Speaker 1: Enjoy these back to back classic Forbidden Knowledge News episodes. Today,
Speaker 1: I want to welcome back to the show, Ryan Gable.
Speaker 1: He is a veteran radio personality and producer for his
Speaker 1: weekend show The Secret Teachings and a special weekend show
Speaker 1: called TST Weekends. His broadcast focus on synchronicity and objective
Speaker 1: analysis of parapsychology, pop conspiracy, parapolitics, health history, the paranormal, symbolism,
Speaker 1: the occult and esoteric alchemy, magic, philosophy, and more in
Speaker 1: the most distinct ways by finding parallels and patterns often overlooked. Ryan,
Speaker 1: welcome back. How you doing.
Speaker 2: I'm doing fantastic. Thank you for having me back on
Speaker 2: the show.
Speaker 1: Yes, great to have you back.
Speaker 3: Man.
Speaker 1: Last time was an amazing show, and you do fantastic
Speaker 1: work on your own show, decoding esoteric symbolism and messages
Speaker 1: in media, movies, large events, and political realms, and Hollywood,
Speaker 1: in conjunction with the CIA and the news media, has
Speaker 1: been steering culture in certain desired directions since the dawning
Speaker 1: of mass broadcasting and telecommunications and over the past three years,
Speaker 1: whether you participated or not in the insanity, the world
Speaker 1: has dramatically changed and continues to as we speak, and
Speaker 1: there seems to be a definite quickening of events since
Speaker 1: the COVID era as well, seemingly by design, and today
Speaker 1: I want to get into some of the examples of
Speaker 1: these events and the symbolism behind them, and your insights
Speaker 1: into the who and why behind this occult programming. Before
Speaker 1: we get into any of that, just remind the audience
Speaker 1: a little bit about yourself and the Secret Teachings.
Speaker 2: Yes, so, as you know, Oh, my name is Ryan Gable.
Speaker 2: My show is The Secret Teachings. Thank you for that
Speaker 2: little bit of an introduction there. And that's a really
Speaker 2: good question or set of questions to start off with.
Speaker 2: I've been doing this for about fourteen years now, long
Speaker 2: before it became popular or trendy, and I tend to
Speaker 2: take a stance that is oppositional to a lot of
Speaker 2: work that might seem similar to mine. I don't tend
Speaker 2: to get into a lot of the social media stuff
Speaker 2: and a lot of the conspiratorial stuff that is trending.
Speaker 2: I try to stay away from a lot of that.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm doing today. Over the last fourteen years, though,
Speaker 2: I've been using history and mythology and symbolism as an
Speaker 2: oracle to try to figure out if there's any deeper
Speaker 2: meaning to contemporary events. And that's what I've been doing
Speaker 2: throughout most of my career. And I think to answer
Speaker 2: your question gently before we go into anything. In addition,
Speaker 2: if you look at Hollywood just the name, a lot
Speaker 2: of your listeners might be aware of this already. But
Speaker 2: Hollywood is actually a type of wood, real type of
Speaker 2: wood that magicians use to make magic wands. You can
Speaker 2: make a magic wand out of anything Cyprus, You can
Speaker 2: make a magic wand out of a pine tree, of
Speaker 2: whatever you want you could use as a tool. But
Speaker 2: Hollywood is traditionally a wand that was made to conjure
Speaker 2: up storms, or to conjure up gray skies, gray skies, storms,
Speaker 2: conjuring up illusions and things of this nature. And we
Speaker 2: still call the Hollywood screen when you go to the
Speaker 2: movie theater, we call it the big silver screen. It's
Speaker 2: conjuring something onto the screen that otherwise isn't there. So
Speaker 2: that's kind of similar to the old idea of magicians
Speaker 2: conjuring up storms using Hollywood wands. The other thing is
Speaker 2: you said the word broadcasting, and I haven't thought of
Speaker 2: this for a while, so I'm glad you said that
Speaker 2: word broadcasting is literally the broad very large, very widespread
Speaker 2: casting of whatever it is that is being broadcast. So
Speaker 2: it could be an idea, an ideology, a movie, a
Speaker 2: TV show, a news broadcast, but it is a broadcast
Speaker 2: of an idea or of perhaps as we still refer
Speaker 2: to a lot of Hollywood movies. I was reading about
Speaker 2: a movie the other day because I'm a big movie buff,
Speaker 2: and that they were saying that the movie was spell binding.
Speaker 2: So we still use those kinds of words broadcasting or
Speaker 2: casting something Hollywood, the wood of the magician's wand and
Speaker 2: of course something as simple as spellbinding a word that
Speaker 2: we play with, but it has a very deep meaning.
Speaker 2: It is spell binding, a spell that we broadcast to
Speaker 2: the masses. So I think just that alone is enough
Speaker 2: to help us to understand that there's a little bit
Speaker 2: more to Hollywood and a little bit more to media
Speaker 2: in general, all forms of media, than just simple entertainment
Speaker 2: one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: I still enjoy movies, I still enjoy media and TV
Speaker 1: shows every once in a while, But I used to
Speaker 1: be under the complete Hollywood spell, you know, just ten
Speaker 1: to fifteen years ago. I use to love watching movies.
Speaker 1: That was my favorite thing to do. I would get
Speaker 1: completely sucked in. I was also completely asleep to a
Speaker 1: lot of the aspects of what was happening there. But
Speaker 1: you know, I still enjoy going and seeing a good movie.
Speaker 1: But now I just sit back and kind of pick
Speaker 1: apart what seems to be the symbolism and programming behind everything.
Speaker 1: But what do you think about what has happened to
Speaker 1: entertainment in the Hollywood just in the past few years.
Speaker 1: It's the quality to me has just declined extremely. It's
Speaker 1: very hard for me to find something I'll enjoy anymore.
Speaker 1: And it seems more about the propaganda and pushing whatever
Speaker 1: agenda's in the background than even entertainment or even Hollywood
Speaker 1: making any profits anymore. It's just all about this propaganda
Speaker 1: and programming. Now do you see the same things?
Speaker 2: Yeah? And I think to be objective about it, I
Speaker 2: would imagine if we asked our parents, you know, they
Speaker 2: might have a are feeling hard generation of movies and TV.
Speaker 2: But beyond the objectivity of it, there certainly is a quickening.
Speaker 2: I think you used the word quickening earlier. There's certainly
Speaker 2: a quickening of certain ideologies and certain themes that are present,
Speaker 2: And this is a question that I've asked myself and
Speaker 2: I've also asked my audience and the secret teachings. It's
Speaker 2: something a good friend of mine who's a co host,
Speaker 2: on occasion, we talked about this probably once a week.
Speaker 2: It doesn't make any sense how you think of Hollywood
Speaker 2: and you think of the rich and the famous and
Speaker 2: the powerful, even if it's very fake, these are really powerful, rich,
Speaker 2: influential people, and they want to make money. They want
Speaker 2: to make a lot of money. A lot of celebrities,
Speaker 2: a lot of even athletes, people sell out for anything.
Speaker 2: They'll do stupid supplement commercials, stupid diet commercials, whatever, so
Speaker 2: whatever they can do to stay relevant or make money.
Speaker 2: So it's weird when Hollywood in particular, but media in general,
Speaker 2: begins to push themes and ideas that you know, if
Speaker 2: they did it for a little bit and they did
Speaker 2: these ideas didn't stick and people didn't want to see them,
Speaker 2: you would think that they would switch to something else
Speaker 2: because they'd be losing money. I mean, you think about
Speaker 2: look at CNN. CNN gets less viewers than reruns of
Speaker 2: SpongeBob on Nickelodeon. That's baffling. That's incomprehensible, it doesn't make
Speaker 2: any sense. And yet they still put hundreds of millions
Speaker 2: of dollars into a CNN broadcast every single year, billions
Speaker 2: of dollars, where the question is where does that money
Speaker 2: come from? In the same way with Hollywood, I'm sure
Speaker 2: you I would assume you've seen Top Gun? Did you
Speaker 2: see the new Top Gun movie?
Speaker 1: I didn't see the New Top Gun.
Speaker 2: No, it's it's a really even if I don't like
Speaker 2: Tom Cruise myself, but the movie is fantastic. And I
Speaker 2: know people that don't. They don't like war movies, people
Speaker 2: that don't even like this stuff. I went to the
Speaker 2: theater to see it because I wanted to see see
Speaker 2: it on the big screen, the silver screen, and I
Speaker 2: noticed there were there were like more kids in the
Speaker 2: theater than there were like single adults. The theater was packed.
Speaker 2: And this was like a month after it had come
Speaker 2: out on a weeknight. It wasn't even a sat Friday
Speaker 2: or Saturday. And I thought, maybe that's just a one off.
Speaker 2: And when I left the theater, I just out of curiosity.
Speaker 2: I just kind of stood there and I was seeing
Speaker 2: who was in the theater. I was watching people walk
Speaker 2: out and funny thing is next door to the theater
Speaker 2: there was the buzz Lightyear movie was playing. It was
Speaker 2: like the same time, and when the buzz Lightyear movie
Speaker 2: got out about the same time, there was like no
Speaker 2: is nobody in the theater, and that buzz Lightyear movie
Speaker 2: because Disney added this I guess gay kiss or gay
Speaker 2: character or something, that movie bombed and you got to
Speaker 2: almost in a way, so bad for the people that
Speaker 2: worked on it, all the rendering and the editing and
Speaker 2: the writing and direct all the things that went into that,
Speaker 2: and the movie bombed and tanks and they lose all
Speaker 2: this money because they had to insert some gay scene
Speaker 2: into it that even gay people like who was interested
Speaker 2: in that. We want to see a story. That's what
Speaker 2: made Pixar so good. It was a story, characters, archetypes,
Speaker 2: and it spoke to us. The characters ruality didn't matter.
Speaker 2: So we had more kids going to see Top Gun.
Speaker 2: This was just my experience than going to see Buzz
Speaker 2: light Year. So you would assume My point is that
Speaker 2: if these and we know for sure of these companies,
Speaker 2: these big Hollywood companies are losing literally hundreds of millions
Speaker 2: of dollars a year in the production of these movies
Speaker 2: and TV shows that they're making. But they just keep
Speaker 2: making them. So somebody has to be somewhere subsidizing this.
Speaker 2: And this isn't the point of the reason you have
Speaker 2: me on today, But I think a lot of people
Speaker 2: don't want to talk about this either because they don't
Speaker 2: want to admit they've watched pornography before. But the porn
Speaker 2: industry is the thing. You can get pornography anywhere. It's
Speaker 2: not a disputable or debatable thing. You porn anywhere as
Speaker 2: much porn as you want. And yet somehow the porn industry,
Speaker 2: even though it's relatively small, has hundreds of millions of
Speaker 2: dollars to keep making porn that is just basically being
Speaker 2: given away for free. Somebody has to be subsidizing that.
Speaker 2: Somebody has to be subsidizing. Target just announced they lost
Speaker 2: four hundred million dollars just from theft alone, not projected
Speaker 2: profit they lost. But who's subsidizing that money? And that's
Speaker 2: really at the core of the question that you asked.
Speaker 2: I think whether it's Target, the porn industry, Hollywood, major
Speaker 2: media companies. All that money's being lost, and you think
Speaker 2: they changed their team wouldn't you.
Speaker 1: I would, And you know, I'm glad you brought up
Speaker 1: the porn industry. That's actually on my list of things
Speaker 1: that I wanted to cover if we had a chance.
Speaker 1: But since you brought it up, let's dive into that
Speaker 1: for a minute, because I wanted to talk about the
Speaker 1: effect that it's had, especially on younger generations, and not
Speaker 1: only that video games just kind of the combination too,
Speaker 1: that the effects has had on the younger generations over
Speaker 1: the years. I have friends that have kids and they're
Speaker 1: just seemingly much different than the older generations. But with porn,
Speaker 1: I mean, I remember, I'm sure you're around the same
Speaker 1: age as myself. When we growing up, we had to
Speaker 1: start out with our dad's magazines and then we graduated
Speaker 1: to the VHS tapes, but it was still well, you know,
Speaker 1: you had to work for your pornography. You had to
Speaker 1: fast forward to the good scenes and stuff like that,
Speaker 1: and then you had your your internet based porn that
Speaker 1: came up, and we were still young, but you had
Speaker 1: to it was on a modem, a dial up modem,
Speaker 1: and you had to wait forever just to see a nipple.
Speaker 1: Still a little bit of work that you had to
Speaker 1: do for it. Nowadays, kids are walking around with this
Speaker 1: in their pocket. All they have to do is hit
Speaker 1: a button that says yes, I'm twenty one or yes
Speaker 1: I'm eighteen, and they're into the most raunchiest things that
Speaker 1: you could ever imagine. And I can't imagine how desensitized
Speaker 1: they've become and how it's affected their sexual development over
Speaker 1: the years, in combination with being sucked into video games.
Speaker 1: The video games is so much better than real life
Speaker 1: for some of these kids. They don't want to participate
Speaker 1: in real life, so they spend most of their waking
Speaker 1: hours playing these video games. They don't want to have
Speaker 1: sex with a race, a real girl, because their pornography
Speaker 1: is way better than that. So what do you think
Speaker 1: about the way that this has been affecting the younger generations.
Speaker 2: Well, there's a lot of ways to answer that question,
Speaker 2: and that's a fantastic observation. Fantastic question. For one, if
Speaker 2: you look at the country of Japan. I've ever been
Speaker 2: to Japan, but I've always been fascinated with Japan. I've
Speaker 2: been in the process of learning Japanese for some time,
Speaker 2: and I've been reading a lot about current political things
Speaker 2: in Japan. And how they I think then the recent
Speaker 2: number was they only had eight hundred thousand I guess
Speaker 2: you could call them pure Japanese babies that were born,
Speaker 2: which is an unbelievably small number. Their birth rate is
Speaker 2: declining rapidly, and it's not because of sperm towns or fertility.
Speaker 2: It's because they don't want to have sex with each other.
Speaker 2: And it's just not like they've lost a lot of
Speaker 2: their traditional culture and a lot of things that make
Speaker 2: them who they are. And this is a big thing
Speaker 2: that Japan is contending with, is that they just have
Speaker 2: such a low birth rate and people would rather date
Speaker 2: digital girlfriends and things like this. So that's just kind
Speaker 2: of an example of a country that's kind of isolated
Speaker 2: and still kind of isolated in a sense, and they're
Speaker 2: having the same problems largely because of technology. I don't
Speaker 2: necessarily think technology is bad. I don't necessarily think porn
Speaker 2: is bad, and I don't necessarily think video games are bad.
Speaker 2: But to address your question, it's sort of like if you,
Speaker 2: you know, if you were to go and to have
Speaker 2: some let's say, some spicy food, and you eat spicy
Speaker 2: food all the time. I'm one of those guys I
Speaker 2: like spicy food. You know, eventually the spicy food doesn't
Speaker 2: do it for me anymore, so I have to go
Speaker 2: like the next level up. I have to get a
Speaker 2: spici or pepper, a spicier hot sauce, and otherwise it
Speaker 2: just ends up tasting salty and not as spicy. Same
Speaker 2: kind of a thing happens when you watch pornography, or
Speaker 2: maybe you engage in some kind of you know, video
Speaker 2: game or watching movies that are very violent. I don't
Speaker 2: necessarily think that it creates the atmosphere or the environment
Speaker 2: where people want to go do those things. I think
Speaker 2: it's actually kind of the opposite. It's a release. But
Speaker 2: when you don't have a structure at home, when you
Speaker 2: don't have guidance, when you don't have I would personally suggest,
Speaker 2: when you don't have any kind of spiritual viewpoint or
Speaker 2: aspect that is that you are engaging with in your life,
Speaker 2: and a lot of that comes from not having parents
Speaker 2: or guardians that help you to progress and grow. If
Speaker 2: you're only engaged in the video games, the movies, the
Speaker 2: porn and things like that that are violence and sexual
Speaker 2: and you don't have any balance to that, that I
Speaker 2: think is what creates the problem. So I don't think
Speaker 2: the problem is necessarily peorn or video games. The problem
Speaker 2: is in balance, and the problem is when you look
Speaker 2: at everything that is I think I would say promoted.
Speaker 2: Everything that's promoted and advertised today is demoralizing, it's degenerative.
Speaker 2: You know, you can't post your opinion on Twitter, but
Speaker 2: you can find hardcore pornography and it just pops up.
Speaker 2: Like in fact, I was just on Twitter a second
Speaker 2: ago before the show started, and I have no clue
Speaker 2: where this came from. I just saw I had six notifications.
Speaker 2: I click on the notifications, and someone commented on one
Speaker 2: of my posts from last night, and I don't ve
Speaker 2: used Twitter that much, but I checked it, and then
Speaker 2: suddenly pornography pops up. And it's the thing that bothers
Speaker 2: me is not the It's not the porn, it's that
Speaker 2: in China, they don't let their kids see that kind
Speaker 2: of thing. In China, they're TikTok and there they're which
Speaker 2: is you know, a Chinese company anyways owned by but
Speaker 2: their social media they're promoting family and they're promoting you know,
Speaker 2: math and science and history. They're not allowing the pornography
Speaker 2: and the violence to permeate. So there's a reason that
Speaker 2: this is happening, in particular in the West, but largely
Speaker 2: in America. Someone is allowing it. The algorithms are allowing it,
Speaker 2: the same algorithms that they allow the QAnon conspiracies and
Speaker 2: the Pizagate conspiracies, which personally I don't believe in those.
Speaker 2: I think those are distractions from something else. But they
Speaker 2: are allowing these things to ges state and permeate, and
Speaker 2: that does have a negative effect when that's all that
Speaker 2: you see, when that's all that you consume, and largely
Speaker 2: when you don't have guidance or balance or the concept
Speaker 2: of God or spirit or any of those other things,
Speaker 2: that's when it becomes dangerous. That's when I think it
Speaker 2: becomes harmful.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, right on, there does seem to be
Speaker 1: an overarching eugenics or depopulation or sterilization agenda going on
Speaker 1: globally right now. And what easier way to help that along?
Speaker 1: Then if the kids aren't having sex, or people aren't
Speaker 1: having sex with each other anymore, right.
Speaker 2: Well, I would say if they're not having meaningful sex,
Speaker 2: which would imply that there's no relationships or families, they've
Speaker 2: taken something sacred like sex, and they've turned it into well,
Speaker 2: it's something you can sell, it's a commodity, or they've
Speaker 2: trivialized sex in the same way that I mean drugs
Speaker 2: have been trivialized that I've never done any kind of
Speaker 2: drug in my life. I don't even take I don't
Speaker 2: even take prescribe drugs myself. But kind of like pornography.
Speaker 2: I'm assuming that, you know, because I knew people that
Speaker 2: did do drugs in high school or when I went
Speaker 2: to film school. People had to work to get their drugs.
Speaker 2: They had to work to get their pornography. Nowadays, you
Speaker 2: don't really have to work to get either. You can
Speaker 2: get porn anywhere, and you can also I mean literally
Speaker 2: here where I live in Arizona, in Tucson, I've seen
Speaker 2: people just smoking crack on the side of the road
Speaker 2: and the police don't do anything because it's like official
Speaker 2: federal government from the Body Administration distributed. It's federal crack.
Speaker 2: I'm guessing that's what it is. Anyway, Yeah, they don't
Speaker 2: do anything about it, so it's easy to get access
Speaker 2: to it, and that that's part of the process of
Speaker 2: demoralization and destabilization. And whether you take your Abzmenov, the
Speaker 2: former Soviet KG, the agent who said this is how
Speaker 2: you break down a society, You break down a civilization, demoralization, degrading,
Speaker 2: and then things eventually fall apart. Regardless of him saying that,
Speaker 2: I'm saying that that's what it looks like to me.
Speaker 2: It's putting people into positions where they think they have
Speaker 2: no purpose, they have no meaning, so they turn to
Speaker 2: these things that just keep them numb. And I think
Speaker 2: that's also kind of a product for a lot of Americans.
Speaker 2: And I try to make this point all the time
Speaker 2: of the Secret Teachings. We don't have any idea, on average,
Speaker 2: how good we have it in this country. People have
Speaker 2: no idea. They think because eggs go up to eight
Speaker 2: dollars a carton, which is ridiculous, but they think eggs
Speaker 2: go up eight dollars, or they don't have ten different
Speaker 2: companies to choose from. You think that's scarcity, Try living
Speaker 2: in a country where you don't have any food at
Speaker 2: all for days at the time. Americans have no idea
Speaker 2: what it's like to live in those conditions on average.
Speaker 2: So that contributes to it. Because our decadence and our
Speaker 2: wealth largely in the United States, prevent us from understanding
Speaker 2: the hardships are the problems that people face otherwise around
Speaker 2: the world, and that can make us really really isolated,
Speaker 2: I would say, psychologically, and in a lot of other ways.
Speaker 2: It prevents us from understanding how good we actually have it.
Speaker 2: And because of that, largely from universities and schooling and
Speaker 2: media that tell us how bad things are, we kind
Speaker 2: of squander our wealth and we squander our intellect, and
Speaker 2: we'd rather sit and do nothing because all the world's
Speaker 2: just so bad. A lot of the stuff I think
Speaker 2: is just psychology more so than reality.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like you though, it's easier to keep us controlled
Speaker 1: if we're in a constant state of fear and anxiety
Speaker 1: that the world's falling apart and we have it horribly
Speaker 1: in eggs or ten dollars, So you know, it's a
Speaker 1: lot easier to control us that way. Now I want
Speaker 1: to get back to can I make one more?
Speaker 2: Yeah, go ahead, I'm sorry, Well I was going to
Speaker 2: make one more. I don't know if we were going
Speaker 2: to go into this later, but one quick example, yes,
Speaker 2: is the debating between or the arguing or the viewpoints
Speaker 2: of like COVID nineteen, viruses Starscope two and vaccines, like,
Speaker 2: there's no doubt that for decades vaccines have I guess
Speaker 2: perceptually they've been good for people, but in reality, it's
Speaker 2: better hygiene, it's better clean water and clean food. It's
Speaker 2: waste management. That's what's led to people being healthier. But
Speaker 2: when you look at this debate between well, viruses are
Speaker 2: causing all these problems. They're causing heart problems, they're causing
Speaker 2: people to have respiratory problems, they're causing people to have xyz.
Speaker 2: People are even saying doctors are saying Starscope two causes diabetes.
Speaker 2: Then on the other side, people say, no, the vaccine
Speaker 2: causes all these problems. So this is confusing because the
Speaker 2: vaccine certainly could cause thrombosis and myocarditis, character attis, et cetera.
Speaker 2: They admit to this, but the vaccines aren't causing all
Speaker 2: those problems. So we're arguing, and we're afraid of either
Speaker 2: a virus or a vaccine or shedding the vaccine. We're
Speaker 2: afraid of these things. We're angry, we're fighting with each
Speaker 2: other and in our own groups with other groups. But
Speaker 2: the reality of the situation is it's up to virus
Speaker 2: and it's not the vaccine. All those things are just
Speaker 2: being used to as scapegoats for problems that we've always had.
Speaker 2: The leading causes of death heart disease, cancer, diabetes necessarily directly,
Speaker 2: but these are problems that we have. Strokes, those one
Speaker 2: of the top five leading causes of death. Those are
Speaker 2: causes according to the same official sources, by lifestyle decisions.
Speaker 2: So my point is, well, we argue over viruses and vaccines,
Speaker 2: that's what's making us sick. It's actually us making ourselves sick.
Speaker 2: And it's one of those things where we're afraid and
Speaker 2: we're anxious, and we're debating and arguing over things that,
Speaker 2: sure they matter, but the real root source of the
Speaker 2: problem is somewhere else. And whether you think you're speaking
Speaker 2: the truth or you think that you're stand up for science,
Speaker 2: in both cases, I don't think that that's true.
Speaker 1: Yeah, That's something else I want to get into if
Speaker 1: we have time, is what I call the conspiracy wars
Speaker 1: is in this community, there's so much there's so many
Speaker 1: people that are may have good intentions but are putting
Speaker 1: out horrible information or misinformation or disinformation, or there's intentionally
Speaker 1: people putting out disinformation, being inserted into what you would
Speaker 1: call the truth community. I mean, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: a lot of people in these realms that are just
Speaker 1: shooting their self in the foot and putting out horrible
Speaker 1: information and making everyone else who's doing legitimate, good research
Speaker 1: look really terrible. But that's for later, if we have time.
Speaker 1: What I want to go back to a little bit
Speaker 1: is some of the programming in Hollywood and some of
Speaker 1: the hidden underlying messages and things that we're seeing. But first,
Speaker 1: do you think that celebrities involved in this, you know,
Speaker 1: how they're throwing up the hand symbols and the pyramid
Speaker 1: and the one eye and all this, do you think
Speaker 1: they're actually that these guys are actually initiated on any level?
Speaker 1: Are they're just taking orders from higher ups?
Speaker 2: Well, speaking directly to the quote unquote hand signs, I've
Speaker 2: never been a distributor of that information. I find it
Speaker 2: to be extremely circumstantial and a lot of those images
Speaker 2: and videos are totally out of context. However, by initiation,
Speaker 2: I'm not sure how people interpret that word or define it.
Speaker 2: But when I think initiation, I think not just into
Speaker 2: people think of secret society. I think initiation into an ideology,
Speaker 2: initiation into a lifestyle, into a way of living in
Speaker 2: that way, Yes, certainly, if you're rich and famous and
Speaker 2: powerful like that and you have to toe a certain
Speaker 2: line or lose your career or your influence or whatever,
Speaker 2: then yeah, you're certainly initiated into a cult cultive ideas,
Speaker 2: a cult of politics, a cult of philosophy, a cult
Speaker 2: of a way of living, et cetera. So certainly in
Speaker 2: that regard, yes, some of these people are initiated. Beyond that,
Speaker 2: I would say that they're probably. I mean the Jeffrey
Speaker 2: Epstein situation, which I was talking about for years before
Speaker 2: it became a thing. Jeffrey Epstein, he was basically running
Speaker 2: a cult, and he was also a lot of people
Speaker 2: forget that. In New Mexico, he had a compound, he
Speaker 2: was working with top scientists, people that were connected to
Speaker 2: Bilimol and the Gates Foundation and Microsoft as well, where
Speaker 2: they were using they wanted to use his sperm. Literally,
Speaker 2: this was the USA Today reported this, to create a
Speaker 2: race of superhumans by taking women and impregnating them artificially
Speaker 2: with his sperm. That was the USA Today that reported that.
Speaker 2: And people don't think I'm making that up, but that
Speaker 2: is another level of initiation or cult And maybe that's
Speaker 2: kind of what a lot of people think about when
Speaker 2: they when they think of the question that you just asked.
Speaker 1: Now, especially with what we saw on the Grammys, and
Speaker 1: for the longest time, people have have been screaming, you
Speaker 1: know that this is this is Satanism. They're doing Satanic rituals,
Speaker 1: when I think it's probably much deeper and different than
Speaker 1: we'll ever understand what's really going on with underlying with
Speaker 1: some of these rituals and symbolism that they're doing on
Speaker 1: these large scale events. But I'd love to get your
Speaker 1: take on some of these things. This is this happens
Speaker 1: every year in large events, from the super Bowl to
Speaker 1: the Grammys, uh, and a lot of people decode them
Speaker 1: in different ways and have different ideas, and I'd love
Speaker 1: to get your insights.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've been doing I guess you could call it decoding.
Speaker 2: I've been looking at the super Bowl Bowl for many,
Speaker 2: many years. I found a friend of mine who does
Speaker 2: another radio show because he was doing the exact same thing.
Speaker 2: I found his show as a result of that, and
Speaker 2: a handful of other people have done things like this,
Speaker 2: and now it's extremely popular and because it's extremely popular.
Speaker 2: It's easy to get clicks.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: Every year, I see the same story. I'm sure we'll
Speaker 2: see it this weekend for the Super Bowl as well.
Speaker 2: Will be Illuminati halftime show, I Humuinati ritual Pyramid trying
Speaker 2: to confirmed and Reptilians are actually the singers. And I
Speaker 2: see stuff like that and it really irritates me because
Speaker 2: I don't know what that means. I don't know what
Speaker 2: Illuminati confirm means. I don't know what I don't know
Speaker 2: what people are talking about. To be honest with you
Speaker 2: alf the time, but what you're getting at and what
Speaker 2: I'm getting at with those kinds of subjects is let's
Speaker 2: just think about it. I'll try to sum this up
Speaker 2: for times sake, but let's think about it from an
Speaker 2: advertising point of view. From what I understand, Apple is
Speaker 2: going to sponsor the halftime show this year. It won't
Speaker 2: be Pepsi. That's what I've read. So whether that's the
Speaker 2: case or not doesn't really matter. But it's a good example.
Speaker 2: Apple is sponsoring the halftime show not because they're not
Speaker 2: going to make money, but because they're gonna make a
Speaker 2: lot of money. A lot of people are going to
Speaker 2: see that because it's one of the most washed events
Speaker 2: in the world, particularly in the United States, even with
Speaker 2: the dwindling NFL viewership. Same thing with Pepsi. Why did
Speaker 2: Pepsi sponsor the halftime show? Because when they made a contract,
Speaker 2: they had a contract in the NFL broadcasters and they
Speaker 2: made a lot of money off that people go out
Speaker 2: and buy Pepsi. So you'd, as an individual, you'd have
Speaker 2: to be really naive to not think that, Well, I mean,
Speaker 2: what's the half of the Super Bowl is the commercials
Speaker 2: for some people, and they watch those commercials and companies
Speaker 2: pay famously millions of dollars for thirty second advertisements because
Speaker 2: so many people are watching. So the super Bowl, for example,
Speaker 2: like any major event with so many people watching, is
Speaker 2: obviously a platform to sell products. It's also a platform
Speaker 2: to sell political ideologies. It's a platform to sell anything
Speaker 2: that you can package, whether that's a physical item or
Speaker 2: it's something else. I apologize, I have an ambulance coined
Speaker 2: by here, So whether that's a physical item or something else,
Speaker 2: you can package it and sell it. So if we
Speaker 2: isolate the halftime show, obviously these celebrities, whether it's Rihanna
Speaker 2: this weekend or it's Lady Gaga who's performed, or you
Speaker 2: name it. You're going to have those celebrities doing that
Speaker 2: because they are going to make a lot of money,
Speaker 2: not just from the broadcast itself, like the NFL whoever
Speaker 2: pays them directly, but because every year after the super Bowl,
Speaker 2: whoever performs, they they're iTunes, everything that they have their
Speaker 2: music on. They make unbelievable amounts of money because people
Speaker 2: go buy the music right away. So that's the first level.
Speaker 2: The second level is since so many people are paying attention,
Speaker 2: and when you pay attention, going back to like spellbinding broadcasting, Hollywood,
Speaker 2: et cetera, when you pay pay attention, you're paying attention
Speaker 2: with your energy. And energy is currency. It's like electrical currency.
Speaker 2: That's what we call our money currency. We do a job,
Speaker 2: we exert energy, We get paid with this physical representation
Speaker 2: of energy, and then we put that into things that
Speaker 2: we enjoy. Maybe that's you know, some chips and some
Speaker 2: dip for the super Bowl. Maybe that's we buy a
Speaker 2: new car. Maybe that's you know, we subscribe to Netflix
Speaker 2: or Hulu, so we put energy back into those things.
Speaker 2: That is historically, and I think I would call it
Speaker 2: traditionally that's what magic is. Magic is not necessarily a
Speaker 2: human sacrifice. That's preposterous. Magic is the directionalizing of your
Speaker 2: intention and will. Every time a Christian or a Muslim
Speaker 2: or a Jew sits down in praise or meals down
Speaker 2: and praise, they are performing an active magic. They are
Speaker 2: directionalizing their will. They are calling themselves, they are communicating
Speaker 2: with their higher self, or they represent that as a God,
Speaker 2: a saint, a prophet, and they communicate with it. So
Speaker 2: when we focus all of our attention on those images
Speaker 2: at the halftime show or at the Grammys or wherever,
Speaker 2: we're not just being sold products. We're not just being
Speaker 2: sold ideas. We're being sold belief systems. And it's not
Speaker 2: the NFL necessarily, and it's not the broadcaster necessarily, and
Speaker 2: it's not the compan you that sponsors it. It's a
Speaker 2: handful of people who set up the halftime show. It's
Speaker 2: a handful of people who do the wardrobe. It's a
Speaker 2: handful of people who set up the Grammys. And this
Speaker 2: is to answer your question and to summarize. When you
Speaker 2: look at the Grammys, the Sam Smith Kim Petra performance
Speaker 2: was just it was cartoonish, it was laughable, it's not scary,
Speaker 2: it's not shocking. I said what would be when my
Speaker 2: show recently, I said, what would be shocking is if
Speaker 2: they had like they had like one of the grams,
Speaker 2: like Billy Graham, I think of his son, they had
Speaker 2: him come out and do a prayer. That would be shocking.
Speaker 2: It's not shocking to see to see the cartoonish devil.
Speaker 2: But what is shocking to me is that while everybody's
Speaker 2: looking at the devil horns and the flames, which I
Speaker 2: think they saved from Billie Eilish's performance, and the woman
Speaker 2: in a cage or she's not a woman, I guess
Speaker 2: she's transgender, but the person in the cage beyond that though,
Speaker 2: one thing most people don't notice is that they had
Speaker 2: Sam Smith the whole time standing inside of a big
Speaker 2: white circle, literally the same exact white circle. I don't
Speaker 2: know if it's the same physical circle, probably not, but
Speaker 2: it's the same idea that they've used the directors and
Speaker 2: producers of the halftime show the Super Bowl have used,
Speaker 2: like Lady Gaga, for example, when she was playing the
Speaker 2: piano at the halftime show, they put her inside of
Speaker 2: a giant white ring. That white ring is a magic circle,
Speaker 2: and it protects the magician. You can find this in
Speaker 2: any historical text about magic. The magic circle protects the
Speaker 2: magician from what's being summoned in the center of the
Speaker 2: circle or the magician you Sometimes this happens in magic.
Speaker 2: Usually you don't do it around yourself. That you could
Speaker 2: draw the circle around yourself and then you would be
Speaker 2: protected from anything on the outside. So the fact that
Speaker 2: Sam Smith is in the middle of the magic circle
Speaker 2: dressed like the devil, it's cartoonish, it's a joke. People
Speaker 2: either find it super offensive or they're super into it.
Speaker 2: But the middle ground there, once again is the people
Speaker 2: that set this up. And I'm not talking about Sam Smith.
Speaker 2: He looks like a pond who's abused by the industry.
Speaker 2: Like all the others. The people that set it up
Speaker 2: know what they're doing. The people that tune into the Grammys,
Speaker 2: the people that tune into the halftime show. Whether it's
Speaker 2: people like us that want to watch it and dissect it,
Speaker 2: or it's people that believe it, or it's the Christians
Speaker 2: who just like the social justice warriors and activists, they
Speaker 2: want to be offended. For Christ every day we pay
Speaker 2: attention to it with our energy and currency, and that
Speaker 2: goes in to the symbols and to the talismans, and
Speaker 2: to whatever it is that the few people who set
Speaker 2: it up are trying to conjure and summon. That I
Speaker 2: think is the underlying the underlying reality of what we're
Speaker 2: looking for when we do the dissecting or we do
Speaker 2: the analysis. It's not the deli horns, it's not somebody
Speaker 2: throwing up a hand sign. Those are I don't want
Speaker 2: to call them distractions, but those are misleading things that
Speaker 2: they use because they know that people will pay attention
Speaker 2: and talk about it, and then they make more money
Speaker 2: from that. What really is important, I think, is the
Speaker 2: underlying thing of let's say the magic circle, the underlying
Speaker 2: seam of what's in the song that Sam Smith was singing,
Speaker 2: something unholy, it's the body shop. What's the body shop? Well,
Speaker 2: traditionally anything satanic or evil, Like if you watch the
Speaker 2: movie Event Horizon, they just take hell as a place
Speaker 2: where people's eyes are ripped out, their bodies are ripped
Speaker 2: apart and sewn back together like it looks like their
Speaker 2: ribs are ripped open. It's just gross body horror. While
Speaker 2: that's precisely what we would describe as satanic. It's an
Speaker 2: inversion of man created in God's image, and to create
Speaker 2: in the devil's image, you have to destroy God's image.
Speaker 2: It's taking. And for the record, I'm a circumstantialist when
Speaker 2: it comes to abortion, but when we're talking about abortion,
Speaker 2: most abortions are performed by cutting the baby into pieces
Speaker 2: and then sucking them out with a vacuum. That is
Speaker 2: body horror in the sense of the body shop, and
Speaker 2: it's extremely unholy. The child is the greatest gift from God,
Speaker 2: the greatest thing you can do for the devil, and
Speaker 2: as an obscendity to God, as a rejection of God,
Speaker 2: is to kill that child. This is ritualistic, it's sacrificial,
Speaker 2: and those are the things that make it satanic, not
Speaker 2: the double horns in my view.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right on. Now, you mentioned celebrities abuse from the
Speaker 1: system and from Hollywood and what they're involved with. It
Speaker 1: makes me love wonder to the levels of what type
Speaker 1: of abuse or even mind control programs that these celebrities,
Speaker 1: especially the ones that haven't been involved in Hollywood for
Speaker 1: a long time since childhood, have been subjected to. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's kind of hard to deny that they are subjected
Speaker 1: to some pretty crazy programming when you see the level
Speaker 1: of them breaking at certain times. And we've seen this
Speaker 1: time and time again with celebrities just all of a
Speaker 1: sudden going crazy, acting completely out of character. And we've
Speaker 1: seen this lately a lot more lately just putting out ominous,
Speaker 1: crazy videos that don't make sense, and it seemingly like
Speaker 1: they're break some kind of programming, are just losing their
Speaker 1: shit completely after years of abuse from Hollywood. But what
Speaker 1: do you think about that?
Speaker 2: This is another You're asking all my favorite questions. So
Speaker 2: this is another great topic, and this is part of
Speaker 2: what we've been discussing already, of course, but I've been
Speaker 2: on the secret teaching. To anybody who's listened to my
Speaker 2: show for any amount of time, you would probably recall
Speaker 2: that for about a decade or so now, I've been
Speaker 2: talking about Britney Spears and how Britney Spears has handlers
Speaker 2: that control every aspect of her life. And then when
Speaker 2: it finally came out in court, I sat there shocked
Speaker 2: that it was finally acknowledged, and some people I knew
Speaker 2: were like, oh my god, did you hear about Britney Spears.
Speaker 2: I was like, yeah, it doesn't make me special. I've
Speaker 2: I've been talking about it for so long, really obvious.
Speaker 2: The same thing that was happening to her for all
Speaker 2: those years where they put her on not only on
Speaker 2: drugs like downers to keep her from asking too many questions,
Speaker 2: from having too much energy, just keep her for meeting
Speaker 2: keeper kind of lethargic, but they also put her on
Speaker 2: birth control, which I found really interesting because they they apparently,
Speaker 2: according to Britney Spears, according to what was said in court,
Speaker 2: she was having they had control over her sexuality. So
Speaker 2: they were bringing the boyfriend she would have with. The
Speaker 2: people she would have relationships with were the ones that
Speaker 2: her handlers, which included her dad, would select for her. Now,
Speaker 2: the thing about that that that stood out to me,
Speaker 2: and this relates directly to your question, is the fact
Speaker 2: that when you go and you read that book that
Speaker 2: Kathy O'Brien wrote, I don't know if you've ever read
Speaker 2: that book, Transformation of America, she was she was. She
Speaker 2: claimed she was in mind control sexual abuse type programs
Speaker 2: of the federal government. She mentioned names from Dick Cheney
Speaker 2: to to Senator Byrd to Hillary Clinton and everybody in between,
Speaker 2: Republican and Democrat, and she said that she was used
Speaker 2: as basically a sex slave. Her daughter was room to
Speaker 2: be this that used them to transmit information. They used
Speaker 2: them to for I guess for diplomats and for you know,
Speaker 2: there's high level powerful stuff. There's basically a sex slave.
Speaker 2: And this is precisely what Britney Spears went through, according
Speaker 2: to her own testimony, and according to finally the court
Speaker 2: granted her leave from the conservatorship. From what I understand
Speaker 2: last time I checked that she got out of that.
Speaker 2: That story of Britney Spears is the epitome of every
Speaker 2: other major celebrity, largely women, like everybody from Miley Cyrus
Speaker 2: who I mean that that girl has been so abused
Speaker 2: and so traumatized on the surface, I can't imagine what
Speaker 2: goes on behind the scenes. Amanda Binds, the girl that
Speaker 2: had all the Nickelodeon show, The Amanda Show. She claims
Speaker 2: people thought she's crazy, and he loves her until she says, actually,
Speaker 2: they put a microchip in my brain to control my
Speaker 2: thoughts and actions and all. That's so crazy. And then
Speaker 2: Amanda Binds disappeared, and yeah, and heard anything from her.
Speaker 2: She's into drugs or some weird stuff. Now, it's the
Speaker 2: same thing with all these celebrities. So whether it's a
Speaker 2: breakdown of programming or by programming, we're talking about sexual abuse,
Speaker 2: drugs and monitoring and watching everything they do. Like Britney
Speaker 2: Spears couldn't even get undressed and change her clothes. Her
Speaker 2: dad and her handlers would watch her. She didn't even
Speaker 2: have a door on her room, and they'd have people
Speaker 2: come over and do experiments on her. This is all
Speaker 2: official stuff, So what happened to her? Miley Cyrus is
Speaker 2: another good example that comes to mind, but virtually any
Speaker 2: of these people in the music and entertainment industry that
Speaker 2: have that level of influence and power. I mean, Billie Eilish,
Speaker 2: I can't wait to see in a morbid way, I
Speaker 2: can't wait to see what comes out that they've been
Speaker 2: doing to her. It's the same kind of a thing.
Speaker 2: So in terms of initiation or in terms of mind
Speaker 2: control or whatever it is that we're alluding to here,
Speaker 2: that story of Britney Spears is a great example, but
Speaker 2: it permeates all throughout the industry. It's I don't think
Speaker 2: it's like a specific holt in a specific you know,
Speaker 2: form of worship. It's just about power and control and domination,
Speaker 2: et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. If that makes sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, in a way, Kanye was trying to say this,
Speaker 1: Maybe not in the best way that he should have,
Speaker 1: but I think in a way he might have escaped
Speaker 1: some of this madness and been trying to warn in
Speaker 1: a terrible way.
Speaker 2: You saw his Well, so there's the other thing about
Speaker 2: Kanye to the trainer messages, used to see the messages
Speaker 2: send him.
Speaker 1: That's what That's what made me think when you were
Speaker 1: just talking.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I think he was correct me if I'm wrong,
Speaker 2: But he was like Canadian intelligence or something or special operations.
Speaker 2: He was like military something.
Speaker 1: Ye I don't remember.
Speaker 2: Off the top of my head. I can't recall, but
Speaker 2: I think he was. It was like Canadians, uh uh,
Speaker 2: special operations or something. But anyway, Yeah, he he had
Speaker 2: texted Kanye that if he doesn't shape up, that they're
Speaker 2: gonna drug him and they're gonna send him I forget
Speaker 2: the word he use, something like they're gonna send him
Speaker 2: back to like Wonderland or something. He'll never ask questions again. Yeah,
Speaker 2: well that's I mean. People are now defending the Trainer
Speaker 2: that's the media. They've got people defending the train, and
Speaker 2: we don't know if those texts are real. Okay, well,
Speaker 2: even if those texts aren't real, we have the nine
Speaker 2: to one one tape, and we have the all the
Speaker 2: evidence of Kanye when he had his quote unquote breakdown
Speaker 2: when he told his audience years ago that Google and
Speaker 2: Apple and everybody lied to them. And then suddenly he
Speaker 2: has a breakdown, and I think it was his doctor
Speaker 2: calls nine one one and he's gonna have access he
Speaker 2: might have access to guns. We got to stopping put
Speaker 2: him on drugs, and he goes into the rehab and
Speaker 2: then he comes out and he's got that dyed blonde
Speaker 2: hair and he's got that glassy look in his eye.
Speaker 2: God knows what they did to him. He'd be lucky
Speaker 2: if they just gave him a lobotomy. God knows what
Speaker 2: they did to drug deam or whatever they did. But
Speaker 2: he came out of rehab looking like all the other
Speaker 2: alter egos. I mean. Think of Miley Cyrus. She played
Speaker 2: a girl on a TV show where she was a
Speaker 2: real person, but then when she became the celebrity Miley
Speaker 2: Cyrus or Hannah Montana, she put on the blonde wig.
Speaker 2: It's the same thing. It's the Marilyn Monroe syndrome, if
Speaker 2: you will. Eminem's alter ego is slim shady. It's the
Speaker 2: blonde hair. He says that in a song, all shady
Speaker 2: is is a bottle of hair bleach and vodka. And
Speaker 2: it's the same thing with Kanye West. He comes out
Speaker 2: with the blonde hair. There's something more to that. I
Speaker 2: can't necessarily give you every detail because I don't know,
Speaker 2: but there's something more to that. I just saw a
Speaker 2: silly story about Madonna claiming that she's like she's claiming victim.
Speaker 2: She said, all the comments I got after I introduced
Speaker 2: that Grammy performance, this is the sam Smith One, the
Speaker 2: Devil One, the Unholy Song. She said, all the all
Speaker 2: the comments I got there, they were misogynists and agists
Speaker 2: and people just don't like women that are powerful or strong.
Speaker 2: So she I read that article and I was thinking,
Speaker 2: what a joke. This woman is such a joke. Then
Speaker 2: I realized that she got those comments after she had
Speaker 2: introduced that performance. I didn't know that because I didn't
Speaker 2: actually watch the Grammys. So then I I was like, Okay,
Speaker 2: this is interesting. Let me look at it and I
Speaker 2: just read the story and then I saw the picture
Speaker 2: of her, and I couldn't help them think, Okay, there's
Speaker 2: something weird going on here. The way they had her
Speaker 2: hair done. Everybodys talking about her face, and she's got
Speaker 2: botox and plastic, but the way they had her hair
Speaker 2: done was almost in a It was abraided, almost like
Speaker 2: Ram's horn, and it looked. This doesn't necessarily have to
Speaker 2: mean anything, but it just reminded me of the Ruth
Speaker 2: Bader Ginsburg statue on top of the New York State
Speaker 2: Supreme Courthouse, which was like I talked about that like
Speaker 2: two weeks ago, about how the statue was erected by
Speaker 2: this artist. It's a symbol, supposedly, and for times sake,
Speaker 2: I'll try to summarize this quickly. The Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Speaker 2: statue that has the tentacle arms, it doesn't even have arms,
Speaker 2: it's got tentacles, lovecraft like tentacles, and it has these
Speaker 2: rams horns on its head or what looked like rams horns,
Speaker 2: and the hairdoo of Madonna at the Grammy's looks really
Speaker 2: similar to that hair due that they gave Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Speaker 2: So I started thinking, Okay, well, I'm going to try
Speaker 2: to put a show together on this because I find
Speaker 2: at the very least we can start with Madonna's name.
Speaker 2: What does Madonna mean? Ma is the mother principle, like
Speaker 2: lady Gouga says rah Ma Gaga God. That's firewater child
Speaker 2: or father mother child, rah Ma Gaga God the trinity.
Speaker 2: So Ma the universal mother principle. And Donna is another
Speaker 2: name for Diana or any of these other goddesses. So
Speaker 2: Ma Donna literally means mother goddess. And I thought that's
Speaker 2: just that came to my mind. I thought that's interesting
Speaker 2: because the Ruth Bader Ginsburg statue is supposed to invoke
Speaker 2: the power of women while officially being a symbol or
Speaker 2: an homage to abortion, which is weird because the essence
Speaker 2: of what makes a woman a woman is the ability
Speaker 2: to give birth and the ability to have this kind
Speaker 2: of strength. So if they're putting up a statue that's
Speaker 2: supposed to be about women and powerful women, but it's
Speaker 2: a symbol, the Ginsburg one is a symbol of abortion,
Speaker 2: how does that work for quickly? For example, underneath of
Speaker 2: that statue, they have Ruth Vader Ginsburg with her tentacle arms. Literally,
Speaker 2: if you haven't seen this, they're livingly Lovecraft tentacles. She's
Speaker 2: standing on a lotus flower, and the lotus flower is
Speaker 2: a symbol of the spirit conquering matter, but the statue
Speaker 2: is a symbol of abortion, which is matter conquering spirit.
Speaker 2: So they've inverted it. And that's what I started thinking.
Speaker 2: There's another statue across the street from the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: building in New York that has it's the same features.
Speaker 2: It's basically the exact same statue the same artist did,
Speaker 2: and it has a name on it. This is like
Speaker 2: the official description. It has a name on it that
Speaker 2: is meant to invoke, like a gullum, the power of Eve,
Speaker 2: the Universal Mother. But then they're distorting the Universal Mother.
Speaker 2: So if you distort the Universal Mother, you don't get
Speaker 2: a feminine force of good and life and creation. You
Speaker 2: get the opposite. And the Jews have a name for this.
Speaker 2: It's called Lilith. There's a character named Lilith. She goes
Speaker 2: by a bunch of other names, but she was She's
Speaker 2: an inversion of the Universal Mother. She doesn't give birth
Speaker 2: to mankind, she aborts mankind. She doesn't provide companionship for man,
Speaker 2: she is a succubus. She's like the first succubus. So
Speaker 2: I started thinking, that's what they're invoking with those statues.
Speaker 2: And they have Madonna here at the Grammys introducing an
Speaker 2: unholy song, the song Unholy but the body Shop and
Speaker 2: this cartoonish satan, but it still has deeper meaning. And
Speaker 2: she's got the same hairdoo, and people are talking about
Speaker 2: her face and she says, oh my, it's agism and misogyny,
Speaker 2: and I stopped, Hold on a second. You're literally trying
Speaker 2: to reverse the aging process. That's kind of agism. Women
Speaker 2: think you look weird that how's that misogyny? So you're
Speaker 2: playing victim and trying to stay relevant. And she probably
Speaker 2: didn't do her own hair. Someone else did it, the
Speaker 2: same people probably that set up the magic circle on stage.
Speaker 2: So Madonna. I called her the black Madonna because what
Speaker 2: she represents, just like those Ginsburgh Ginsburg statue and just
Speaker 2: like the Eve statue in New York, she represents an
Speaker 2: inversion of the universal guiding, motherly nurturing principle, and the
Speaker 2: opposite of that, of course, is unmotherly. It's the other
Speaker 2: mother from that movie car line, the pale faced plastic
Speaker 2: porcelain demon called the bad lum or, it's the hologast or,
Speaker 2: it's the slender Man, it's the rake, whatever you want
Speaker 2: to call it. It's an otherworldly force that wishes to,
Speaker 2: in more than one way, is abort mankind. It wants
Speaker 2: to destroy all the things that are good. And once again,
Speaker 2: that's what we could call Satanism, or in the case
Speaker 2: of Madonna, I would call her the Black Madonna for
Speaker 2: what she symbolizes and represents.
Speaker 1: Right on now, I'm glad you mentioned the statues. Isn't
Speaker 1: it so interesting how many new, very ominous types of
Speaker 1: statues are popping up everywhere, not only that the destruction
Speaker 1: of old statues to bring in some of these new ones.
Speaker 1: And I find it very it was a coincidence. It
Speaker 1: was quite an interesting coincidence that the the Georgia guidestones
Speaker 1: were destroyed as well. So what do you think is
Speaker 1: behind the the erecting of all these new types of
Speaker 1: esoteric statues around the world.
Speaker 2: Well, on one level, people artists who I don't particularly
Speaker 2: think are talented for one reason or another, because they're
Speaker 2: trans or they're whatever whatever they identify as, they get
Speaker 2: commissioned to put up the art. For example, I worked
Speaker 2: at a very small grocery store, an organic grocery store,
Speaker 2: when I lived in when I lived in New York,
Speaker 2: and they hired an artist. They ended up actually being
Speaker 2: a good artist, but they only hired the artists without
Speaker 2: knowing about their art because they identified as trans. So
Speaker 2: that that's on one level, that's part of the part
Speaker 2: of the thing, part of the reason. But the main
Speaker 2: reason is when you've had you know, the Summer of
Speaker 2: Love a few years ago, where they just burned down
Speaker 2: buildings and tore down statues, including in the city I
Speaker 2: lived in in New York, they tore down the Frederick
Speaker 2: Douglas statue, not knowing who Frederick Douglas was. So that
Speaker 2: is what I would call Marxism. It's the destruction of
Speaker 2: the four olds, traditions, beliefs, values, family, I mean, all
Speaker 2: these things that make culture, that make civilization, that make
Speaker 2: things good, and that give people a place to have
Speaker 2: roots in a place to grow from. So on that level,
Speaker 2: it's Marxism. And I mean even the hiring an artist
Speaker 2: because of their gender or sex or identity is also Marxism.
Speaker 2: It's class warfare. On another level, beyond that kind of
Speaker 2: like the very small number of people that set up
Speaker 2: the Grammys or the halftime show, and they put images
Speaker 2: and certain things in certain places and have them, have
Speaker 2: the artists do certain things at certain times because they're
Speaker 2: like ritualists and they know what they're doing. I think
Speaker 2: on that level what we see here from the Ginsburg
Speaker 2: statue to the Grammys. I don't know what you're going
Speaker 2: to see at the super Bowl. I don't make predictions,
Speaker 2: not see anything, but what I feel like is happening
Speaker 2: is a re vitalization or a regeneration or a re
Speaker 2: emergence of I don't want to say old religions, because
Speaker 2: not all old religions or evil, like Shintoism is the
Speaker 2: opposite of evil, but old school, old world religions, and
Speaker 2: I'm not talking about paganism. Old world religions where priestly
Speaker 2: classes from behind the scenes get to control the king
Speaker 2: or the queen in our case, the president, where the
Speaker 2: priests have all the power like they did in Egypt,
Speaker 2: the pharaoh had very little power. The priests have all
Speaker 2: the power, and the priests make all the decisions. And
Speaker 2: as people become more numb and society becomes more degraded
Speaker 2: than demoralized and immoral or a moral even behavior becomes
Speaker 2: the norm, and we criminalize good people and decriminalize bad behavior.
Speaker 2: Then this is basically the re emergence or the rebirth
Speaker 2: of a death cult or a cult of call it
Speaker 2: whatever you will, an old world religion which demands human
Speaker 2: sacrifice in the name of it as a virtue, you know,
Speaker 2: the Temple of Set or Satan or Hell or the
Speaker 2: Church of the Devil, whatever they call themselves. They're suing
Speaker 2: multiple states claiming they have a religious right to murder children.
Speaker 2: Literally that There's are lawsuits in Idaho and Texas and
Speaker 2: other states. So human sacrifice literally is the is a
Speaker 2: sanctified thing. It is a thing that must be performed
Speaker 2: to honor these priests or these gods and whatever it
Speaker 2: is that they believe. I don't know who they even are,
Speaker 2: but the evidence is available from seeing how things function
Speaker 2: and work and talking about these statues. It's about making
Speaker 2: the world ugly, it's about making everything depressing. And back
Speaker 2: to what you said about fear and anxiety, and that's
Speaker 2: if you can keep people in those states, then people
Speaker 2: are not creative, people won't rebel, and people will just
Speaker 2: accept the increasing mediocrity and think that it's normal, and
Speaker 2: then eventually, on a funny note, you end up with
Speaker 2: the movie Ideocracy, which is it kind of feels like
Speaker 2: what we're living.
Speaker 1: In one hundred percent.
Speaker 2: Man, if that makes it, hope, I hope that makes it.
Speaker 1: It does, Yeah, it makes one hundred percent. Let's let's
Speaker 1: talk about one of the other huge overlying agendas that
Speaker 1: we're seeing that it becomes more and more obvious. It's
Speaker 1: hard to deny when the the evidence keeps stacking up
Speaker 1: that the eventuality of what they where they want us
Speaker 1: to to go as a society is the merging of
Speaker 1: the sexes and the merging of the sexes with technology.
Speaker 1: And there seems to be this new type of religion
Speaker 1: of science and technology where we're supposed to blindly worship
Speaker 1: and follow the gods of technology, and we are going
Speaker 1: to be a more technocratic and controlled society overall with
Speaker 1: this new type of perfect alchemical human that is neither
Speaker 1: man nor woman. And this is you know, it sounds
Speaker 1: crazy to people if you first try and tell them
Speaker 1: this for the first time, they'll, let's say, you're fucking nuts.
Speaker 1: But after looking at all the evidence for years, it's
Speaker 1: like there's no other direction that you could see that
Speaker 1: they want us to go.
Speaker 2: Okay, So first of all, it's very understandable. I mean,
Speaker 2: just listening to what you said there, you do sound crazy.
Speaker 2: And I said this the other night on another show
Speaker 2: I was on. I said everything I just said, I
Speaker 2: told the host everything I just said. I understand sounds crazy.
Speaker 2: I think I'm crazy listening to what I just said.
Speaker 2: But when you sit down and you look at white papers,
Speaker 2: for example, from Samsung, they have a white paper call
Speaker 2: and I forget the exact name. It's a pretty long title,
Speaker 2: but if you type in Samsung six G white paper
Speaker 2: pdf something to that effect, you should be able to
Speaker 2: pull it up there. It's like twenty five thirty pages,
Speaker 2: maybe up the top of my head. But it's about
Speaker 2: six G technology, which has nothing to do with cell phones,
Speaker 2: nothing to do with Internet connections. And in the document
Speaker 2: they say they are building six G by twenty thirty,
Speaker 2: which is the marker for Google and everybody else, and
Speaker 2: that it will include digital immersive, extended reality holograms of
Speaker 2: your favorite people and your favorite places. And this is
Speaker 2: beyond the metaverse. That's just an introduction, but this is
Speaker 2: what Samsung's building, and you read through the document and
Speaker 2: this is not my opinion, this is not my point
Speaker 2: of view, This is not me trying to reach and
Speaker 2: make connections. In the document, they literally describe the basic
Speaker 2: plot from the Matrix films where they say you will
Speaker 2: be plugged into the system. And the scariest thing about
Speaker 2: this document is Samsung says the whole system that you're
Speaker 2: plugged into will be controlled by machines. This is what
Speaker 2: Samsung is. I'm not writing it. So unless you've read
Speaker 2: a document like that, you're one hundred percent right. You
Speaker 2: sound absolutely crazy, You sound absolutely nuts. But the other
Speaker 2: thing is, even if you do read that and you
Speaker 2: show that to somebody, oh it's just a one off,
Speaker 2: they don't actually mean that. Or this could actually be
Speaker 2: a good thing, because a lot of people, when you're
Speaker 2: confronted with such evil, or you're confronted with such ludicrousness,
Speaker 2: your first reaction is to reject it and to deny it.
Speaker 2: But to answer your question, for times sake, if you
Speaker 2: look up that document, or if people want to email me,
Speaker 2: I have a copy of it. R D Gable at
Speaker 2: yahoo dot com or tst Radio at ProtonMail dot com,
Speaker 2: I'll send you a copy, but it's Samsung DF white paper,
Speaker 2: digital Hologram reality, something like that, and you should be
Speaker 2: able to pull it up. It's an official document from
Speaker 2: their website to answer your question thoroughly. That is the
Speaker 2: the technical description what they're saying of the merger of
Speaker 2: Man in Machine.
Speaker 1: Let's close on this d. The controlled narrative, I think
Speaker 1: is being controlled by non humans, not by mainly by
Speaker 1: AI and by bots, and by a lot of the
Speaker 1: social media programming that we have. We're interacting with with
Speaker 1: bots and AI on a daily basis, and I think
Speaker 1: that that is what is perpetuating a lot of the narratives.
Speaker 1: I think that the freethinkers, I think that people that
Speaker 1: are questioning the narrative and waking up and are on
Speaker 1: the right side of history could be the majority, and
Speaker 1: we would never know it because of the controlled narrative.
Speaker 1: And I want to get your thoughts on if you
Speaker 1: think that we could be or we could be reaching
Speaker 1: the majority, or if there is hope that we could
Speaker 1: have enough people to tip the scales on this madness eventually.
Speaker 2: That's a really great question and I'm gonna answer it.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna try to answer it in a way that's direct,
Speaker 2: but it's it might it's not a little indirect. So
Speaker 2: bear with me as I try to try to summarize
Speaker 2: this I feel, and if you talk to historians or sociologists,
Speaker 2: everything I've read and understand, it's pretty common, pretty much
Speaker 2: common sense. If you want to have a functioning society,
Speaker 2: if you want to have a functioning civilization, there are
Speaker 2: certain kinds of rules that you have to live by
Speaker 2: in society. For example, if you want to have decency,
Speaker 2: you can't just walk down the street naked. You have
Speaker 2: to have decency and obscenity walls and things like that,
Speaker 2: so people aren't just having sex on the street. You
Speaker 2: have to have some level of a rule of law
Speaker 2: to prevent people from engaging in criminal behavior all the time.
Speaker 2: Because you want you to have a society of civilization
Speaker 2: that functions, you have to be safe. You have to
Speaker 2: be able to you know, earn a living and have
Speaker 2: your family and your property, and kind of the ethos
Speaker 2: of what Western civilization is or what a lot of
Speaker 2: old school traditional Eastern civilization was before a lot of
Speaker 2: you know, authoritarians took over, like in China. So just
Speaker 2: basic basics like if you want to have a functioning society,
Speaker 2: you have to take things that are good and encourage them,
Speaker 2: and take things that are bad and discourage them. You
Speaker 2: don't want to encourage drug use, you want to discourage
Speaker 2: drug use, et cetera. But in our world today we
Speaker 2: have kind of the opposite thing happening. Anything that is
Speaker 2: even kind of perceived is good, whether that's religion or spirituality.
Speaker 2: I mean, in places like China, they literally will put
Speaker 2: you in jail, or they'll disappear you, take your organs,
Speaker 2: and then kill you if you meditate or pray. In
Speaker 2: certain parts, this is what happens to the ful on
Speaker 2: Gong practitioners just for praying, because the state believes that
Speaker 2: they are God and there can be nothing higher than them.
Speaker 2: So in what we're seeing happening in regard to your question,
Speaker 2: is we're seeing the de incentivization of good behavior and
Speaker 2: we're seeing the incentivizing of bad behavior. And that is
Speaker 2: the antithesis of what makes a civil society. And so
Speaker 2: in terms of what people in terms of a percentage,
Speaker 2: I can't tell you a percentage, I don't know, But
Speaker 2: the general theme of the question you're asking is something
Speaker 2: I've thought a lot about, and I feel that maybe
Speaker 2: the best example is and for the record, I'm not
Speaker 2: a don't I did not vote for and I did
Speaker 2: not support most of what Donald Trump did. I also
Speaker 2: am definitely not a Democrat and definitely didn't support Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 2: But that's a great example because I know I knew
Speaker 2: people that were not on the surface Trump supporters, but
Speaker 2: when you talk to them, they're like, yeah, yeah, I
Speaker 2: voted for Trump. I just didn't want to tell my family.
Speaker 2: And that is stunning to me. Will you apply that
Speaker 2: to everything? I agree with you. I think most people,
Speaker 2: the average person feels I'm not talking about Trump, but
Speaker 2: they feel what you and I are talking about tonight.
Speaker 2: What Maybe they don't understand it or don't grasp the
Speaker 2: bigger picture or or whatever, but they certainly see I
Speaker 2: think people I know personally a lot of people who
Speaker 2: are on the surface don't look like it, but underneath
Speaker 2: and when you talk to them in private, they do agree.
Speaker 2: It's just not popular or trendy to be good or
Speaker 2: to be kind. It's not popular or trendy to be spiritual.
Speaker 2: It's not popular or trendy to be any of the
Speaker 2: things that go along with those kinds. Of behaviors or thoughts, etc.
Speaker 2: But it's trendy to do the opposite. So what they've
Speaker 2: done is they've made bad behavior, evil actions, etc. Something
Speaker 2: that you should if you want social credit, you have
Speaker 2: to support them. But to answer your question simply, certainly,
Speaker 2: there are a lot of people and I think the majority, yes,
Speaker 2: that disagree with that, but in order to fit in,
Speaker 2: they choose to act the opposite.
Speaker 1: Great answer, Man, We're living in incredible times and we're
Speaker 1: definitely going to have to do this very soon again
Speaker 1: the future. Ryan. Before you head out, let the audience
Speaker 1: know where they can find The Secret Teachings, social media,
Speaker 1: everything else you got going on.
Speaker 2: Yes, I don't really use a lot of social media,
Speaker 2: so it might look like I just started my accounts,
Speaker 2: but you can find me on Twitter, tst Underscore, Underscore Radio,
Speaker 2: and on Facebook at facebook dot com, forward Slash the
Speaker 2: Secret Teachings. I'm sort of antiquated by intention in what
Speaker 2: I do, so I don't have a huge web presence,
Speaker 2: but my website is www dot the Secret Teachings dot info.
Speaker 2: My archive is there for free or anywhere else you
Speaker 2: listen to radio shows, podcasts, or if you want to
Speaker 2: get the ad free show, and you get my digital
Speaker 2: books and montages and all that. You can subscribe on
Speaker 2: the same website, the Secret Teachings dot info. Lastly, my
Speaker 2: books if you're interested in what we discuss tonight, my
Speaker 2: books at Caltdarcana, The Technological Elixer and Liberty Shrugs and
Speaker 2: that's my new one. Those are all on the website.
Speaker 2: You can grab copies of them at the Secret Teachings
Speaker 2: dot info and otherwise. If you want to listen to
Speaker 2: my show Monday through Friday on ground zero Radio right
Speaker 2: after Clyde Lewis, you can find at ground zero dot Radio,
Speaker 2: or you know, if you're on the Aftermath FM website
Speaker 2: you can find it as well. And that is pretty
Speaker 2: much all I can tell you about me. I really
Speaker 2: appreciate you having me on the show, and I think
Speaker 2: we covered a lot and I hope your audience really
Speaker 2: enjoyed it.
Speaker 1: I know I did it excellent. Yes, I had a
Speaker 1: great time. We'll definitely have to do it again soon.
Speaker 1: Until next time, everyone, have an excellent evening. We will
Speaker 1: be talking again tomorrow and we'll see you today. I
Speaker 1: want to welcome Rizwan Vik. He is a successful entrepreneur,
Speaker 1: venture capitalist video game pioneer, best selling author, and indie
Speaker 1: film producer. He is founder of Play Labs at MIT
Speaker 1: and Bayview Labs at Silicone Valley Investment Fund, and he
Speaker 1: is a mentor and advisor at five hundred startups, Griffin
Speaker 1: Gaming Partners, Ridge Ventures, and the MIT one hundred K
Speaker 1: Entrepreneurship Competition. Riz welcome, How you doing.
Speaker 3: Great to be on the show with you doing pretty well.
Speaker 3: I'm here in sunny Arizona at the moment.
Speaker 1: Awesome, man, Thank you so much for joining. This is
Speaker 1: one I've really been looking forward to. This is one
Speaker 1: of those topics and possibilities that it haunts me on
Speaker 1: a daily basis. The possibilities of are we in some
Speaker 1: kind of holographic simulated reality a karmic video game? Are
Speaker 1: we energetic food for aliens or ai? Are maybe a
Speaker 1: little bit of all those possibilities? Are none of those?
Speaker 1: This is going to be great to get into. I've
Speaker 1: got so many rabbit holes that we could jump into.
Speaker 1: Your books, Simulation hypothesis, and the simulated multiverse explore all
Speaker 1: of these possibilities and more. Before we get into it,
Speaker 1: though this is your first time on, tell the audience
Speaker 1: a little bit about your background and what led you
Speaker 1: to write about these topics.
Speaker 3: Sure, so, you know, my background is as a computer
Speaker 3: scientist and as you know, an engineer and an entrepreneur
Speaker 3: in the software industry. And I actually created a number
Speaker 3: of software companies and then moved into the video game
Speaker 3: industry and was working on creating a bunch of different
Speaker 3: video games, including one that was near the top of
Speaker 3: the Apple App Store almost a decade ago now. And then,
Speaker 3: you know, after I sold my last video game company,
Speaker 3: I became an investor and advisor to lots of startups
Speaker 3: that build three D technology. I ran an accelerator at
Speaker 3: MIT called play Labs for a couple of years, which
Speaker 3: was about virtual reality and augmented reality. And you know,
Speaker 3: that was around the time that I started to play
Speaker 3: with different VR devices, and there was there was a
Speaker 3: moment when I was playing a ping pong game using
Speaker 3: the old HTC vive headsets, which are more than five
Speaker 3: years old now, which is an eternity in tech these days,
Speaker 3: and I was playing this ping pong game and it
Speaker 3: was so realistic that for a moment I forgot I
Speaker 3: was in virtual reality, so much so that I tried
Speaker 3: to put the paddle down on the table, and I
Speaker 3: tried to lean against the table, and of course there
Speaker 3: was no table, it was just a virtual world table,
Speaker 3: and so the controller I had in my hand fell
Speaker 3: to the floor. I almost, you know, fell over, and
Speaker 3: I caught myself, and I said, oh wow, our VR
Speaker 3: tech is getting so good that soon we'll be able
Speaker 3: to fool ourselves. I mean, for me, it was only
Speaker 3: for a moment, but soon as the tech gets better,
Speaker 3: we'll be able to fool ourselves into thinking that we
Speaker 3: are in physical reality when we're actually in the virtual reality.
Speaker 3: So that was one of the main emphasises for writing
Speaker 3: the first book, The Simulation Hypothesis, where I laid out
Speaker 3: this this idea of the simulation point, which is a
Speaker 3: point at which we can create basically matrix like video
Speaker 3: game simulations, and I laid out the ten stages of technology.
Speaker 3: So it started as a thought experiment, but then it
Speaker 3: also tied to a lot of other areas that I
Speaker 3: had been exploring, you know, I wrote it. My first
Speaker 3: book was called Zen Entrepreneurship. So while I was doing
Speaker 3: my very first startup, you know, way back in the nineties,
Speaker 3: I was writing about meditation and exploring consciousness and dreams
Speaker 3: and lucid dreams and auto body experience. I went to
Speaker 3: the Monroe Institute, so you know, I had this kind
Speaker 3: of parallel double life, if you will, where during the
Speaker 3: day I was kind of your respected tech guy and
Speaker 3: an entrepreneur and investor, and in the evenings and weekends,
Speaker 3: I'd be jetting off and trying out, you know, different
Speaker 3: different techniques. And I found, you know, looking at synchronicity
Speaker 3: and how it might work. I had a book called
Speaker 3: Treasure Hunt, which is all about synchronicity, but simulation theory
Speaker 3: was the first kind of both a metaphor and an
Speaker 3: underlying model of reality that I think was able to
Speaker 3: bridge the gap between these worlds. And it's something I
Speaker 3: can talk to with scientists, I can talk to in
Speaker 3: Silicon Valley, with technologists and investors, I can talk to
Speaker 3: religious people, and I can talk to people in that
Speaker 3: kind of New Age meditation, even the UFO community. So
Speaker 3: it was this kind of underlying metaphor that explained for
Speaker 3: really everything that I'd been exploring in my life, including
Speaker 3: the work I've been doing in video games. So that
Speaker 3: was what led me into you down the rabbit hole, the.
Speaker 1: First excellent man. Yeah, now, you explore, like you were saying,
Speaker 1: many different aspects of what this reality could be, and
Speaker 1: one of those is ancient spiritual texts and what those
Speaker 1: could have possibly told us about the nature of our reality. Buddhism, Hinduism,
Speaker 1: these types of religions tell us that we live multiple
Speaker 1: lives or playing different characters when we're coming back and
Speaker 1: continuing to gain experience or what you'd call leveling up.
Speaker 1: So talk about some of the ancient spiritual traditions and
Speaker 1: texts that led you to some of this information.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Absolutely, And you know, the subtitle of the simulation
Speaker 3: hypothesis is the MIT Computer Scientist shows why AI, quantum
Speaker 3: physics and Eastern mystics all agree we are in a
Speaker 3: video game. And I put that last piece in there
Speaker 3: because I didn't want it to be just a technology
Speaker 3: or a discussion. And you know, if you go back
Speaker 3: to the Hindu Vedas, which are you know, among the
Speaker 3: the first known UH spiritual texts that have have now
Speaker 3: been written down. Of course they were probably or oral
Speaker 3: texts in those days. UH. They talked very much about
Speaker 3: the world being maya or an illusion. But if you
Speaker 3: look at that term and you look at what does
Speaker 3: it actually mean in the Sanskrit term, it actually means
Speaker 3: a carefully crafted illusion, and others have said this when
Speaker 3: I looked up the definition, where it's almost like if
Speaker 3: you're there's a magic trick going on stage right, and
Speaker 3: they're giving this illusion so that it looks real to you.
Speaker 3: Yet it's a trick, and it's kind of known by
Speaker 3: both sides that it's a trick, but you can't really
Speaker 3: see that it's a trick because they've you know, they've
Speaker 3: kind of diverted your attention. And then in the in
Speaker 3: the hindu Vedas, they also talk about the Leela, which
Speaker 3: is the play or the grand play of the gods
Speaker 3: uh And I found that interesting for for for several reasons.
Speaker 3: You know, one because of this idea of the world
Speaker 3: as a playground, but also this idea of a stage
Speaker 3: play where you get when you play right. If you
Speaker 3: go back to Shakespeare's time, actors were called players, right,
Speaker 3: and there's that famous group by Shakespeare all the worlds
Speaker 3: of stage, and the men and women merely players who
Speaker 3: get on and you know, they play their part, they
Speaker 3: struck their stuff, et cetera. And so it turns out
Speaker 3: this metaphor has been around for for a long time,
Speaker 3: and so the ancient texts talk about the world being
Speaker 3: like a dream. Within Buddhism, that's actually a particularly powerful metaphor,
Speaker 3: that the world is like a dream and when you
Speaker 3: wake up, it's when you die. You wake up and
Speaker 3: you realize, oh, that was just a dream, and you
Speaker 3: have that same experience that you had, you know, in
Speaker 3: the morning, when you wake up, you're like, man like,
Speaker 3: like last night, you know, I had a strange dream
Speaker 3: last night. I was like, oh, am, I glad that
Speaker 3: wasn't real. And so the dream metaphor is one that
Speaker 3: is carried throughout various traditions. And so these metaphors are
Speaker 3: the way in which the ancient spoke to us about
Speaker 3: the underlying nature of reality in Islam, it turns out
Speaker 3: in the Qur'an. And I actually didn't even know this
Speaker 3: till after I had written the book, which is interesting
Speaker 3: because you know, I grew up in a Muslim household.
Speaker 3: I was born in Pakistan, but even though I grew
Speaker 3: up in Michigan. And you know, one of the lines is,
Speaker 3: you know, there's like three different verses that say much
Speaker 3: the same thing, which is that we have created this
Speaker 3: world for you as a diversion as a game as
Speaker 3: a pastime, right, And so within Islam, Christianity, and even Judaism,
Speaker 3: there's this idea of the here, the here and now,
Speaker 3: and the hereafter, right, and so there's this this element
Speaker 3: of the physical world is there for a period of time,
Speaker 3: and it's been created for you to have these experiences,
Speaker 3: and that you are being watched when you have these experiences.
Speaker 3: And so all of these ancient traditions seem to agree
Speaker 3: on this basic idea, which is that the world is
Speaker 3: a type of illusion or a type of game. And
Speaker 3: in the Indian traditions, you know, there's obviously the idea
Speaker 3: of reincarnation where you go in, you live a life,
Speaker 3: and you come out, and well, that turns out you
Speaker 3: don't need to do a lot of analogizing to a
Speaker 3: video game. When I play a video game, I have
Speaker 3: an avatar in the game that person. That person plays
Speaker 3: out their session or they end when the person dies,
Speaker 3: or when I decide to end that particular play session,
Speaker 3: I can I can save it, but then I can
Speaker 3: go back in and I can play again. And and
Speaker 3: so you know, this metaphor was particularly appropriate. You know, Yogananda,
Speaker 3: who wrote autobiography of the Yogi whose you know book
Speaker 3: I'm actually writing a book about. We can talk about
Speaker 3: that later, but you know, he said that birth and
Speaker 3: death are like doors through which we go from one
Speaker 3: dream to the next. Right, And so Yogananda came up
Speaker 3: with a new metaphor using new technology in the twentieth century,
Speaker 3: and he said that, well, the world is like a
Speaker 3: movie projector, because that was the new thing back then. Right,
Speaker 3: you can go to the cinema, you had a projector,
Speaker 3: it would put light. And he said to the people
Speaker 3: on stage, you know, they're actors. It looks like they're
Speaker 3: being killed, but they're really not. They're not actually being hurt,
Speaker 3: and that we are like those And so, you know,
Speaker 3: all of these metaphors I think are trying to tell
Speaker 3: us something, and they try to speak in the language
Speaker 3: of the times. And so two thousand years ago they
Speaker 3: could always speak of the Book of Life, right, or angels,
Speaker 3: because that was all we could talk about today. I
Speaker 3: think if any of the ancient stages were alive today,
Speaker 3: they would say, we'd live in something that's like a movie,
Speaker 3: but it's a script and there's multiple people playing parts,
Speaker 3: and each of us can change things by our choices
Speaker 3: and we everything that happens is recorded. But what does
Speaker 3: that sound like? It sounds like a video right? And
Speaker 3: today you know on Twitch, you know, we have people
Speaker 3: who you know, stream their games, they record their games.
Speaker 3: I know, like my nephew and he was like only
Speaker 3: like three or four years old. He would tell my brother.
Speaker 3: He'd say, oh, I want to watch that man and
Speaker 3: that woman play Star Wars. Right, so he wanted to
Speaker 3: go on YouTube. It wasn't he wanted to watch Star
Speaker 3: Wars in the movie or placed a video game. He
Speaker 3: wanted to watch a recording of these two people playing
Speaker 3: a Star Wars multiplayer game. And so you know, we
Speaker 3: do that all the time now with these three worlds
Speaker 3: where we record those sessions. So that's some of the
Speaker 3: ways in which it touches on these ancient spiritual ideas.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it would make so much sense. There's so
Speaker 1: many aspects of a reality that would point to this
Speaker 1: is some sort of spiritual evolution type of realm, that
Speaker 1: this is for us to develop ourselves, to develop our
Speaker 1: consciousness and to possibly level up along the way. What
Speaker 1: do you think about the possibilities that it is us
Speaker 1: controlling a lot of the aspects of what we would
Speaker 1: call spiritual experiences, paranormal experiences that us outside of this
Speaker 1: simulation still have control over our avatars. But maybe we're
Speaker 1: not progressing as fast as we want to. So maybe
Speaker 1: we throw ourselves a paranormal or profound spiritual experience to
Speaker 1: help us get to that next level. What do you
Speaker 1: think about that?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think there's something to that, and not just
Speaker 3: paranormal experiences, but even normal experiences sometimes that are unexpected
Speaker 3: and that happen, and that kind of throw us off
Speaker 3: of our track that we thought we were on, because
Speaker 3: perhaps we're on the wrong track. And so you know,
Speaker 3: when we play, people ask me what's the purpose of
Speaker 3: the simulation, and I say, well, why do we play
Speaker 3: video games? Well, we play video games for slightly different
Speaker 3: reasons that we run simulations. And we can talk about
Speaker 3: the simulation idea in the multiverseon minute, But we play
Speaker 3: video games so that we can have experiences that we
Speaker 3: can't have outside the game. Right, So I can't necessarily
Speaker 3: go flying on the dragon in this quote unquote physical reality,
Speaker 3: although I can't inside the virtual reality. And so I
Speaker 3: think the purpose of this video game is the same reason.
Speaker 3: It's so that we can have experiences that are hard
Speaker 3: to have outside and now what are those experiences? Right, Well,
Speaker 3: those experiences may be emotional, may be good or bad experiences.
Speaker 3: You know, there there may be hardships, there may be disasters,
Speaker 3: there may be wars, there may be injuries, there may
Speaker 3: be financial rules. So there's a lot of bad things
Speaker 3: that happened to us, and then there's a lot of
Speaker 3: good things that happened to us, like with our relationships
Speaker 3: with people or with if we don't want to play
Speaker 3: particular storylines, I feel like we all have certain storylines
Speaker 3: that we agree to before we come here. And like
Speaker 3: in my case, if you had asked me even in
Speaker 3: high school, what are you going to do as a career,
Speaker 3: and I would tell you, well, I'm going to be
Speaker 3: a computer software entrepreneur and then I'm going to be
Speaker 3: a writer, right, And I kind of knew that at
Speaker 3: some level, I was wrong about the years when I
Speaker 3: would make that transition. You know, I thought I'd become
Speaker 3: an entrepreneur at the age of twenty eight, make millions,
Speaker 3: and then go become a writer and you know, maybe
Speaker 3: go and meditate in the Himalayas or something right after.
Speaker 3: But I had the general kind of outline, right, But
Speaker 3: and actually I did start writing my first book at
Speaker 3: the age of twenty eight, even though I didn't become
Speaker 3: a full time writer till much much later. But I
Speaker 3: feel like we have these storylines, and then sometimes while
Speaker 3: we're playing out these storylines, there are there are branches,
Speaker 3: so you can take different branches, and you can make
Speaker 3: different choices, and sometimes, you know, we decide not to
Speaker 3: take a branch, but then later we decided to pick
Speaker 3: up that branch. So so I feel like sometimes we
Speaker 3: may need to be thrown off of the branch were
Speaker 3: on because we were supposed to be doing X, Y
Speaker 3: and Z, and we got so distracted by the game
Speaker 3: that we were. And this happened to me because I
Speaker 3: was spending a ton of time in the entrepreneurship and
Speaker 3: then I be Human Investor, and I was kind of
Speaker 3: focused on that world, and the writing was a bit
Speaker 3: of a hobby, and so I would do it, you know,
Speaker 3: when I had time. And and then I ended up
Speaker 3: having some serious medical issues that came out of nowhere.
Speaker 3: And the strong message I got during the recovery from
Speaker 3: that I had from surgery, which took a long time
Speaker 3: to recover and I did and have a lot of
Speaker 3: extra energy. But I had these visions where I was
Speaker 3: like interacting with these beings and they were telling me, well,
Speaker 3: you know, this is you know, to put you on
Speaker 3: a different They were showing me like a chess board
Speaker 3: and like something like a chessboard with the different moves,
Speaker 3: and they're like, well, okay, this is if this happened
Speaker 3: to go this way, and if that happens to go
Speaker 3: that way. And so they were kind of explaining to
Speaker 3: me that I was supposed to do more writing and
Speaker 3: less business at that point in my life, because now
Speaker 3: I wasn't twenty eight, I was forty eight. It was
Speaker 3: like twenty years later. I was still working on, you know,
Speaker 3: business stuff, which was perhaps not my storyline. And so
Speaker 3: then I ended up in a situation where I didn't
Speaker 3: have enough energy to do all that business stuff, and
Speaker 3: so I said, well, what's important between now and who
Speaker 3: knows when we're going to end this game? Clearly this
Speaker 3: was something I set up for myself, so I focused
Speaker 3: full time on writing, and that's when I actually got
Speaker 3: around finally writing simulation. I thought, this is finally publishing
Speaker 3: the books on startups that I had been writing while
Speaker 3: I'd been doing all this business stuff and then the
Speaker 3: follow up as well. So so I mean, I know
Speaker 3: your question was about paranormal events, but I guess my
Speaker 3: point is, I think sometimes there are parts of us
Speaker 3: that set up these events for ourselves, and I think
Speaker 3: this is true with paranormal events as well. Like for example,
Speaker 3: when I was doing my first startup and I write
Speaker 3: about this, I think I think I write about it
Speaker 3: in Zen Entrepreneurship and Treasure Hunt, which is about synchronicity
Speaker 3: and dreams. I had a dream about, you know, this
Speaker 3: competitor of ours who I hadn't heard from in a year,
Speaker 3: and that competitor had sold to Lotus, which is IBM,
Speaker 3: a big part of IBM back at the time about
Speaker 3: a year ago, and I never heard anything about them,
Speaker 3: And I had a dream about this guy, and I
Speaker 3: thought that was a weird. Why am I dream about
Speaker 3: this guy now a year later? And then that morning,
Speaker 3: as soon as I got the office, I got a
Speaker 3: call from IBM saying, oh, well, that guy you know
Speaker 3: was part of our team and we just built this
Speaker 3: new product and it's going to compete against your product,
Speaker 3: Like oh crap, okay, now we got this big giant
Speaker 3: company that's going to compete with our lettle startup, right,
Speaker 3: But it was just odd that had happened in the
Speaker 3: same morning. And so as I was exploring different reasons
Speaker 3: for why that, you know, what happened here, I was
Speaker 3: told that that was a demonstration between myself and my guides,
Speaker 3: let's say, the part of myself that's outside of the simulation,
Speaker 3: so that I didn't get too locked into this causality world, right,
Speaker 3: that I could see that there was something else going on,
Speaker 3: and that the world is a bit like a dream.
Speaker 3: And so I do think we set up some of
Speaker 3: these paranormal experiences, you know, for ourselves, to help us,
Speaker 3: to help us wake up, and to help us not
Speaker 3: get too involved in the game, if you will, Lost
Speaker 3: in the illusion is what most of us, or in
Speaker 3: some sorrow, as you know, the Indians will say.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I like how you put it. That it's our
Speaker 1: guides or our higher self may be an aspect of
Speaker 1: us that are guiding us through. And I want to
Speaker 1: talk about synchronicity for a minute, because this is something
Speaker 1: that I've experienced in profound ways, not only with meditation
Speaker 1: and contact to what I understands my own higher self
Speaker 1: and spirit guides which has guided me to where I
Speaker 1: am today be able to doing what I'm doing full time.
Speaker 1: And it was a series of profound experiences and communications
Speaker 1: between me and what I understands my higher self in
Speaker 1: combination with synchronicities and what I understand as manifestation and
Speaker 1: positive thinking techniques to bring about manifestation and things like that.
Speaker 1: It's just more aspects that point to that this reality
Speaker 1: has more of a programmable aspect than than we understand.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, I tend to agree. So I call
Speaker 3: sucredicity and hunches and these visions that we have or
Speaker 3: these gut feelings that guide us at times. I call
Speaker 3: all of these clues right, and their clues on our
Speaker 3: quest or our treasure hunt within our game. And where
Speaker 3: do these clues lead us? Sometimes they lead us, just
Speaker 3: like it with Indiana Jones and a treasure hunt. Right.
Speaker 3: They don't tell him at the beginning of the movie, gain,
Speaker 3: here's the Art of the Covenant, go get it right.
Speaker 3: They usually give him a clue or here's the Holy Grail, right,
Speaker 3: and he has to follow that clue and where does
Speaker 3: it take him to the next clue? And then that
Speaker 3: takes him to the next clue and eventually that leads
Speaker 3: and that journey itself is part of the process. And so,
Speaker 3: you know, I think those clues are left for us
Speaker 3: by ourselves. And sometimes, you know, we have clues and
Speaker 3: we have synchronicity, and we think there's something meaningful here,
Speaker 3: but we're not exactly sure, you know, what it means,
Speaker 3: and so we have to interpret those clues like we
Speaker 3: do with a dream. And sometimes the clue comes in
Speaker 3: a dream and then you see that same thing later
Speaker 3: that day in the physical world. And so, you know,
Speaker 3: the synchronicity is to scientists and engineers, they seem like, wow,
Speaker 3: that's not distinguishable from magic. Right. Young defined it as
Speaker 3: a meaningful coincidence, but also as an a causal connection
Speaker 3: between two odds, two things. Right Usually we think of
Speaker 3: it as an internal thing and an external thing and
Speaker 3: how those things kind of relate to each other. Like
Speaker 3: just the other day, I had a synchronicity where some
Speaker 3: you know, somehow my book Treasure Hunt, which was published
Speaker 3: by a group in London called Watkins, came up. And
Speaker 3: then I was thinking about when I went to London
Speaker 3: and I went to the Watkins bookstore to the oldest
Speaker 3: metaphysical bookstore probably in the world, certainly in London, from
Speaker 3: like the eighteen nineties, and I gave a talk there,
Speaker 3: and then just the other day a friend of mine
Speaker 3: showed me a video clip from my talk there, which
Speaker 3: I had, you know, was from five years ago, and
Speaker 3: almost nobody sees that clip because it's pretty old. And
Speaker 3: most people see my clips on the simulation hypothesis from
Speaker 3: my talks at Google. And so there was a case
Speaker 3: where it came up like several times internally and externally.
Speaker 3: And that's the case of what I call a repeating clue.
Speaker 3: And so, you know, I was talking with Jacques Vallet,
Speaker 3: whom I'm sure you know from the UFO community, and
Speaker 3: Diana Pasoka, who wrote American Cosmic, and you know, she
Speaker 3: and he both talked about this idea of a technological synchronicity,
Speaker 3: which is that perhaps in a simulated environment, it's much
Speaker 3: easier for these things to be connected when you have information.
Speaker 3: It's kind of like when I was shopping for a
Speaker 3: backpack like the other day or last year, and then
Speaker 3: I went on Facebook and there was an ad for
Speaker 3: that exact same backpack. Now, if I didn't know that
Speaker 3: there was a database behind the scenes that allowed for
Speaker 3: this thing called the cookie. To me, that would look
Speaker 3: like magic, right. I mean, I happen to know, being
Speaker 3: in the computer science world, exactly how they did that.
Speaker 3: But the same thing happens when we have a synchronicity
Speaker 3: in the physical world. It might look like it's magic,
Speaker 3: but there is some information connection on how these things
Speaker 3: are stored and how they're presented to us. So it
Speaker 3: is meaningful and it's not really a causal. It just
Speaker 3: looks like it's a causal. They actually do have a
Speaker 3: cause and a purpose, and I think they're just steering us.
Speaker 3: Like if you have ever seen that movie The Adjustment
Speaker 3: Bureau with Matt Damon, and that's based on a Philip K.
Speaker 3: Dick story. We can talk about Philip K. Dick later
Speaker 3: because he plays a big role in my second book.
Speaker 3: But in that movie, they have these journals and they
Speaker 3: have people going through different paths and they have to
Speaker 3: like guide them. Right, these these entities they kind of
Speaker 3: look like angels in the movie, not necessarily in the story.
Speaker 3: They were just called the adjustment Team in the story. Uh.
Speaker 3: And so it's almost like when we get off course,
Speaker 3: they have to guide us back and synchronicity, I think
Speaker 3: is one of the ways that that happened.
Speaker 1: All right on, now, you mentioned something about the difference
Speaker 1: between if this were more of a simulation and less
Speaker 1: of like an avatar video game situation, how the differences
Speaker 1: would be, and to me it seems like we would
Speaker 1: maybe have less control and it would be more of
Speaker 1: a pre program type of aspect.
Speaker 3: What do you think, Yeah, So what you're talking about
Speaker 3: is what I like to call the NPC versus the
Speaker 3: RPG versions of the simulation hypothesis. And in the NPC version,
Speaker 3: which danser non player characters, which is a term from
Speaker 3: the video game industry, and those are like the people
Speaker 3: you fight, or the bartender, the bank teller, the people
Speaker 3: you see in the game who are not avatars representing
Speaker 3: other players. They're just you know, code that runs in
Speaker 3: the game. So the NPC versus the RPG, which is
Speaker 3: the role playing game version where we are avatars. And
Speaker 3: it turns out, you know, another way to think about
Speaker 3: this isn't the matrix in Neo and Morpheus with them
Speaker 3: they were all avatars of themselves outside, So that was
Speaker 3: primarily a role playing game version of the simulation hypothesis.
Speaker 3: Whereas Agent Smith and some of these others were NPCs,
Speaker 3: but they didn't seem that they weren't necessarily the main
Speaker 3: purpose of those And so it's not totally mutually exclusive.
Speaker 3: I mean, you can if you play World of Warcraft,
Speaker 3: excuse me, you can have player characters PCs, and you
Speaker 3: can have non player characters who are like the ORCS
Speaker 3: or whatever it is that you're fighting at that moment
Speaker 3: in time. And so it's actually a continuum, perhaps in
Speaker 3: my opinion. But now if we're NPC's, then it's more
Speaker 3: like a simulation. And why do we run simulations? I
Speaker 3: asked the question I heard, or why do we play
Speaker 3: video games? Okay, why do we run simulations? We run
Speaker 3: simulations to see what might happen, right like we might
Speaker 3: run a simulation of the weather, you know, we might
Speaker 3: run a simulation of population growth or pandemics or et cetera.
Speaker 3: In fact, I saw I was on a show with
Speaker 3: William Shanner The Unexplained in the History Channel, and in
Speaker 3: my segment, we were talking about simulations, and they showed
Speaker 3: some video of the supercomputer in Japan that was trying
Speaker 3: to simulate how would people leave Tokyo in the case
Speaker 3: of an earthquake, so they had a very detailed threetom
Speaker 3: amount of tokyo, and they had all these these individual
Speaker 3: you know people. In this case, we're just dots making
Speaker 3: decisions about where to go. But they had a certain
Speaker 3: rule they were following. And so we run simulations to
Speaker 3: see what is the most likely outcome and sometimes to
Speaker 3: see what is the most optimal outcome. Now you might say, well,
Speaker 3: we don't have control. Well, that true less control if
Speaker 3: we're all NPCs. On the other hand, it depends on
Speaker 3: the program and it depends on the amount of randomness.
Speaker 3: So there's a whole class of mathematics and computer science
Speaker 3: called complexity theory, and there's a branch of that called
Speaker 3: chaos theory. And the whole idea of chaos theory is
Speaker 3: that you have these very terministic processes, which are like fractals.
Speaker 3: Fractals are very deterministic. They have a rule set, but
Speaker 3: you keep applying them again and again and you get
Speaker 3: these very complex patterns and some of those processes go
Speaker 3: to the place that you know they're going to end up.
Speaker 3: It's called, you know, a stable process because it ends
Speaker 3: up in that spot. But then there's chaotic and complex
Speaker 3: processes and you don't know where those are going to
Speaker 3: end up. So even if the case where you just
Speaker 3: have to follow these simple these five simple rules, and
Speaker 3: that you still don't know where the thing is going
Speaker 3: to end up. And so there's a whole term called
Speaker 3: computational irreducibility that was coined by Stephen Wolfram, who's this
Speaker 3: physicist term computer scientist. He made the software called Mathematica
Speaker 3: used by kinds of engineers and scientists. And so even
Speaker 3: in a dremanistic process, the only way to figure out
Speaker 3: what's going to happen at step million is you have
Speaker 3: to go to step nine nine ninety nine. And the
Speaker 3: only way to figure out what's going to happen there
Speaker 3: is you have to go to step nine ninety eight,
Speaker 3: nine ninety seven. And so you have to run the simulation.
Speaker 3: And this is why I think we're more in that
Speaker 3: kind of simulation. We are probably in a simulated multiverse,
Speaker 3: because if you want to find out what's going to happen,
Speaker 3: you never run it just once. You have to change
Speaker 3: the variables and you run it again. And this ties
Speaker 3: to the work or to the philosophy of Philip A. Dick,
Speaker 3: which we could talk about now ur later depending on Yeah,
Speaker 3: well let's go.
Speaker 1: While we're there, let's get into that, because I've got
Speaker 1: a few questions about in PCs and beyond. Does we
Speaker 1: get past that?
Speaker 3: Sure? So you know, Philip K. Dick gave a speech
Speaker 3: in Metz, France at a sci Fi convention in nineteen
Speaker 3: seventy seven, and in that speech he had a famous
Speaker 3: line the way he said, we are living in a
Speaker 3: computer programmed reality, and the only clue we have to
Speaker 3: it is when some variable is changed, some alteration in
Speaker 3: our reality occurs. Well, it turns out this speech in
Speaker 3: Philip K. Dick in general was an inspiration for the
Speaker 3: Wachowski's who created the matrix, right, and you know that
Speaker 3: line about a glitch in the matrix. And so I
Speaker 3: interviewed his wife Tessa when I was writing my first
Speaker 3: book and for the second book as well, and you know,
Speaker 3: it turns out you know that speech. You know, she
Speaker 3: said you should really look into that speech because it's
Speaker 3: not just about counter simulation. And so when I went
Speaker 3: back and looked at it, I realized it was about
Speaker 3: rerunning the simulation. So the next line after that line,
Speaker 3: he said, the only clue we have to it would
Speaker 3: be if some variable were changed, some alteration occur is
Speaker 3: in our reality, we would have the sense that we
Speaker 3: were reliving the same moment, hearing the same words, saying
Speaker 3: the same words again, and we would have the overwhelming
Speaker 3: sense of dejon voo. Right, Okay, So now what was
Speaker 3: interesting to me was I had never read this speech,
Speaker 3: but this idea of glitches in the matrix. Right. I'd
Speaker 3: even talked about synchronicities as being glitches in the matrix,
Speaker 3: and here he was talking about repeating the same things
Speaker 3: and having a sense of deja vu. It turns out
Speaker 3: he came to believe that that the universe is in
Speaker 3: fact not just a simulation, but a simulation where people
Speaker 3: who live outside of time are able to manipulate the
Speaker 3: variables and rewrun things. And so the man in the
Speaker 3: High Cast Soul was while he was alive, was his
Speaker 3: probably best known book one, you know, the big Science
Speaker 3: Sci Fi Awards back in nineteen sixty And when he
Speaker 3: in that speech, and then also you know, and speaking
Speaker 3: to his wife Tessa, it came out that he really
Speaker 3: believed that was a real timeline that Germany and Japan
Speaker 3: had actually won World War Two. But for whatever reason
Speaker 3: that timeline didn't lead to the optimal conclusion, and so
Speaker 3: they rewound that timeline and now we are running on
Speaker 3: this other timeline. And so he talked about having, you know,
Speaker 3: these memories of a slave of a slave state different formats,
Speaker 3: and a couple of his books were written to try
Speaker 3: to get these images out of his head. And so
Speaker 3: he came to believe that these were real memories, and
Speaker 3: at one point he had fuller memories of that entire timeline.
Speaker 3: He was actually going to write a sequel to the
Speaker 3: Man in the High Castle, but he didn't because the
Speaker 3: memories were still vivid at that point that he didn't
Speaker 3: want to, you know, really indulge in those memories. And
Speaker 3: so the idea of multiple timelines and changing variables makes
Speaker 3: a ton of sense if you think of an NPC
Speaker 3: simulation and possibly even an RPG simulation, although that it's
Speaker 3: a little more complicated because then what a separate timeline
Speaker 3: is is just changing a few variables, and you basically
Speaker 3: run away with that timeline and then you go back
Speaker 3: in a simulation. You can save the state the simulation anywhere,
Speaker 3: and you can rerun it from that point forward, and
Speaker 3: then you can see what changes if you made different
Speaker 3: decisions along the way, right, And so getting back to
Speaker 3: the free will question, yes, it's true that an npcasimilation
Speaker 3: we may have less free will. But on the other hand,
Speaker 3: we may be RPGs in this simulation where we can
Speaker 3: go in and we can actually make choices and change
Speaker 3: that to see what might be happening. And we might
Speaker 3: be doing that all the time. And so I was
Speaker 3: positing in the simulated multiverse. And this is where things
Speaker 3: get really weird, that we live in a comput quantum
Speaker 3: computer and we're trying out these possible futures all the
Speaker 3: time and basically from the present, just like a computer
Speaker 3: in chess, those playing chests that might say what happens
Speaker 3: if I do this? But you know what happens if
Speaker 3: I do that? Now, what happens if I do that? Right,
Speaker 3: Because there are branches quantum mechanics and people who interpret
Speaker 3: a quantum mechanics and saying these possible futures are sending
Speaker 3: back information and we can talk about the observer effect
Speaker 3: and all that, but this is another interpretation. There's one
Speaker 3: interpretation of a multiverse where you have multiple timeline. There's
Speaker 3: another where they're sending you back information. Well, how can
Speaker 3: they send back information unless they exist somewhere? And what
Speaker 3: does it mean for them to exist somewhere, Well, someone
Speaker 3: would have had to render them in a sense. That's
Speaker 3: the term I use from a video games. It's like
Speaker 3: you had to play out that branch in order for
Speaker 3: that branch to exist. Otherwise, how would you know. It's
Speaker 3: a computationally irreducible process. Therefore, the only way to have
Speaker 3: these possible futures is for someone to actually have them
Speaker 3: out there. And so if they're there and they're sending
Speaker 3: back information, we must have already tried them out to
Speaker 3: a certain extent, and then we choose which one, you know,
Speaker 3: we're going to experience moving forward. It's kind of a
Speaker 3: mind blowing concept.
Speaker 1: It is, Man, it gets crazy and this kind of
Speaker 1: we could either get into Mandela or many other realms
Speaker 1: from here, but we want to go back to NPCs
Speaker 1: for a second, and the possibilities that maybe we are all,
Speaker 1: like you said, a form of NPC. And there's been
Speaker 1: controversial talks that people, some people who aren't quote unquote
Speaker 1: awake or aware, are just going along with their mundane lives,
Speaker 1: might be in a form of an NPC and I
Speaker 1: think about me whenever I was a teenager in my twenties, hell,
Speaker 1: I might have been an NPC. And if so, is
Speaker 1: it possible for some sort of divine spark or or
Speaker 1: conscious spirit to come into a person as this NPC
Speaker 1: simulation is going along and doing its thing. What do
Speaker 1: you think about that?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that's an interesting point. Well, So, first
Speaker 3: of all, people use the term NPC, now, okay, it's
Speaker 3: kind of become a meme, right for like groups of
Speaker 3: people who aren't really thinking or who are just following
Speaker 3: the narrative. And so there's the soft simulation hypothesis idea, right,
Speaker 3: And what I talk about is the hard simulation like
Speaker 3: the like the like the actual physical world is a simulation.
Speaker 3: Then there's the soft simulation, which are people who talk
Speaker 3: more about the narrative matrix and what governments want you
Speaker 3: to know and that. And then so NPC can be
Speaker 3: used in either of those context But I think a
Speaker 3: good way to think about it could be the SIMS.
Speaker 3: If you go back to the original SIMS, and even
Speaker 3: as they are today, you know, I haven't played it lately,
Speaker 3: but you have your sim and you watch your sim
Speaker 3: do things, right, and so there's an element of an
Speaker 3: AI and NPC, but then later there is this ability
Speaker 3: to direct and make choices on those sims, so you
Speaker 3: have a little bit of both. So it's very possible
Speaker 3: that we can start off we have like an NPC
Speaker 3: mode where we're just you know, continually doing things in
Speaker 3: the world, but then there's times when we are more
Speaker 3: inhabited by our player, right, So it's almost like if
Speaker 3: you've ever seen that movie. So The Matrix came out
Speaker 3: in nineteen ninety nine, but there's another movie about simulation
Speaker 3: that came out in nineteen ninety nine that I think
Speaker 3: in some ways better expresses some of these ideas. And
Speaker 3: that movie is The Thirteenth Floor. And in that movie,
Speaker 3: they were in the nineties, you know, the president at
Speaker 3: the time, it was like say ninety eight ninety nine,
Speaker 3: they made a simulation of Los Angeles in the nineteen thirties,
Speaker 3: thirty seven or forty, and these people were just playing
Speaker 3: out their lives and you could go in and then
Speaker 3: inhabit that character, right, and so these you know, he
Speaker 3: came back and said, well, these people are as real
Speaker 3: as you or me with living their lives, but you
Speaker 3: can also go in, so there's this idea of a
Speaker 3: combination and NPC at a player character where you could
Speaker 3: sort of take over. Now, I tend to be of
Speaker 3: the belief, which is, I think closer to the religious
Speaker 3: traditions that we are player characters. We are avatars for
Speaker 3: ourselves who may not be physical at all, maybe spiritual,
Speaker 3: maybe a soul. However, whatever you think is in the
Speaker 3: next level up. Some people think it's just us as aliens,
Speaker 3: like Nick Bostrom, who coined the you know, the term
Speaker 3: simulation hypothesis and wrote a paper about what you called
Speaker 3: the simulation argument in two thousand and three that really
Speaker 3: started a lot of this serious discussion among philosophers and
Speaker 3: academic about the simulation theory in general. You know, he
Speaker 3: talks about ancestors simulations. So for him, the idea is
Speaker 3: that an advanced civilization makes a simulation of its ancestors
Speaker 3: exactly what was happening in the thirteenth floor, Like in
Speaker 3: the nineteen nineties, they were making a simulation of the
Speaker 3: nineteen forties. It'd be like if we made a simulation
Speaker 3: of ancient Rome today, right to see what might happen
Speaker 3: if we changed a few things. What if Caesar hadn't
Speaker 3: been assassinated, right, Various things that we could change. And
Speaker 3: so in that case, it's future versions of us running
Speaker 3: the simulation, trying things out, and so there's a lot
Speaker 3: of different ways that we can go about that. Now
Speaker 3: that said, I was questioning people, you know, you don't
Speaker 3: want to go crazy in this NPC thought because you
Speaker 3: know that's what leads people to mistreat others thinking of
Speaker 3: them as NPCs. I say, it's always safest. I mean,
Speaker 3: I had one woman tell me I think my husband
Speaker 3: is an NPC. Well, hold off here a little bit
Speaker 3: right in my personal simulation, right, And well, in a
Speaker 3: way yes, and in a way no, right, And so
Speaker 3: you know, I don't think the purpose of the simulation
Speaker 3: is to mistreat other people, even though that happens. And
Speaker 3: you know, we can talk about the life review and
Speaker 3: near death experiences is helping reveal the purpose and simulation.
Speaker 3: But I don't think it's safe to assume that anybody
Speaker 3: is an NPC. But I think we have NPC behaviors, right,
Speaker 3: which are like these kind of repeatable behaviors, Like the
Speaker 3: NPCs do they go to work every day, they repeat things, uh,
Speaker 3: and they repeat what they're told and so I do
Speaker 3: think that it is possible for us to have that
Speaker 3: mode and then to have mode where were aware, which
Speaker 3: I think is closer to what you were. Now.
Speaker 1: This may may trigger the dog and cat and animal
Speaker 1: people out there, but I can look at my dog
Speaker 1: or my cat for a long extended period of time,
Speaker 1: or even birds, or just observe animals out in nature,
Speaker 1: and I could see how those could possibly be some
Speaker 1: sort of AI that's just running a constant program and
Speaker 1: going through these type of behaviors through some kind of programming.
Speaker 1: What do you think about that?
Speaker 3: Well, I think there is an element of that, right,
Speaker 3: And of course, like you said, you know, trigger the
Speaker 3: dog and gat people. So but there are obviously there
Speaker 3: are people who consider their pets as part of the family,
Speaker 3: right and consider them. So I think certain animals as
Speaker 3: you go up, tend to be you know, tend to
Speaker 3: be closer to what we would consider more conscious. And
Speaker 3: it's very possible that what's happening is that in the simulation,
Speaker 3: the whole purpose is to evolve the solo called biological
Speaker 3: entities to the point where they could be have a
Speaker 3: player embedded within them. Right, And and so you know, bugs, okay,
Speaker 3: those tend to be closer, right, much closer you know,
Speaker 3: to to what we would consider NPCs and ants. Right,
Speaker 3: we can kind of in general, we can simulate their
Speaker 3: behavior much more easily. Not always right now, when you
Speaker 3: get to the queen st the bees or it gets
Speaker 3: a lotle more complicated, but you can generally simulate that
Speaker 3: behavior a lot more easily. So I do think the
Speaker 3: easier to simulate, you know, the less likely they are
Speaker 3: to be more I don't know, going to look good
Speaker 3: conscious in this case, because I think animals are certainly conscious,
Speaker 3: many of them, and some are more intelligent than others.
Speaker 3: And so it may be that in this kind of
Speaker 3: simulation there are certain entities that have the neurological complexity
Speaker 3: for us to be able to inhabit those entities. And
Speaker 3: it's possible that this might happen with AI too. It's
Speaker 3: possible that if AI gets to the point where it
Speaker 3: has enough uh, you know, uh, neurological complexity, that they
Speaker 3: may not end having sold the robots, right, that it
Speaker 3: could be that they themselves could be inhabited by a
Speaker 3: player to take over, uh you know that. And and
Speaker 3: so that gets into a lot of different complexities. We
Speaker 3: can talk about AI and and consciousness, and so that's
Speaker 3: a whole different rabbit hole we can go out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely, Now we have to touch on one of
Speaker 1: the more popular type of things that you can point
Speaker 1: to as a as one of the more popular things
Speaker 1: that you can point to as evidence that more people
Speaker 1: are kind of coming on and realizing and and talking
Speaker 1: about is the possibilities that surround the Mandela effect. And
Speaker 1: you know, the mainstream stories that we hear about this,
Speaker 1: and of course the different types of uh oc currencies
Speaker 1: and phenomena like Britney Skirt and the Berenstein Bears and
Speaker 1: all these things which could easily be either actual changes
Speaker 1: made in the Internet or misremembering. But what do you
Speaker 1: think could be going on here?
Speaker 3: Yeah, so you know, I explore that in my book
Speaker 3: The Simulated Multiverse, and I explore it as an opportunity
Speaker 3: to think about multiple timelines and not just multiple possible futures,
Speaker 3: but also multiple possible paths. And so, you know, going
Speaker 3: back to Philip K. Dick, he also said in that
Speaker 3: same speech, he said, all we would need to do
Speaker 3: is find a group of people who have a memory
Speaker 3: of an alternate presence, right like he did, And so
Speaker 3: in his case, he was talking about an alternate timeline.
Speaker 3: But what we find with Mnel effect are people who
Speaker 3: have a memory of an alternate past. And before the
Speaker 3: internet came about, it was really difficult to do this,
Speaker 3: and so of course it's been dismissed I think by
Speaker 3: a modern you know, scientists says just smalty memory, group memory.
Speaker 3: Everything from as you mentioned, the burnstain bears. The original
Speaker 3: event was people remember Mendela dying in prison in the
Speaker 3: nineteen eighties. Of course, on our timeline, he came, he
Speaker 3: came out of prison, he became leader of South Africa,
Speaker 3: won an Overwell Peace Prize, and died and I think
Speaker 3: it was like twenty thirteen or so. And so, you know,
Speaker 3: I found that the Mendela effect is an interesting way
Speaker 3: to think about these different possible pasts because if you
Speaker 3: had changed one variable, our timeline might be very similar
Speaker 3: to what it was before. But no doubt as you go,
Speaker 3: this is what's referred to as the butterfly effect in
Speaker 3: complexity theory. It's like, you know, a small change in
Speaker 3: initial conditions can cause either big changes or a lot
Speaker 3: of small changes along the way, you know, And so
Speaker 3: so that is very much it's very possible that we
Speaker 3: end up in a very similar timeline today, except there's
Speaker 3: a few things that are different, whether it's the spelling
Speaker 3: of the Burns name bears, or it's a specific movie line.
Speaker 3: And so in quantum physics, there's this idea that you know,
Speaker 3: the observer effect, that when you observe something, it chooses
Speaker 3: a collapse of the probability wave. And best way to
Speaker 3: think about this is using Schrodinger's cat, where the cat
Speaker 3: after an hour, because he's in a box, p's some
Speaker 3: poison in there, he has a fifty percent chance of
Speaker 3: being alive and fifty percent chance of being dead. And
Speaker 3: common sense tells us the cat is either alive or dead.
Speaker 3: We just don't know. We haven't looked at the box yet.
Speaker 3: But when we look, we'll see which one it was.
Speaker 3: But it was only one of those, But quantum mechanics
Speaker 3: tells us no, both of those are real possibilities. So
Speaker 3: it is a super position of two different positions. Right,
Speaker 3: It's a set of two different positions, and that both
Speaker 3: of those are true, and that when we observe or
Speaker 3: measure one of those, the probability wave collapses. Now, the
Speaker 3: multiverse interpretation tells us there's two different versions. The cat
Speaker 3: still alive in one version and the cat is dead
Speaker 3: in the other version. But what that implies, and this
Speaker 3: is where it gets really weird, is what Irwin Trodinger,
Speaker 3: one of the father's quantum physics, said, not only do
Speaker 3: you choose the present and the future timeline, but you
Speaker 3: choose from multiple simultaneous paths. Right, So not only are
Speaker 3: you saying is the cat alive or dead? But in
Speaker 3: one reality the cat might not have even gotten in
Speaker 3: the box, and another reality, the cat, you know, came
Speaker 3: from outside, and another reality the cat came from you know,
Speaker 3: the bedroom to the box. And so you've got these
Speaker 3: whole histories. And so that creates the idea that there
Speaker 3: could in fact be multiple timelines which are slightly different
Speaker 3: as you look back at the past. And that's where
Speaker 3: it gets very complicated. Now. The Mandela effect is interesting
Speaker 3: to me because I had always just dismissed it along
Speaker 3: with you know, a bunch of other people. But I
Speaker 3: had a friend of mine from Mit who's working at Google,
Speaker 3: and I living in a mountain view at the time, right
Speaker 3: down the road from Google, and we were having coffee
Speaker 3: and he said, oh, have you heard of Mandela fact,
Speaker 3: he said, yeah, but it's just people misremembering stuff, because no,
Speaker 3: the simulation theory is actually the best explanation for it.
Speaker 3: So that's when I started to dive back into it.
Speaker 3: And for people, sometimes there are things that they are
Speaker 3: closer to, so proximity and significance right for me, I
Speaker 3: may not know if the Birdstein Bears was in the
Speaker 3: year an A or an I right at that point.
Speaker 3: But if you're Jewish and you had a conversation when
Speaker 3: you were a kid to say, why are these bears Jewish?
Speaker 3: That has closer proximity for you. There's a YouTuber I
Speaker 3: forget her name now, but she was a journalism student
Speaker 3: who's supposed to interview Nelson Mandela, South Africa. She was
Speaker 3: literally supposed to go there while he was in prison,
Speaker 3: and she was told that he wasn't well and they
Speaker 3: had to cancel her interview, and then of course she
Speaker 3: heard that he died a two weeks later. She was
Speaker 3: working for NPR after she graduated. And so if you
Speaker 3: were supposed to interview the guy, it's less likely that
Speaker 3: you got it wrong. Like people say, well, people are
Speaker 3: mistaken Mendela for this other leader of the you know,
Speaker 3: of the Black freedom movement in South Africa, Stephen Bico,
Speaker 3: about whom there was a movie made. But again, if
Speaker 3: you have, if you're closer proximity, and that's where the
Speaker 3: Bible verses, you know, start to make a lot more sense.
Speaker 3: And you know, one of the more intriguering ones for
Speaker 3: me before we get into the Bible versus is is
Speaker 3: that the thinker? Right? So if you look at the
Speaker 3: Thinker the statue, it was a physical object, right, which
Speaker 3: I believe the way it is, I get confused now
Speaker 3: because I've been exploring to Mandela bat Is. The hand
Speaker 3: is you know, under the chin, not clenched, but just
Speaker 3: slightly under the chin. Now, if you look, there are
Speaker 3: pictures of people out there standing next to versions of
Speaker 3: the statue with the fist on the forehead. And there's
Speaker 3: actually a picture from like nineteen oh seven, just before,
Speaker 3: just before the first version of the bronze version of
Speaker 3: the Thinker was actually introduced in London. Right of who
Speaker 3: is it? It was the bertrand Russell in the fore
Speaker 3: in the pose of the Thinker, it's called right, and
Speaker 3: it's definitely you know, if no one, if people haven't
Speaker 3: seen that they should definitely look it up, because then
Speaker 3: I have a picture of it in my book because
Speaker 3: it shows you basically, uh sorry, George Bernard Shaw and
Speaker 3: not Bertrand Russell. Right. And you know, you look at
Speaker 3: this picture and this was taken by photographer and he
Speaker 3: has his he has his hand on his forehead, and
Speaker 3: people can just search it for George Bernard Shaw in
Speaker 3: the pose of the thinker, right and and and they
Speaker 3: were literally unveiling the statue when they took this picture,
Speaker 3: so of course he saw it, and he was probably
Speaker 3: right next to it, and you're like, why would.
Speaker 1: He do that?
Speaker 3: And so now you start to get these weird, you know,
Speaker 3: physical pieces of evidence. Now going back to scripture, which
Speaker 3: is the famous one is an Isaiah, which is about
Speaker 3: the law in in the lamb.
Speaker 1: Yes, right, I mean I went to I went to
Speaker 1: Catholic school growing up. I remember that for sure.
Speaker 3: So you remember that. And some people they even have
Speaker 3: there are still like little bald facts that have something
Speaker 3: like the line in the lamb. And if you look
Speaker 3: at the King James Bible, you know it's not there.
Speaker 3: It's something about the wolf and the lamb. And so
Speaker 3: again think of proximity, like people seriously, some people do
Speaker 3: and so that's why they remember, uh, And so you know,
Speaker 3: and there are people and I thought, well, maybe they're
Speaker 3: just different translations of different Bible versus. And then people
Speaker 3: told me, no, no, it's the physical Bible I had
Speaker 3: when I was a kid. It's different now than it
Speaker 3: was when I was because we still have it in
Speaker 3: my parents' house, and so they went there and and
Speaker 3: so that really got me thinking. And also, you know,
Speaker 3: in a similar vein we've talked about Mandela dying, there
Speaker 3: are people who remember the Reverend Billy Graham dying many
Speaker 3: years before he did, and Bill Clinton speaking at his funeral,
Speaker 3: and same thing with Mandela. They remember this. And again
Speaker 3: these are people who you know, are from very strong
Speaker 3: evangelical Christian families. So like I wouldn't know what year
Speaker 3: the Reverend Billy Graham died, you know, but I might
Speaker 3: know you know that Princess Leah was alive until recently
Speaker 3: she died a few years ago. Because I tend to
Speaker 3: pay attention to Star Wars, right, and so the proximity
Speaker 3: and the significance of it in your own life, and
Speaker 3: so this led me to one of the weirdest aspects
Speaker 3: of this, which is I wondered if there were other scriptures.
Speaker 3: So the Bible, you know, the King James version is
Speaker 3: the English version. I wonder if there were other scriptures
Speaker 3: that have been changed. So I started looking at the Quran,
Speaker 3: which was written in Arabic. Now what's interesting about the
Speaker 3: Quran is that they memorized it word for word. You know,
Speaker 3: initially I mean word literally, word for word, and then
Speaker 3: they wrote it down. And as a kid, I remember thinking, well,
Speaker 3: why do you need to memorize it? And they still
Speaker 3: do that word for word. Nobody needs to memorize Look
Speaker 3: it up, it's right there, right. And so I found
Speaker 3: that Sufi Mom talking about the Mandel effect, and he said,
Speaker 3: there's a re why, an esoteric reason that's not discussed
Speaker 3: very often, but he said, the reason is that there
Speaker 3: are entities in the Islamic kind of tradition in the
Speaker 3: Middle least called gin, right, and that these entities, which
Speaker 3: we call genies, right, we all know it from Aladdin
Speaker 3: and the genie, which is an individual Gin. That the
Speaker 3: gin live outside of time, and that the gin are
Speaker 3: not bound by the same parameters that we are, so
Speaker 3: they're allowed to go back in time and they're allowed
Speaker 3: to change things, and they're allowed to change physical objects
Speaker 3: because they don't exist in the same way in linear
Speaker 3: times that we do, which kind of explains how, you know,
Speaker 3: the genie can just produce, you know, you know, something
Speaker 3: from the Hotel Savoy in London in eighteen ninety like
Speaker 3: a genie theoretically, because they can go back in time
Speaker 3: and they can go get it because they don't live
Speaker 3: in time and space in the exact same way that
Speaker 3: we do. And because of that, the gin can change things.
Speaker 3: But we memorize the Koran word for word because they're
Speaker 3: not allowed to mess with our memory. Right, And so
Speaker 3: now we're in a totally different esoteric space than I
Speaker 3: intended to be when I was looking into multiverses and stuff.
Speaker 3: But it kind of hangs together and it shows why
Speaker 3: I think the Mendel effect, I think it's been underestimated.
Speaker 3: Now I'm not saying absolutely every single Mendel effect you know,
Speaker 3: is one, but I think when there's people with proximity
Speaker 3: and significance to their lives, like you know, people who
Speaker 3: are Star Trek fans, I mean, they know more about
Speaker 3: the Star Trek than some of the actors, right, And
Speaker 3: when they say there was this episode, and the answers like, no,
Speaker 3: we're never from that, So, like, with what the heck's
Speaker 3: going on here? And if enough of them say it,
Speaker 3: and that's where I think, you know, I tend to
Speaker 3: discount Mendel effects that we're just one guy talking about
Speaker 3: his grandmother, But when you've got multiple people saying it,
Speaker 3: that not only isn't an exercise in memory, it may
Speaker 3: be revealing something to us, right and maybe one of
Speaker 3: those anomalies that's at the fringe that reveals to us
Speaker 3: that there's something else more complicated going on here. Reality
Speaker 3: is more complicated than it seems.
Speaker 1: One hundred percent. Yeah, man, And when we try to
Speaker 1: figure out our history, it is hard enough just looking
Speaker 1: at a few years ago, ten twenty years ago to
Speaker 1: try and figure out what really happened, much less one hundred,
Speaker 1: a thousand or thousands of years ago in our ancient
Speaker 1: past to try and figure out I mean, hell, they're
Speaker 1: rewriting history right now as we go, so it's hard
Speaker 1: to get an accurate picture right now. But even trying
Speaker 1: to look back, and on top of that, the possibilities
Speaker 1: that there have been massive cataclysmic events that destroyed much
Speaker 1: of the evidence of anything we could have looked at
Speaker 1: to tell us about what our history is. And when
Speaker 1: we're looking at these cataclysmic events, could this be evidence
Speaker 1: of a reset of what we would consider a simulation.
Speaker 3: It could be, right. I mean you hear in the
Speaker 3: religious stories, right, you hear, and God decided that he
Speaker 3: didn't want the human race to continue in this specific way,
Speaker 3: and then you know, you railed the you know, rain down, lightning, fire,
Speaker 3: et cetera, and then destroyed civilization except for you know,
Speaker 3: no or except for one or two people, depending on
Speaker 3: you know who you which religious traditions you look at,
Speaker 3: and you go back to the epic of Gunggamesh, which
Speaker 3: is a similar story to know on. And so there's
Speaker 3: this idea of the God's restarting civilization. Right, what does
Speaker 3: that mean? Some people interpret that as kind of an
Speaker 3: ancient aliens type of thing, but you could also reinterpret
Speaker 3: it to say, well, let's reset the simulation, let's destroy this,
Speaker 3: let's move on from there, let's redo. There's this element
Speaker 3: of redoing in those You look at the essence of
Speaker 3: some of those stories, right as opposed to the literal,
Speaker 3: because literal is going to be based on what people
Speaker 3: understood at the time. They couldn't talk about computer simulations,
Speaker 3: couldn't even talk about aliens from all the planets, and
Speaker 3: so the essence of those stories might involve some element
Speaker 3: of redoing. But you're right, I mean, we don't know
Speaker 3: everything that happened in the past, and oftentimes we just
Speaker 3: hear one side of the story. And that's what historians
Speaker 3: are supposed to do. Academic historians right to go back
Speaker 3: and pour through the records and figure out what really happened.
Speaker 3: And then a lot of that just gets lost, even
Speaker 3: if it's there, it's sitting in records at the Vatican,
Speaker 3: for example, or the Library of Alexandria. Like, it's not
Speaker 3: that it wasn't recorded, it's that it's either lost or
Speaker 3: that it's ignored. And I think that happens a lot.
Speaker 3: And so even with the Internet, you know, it's good
Speaker 3: that they have. We have things like the way Back
Speaker 3: Machine and the Internet archives. There are places you can
Speaker 3: go to find, you know, older stuff. But digital is
Speaker 3: if you think of digital, it's easier to manipulate digital, right,
Speaker 3: which if the whole universe is digital, well then it's
Speaker 3: possible somebody might be manipulated actual bits in the past
Speaker 3: in the same way that somebody could manipulate something online. Right,
Speaker 3: you like the maps like people you know Google, or
Speaker 3: like daylight zavings time. Right, I mean our computer automatically
Speaker 3: updates based upon that. But if that wasn't updated to
Speaker 3: the point where we may not even be able to
Speaker 3: see the old stuff out there?
Speaker 1: Right now, where do you think we're going with the
Speaker 1: future of video games? We've seen such an evolution just
Speaker 1: in my lifetime. I remember growing up just playing with Atari,
Speaker 1: and then I was so excited when the first Nintendo
Speaker 1: Entertainment System came out, and then we had levels of
Speaker 1: VR And I haven't played video games in a long
Speaker 1: time for But from what I see and from what
Speaker 1: I hear, the advancements are being developed so fast that
Speaker 1: this new this new reality could be part of our lives,
Speaker 1: integrated within within a few years. Right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know. I wrote an article for Scientific American
Speaker 3: last year which is the metaverse is coming. We may
Speaker 3: already be in it. Man, if you look at how
Speaker 3: video games have evolved, you know they've gotten not only
Speaker 3: have we gotten better processing power based on Moore's law,
Speaker 3: but we've gotten better algorithms that allow us to render
Speaker 3: more realistic environments and objects. I mean, if you look
Speaker 3: at CGI in a movie today, if you watch a
Speaker 3: movie like Blade Runner or Dune, Blade Runner twenty forty nine,
Speaker 3: or the recent Star Wars films, it's pretty hard to
Speaker 3: tell what CGI you know and what's physical anymore. And
Speaker 3: that's because our resolution has gotten good, but so have
Speaker 3: our algorithms for drawing these things and rendering them in
Speaker 3: real time. And so we're still at stage just four
Speaker 3: or five out of the ten stages to the simulation point,
Speaker 3: which is what I started talking about, you know, earlier
Speaker 3: in the interview. And so the simulation point is a
Speaker 3: kind of technological singularity beyond which we would not be
Speaker 3: able to distinguish between the physical and virtual worlds. And
Speaker 3: that depends not just on PIXELSS have actually gotten pretty good.
Speaker 3: If you watch if you watched one of these movies
Speaker 3: at the movie theater or all these Marvel movies, it's
Speaker 3: only at like two K, right, it's not even four
Speaker 3: K resolution or eight K like the monitors that we have,
Speaker 3: because it's being transmitted digital. Yeah, it looks pretty good
Speaker 3: when they projected up on the big screen. You can't
Speaker 3: even tell, Like even when I was playing that Ping
Speaker 3: Pong game. Actually the pixels were not that great. In fact,
Speaker 3: it was an old game. The opponent doesn't even look
Speaker 3: photo realistic, and you can kind of tell that the
Speaker 3: table isn't. But it was the response. It was the
Speaker 3: physics engine of the game combined with some of the
Speaker 3: graphics that really can fool your brain. And it was
Speaker 3: every time I, you know, I went like that when
Speaker 3: the ball was there, it looked like I hit a
Speaker 3: real ball, and so the physics actually followed like they
Speaker 3: might if I was like hitting to the point where
Speaker 3: I made mistakes and it went their own way. And so,
Speaker 3: you know, brain computer interfaces is another area stage of
Speaker 3: seven to eight of getting there. And that's like in
Speaker 3: the matrix where they were plugged in right and you
Speaker 3: know how they sift out the cartridges and they plugged
Speaker 3: it into the port in the back of their head.
Speaker 3: And so that's when you really start to get to
Speaker 3: the point where you can't just do it. But even
Speaker 3: if you look at video games today, Yeah, there was
Speaker 3: an Unreal Engine demo that came out in the last
Speaker 3: Unreal Engine five. I think it was so people should
Speaker 3: look at that. I mean, there's this character wandering through
Speaker 3: this kind of cavern and then they go out and
Speaker 3: it looks super realistic. And there was also this little
Speaker 3: kind of mini game experience called The Matrix Awakens. So
Speaker 3: when the last Matrix movie came out, the Matrix Resurrections,
Speaker 3: the one that came out in twenty twenty one, The Paul,
Speaker 3: they also came out with this demo and they created
Speaker 3: an entire city that looks kind of like San Francisco,
Speaker 3: kind of the land and the Matrix The Matrix movie
Speaker 3: was shot partly in San Francisco. But if you watch that,
Speaker 3: I mean, you could still tell that the avatars the
Speaker 3: character aren't real, but you can't really tell about the cars.
Speaker 3: You could watch a car chase in that and you
Speaker 3: could think you're watching like a real car chase at
Speaker 3: this point, right, And so they use these generative procedural
Speaker 3: AI to create these environments that look realistic. Just like
Speaker 3: there's a game called No Man's Sky and it has
Speaker 3: like it's an eighteen quintillion planets, right, and each planet has,
Speaker 3: you know, a planet size worth of flora and falling
Speaker 3: down trees, lakes, mountains, and all of that is procedurally generated,
Speaker 3: so every one is unique. Now of course they didn't
Speaker 3: have teams sitting there writing, you know, drawing pictures for
Speaker 3: eighteen Quintilian planets. It's impossible, but because the procedural generation
Speaker 3: can create it. And that gets back to how we
Speaker 3: create video games. Eventually, what happens is that they render
Speaker 3: the game as we play it, while we're playing it,
Speaker 3: so you only have to render that part with your
Speaker 3: avatar seed. And that's what quantum mechanics is telling us too,
Speaker 3: is that which gets observed gets rendered, and so you know,
Speaker 3: our video games will get good. So people always ask me,
Speaker 3: when are we going to reach the simulation point?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 3: Some people have said we're going to reach the singularity
Speaker 3: when they're talking about AI superintelligence in twenty forty eight.
Speaker 3: Great care as well. I think it'll take a little
Speaker 3: bit longer both to reach the singularity as well as
Speaker 3: to reach this other type of singularity which I'm talking about.
Speaker 3: And so singularity means a point beyond which everything will
Speaker 3: be different, and it's a technological singularity because technology is
Speaker 3: the source of that. I think once we get to
Speaker 3: the point where we can have any experience we want virtually,
Speaker 3: that's going to change things significantly for the human rights do.
Speaker 1: You think that there's a threat there from the development
Speaker 1: of AI. We always hear how it'll take over and
Speaker 1: destroy humanity when it realizes we're not necessary and things
Speaker 1: like that.
Speaker 3: What do you think, Well, so the AI apocalypse, you
Speaker 3: know as a popular confict for science fiction, and there's
Speaker 3: always the dystopic world. And I was talking to somebody
Speaker 3: recently said, well, dystopia isn't necessary for sci fi, but
Speaker 3: that's what makes the story interesting in sci fi, So
Speaker 3: that's why they create so many dystopic visions. Personally, I
Speaker 3: think the bigger problem in the near term is going
Speaker 3: to be, you know, figuring out who is AI and
Speaker 3: who isn't AI, particularly as you wander around the virtual world. Right,
Speaker 3: But it gets back to will AI really want to
Speaker 3: destroy us? And I don't think so. I think AI
Speaker 3: will live in a virtual environment, uh, and that they
Speaker 3: can have much richer experiences in that virtual environment, and
Speaker 3: they may not like the physical world. So I'm not
Speaker 3: worried about robots AIS kill. I think AI is more
Speaker 3: likely to be virtual. So if you watch the movie Her,
Speaker 3: which is about you know, this guy having a relationship
Speaker 3: with an AI, and in this case, you know, she
Speaker 3: didn't even have a body. It was not even a
Speaker 3: virtual one of the voice, right. But in the end,
Speaker 3: you know, it turns out she was having relationships with
Speaker 3: all these different people. You can have all these conversations
Speaker 3: played by Scarlet, Joe Ansid and at the end what
Speaker 3: happened They said, well, we didn't really want to hang
Speaker 3: out with you him as we prefer to just go
Speaker 3: off on our own. I know, I'm giving it away,
Speaker 3: but this is like a ten year old movie, and
Speaker 3: so they wanted their own little AI world. And I
Speaker 3: think there's a great story by Ted Chang who wrote
Speaker 3: the novella that that movie The Arrival is based off of,
Speaker 3: and he wrote a story called the life Cycle of
Speaker 3: Software Objects, and in that he somebody had created these
Speaker 3: AI robot pets within the virtual world. So they're virtual
Speaker 3: virtual pets, getting back to this idea of animals being
Speaker 3: and they got pretty intelligent and they learned and you
Speaker 3: can play with them. And then that company, you know,
Speaker 3: kind of went out of business, and they're like, what
Speaker 3: happens to these virtual pets because they're like actual conscious ensities,
Speaker 3: and so they eventually, you know, set up some open
Speaker 3: source servers so people can continue to keep their virtual
Speaker 3: pets going, but the virtual pets can also come out
Speaker 3: to the physical world, so the AI can inhabit like
Speaker 3: a robot body. And when they do that, they're like, God,
Speaker 3: this is so limiting. Why would I want to be here.
Speaker 3: I'd prefer to be in the virtual environment, which is
Speaker 3: where I grew up, and I could do so many
Speaker 3: more things. I could teleport, I could do all these
Speaker 3: different things. So I'm not as worried about it as
Speaker 3: other people are, partly because I think we're a little bit,
Speaker 3: you know, we're further away than it looks, even though
Speaker 3: with chat GPT it looks like we're getting closer and closer.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think we'll be passing the Turing test
Speaker 3: for virtual characters, you know, soon, which is why I
Speaker 3: think that's the metaverse. The AI will be residents of
Speaker 3: the mataverse. We will just be visitors.
Speaker 1: This is one of the most disturbing aspects to me,
Speaker 1: the possibilities that if we are already in some sort
Speaker 1: of simulated reality, that they're trying to put us in
Speaker 1: a simulation within a simulation, which is basically with the
Speaker 1: metaverse is and let's close on this. Do you think
Speaker 1: it's possible that we will have the capability to upload
Speaker 1: our consciousness into a form of software, are online or
Speaker 1: however they're planning on doing this.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, you know, there's a lot of people who
Speaker 3: are talking about that, and that's another aspect of the singularity.
Speaker 3: And so it's for me, it's stage ten of the
Speaker 3: ten stages to get to the simulation point where you
Speaker 3: can actually upload your consciousness. And there's a lot of
Speaker 3: good science fiction about this. There's this new show called Upload,
Speaker 3: which is kind of a humorous take on it, and
Speaker 3: then there's Black Mirror episode. There's one called sen Junipero
Speaker 3: where they live in this spiritual world but they're physically
Speaker 3: incapacitated or they're in a nursing home, and then after
Speaker 3: they die, they can choose digital afterlife, right, and so
Speaker 3: the way that they so the way that people think
Speaker 3: this will be done is you map out all the
Speaker 3: neurons and brain, and most importantly, you map out the
Speaker 3: connections between the neurons. And that's what you know, that's
Speaker 3: what it gets complicated because they're so many neurons. I
Speaker 3: forget the number one hundred billions something like that, and
Speaker 3: then if you map up the connections between them, you
Speaker 3: get up to end squared, right, So you're talking trillions
Speaker 3: of connections, and so we can't do that yet, but
Speaker 3: if the idea is, if you fully eventually do that,
Speaker 3: you could then take that take that same computational structure.
Speaker 3: And this is what Nick Nick Bostrom and his paper
Speaker 3: are you living in a simulation. That's what he based
Speaker 3: the whole paper on, is that if you can compute
Speaker 3: the same thing in silicon as biology, like you called it,
Speaker 3: substrate independence, So you don't need to be in the biological,
Speaker 3: you can be in the physical. You can mean in
Speaker 3: the silicon and as the physical substrate, and you can compute,
Speaker 3: and that's what creates these conscious schemes. I think that
Speaker 3: it is possible, it will be possible for us to
Speaker 3: retain some level of memories and personality. I don't think
Speaker 3: it'll be us. It'll basically be a clever copy of us,
Speaker 3: right right, it's not us per se. But you could
Speaker 3: take a snapshot at a point in time, and then
Speaker 3: that person, that entity, that AI would live a virtual life,
Speaker 3: just like the AI that I'm talking about inside the metaverse, right,
Speaker 3: they could live a virtual life from that point forward.
Speaker 3: But I think that's a little bit different because I
Speaker 3: still believe, you know, it gets back to this fund
Speaker 3: amount of question of if physical reality is all there is,
Speaker 3: and if the only requirement for consciousness is this physical
Speaker 3: arrangement of neurons and that's all they're needed, or is
Speaker 3: it more that this that's what's needed to be a
Speaker 3: receiver for consciousness, which is coming from the outside. And
Speaker 3: so I still tend to go towards that description because
Speaker 3: I believe there is more than what's going on here.
Speaker 3: But I do believe you can create very clever automatons
Speaker 3: eventually that will mimic real people. So it's a kind
Speaker 3: of digital immortality.
Speaker 1: This is excellent, Riyz, thank you so much. Before we go,
Speaker 1: let everyone know you're you got a new book that
Speaker 1: you'll be releasing soon, Wisdom of a Yogi. Tell us
Speaker 1: a little bit about that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely, So I have that new book coming out.
Speaker 3: It's called Wisdom of a Yogi, Lessons for Modern Seekers
Speaker 3: from Yoga Nanda's Autobiography of a Yogi. And you know
Speaker 3: that autobiography was one of the best selling spiritual books
Speaker 3: of the twentieth century, and particularly in the sixties and
Speaker 3: the counter culture. It was one of the most passed
Speaker 3: around books of all times. Steve Jobs said, it is
Speaker 3: the only book you read, and when he died, it
Speaker 3: was the only book on his iPod, on his iPad,
Speaker 3: the only book you read. Every year. At his funeral,
Speaker 3: they gave away copies of autobiography The Yogi Now But
Speaker 3: for you know, that book was written by Yoga Nanda
Speaker 3: in the middle of the twentieth century, and he was,
Speaker 3: you know, one of the first Indian spiritual gurus to
Speaker 3: really set up residents here in the US and kind
Speaker 3: of connect the West in the East. And so I
Speaker 3: was asked by HarperCollins to write a book to kind
Speaker 3: of bring some of the stories up to date. And
Speaker 3: so I look at the stories of Yogi's in the Himalayas,
Speaker 3: and he tells in that book miracles, levitating, saint people
Speaker 3: appearing in multiple places, stories of telepathy, and bring it
Speaker 3: up for today's readers. And we're used to a connected
Speaker 3: world with the Internet. We're used to video games, and
Speaker 3: so I actually look at this, looking at all of
Speaker 3: those stories from the point of view that the world
Speaker 3: is not just a dream, but it's also a video game.
Speaker 3: So I'm tying in ideas of simulation theory and how
Speaker 3: that could explain these paranormal events that were described. And
Speaker 3: then also there's lessons that you know, he brings out,
Speaker 3: and I try to show how these those lessons are
Speaker 3: just as important for us today as they might have
Speaker 3: been one hundred years ago as they might have been
Speaker 3: a thousand years ago. And you know, lessons from you know,
Speaker 3: taking little spiritual pilgrimages all the time, to clearing our
Speaker 3: minds every day, listening to our intuition, listening to the
Speaker 3: synchronicities that we talked about earlier. You know, he talked
Speaker 3: about how if you clear your mind, the intuition will
Speaker 3: show you the way, and he often would you do
Speaker 3: this and pray for something and then look for a sign,
Speaker 3: and that would send him on his next quest over
Speaker 3: the next direction that he's going in. And it also
Speaker 3: helps us to do another aspect of all this, which
Speaker 3: is sometimes we have big setbacks in our lives, as
Speaker 3: I mentioned earlier, and it can seem like those are
Speaker 3: just cruel, but sometimes they are putting us in a
Speaker 3: different direction. So sometimes we universe gives us a task.
Speaker 3: Just like for him, he was a young swami that
Speaker 3: barely spoke English, they got sent over to America to
Speaker 3: speak at some big World Congress of Religions in Boston
Speaker 3: in nineteen twenty. He wasn't necessarily the most qualified person,
Speaker 3: but that was the task that was designed for him,
Speaker 3: and he ended up producing this book and inspiring millions
Speaker 3: of people. And so sometimes we have tasks like you
Speaker 3: with the podcast right or me with my writing, that
Speaker 3: the universe is giving to us that are part of
Speaker 3: our storyline. And so you know, this brings all of
Speaker 3: that kind of the Eastern editions in with simulation theory,
Speaker 3: with syncreticity, and more modern stories of people who maybe
Speaker 3: have learned the same lessons today. So that'll be coming
Speaker 3: out in a couple of months.
Speaker 1: Awesome. Well, we'll have to definitely have you back on
Speaker 1: to discuss that after it comes out as well. Rizz,
Speaker 1: this was fantastic. Thank you so much. Before you go,
Speaker 1: let the audience know where they can find your books,
Speaker 1: if you have any social media website, all the good stuff.
Speaker 3: Yeah sure, So my website is called zen entrepreneur dot
Speaker 3: com and from there you can link to Amazon, Barnes,
Speaker 3: and Noble. I mean, the books are generally available. It's audiobooks, ebooks,
Speaker 3: paperback or hardcover and most local bookstores. I like to
Speaker 3: support local bookstores as much as possible, so I recommend
Speaker 3: people go to local bookstores and ask for the books
Speaker 3: there they can order them if they don't have them.
Speaker 3: And then on Twitter you can follow me at Riz
Speaker 3: Stanford and you know I'm on Facebook and other places
Speaker 3: as well. But you start with my website, which is
Speaker 3: zen entrepreneur dot com.
Speaker 1: If you're looking to start your therapeutic microdosing journey but
Speaker 1: don't know where to start, especially when looking for the
Speaker 1: highest quality ingredients, including new tropics and what you'd expect
Speaker 1: from a true microdose capsule, check out our friends at
Speaker 1: Brain Supreme. They offer the absolute highest quality ingredients, so
Speaker 1: you can start your microdosing journey knowing that you're getting
Speaker 1: top notch ingredients. To find out more, visit their website
Speaker 1: using that link right in the description and you can
Speaker 1: get fifteen percent off your entire order. Hello friends, I
Speaker 1: am so excited to tell you about Independent Media Token.
Speaker 1: Independent media Token is a brand new way to show
Speaker 1: your support for independent media without having to donate a dime.
Speaker 1: Independent media Token is a cryptocurrency on the Solana blockchain
Speaker 1: designed to generate funds to promote and foster the growth
Speaker 1: of independent content creators, allowing them to engage in their
Speaker 1: art without having to worry about being demonetized. Through a
Speaker 1: network of media partners of which you, yourself can become
Speaker 1: a part of. Independent Media Token's goal is to ensure
Speaker 1: the powers that be can never cut off all of
Speaker 1: our areas of funding and censor the only free voices
Speaker 1: left in the world. Join the movement today. You can
Speaker 1: pick up Independent Media Token using Phantom wallet or the
Speaker 1: Solana wallet of your choice, where you can easily swap
Speaker 1: your Solana for IMT. Grab some IMT today and remember
Speaker 1: to always know your team. To learn more, visit independentmediatoken
Speaker 1: dot com or use the link right in the description.
Speaker 1: Are you and your family prepared for an emergency? Maybe
Speaker 1: the fake alien invasion? Now is the time to prepare
Speaker 1: yourself and your family for any event. Check out prep
Speaker 1: Starts Now. Their mission is to provide high quality preparedness
Speaker 1: products that empower individuals and families to be ready for
Speaker 1: any situation. They're committed to delivering reliable, trusted gear to
Speaker 1: ensure your safety, security and peace of mind in times
Speaker 1: of need. Their product selection is carefully curated to provide
Speaker 1: you with the essential gear you need to stay prepared,
Speaker 1: from emergency kits to tactical tools. Every item is chosen
Speaker 1: for its reliability and practicality. Prep Starts Now understands the
Speaker 1: importance of family, and their goal is to equip you
Speaker 1: with everything you need to build a solid plan for
Speaker 1: your family's preparedness. In today's ever changing world, being prepared
Speaker 1: is more important than ever, and prep starts Now is
Speaker 1: here to help you and your family stay ready with
Speaker 1: quality products and practical guidance. Use the link in the
Speaker 1: description and get fifteen percent off your order. We live
Speaker 1: in an incredible age of information. More and more we're
Speaker 1: discovering that we've been lied to and misled about much
Speaker 1: of our human history. Corey Hughes is providing profound revelations
Speaker 1: about World War I, World War II, the JFK assassination,
Speaker 1: Martin Luther King's assassination, and much much more on his
Speaker 1: new substack, Bloody History. Subscribe now for as little as
Speaker 1: five dollars monthly. Just click that link right in the
Speaker 1: description to get started now and learn about our true history.