major in human
Speaker 3: behavioral and so sociological studies. That tell me this is
Speaker 3: not a red flag.
Speaker 4: Bro Oh, it's all psychology.
Speaker 5: Yeah, one hundred percent.
Speaker 4: Institute for the Future.
Speaker 2: This is not a typical Tavistock institution in that it
Speaker 2: is funded by the ford To Foundation, yet it draws
Speaker 2: its long range forecasting from the mother of all think tanks.
Speaker 2: Institute for the Future projects what it believes to be
Speaker 2: changes that will be taking place in timeframes of fifty years.
Speaker 2: So called Delphi or Delphi panels decide what is normal
Speaker 2: and what is not in prepare position papers to steer
Speaker 2: government in the right direction to head off such groups
Speaker 2: as people creating civil disorder. In quotes, this could be
Speaker 2: patriotic groups demanding abolition of graduated taxes or demanding that
Speaker 2: their right to bear arms is not infringed. This institute
Speaker 2: recommends actions such as liberalizing abortion laws, drug usage, and
Speaker 2: that cars entering an urban area pay tolls, teaching birth
Speaker 2: control in public schools, requiring registration registration of firearms, making
Speaker 2: use of drugs a non criminal offense, legalizing homosexuality, paying
Speaker 2: students for scholastic achievements, making zoning controls a preserve of
Speaker 2: the state, offering bonuses for family planning, and last but
Speaker 2: most frightening, a pole pot Cambodia style proposal that new
Speaker 2: communities be established in rural areas concentration camp compounds. As
Speaker 2: can be observed, many of their goals have already been
Speaker 2: more than fully realized.
Speaker 3: So as we were talking about the music industry a
Speaker 3: moment ago, all of these conversations, can you imagine in
Speaker 3: the nineteen fifties, these conversations being had in DC.
Speaker 5: That's a fusolutely not. Oh, absolutely not.
Speaker 3: They would have thrown out and laughed out and probably
Speaker 3: just told to shut the fuck up. Now in a
Speaker 3: post hippie America, Oh, these are the most important topics.
Speaker 5: But they're not. But they're not. But they make them that.
Speaker 4: It opened the door to it.
Speaker 5: It's all part of the plan, dude.
Speaker 2: One of the Big three IPS has shaped and reshaped
Speaker 2: United States policies, foreign and domestics since it was founded
Speaker 2: by James P. Warburg and the Rothschild Entities in the
Speaker 2: United States. Its networks in America include the League for
Speaker 2: Industrial Democracy lead plays. Lead players in the League for
Speaker 2: Industrial Democracy have included Jen Kirkpatrick, former US Ambassador to
Speaker 2: the United Nations, Irwin Sewall of the ADL, Eugene Rosstall,
Speaker 2: the arms control negotiator, Lane Kirkland, the Labor Leader Leader,
Speaker 2: and Albert Schenker. IPS was incorporated in nineteen sixty three
Speaker 2: by Marcus Raskin and Richard Barnett, both highly trained Tavistock
Speaker 2: Institute graduates. The objectives of IPS came from an agenda
Speaker 2: laid down for it by the Tavistock Institute, one of
Speaker 2: the most notable being to create the New Left. As
Speaker 2: far as grassroots movements in the United States, it has
Speaker 2: been said that Barnett and Rascal and controlled such diverse
Speaker 2: elements as the Black Panthers, Daniel Ellsberg, National Security Council
Speaker 2: staff member Halprin, the Weathermen Underground, the Vencera Moos, and
Speaker 2: the campaign staff of candidate George mcgovernment. No scheme was
Speaker 2: too big for IFS and its controllers to take on
Speaker 2: and manage.
Speaker 5: So we're talking about the new Left.
Speaker 3: You remember we've talked about this before, how the Democratic
Speaker 3: Party used to be the Party of the working class,
Speaker 3: right of the middle class, the factory workers, the manufacturers,
Speaker 3: the farmers. That was the Democratic Party, and somehow, in
Speaker 3: the sixties and seventies around the hippie movement, the left
Speaker 3: became the new left right, and they lost track of
Speaker 3: the point, they lost track of the middleman, the middle class,
Speaker 3: if you will, and then the lines got divided to
Speaker 3: where the Republican Party, which at one time was the
Speaker 3: party of the rich and the elite, became the party
Speaker 3: of the people with common sense right, and the Democrat
Speaker 3: Party became the screaming lib tards. Now cut to forty
Speaker 3: years into the future, what do we currently have. We
Speaker 3: have Bill Maher, who is one of the most devout
Speaker 3: liberals ever ever, ever, who now says that he can
Speaker 3: no longer identify with what we currently have as the
Speaker 3: new new left.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, the goalpost.
Speaker 2: What I'm saying, the goalpost is constantly moving, and people
Speaker 2: don't even realize it because it's been such a subtle
Speaker 2: shift that it's almost like, you know, uh, for example,
Speaker 2: your kids. You know, like if you're around your kids
Speaker 2: all the time, you hardly notice on a day to
Speaker 2: day basis that your kid is growing. But you bring
Speaker 2: your kids over to your grandparents who haven't seen your
Speaker 2: kids in a month or in two months, six months
Speaker 2: or whatever if they live out of state or whatever,
Speaker 2: they're like, oh my god, you've grown so much. Meanwhile,
Speaker 2: you see them every day, you don't really notice the change.
Speaker 2: And this is really how it's implemented, is that there's
Speaker 2: such tiny, subtle changes which over the course of time
Speaker 2: make huge changes. But that's what this whole thing is about. Well,
Speaker 2: it is grand scheme. It's not about a quick fix.
Speaker 2: It's something that they want to stick. And so if
Speaker 2: you're trying to get something to stick, you have to
Speaker 2: do it over the course of fifty sixty, one hundred
Speaker 2: years or whatever, so that it's not such a jolt
Speaker 2: to everything that is comprised of your beliefs as far
Speaker 2: as your belief system goes exactly.
Speaker 3: And this is around the same time when you have
Speaker 3: more Democrats in the early days here in the hippie
Speaker 3: movement that said that they could no longer identify with
Speaker 3: the Democratic Party like they just couldn't. So you have
Speaker 3: more people that were registered Democrat voting Republican right now
Speaker 3: cut to today, the left has gone so far screaming
Speaker 3: lib TRD that for you to even try to have
Speaker 3: a talking point on that side. If you're a politician
Speaker 3: and you're registered as a Democrat politician, you have to
Speaker 3: side with the screaming libtards in order to just hold
Speaker 3: down your base of all these marginalized groups to secure
Speaker 3: your Democratic nomination. Meanwhile, most people who are listed as
Speaker 3: Democrat with right now consider themselves just left of center,
Speaker 3: but you see more and more of them voting Republican.
Speaker 3: This is why the Tavisak Institute has been doing this.
Speaker 3: And it's not just on the Democratic side, They're doing
Speaker 3: it on the Republican side too. But for the example
Speaker 3: of which side of these groups are crumbling the foundation
Speaker 3: of the American culture, it's not very hard to see
Speaker 3: which one's doing more damage.
Speaker 2: And the thing is is that, you know, whenever I
Speaker 2: was younger, my parents always voted Democrat. My parents voted
Speaker 2: for Bill Clinton, they voted for John Kerry, you know
Speaker 2: what I mean. Like, they voted for the Democrats because
Speaker 2: that's who they thought represented the middle class and the
Speaker 2: lower class right, which is what the Democratic Party has
Speaker 2: usually stood for, whereas the Republicans have always stood for
Speaker 2: the more rich and the elites and the warring the
Speaker 2: warring class essentially right, Well, the problem is is that
Speaker 2: the fucking ship the polls have shifted so much over
Speaker 2: time that now you have to identify as a Republican,
Speaker 2: even though I don't want to. I don't even necessarily
Speaker 2: identify as a Republican, but a lot of the core
Speaker 2: common values I do align myself with, so certain people
Speaker 2: would call me a Republican, and I'm like, wait a
Speaker 2: fucking second, these used to be Democratic values, and now
Speaker 2: all of a sudden, I'm labeled as a fucking Republican
Speaker 2: because I don't believe in going to war, I don't
Speaker 2: believe in abortion. I don't you know what I mean. Like,
Speaker 2: it's these used to be things of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 2: Because I'm anti vaxxin, that's now a Republican thing. Go
Speaker 2: back twenty years. Yeah, who was saying that first? It
Speaker 2: wasn't the Republicans.
Speaker 5: That's my point, man.
Speaker 3: They have shifted so far to where most Democrats can't
Speaker 3: even identify with the left talking points anymore.
Speaker 5: The same thing happened in the sixties.
Speaker 2: Through its many powerful lobbying groups on Capitol Hill, IPS
Speaker 2: relentlessly used its big stick to beat Congress. IPS has
Speaker 2: a network of lobbyists, all supposedly operating independently, but in fact,
Speaker 2: in actual fact acting cohesively, so that Congressmen are pummeled
Speaker 2: from all sides by seemingly different and varied lobbyists. In
Speaker 2: this way, IPS was and still is able to successfully
Speaker 2: sway individual representatives and senators to vote for in quotes,
Speaker 2: the trend, the way that things are going. By using
Speaker 2: key point men on Capitol Hill, IPS was able to
Speaker 2: break into the very infrastructure of our legislative system and.
Speaker 4: The way it works.
Speaker 5: Agreed.
Speaker 2: And that's the thing. Patience, bro They have the fucking
Speaker 2: oddmost patience. They don't need it done now, they just
Speaker 2: need it done eventually.
Speaker 3: They got the time, they got the money, they got
Speaker 3: the mental brainwashing understanding, and they have the poll.
Speaker 4: They had the stick, that stick.
Speaker 5: This is how this.
Speaker 3: Goes, man, And so yeah, you may not get them
Speaker 3: on this election, you might not get them in three elections.
Speaker 3: You'll get them sometime in the next twenty years. And
Speaker 3: it's just one more domin no falling in linebro.
Speaker 2: IPS became and remains to this day, one of the
Speaker 2: most prestigious think tanks controlling foreign policy decisions which we
Speaker 2: the people foolishly believe are those of our lawmakers, by
Speaker 2: sponsoring militant activism at home and with links to revolutionaries abroad,
Speaker 2: by engineering such victories as the Pentagon Papers, besieging the
Speaker 2: corporate structure, bridging the the credibility gap between underground movements
Speaker 2: and acceptable political activism, by penetrating religious organizations and using
Speaker 2: them to sow discord in America, such as radical racial
Speaker 2: policies under the guise of religion, using establishment media to
Speaker 2: spread IPS ideas and then supporting them. IPS has lived
Speaker 2: up to the role which it was founded to play.
Speaker 5: Could not agree more so.
Speaker 3: The IPS, by the way, is the Institute for Policy Studies.
Speaker 3: Now let's talk about Stanford Research Institute. We have quoted
Speaker 3: them in polls before, and we talked about this on
Speaker 3: the first episode of this trilogy that Stanford is one
Speaker 3: hundred percent a subsidiary of Tavistock.
Speaker 5: Now, let's learn a little bit about their history in
Speaker 5: American politics and policies.
Speaker 2: Jesse Hobson, the first president of SRI, in a nineteen
Speaker 2: fifty two speech, made it clear what lines the institute
Speaker 2: was to follow. Stanford can be described as one of
Speaker 2: the jewels in Tavistock's Crown in its rule over the
Speaker 2: United States. Founded in nineteen forty six, immediately after the
Speaker 2: close of World War Two, it was presided by It
Speaker 2: was presided over by Charles A. Anderson, with the emphasis
Speaker 2: on mind control research and future sciences. Included under the
Speaker 2: Stanford umbrella was Charles F. Kettering Foundation, which developed the
Speaker 2: Changing Images of Man upon which the Aquarian Society could
Speaker 2: the Aquarian conspiracy rest.
Speaker 4: Rather, some of.
Speaker 3: Stanford's Stanford Research Institute was started with an emphasis on
Speaker 3: mind control research and future sciences alone.
Speaker 5: Just right off the trip in nineteen forty.
Speaker 3: Six, you got this new organization that's founded to teach
Speaker 3: people about brainwashing and to study its effects. I can't
Speaker 3: even come up with a bigger red flag to float
Speaker 3: to throw on the play.
Speaker 2: And just to throw it out there too. You know
Speaker 2: where all the remote viewing shit was going down?
Speaker 5: At?
Speaker 3: Was it?
Speaker 5: I guess?
Speaker 2: So they were using it not necessarily to see the
Speaker 2: human capabilities. Oh my god, can we see that far? Yes,
Speaker 2: we can't do that, and that has been proven somewhat
Speaker 2: over time, but that's not really what their goal was.
Speaker 2: They wanted to see if they can essentially fucking ask
Speaker 2: or project to be able to control minds. You know,
Speaker 2: it's always how can we harness this to control it
Speaker 2: militarily against our own people or against countries you know
Speaker 2: that are outside of America. So it's always been trying
Speaker 2: to use as a tool. It's not it's it's not
Speaker 2: what people think.
Speaker 5: I don't want to kick the hornet's nest here.
Speaker 3: I'm just gonna propose a question oken with the studies
Speaker 3: that was done at Stanford about astra projection. And you
Speaker 3: and I disagree on this one. We've had this conversation before. Right,
Speaker 3: The studies showed that certain people are born with this ability,
Speaker 3: for sure, but they were trying to see if they
Speaker 3: could teach enormy how to achieve this goal through a
Speaker 3: series of mental exercises.
Speaker 5: Right, The studies are very inconclusive.
Speaker 3: It depends on, honestly, whatever you believe before you start
Speaker 3: reading into it. From what I can tell is what
Speaker 3: you'll believe when you get out of it more concrete. Right,
Speaker 3: that being said, how many of these people believed that
Speaker 3: they could do this that were actually brainwashed by SRI
Speaker 3: and how many of them actually were born with this ability?
Speaker 3: And that's what these credible stories incredible astra projections were
Speaker 3: based on. I'm just curious how much of this was
Speaker 3: being influenced by Tavistock and how much of it was
Speaker 3: a true to a true blue experiment just to see
Speaker 3: what they would come up with. I don't know, but
Speaker 3: I find it interesting that that this institution was founded
Speaker 3: for next thing, you know, they're doing astra projection.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean the Stanford Research Institute had been around
Speaker 2: for quite a while until they started getting into remote viewing,
Speaker 2: which was in the seventies and eighties.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was undred and fifty two, and then they
Speaker 3: started getting into the astra projection in the seventies and eighties.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Right, But basically, whenever you're trying to brainwash, you need
Speaker 2: to first understand the capabilities of the mind in the
Speaker 2: first place, right, fair, And so you need to understand
Speaker 2: the bounds at which you can push on with the
Speaker 2: human mind. And so maybe it started out as somebody
Speaker 2: in there just trying to test the limits of the
Speaker 2: human mind. What are you capable of? And then bang,
Speaker 2: as soon as they figure it out, then they possibly
Speaker 2: weaponize it in some other kind of way. But as
Speaker 2: far as remote viewing, dude, you can go online and
Speaker 2: watch videos of people that are trying to learn how
Speaker 2: to remote view and shit. And essentially, so this is
Speaker 2: the idea, a very simplistic idea of how remote viewing works,
Speaker 2: or how they at least showed it that. Essentially, you
Speaker 2: go into somewhat of a meditation, right yeah, and you
Speaker 2: send one of your homies somewhere.
Speaker 4: Don't tell me where you're going. I don't want to
Speaker 4: hear anything about it. You can walk there, you can
Speaker 4: fly there, you can you know, jog there, you can
Speaker 4: drive there, whatever doesn't matter, and get to a location,
Speaker 4: some kind of location that I would be some kind
Speaker 4: of landmark.
Speaker 2: So maybe you go to a bridge, or you stand
Speaker 2: outside of a Starbucks or something like that, something that
Speaker 2: like I can pull from, right, and so whenever that
Speaker 2: person then is in that deep trance while the other
Speaker 2: person is out gallivanting and staying in one spot, somehow
Speaker 2: they're able to connect with the field of information and
Speaker 2: somehow they're able to find that like something will pop
Speaker 2: up into their mind. So let's just say I'm sitting
Speaker 2: here and I'm in a meditation and you go to Starbucks, right, Well,
Speaker 2: in my mind, I might start to see people sending
Speaker 2: down at a table drinking a cup of coffee just
Speaker 2: out of nowhere, I'll just get that fucking thing that
Speaker 2: pops into my mind.
Speaker 4: That's remote viewing. Okay, So I.
Speaker 2: Mean, I don't know how you would weaponize that against
Speaker 2: the people who are doing the remote viewing, but I
Speaker 2: can see how you can weaponize it to be able
Speaker 2: to spy on people in that sense.
Speaker 3: I can see this, And like I said, I'm not
Speaker 3: trying to shit on the remote viewers here. I'm saying
Speaker 3: that at this institution was founded for understanding brainwashing in
Speaker 3: the limits of the mind, and then later on they're
Speaker 3: doing Asher projection. I'm wondering how much of it connects
Speaker 3: to brainwashing, and how much of the Asher projection, like
Speaker 3: you said, was an experiment to find the natural limits
Speaker 3: of the human mind absence of brainwashing.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 4: Well, the aster projection and remote viewing are different things, though.
Speaker 3: Excuse me, I'm using the terms interchangeably. I don't know
Speaker 3: all the nuances. But my point is, how much of
Speaker 3: those experiments we're done with some sort of brainwashing, maybe
Speaker 3: not even like hooking up the diodes and torture, right,
Speaker 3: but how much of it was like, this is talking
Speaker 3: about group suggestion, right, how much of it was You
Speaker 3: get this one normy in a group of all these
Speaker 3: people that say that they are seeing this thing, and
Speaker 3: now they come out of it saying, oh, they saw
Speaker 3: it too, and they're giving little details about it, just
Speaker 3: like these guys are, and they truly believe that they
Speaker 3: saw it too, when in reality it was group brainwashing.
Speaker 3: I don't know if that happened or not at that point.
Speaker 2: Proposing a question, at that point you're tickling the psyche
Speaker 2: of the imagination of someone who doesn't fully understand what
Speaker 2: they're there to do. So and I'm not saying yeah, absolutely,
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm sure these people have been fucked with
Speaker 2: six ways to Sunday, but I don't want to take
Speaker 2: away from actually what they were able to do and
Speaker 2: and what people even nowadays are still able to do
Speaker 2: as far as remote viewing.
Speaker 4: It absolutely is a real thing now.
Speaker 2: I think that it's something that, as you said earlier,
Speaker 2: like some people were better at it than others. Maybe
Speaker 2: you're not going to be bat in a thousand, you know,
Speaker 2: but just the simple fact that think about it like this, dude,
Speaker 2: the fact that people are even able to be ten
Speaker 2: percent right. It's kind of crazy if you really think
Speaker 2: about it, Like if you were to go to some
Speaker 2: crazy ass, fucking obscure place. Right, let's just say you
Speaker 2: go to the top of fucking the Eiffel Tower, right,
Speaker 2: and I don't know, and I just send you out,
Speaker 2: and I say, hey, Jacob, you know I want you
Speaker 2: to go somewhere, go somewhere crazy.
Speaker 4: I wouldn't even think.
Speaker 2: And so in my mind, I would probably assume that
Speaker 2: you're gonna be going somewhere in Louisiana, right, I would
Speaker 2: probably assume that if we're doing it in Louisiana, And
Speaker 2: why would you go? Why would you get on a
Speaker 2: plane and fly all the way to fucking Paris?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 2: Why would I think that? But then all of a sudden,
Speaker 2: out of nowhere, I start getting an image of an
Speaker 2: Eiffel Tower, or I start getting an image of the
Speaker 2: Louver or some crazy shit like that, you know, or
Speaker 2: or I get an image of Macron or like, statistically speaking,
Speaker 2: that should be damn near impossible, but it happens.
Speaker 5: I'm with you, Like, I'm not trying to shit on it.
Speaker 3: I'm proposing a question I could be complete letely off base.
Speaker 5: With it.
Speaker 3: But if we do know this institute was doing brainwashing
Speaker 3: and doing astral and remote viewing, the two may not
Speaker 3: be connected. Just curious if there might have been some
Speaker 3: sort of connection.
Speaker 5: Who's no.
Speaker 2: And honestly, that's what I'm trying to say though, is
Speaker 2: that it wasn't. It wasn't necessarily to test what the
Speaker 2: human is capable of so that we could advance as
Speaker 2: a civilization. I'm not even saying that, I'm saying it was.
Speaker 2: It probably most likely if it was you know, Tavistock shit,
Speaker 2: which SRI is, then absolutely it was used for negative means.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I agree with you one hundred percent.
Speaker 5: Yeah, let's keep going.
Speaker 2: So, it says some of Stanford's major clients and contracts
Speaker 2: were at first centered around the defense establishment, but as
Speaker 2: Stanford grew, so did the diversity of its services applications
Speaker 2: of behavioral sciences to research Management, Office of Science and Technology,
Speaker 2: the SRI Business Intelligent Intelligence Program, the US Department of
Speaker 2: Defense Directorate of Defense Research and Engineering, the US Department
Speaker 2: of Defense Office of Aerospace Research. Among corporations seeking Stanford's
Speaker 2: services where Wells Fargo Bank, Bechtel Corporation, Hewitt Packard, Bank
Speaker 2: of America, McDonald Douglas Corporation, blythe East, Dylan Eastman, Dylon,
Speaker 2: and TRW Company. One of Stanford's more secret projects was
Speaker 2: extensive work on chemical and bacteriological warfare weapons.
Speaker 3: Wow, now, how hard does that hit now that we
Speaker 3: are in a post COVID world?
Speaker 5: But let's keep going.
Speaker 2: Stanford Research is plugged into at least two hundred smaller
Speaker 2: think tanks doing research into every facet of life in America.
Speaker 2: This is ARPA ARPA networking and represents the emergence of
Speaker 2: probably the most far reaching effort to control the environment
Speaker 2: of every individual in the country at present. Stanford's computers
Speaker 2: are linked with twenty five hundred sister research consoles with
Speaker 2: which include the CIA, Bell Telephone Laboratories, US Army Intelligence,
Speaker 2: the Office of Naval Intelligence, rand T, Harvard, and UCLA.
Speaker 2: Stanford plays a key role in that it is the
Speaker 2: library cataloging all AREPA documentation other agencies. One can use
Speaker 2: one's imagination here are allowed to search through SRI's library
Speaker 2: for keywords, phrases, look through sources, and update their own
Speaker 2: master files with those of Stanford Research Center. The Pentagon
Speaker 2: uses SRI's master files extensively, and there is little doubt
Speaker 2: that other US government agencies do the same. Pentagon command
Speaker 2: and control problems are worked out by Stanford. While ostensibly
Speaker 2: these apply only to weapons and soldiers, there's absolutely no
Speaker 2: guarantee that the same research could not and will not
Speaker 2: be turned in turned to civilian applications. Stanford is known
Speaker 2: to be willing to do anything for any.
Speaker 3: One, indeed, absolutely Now let's shift a little bit to
Speaker 3: the MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Alfred P.
Speaker 5: Sloan School of Management.
Speaker 2: This major institute is not generally recognized as part of
Speaker 2: Tavistock USA. Most people look upon it as being a
Speaker 2: purely American institution, but it is far from the truth.
Speaker 2: MIT Alfred Sloan can be roughly divided into the following groups.
Speaker 2: Contemporary Technology, Industrial Relations, NASA, Oh.
Speaker 4: Something just popped up on my screen.
Speaker 2: Sorry about that, ERC, Computer Research Laboratories, Office of Naval
Speaker 2: Research Group, Psychology, Systems, Dynamics. Some of MIT's clients are
Speaker 2: American Management Association, the Committee for Economic Development, GTE, Institute
Speaker 2: for Defense Analysis, NASA, National Academy of Sciences, National Council
Speaker 2: of Churches, Sylvania, TRW, US Army, US Department of State,
Speaker 2: US Navy, US Treasury, Volkswagen Company, and RAND and RAND
Speaker 2: Research and Development Corporation. Without a doubt, RAND is the
Speaker 2: think tank, that think tank most beholden to Tavistock Institute,
Speaker 2: and certainly uria's most prestigious vehicle for control of the
Speaker 2: United States policies at every level. Specific RAND policies that
Speaker 2: became operative include our ICBM program, prime analysis for US
Speaker 2: foreign policy making, instigator of space programs, US nuclear policies,
Speaker 2: corporate analysis, hundreds of projects for the military, the Central
Speaker 2: Intelligence Agency in relation to the use of mind altering
Speaker 2: drugs like payot LSD, which is the covert mk Ultra
Speaker 2: operation which lasted for over twenty years.
Speaker 3: Now, let's talk about this. The founder of the RAND Corporation,
Speaker 3: Hermann Kahn, also founded the Hudson Institute in nineteen sixty one.
Speaker 3: In Educating for the New World Order, bk Ekman tells
Speaker 3: of a training manual for change agents quote unquote developed
Speaker 3: for the US government by the RAND Corporation, a how
Speaker 3: to manual with a nineteen seventy one US Office of
Speaker 3: Education contract number on it, entitled quote unquote Training for
Speaker 3: Change Agents. Seven volumes of change Agent Studies commissioned by
Speaker 3: the US Office of Education to the Rand Corporation in
Speaker 3: nineteen seventy three and seventy four scores of other papers
Speaker 3: submitted by its behavioralists, researchers who had obtained grants from
Speaker 3: the US Office of Education for the purpose of exploring
Speaker 3: ways to freeze and unfreeze values, to implement change, and
Speaker 3: to turn polent potentially hostile groups and committees into acquiescent
Speaker 3: rubber stamp bodies by means of such strategies as the
Speaker 3: Delphi technique.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, baby, Oh yeah, that this.
Speaker 5: Is cut and dry.
Speaker 3: How you move and shake the fabric of culture and society.
Speaker 5: Dude.
Speaker 3: Now, some other RAND clients, maybe you've heard of some
Speaker 3: of these at and T Chase, Manhattan Bank, International Business
Speaker 3: Machines aka IBM, National Science Foundation, the Republican Party TRW,
Speaker 3: the US Air Force, US Department of Health, and the
Speaker 3: US Department of Energy.
Speaker 5: All of these are RAND subsidiaries.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, the Eagle has its talents and everything.
Speaker 5: Well, not subsidiaries.
Speaker 3: They use Rand's information to decide what next big business
Speaker 3: move they need to make.
Speaker 4: Yeah, one hundred percent, And to be honest, it would
Speaker 4: be kind of silly if they didn't use that information.
Speaker 3: Right, I mean, if you're trying to get the edge
Speaker 3: on the competition, you'll use any information as good intel,
Speaker 3: especially with a company that is the Intel company. Right,
Speaker 3: So I understand that I'm not saying that that makes
Speaker 3: it okay that RAND exists, because RAND exists as a
Speaker 3: mind control and brainwashing organization to shape culture, and it's
Speaker 3: a subsidiary of Tavistock, whose main goal was to brainwash
Speaker 3: the world and to take down the American culture. That
Speaker 3: was their main goal when they first set up root
Speaker 3: in America.
Speaker 5: Now there are literally thousands of highly.
Speaker 3: Imported and companies, government institutions, and organizations that make use
Speaker 3: of RAND services. To list them all would be impossible.
Speaker 3: Among RAND specialties is a study group that predicts the
Speaker 3: timing and direction of a thermonuclear war, plus working out
Speaker 3: the many scenarios based upon its findings. RAND was once
Speaker 3: accused of being commissioned by the USSR to work out
Speaker 3: terms of surrender of the United States government, an accusation
Speaker 3: that went all the way to the United States Senate
Speaker 3: where it was taken up by Senator Sigmington and subsequently
Speaker 3: fell into scorn or fell to scorn poured out by
Speaker 3: the establishment press. Brainwashing remains the primary function of RAND.
Speaker 3: These institutions are among those that fund the Uniform Law Foundation,
Speaker 3: whose function is to ensure that the Uniform Commercial Code
Speaker 3: remains the instrument for conducting business in the United States. Now,
Speaker 3: why did they put the infamous black magician or this
Speaker 3: is another thing that kind of as a callback to
Speaker 3: the Beatles from earlier, But real quick before we jump
Speaker 3: to that. So the Rand Corporation, it has its hands
Speaker 3: in every bit of information, government policy, business law, all
Speaker 3: of these things. And then when they were commissioned by
Speaker 3: the USSR and that was being blown up and brought
Speaker 3: to the Senate, other senators came out of the woodwork
Speaker 3: to just shut that down. No, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 3: we are not going to start looking into the Rand Corporation.
Speaker 3: And it's like, wait, why they're working with the enemy.
Speaker 3: We're in a cold war right now. No no, no, no,
Speaker 3: But what you're not gonna do, Okay, what we're not
Speaker 3: gonna do is start looking into the Rand Corporation. We're
Speaker 3: just gonna go ahead and throw that one out. Brainwashing
Speaker 3: is their function, dog.
Speaker 2: One hundred percent. Dude, Yeah, they have to. And this
Speaker 2: is why we say that literally, data is more valuable
Speaker 2: than money. It's more valuable than gold and diamonds and
Speaker 2: all that stuff, because if you think about it, all
Speaker 2: of those are kind of just weapons to buy shit.
Speaker 2: You know what I'm saying, This is what they would
Speaker 2: want to be buying. And so that's why you create
Speaker 2: such buildings and foundations and research centers such as SRI
Speaker 2: and the Rand Foundation, all these different things, because you're
Speaker 2: trying to get to the core of what the information
Speaker 2: is so that then you can oh, I mean implicate
Speaker 2: it like I mean you not implicated. You can take
Speaker 2: all that information advantage, use it to your advantage in
Speaker 2: that sense.
Speaker 3: Yeah, don't worry about the money, big dog. If you
Speaker 3: can control the population, the money will come. Like you
Speaker 3: got that right. You just come out with some new
Speaker 3: product that everybody thinks is like the greatest things in
Speaker 3: sliced bread.
Speaker 5: No matter what it is, you can control them.
Speaker 3: You can fund it in such a way and shape
Speaker 3: it in such a way, and promote it in such
Speaker 3: a way where people will jump on it even if
Speaker 3: they know it's dangerous, even if they know it will
Speaker 3: hurt them, even if they know it's going to lead
Speaker 3: to their demise. How is it being sold how is
Speaker 3: it being marketed. Don't worry about that. That's literally what
Speaker 3: RAND does.
Speaker 4: Yeah, money is secondary.
Speaker 3: Money is a byproduct for them, that's not the source.
Speaker 3: That's not the goal, right Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's kind of like to get kind of like
Speaker 2: a skewed version or whatever. But if you're somebody that, well,
Speaker 2: never mind, married couples won't have sex. I was gonna say,
Speaker 2: if you wanted sex regularly, then you would get married.
Speaker 4: But that's not true either.
Speaker 5: Not true, not true actually by the book here in thought.
Speaker 4: In thought, that's true.
Speaker 2: You know, you always got somebody hanging around, You always
Speaker 2: got somebody there, you go to sleep in the same
Speaker 2: bed every night. In thought, you you know, you would
Speaker 2: have abundance of sex.
Speaker 4: Some people do.
Speaker 5: I mean, yeah, we're not getting on the marriage conversation.
Speaker 2: That is My point was is that you know, it's
Speaker 2: it's similar in that sense to where if if you
Speaker 2: want to get the money, then you got to get
Speaker 2: into the marriage. And that marriage in this case would
Speaker 2: be the information in the think tanks and all that stuff,
Speaker 2: and then the money comes, right.
Speaker 3: And I mean just off of the rip of a
Speaker 3: couple of the companies that we know for sure use
Speaker 3: the rand mindset and their statistics and their polls to
Speaker 3: see what the American peace will buy next. America is
Speaker 3: a consumerist nation, right. We may not have always been
Speaker 3: a consumerist nation, but we absolutely.
Speaker 5: Are right now.
Speaker 3: So what new TikTok trend will lead to some new products,
Speaker 3: some new candy, some new device, some new trinket, whatever,
Speaker 3: becoming the next big thing.
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 3: Is it because this one influencer really likes it and
Speaker 3: talks about it? Or is it because all of a
Speaker 3: sudden your algorithm is being flooded with more and more
Speaker 3: people jumping on the bandwagon of whatever this might be
Speaker 3: next thing. You know, even more people that you know
Speaker 3: now your friends are buying it. Now they're checking it out,
Speaker 3: and it's like, wait, what is this thing? I got
Speaker 3: to get some of this for myself. That was all
Speaker 3: by Rand's design.
Speaker 5: You see what I'm saying?
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, yeah, for sure. Yeah, it's all everything scripted.
Speaker 2: And this is the proof. This is the pudding baby.
Speaker 3: Absolutely Now jumping back to the Beatles here, why did
Speaker 3: they put the infamous black magician Aleister Crowley on the
Speaker 3: cover of Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Heartband.
Speaker 5: This is interesting as fuck.
Speaker 4: He's just a scary looking fucking guy, isn't he.
Speaker 3: Well that was the point, right, He wanted to be
Speaker 3: the most evil, the most wicked man to ever live.
Speaker 5: That's his quote, not mine.
Speaker 3: And he was out there doing black magic for evil,
Speaker 3: calling upon evil.
Speaker 5: Sources to become more evil like that. That was just
Speaker 5: his thing. He wanted to do the mostest because it
Speaker 5: was the mostest.
Speaker 3: Like it's ridiculous, but I you know, somebody had to
Speaker 3: take that title.
Speaker 5: I suppose.
Speaker 2: You know what sucks though, is that anytime somebody brings
Speaker 2: up magic, if you're not familiar with magic and witchcraft
Speaker 2: and that kind of stuff, people associate it with fucking
Speaker 2: Aleister Crowley. And that's not fair because there's so much
Speaker 2: more to it than the dark side of it.
Speaker 3: Fair, but he was. He was famous for the dark
Speaker 3: side of it for sure.
Speaker 2: But what I'm saying is that whenever people, even religious people,
Speaker 2: oh you're talking about magic, you would think of Crowley, right,
Speaker 2: or you would think of I don't know, Marie Levau
Speaker 2: or somebody who is like into the darker.
Speaker 3: Hearts nuances for sure, more Haitian voodoo, not the dark
Speaker 3: occult magic of the esoteric European variety.
Speaker 5: But I see what you mean by that, right, there's always.
Speaker 3: A negative connotation with it, but there's there's reasons for that,
Speaker 3: and it's not Crowley is the reason. But he sure
Speaker 3: has fucked itn't help the conversation to make magic look
Speaker 3: like it was a good thing.
Speaker 4: Well, not that he was even trying to help the conversation, No,
Speaker 4: he was.
Speaker 3: He was absolutely not trying to. But I mean, you know,
Speaker 3: it's all it's all the things. But let's see here.
Speaker 2: It says the Wonderful and Innocent Beatles put the following
Speaker 2: three nefarious characters on the cover of Sergeant Pepper's Lonely
Speaker 2: Hearts Club Band number one. Alistair Crowley, infamous English black
Speaker 2: magician and honorary thirty third degree freemason. Crowley, in his adherents,
Speaker 2: practice all forms of sexual debauchery, including sexual intercourse with animals.
Speaker 2: Crowley was an admitting an it, admitted hedonist, bisexual, and
Speaker 2: drugged experimenter. Crowley referred to himself as the beast and
Speaker 2: the the most wicked man alive. Then you have Altus Huxley,
Speaker 2: the author of author of Brave New World, advocated using
Speaker 2: hallucinogenic drugs, brother of infamous eugenicist Julian Huxley.
Speaker 3: Now that's a point that you usually don't hear about
Speaker 3: Aldus Huxley, right, He himself was also a eugenicist, meaning
Speaker 3: that he believed that certain races of people should be
Speaker 3: made infertile at birth because he believed that certain races
Speaker 3: were inferior to others. You can do your own research
Speaker 3: into this and what he believed on that. But he's
Speaker 3: also one of the ones that was the biggest proponent
Speaker 3: of making sure that psychedelic drugs and other types of drugs,
Speaker 3: not just psychedelics, made it into the youth of America. Again,
Speaker 3: the conspiracy here is that that was a way to
Speaker 3: deconstruct the American nuclear family and the American culture as
Speaker 3: a whole. I'm just saying, man, he played his role beautifully.
Speaker 4: Yeah he did. Yeah he did.
Speaker 2: I mean, I love the Doors of Perception book. But
Speaker 2: that's you know, that's another here, neither here nor there.
Speaker 2: But anyway, Next you have Karl Marx, who's also on
Speaker 2: the cover. Co wrote The Communist Manifesto in eighteen forty eight,
Speaker 2: which has been called one of the world's most influential
Speaker 2: political manuscripts.
Speaker 3: And Communism in and of itself is such a cult,
Speaker 3: and it is based, in my opinion, pure evil. That's
Speaker 3: why it's killed more people on mass by the statistics
Speaker 3: than any other thing on earth. But yeah, that is
Speaker 3: a thing. And again we talked about that on the
Speaker 3: first episode of this trilogy.
Speaker 5: But absolutely.
Speaker 3: Now let's talk a little bit about Alistair Crowley exposed.
Speaker 5: I didn't realize it was going to go here, but
Speaker 5: let's go.
Speaker 2: The cover of the Sergeant Pepper's album by The Beatles
Speaker 2: showed a background of, according to Ringo Star, people we
Speaker 2: like and admire. Paul McCartney said of Sergeant Pepper's cover,
Speaker 2: we are going to have photos on the wall of
Speaker 2: all of our heroes.
Speaker 4: Dame Okay McCartney said.
Speaker 3: That that's not a good thing to say, but all right.
Speaker 2: One of the Beatles heroes included on the cover of
Speaker 2: Sergeant Pepper was the infamous Satanist Aleister Crowley. Our society
Speaker 2: is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think
Speaker 2: we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends, and I
Speaker 2: think I'm liable to be put away as a as
Speaker 2: insane for expressing that that's what insane that's what's insane
Speaker 2: about it. That's a quote from John lennonow. John Lennon
Speaker 2: explained to Playboy magazine that the whole Beatle idea was
Speaker 2: to do what you want, do what thou wilst, as
Speaker 2: long as it doesn't hurt somebody.
Speaker 3: This was a very Crowley in to me, which furthers
Speaker 3: the point. They like and they we could see the transition.
Speaker 3: We talked about this. They went from being these four
Speaker 3: dudes from England that kind of had the mop top hair,
Speaker 3: but they were wearing a suit and tie. They were
Speaker 3: very respectful, you know. They had a vibe to them
Speaker 3: the beginning of a boy band. And they were singing
Speaker 3: this new version of rock music. Cut to Sergeant Pepper's
Speaker 3: Lonely Heart Band and it's all of these crazy colors
Speaker 3: and this androgynist look, and they're talking about Crowley as
Speaker 3: one of their heroes.
Speaker 5: And it's like, so something changed here.
Speaker 3: You went from being this musician guy to being this
Speaker 3: cultural influencer guy.
Speaker 5: And it's not in a positive light.
Speaker 2: LSD guru Timothy Leary was a Crowley enthusiast. He said,
Speaker 2: I've been an admirer of Aleister Crowley. I think that
Speaker 2: I'm carrying on much of the work that he started
Speaker 2: over one hundred years ago. He was in favor of
Speaker 2: finding yourself and do what thou wilt shall be the
Speaker 2: whole of the law under love. It was a very
Speaker 2: powerful statement. I'm sorry he isn't around now to appreciate
Speaker 2: the glories that he started.
Speaker 3: Wow, then you have quite a statement here, do as
Speaker 3: thou wilt end quote under love. He added the underlove
Speaker 3: that is not what Alistair Crowley believed.
Speaker 5: But sure you could. I guess that's a way of
Speaker 5: looking at it.
Speaker 2: Sure then you have the Satanic roots of rock. It
Speaker 2: says under the strict guidance of EMI's recording director George Martin,
Speaker 2: Brian Epstein Jewish.
Speaker 3: Brian, Yes, that would be I believe he is actually
Speaker 3: related to Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 5: If I'm not mistaken. I think that might have been
Speaker 5: his dad or his uncle. It's been a minute.
Speaker 2: The Beatles were scrubbed, washed, and their hair styled into
Speaker 2: the Beatles cut EMI's Martin created the Beatles in his
Speaker 2: recording studio. Wow, literally created the image, not the human flesh.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that, but I'm saying the caricature that
Speaker 2: became the Beatles were created. Absolutely, this dude's recording studio.
Speaker 2: That's pretty wild.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, it's insane, dude. Now, let's talk about Lockwood and EMI.
Speaker 2: All right, EMI, led by aristocrat Sir Joseph Lockwood, stands
Speaker 2: for Electrical and Mechanical Instruments and is one of Britain's
Speaker 2: largest producers of military electronics. Martin was director of EMI's
Speaker 2: subsidiary Parlophone. By the mid sixties, EMI, now called Thorn,
Speaker 2: EMI created a music division which had grown to seventy
Speaker 2: three and twenty one employees and had annual sales of
Speaker 2: three point one nine billion.
Speaker 5: Okay, real quick.
Speaker 3: The mid sixties they were making an annual sales of
Speaker 3: three point one nine billion with a B. I don't
Speaker 3: think people truly understand how insane that is.
Speaker 5: That would be trillions by today's standards.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we got pretty dard damn nearre close to it,
Speaker 4: if not trillion.
Speaker 5: And they were doing that in the sixties.
Speaker 3: And EM I, this Electrical and Mechanical Instruments, were the
Speaker 3: ones that literally created the Beatles with the help of
Speaker 3: an Epstein. I can't even I can't make this up, man.
Speaker 2: I'm actually looking this up. Three point one nine billion.
Speaker 5: In the in call it nineteen sixty.
Speaker 2: Five, in nineteen sixty five two today, yep, Oh, this
Speaker 2: is gonna be interesting.
Speaker 5: Oh it's insane.
Speaker 3: Keep in mind, an ounce of silver in nineteen sixty
Speaker 3: five was one dollar.
Speaker 5: Right now it's thirty.
Speaker 2: Three okay, so a trillion was obviously an exaggeration, but
Speaker 2: uh was it heavily? Yeah, because it's the inflation multiplier
Speaker 2: is nine point eight eight from there, So you would
Speaker 2: multiply the three point one nine billion by nine point
Speaker 2: eight eight, and you would get thirty one point five billion,
Speaker 2: which is still fucking heavy. You know, incline, I was
Speaker 2: thinking it'd be more like a thirty three times honestly.
Speaker 2: I mean silver is silver, and I mean the cost
Speaker 2: of that is different than a USD The inflation is
Speaker 2: done what it's done on that. But okay, so even
Speaker 2: still in the sixties, nobody was making billions of dollars.
Speaker 5: Not to that level.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, and even just if we're to go to nineteen
Speaker 2: sixty that that multiplier goes from nine point eight eight
Speaker 2: to ten point sixty six, so that three point one
Speaker 2: to nine billion would convert to thirty four billion.
Speaker 3: So inflation really took hold at that time and just
Speaker 3: kind of never stopped.
Speaker 4: I mean that's still a massive jump. You're literally ten
Speaker 4: x your money.
Speaker 3: Fuck yeah, you are so in This British company that
Speaker 3: was making this from an aristocrat, I might add, are
Speaker 3: the ones that literally created the Beatles, gave them their
Speaker 3: iconic look, set them on the precedence for all of this.
Speaker 3: Had these girls from this school that they paid to
Speaker 3: come and show up at the airport to scream at
Speaker 3: them when they got off the plane.
Speaker 5: The whole nine.
Speaker 3: This was a part of this Tavistock Institute. All of
Speaker 3: it's been a part of the plan. Bro.
Speaker 4: Yeah, pretty wild.
Speaker 2: Then it shows past Masters Volumes one and two from
Speaker 2: the Beatles.
Speaker 3: Yeah, protests or protect more of your identity for less.
Speaker 5: That's the thing the Beatles, just the basic.
Speaker 3: Now this is an honorary past member, Worshipful Brother Hubert
Speaker 3: Lyndon Mason.
Speaker 4: Honorary price Master, not member.
Speaker 3: Master, excuse me, past master. And they show a couple
Speaker 3: more images here. This is the Masonic Jewel, the apron
Speaker 3: of a past Master. The PM on either side means
Speaker 3: that they are a pass master. This is the cover
Speaker 3: for like we said, the Beatles yesterday and today again Yeah,
Speaker 3: these are baby parts. Don't get me wrong. This is
Speaker 3: a baby doll. This is a leg with carcass still
Speaker 3: on it. This looks like a human arm. This looks
Speaker 3: like a neck bone. Like it's all of this. Was
Speaker 3: this this seemingly you know, happy upbeat boy band type.
Speaker 5: Why would they choose this as the image for their label?
Speaker 4: Yeah, it looks like thick ass, fucking bacon laying on
Speaker 4: their laps.
Speaker 3: Dude, And I think that again, that's been all a
Speaker 3: part of the plan.
Speaker 4: So we shit, do we get through the whole article? Finally?
Speaker 4: That was a finally, very in depth article. I love it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, when you whenever we started this and I told you, like, bro,
Speaker 3: we're not gonna be able to get to this in
Speaker 3: one sitting, Like.
Speaker 5: There's no way of this.
Speaker 3: Now to circle back to the committee of three hundred
Speaker 3: ta a stock the whole nine, this is one of
Speaker 3: these VENN diagrams.
Speaker 5: There's tons that you could find out here.
Speaker 3: But now that we've read all of this, now that
Speaker 3: we have understood how far this goes into what depths.
Speaker 3: Looking at this image, now, does it hit a little
Speaker 3: different it?
Speaker 5: Do it do?
Speaker 2: Especially now that you're a little bit more familiar with
Speaker 2: some of the terms. You know, the Committee of three hundred, Tavistock,
Speaker 2: Brookings Institute, rand Club of Rome, all of this kind
Speaker 2: of shit even you know, all of the brainwashing techniques
Speaker 2: which gets into the mk ultra Henry Kissinger. Yeah, the
Speaker 2: Wharton School of Economics, which is interesting.
Speaker 3: It's all connected Brookings Institute, MIT, the training facilities Wharton,
Speaker 3: like you said, the CIA, Stanford, Harvard, Social Psychology, Princeton,
Speaker 3: the Institute for Social Research, the Trilateral Commission, the Council
Speaker 3: on Yeah, Telegram Relations.
Speaker 5: Culture Foundation, the ADL, the Anti.
Speaker 3: Defamation League, literally, the Anti Defamation League was a part
Speaker 3: of all this, and it all stems from the alleged
Speaker 3: three hundred dudes that read the British East India Company.
Speaker 5: Right. It's like old standing, old standing.
Speaker 3: Powers that be that were completely outside of the realm
Speaker 3: of the Royalty but also worked with the Royalty, the UN,
Speaker 3: the US six, all of these things, the US National
Speaker 3: Reconnaissance Office, all of these things all come together for
Speaker 3: the Committee of three hundred.
Speaker 5: Now this is a Wikipedia page I've got pulled up.
Speaker 4: I actually just pulled that up too. That's funny.
Speaker 5: Yeah, fuck yeah, man.
Speaker 3: Now we could read this's not a long one because
Speaker 3: oddly enough, there's not really that much open information about it.
Speaker 3: That's why you have to go to obscure articles and
Speaker 3: obscure findings to talk about it.
Speaker 4: But well, actually I pulled it up on chat GBT.
Speaker 2: It's a lot more in depth if you want to,
Speaker 2: just I can read that fuck yah, because it goes
Speaker 2: over a lot of what we just said, but it
Speaker 2: kind of summarizes it, so talks about the It's the
Speaker 2: origin the origin of the theories by doctor John Coleman.
Speaker 2: He claimed that the committee was originally founded by the
Speaker 2: British aristocracy aristracy aristocracy Sorry in seventeen twenty seven, drawing
Speaker 2: power from royal bloodlines and global financial institutions. The core
Speaker 2: claims of the theory are number one the According to
Speaker 2: the proponents, the Committee of three hundred controls the world governments.
Speaker 2: It influences policy through groups like the Council on Foreign Relations,
Speaker 2: the Builderberg Group Group, Trilateral Commission, Royal Institute of International Affairs,
Speaker 2: and others. Major institutions, it says, allegedly dominates the central
Speaker 2: banking system, the Federal Reserve Bank of England and the IMF,
Speaker 2: Big Pharma. The media and multinational corporations. It seeks a
Speaker 2: one world government, so their goal would be a new
Speaker 2: world order ruled by technocratic and how do you say
Speaker 2: that word again? Aristocratic aristocratic. There it is elites, reducing
Speaker 2: individual freedoms, population control and depopulation, says theorists claim that
Speaker 2: the Committee supports war, disease, and other engineered events to
Speaker 2: keep the population in check, which absolutely mind control and
Speaker 2: cultural engineering through media, Hollywood and education. They supposedly shape
Speaker 2: public opinion and behavior to maintain control. Definitely, the involvement
Speaker 2: in secret societies often linked to Freemasonry, Skull and Bones,
Speaker 2: the Club of Rome, and even the Illuminati, and overlapping narratives.
Speaker 2: Some of the alleged members are the roth Childs and
Speaker 2: Rockefeller families, the British royal family, high level Vatican officials
Speaker 2: Henry Kissinger, George Soros, David Rockefeller, and top CEOs and
Speaker 2: media moguls. There obviously has been some skepticism which we
Speaker 2: had brought up before, about how there's no quote unquote
Speaker 2: verifiable evidence. Most claims are based on circumstantial connections, unproven assumptions,
Speaker 2: and unverifiable insider knowledge. It's supposedly it has anti semitic tropes.
Speaker 2: Some versions echo dangerous and debunked ideas, like the Protocols
Speaker 2: of the Elders of Zion and the oversimplification It's as
Speaker 2: critics say, these theories reduce complex global systems to a
Speaker 2: singular evil cabal, which can be misleading or even harmful.
Speaker 5: Is it though? Is it though?
Speaker 3: Because I'm pretty sure that most people with a brainstem
Speaker 3: can acknowledge the fact that there is way more at
Speaker 3: play than what the politicians are telling us a global cabal.
Speaker 5: I don't even think that's like a.
Speaker 3: Is that even a crazy conspiracy theory at this point
Speaker 3: or are most people aware that that's just the truth
Speaker 3: of the matter.
Speaker 2: I think more so nowadays they're coming around to the
Speaker 2: idea that there is elite masters of the world, essentially
Speaker 2: the puppeteers that are, you know, kind of putting on
Speaker 2: the show for us, except for like they only have
Speaker 2: the handle at the top of the strings and everybody
Speaker 2: else's you know, the puppets. Yeah, and so yeah, I
Speaker 2: think that a lot of people are starting to understand that.
Speaker 4: And COVID was a big deal about that.
Speaker 2: We always talk about how COVID was really like the
Speaker 2: fucking straw that broke the Campbell's back as far as
Speaker 2: like people actually listening to conspiracy theorists, especially now, like,
Speaker 2: like I said in the live show yesterday, dude, they
Speaker 2: literally oh wait, I don't know if you were around
Speaker 2: for that one, but the just yesterday they just brought
Speaker 2: it in yesterday as a time recording. But they just
Speaker 2: announced that COVID COVID vaccines and boosters are not allowed
Speaker 2: to be taken by children and pregnant women.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I remember hearing about this, which thank god that they
Speaker 3: now have told us this. First of all, we knew that,
Speaker 3: but now thank you for acknowledging it government officiating bodies.
Speaker 4: We were crazy. It was supposed to be safe and effective, right.
Speaker 5: We need to have vaccines for my child. Why can't
Speaker 5: I vaccinate my kid?
Speaker 2: It's like, because you shouldn't, you dumbass, exactly.
Speaker 4: So.
Speaker 2: So yeah, and that's that's where it really gets all
Speaker 2: into the the the idea of the Hegelian dialect as
Speaker 2: far as the problem reaction solution, Like here's the here's
Speaker 2: the crazy thing. Let's say that you are somebody that
Speaker 2: believes that they were somehow able to create a whole,
Speaker 2: entire vaccine within the span of six months, even though
Speaker 2: they were never able to even trap it itself to
Speaker 2: even really truly be able to study it. But they, dude,
Speaker 2: decade vaccines take decades, from what they say, in order
Speaker 2: to craft and create. So either A, you are you're
Speaker 2: you're willingly getting ready to take a vaccine that you
Speaker 2: believe they only worked on for six months even though
Speaker 2: literally vaccine history shows that it takes decades to create,
Speaker 2: or which.
Speaker 3: Is crazy as fuck if you are to go along
Speaker 3: with that narrative that's crazy as fuck.
Speaker 2: Or B, which is actually even more sinister that they
Speaker 2: had the vaccine for those decades and then they and
Speaker 2: then just so happens that, you know, this sickness decides
Speaker 2: to escape from some kind of laboratory, which is even
Speaker 2: more sinister. So now you think about it, Let's say
Speaker 2: you do create a vaccine, right, Let's say you are
Speaker 2: one of these vaccine companies, and you're like, you know
Speaker 2: what I'm doing all this gain of function research and uh,
Speaker 2: you know, I I've created this vaccine that it won't
Speaker 2: do what we're going to tell people that it's actually
Speaker 2: going to do, but it actually is going to be
Speaker 2: doing something really sick as far as like sending spike
Speaker 2: proteins and creating it, you know, basically making sure everybody
Speaker 2: has some kind of aids, which ultimately literally goes literally
Speaker 2: goes back almost ten years ago whenever Bill Gates said
Speaker 2: that we're going to reduce the world's population by ten
Speaker 2: percent through the use of vaccines. And now you're seeing
Speaker 2: it now with all these people having all of these
Speaker 2: fucking problems. If you if you go and sneeze next
Speaker 2: to one of them, or cough or fart next to them,
Speaker 2: even they're getting the flu, they're laid up in bed
Speaker 2: for the next two weeks. So you want to talk
Speaker 2: about reducing the world's population through the use of vaccines?
Speaker 4: Bank, Oh that was.
Speaker 3: COVID and how many people and listen, good cult members
Speaker 3: that are listening to us as we speak. Okay, whether
Speaker 3: you did or didn't get the vaccine, whether you did
Speaker 3: or did not buy into the propaganda surrounding COVID or
Speaker 3: whatever else, Okay, that's not the point here. The point
Speaker 3: is that all of us are subject to propaganda, none
Speaker 3: of us are immune to it.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 3: And because of the Tavistock Institute and all of their
Speaker 3: subsidiaries and all of the businesses, all of the companies
Speaker 3: that they get used with, all of our news media, everything, everything,
Speaker 3: both sides of every coin. Yes CNN and Fox both,
Speaker 3: doesn't matter, all of it. We get bombarded with propaganda
Speaker 3: from the moment we open our eyes in the morning
Speaker 3: to the moment.
Speaker 5: We go to bed.
Speaker 3: That's just how this works, That's how they have formulated
Speaker 3: the system. So when COVID took effect, what made it
Speaker 3: so scary? Right in the beginning, most people didn't know
Speaker 3: anybody that got COVID. I remember when the first case
Speaker 3: happened in I think it was Washington, and it was
Speaker 3: crazy because I had just flown to Washington because a
Speaker 3: buddy of mine was getting pinned as a staff sergeant.
Speaker 5: So I went there to watch the promotion. Right cool.
Speaker 5: I got home and everybody's like, wait, you just came
Speaker 5: from Washington.
Speaker 3: You know they had some COVID cases there, and I
Speaker 3: was like, fucking end, It's okay, it's no big deal.
Speaker 3: And this is before we knew anything about it. We
Speaker 3: thought it was going to lead to heart failure. We
Speaker 3: thought it was going to be the next plague and
Speaker 3: all this. Why why did we think this when they
Speaker 3: had allegedly no research to suggest one way or another
Speaker 3: on this, because it was propagandized to do so.
Speaker 5: Dude, he bought into it in some way, shape or form.
Speaker 2: On CNN, they literally kept a death toll count on
Speaker 2: the top right of the screen.
Speaker 4: Yep, a death toll count.
Speaker 2: You want to talk about propaganda, You want to talk
Speaker 2: about scaring the fuck out of people.
Speaker 4: Whenever you turn on the news, and literally the.
Speaker 2: Overlay of everything that is being shown is you're just
Speaker 2: seeing that tick or climb and climb and clined. Meanwhile,
Speaker 2: you remember what they were even labeling as COVID deaths.
Speaker 2: If you wrecked on a motorcycle but you had you
Speaker 2: had COVID, well that was a COVID death's That's not
Speaker 2: like an exaggeration, that's literally what they were doing.
Speaker 4: And the reason.
Speaker 2: Behind that was is because it was it was just
Speaker 2: trying to push a narrative. It was trying to push
Speaker 2: people into getting the vaccines, It was trying to push
Speaker 2: people into poisoning themselves, and it was trying to push
Speaker 2: people into depopulating themselves essentially.
Speaker 3: And y'all remember when they started hooking people up to ventilators,
Speaker 3: right whenever it Basically, the COVID was essentially a really
Speaker 3: bad flu. It showed only flu like symptoms, and I
Speaker 3: think by the statistics, you had like a three percent
Speaker 3: chance of actually dying from COVID, and usually that was
Speaker 3: somebody who was like overweight, had comorbidities, already had breathing issues,
Speaker 3: whatever the case, that same number could die by.
Speaker 5: The flu just as easily.
Speaker 3: Exactly more people died from tuberculosis the year COVID was
Speaker 3: like going wild. But you never heard about that. Why
Speaker 3: because the propaganda, all the media, all of the socials,
Speaker 3: all the politicians, all of the everything was pushing a
Speaker 3: certain narrative because they were told to.
Speaker 5: That was all a part of Tavistak.
Speaker 2: Similarly, if we're talking about brainwashing here and we're we're
Speaker 2: looking at the blueprint of how they just did it,
Speaker 2: you can say that they would, they could. They have
Speaker 2: the power to to be able to do this if
Speaker 2: they put they're trying to send out a message that
Speaker 2: driving cars is the most dangerous thing that has ever
Speaker 2: been done, and it's getting even more dangerous because more
Speaker 2: people are high, more people are drunk, more people are reckless,
Speaker 2: and don't even get me started.
Speaker 4: On those right wing lunatics. You know, they drive like
Speaker 4: bats out of hell?
Speaker 5: Right right?
Speaker 2: Do you know how many people would like literally turn
Speaker 2: in their license. How many people would literally go and
Speaker 2: sell their car? How many people would stay baled up
Speaker 2: in their house because they didn't even need that much
Speaker 2: of a nudge to stay in their house because of
Speaker 2: a fucking variance of a flu.
Speaker 4: Think about that.
Speaker 3: The same conversation, and yes, out loud, that might sound crazy.
Speaker 3: So you think that people would stop driving if the
Speaker 3: government told them to?
Speaker 5: Really? Okay, real quick pause? Hold that thought right there?
Speaker 3: How many people continue to wear a mask inside of
Speaker 3: their own car by themselves? Now, after the government told
Speaker 3: them all of the studies, all of the medicine, all
Speaker 3: of everything came out and said that these masks are
Speaker 3: ineffective and don't actually do anything except make you feel better.
Speaker 3: It's like a placebo effects. Yeah, it might keep your
Speaker 3: hands from going to your face and mouth more than often.
Speaker 3: But they were talking about we need people to start
Speaker 3: breathing less moistly.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry, you need me to do what? And how
Speaker 5: low do you hear yourself?
Speaker 2: And now you're literally breathing in your own exhaust It's
Speaker 2: like the it's like the whole thing, Like we breathe
Speaker 2: in oxygen and we breathe out CO two. Trees do
Speaker 2: the exact opposite, which which helps the environment in that sense. Right,
Speaker 2: Think about it like this, If you're breathing in CO two,
Speaker 2: you're probably gonna get sick. You know what I'm saying,
Speaker 2: Like on a regular basis, you're probably going to be
Speaker 2: getting sick if you're constantly breathing in your own fumes,
Speaker 2: your fumes being that CO two.
Speaker 3: And the same thing could be said and not just
Speaker 3: COVID y'all, any major political talking point over the last
Speaker 3: I would argue, sixty years, eighty years longer has all
Speaker 3: been formulated and propagandized by these groups. It's all a
Speaker 3: part of the plan your politicians. And we talked about
Speaker 3: this before. There's that movie where Eddie Murphy went and
Speaker 3: got elected to a certain position and they were asking
Speaker 3: his what his position is on big tobacco?
Speaker 5: Are you four or against?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 5: Which one should I go for? Doesn't matter.
Speaker 3: We got lobby money coming in from one side and
Speaker 3: lobby money coming in from the other. I just need
Speaker 3: to know which to mark you down as oh for
Speaker 3: big tobacco. Okay, what do you think about Big Pharma
Speaker 3: four against Well, what does it matter? Nope, we got
Speaker 3: money from this side and this side. That's all it is.
Speaker 3: These politicians, these elected officials, these talking heads, the media moguls, name,
Speaker 3: it doesn't matter. All of the above are all subject
Speaker 3: to doing what they are told to do. How many
Speaker 3: times have you seen a former news anchor start their
Speaker 3: own podcast and they talk about way different shit than
Speaker 3: they did when they were on the legacy media narratives?
Speaker 3: Right now, you can agree or disagree with what they
Speaker 3: say now that they're their own solo act. Fine, that's fine,
Speaker 3: But at least you're disagreeing with the individual, not a
Speaker 3: guy who's speaking on behalf of CNN or Fox News
Speaker 3: who can only read what the teleprompter was printed for
Speaker 3: them to read.
Speaker 5: You see what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: Meanwhile, Don Lemon's still saying the same exact shit that
Speaker 2: he was saying on CNN.
Speaker 3: He's a brainwashed cuck. At this point, there's no saving
Speaker 3: that man. There's no way, no no grace, Kelly Tucker, Carlson.
Speaker 3: There's been people that left CNN that broke off and
Speaker 3: did their own thing. But yeah, they might be more
Speaker 3: liberal minded than you know, the Tucker Carlson of course,
Speaker 3: but at least at that point you're able to hear
Speaker 3: the individual, not the legacy media narrative. And it's up
Speaker 3: to the individual if they want to continue that talking
Speaker 3: point or not.
Speaker 2: Right, don Lemon couldn't smuggle a pineapple through an airport
Speaker 2: in fear of it falling out. Bro, Let's just be
Speaker 2: real right top his fucking ass. Yeah, you know that
Speaker 2: thing as a full on tunnel, and so of course
Speaker 2: he's going to be spitting the same exact ship. Because
Speaker 2: you want to talk about brainwashing, I guarantee you he
Speaker 2: went through that brainwashing program. There's one hundred percent he
Speaker 2: probably went through the electric shock, electroshock therapy. He probably
Speaker 2: went through the uh what is it called, like relearning
Speaker 2: or whatever it is, the education, the re education courses
Speaker 2: and all that kind of stuff. So you want to
Speaker 2: talk about the power, Oh dude, And he's like, he's
Speaker 2: black and he's gay, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 4: So he's got two things standing on.
Speaker 3: What a monolith you ever heard of? Tyler Perry? My boy,
Speaker 3: you ain't special.
Speaker 2: No, I agree, But from his perspective, he believes he's
Speaker 2: more special.
Speaker 3: Look at You was an Juicy smooth a right, or
Speaker 3: or anybody from that show.
Speaker 5: There was that other show.
Speaker 3: It was like a trans black strip club that they
Speaker 3: made a whole show about.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I don't watch these types of shows, but I keep
Speaker 3: seeing commercials on it whenever a new season.
Speaker 5: Jumps out or some shit.
Speaker 3: But dude, it's not like being gay is a monolith anymore.
Speaker 5: It used to be.
Speaker 3: It used to be like only five percent of the
Speaker 3: population identified as one of the alphabet people.
Speaker 5: Now I want to say, it's somewhere around like forty percent.
Speaker 4: No, we can't be that high. I think that openly.
Speaker 5: Admitted these days.
Speaker 3: And yes, the argument is, well, these people have always
Speaker 3: been that way, they just never felt comfortable enough to
Speaker 3: say it out loud.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I don't know these statistics off the top, but it's
Speaker 3: more now in the America than has ever been before.
Speaker 5: The argument here.
Speaker 3: Is that it was because of Tavistock, who started breaking
Speaker 3: it all down in the sixties with the free love
Speaker 3: and sex and drugs and rock and roll movement.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know. I'm actually interested in what that
Speaker 2: percentage is. Oh, I was closed. Oh okayo up.
Speaker 3: How many people currently identify as one of the alphabet people?
Speaker 4: Oh? This is interesting.
Speaker 2: So as of twenty twenty four, approximately nine point three
Speaker 2: percent of US adults identify as LGBTQ plus according to
Speaker 2: the Gallops Late to survey. This figure, this figure has
Speaker 2: nearly doubled from five and a half percent in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty and three and a half percent in twenty twelve.
Speaker 2: Holy shit, you want to talk about literally reshaping humanity
Speaker 2: over the last what twenty years?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 5: How big do you think it's going to be in
Speaker 5: the next ten Just throwing.
Speaker 2: It out, three and a half percent identified as LGBT
Speaker 2: and now ten percent?
Speaker 5: Now? Is that?
Speaker 4: Is that them just being more comfortable coming out and
Speaker 4: saying it?
Speaker 5: Do you think that's probably what I just said.
Speaker 3: I that's the argument from the screening libtards is that
Speaker 3: they feel more comfortable of coming out. They've always been
Speaker 3: this way, They've just been in the closet for this long,
Speaker 3: and this, this and this. Meanwhile, we have Alex Jones
Speaker 3: showing that there's chemical components that are absolutely being added
Speaker 3: to the water aka atrezine that will literally turn somebody gay.
Speaker 3: It's not a conversation of a hypothetical. It is a
Speaker 3: conversation of a confirmed fact. Now the question is are
Speaker 3: they putting that in the water or not? Is it
Speaker 3: being implemented in trying to change the sexual preferences of
Speaker 3: the individual. I am somebody that believes there is a
Speaker 3: greater than zero percent chance of that. Yes, damn, listen
Speaker 3: to this.
Speaker 2: So the Silent generation, it was one point eight percent LGBT, right,
Speaker 2: the baby boomers were two point three percent. Gen X
Speaker 2: is five point one percent, Millennials from eighty one to
Speaker 2: ninety six are fourteen point two percent, and then Gen
Speaker 2: Z from ninety seven to two thousand and six are
Speaker 2: twenty three point one percent identify as LGBT. A quarter
Speaker 2: of the population born from ninety seven to two thousand
Speaker 2: and six are gay.
Speaker 3: Or I sety percent. My bad, that was a bit
Speaker 3: of a reach, but yes, that's my point. It's this
Speaker 3: younger generation. Now, are we really to believe that that
Speaker 3: much of the younger generation identifies that way?
Speaker 5: Or are they in their experimental phase and this and this?
Speaker 3: Are we to believe that it might be a portion
Speaker 3: of what's been pumped into their food right to turn
Speaker 3: their preference as a certain way or or is it
Speaker 3: that Travistock excusing Tavistock has implemented this propaganda in them
Speaker 3: from day one, and that they have not been able
Speaker 3: to watch a single television show or movie for their
Speaker 3: entire life where there wasn't a gay character that was glorified.
Speaker 5: Oh oh, that's a conversation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm sure there's many a factors and there's no
Speaker 2: one way to get to the actual core truth of that.
Speaker 2: But I mean this is actually I did not know
Speaker 2: that one percent, one point three percent of the United
Speaker 2: States adults are transgender. That's a fun I mean one
Speaker 2: point three percent.
Speaker 4: Think about that.
Speaker 3: That's a big ass identatiming as or they've gotten the surgery.
Speaker 5: That's where I draw the line.
Speaker 3: If you're a dude, the dress is like a chick,
Speaker 3: and you're calling yourself a chick, then like, okay, fine,
Speaker 3: you're you do what you do. You're a dude that
Speaker 3: got your dick chopped off. Okay, you're willing to go
Speaker 3: that extra mile with it. I believe that you believe
Speaker 3: what you're talking about for sure, But then look at
Speaker 3: the suicide rates among that community as well.
Speaker 5: And now let's talk about mental faculties.
Speaker 3: Let's talk about mental health, and then you'll see a weird,
Speaker 3: yet somehow very direct correlation between the two. Again, Tavistock
Speaker 3: absolutely propagandizing people into doing something that they can't undo
Speaker 3: and then they can't live with themselves.
Speaker 5: I see that one hundred percent.
Speaker 2: Wow, this is fucking sick. So it goes with the
Speaker 2: breakdown by the age gap as far as the transgenders go,
Speaker 2: So adults eighteen and older, around one point three million
Speaker 2: individuals or zero point five percent of US adults identify
Speaker 2: as transgender. So literally point five one point three million
Speaker 2: transgenders in America alone.
Speaker 4: Then you get to the youth.
Speaker 2: This is from ages only from ages thirty teen to
Speaker 2: seventeen thirteen. Yeah, and I know that's not even that's
Speaker 2: not even the youngest they got like three year old
Speaker 2: transgenders nowadays, but from allegedly allegedly.
Speaker 5: I call it bad parenting. But neither here nor there.
Speaker 2: Let's go same, same, So approximately three hundred thousand individuals,
Speaker 2: equating to one point four percent of this age group
Speaker 2: identify as transgender. Three hundred thousand kids are transgenders. The
Speaker 2: brains of these individuals have not even been fully formed
Speaker 2: yet yet their parents are going along with it, allowing
Speaker 2: it to happen. And what's even worse is is that
Speaker 2: over in states like crazy states like New York and
Speaker 2: California and stuff like that, Dude, you don't even have
Speaker 2: to tell your parents that you're getting.
Speaker 3: The the.
Speaker 5: Or that you identify as you don't have to do that.
Speaker 2: And actually, what they just passed over in California is
Speaker 2: that you don't have to tell your parents if you've
Speaker 2: been vaccinated. So they're telling they're telling the kids within
Speaker 2: the school system, don't worry about what your parents' ideology is.
Speaker 2: We know what's best for you. If you want to
Speaker 2: go and get vaccinated, we will not tell your parents
Speaker 2: and we'll do it for you. You want to talk about
Speaker 2: like literal brainwashing to where you're telling the kids don't
Speaker 2: even listen to your parents anymore. That's brainwashing and this.
Speaker 3: All and even those statistics that you just read out, Okay,
Speaker 3: even those how much of those are from Tavistock.
Speaker 5: I would argue all of them, the majority, I would.
Speaker 3: Say so, and I think that those are being used
Speaker 3: in its own form of propaganda. I don't disagree with
Speaker 3: those numbers, but I'm saying that again, could you imagine
Speaker 3: in the nineteen fifties, one percent of the American population
Speaker 3: one point three million Americans saying that they were trans
Speaker 3: at fucking.
Speaker 2: I do want to make I do want to make
Speaker 2: note though, it's not that we're saying that like transgender,
Speaker 2: this is obviously like wrong, or we're not taking that
Speaker 2: route for this conversation. What we're saying is is that
Speaker 2: the massive spike in numbers is not out of nowhere
Speaker 2: like and it's not to say that like, oh, all
Speaker 2: these people are clearly brainwashed, da da. The brainwashing happens
Speaker 2: in multiple facets because as we as we were talking
Speaker 2: about earlier in previous episodes. Also whenever it comes to Tavistock,
Speaker 2: it's not that any one way is correct or incorrect.
Speaker 2: They're just trying to divide in whatever way possible. They're
Speaker 2: not saying, well, this is the right way, let's try
Speaker 2: and promote the wrong way. They're saying, here is what
Speaker 2: the regular notion of what society looks like. Now, let's
Speaker 2: let's try and create this false divide so that we
Speaker 2: can split.
Speaker 4: That's that's that's their ideology.
Speaker 3: The conspiracy is that they're trying to push the quote
Speaker 3: unquote wrong way.
Speaker 5: And that's the wrong way. You believe it's wrong, you
Speaker 5: believe it's right. I don't care. That's not what this
Speaker 5: conversation is about. Right.
Speaker 3: The conversation, the conspiracy behind it is that Tavistock set
Speaker 3: up roots in America to make this civilization crumble.
Speaker 5: Right, And we talked about on the first episode.
Speaker 3: Every time one of the greatest civilizations of human history
Speaker 3: name it, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 5: Every time that they get.
Speaker 3: Into a status of you know, of of gender, ideology,
Speaker 3: of luxury, of thinking about the feelings rather than about
Speaker 3: what needs to happen, and they lose sight of it
Speaker 3: is when they crumble. Okay, this is a tried and
Speaker 3: true method. Rinse and repeat. Ancient Babylon, ancient Egypt, ancient Greece,
Speaker 3: ancient Rome, ancient France, ancient England. Doesn't matter I'm saying ancient.
Speaker 3: Some of those shouldn't have been ancient, like the French
Speaker 3: Revolution and the British Empire.
Speaker 5: Fine, whatever.
Speaker 3: All I'm saying is that once society falls into this
Speaker 3: realm of over and abundance and it's more of a
Speaker 3: luxury and you got the orgies going on, you got
Speaker 3: the kings that are more of to do as I say,
Speaker 3: not as I do. And it's this whole method is
Speaker 3: when the society crumbles. Tavistock set to work to make
Speaker 3: the American nuclear family, the American culture, and the American
Speaker 3: country crumble.
Speaker 5: And it's all been a part of.
Speaker 3: The plan Bro, from the fifties to the sixties, to
Speaker 3: the seventies to the eighties to now what we have
Speaker 3: going on in our current modern day. Everything we just
Speaker 3: listened about, the trans movement, the alphabet people, the anti
Speaker 3: war conversation. The political parties are about to flip flop
Speaker 3: yet again. The Democrats are the warring party. They're also
Speaker 3: the party that believes in seventy four genders. Those two
Speaker 3: don't fucking make sense that they're being said from the
Speaker 3: same guy. But somehow that's where we have found ourselves.
Speaker 3: All of it is a part of Tavistock's plan, Bro.
Speaker 2: I believe it was said best and I think that
Speaker 2: this was a sublime song. And he's twelve years old
Speaker 2: into Moreshoby a whore. Nobody ever told us it's the
Speaker 2: wrong way.
Speaker 5: That song's really fucked up.
Speaker 2: But it's kind of Tavastakian, wouldn't you think, Oh, I
Speaker 2: would say so.
Speaker 4: I just don't know.
Speaker 3: I would say so Tavistakian. That's the quote that we're
Speaker 3: now going to start pushing. Whenever we hear some stupid
Speaker 3: propaganda piece, it's Tavastakian in nature.
Speaker 5: Do I like it?
Speaker 2: That just came out of the ether. I don't even
Speaker 2: know where I pulled that from, but it just makes sense.
Speaker 5: That's a cult, a conspiracy exclusive right there.
Speaker 4: Fuck you fucking ay.
Speaker 2: So anyhow, good cult members, let us know what you
Speaker 2: think about all this.
Speaker 4: Do you believe it? Do you not believe it? Do
Speaker 4: you agree with it? What are what are? What are
Speaker 4: your what?
Speaker 2: If you're trying to break it down and say that
Speaker 2: it's all fake and gay where But if you're trying to,
Speaker 2: you know, say that it's not real or whatever, we
Speaker 2: want to hear it. Because even Jacob, the notorious stick
Speaker 2: in the Mud, who doesn't believe mostly anything whenever it
Speaker 2: comes to conspiracies, believes it wholeheartedly.
Speaker 3: Okay, so believing government can spies. I just get tired
Speaker 3: of the constant religious conversations. Conspiracy and religion don't always
Speaker 3: have to be in the same conversation.
Speaker 5: Sometimes they are. Sometimes they work out that way.
Speaker 3: But this is one of those where it's like Tavistock
Speaker 3: didn't really care about religion, but they did want to
Speaker 3: get people out of the churches. That was another one
Speaker 3: of their big pushes. They want to get people away
Speaker 3: from the societal norms that had become the American culture,
Speaker 3: and absolutely the separation of religion was a portion of
Speaker 3: it for sure.
Speaker 2: Well, look, whenever you have a generation of churchgoers and
Speaker 2: husbands and wives and the husband's going to work and
Speaker 2: the wife is staying at home, how you're going to
Speaker 2: cause discourse and divide is by creating a seeming you know,
Speaker 2: like a original kind of movement. Like you're, yeah, a
Speaker 2: culture shift is going to cause the divide. And it
Speaker 2: doesn't necessarily even it doesn't matter what you do to
Speaker 2: go about that, as long as you're causing a divide. So,
Speaker 2: if you're trying to get the religious people upset talk
Speaker 2: about Satan, you're trying to get the people who are
Speaker 2: against the gay movement, well, let's put a little you know,
Speaker 2: let's put a little gay kid in every TV show, right,
Speaker 2: Like it's always the exact opposite. It literally is the
Speaker 2: upside down pentagram. Like that's what we're talking about right here,
Speaker 2: it's the upside down Cross. Why is the upside down
Speaker 2: Cross still something that agitates people to this day Because
Speaker 2: it's the opposite of what you believe, and that's the divide,
Speaker 2: that's what they care about. They don't care about what's
Speaker 2: right and wrong. This is my opinion. They don't give
Speaker 2: a fuck about what is right and wrong. They just
Speaker 2: want people at odds. That's the method to the madness.
Speaker 5: Absolutely agreed, So yeah, I would agree with you.
Speaker 3: If y'all would like to comment on this, tell us
Speaker 3: what you think about it. We kind of went way
Speaker 3: way into the weeds on this three part episode. Honestly,
Speaker 3: and again, y'all, I had no idea what I was
Speaker 3: digging into when I first looked into Tavistock. I found
Speaker 3: a few things, a few brainwashing things, a few little
Speaker 3: spots where they had kind of made their way into
Speaker 3: the US government, no idea to what level. I had
Speaker 3: no idea that the wars were all propagandized by a Tavistock.
Speaker 3: I had no idea the hippie movement and what we
Speaker 3: would now consider American music was all a part of Tavistock.
Speaker 3: We didn't even touch on the rap industry. We didn't
Speaker 3: even touch on the country music industry. We didn't even
Speaker 3: touch on Hollywood. All of these and so much more
Speaker 3: are Tavistockian no doubts about it. It's one plus one
Speaker 3: equals two here. But we would like to hear from you.
Speaker 3: Tell us what you think about it before we read
Speaker 3: this episode. If you would like to get your start
Speaker 3: in the buying and selling and trading of gold and silver,
Speaker 3: bullyant and minted coins and come check us.
Speaker 5: Out at cecsilver dot com. The link is in the
Speaker 5: description below.
Speaker 3: When you fill out your information, our boy Wayne Clark
Speaker 3: is going to be the one to reach out to
Speaker 3: you and get you started on your journey. We're not
Speaker 3: saying you need to throw all of your retirement in
Speaker 3: your full one k into the precious metals, but what
Speaker 3: we are saying is that a diverse portfolio is going
Speaker 3: to be the best way to protect yourself and your
Speaker 3: nest egg when the time for retirement comes. To get
Speaker 3: your start, Like we said, the best way to get
Speaker 3: started cec Silver dot calm link in the description below.
Speaker 3: But the other way that you could help us grow
Speaker 3: this podcast, boost these algorithms and help us break out
Speaker 3: of the Tavistaki and propaganda matrix.
Speaker 5: What be too please at this time?
Speaker 3: Hit the five Stars, hit the shares of like, suscribes
Speaker 3: to comment, sleep a posting, reviewed, shares with their friends
Speaker 3: and family, shares saif ore. Here's the deal. The more
Speaker 3: activity the algorithm sees across all of our listening platforms,
Speaker 3: the more we get promoted to more potential listeners. Who
Speaker 3: could that become potential cult members like the rest of you.
Speaker 3: Fine ladies and gentlemen, Why are you ready to go
Speaker 3: check out metamistery Jonathan's other show and getting the same
Speaker 3: love and reviews over there the Five Stars and all
Speaker 3: the things.
Speaker 5: Come check out Cajun Knights.
Speaker 3: Come check out both of our individual patreons every Wednesday
Speaker 3: night for our Wednesday Night lives at nine pm Central. Hey,
Speaker 3: we thank you for everybody's already gone and.
Speaker 5: Have done so.
Speaker 2: And with that being said, this was another beautiful episode
Speaker 2: of the Cults of Conspiracy.
Speaker 4: And my name is Jonathan and Jacob and there's one.
Speaker 2: Very important, extremely vital piece of information we need you
Speaker 2: to learn just as soon as humanly possible.
Speaker 3: Hey, cult members, Jacob here just want to ask who
Speaker 3: wants better sex? The best way to get started is
Speaker 3: to go to Adam and Eve dot com Right now,
Speaker 3: Abai and Eve is offering fifty percent off just about
Speaker 3: any item, but that's not all. When you get one item,
Speaker 3: they will also send three bonus sexy items and six
Speaker 3: free movies. They offered a screen shipping as your privacy
Speaker 3: is a priority, plus free shipping on your entire order.
Speaker 3: Doesn't matter how much you spend or what you buy.
Speaker 3: All we packaged and sent discreetly for free. That's fifty
Speaker 3: percent off one item and ten free gifts to boot
Speaker 3: bring more pleasure and satisfaction into your bedroom. Just go
Speaker 3: to Adam and Eve dot com and select any one item.
Speaker 3: It could be an adventurous new toy or anything you desire.
Speaker 3: Just enter the offer code cult at checkout and you'll
Speaker 3: get fifty percent off almost any item, plus ten free gifts,
Speaker 3: three bonus items, six free movies, and free shipping.
Speaker 5: Use the offer code.
Speaker 3: Cult that seult at Adam and Eve dot com now.
Speaker 3: This is an exclusive offer specific to this podcast, so
Speaker 3: be sure to use this code to get you not
Speaker 3: just the discount and the free goodies, but also the
Speaker 3: one hundred percent free shipping with the code cult