Speaker 1: Oh that's are.
Speaker 2: Hello, and welcome to the show. This is the Cult
Speaker 2: of Conspiracy, and I am the Cajun night and ravingly
Speaker 2: and good God almighty y'all. As we continue to dive
Speaker 2: into the chicanery in the buffoonery of the Epstein Files,
Speaker 2: more and more things just keep coming to light.
Speaker 1: Honestly, so many different angles to this story, actually, so
Speaker 1: many different things that he was intertwined with, so many
Speaker 1: people finding new weird like one one email, things that
Speaker 1: lead into giant rabbit holes. So yeah, kind of interesting
Speaker 1: what everybody else is like focused on and everyone's kind
Speaker 1: of digging in different areas.
Speaker 2: So and I gotta tell you, as conspiracy people, we
Speaker 2: have been validated in so many of the wild claims
Speaker 2: that we've been saying for years now when we say, hey,
Speaker 2: the elites are cooking and eating people and children, and
Speaker 2: nobody thinks that we're crazy anymore because the files talk
Speaker 2: about that pretty much explicitly. There's a few current terms
Speaker 2: and things where they're using you know, food references. I
Speaker 2: didn't realize that all the wealthy elites of the world
Speaker 2: were like serious beef jerky enthusiasts who fucking guessed that
Speaker 2: cause who fucking knew? But whatever. Right, So all the
Speaker 2: things combined, all the things put together here, there's another
Speaker 2: one that is coming to light as of right now.
Speaker 2: That honestly, and we kind of talked about it in
Speaker 2: passing Raven Lee. You and I have never been shy
Speaker 2: about the fact that we do not fuck with nor
Speaker 2: do we trust AI.
Speaker 1: No, right, not at all.
Speaker 2: It's we're not in a secret, you know, now, using
Speaker 2: it for creating an AI image for some artwork or something,
Speaker 2: or using it as a tool when doing certain types
Speaker 2: of research, just to see what comes up and maybe
Speaker 2: get a little bit of a direction to go through. Okay, fine,
Speaker 2: I don't even do that.
Speaker 1: I don't even think you do that, you know, one
Speaker 1: of us well, except for the imaging I doing that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm not a big super fan of it. It's all right,
Speaker 1: but like I mean, some of them are cute, not
Speaker 1: gonna lie, but like, you know it it's an easy
Speaker 1: way of making graphics, I'll say that. But like when
Speaker 1: it comes to research, it's so wrong though most of
Speaker 1: the time, and people are like h chat GBT told me,
Speaker 1: it's like, well wait, that's not incorrect, Like it's not correct.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I don't really, And a lot of the
Speaker 1: meta stuff, which is interesting, that's incorrect too. Or it
Speaker 1: gives you, like a certain narrative or like a certain
Speaker 1: direction to push you in instead of giving you, like
Speaker 1: all the information all at once, which I find to
Speaker 1: be really interesting. How can an AI robot have a
Speaker 1: bias when it gives you certain information? But that was
Speaker 1: not all topics either.
Speaker 2: So as I'm looking at what I'm doing a chat
Speaker 2: GPT image for instance, right, I was trying to make
Speaker 2: a clip for when we had Nurse Nicoleon on cool
Speaker 2: cool Cool, I type in or I'm sorry, cut, I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: Backtrack a little bit here in the world news. I'm
Speaker 2: typing in images of counterfeit God, and it comes up
Speaker 2: with a thing, no problems, no problems. H Digital God
Speaker 2: or cyber God or something like that, came up with
Speaker 2: an image, no problems, pictures of a kid and a mom,
Speaker 2: all the stuff, no problems, no things whatsoever. I was
Speaker 2: looking for an image of vaccines cause miscarriages, and all
Speaker 2: of a sudden, this thing that's been making these images
Speaker 2: for me now started talking back and giving me an
Speaker 2: opinion that I didn't fucking ask for, and said that
Speaker 2: it couldn't do it because of this, that.
Speaker 1: And the third.
Speaker 2: And it's like, I didn't ask you if it's valid
Speaker 2: or not. I could ask you. I just asked you
Speaker 2: for a digital cyborg. God you didn't get me guff then.
Speaker 2: But I'm asking you for an image a sign, if
Speaker 2: you will, whether you believe in it or not, it's
Speaker 2: not a problem I'm talking about. I need a sign
Speaker 2: that says these words. So I could take it, maybe
Speaker 2: throw a couple little things on it and put it up. Oh,
Speaker 2: it would not. It simply would not put it up.
Speaker 1: And so did the same thing for Elon or Epstein. Man,
Speaker 1: it gave me a lot of shit for trying to
Speaker 1: do anything with Ebstein because I was I was like, okay,
Speaker 1: well I'm going to add add this, like you know,
Speaker 1: because I was trying to find certain articles and stuff,
Speaker 1: and it was I was like, well, I'll just add
Speaker 1: a clip of his face doing this. Nope, it would not.
Speaker 1: It would not do that. It would not do Elon,
Speaker 1: it wouldn't do the Clintons. I tried to do it
Speaker 1: with Obama and Trump and Bush and it was like, Nope,
Speaker 1: we are not doing this.
Speaker 2: I was like, oh, okay, Well, as far as why
Speaker 2: I won't do anything towards Elon, I think I might
Speaker 2: know why. What if I was to.
Speaker 1: Tell you real shit, with all of.
Speaker 2: The proof and the evidence, Jeffrey Epstein is confirmed the
Speaker 2: godfather of AI as we know.
Speaker 1: It today, I would agree, Well, that's because I've actually
Speaker 1: been researching into it. But before I started researching heavily
Speaker 1: into it, I will say I was wondering because of
Speaker 1: the way he is with scientists and everything like that,
Speaker 1: But I did not know that he was this heavily
Speaker 1: embedded when it comes to you AI and data collection
Speaker 1: in all of these areas and things like that. And
Speaker 1: even that, I feel like you did more research into
Speaker 1: that because I, you know, didn't dig too deep into it.
Speaker 1: But it's definitely interesting for this one.
Speaker 2: Good cult members, we are going to be taking a
Speaker 2: trip back to two thousand and two. DARPA, Facebook, NASA
Speaker 2: is gonna make their entrance into this conversation. PayPal Oh
Speaker 2: well yeah, I guess absolutely PayPal LinkedIn all of it.
Speaker 1: Y'all.
Speaker 2: This goes very far back, And keep in mind in
Speaker 2: two thousand and two, nine to eleven had just happened
Speaker 2: when this big shindig took place. At Jeffrey Epstein's island estate,
Speaker 2: and I'm call it that just to be as of
Speaker 2: this moment, allegedly, quote unquote, the people he invited to
Speaker 2: this soiree had no idea of what in who this
Speaker 2: guy was. I find this incredibly hard to believe. I do.
Speaker 2: I'm calling bullshit on that. But fine, fine, because he
Speaker 2: hadn't been a convicted pedophile just yet, right, he hadn't
Speaker 2: been caught it with any of this stuff out in
Speaker 2: the public just yet. However, when you're telling me you're
Speaker 2: inviting hundreds of top tier people to your island for
Speaker 2: a common sentence symposium, and you're telling me that there
Speaker 2: was not children walking around or teenagers that are way
Speaker 2: too young to be there walking around and just nobody noticed,
Speaker 2: I'm having a real real hard time swallowing that pill.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna be honest with you.
Speaker 1: They probably didn't have him out, to be honest with you.
Speaker 1: I mean, because you get a whole bunch of people
Speaker 1: that you don't know, Really, you're not gonna air all
Speaker 1: of your dirty laundry right out in the open.
Speaker 2: Keeping making this was Epstein was homies with Clinton when
Speaker 2: he was president in the nineties. This in two thousand
Speaker 2: and two. So, like true, the top tier people that
Speaker 2: needed to know what was going on here and keep
Speaker 2: it hush hush, knew what was going on there was
Speaker 2: keeping a hush huh.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you're inviting a whole bunch of unknown people
Speaker 1: that are in data fields and things like that. You're
Speaker 1: not going to display your like heinous shit right out
Speaker 1: in the open. I think this is more or less
Speaker 1: of tricking people into believing you're a great person with
Speaker 1: great intentions and that all these like minded individuals need
Speaker 1: to come together because we see the writing on the walls,
Speaker 1: so we need to push forth forth into this new
Speaker 1: expansion of human consciousness and innovation. And so I don't
Speaker 1: think that he's going to display all of his shit.
Speaker 1: Now what did he have on the walls? Who knows
Speaker 1: what kind of a weird artwork maybe was out. I'm
Speaker 1: sure it was strategic in how he had this entire
Speaker 1: thing set up to get these people in bed with him.
Speaker 2: It's possible. I'm not saying it's confirmed that there was
Speaker 2: some some pedophilic shit going on at this get together,
Speaker 2: and O two, I'm saying I find it hard to
Speaker 2: believe that maybe after the the people that didn't know
Speaker 2: what was up left, the people that stayed behind an
Speaker 2: extra day or two. I don't know. I don't know,
Speaker 2: but cutting too all these things. This common sense symposium
Speaker 2: we're gonna read more about here in a little bit.
Speaker 2: But all right, put down the back burner for just
Speaker 2: a second, because in two thousand and two, when they
Speaker 2: were talking about what we're gonna do with AI to
Speaker 2: make it have common sense, human common sense, take that
Speaker 2: to the side for just a second. Ravenly, you've been
Speaker 2: around the block a time or two. Did you ever
Speaker 2: have a MySpace?
Speaker 1: Somebody made me a MySpace. It was my best friend
Speaker 1: that passed away. She was obsessed with it. I literally
Speaker 1: probably logged onto it like five times my whole life. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: I wasn't big into it. You gotta understand, I have
Speaker 1: never been super big into social media anything like that's fun.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, okay, but yes, I know what MySpace is. Like,
Speaker 1: I had one. She like always did all the cool
Speaker 1: things and the upgrades and had all those weird codes,
Speaker 1: and she was like down bringing knew everything. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I had one. I just didn't really care about it.
Speaker 2: Well, so for those of us that were around during
Speaker 2: the MySpace era and had a MySpace and like had
Speaker 2: your people in your top five and like had the
Speaker 2: songs going on in the background, were changing the backgrounds
Speaker 2: and like doing stuff to personalize this for you yourself,
Speaker 2: and you know, the whole nine. There was playlists that
Speaker 2: you could have and when somebody goes on your MySpace,
Speaker 2: they're listening to your jams. It was. It was dope.
Speaker 2: It was really fucking cool. Right, all of this to say, objectively,
Speaker 2: MySpace was way better than Facebook, like hands down, And
Speaker 2: I'm not I understand that they tried. MySpace really tried
Speaker 2: to have like a comeback story there. Hel mac Miller
Speaker 2: got sponsored by them for a second. There was a
Speaker 2: whole it was. It was an attempt. But I'm sorry
Speaker 2: the reason why MySpace went by the wayside and why Facebook,
Speaker 2: out of nowhere skyrocketed and everybody was on it. Even
Speaker 2: after MySpace got really wealthy investors to try to revitalize
Speaker 2: it and retool it, the entire Internet laughed and was like, sorry, homie, nope,
Speaker 2: we're on Facebook. We don't care about my Space. That's
Speaker 2: because they didn't have government behind them, they didn't have
Speaker 2: DARPA behind them.
Speaker 1: Facebook is in DARPA. CIA.
Speaker 2: No, No, although CIA uses DARPA.
Speaker 1: Yeah uses DARPA. So DARPA some breakdown DARPA a little
Speaker 1: bit for people that don't don't actually know, I'll.
Speaker 2: Break that down right after I explained this point, because
Speaker 2: most people have never heard of this I had before
Speaker 2: I did this research. So DARPA had this thing called
Speaker 2: life log in it went. It started in two thousand
Speaker 2: and three. Keep in mind the Epstein conversation with the
Speaker 2: boys on how to do things with the AI happen
Speaker 2: in two. DARPA's life log really got hot and heavy.
Speaker 2: In O three it was killed, shut down, gone February fourth,
Speaker 2: two thousand and four. Do you happen to know off
Speaker 2: the top of your head what massive social media platform
Speaker 2: started February fourth, two thousand and four to replace DARPA's
Speaker 2: lifelog Facebook?
Speaker 1: Facebook.
Speaker 2: Indeed, so we're.
Speaker 1: Gonna get into all of this.
Speaker 2: Good cult members and all of this, whether you want
Speaker 2: to recognize it or not, does tie back to Epstein
Speaker 2: not just because of a meeting on island, but because
Speaker 2: he angel funded everything from the beginning, and it's even
Speaker 2: mentioned in the fucking Social Network movie. Would Jesse Eisenberg
Speaker 2: where they talk about the founding of Facebook and all this.
Speaker 2: He's mentioned in it. Peter Teal is mentioned in it,
Speaker 2: and that also has its ties to Epstein.
Speaker 1: Peter til has everything to do with Epstein in this.
Speaker 2: And he has everything to do with any Silicon Valley
Speaker 2: tech startup that has been massive in the past two decades.
Speaker 2: Good cult members are gonna talk about it all, and
Speaker 2: I'm gonna go ahead and share the screen at this
Speaker 2: time for those that would like to see what we
Speaker 2: are talking about rather than just hear about it. The
Speaker 2: best place, that's an only place that you could go
Speaker 2: to be to go to see the Patreon dot com
Speaker 2: slash Cult to Conspiracy podcast. When you go there, there's
Speaker 2: a couple of tiers for entry. When you go to
Speaker 2: that five dollars a month tier, you will get to
Speaker 2: see these shows absolutely cool.
Speaker 1: But also you will get to.
Speaker 2: See the videos that I'm about to show, the articles
Speaker 2: that I'm about to show, the clips, all the things,
Speaker 2: and you'll get to see Raven Lee's gorgeous face and
Speaker 2: my amazing beard.
Speaker 1: It's a part of it, right.
Speaker 2: But if you go to that third eye all the
Speaker 2: way open tier, you'll also get to join us every
Speaker 2: Tuesday night for our Cult Member of Live event. It's
Speaker 2: always Unhinged. It's always a great time. Come check us
Speaker 2: out over there. And also if you go to that
Speaker 2: third Eye all the Way Open tier, you also get
Speaker 2: to join Raven Lee for her book club.
Speaker 1: Tell them about it. Raven, we are starting Fahrenheit by
Speaker 1: four fifty one. I don't know why. I always want
Speaker 1: to say five forty one. I don't know, and ask me.
Speaker 1: But anyways, we are starting that for the month month
Speaker 1: of March, and we have about one week intermittent, so
Speaker 1: you could grab a book, you can join us, and
Speaker 1: what we're gonna do is we're just gonna break it
Speaker 1: down and pretty much go over it. And we're gonna
Speaker 1: go over the conspiracies talked in it and all the
Speaker 1: different points and we're just gonna, you know, break down
Speaker 1: the book and talk about this the person actually wrote
Speaker 1: it and his other work as well, because a lot
Speaker 1: of his other work is really interesting too. Because the
Speaker 1: book is shorter, so we will probably cover that as well.
Speaker 1: So come join us.
Speaker 2: And yeah, absolutely, And also we do have that top tier,
Speaker 2: that Manic tier on the Patreon and if you were
Speaker 2: to go and support us in that way, you will
Speaker 2: get exclusive merchandise mailed straight to you from us to
Speaker 2: you as a massive token of our gratitude for supporting
Speaker 2: us and our mission of spreading the good word and
Speaker 2: the truth. In this way, we appreciate all the Mannic
Speaker 2: tier members and also all of the good Patreon members.
Speaker 2: Without further ado, let's talk about Epstein being the godfather
Speaker 2: to AI. That led to the social media, which led
Speaker 2: to Edwards Nod, which led to Peter Teel, which led
Speaker 2: to the TikTok buyout, which led to the world as
Speaker 2: we know it today. Are you ready, Raven Lee?
Speaker 1: Oh? I am all right.
Speaker 2: Let's get into it, all right. So to get started here,
Speaker 2: let's talk about DARPA. All right, So DARPA in and
Speaker 2: of itself. Wait, I'm sorry, I had I thought I
Speaker 2: had the uh the acronym pulled up here? Excuse me,
Speaker 2: I will pull it up right here. Okay, so the department. No,
Speaker 2: let me just hit this here, BOM, open link in
Speaker 2: new tab. That way it will be a lot easier
Speaker 2: to explain. So DARPA stands for the Defense Advanced Research
Speaker 2: Projects Agency. Have you ever heard of skunk Works? It's
Speaker 2: like an affiliate of DARPA. And basically they make really
Speaker 2: cool James Bond esque tech, the things that only exist
Speaker 2: on TV and movies. These little gadgets are able to
Speaker 2: do wild shit, or some computer program that's able to
Speaker 2: do this stuff. The Iron Man shit really and truly
Speaker 2: is DARPA.
Speaker 1: Hell ya, all right?
Speaker 2: And so the heart attack gun, for instance, that the
Speaker 2: CIA acknowledged was real in the nineteen seventies, right, and
Speaker 2: shoots that little ice bullet at you, and it's the
Speaker 2: size of a grain of rice, but it has a
Speaker 2: puffer fish toxin inside of it, and the guarantees will
Speaker 2: make someone have a heart attack and the bullet melts
Speaker 2: so where like it's it's impossible to trace. They acknowledged
Speaker 2: that was Oh you've never seen that, Oh my god.
Speaker 1: Okay, Rave, I've heard about it, but I've never actually
Speaker 1: seen a picture of it.
Speaker 2: Oh, I'll show you on YouTube. They brought it to
Speaker 2: a House committee meeting in DC. They were questioning some things.
Speaker 2: Homeboy pulls out a briefcase, opens up and pulls out
Speaker 2: this thing. It looks like a ray gun, and he
Speaker 2: straight up He's like, yeah, this is the CIA's heart
Speaker 2: attack gun. It's very simple device, and like I'm sorry, what.
Speaker 1: Was that, sir?
Speaker 2: And they're like, oh, yeah, it's this little thing you know,
Speaker 2: and it shoots this and here's how it works. And
Speaker 2: it's very untraceable and we've had it for years and
Speaker 2: they're like, have you used this on people? Like, I'm
Speaker 2: not at liberty to discuss it, but yeah, this is
Speaker 2: the thing we have. That was in the nineteen seventies.
Speaker 1: I mean that movie with Will Smith and the Spy
Speaker 1: the Pigeon where he gets turned into a pigeon and
Speaker 1: they had like all those cool different tech things and stuff.
Speaker 1: Have you never seen what you're talking Really, that's a
Speaker 1: great movie. Spy in Disguise or something. I think it's called. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he gets like Will Smith is character. It's a cartoon one,
Speaker 1: but they he gets turned into a pigeon, but he's
Speaker 1: a spy. And they have like a lot of interesting
Speaker 1: tech in that movie that I would some of it
Speaker 1: I think is actually real tech that they have, not
Speaker 1: all of it, but some of it. It's really interesting.
Speaker 2: I mean, it sounds like a great movie. I don't know.
Speaker 2: I can't really get down with Will Smith ever since
Speaker 2: I found out he got cooked by his son's best friend.
Speaker 2: It just it did a lot. It did a lot,
Speaker 2: as far as I can't separate the art from artists
Speaker 2: at this point, you know, EWO, you remember hearing about
Speaker 2: that she clowned him publicly.
Speaker 1: Honestly, I could care less about the celebrities, so I
Speaker 1: don't pay attention to their bullshit.
Speaker 2: Sully Will Smith and Jada basically they were having a
Speaker 2: little bit of some issues. She decided to fuck her
Speaker 2: son's friend and then publicly on their podcast where they
Speaker 2: sit around the table and they talk about their family
Speaker 2: and things. She called it an entanglement, and that's what
Speaker 2: became a meme. For a while, straight up openly was
Speaker 2: discussing that this took place. You could see Will's whole
Speaker 2: soul getting crushed because whether he knew about it before
Speaker 2: the conversation or not, the fact that this is going
Speaker 2: out to the world and there's nothing he knows.
Speaker 1: They could just not air at that episode, but.
Speaker 2: Oh, Jada can't do that because she didn't give a
Speaker 2: fuck about Will. She's still trying to chase down the
Speaker 2: ghost of Tupac like it's.
Speaker 1: It's anyways, let's get back to bed beside.
Speaker 2: The point anyway. So DARPA itself, okay, is a research
Speaker 2: and Development Agency of the United States Department of Defense,
Speaker 2: responsible for the development of emerging technologies for use by
Speaker 2: the military. Originally known as the Advanced Research Projects Agency
Speaker 2: or ARPA, the agency was created in February of nineteen
Speaker 2: fifty eight by Dwight D. Eisenhower in response to the
Speaker 2: Soviets launch of Sputnik in fifty seven. So, the Russians
Speaker 2: send up a satellite and Eisenhower's first response is, look,
Speaker 2: we need some really cool spy tech to just do
Speaker 2: the wildest all the shit that like is on some
Speaker 2: third grader's imagination desk in his notebook. We need that
Speaker 2: in real life. And then there's these psychopaths within the
Speaker 2: government agencies just doing a rail of cocaine and be like, yes, sir,
Speaker 2: mister President, what you need and like, there's no idea
Speaker 2: that's dumb. Basically, there's no idea that's too dumb for
Speaker 2: these people.
Speaker 1: So I mean, why not you have endless disposal of money, right,
Speaker 1: and you can make anything that you want.
Speaker 2: So so with this being said, DARPA launched Lifelog, So
Speaker 2: let's talk about it here. Lifelog was a project of
Speaker 2: the Information Processing TECHNIQUEES Office of the Defense Advanced Research
Speaker 2: Projects Agency, So DARPA had this thing called the Information
Speaker 2: Process Techniques Office trying to process some information, developing some
Speaker 2: better techniques in order to do so right. According to
Speaker 2: its bid solicitation pamphlet in two thousand and three, it
Speaker 2: was to be an ontology based subsystem that captures, stores,
Speaker 2: and makes accessible the flow of one's persons, of one
Speaker 2: person's experiences in and interactions with the world, in order
Speaker 2: to support a broad spectrum of associates, assistance and other
Speaker 2: system capabilities. All right on, that's a big way of
Speaker 2: saying this. They basically wanted to be able to see
Speaker 2: what a person's day to day life looked like in
Speaker 2: all things. Who do they interact with, what do they do,
Speaker 2: what kind of music do they listen to? What kind
Speaker 2: of things do they watch on TV? What kind of
Speaker 2: food are they eating? They wanted to get a good
Speaker 2: snapshot of somebody, and not just any somebody, all the
Speaker 2: somebody's So the objective of.
Speaker 1: The database, it's a database, massive database.
Speaker 2: This was pretty much the precursor for it was This
Speaker 2: was the design phase of it. They didn't have it
Speaker 2: nailed down, they didn't have it perfected yet, but this
Speaker 2: was the goal of lifelog. The objective of lifelog a
Speaker 2: concept was quote to be able to trace the threads
Speaker 2: of an individual's life in terms of events, states, and
Speaker 2: relationships end quote. And it has the ability to quote
Speaker 2: take in all of a subject's experience, from phone numbers
Speaker 2: dialed and email messages viewed to every breath taken, step
Speaker 2: made and place gone in quote.
Speaker 1: That's not terrifying. But like, you know, shift now to
Speaker 1: our time, and that's everything that they suggested. It has
Speaker 1: been happening, right and still is happening. I mean, look
Speaker 1: at our phones, taking pictures NonStop of us and what
Speaker 1: we're looking at, and listens to every single thing we say.
Speaker 1: And I'm pretty positive I'm gonna have to get a
Speaker 1: new phone at this point. Yeah, Like my phone is
Speaker 1: so fucked up.
Speaker 2: I agree.
Speaker 1: I don't even know. I don't even know what I've done,
Speaker 1: but it is definitely pissed at me. So I will
Speaker 1: say they, you know, got there. They got around it though,
Speaker 1: because I've heard lifelog quickly, but I'm not. I don't
Speaker 1: even remember though, what happened to it. So let's talk
Speaker 1: about that, right.
Speaker 2: So again, this was the inception phase, and they were
Speaker 2: trying to put, you know, lay the track, if you will,
Speaker 2: for the train. They were trying to lay the railroad tracks.
Speaker 2: But it needed more juice, They needed more people. And
Speaker 2: this is before they had a capable AI system that
Speaker 2: could do all of these things and know what to
Speaker 2: look for for an individual person. So let's just get
Speaker 2: into it here. It says goals and capabilities. Lifelog aimed
Speaker 2: to compile a massive electronic database of every activity and
Speaker 2: relationship a person engages in. This was to include credit
Speaker 2: card purchases, websites, visited the content of telephone calls and
Speaker 2: emails sent and received, scans of faxes and postal mail
Speaker 2: sent and received, instant messages sent and received, books and magazines, read,
Speaker 2: television and radio selections, physical location recorded via wearable GPS sensors.
Speaker 2: Biomedical data captured through wearable sensors. The high level goal
Speaker 2: of this data logging was to identify quote preferences, plans, goals,
Speaker 2: and other markers of intentionality. Intentionality is a very big
Speaker 2: keyword here. Here's the deal. The Patriot Act had just
Speaker 2: got signed into law. Basically, nine to eleven took place. Cool, cool,
Speaker 2: and we already know nine to eleven was an inside job.
Speaker 2: But for the conversation, we're going off of what the
Speaker 2: American public was really like on mass believing at this time, right,
Speaker 2: and so what we had a terrorist attack happened, we
Speaker 2: gotta find if there's gonna be sleeper cells that are
Speaker 2: gonna just get a call to arms and start a
Speaker 2: global into fauda in America. We need our government to
Speaker 2: make sure that we are safe over here. George Bush
Speaker 2: signs into law the Patriot Act, which gave any three
Speaker 2: letter agency and even in including your local police department,
Speaker 2: the ability to spy on you without giving you any
Speaker 2: heads up that this is what they're doing. Right. They
Speaker 2: don't have to tell you that they're giving that they're
Speaker 2: trailing you. They won't have to tell you that your
Speaker 2: phone is being tapped, they don't have to tell you
Speaker 2: that they're monitoring everything. It's not required because it's for
Speaker 2: public safety.
Speaker 1: It's for the greater.
Speaker 2: Good raven obviously, and so this was the going trend.
Speaker 2: Now with that level level of audacity and that level
Speaker 2: of the White House backing the three letter agencies, DARPA
Speaker 2: set to work to create lifelog and they weren't just
Speaker 2: going after they were trying to get the intentionality of
Speaker 2: a person, so if they could find out. Let's say
Speaker 2: you have a group of domestic terrorists and you know,
Speaker 2: for this example, let's say the Klan. Let's say you
Speaker 2: have a confirmed member of the KKK, so you send
Speaker 2: your data to monitor this person. You want to know
Speaker 2: where this person works, where they where do they go
Speaker 2: to eat, what are the conversations of their phone calls,
Speaker 2: how often do they meet up with other clan members?
Speaker 2: Because they are a listed domestic terrorist group. So okay, fine,
Speaker 2: And even if you're not going to take an action
Speaker 2: against the group, you want to be in the loop
Speaker 2: in case they start talking about doing some sort of
Speaker 2: a mass act of violence, you want to be ahead
Speaker 2: of it or at least decide if you're going to
Speaker 2: let it go through to fruition or not essentially reality.
Speaker 2: But okay, fine, who can argue with that, Right, you're
Speaker 2: stopping the Klan from doing some sort of a burning
Speaker 2: of something or you know, violence against somebody. Ay, cool,
Speaker 2: good things, but it doesn't just stop there. They're wanted
Speaker 2: to see who was potentially going to become a political dissident,
Speaker 2: whether they already were or not, because there's certain key
Speaker 2: markers that they are looking for to be like, hey,
Speaker 2: that's a red flag. And while that red flag may
Speaker 2: not be a red flag today, the ramifications of that
Speaker 2: ten years from now might become.
Speaker 1: A red flag we need to take notice of. Does
Speaker 1: that make sense, Yes, right, it does make sense. I
Speaker 1: mean it's I can see how in theory this would
Speaker 1: be a positive thing to use, you know, for the government, sure,
Speaker 1: and you know, try to make sure they're doing this
Speaker 1: for the safety of the people and all these things.
Speaker 1: But I mean it completely takes away your privacy, and
Speaker 1: I mean it's a very strategic smart way to be
Speaker 1: able to control and manipulate the masses.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, and even at this point, it wasn't about the control,
Speaker 2: although it clearly was going to go that direction obviously,
Speaker 2: but at least at this stage in the game, Lifelog
Speaker 2: was about just understanding the masses so that they can
Speaker 2: start to do the control thing, the Hegelian dialect, right,
Speaker 2: the problem reaction solution. They needed to understand where everybody's
Speaker 2: minds were at so that they knew what course of
Speaker 2: action would get the best results.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's literally breaking it down as like your
Speaker 1: your scans, your post office, your instant messages, your books,
Speaker 1: radio selections, GPS, I mean, all this stuff. So I
Speaker 1: love this one. Though. The biomedical data captured through wearable sensors,
Speaker 1: now that's what will out guess wasn't out yet.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Apple watches were now out yet, iPhones weren't a
Speaker 2: thing in three people. If you had a BlackBerry in
Speaker 2: O three, you were a business person, like, not just
Speaker 2: any old body had a fucking BlackBerry, and O three.
Speaker 1: Well biomedical, so that could be like heart monitors and
Speaker 1: things of that nature, things that you're actually like wearing
Speaker 1: on your body at that time. But what I find
Speaker 1: interesting is I think that they put that specifically in
Speaker 1: there in terms of future things that were going to
Speaker 1: come out, because I really do believe that they had
Speaker 1: had been developing things but progressively letting it out slowly
Speaker 1: to where people were more apt to get in line
Speaker 1: with wearing things that are tracking in twenty four to seven.
Speaker 1: I mean the Apple watches, they consistently track everything about
Speaker 1: you all day long, and it's reporting back, it's feeding
Speaker 1: back the algorithm non stop. It shows how many times,
Speaker 1: how many steps you take, what you're doing, It shows
Speaker 1: who's incoming and outgoing calls and it shows your heart rate,
Speaker 1: it shows all that, shows your sleep pattern, I mean,
Speaker 1: it shows everything about you. Because a lot of people
Speaker 1: really don't take theirs off much. I mean they take
Speaker 1: them off to charge, but for the most part, a
Speaker 1: lot of people where there's twenty four to seven if
Speaker 1: they can, which is able, which I'm sure soon they're
Speaker 1: going to have the next gen model is going to
Speaker 1: be like, well, why don't you just get it in
Speaker 1: your risk because that's the whole thing with Bill Gates
Speaker 1: right now, is to put it in your wrist, the
Speaker 1: little chip thing to where you have your whole iPhone
Speaker 1: in your wrist, so like now you don't need to
Speaker 1: be wearing the watch all the time. It's you know,
Speaker 1: super bulky and inconvenient.
Speaker 2: So it's ridiculous how much people are okay with these
Speaker 2: things now. But because it's for convenience, it's for your safety,
Speaker 2: I remember.
Speaker 1: But they use this though, they use lifelog as a
Speaker 1: way to manipulate people. Well, it's all about predictive programming.
Speaker 1: When you have the data collection feeding in showing you
Speaker 1: what to do, then you utilize psychology techniques and marketing techniques,
Speaker 1: you're able to manipulate the masses, and they do it
Speaker 1: over time though. Just look at the ads for Christmas,
Speaker 1: for example, is a really good one. So Christmas ads
Speaker 1: from the early two thousands till now, if you actually
Speaker 1: go back and you read them, and you look at
Speaker 1: them and you look at the how much of actual
Speaker 1: sales differences and the way that they are marketing it
Speaker 1: and what they were showing, it's actually really interesting. So
Speaker 1: they've been changing it and making it different to fit
Speaker 1: the masses, to be able to manipulate them more and
Speaker 1: more and more, and then you get today, people are
Speaker 1: still buying Black Friday things, even though Black Friday, really
Speaker 1: we know for a fact, isn't a good time to
Speaker 1: buy things, which, by the way, anybody that's actually wanting
Speaker 1: to buy stuff, you should really buy it. In the
Speaker 1: months between March and April is when things are the
Speaker 1: most on sale. Realistically, the big sale in July, the
Speaker 1: precursor sale, the Black Friday in July, Actually you'll get
Speaker 1: better sales than you will later on in the year.
Speaker 1: That's totally side tangent of things. But that gets back
Speaker 1: to this whole tracking situation.
Speaker 2: Well, so you're correct in a certain regard, but keeping
Speaker 2: my lifelog shut down February fourth, two thousand and four
Speaker 2: because another came in and just swooped on in to
Speaker 2: take over this job. And we're going to talk about
Speaker 2: that in a bit too. Because people no longer were
Speaker 2: being forced to be spied on, they were willingly giving
Speaker 2: over their data. They wanted everyone to know where they were,
Speaker 2: what restaurants they were at. Oh, I need to take
Speaker 2: a picture of my dinner and post it online. Who
Speaker 2: the fuck cares what your food looks like. That's ridiculous. Now.
Speaker 2: I'm not talking about like travel vloggers who are showing
Speaker 2: this really nice restaurant. They're showing like what these things
Speaker 2: look like. I'm talking about like you're going to Chili's.
Speaker 2: I don't need to know what you ordered at Chili's
Speaker 2: a week ago. What are we talking about here? But
Speaker 2: I'm getting ahead of myself. I'm actually getting like years
Speaker 2: ahead of myself here. Let's let's break this down, so
Speaker 2: slow down, getting back to it. Another of DARPA's goals
Speaker 2: for Lifelog had a predictive function. It sought to quote
Speaker 2: find meaningful patterns in the timeline to infer the user's routine,
Speaker 2: habits and relationships with other people. Organizations, places, and objects,
Speaker 2: and to exploit these patterns to ease its task end quote.
Speaker 2: So not only was lifelog trying to collect data about
Speaker 2: a human being, it was confirmed by its own emission,
Speaker 2: trying to get a predictive function about it, trying to
Speaker 2: see what they're going to do next. Generically, the term
Speaker 2: lifelog or flog. Oddly enough, Lifelog's nickname was flog like
Speaker 2: a whip.
Speaker 1: That's it's really odd, like they would use that, like
Speaker 1: like flogging somebody.
Speaker 2: Like flogging your slaves like that. This is what DARPA
Speaker 2: was using to talk about us. But anyway, is used
Speaker 2: to describe a storage system that can automatically and persist
Speaker 2: record in archives some information dimensional or i'm sorry, some
Speaker 2: informational dimension of an objects or user's life experience in
Speaker 2: a particular data category. News reports in the media describe
Speaker 2: Lifelog as the quote diary to end all diaries, a
Speaker 2: multimedia digital record of everywhere you go and everything you
Speaker 2: see here, read, say, and touch. The media was talking
Speaker 2: about this. News articles are talking about this. Fox and
Speaker 2: CNN had made a mention of it and making it
Speaker 2: sound cool. It's the diary to end all diaries. That's
Speaker 2: fucking terrifying, doc. Why are you trying to throw that
Speaker 2: in some sort of a cool hip way.
Speaker 1: But okay, sure, but the people ate it.
Speaker 2: Up, believe it or not. And although it sounds weird
Speaker 2: when DARPA is keeping the diary to end all diaries
Speaker 2: of you, according to the US government officials, lifelog is
Speaker 2: not connected with DARPA's total information awareness. We're gonna get
Speaker 2: to that in a minute, because it absolutely was by
Speaker 2: their own admission, which is crazy. That's saying government officials
Speaker 2: said that. DARPA said it is, and some might be
Speaker 2: asking what is the total information awareness? We're getting there
Speaker 2: in a moment. Anyway. The Lifelog program was canceled February fourth,
Speaker 2: two thousand and four, after criticism concerning the privacy implications
Speaker 2: of the system. Because this is a massive invasion of privacy.
Speaker 2: We can't have this. This is crazy, this is massive
Speaker 2: government overreach. Raven. Well, keep all of that in mind.
Speaker 2: That same day, February fourth, two thousand and four, is
Speaker 2: the day that this hoodied wearing, curly head, weird beaker
Speaker 2: looking motherfucker names Mark Zuckerberg launched this website called the Facebook,
Speaker 2: and it started off I guess relatively, you know what
Speaker 2: it was. It was supposed to be only Harvard students,
Speaker 2: and within the first like six months, half of the
Speaker 2: users on Facebook or the Facebook at the time were
Speaker 2: all Harvard students. And it also was a stalker's fucking
Speaker 2: wet dream. The had these girls that were posting their
Speaker 2: entire class schedules and so like, if you were a
Speaker 2: dude or somebody not even a dude, just a person
Speaker 2: with ill intent that wanted to know where this person
Speaker 2: was going to be at a certain time, it was
Speaker 2: on their Facebook.
Speaker 1: This is before the wall was a thing. This before
Speaker 1: I remember. I remember when the Facebook was the thing
Speaker 1: and it actually reached the West coast. It was in
Speaker 1: the it was in college, so they used it for
Speaker 1: parties and stuff. That's how I heard about it was.
Speaker 1: I heard of the college students because I had college
Speaker 1: classes while I was in high school. I was doing
Speaker 1: like a special program where I took college classes, and
Speaker 1: I heard them talking about the Facebook book and they're like, yeah,
Speaker 1: this is how we like. They were posting like where
Speaker 1: parties were with like the you know, the GPS location
Speaker 1: on them and stuff. And I didn't really like, honestly,
Speaker 1: pay much mind to it because I wasn't in college,
Speaker 1: so I was like, whatever the fuck that is? But
Speaker 1: I remember hearing about it, and I didn't, you know,
Speaker 1: I didn't really know much about it. I actually didn't
Speaker 1: even get a Facebook until like my second year in
Speaker 1: the Marine Corps because everybody was like, you need to
Speaker 1: get one, because I didn't, you know, I didn't really
Speaker 1: get to communicate with my family that often, so I
Speaker 1: was like, I guess.
Speaker 2: And to prove a point here, that launched in four
Speaker 2: February of four To be exact, I my mother did
Speaker 2: not allow me to have social media. She did not
Speaker 2: know that I had a MySpace page for years. She
Speaker 2: never knew that I had a Facebook page until I
Speaker 2: was I think a senior in high school and then
Speaker 2: she finally found out. But I had had one since
Speaker 2: I was in eighth grader middle school. Is when I
Speaker 2: started my Facebook page. Just everybody has a real snapshot
Speaker 2: of this. We are talking two thousand and five. I
Speaker 2: had a Facebook page as a middle schooler.
Speaker 1: What see, I got one when I was like two
Speaker 1: thousand and nine, actually probably almost twenty ten.
Speaker 2: It might be two thousand and six. Excuse me, I'm
Speaker 2: not sure because it was like that five six years.
Speaker 2: So I'm not sure exactly when I want somebody, yeah whatever,
Speaker 2: but it was that soon. So as far as like,
Speaker 2: oh it was only intended for college kids, I know
Speaker 2: what people are gonna say, oh, four And I was
Speaker 2: not like a bad kid. I was not out here
Speaker 2: like trying to run these streets or anything like that.
Speaker 2: I was living my little Christian fucking living in a
Speaker 2: bubble life at that point. And my middle school ass
Speaker 2: had a Facebook in six you see what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: It took two years for this thing for only college
Speaker 2: kids to trickle down from oh, it's only college kids
Speaker 2: for Harvard and all this to trickle down into middle
Speaker 2: school Louisiana zeitgeist two years. So when everybody says, oh,
Speaker 2: it was never intended for that bull fucking shit, well,
Speaker 2: they had an age restriction with nothing to back it up.
Speaker 2: You could put whatever date you wanted, is your birthday?
Speaker 2: Nobody it didn't. There was nothing to check you on that.
Speaker 1: So I mean, we could tell how little I gave
Speaker 1: a fuck about social media, right right, I mean I
Speaker 1: was and I still am, though, Like I'm definitely way
Speaker 1: out of loop about stuff a lot more now because
Speaker 1: I read about it, but if I had it my way,
Speaker 1: i'd probably honestly be like just you know, amish, but
Speaker 1: not amish because theyre kind of have some weird rules
Speaker 1: but with no technology. But I mean, I didn't get
Speaker 1: my first iPhone until I was twenty six. That's crazy.
Speaker 1: So yeah, like I didn't. Uh, And then here's a
Speaker 1: little admission that everyone's gonna maybe like have a whole
Speaker 1: crash out about, you know, like those mpth three players
Speaker 1: or like the Apple ones what are they called? One
Speaker 1: that you can get iPods. So I got gifted my
Speaker 1: iPods and like other people put music on them. Still
Speaker 1: to this day, I'd have zero idea how to put
Speaker 1: music on an iPod or an MP theory player.
Speaker 2: I have no idea in a file like it's it's
Speaker 2: not difficult.
Speaker 1: And I'm gonna be really honest with you here's even
Speaker 1: how how much I don't give a fuck about technology.
Speaker 1: I also never burned a single CD. Brittany did all
Speaker 1: of my CDs.
Speaker 2: I never burned a CD. My homie who was way
Speaker 2: more tech savvy, he he had a stack of CDs
Speaker 2: for me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Brittany did everything like she was. She was like
Speaker 1: all about that shit and was all about the technology
Speaker 1: stuff and she's like, here you need this, here you
Speaker 1: knew that, and I was like I don't. I don't
Speaker 1: really care. Like I mean, I had to like get
Speaker 1: a cell phone because she was like, you have to
Speaker 1: have a cell phone so I can call you. And
Speaker 1: I'm like why though.
Speaker 2: Like Pirate Bay, LimeWire, and frost Wire, those were the
Speaker 2: ship as far as finding free music. And you remember
Speaker 2: that was like a big thing. It was a super
Speaker 2: Bowl commercial actually, these kids that were downloading free music
Speaker 2: and it.
Speaker 1: Was they got in trouble.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then there's like a whole thing the super
Speaker 2: Bowl commercial. They had these like teenagers that were all
Speaker 2: like looking all sad and it was like criminal folonious
Speaker 2: and this and this, and it was like and you
Speaker 2: know what, We're still gonna download music and there's nothing
Speaker 2: anybody could do about it. And it was like wow,
Speaker 2: these kids that were like seeing us all freedom and shit,
Speaker 2: and it was like, we're talking about just downloading music
Speaker 2: off of lime Wire. That's all that commercial was about.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be really honest. I loved going to Barnes
Speaker 1: and Noble, not Barnes and Noble at the time. Borders
Speaker 1: or like some of the other small bookstores and going
Speaker 1: and shopping in their CD section. So I go buy CDs. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I mean I would, yeah, go test them out, but
Speaker 1: I would, uh you know. I worked multiple jobs when
Speaker 1: I was a teenager, so I would save up a
Speaker 1: little bit of my money each you know, paycheck, so
Speaker 1: I could go buy like a new CD every like
Speaker 1: once a week, I could go get like a new
Speaker 1: CD I had I have. I actually have it. To
Speaker 1: be honest with you, I have a large CD. So's
Speaker 1: that's about the extent of my technology when it comes
Speaker 1: to stuff. And what's funny is I went into calm
Speaker 1: and then had to learn a bunch about technology, and
Speaker 1: I was like, man, how the fuck did I have?
Speaker 1: But that actually, to me was a lot more interesting
Speaker 1: because of how the satellites work and how like they
Speaker 1: can ping each other and there's like a lot more
Speaker 1: complications with it. I just vote for like normal stuff.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be honest with you, Like, I'm pretty old school.
Speaker 1: I like my books. I like to be able to
Speaker 1: touch my books. I'm weird like that, So.
Speaker 2: Nothing crazy about wanting to actually touch paper. I know
Speaker 2: a lot of people are all about like the audio
Speaker 2: books of the kindles and stuff. Different strokes are different folks.
Speaker 2: But anyway, anyway, back on topic, So your boys, Zuck, No, no, no,
Speaker 2: you're fine. You're fine. So Zuck launched the Facebook the
Speaker 2: day that DARPA quote unquote shuts down its lifelog program.
Speaker 2: And this investor comes in and drops a half million dollars,
Speaker 2: so pretty much asking no questions, by the name of
Speaker 2: Peter Teel. He came in. Oh yes, but keep in
Speaker 2: mind we're talking four Most people on Earth had no
Speaker 2: idea who the fuck this guy was. No one knew
Speaker 2: who Mark Zuckerberg was. Very few people even knew exactly.
Speaker 2: Very few people knew who Elon Musk was. Bill Gates
Speaker 2: was the tech guy. He was the name that people
Speaker 2: knew about. Keep in mind, do you remember AOL instant messenger?
Speaker 1: Yes, I actually know this, Okay, that.
Speaker 2: Just that was just in the phase of starting to
Speaker 2: get phased out. It was still being very widely used
Speaker 2: for the record. But like this, we're talking a few
Speaker 2: years away from most people only having dial up internet
Speaker 2: in their homes. Hell, I had dial up in my
Speaker 2: house until shit, probably around this time, as a matter
Speaker 2: of fact, probably around oh five is when we got
Speaker 2: instead of dial up, we just like had regular internet
Speaker 2: that you just pay your cable provider for.
Speaker 1: God the dial up. Yeah no, I mean that was
Speaker 1: a whole pedophilic wet dream too, though.
Speaker 2: It was indeed it was indeed. But so Peter Til
Speaker 2: comes in as an angel investor and drops five hundred
Speaker 2: k on Zuck and this whole new fan dangled Facebook thing,
Speaker 2: even though he was very well aware of what it
Speaker 2: was and what it was going to be used for,
Speaker 2: mostly because he was at that two thousand and two
Speaker 2: AI symposium on Epstein's Island. We're going to talk about
Speaker 2: that more in a bit, but there he actually made
Speaker 2: an appearance in the Social the Social network movie. Have
Speaker 2: you ever seen this movie?
Speaker 1: By the way, I have not, but didntally actually convince
Speaker 1: Mark to drop out of school. Peter Til did that
Speaker 1: with a lot of earstertles.
Speaker 2: Yeah, these tech people, he would like pretty much pay
Speaker 2: them an absorbent amount of money to drop out of school.
Speaker 2: He'll fund their projects, fund their businesses, and you work
Speaker 2: for him now. And I mean, yeah, they could finish
Speaker 2: their degree and make this money in a few years,
Speaker 2: or they could just jump to the finish line now
Speaker 2: and they're plugged into one of the biggest tech gurus
Speaker 2: of the day and age. So a lot of them
Speaker 2: did that, Zuck being one of them. I'm gonna play
Speaker 2: this clip right now from this from this movie. It's
Speaker 2: only forty five seconds long. And this is Peter Teal's,
Speaker 2: you know, impersonation. What's the word I want to look
Speaker 2: for his character on the movie. I'll check it out, Sean,
Speaker 2: He'll be right with you.
Speaker 1: You know, this is what the film Towering Inferno that's
Speaker 1: come for day.
Speaker 2: Hey, guys, come on back. That's Peter Teal's character. Did
Speaker 2: she offer you some waters?
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, we're cool.
Speaker 2: Shot that way. It must be Mark.
Speaker 1: Well, you took a look at everything, and congratulations.
Speaker 2: We're gonna strut you off with a five hun thousand
Speaker 2: dollars investments. Maurice is gonna talk.
Speaker 1: You've had some corporate restructuring.
Speaker 2: We'll find as a corporation in Delaware come up with
Speaker 2: a stock structure that allows for now investors. Now, let
Speaker 2: me ask you something. Who's Itvard of Sovereign. So this
Speaker 2: guy is Peter Teel and he's straight up yeah, we
Speaker 2: looked over it.
Speaker 1: We're gonna start you off.
Speaker 2: With a five hundred thousand dollars investment. We're gonna set
Speaker 2: you up with a you know, a LLC in Delaware.
Speaker 2: We're gonna have it open source to where you know,
Speaker 2: anybody can invest in the company. And this, this, and this.
Speaker 2: It was all about a get rich quick scheme. But
Speaker 2: also it was about the data. That's genuinely all it
Speaker 2: was about. So here's the deal with lifelog. With lifelog,
Speaker 2: you had to have a actual person entered the data.
Speaker 2: You would have a person track another person, right, not
Speaker 2: necessarily spy versus spy, but like, let's say that you,
Speaker 2: Raven Lee, became a person of interest to a three
Speaker 2: letter agency for whatever reason, right, they would have to
Speaker 2: assign an agent to track you and watch your movements,
Speaker 2: check your bank accounts, do all these things, do all this,
Speaker 2: Where are you going, what objects are you buying? Whatever
Speaker 2: the case. That took time, that took resources, that took energy,
Speaker 2: and believe it or not, the CIA doesn't have five
Speaker 2: million people that are working for it just sitting around
Speaker 2: waiting for a task to obsessively consume them. So it
Speaker 2: was very slow going, and the data was getting input,
Speaker 2: but not at the rate that it needed to the
Speaker 2: government needed to get the public to give over that
Speaker 2: data enter the Facebook, Peter TiO being one of the
Speaker 2: biggest investors at that time. Pretty much now it was
Speaker 2: like a cool and trendy thing to upload your class schedule,
Speaker 2: your hopes, your dreams, little things you thought were important.
Speaker 2: What restaurants you attend, right, what parties you go to,
Speaker 2: people within your network, friends of yours, where you work.
Speaker 2: All of this was now something that people wanted for.
Speaker 2: It's crazy to me still out loud. People wanted this
Speaker 2: information on the internet forever, to be a part of it,
Speaker 2: to be cool because somehow people really care about you
Speaker 2: into this level of things and like that's a thing.
Speaker 2: It gave everybody the whole memi me situation. Everybody felt
Speaker 2: like they were suffering from main character syndrome, and in
Speaker 2: a way they were. Meanwhile, the government was taking all
Speaker 2: of that data and putting it into a computer system,
Speaker 2: and no longer do we need to assign an agent
Speaker 2: for a person. We needed a couple of people to
Speaker 2: monitor Facebook's data bank. And that was about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I think the interesting thing about that
Speaker 1: time though, was getting people to they wanted to feel
Speaker 1: I guess the narrative got pushed of feeling more connected
Speaker 1: and then having the dopamine from people liking your stuff
Speaker 1: and from seemingly like they actually care about you. Having
Speaker 1: more people care about who you are, what you're doing,
Speaker 1: where you're going, those kinds of things is just replacing
Speaker 1: the social interaction of like having friends and talking to
Speaker 1: them and those kind of things. Now you have complete
Speaker 1: strangers or people that you kind of know that are
Speaker 1: giving you likes, comments, shares, you know, whatever, and now
Speaker 1: it's making you feel good. It's a little dopamine hit
Speaker 1: every single time. Yeah, it's quite ingenious, honestly it is.
Speaker 2: And I think that it also has spurred on a
Speaker 2: lot of social experiments because, like we're talking about, it
Speaker 2: had a predictive aspect to it. So this before the
Speaker 2: idea of an algorithm was a thing. I mean, hell,
Speaker 2: this is right after this meeting with Peter Teel. This
Speaker 2: was right after Zuckerberg even thought of the concept of
Speaker 2: the wall posting something to your wall. That was crazy
Speaker 2: new brain mind blowing a thought process that he had
Speaker 2: just come up with.
Speaker 1: And so I wonder, I wonder if the Dark Web had,
Speaker 1: like some of the older chat rooms I wonder if
Speaker 1: this is where the theory came from, Like, I wonder
Speaker 1: if this is where he got it from. Was because
Speaker 1: the dark webs was a lot easier to access back then,
Speaker 1: and so I'm just wondering, because he was so tech savvy,
Speaker 1: was this like kind of how it got started in
Speaker 1: his mind of like these now. I don't know how
Speaker 1: long the dark web platforms have been around, but I
Speaker 1: could see how that would be able to spark the
Speaker 1: idea of people getting together and chatting about their daily
Speaker 1: lives and all of these things, because I mean that's
Speaker 1: people used to pinpal each other information from across the globe,
Speaker 1: you know, other readers or writers or researchers would send
Speaker 1: it back and forth. I don't know, I'm just thinking
Speaker 1: out loud as I'm thinking about, like, how did he
Speaker 1: come up with this? How did this idea even like
Speaker 1: actually spark versus what like you know, I know, he
Speaker 1: made a movie about himself or whatever. I don't think
Speaker 1: he's actually gonna tell us realistically how he figured it
Speaker 1: all it all out?
Speaker 2: Yeah, the movie is, uh, there's definitely some creative liberties taken, like,
Speaker 2: for instance, the uh I think they were the Winkleman
Speaker 2: twins or something. Essentially, Facebook was their brainchild and Zuckerberg
Speaker 2: stole it from them. And that's according to the movie.
Speaker 2: That's not exactly accurate. At Wardo Salver and the guy
Speaker 2: he was just talking about was his homie that was
Speaker 2: like his co creator of this. He got shafted, and
Speaker 2: the movie does an okay job of explaining how that
Speaker 2: shook out. But it again, there's some creative liberties that
Speaker 2: are taken. Your boy Sean in the background played by
Speaker 2: Justin Tayake. His role is made way larger in the
Speaker 2: movie than it actually was in real life. So it's
Speaker 2: the movie was made for entertainment, but it got kind
Speaker 2: of the key details close enough. But as far as
Speaker 2: this portion goes, Peter Tiel absolutely was the angel investor
Speaker 2: that made Facebook what it became. He did the same thing,
Speaker 2: by the way, with a guy named Reed Hoffman. Maybe
Speaker 2: you've heard of him because he's also in the Epstein Files,
Speaker 2: but he is the creator and founder of LinkedIn. So again,
Speaker 2: the Internet and by the Internet for this of for
Speaker 2: all intents and purposes on this when I am just
Speaker 2: meaning the government, right, they not only saw on Facebook
Speaker 2: what you found to be socially cool and what made
Speaker 2: you tick. There they could track your entire employment history,
Speaker 2: They could track your all of your resumes and updates
Speaker 2: and all the things, and then find your professional network
Speaker 2: as well as your social network, as well as your
Speaker 2: eating network, as far as your banking goes. Because yes,
Speaker 2: Hay Powell was a part of this too, so is Vinmo,
Speaker 2: so is cash App, so all of these things the
Speaker 2: government and by for this record, Peter Teele was an
Speaker 2: angel investor in all these things, if not the co
Speaker 2: creator of it. And so the database got everything it
Speaker 2: needed from every single person, whether they ever realized that
Speaker 2: they were handing over this information or not.
Speaker 1: Well, I think it's really a note to say that
Speaker 1: a lot of people that are in the Epstein files
Speaker 1: they have LinkedIn profiles and and like you can contact
Speaker 1: them on LinkedIn. Yeah, because I sent like quite a
Speaker 1: few messages to some of the people because I was like, well,
Speaker 1: this is easy. I mean, they're all hooked up together.
Speaker 1: And I think that's kind of weird how Peter Teel
Speaker 1: had his hand in everything. He was the main hub
Speaker 1: besides Epstein in collecting the data needed to push forward
Speaker 1: for AI. The next step in AI, I think it's
Speaker 1: interesting that nobody really talks about him. I mean, he
Speaker 1: was messing what like over two thousand times in the
Speaker 1: Epstein files, like two thousand, six hundred or four hundred
Speaker 1: or something like that time raising. Yeah, but no one's
Speaker 1: really chatting about him and his role and how our
Speaker 1: society is today and how he used DARPA or he
Speaker 1: was an agent for DARPA. I'm not really sure how
Speaker 1: DARPA and him are best buds, but they are like
Speaker 1: hand in hand.
Speaker 2: I'm so glad that you worded it the way that
Speaker 2: you did, Raven Lee, because enter, how does Palenteer fit
Speaker 2: into this?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: I know, Palenteer is the company that is Peter Teel's
Speaker 2: baby and all this, but how and why did Peter
Speaker 2: TiO decide that this is the route that he needs
Speaker 2: to go for business? So Palneer has massive government contracts
Speaker 2: and have four decades. It's a database basically, and it
Speaker 2: needs users to put their data into it for it. Now, again,
Speaker 2: this is in these days, this is before AI was
Speaker 2: really a thing that we had. They had very early
Speaker 2: stages of it, but it was more like pattern recognition,
Speaker 2: and that's what it was about. It was it would
Speaker 2: understand that an apple grows from a tree. Okay, cool,
Speaker 2: But if you were to try to tell it to
Speaker 2: pull an apple pie out of an oven at a
Speaker 2: certain point, not based off of a timer, but off
Speaker 2: of the site and off of the smell and off
Speaker 2: of these, it didn't understand common sense. It understood very
Speaker 2: very basic pattern recognition that you had to painstakingly put
Speaker 2: into databases. Right. This is why the Common Sense Symposium
Speaker 2: of two thousand and two took place at Little Saint James,
Speaker 2: specifically because they were trying to talk about how to
Speaker 2: make AI have human common sense. This is why Pallenteer
Speaker 2: got used in the way that it did. So now
Speaker 2: we're gonna talk about this. This article here is from
Speaker 2: Get Loud with a med Pallenteer financed by Epstein, fueled
Speaker 2: by killing in Gaza and spying on you. Yeah, this
Speaker 2: is gonna be a weird article, and I think it's
Speaker 2: it's really important for us to really dig into. So
Speaker 2: Palenteer took Epstein's money, teals backing and Trump's blessing to
Speaker 2: build an AI war machine. If Gaza is the testing
Speaker 2: ground America's next and are we ready to fight back?
Speaker 2: So we can talk about the Gaza situation a little
Speaker 2: bit if we want to, But for this let's just
Speaker 2: stick to the main talking points here right watching Musk
Speaker 2: and Trump, Cosey's relationship collapse between the public meltdown. This
Speaker 2: article was written last year. By the way, I can't
Speaker 2: help but notice who's quietly smiling Trump's bedfellow, Pallenteer, a
Speaker 2: data behemoth born in Cia Coffers now peddling itself to
Speaker 2: Israel's war machine and carrying the taint of Epstein's filthy millions.
Speaker 2: Pallenteer which helped draw up the kill lists for Gaza,
Speaker 2: which is very accurate, by the way, lists responsible for
Speaker 2: the murder of tens of thousands of Palestinians, the vast
Speaker 2: majority of whom are women and children, was bankrolled in
Speaker 2: part by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. That wasn't in part.
Speaker 2: That was a very large endowment to get that started,
Speaker 2: But we'll get to that today. That same code driven
Speaker 2: engine is giving Trump the ability to assemble a mega
Speaker 2: AI database of every single American's secrets. So also on
Speaker 2: screen right now is a logo, a newspaper clipping that
Speaker 2: says very big, bold words Pallenteer stands with Israel. Yes soccer.
Speaker 2: There's a photograph from a full page ad purchased by
Speaker 2: a Palenteer in the New York Times. So all right,
Speaker 2: let's continue on here. Built to extract or excuse me,
Speaker 2: Built to extract insights from torrents of data. With machine
Speaker 2: learning and AI, Palenteers optimizing manufacturing and supply chains, but
Speaker 2: also optimizing genocide and kill chains. The big data giant
Speaker 2: was born out of a desire to do what was illegal.
Speaker 2: In two thousand and three, the CIA couldn't legally spy
Speaker 2: the way it wanted to, so it outsourced the job.
Speaker 2: The CIA became Palenteer's first and only investor, for years,
Speaker 2: quietly bankrolling a private surveillance empire it couldn't build itself.
Speaker 2: A decade later, Edward Snowden exposed the truth. Palaenteer had
Speaker 2: been helping the US government condust mass illegal spying, not
Speaker 2: on foreign threats, but on its own citizens. Now this
Speaker 2: same company, with roots and secrecy, war and surveillance, is
Speaker 2: partnering with Israel, powering a genocidal war in Gaza. What
Speaker 2: started as an illegal surveillance has evolved into algorithmic warfare.
Speaker 2: And Palestine is the most brutal testing ground. Yes, of course,
Speaker 2: today Palanteer's algorithms are built to kill Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
Speaker 2: These aren't random horrors of war. They are the direct
Speaker 2: result of lines of code designed to label Palestinian lives
Speaker 2: as targets, reducing human beings to data points designed for obliteration.
Speaker 2: Paladeer doesn't hide what it is. It brags about it.
Speaker 2: The CEO, Alex Karp, proudly cause the company's surveillance infrastructure
Speaker 2: a quote digital kill chain.
Speaker 1: Before God's a sky crazy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's called a kill chain, and I've heard that
Speaker 2: used before.
Speaker 1: Like that's just really really odd. And by the way,
Speaker 1: at this point, I mean, are we going to acknowledge
Speaker 1: the elephant in the room that Israel is pretty shitty.
Speaker 2: Like I'm saying overall net Yahu and his entire administration,
Speaker 2: it's horrible what's happening here. I don't think.
Speaker 1: I don't believe that every single person I said, I
Speaker 1: don't believe that every single Jewish person there is horrible
Speaker 1: in itself. I think the war between the Palestinians and
Speaker 1: the Jewish people, I have my own opinion on that,
Speaker 1: but I believe that Israel is behind a lot more
Speaker 1: things than what is being given credit to.
Speaker 2: I'll say that no, I definitely could agree with that,
Speaker 2: and I know a lot of people listening are gonna
Speaker 2: lose their shit that I'm agreeing with Raven on this part.
Speaker 1: I was gonna say it was like, oh, hang on here,
Speaker 1: because you've been pretty staunch in your in your beliefs
Speaker 1: that Israel isn't behind a lot of things. But I
Speaker 1: think the writing is like clearly on the wall at
Speaker 1: this point that like Israel is directly in fact behind
Speaker 1: quite a bit of shit. Now, when I say Israel,
Speaker 1: let me be very specific. I do not believe that
Speaker 1: all Jews are behind this. I believe there is a
Speaker 1: sector of Jews, if not maybe two sectors of Jews.
Speaker 1: You know that, just like there is different types of Muslims.
Speaker 1: Not all Muslims are completely evil. There is sectors that
Speaker 1: are way horrific compared to the other ones.
Speaker 2: But for the record, there's sectors of quote unquote Christianity.
Speaker 1: That there is sectors, and there is sectors of Christians
Speaker 1: that are psycho and they will go about doing anything
Speaker 1: and everything to purge pretty much everybody else. They're seen
Speaker 1: with Catholics, and I mean, you name it, you name
Speaker 1: the sector, and that's pretty much where we're at when
Speaker 1: I do say that, I do believe that there's quite
Speaker 1: there is literal sectors of these groups. I don't believe
Speaker 1: that all Jewish people are evil, no, but I do
Speaker 1: believe that Israel is behind a lot more things that
Speaker 1: they have their hand in the cookie jar, a lot
Speaker 1: more than what has been led on to believe in
Speaker 1: that this whole connection with Jeffrey Epstein's showing how many
Speaker 1: threads to Israel, there is is a clear indication that,
Speaker 1: like the writing is on the wall, that they are
Speaker 1: way worse off than what a lot of people. I've
Speaker 1: been pretty quiet about my opinion about Israel this whole time,
Speaker 1: but that's where I'm at with it.
Speaker 2: So whenever I say Israel, I don't mean the nation
Speaker 2: of Actually, when it's the same as saying like, well,
Speaker 2: you know America is involved in bap bah bah bah,
Speaker 2: I am not talking about you know, your people that
Speaker 2: are living from your hometown in Oregon. I am not
Speaker 2: talking about the people from Prairieville, Louisia. I'm talking about
Speaker 2: the United States government. When I say these things we're
Speaker 2: using these big terms. But this is what I mean.
Speaker 2: So whenever I say Israel, I mean Mussad, I mean
Speaker 2: Net and Yahoo, I mean his cabinet, I mean very
Speaker 2: top tier people. I don't believe that people in Israel
Speaker 2: are evil people. I do not believe that. And that's
Speaker 2: the other thing too, I don't believe in using the
Speaker 2: term Jews and Israel interchangeably. That seems to be a
Speaker 2: thing that people love doing when we say in Israel, well,
Speaker 2: you know, it's not all the Jews, like, no, no, no,
Speaker 2: there's Jews in America. They ain't got shit or fuck
Speaker 2: to do with what's going on in Israel. I am
Speaker 2: talking about Net and Yahoo and his ILK. I am
Speaker 2: not talking about people in the world that happen to
Speaker 2: be of Jewish faith or of Jewish blood. We're talking
Speaker 2: about two different things here. And yes, I still think
Speaker 2: that the nation of Israel needs to exist as a country.
Speaker 2: I hate the way it's being ran right now, but
Speaker 2: I believe that it deserves the right to exist. I
Speaker 2: believe Russia should be a nation. I can't stand the
Speaker 2: fucking president of it, and I think he's a psychopath
Speaker 2: that needs to be taken out but I don't believe that, right, No,
Speaker 2: I don't. I think he's out of his fucking mind.
Speaker 2: But my point is I'm not blaming every citizen in
Speaker 2: Moscow for Putin ship. Does this make sense?
Speaker 1: I mean, yes, it makes sense. I think that Israel
Speaker 1: is shady motherfuckers have taken a lot of land over
Speaker 1: over the last couple of decades, very strategically from Palestinian people.
Speaker 1: I think that there needs to be a common ground
Speaker 1: when sharing this this area because you know, whether we
Speaker 1: all like it or not, history tends to be conquering
Speaker 1: situations and though it was gifted by forced, well we'll
Speaker 1: say more forced than anything. You know, it's it's one
Speaker 1: of those things of that that's their problems, that's them
Speaker 1: problem in America has a lot of our problems. So
Speaker 1: I don't want people and I don't want people to
Speaker 1: die for no specific reasons. I mean, that's absolutely tos
Speaker 1: like we could all been together and kill all the Taliban.
Speaker 1: I'm here for that. But yeah, no, I hear what
Speaker 1: you're saying, and I think there needs to be very
Speaker 1: clear distinctions when people are talking about different groups and
Speaker 1: when they're bringing these points up, and that a lot
Speaker 1: of people believe that Jeffrey Epstein is in fact alive
Speaker 1: in Israel. I've seen the well we don't know if
Speaker 1: their AI images or not. The circulating photos that do
Speaker 1: appear to be him with long hair. I just find
Speaker 1: very convenient. I just want everybody to really like sit
Speaker 1: with it for a second and understand, here are the
Speaker 1: files that dropped, here's all the information that came with it,
Speaker 1: all the ties are being shown to Israel. And then conveniently,
Speaker 1: after several years, just suddenly we have photos of Epstein
Speaker 1: alive in Israel, just weirdly coincidental, a few weeks after
Speaker 1: this entire whole thing happened, and people are starting to
Speaker 1: actually get called out on their shit it. You know,
Speaker 1: I would just wager that coincidences aren't that strong in life.
Speaker 2: But right, look, all I'm saying is that you can
Speaker 2: support the nation of Israel and be super critical of
Speaker 2: their current governing body. These two can't happen at the
Speaker 2: same time. I can be a proud American patriot and
Speaker 2: also hate how our current administration is being ran. These
Speaker 2: two sentences can be true at the same time. That's
Speaker 2: all I'm saying. So just we're all clear when I
Speaker 2: call myself a Zionist quote unquote. I do not mean
Speaker 2: the ultra Zionists that believe that Israel have some sort
Speaker 2: of a moral high ground or they're better than anybody.
Speaker 2: I mean that in the traditional term of saying that
Speaker 2: I believe Israel should exis as a nation the same
Speaker 2: way whenever I claim that I am a feminist. I
Speaker 2: believe that women should get paid the same as a
Speaker 2: man for the same work that they are doing. I
Speaker 2: believe that our votes should count in equal ways. I
Speaker 2: don't mean the fucking psycholibtards that are screaming with pussy
Speaker 2: hats on their heads right These terms are being used
Speaker 2: in different ways right now.
Speaker 1: So I'm gonna get one of them hats, for the
Speaker 1: love of God, Raven, Why just so I can wear
Speaker 1: it on here, just to ruffle the feathers.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because that's I'm just kidding. That's a flex.
Speaker 1: I'm just joking. I'm joking. Oh man, Okay, you do that.
Speaker 2: You you can go ahead and do that.
Speaker 1: But whatever.
Speaker 2: Anyway, So my point is, when we're talking about this
Speaker 2: article here they bring up the whole Gaza and iSER
Speaker 2: A situation again, because that was like a really hot
Speaker 2: topic last year. But the point is that Palenteer was
Speaker 2: being used to create these kill lists. That's not a joke,
Speaker 2: that's a fact. So continuing on here, it says before
Speaker 2: Gozza skies were lit with bomb blasts, Palenteer story was
Speaker 2: already woven into the darkest corners of power. In two
Speaker 2: thousand and five, Jeffrey Epstein funneled forty million dollars into
Speaker 2: Peter Teal's pocket, seating the very startup that would become Palenteer.
Speaker 2: And Teal has never fully disavowed that relationship and has
Speaker 2: even has he he insisted Epstein quote had absolutely nothing
Speaker 2: to do with Israel. I don't know why this article
Speaker 2: is working very hard to shove the Israel narrative towards
Speaker 2: the story of Palenteer. But fine, whatever the point we
Speaker 2: need to take from that is a five. Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 2: funneled forty million dollars to start up Pallenteer. So again
Speaker 2: we're not talking about oh, well, you know Epstein and
Speaker 2: they just ran in similar circles. No, the same way
Speaker 2: that Peter Teele is plugged with Facebook, Epstein is plugged
Speaker 2: with Palenteer. So now all of Palenteer's affiliations all stem
Speaker 2: from Epstein either way you go. And even in five yeah,
Speaker 2: he wasn't convicted at that time. Everybody that spent any
Speaker 2: amount of time with this dude knew what was up.
Speaker 2: Allegedly him and Trump had their big falling out No.
Speaker 2: Four or something whatever. Anyway, a couple of random little
Speaker 2: things that we could bring up. At this time, Jeffrey
Speaker 2: Epstein introduced Kimball Musk, Elon Musk's brother to a woman
Speaker 2: in his entourage, two sources told Business Insider. The woman,
Speaker 2: who had previously dated Epstein and lived in an apartment
Speaker 2: building where he was known to house models, dated Kimball
Speaker 2: from twenty eleven to twenty twelve.
Speaker 1: Though their relationship.
Speaker 2: Right, it's crazy how Musk claims that there's no connections
Speaker 2: whatever his brother dated his ex, but all right, after.
Speaker 1: Being shunned from the party, damn.
Speaker 2: After being shun from the party, and after it was
Speaker 2: understood that Epstein was a full on sex criminal, there's
Speaker 2: no way around this. Epstein still threw his sloppy seconds
Speaker 2: on Elon's brother, because that's I guess, okay. Though the
Speaker 2: relationship by all accounts was genuine, the sources said, Epstein
Speaker 2: hoped it would open doors to Elon Musk and his companies.
Speaker 2: So he threw that pussy on his little brother strictly
Speaker 2: to try to make his way to the big brother
Speaker 2: for business opportunities.
Speaker 1: That's all it was.
Speaker 2: It was a honeypot.
Speaker 1: But he didn't even need to do that though, because
Speaker 1: Musk literally reached out about coming on the island to him,
Speaker 1: So all he had to do was grant him access
Speaker 1: to the island to be able to get in his pocket.
Speaker 1: And I still firm I do not believe that. I
Speaker 1: do not believe that at all. I believe one hundred
Speaker 1: percent that Elon was I don't think he was taking
Speaker 1: money from Epstein. I think that heuse Musk has mentioned
Speaker 1: quite a few times for the eugenics program as well.
Speaker 1: He's mentioned many times in the emails as being one
Speaker 1: of the top dogs in his thing. And they talk
Speaker 1: about his eye clutor, they talk about, you know, these
Speaker 1: email lists were utilizing the data for potential candidates to
Speaker 1: take their genome sequencing. Yeah, and Musk has mentioned quite
Speaker 1: a few times.
Speaker 2: So I have a tough ye you have an episode
Speaker 2: you're doing on that one, right?
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, I do, And I have a I just
Speaker 1: have a really tough time believing that with those emails,
Speaker 1: with this that I had even no idea. You can't
Speaker 1: honest look at this and be like, you know, Gates
Speaker 1: and Elon and Zuckerberg are all homies pushing forward with
Speaker 1: this AI shit down your throat, and then just happens
Speaker 1: to be all of them have heavy ties to Epstein,
Speaker 1: and Elon wasn't somehow involved, at least in the sense
Speaker 1: of maybe I just I don't know if Elon would
Speaker 1: take money from him, but they're definitely I think he
Speaker 1: was using the data collection in which Epstein was gathering.
Speaker 1: That's where I think that would be the money maker.
Speaker 2: Hold On, hold on, don't misinterpret what I'm saying here.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that Elon didn't go to Florida or
Speaker 2: to his Manhattan apartment and did some pedophilic shit. I
Speaker 2: am not saying that. I am saying that I don't
Speaker 2: know if he ever went to the island.
Speaker 1: I mean, he knows if he went to the island
Speaker 1: or not. I'm just simply there's a lot of and
Speaker 1: Elon will say up and down like I don't know,
Speaker 1: I don't know him. I know we didn't you know,
Speaker 1: we didn't really hang out, we didn't really talk or
Speaker 1: all these things crazy because brother dated, Yeah, your brother
Speaker 1: dated his sloppy seconds.
Speaker 2: Like Epstein and his entourage were granted a private tour
Speaker 2: of Elon Musk's Space X facility in Hawthorne, California in
Speaker 2: twenty twelve.
Speaker 1: Yes, they were, And I actually looked it up and
Speaker 1: they actually were. There's a picture of him. There's like
Speaker 1: a picture of them going into the facility.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so, oh, we didn't really we never hung out
Speaker 2: and I didn't know him that Well, the fuck you didn't, Dog,
Speaker 2: that's bullshit. But anyway, we are going to get a
Speaker 2: lot more into the Elon and Epstein connections, especially when
Speaker 2: it talks to genetics and eugenics. We're going to do
Speaker 2: that probably on the next episode. And Raven Lee, she's
Speaker 2: been doing research into this for quite some time, so
Speaker 2: like it's it's big so And also I'm not saying
Speaker 2: with authority that Elon never went to the Island. I'm
Speaker 2: saying as of this moment, with the research I've done
Speaker 2: up until this point, and I have not read every
Speaker 2: single email and file, but from what I could tell,
Speaker 2: I don't the Elon ever went to the island for
Speaker 2: the purposes of partying with the children. Did he do
Speaker 2: that in Manhattan? Probably?
Speaker 1: Florida?
Speaker 2: Yeah, California probably, Like I yes, yes. All I'm saying
Speaker 2: is the Island party. I don't think Elon ever made
Speaker 2: it too.
Speaker 1: I wonder if there's proof of him going to the
Speaker 1: Zoro ranch. That's where I think he would go more
Speaker 1: than anywhere else. I know he would really, I don't
Speaker 1: really think he would give shit enough. Like obviously he
Speaker 1: tried to get on the island. Why he was denied,
Speaker 1: I find that to be really odd. But if anything,
Speaker 1: he would go to the ranch. With how much shit
Speaker 1: they're involved in when it comes to transhumanism, right and
Speaker 1: all of these things, That's where he would be going.
Speaker 1: But I mean, he's just one. I mean he is
Speaker 1: he is one of the richest people in the world.
Speaker 1: So he's one of the biggest key components. When it
Speaker 1: is when you are talking about Epstein and you are
Speaker 1: talking about these sectors, him, Gates, Zuckerberg, Teal, Epstein, and
Speaker 1: then all the other scientists involved are the people that
Speaker 1: we are going to be continuously bringing up because I
Speaker 1: know people are like you guys have a heart on
Speaker 1: for these people. Look, all I'm saying is is that
Speaker 1: we can't talk about these sectors where they've dominated all
Speaker 1: the research, and they've taken every person that has any
Speaker 1: kind of brilliant idea, they have brought them into the fold.
Speaker 1: At this point, we have to talk about these people
Speaker 1: because they've literally monopolized everything. So when it comes to AI,
Speaker 1: when it comes to genetic sequencing, when it comes to
Speaker 1: trying to create superhumans, trying to push us forward into space,
Speaker 1: human consciousness, all of these different types of factors, these
Speaker 1: names are going to be the biggest ones in this game.
Speaker 1: And I feel like there's other ones we just don't
Speaker 1: actually know about, the silent investors and who else is
Speaker 1: in the fold when it comes to this.
Speaker 2: Okay, now let's talk about a couple more of those
Speaker 2: big names here. Contending with the article, Teal, who has
Speaker 2: donated over one point two five million to Donald Trump's
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen campaign and fifteen million to JD. Vance's Senate bid,
Speaker 2: stands at the nexus of a new authoritarian regime, which
Speaker 2: he does ensuring that the company's trajectory aligns with an
Speaker 2: American first quote unquote vision prioritizing law and order enforcement
Speaker 2: over constitutional safeguards. In March of twenty twenty five, Pallunteer
Speaker 2: secured a thirty million dollar contract with ICE to quote
Speaker 2: monitor undocumented immigrants end.
Speaker 1: Quote a deal.
Speaker 2: A deal, rights advocates Warren will expand warrantless surveillance and
Speaker 2: racial profiling across border communities, which you know, I'm just saying,
Speaker 2: if you if I's paid attention to the news of
Speaker 2: what ICE has been up to these days, it's not
Speaker 2: really going too well as far as the public opinion.
Speaker 2: But anyway, in twenty twenty, both the US and UK
Speaker 2: turned to its platform to coordinate vaccine rollouts, proof that
Speaker 2: once you build the data infrastructure, it can be repurposed
Speaker 2: for almost anything. Alex krps On a apologetic cheerleader for
Speaker 2: Western militarism. His snide takes on quote unquote wokeness, which,
Speaker 2: let's be real, wokeness does suck, and his dismissal of
Speaker 2: Silicon Valley distractions have charmed a growing course of hawks
Speaker 2: and technocrats. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has been massively scaling up
Speaker 2: its investment into artificial intelligence, in a move that underscores
Speaker 2: just how central AI is becoming to the US military strategy.
Speaker 2: The Defense Department quietly expanded its contract with Palenteer, boosting
Speaker 2: the ceiling for the company's Maven smart system to nearly
Speaker 2: one point three billion dollars through twenty twenty nine. So
Speaker 2: they already wrote the check for that, and they have
Speaker 2: projections of how much and how further they wanted to
Speaker 2: go for the next at least.
Speaker 1: Three years.
Speaker 2: Jesus, so let's talk about that. Maven. Originally launched in
Speaker 2: twenty seventeen, Project Maven was pitched as a way to
Speaker 2: bring cutting edge tech into military operations. At its core,
Speaker 2: the CYM leverages AI to come through vast streams of
Speaker 2: surveillance data from satellites, drones, and other sensors, rapidly identifying
Speaker 2: and tracking objects of interest in real time. Pallenteer snapped
Speaker 2: up the contract only after Google, panicked by employee walkouts,
Speaker 2: washed its hands of the project back in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 2: So Google had this contract right. That's why, for instance,
Speaker 2: a lot of the people that were deployed were essentially
Speaker 2: using Google Earth, a more refined version of it, a
Speaker 2: more top secret security clearance version of Google Earth. But
Speaker 2: that's what they were using to get data as far
Speaker 2: as the where the bad guys were where the good
Speaker 2: guys were all these things. Pallenteers snatched that up the
Speaker 2: second Google walked away from it. So today or as
Speaker 2: a time recording twenty twenty five, Maven is already driving
Speaker 2: surveillance and targeting over Ukraine and accelerating US strikes on
Speaker 2: Hooty rocket launchers around the Red Sea. Tasks that once
Speaker 2: demanded two thousand analysis and in two thous thousand and
Speaker 2: three now require a skeleton crew of just twenty because
Speaker 2: ai dozen seconds what used to take many people working
Speaker 2: for many days to do.
Speaker 1: That's wild. I actually looked up who owns Genesis as
Speaker 1: well as we're talking about the US and government and
Speaker 1: all of these things, So Genesis, the Genesis Mission is
Speaker 1: actually owned by the United States Department of Energy. So
Speaker 1: because I've mentioned it a few times and I know
Speaker 1: most people probably haven't actually looked into it. So it's
Speaker 1: like it's built around the goal of combining government data
Speaker 1: sets with advanced computing systems. It's initiative set out to
Speaker 1: reshape research processes that will take years. It's talking about
Speaker 1: extending laboratory security protocols, next generation technology tied with local
Speaker 1: and governmental impact, and so it goes into a lot
Speaker 1: more things, but pretty much Trump is trying to win
Speaker 1: the AI race, the supercomputer race. But it's interesting as
Speaker 1: we're talking about this and how Google lost this contract
Speaker 1: and then Teal's company took over, and then this whole
Speaker 1: thing with the Data company and its databased AI collection
Speaker 1: thing that's actually gathering collection information and then utilizing it
Speaker 1: to try to find the best research and best weapons
Speaker 1: and best dot dot dot. So I think it all
Speaker 1: ties in with each other, one.
Speaker 2: Hundred percent agree. On screen right now is a screenshot
Speaker 2: from a Forbes Israel article. Last month, the board of
Speaker 2: directors of Palenteer hosted its first meeting of twenty twenty
Speaker 2: four in Tel Aviv. Palenteer hosted its first meeting of
Speaker 2: the year of twenty twenty four in Tel Aviv. Following
Speaker 2: that meeting, Palenteer agreed to a strategic partnership with the
Speaker 2: IDF to supply Palenteer technology to help the country's war effort.
Speaker 2: You will see on screen right now, some top Israeli
Speaker 2: officials and your boy Peter Thiel right now.
Speaker 1: Yes, this is a wow joke. Right What does it say?
Speaker 1: We are proud to stand with Israel?
Speaker 2: We are proud to stand along east side Israel, supporting
Speaker 2: a culture of innovation, technology and democracy. So, continuing on
Speaker 2: as Palestinians continue bleeding under AI driven strikes, the shadow
Speaker 2: of that same technology looms over the United States. The
Speaker 2: algorithms that tag a Palestinian child as an quote unquote
Speaker 2: enemy combatant can just as readily mark black Americans, immigrants,
Speaker 2: or dissidents here at home as threats. Again, you could
Speaker 2: tell the political leanings of the person who wrote this article,
Speaker 2: but please just understand it could target anyone.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's not black to everybody, But I definitely do
Speaker 1: understand the bias tone in which this was written. But
Speaker 1: I think there is warrant to what they're saying as well.
Speaker 1: I mean, it could be utilized for any group, period,
Speaker 1: doesn't I mean it could be one specific group, it
Speaker 1: could be multiple groups at targets, it could be everyone together.
Speaker 1: But I think that overall I find it to be
Speaker 1: rather interesting, this AI driven program. That's a killing program.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So, civil rights lawyers have long warned of creeping
Speaker 2: state surveillance. Today, Pallenteer stands poised to weaponize every single
Speaker 2: private datum, your voting history, your social media posts, even
Speaker 2: your grocery receipts, transforming America into a testing ground for
Speaker 2: the next wave of algorithmic repression. So we could read
Speaker 2: about the whole gaza situation, but that's not exactly what
Speaker 2: the whole conversation is as far as what we're talking
Speaker 2: about today. So rising resistance, despite the terror these systems
Speaker 2: have unleashed, Palestinians and their allies are refusing to be silent.
Speaker 2: At the Hill and Valley Forum in Washington, DC earlier
Speaker 2: this spring, a Palestinian American activist named Sumer Mura Bach
Speaker 2: storm the stage during palentteer CEO Alex Karp's keynotes, shouting,
Speaker 2: you are getting wealthy off killing Palestinians, you are killing
Speaker 2: my family and palace time. Video of her courageous interruption
Speaker 2: quickly went viral, drawing hundreds of thousands of views on
Speaker 2: TikTok and sparking coverage across major outlets. I bet you'd
Speaker 2: have a hard time finding that now that Oracle has
Speaker 2: bought it out, well, you know whatever. As Karp stumbles
Speaker 2: to respond, calling her a product of Hamas and insisting
Speaker 2: his technology only kills terrorists. With the audience stunned, silence
Speaker 2: spoke volumes.
Speaker 1: I would agree with that.
Speaker 2: So now let's talk about Palenteer's database of Americans. Palenteer's
Speaker 2: lethal footprint in Gaza foreshadows the grave risks its technology
Speaker 2: poses here at home found in two thousand and four
Speaker 2: with a two million dollar investment from the CIA's venture
Speaker 2: arm in Qtel, which good cult members, if you have
Speaker 2: not learned about in Qtel, we did an episode on
Speaker 2: that a while back. I'm not sure what the number
Speaker 2: is actually, Raven Lee. If you could look that up,
Speaker 2: it'd be great. While I'm reading this, we I had
Speaker 2: found in Qtel. Basically when the CIA lost because the
Speaker 2: CIA was the largest drug dealer in America for decades.
Speaker 2: That's that's not a joke, right, pretty much since the fifties,
Speaker 2: the CIA lost a lot of funding and they had
Speaker 2: to come up with a way to make money so
Speaker 2: they could still do the cool, sexy spy operations. So
Speaker 2: they started selling coke, they started selling heroin, they started
Speaker 2: doing all of these things. And that's a that's not
Speaker 2: even a crazy conspiracy at this point, that's by their
Speaker 2: own emission, and allegedly the War on drugs ended that
Speaker 2: that's not true. The CIA is still the number one
Speaker 2: shipper of drugs into the country. To back that. If
Speaker 2: you've ever seen Made in America where your boy Tom
Speaker 2: Cruise plays Barry Seal as a pilot who is flying
Speaker 2: in cocaine for the CIA, all of that was a.
Speaker 1: Part of this.
Speaker 2: Now, when the CIA allegedly stopped selling drugs, they needed
Speaker 2: a venture capital arm to go and invest money and
Speaker 2: make money to for the CIA so that they could
Speaker 2: fund their own operations. This is what in q tel
Speaker 2: is right, And so in two thousand and four, inc
Speaker 2: you tell Investiga you can't find.
Speaker 1: It now, I don't. It won't pull up on the
Speaker 1: pagegroon for me.
Speaker 2: Oh oh, okay, I don't remember how long ago was
Speaker 2: I say last year if you might have been two
Speaker 2: years ago. Time flies when you're having fun. But it's
Speaker 2: at the point here, So go check us out on
Speaker 2: that episode if you want. But ink you tell do
Speaker 2: your own research on that is where that came from.
Speaker 2: And so in two thousand and four, remember when I
Speaker 2: said Facebook was founded two thousand and four. Palenteer's Gotham
Speaker 2: platform was originally built to quote unquote fuse intelligence data
Speaker 2: for clandestine operations. Over the past decade, Gotham has quietly
Speaker 2: infiltrated local police fusion centers, ICE, investigative case management systems,
Speaker 2: and even the Secret Service, each integration shipping away at
Speaker 2: due process and privacy. Under the Trump administration, doze championed
Speaker 2: in part by Elon Musk's allies, Palenteer is now poised
Speaker 2: to merge social security, the IRS filings, custom and Border
Speaker 2: protection logs, DMV records, and more into a single AI
Speaker 2: powered mega API at the Department of Homeland Security. As
Speaker 2: wireds May twenty twenty five, expose a detailed that master
Speaker 2: database will do a few things. Number one, fuse personal data.
Speaker 2: Link social Security numbers to IRS tax returns, CPB travel logs,
Speaker 2: driver's license photos, and prescription histories, creating a dossier on
Speaker 2: every individual's habits, associations, and political leanings. Number two, predict
Speaker 2: threat scores quote unquote, Oh yes, apply God to no.
Speaker 2: I've we're both fucked. I be honest with you. Apply
Speaker 2: Gotham's predicted policy of policing algorithms to this unified database
Speaker 2: or data set, assigning each American a risk rating quote unquote,
Speaker 2: a behavioral index that can justify surveillance assets, seizures, or
Speaker 2: even pre emptim detention number three undermine oversight. In February
Speaker 2: of twenty twenty five, civil rights groups filed suits to
Speaker 2: block DOJ's access to IRS data, warning that this is
Speaker 2: a breach of constitutional privacy protections. Yet the administration insists
Speaker 2: its aims is to simply root out fraud quote unquote,
Speaker 2: a convenient echo of the Israeli military's claim about minimizing
Speaker 2: collateral damage, even as it continues to mass.
Speaker 1: Murder children daily.
Speaker 2: Okay, again with the leanings here, So anyway, when algorithms
Speaker 2: target people so they talk more about Israel, don't get
Speaker 2: me wrong here. In the United States, Pallanteer's data first
Speaker 2: mentality has warped community policing into a dragnet that criminalizes
Speaker 2: poverty and protest. As early as twenty sixteen, Gotham's predicted
Speaker 2: policing modules labeled neighborhoods with large black populations high risk
Speaker 2: quote unquote, fueling waves of stop and frisk and feeding
Speaker 2: local data into federal watch lists. Now, with Dooja's Mega API,
Speaker 2: the same AI that tagged a Gozantine as a combatant
Speaker 2: could tag a Muslim college student in Detroit as a
Speaker 2: potential extremist. There may be something there, but anyway, all
Speaker 2: without judicial oversight. In April twenty twenty five, ACLU report
Speaker 2: warns that if pallenteers algorithms assign scores quote unquote based
Speaker 2: on car ownership or voting frequency, we risk a Chinese
Speaker 2: style social credit system, punishing dissent and chilling free speech
Speaker 2: under the guise of public safety.
Speaker 1: And I have to agree with that. I agree, honestly,
Speaker 1: I do agree. I think that is definitely interesting. I
Speaker 1: want to can you scroll up to the paragraph ahead, Oh,
Speaker 1: is a real thing? Yeah, I just wanted to see
Speaker 1: what it said really quick, acceptable civilian casualty threshold spike
Speaker 1: from fifteen to twenty percent per strike per strike. Sorry, yeah,
Speaker 1: I just wanted to see what it said about it.
Speaker 1: I was like, hmmm, it's a it's interesting. It's an
Speaker 1: interesting code that it's using. I like how it's labeled
Speaker 1: Gotham by the way. Yeah, I was like, okay, Batman,
Speaker 1: a little Gotham city over here. This is a weird.
Speaker 1: It's definitely interesting that this is still actually being allowed
Speaker 1: to be used. But people though, I think people have
Speaker 1: come to a point where they just accept the data collection,
Speaker 1: because hell, even if you use the Walmart app for example,
Speaker 1: it tracks what you buy and if you buy it
Speaker 1: more than once, you literally have a list and it
Speaker 1: will just be like, do you want to just add
Speaker 1: all this to your list? I mean, it's tracking every
Speaker 1: single thing. It's predicting everything that you're doing at this point.
Speaker 1: And the face I D thing that's become super easy
Speaker 1: to be able to use all your stuff, the tap
Speaker 1: to pay, like all of it is tracking everything that
Speaker 1: you're doing completely. So I think people have just kind
Speaker 1: of given up at this point and you're in any
Speaker 1: conveniency for your rights.
Speaker 2: And all of this, all of this would not be
Speaker 2: possible without Jeffrey Epstein, and that has been confirmed. Beyond
Speaker 2: any this is this is a random article. And again
Speaker 2: it's very clear to see that this is a very
Speaker 2: liberal leaning article. The person who wrote this is not
Speaker 2: a fan of a few different things, and I would
Speaker 2: I would just venture to guess. I don't know this
Speaker 2: for a fact, but I would guess that the person
Speaker 2: who wrote this article is also very anti two A.
Speaker 2: I don't know that for a fact. Just got a feeling,
Speaker 2: you know, I bet the person who wrote this article
Speaker 2: really wish is that Hillary Clinton would be president, right,
Speaker 2: Like I don't know this for a fact, just got
Speaker 2: a weird feeling.
Speaker 1: They probably also believe there's.
Speaker 2: More than two genders. But but the points that it
Speaker 2: is making about Pallenteer are true. All the dates, the times,
Speaker 2: the names that are being dropped. This is accurate, regardless
Speaker 2: of political leanings, regardless of the tone of this article.
Speaker 2: And that's why I pulled it up. So all of
Speaker 2: this does tie back to Jeffrey Epstein, All of it
Speaker 2: ties back to Palenteer, and believe it or not, into
Speaker 2: the CIA with inq tel So continuing on here. So
Speaker 2: algorithms and data analytics can track disease outbreaks, forecast natural disasters,
Speaker 2: and optimize public health responses. But Palenteer's approach is built
Speaker 2: on obfuscation. The company refuses to identify its government clients,
Speaker 2: hides its source code under non disclosure agreements, and invokes
Speaker 2: a corporate mantra of we can't comment, even as it
Speaker 2: pulled in over two point seven billion dollars in federal
Speaker 2: contracts since two thousand and nine, So it's from nine
Speaker 2: to twenty twenty five, This company that was just started
Speaker 2: four pulled in two point seven billion, big boy billions
Speaker 2: in government contracts alone, not to mention all the other
Speaker 2: private equity groups that are using Pallentteer for their own purposes.
Speaker 2: This is not social media stuff, This is not any
Speaker 2: of the other This is strictly government contracts. Hey na, right,
Speaker 2: why not? Why not? All of a sudden, Oh, Peter
Speaker 2: Teele would never use this. He would never sell this
Speaker 2: to China. The fuck he wouldn't. Why wouldn't he? Why
Speaker 2: why wouldn't he? He would never use this with the Russians?
Speaker 2: Why not? I don't see why.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's gonna help he why not sell to
Speaker 1: the highest bidders? And that makes more sense to me?
Speaker 2: Exactly exactly ravenly all right, So anyway, anyway, some are infinite.
Speaker 1: The rest of that article, or the rest of that
Speaker 1: paragraph is interesting about what Peter Thiele says. I read
Speaker 1: it really quicker.
Speaker 2: This is Alex Karp who's saying, and actually so. Alex
Speaker 2: Krp boasts that his software single handedly stop the far
Speaker 2: right in Europe, ring hollow when the same system devastate
Speaker 2: Gaza and enslave American civil life under predictive algorithms. Peter Teel,
Speaker 2: who once said he's comfortable with lying about the company's
Speaker 2: operations and harbors a bias towards Israel reminds us that
Speaker 2: Palenteer's loyalties are transactional, not principled. I would agree with
Speaker 2: that for sure. I think the article only got there's
Speaker 2: a little bit left. Let's see one struggle in future.
Speaker 2: So again, from Gaza's destroyed neighborhoods to American city centers
Speaker 2: bristling with surveillance cameras, Pallentteer is the prime example of
Speaker 2: how data is weaponized against our collective humanity. When Palenteer
Speaker 2: crafts a kill liss for the IDF that slaughters Palaestinian
Speaker 2: mothers and children, and then turns that same AI towards
Speaker 2: US citizens, branding them extremists or threats to national security,
Speaker 2: a clear continuum emerges more technology that dehumanizes, marginalizes, and
Speaker 2: ultimately erases dissent. That a company funded by Jeffrey Epstein's
Speaker 2: forty milli million dollar investment in Peter Teel, still unexplained
Speaker 2: for the record, has empowered by Trump to construct what
Speaker 2: he called the largest surveillance police state in American history
Speaker 2: is no coincidence.
Speaker 1: That's a direct quote.
Speaker 2: Palenteer's AI has helped slaughter tens of thousand GAZA through
Speaker 2: algorithmic risk scores, and now lurks in the US poised
Speaker 2: to target immigrants, blacks, activists, and dissenters. Again, they keep
Speaker 2: going off of Yeah, they're obviously targeting the blacks, Palenteers
Speaker 2: targeting everybody. That's not a racial thing. Although it could
Speaker 2: be used for racial things. It could also be used
Speaker 2: for political ideations. It could be used towards gun owners,
Speaker 2: It could be used towards a certain tax bracket like I. Okay,
Speaker 2: the fight isn't against Israel Palenteer, It's against the political
Speaker 2: machine engineered for death, deception.
Speaker 1: And to erase or the erasure of freedom.
Speaker 2: Tools of oppression can also be tools of resistance if exposed, scrutinized,
Speaker 2: and morally challenged. Either we allow Palenteers to build a
Speaker 2: digital gendar marine.
Speaker 1: Okay, I actually don't know that word.
Speaker 2: Either gendarmerie, all right, Or we defend the idea of
Speaker 2: the human life and dignity lie beyond the reach of
Speaker 2: any algorithm. Okay, So moving on here. DARPA's lifelog was
Speaker 2: shut down, but Teal figured out a way for people
Speaker 2: to willingly give over their own data to his system.
Speaker 2: This is where Palanteer really came from. And that forty
Speaker 2: million dollar investment from old Jeffrey Epstein, which allegedly Peter
Speaker 2: Teal who was homies with him, didn't know anything about
Speaker 2: what was going on. Allegedly, right, totally bullshit. So now
Speaker 2: this is why Facebook beat MySpace because they had government funding, right,
Speaker 2: this is why. This is the same reason why Spotify
Speaker 2: got big, why Instagram got big, Peter Teal and DARPA,
Speaker 2: that's it. This is why certain social media platforms who
Speaker 2: or I should say that are made better and could
Speaker 2: do successfull just be great, they don't because they don't
Speaker 2: have government funding or DARPA. And believe it or not,
Speaker 2: this is why certain things go viral and certain things don't.
Speaker 2: Certain things hit on what the government thinks is okay
Speaker 2: to go viral, certain things don't. It's crazy how it
Speaker 2: all really shakes out.
Speaker 1: Really, that's really fascinating when you think about it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: about what actually is allowed to go viral verse people,
Speaker 1: because I've watched a lot of people talk about the
Speaker 1: algorithms and how do they work and trying to beat
Speaker 1: the code and all of this stuff, and how some
Speaker 1: people just randomly go multiva viral and all this crap overnight.
Speaker 1: And it's like, if you really think about the data
Speaker 1: that they're collecting and the algorithm and how they're targeting
Speaker 1: people and utilizing all of this stuff, they're purpose swaying
Speaker 1: and pushing different narratives and things based on what the
Speaker 1: top AI information data sequencing. They have to be able
Speaker 1: to hit different demographic draft demographic groups my lord, yeah,
Speaker 1: and to be able to shift and move the direction around,
Speaker 1: uh for what people are interested in and what people
Speaker 1: are going to continuously talk about, Go research, go look
Speaker 1: at it makes sense. I mean, I'm surprised that we
Speaker 1: are even allowed to put half the stuff on the
Speaker 1: Internet that we currently not just us When I say we,
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the American people that we can as
Speaker 1: of right now. I do personally feel like we're going
Speaker 1: to be shifting into a situation where a lot of
Speaker 1: our things may or may not be allowed to be pushed.
Speaker 1: But I don't think that it's going to be reaching
Speaker 1: the masses that a lot of the people are you
Speaker 1: are used to because of the algorithms. But they had
Speaker 1: to be really sneaky about it, right because they don't
Speaker 1: want to alert the people that they're infringing on all
Speaker 1: of their rights. They will trickle it down one little
Speaker 1: thing at a time to where you're just so n
Speaker 1: bothered by it. That's just like a mild inconvenience. So
Speaker 1: it's just like, yeah, okay, sure, like the iPhone updates, right,
Speaker 1: nobody really likes their phones being updated. And if you know,
Speaker 1: if you actually go in and read the updates, you
Speaker 1: have to like physically turn off a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: tracking things in your phone itself. Because there is a
Speaker 1: bunch of stuff in the iPhone updates for the last
Speaker 1: six updates.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: It's all about tracking your data, sharing your data, watching
Speaker 1: everything you're doing, and you actually physically have to go
Speaker 1: in and find it. You have to do step by
Speaker 1: step which I had a YouTube it because I'm dumb,
Speaker 1: but I step by stepped it and how to shut
Speaker 1: off all of my stuff. But most people aren't doing that,
Speaker 1: and so you're giving away literally anything in everything that
Speaker 1: is attached to you, to this database, to the to palatine,
Speaker 1: to all of these things that Peter Tiele and Epstein funded,
Speaker 1: made and created and push forward for the data collection
Speaker 1: of Now where we are at entering into with AI.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, And I'll even take it a step further. Why
Speaker 2: do you think certain music gets really big out of nowhere?
Speaker 2: Where do these quote unquote industry plants come from, right?
Speaker 2: Why do certain people get pushed to the top of
Speaker 2: the pecking order almost out of nowhere, and others that
Speaker 2: are way more talented you probably have never heard of.
Speaker 2: Why are certain movies pushed to the very tippy top
Speaker 2: of the forefront. Meanwhile, the Sound of Freedom had to
Speaker 2: be self funded by Mel Gibson because it was exposing
Speaker 2: literally everything Epstein was a doing. And it wasn't even
Speaker 2: about Epstein. It was about others just like him, but
Speaker 2: it wasn't even about him. It's this is all because
Speaker 2: the algorithms, the data that is being collected by the
Speaker 2: government is pushing certain things to push a certain narrative.
Speaker 2: The same reason why in the early nineties the government
Speaker 2: pulled in all of these young rap artists and said, hey, listen,
Speaker 2: we want you to really start leaning into the gangster
Speaker 2: rap thing, start talking about drugs and slapping hose and
Speaker 2: jail and all that. We want you to really start
Speaker 2: pushing that agenda way more heavy than you already are.
Speaker 2: And you know, if you do this, you're going to
Speaker 2: see your sales skyrocket. We're going to change some certain
Speaker 2: rules to where radio stations will play you, obviously with
Speaker 2: the cuss words bleeped out, but like we're gonna start
Speaker 2: letting this go out to where anybody can hear this,
Speaker 2: and we're gonna make this deal happen. Right, And how
Speaker 2: Ice QB's even talked about how he was pulled into
Speaker 2: that meeting, and so it's this, This goes so much
Speaker 2: deeper than just what your Amazon shopping cart randomly suggested
Speaker 2: for you. Right, This is this goes decades back, and
Speaker 2: it's going so far to where now it's and we've
Speaker 2: ran the experiment. Right, how many people have started talking
Speaker 2: about cat food around their phone when they don't own
Speaker 2: a cat, just to see how long it takes to
Speaker 2: start seeing ads and coupons for cat food start coming up.
Speaker 1: Mmm.
Speaker 2: This is all all a part of it.
Speaker 1: The sound, the sound information as well, so like the
Speaker 1: entire thing about sound science and like the hurts and
Speaker 1: all of these things and how they can change, like
Speaker 1: your actual brain pattern you can change apparently your cell
Speaker 1: like your cell your makeup as well, Like enough sound
Speaker 1: of a certain way you can change if people get depressed,
Speaker 1: if they get angry, if they get sad, if they
Speaker 1: get happy, all of these things just by the music themselves.
Speaker 1: And then on top of that, you're also brainwashing in
Speaker 1: a sense because if you hear it over and over again,
Speaker 1: there's songs that I probably haven't heard since I was
Speaker 1: a teenager that if they came on right now, I
Speaker 1: would know every single word. Yeah, exactly, but yet I
Speaker 1: can't remember, you know, something simple from a few days ago.
Speaker 1: It's very intentional, it's very interesting, and the fact that
Speaker 1: Epstein and all of his little homies were super involved
Speaker 1: in that area as well, including all of this, like
Speaker 1: it all ties together, and it all ties to that
Speaker 1: summit that you're going to talk about too Big Time,
Speaker 1: and how that was one of the key components in
Speaker 1: how we've ended up here today.
Speaker 2: Yep, I couldn't agree more. It's it's all way more
Speaker 2: connected than what people were really aware of, and believe
Speaker 2: it or not, all of it ties in to Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 2: And I don't mean in some crazy obscure way where
Speaker 2: you got to kind of you know, well, maybe if
Speaker 2: you look at it that way, and maybe they rub
Speaker 2: shoulders at a certain point. No, there's a direct chain
Speaker 2: of custody to this fucker. So let's backtrack, right, So
Speaker 2: we're talking about these things in three with DARPAH, four
Speaker 2: with Facebook, all of this, but in the spring of
Speaker 2: two thousand and two, So keep in mind September eleventh,
Speaker 2: it took place two thousand and one, a few not
Speaker 2: even six months raven not even six months after that,
Speaker 2: Jeffrey Epstein hosted a conference at his Island home for
Speaker 2: a quote unquote common Sense Symposium. When I say common
Speaker 2: sense symposium, let's talk about it. So this is an
Speaker 2: article from the ACM Digital Library. It's an AI library,
Speaker 2: essentially the Saint Thomas Common Sense Symposium Designing Architectures for
Speaker 2: Human Level Intelligence Designing Architectures for Human level Intelligence in
Speaker 2: two thousand and two. So keep in mind AI existed
Speaker 2: well before this. This was to make AI more human.
Speaker 2: Let's read into it here. This is just the abstract
Speaker 2: of it. To build a machine that has quote unquote
Speaker 2: common sense was once a principal goal in the field
Speaker 2: of artificial intelligence, but most researchers in recent years have
Speaker 2: retreated from that ambitious aim. Instead, each developed some special
Speaker 2: technique that could deal with some class of problem well
Speaker 2: but does poorly at almost everything else. We are convinced, however,
Speaker 2: that no one such that no one such method will
Speaker 2: ever turn out to be quote unquote best, and that instead,
Speaker 2: the powerful AI systems of the future will use a
Speaker 2: diverse array of resources that together will deal with a
Speaker 2: great range of problems. To build a machine that's resourceful
Speaker 2: enough to have human like common sense, we must develop
Speaker 2: ways to combine the advantage of multiple methods to represent knowledge,
Speaker 2: multiple ways to make inferences, and multiple ways to learn.
Speaker 2: We hailed a two day symposium in Saint Thomas, US
Speaker 2: Virgin Islands to discuss a project to develop a new
Speaker 2: art architectural schemes that can bridge between different strategies and representations.
Speaker 2: This article reports on these events and ideas developed at
Speaker 2: the meeting, and subsequent thoughts by authors on how to
Speaker 2: make progress. So this symposium, and it's called the common
Speaker 2: Sense Conference or the common Sense Symposium. Excuse me, that
Speaker 2: took place at little Saint James, it says Saint Thomas,
Speaker 2: But that's very inaccurate. It was at Jeffrey Epstein's home,
Speaker 2: his island home with the temple, the whole thing. He
Speaker 2: brought in, all of these tech gurus, these AI experts,
Speaker 2: and all this. Attendees included intellectual or I'm sorry, influential
Speaker 2: AI developers.
Speaker 1: Jesus, I can't even remote notes, excuse me.
Speaker 2: Attendees included the most influential AI developers on the planet,
Speaker 2: such as Marvin Minsky from MIT, who is seen as
Speaker 2: on paper he's listed.
Speaker 1: As the godfather of AI.
Speaker 2: I would argue that he's not because without Epstein's money
Speaker 2: and Epstein's connections, and we've all heard about Epstein's connections
Speaker 2: at MIT, right, which we'll talk about here in a moment.
Speaker 2: And how about ken Ford, who was former NASA and
Speaker 2: former DARPA. He was at this symposium in two thousand
Speaker 2: and two.
Speaker 1: I'm so shocked, Oh my, oh my godness. Right, I
Speaker 1: never saw this coming, geeze.
Speaker 2: So let's talk about Minski a little bit here. He's
Speaker 2: important because not only is he the founder of MIT's
Speaker 2: AI lab, but Jeffrey Epstein donated eight hundred and fifty
Speaker 2: thousand dollars between two thousand and two and twenty seventeen.
Speaker 2: Jeffrey Epstein paid seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars after
Speaker 2: his two thousand and eight conviction. So all we're all
Speaker 2: on the same page here. There's no doubts that he
Speaker 2: was clearly a registered sex offender after this point, and
Speaker 2: they still accepted seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars from him,
Speaker 2: Just so we're all on the same page, right, But
Speaker 2: that was just a MIT.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 2: Actually I should also mention MIT referred to Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 2: as Voldemort or he who should not be named. They
Speaker 2: knew exactly who he was, and that's also very you
Speaker 2: could look that up. That's not a joke. That didn't
Speaker 2: just know MIT on paper When they would refer to
Speaker 2: the money coming from Voldemort, it is because they knew
Speaker 2: that they couldn't put on paper that Jeffrey Epstein is
Speaker 2: the one that was sending them the money because he
Speaker 2: was a registered pedophile and sex offender, So they just
Speaker 2: referred to him as Voldemort even at the labs.
Speaker 1: That's crazy.
Speaker 2: He who cannot be named right to keep, to keep
Speaker 2: the integrity of MIT's crystal clear reputation, of.
Speaker 1: Course, of course, of course fake blood money, Zach official money.
Speaker 2: Right, take pedophile money, and it's just but it's it's
Speaker 2: for the greater good.
Speaker 1: It's for the growth of AI.
Speaker 2: We need a better way to spy on people and
Speaker 2: control their lives, y'all. So what if they took pedophile
Speaker 2: money as a way to enslave the entire human race?
Speaker 2: You know what I mean? Like I'm sorry, like out loud,
Speaker 2: that's that is crazy as fuck. But not even according
Speaker 2: to the emails. According to their own admission, that is
Speaker 2: what was going down.
Speaker 1: M hm.
Speaker 2: So anyway, but that was just mit. Let's not forget
Speaker 2: that Jeffrey Epstein paid six point five million dollars to Harvard,
Speaker 2: most of it to a researcher named Martin Novak, which
Speaker 2: Novak no whak. It's pronounced Novak, but it's spelled like
Speaker 2: no whak. And who is this Martin Noak? Guy Novak?
Speaker 1: Let's talk about that interesting character.
Speaker 2: An interesting character, indeed, Raven Lee. So this is from
Speaker 2: the Sunday Guardian. Who is Martin Novak? Over four thousand
Speaker 2: mentions in the emails, how Harvard's professor maintained close ties
Speaker 2: to Jeffrey Epstein's post conviction explained, So he is a
Speaker 2: Harvard professor with deep ties to Epstein and revealed in
Speaker 2: the DOJ files that six point five million dollar gift
Speaker 2: in cryptic emails private travel and Harvard sanctioned detailed. He
Speaker 2: let's get into it here. So this is the guy
Speaker 2: his all Novak And then again, this isn't even mentioning
Speaker 2: the fact that the president of Harvard was a frequent
Speaker 2: flyer to Epstein Island and has been removed from his
Speaker 2: position until they can get to the bottom of how
Speaker 2: deep his ties went.
Speaker 1: Like everything for the rest everything the old boy and Epstein,
Speaker 1: Like Epstein had a key card to tons of laboratories
Speaker 1: and his own office with him. Oh yes, from him,
Speaker 1: like he pretty much much funded all of Harbor, Harvor,
Speaker 1: I'm tired, Yeah, Harvard, havad I can't talk tonight apparently,
Speaker 1: but yeah, no, he pretty much funded multiple programs in
Speaker 1: all different departments and was heavily involved in everything for
Speaker 1: decades there.
Speaker 2: One hundred percent. So now let's read a little bit
Speaker 2: about Martin here. So a senior Harvard professor's long standing
Speaker 2: connections to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey
Speaker 2: Epstein's are laid out in thousands of pages of recently
Speaker 2: released federal records, showing a relationship that involved millions in
Speaker 2: research funding, coded messages, and travel to Epstein's estates Professor
Speaker 2: Martin Novak, a well known mathematical biologist. A well known
Speaker 2: mathematical biologist, appears more than four thousand times in the
Speaker 2: records released under the twenty twenty five Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Speaker 2: So who is this guy? Who's old? Martin Novak is
Speaker 2: an Australian born professor of math and biology at Harvard University,
Speaker 2: widely seen as a leader in evolutionary dynamics. Evolutionary dynamics
Speaker 2: these are very very very critical terms that I'm using
Speaker 2: right now. We're going to get into more here in
Speaker 2: a bit, just so s'tre clear. His research explores how
Speaker 2: cooperation develops, as well as viral systems and cancer progression.
Speaker 2: A highly cited scholar, he has worked in positions at
Speaker 2: Oxford and the Institute for Advanced Study. At Harvard, he
Speaker 2: founded and ran the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics or PED.
Speaker 2: Now PED that is a program, Like I said, program
Speaker 2: for evolutionary dynamics. This is a very fancy political way
Speaker 2: to say eugenics. Yes, there's no other way to say this.
Speaker 2: Evolutionary dynamics. So we are talking about manufacturing. Survival of
Speaker 2: the fit is to get the best results that you
Speaker 2: deem as the best results. It is. It is a
Speaker 2: very very very fancy way to say he founded and
Speaker 2: ran the program for eugenics at Harvard. That's it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, pretty much. I mean I actually pulled up the
Speaker 1: actual definition definition of it. Please do just because so
Speaker 1: like is like so bright, okay, it says. Evolutionary dynamics
Speaker 1: is a branch of mathematical evolutionary biology that developed from
Speaker 1: research using differential equations to model both genetic and phenotype
Speaker 1: phenotypic phenotypic typic sorry change. Thus is different from population
Speaker 1: genetics and quantitative genetics that focuses on genetic change, and
Speaker 1: from population dynamics that describes change in population size over time,
Speaker 1: but it does not include genetic change. The other reference
Speaker 1: it says as evolutionary dynamics refers to the study of
Speaker 1: how populations evolve over time, influenced by various factors such
Speaker 1: as reproductive competitiveness, and selection. This field combines my mathematical
Speaker 1: modeling with biological principles to understand the changes in traits
Speaker 1: and behaviors within populations. It encompasses the analysis of population dynamics,
Speaker 1: including how traits like the body size or forging strategies
Speaker 1: evolve in response to environmental pressures. So this eat and
Speaker 1: of itself is the mathematical equations of how populations can
Speaker 1: evolve or be affected. This, encompassed with genome sequencing and
Speaker 1: other evolutionary things, can in fact be used for eugenics.
Speaker 2: So it's not even that can be This is mathematical
Speaker 2: certainty eugenics. This isn't uh oh, well, we'll just make
Speaker 2: sure that all the smartest people get together over the
Speaker 2: next three three generations and we will create a nation
Speaker 2: of super geniuses. No, no, no, this is gene splicing.
Speaker 2: This is breaking things down at the DNA level to
Speaker 2: mathematically ensure that you're getting the best results possible.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna have to disagree with you. That's not entirely
Speaker 1: inherent with the evolutionary dynamics means.
Speaker 2: That's what his version of it was.
Speaker 1: It is a version, well, it includes a lot more.
Speaker 1: When you need the quantitative genetics to be able to
Speaker 1: add that in and the population genetics and also the
Speaker 1: sequencing to be able to create eugenics in and of itself,
Speaker 1: this is well, you know that evolutionary dynamic thing it's
Speaker 1: self is a branch of mathematical evaluation. So it's evaluating
Speaker 1: the biology in which the components get changed or influenced
Speaker 1: by outside factors. And so you're factoring in in a
Speaker 1: ratio mathematical way to see production levels, competitive levels, if
Speaker 1: there is if starvation happens, what are the traits that
Speaker 1: might change if there is a variant in air quality, water,
Speaker 1: food quality. How does that play into the genome? How
Speaker 1: does our DNA actually respond to it, and what traits
Speaker 1: evolve from it? Can behaviors of the population be tracked
Speaker 1: mathematically to determine what is coming next?
Speaker 2: Gotcha?
Speaker 1: If that makes any sense? Like, you are correct, because yes,
Speaker 1: they did utilize this as a component to create eugenics,
Speaker 1: and it is a part of their eugenic per but
Speaker 1: in and of itself is not the key principle. So
Speaker 1: the key principles of this it of course it pops up.
Speaker 1: It won't tell it. It won't tell it actually, because there's
Speaker 1: like a key principle fact that I was going to
Speaker 1: read that's pretty easy to understand, but it sucks because
Speaker 1: it's yahoo.
Speaker 2: Gotcha?
Speaker 1: Gotcha?
Speaker 2: Anyway? Okay, so he's the one that founded Harvard's Program
Speaker 2: for Evolutionary Dynamics or PED, right, and again, that's a
Speaker 2: very fancy way of just saying he developed Harvard's eugenics program.
Speaker 2: That's it. So now, Jeffrey Epstein and no Whak Novak
Speaker 2: rather had a close, long standing financial and personal relationship
Speaker 2: that persisted even after his two thousand and eight conviction.
Speaker 2: Major funding. In two thousand and three, Epstein provided a
Speaker 2: six point five million dollar gift to establish the eugenics
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna say ped I'm gonna say the eugenics
Speaker 2: at Harvard, which Novak led. This constituted the bulk of
Speaker 2: Epstein's nine point one million in donations to the university.
Speaker 2: So basically two thirds of all of Epstein's donations to
Speaker 2: Harvard were specifically done for their eugenics lab. So Epstein
Speaker 2: kept a private office in the Eugenics building for almost
Speaker 2: ten years, visiting more than forty times between twenty ten
Speaker 2: and twenty eighteen, in spite of his sentence. Now the
Speaker 2: cryptic emails. The files include a twenty fourteen email exchange
Speaker 2: where Novak wrote to Epstein, our spy was captured after
Speaker 2: completing her mission. Epstein replied, did you torture her? The
Speaker 2: context remains unexplained. What spy, what mission? And why would
Speaker 2: Epstein ask if she was tortured? Novak has not commented
Speaker 2: on this now they're personal ties. Correspondence shows Novak stayed
Speaker 2: at Epstein's New York apartment, thanked Jizlain Maxwell for amazing hospitality,
Speaker 2: and was planned beneficiary for a five million dollar bequest
Speaker 2: from Epstein just days before his death alleged death. Of course, now,
Speaker 2: private travel emails detail arrangements for Novak to and a
Speaker 2: companion to fly to Saint Thomas, near Epstein's private island,
Speaker 2: in twenty twelve and twenty fourteen. So what was the
Speaker 2: impact on Novak's career at Harvard? In twenty twenty, Harvard's
Speaker 2: disciplinary action was taken on Novak after conducting an internal
Speaker 2: review of its Epstein ties. In twenty twenty one, Harvard
Speaker 2: placed Novak on paid administrative leave, barring or barred him
Speaker 2: from undergraduate supervision for two years, and permanently closed their
Speaker 2: eugenics lab. Their reinstatement, all sanctions were lifted in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty three. Novak remains a tenured professor with joint appointment
Speaker 2: appointments rather in mathematics and organismic and evolutionary by so
Speaker 2: he got a two year slap on the wrist. He
Speaker 2: was paid the entire time, and now he's back to
Speaker 2: doing what he was doing beforehand, although allegedly their ped
Speaker 2: lab aka Eugenics Lab was shut down. Not exactly right now, colleague. Defense,
Speaker 2: Some like Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, argued Novak was scapegoaded,
Speaker 2: claiming the administration encouraged your relationship to secure Epstein's funding.
Speaker 2: And I would agree with that, especially now that we
Speaker 2: know that Harvard's president was also tied in with Epstein.
Speaker 2: I got a hard time believing that the top brass
Speaker 2: at Harvard actually gave a fuck about this. They wanted
Speaker 2: that money too.
Speaker 1: I did find something interesting that Jeffrey Epstein makes totally
Speaker 1: from ninety eight to two thousand and seven's nine point
Speaker 1: one seven pretty much nine point two million dollars he
Speaker 1: gave Harvard.
Speaker 2: But six point one of that was strictly to eugenics.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So what is Novak's current situation. He has not
Speaker 2: been accused of any criminal wrongdoing in relation to Epstein.
Speaker 2: He continues his academic work at Harvard. He's still working there.
Speaker 2: The university has stated that as twenty twenty review and
Speaker 2: subsequent actions concluded its investigation into the matter, so you know,
Speaker 2: it's just one of those things, some one of those
Speaker 2: things raven nothing more to see here. So it's also
Speaker 2: worth mentioning as we're talking about evolution and things like that.
Speaker 2: No Fact and Jeffrey Epstein were obsessed with the concept
Speaker 2: of reverse Darwinism. Does this term ring a bell to you?
Speaker 1: Yes? And also longevity of life he funded so that
Speaker 1: when we talk online this will be a huge talking
Speaker 1: point as well. He was obsessed with a lot of
Speaker 1: aspects when it comes to the physical human body and
Speaker 1: what he could do and what limits he could push.
Speaker 1: So yeah, this is definitely on par for him right now,
Speaker 1: very much so.
Speaker 2: So for those that don't know what reverse Darwinism is,
Speaker 2: it is essentially the theory that the more humans rely
Speaker 2: on technology, the weaker we become as a species. And
Speaker 2: we've used this before as an example. Growing up, I knew,
Speaker 2: I mean grants, I was a child, but I could
Speaker 2: instantly tell you probably twenty to thirty phone numbers because
Speaker 2: I didn't have a way of remembering it. I didn't
Speaker 2: have a phone. I didn't have a little phone book
Speaker 2: in my pocket at all times, so I had to
Speaker 2: remember my home number. I needed to remember my mom's
Speaker 2: work number. I needed to remember my mom's cell phone number,
Speaker 2: my dad's work number, my dad's selphone number, my school office.
Speaker 2: I had to remember all of these numbers in case
Speaker 2: something happened right now. I couldn't tell you, but maybe
Speaker 2: three or four phone numbers. Real shit, because we have
Speaker 2: relied more heavily on our phone book, in our cell
Speaker 2: phones than our own memory banks for this. And that's
Speaker 2: a small example. That's a micro example, but let's take
Speaker 2: that to the macro. As much as humans rely on
Speaker 2: air conditioning, the theory as far as reverse Darwinism is
Speaker 2: we will become so bad at regulating our own body
Speaker 2: temperature in nature because we rely too heavily on heating
Speaker 2: and air conditioning to do so. For us, we rely
Speaker 2: so heavily on filtered water from our refrigerator that our
Speaker 2: stomach and our gut biome is weakened to where we
Speaker 2: cannot handle harsher water. It goes to a lot of
Speaker 2: levels here, But your boy Novak and Epstein were both
Speaker 2: obsessed with reverse Darwinism, and their intentions as far as
Speaker 2: the eugenics conversation was to make the best top tier
Speaker 2: alpha dynamic human being species they possibly.
Speaker 1: Could, yes, yes, as a way to combat.
Speaker 2: The technology by using the technology. It's very strange.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's a lot of components to his obsession with
Speaker 1: different aspects of things.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I didn't realize this that Epstein actually got other investors
Speaker 1: to donate almost eight million dollars to this program as well.
Speaker 1: But they don't quote they didn't trace it back to
Speaker 1: being with Epstein, but it literally says Epstein's buddies, like
Speaker 1: his friends, were the ones that donated more more to
Speaker 1: this as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, oh, one hundred percent. And especially once again, Jeffrey
Speaker 2: Epstein was the finance guy. He was a money laundering guy,
Speaker 2: and donating money to academia is a really big write off.
Speaker 2: That's a that's a great way for the rich to
Speaker 2: you know, fund something and you know, do some things
Speaker 2: with their money to keep the government off their ass.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I could see him finding a couple of
Speaker 2: people to donate a few dollars here and there towards
Speaker 2: the cost he believed in, which also helped balance their
Speaker 2: books a bit. Sure. Why not.
Speaker 1: Is Benedict Gross one of the people that you've heard about.
Speaker 2: The name is familiar, but I don't have him in
Speaker 2: my notes for this episode. Tell me more about this guy.
Speaker 1: So he's just one of the individuals that Jeffrey pushed
Speaker 1: forward with Harvard as well to be one of Novak's buddies.
Speaker 1: And his whole thing is what is his is the
Speaker 1: imaginative proposal for the establishment of a program for evolutionary
Speaker 1: dynamics at Harvard. So there is Yeah, so he was
Speaker 1: one of the homies for this. So Novak was the
Speaker 1: facility's director of the program. But Gross is the one
Speaker 1: that actually pushed forward, one of the individuals along with Jeffrey,
Speaker 1: who push forward the imaginative proposal for this program in
Speaker 1: and of itself. And then obviously the dean of the
Speaker 1: Facility of Arts and Science, William Kirby at Harvard his
Speaker 1: inception of two thousand and three, he oversaw the establishment
Speaker 1: in the entire program. He also took a bunch of
Speaker 1: money from him. Drew Faust was the president of Harvard
Speaker 1: at University in two thousand and eight when Jeffrey was
Speaker 1: convicted of sex crimes. She made the decision that Harvard
Speaker 1: no longer could accept direct gifts from Epstein's following his conviction.
Speaker 1: So I think they went in a roundabout way to
Speaker 1: be able to give money to at least the program. Still, sure,
Speaker 1: there's all sorts of people that were like inherently involved.
Speaker 1: There's a long list, like A. EO. Wilson is a
Speaker 1: prominent biologist and co author of Novak's work, and the
Speaker 1: controversial paper that they wrote was the Nature paper that
Speaker 1: argued standard natural selection theory was a simpler and more
Speaker 1: effective approach to understanding evolution of the I don't know
Speaker 1: how to say this word. It's euso. It's like ESO societal.
Speaker 1: It's a really weird word. That kin selection theory pretty
Speaker 1: much is what it is, and that's what this whole
Speaker 1: program is based on. Is this theory, this kin selection
Speaker 1: theory too. And so it's it's interesting. There's a bunch
Speaker 1: of people. There's like listed forty people that were all
Speaker 1: involved throughout the years with this whole program, not including
Speaker 1: at the same time that this is happening, my boy
Speaker 1: church is going on as well. So there is multiple
Speaker 1: programs happening like literally side by side by side at
Speaker 1: Harvard that he's funding tons of money into, no doubt. Now,
Speaker 1: I just want people to understand that one hundred percent with.
Speaker 2: You on this And that's the thing. Of the nine
Speaker 2: million that he gave, six went to the eugenics There
Speaker 2: was other programs that were getting that money for sure.
Speaker 1: And so Church is a part of the eugenic program
Speaker 1: as well. Actually he is the eugenics program.
Speaker 2: Oh shit, oh shit, that's not good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, he is the actual So he is in
Speaker 1: incredibly intelligent but no, yeah, he's and he has severe
Speaker 1: dyslexia too, by the way. And that's just a random
Speaker 1: little tidbit.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all right, So and we are going to do
Speaker 2: an entire episode as far as Epstein and eugenics and
Speaker 2: the gene splicing and the chrispers and we're going to
Speaker 2: do that on a on an episode very soon in
Speaker 2: the future. But I didn't want to make the mention
Speaker 2: as far as these these conversations go. I did want
Speaker 2: to get that little bit of a tidbit. But now
Speaker 2: let's get back to this whole AI conversation. Right, So
Speaker 2: earlier we mentioned Facebook. Now you may be wondering, what's
Speaker 2: the connection to DARPA, Facebook and Jeffrey Epstein. Enter a
Speaker 2: man by the name of John Poindexter. Now I know
Speaker 2: that name. The name is the jokes, right themselves. I
Speaker 2: understand that, But who is John Poindexter laboratory? No, No,
Speaker 2: who is John Poindexter? And why the fuck am I
Speaker 2: bringing him up at this time? So he is a
Speaker 2: retired United States Naval officer and Department of Defense official.
Speaker 2: He was Deputy National Security Advisor and National Security Advisor
Speaker 2: during the Reagan administration. He was convicted in April of
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety of multiple felonies as a result of his
Speaker 2: actions in the Iran contra affair. So he's as far
Speaker 2: as like being one of the government's boys, Like he
Speaker 2: absolutely is down to clown when it comes to doing
Speaker 2: some dirty shit on behalf of Uncle Sam. He's that guy.
Speaker 2: No doubts about this. But anyway, multiple felonies for that,
Speaker 2: but they were reversed on an appeal in nineteen ninety one.
Speaker 2: Crazy how that works out. During the George W. Bush administration,
Speaker 2: he served a brief stint as the director of the
Speaker 2: DARPA Information Awareness Office. He is the father of a
Speaker 2: NASA astronaut and US Naval Captain, Alan G. Poindexter. Now,
Speaker 2: before I tell y'all the connection as far as as
Speaker 2: John Poindexter and all these things go, I feel like
Speaker 2: this is important. He served a brief stint as the
Speaker 2: director of the DARPA Information Awareness Office Ravenly have you
Speaker 2: ever heard of this?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: No, I'm gonna click on this link actually and show
Speaker 2: you the logo for the Information Awareness Office of DARPA.
Speaker 2: And I would love to hear what your two cents
Speaker 2: are on this one. Oh, that's not the one you're ready.
Speaker 2: That's their logo.
Speaker 1: Of course, it's all seen I like. Of course, it
Speaker 1: couldn't be anything else that's staring over the entire earth.
Speaker 2: For anybody who is just listening and not watching and
Speaker 2: seeing what we're talking about. First of all, you need
Speaker 2: to be a Patreon to see this ship for yourself, Okay,
Speaker 2: but I'll do my best to describe it, and also
Speaker 2: please look it up Information Awareness Office, DARPA Total Wikipedia page.
Speaker 2: Just take two seconds. It's worth a Google. This is
Speaker 2: the globe being oversaw like a spotlight from the eye
Speaker 2: of Providence over an unfinished pyramid. You know what that is,
Speaker 2: right now? That's the Masonic logos, one hundred percent true.
Speaker 1: But I'll give you a hint, and it has to
Speaker 1: do with Lord of the Rings.
Speaker 2: The Eye of Sauron.
Speaker 1: Yes, I'm literally exactly how it looks over and scans
Speaker 1: is like, you couldn't make this more identical, but it's
Speaker 1: just you know why, it's a nerd. I'm also a nerd,
Speaker 1: but like that's just me. So.
Speaker 2: The Information Awareness Office was established by the United States
Speaker 2: DARPA in January two thousand and two to bring together
Speaker 2: several DARPA projects focused on applying surveillance and information technology
Speaker 2: to track and monitor terrorists and other asymmetric threats to
Speaker 2: the US national security by achieving total information awareness. It
Speaker 2: was achieved by creating enormous compew to database computer databases
Speaker 2: to gather and store the personal information of everyone in
Speaker 2: the United States, including personal emails, social networks, credit card reports,
Speaker 2: phone calls, medical records, and numerous other sources without any requirement.
Speaker 1: For a search warrant.
Speaker 2: No search warrant needed to just get all of this
Speaker 2: information on everybody, not some people, everyone. The information was
Speaker 2: then analyzed for suspicious activities, connections between individuals, and quote
Speaker 2: unquote threats. The program also included funding for biometric surveillance
Speaker 2: technologies that could identify and track individuals using surveillance cameras
Speaker 2: and other methods. So this guy John Poindexter was briefly
Speaker 2: in charge of this group for DARPA.
Speaker 1: Now that's not weird, not what, not even a little
Speaker 1: bit here, not even strange at all. So let's talk
Speaker 1: about your boy here.
Speaker 2: So Poindexter met with Peter Teel in two thousand and
Speaker 2: four and purposed using palent here to catch terrorists quote unquote.
Speaker 2: And I'm being very quote unquote about this because keep
Speaker 2: in mind, right after the Patriot Act was released and
Speaker 2: we understood the government was listening to anybody that they
Speaker 2: deemed a threat, who they deemed terrorists, was the terms
Speaker 2: and conditions got a little loosey goosey on these details, obviously.
Speaker 1: I mean, but you could you could deem anybody a terrorist.
Speaker 1: Any kind of language against the government or whatever it
Speaker 1: is that you're doing can be deemed a terrorist thing.
Speaker 1: So I mean, you're absolutely Mom and Paul down the
Speaker 1: street having a cup of coffee and talking about how
Speaker 1: the governments ran by these satanic pedophiles. Technically you're you're
Speaker 1: speaking ill against the you know, the entire government body,
Speaker 1: and that's terroristic activity. Absolutely, absolutely so everybody can get
Speaker 1: arrested this point.
Speaker 2: So essentially they were doing this to catch terrorists by
Speaker 2: data mining for fraud detention opera or detection operations. Let
Speaker 2: me break this down. Poindexter in two thousand and four
Speaker 2: got with Peter Thiele to use Palenteer to track people's
Speaker 2: financial statements to see if somebody was making purchases of
Speaker 2: certain items that could possibly be listed as terroristic. And
Speaker 2: he said that he was doing this to find sleeper
Speaker 2: sell activities, right, because I mean, it doesn't take much
Speaker 2: information to learn that you can make some very sophisticated
Speaker 2: explosives with some very easily acquireable materials, right, And most
Speaker 2: of these things you could just buy online, or you
Speaker 2: could just go to your local hardware store and if
Speaker 2: you know what you're looking for, you can buy bolt
Speaker 2: quantities and all these things. But if you're paying with
Speaker 2: cash and you're spacing out for a couple stores, whatever
Speaker 2: the case is. But they where he wanted to use
Speaker 2: Pallenteer to track people's spending to see which things would
Speaker 2: be a red flag, and he said that he was
Speaker 2: doing this to look for terrorists. And they use the
Speaker 2: Patriot Act to justify these actions. To this day, the
Speaker 2: CIA says that the number one source of information that
Speaker 2: they use on American public comes from apps like Facebook, Instagram, Spotify, LinkedIn, PayPal,
Speaker 2: and now TikTok. The CIA openly admits this is it
Speaker 2: in like some sort of a crazy, underhanded secret.
Speaker 1: I just don't think anybody cares though. That's the thing,
Speaker 1: because if you don't use all of these scenes, it's
Speaker 1: quite difficult to function in our world now. Truth truth,
Speaker 1: So I mean they've made it. They've made it to
Speaker 1: where not only is it socially frowned upon because people
Speaker 1: look at you like you're strange if you don't have
Speaker 1: these things, but but also you have a hard time
Speaker 1: staying connected. Like for example, kids as schools, they put
Speaker 1: up all the information for what's happening on the Facebook page.
Speaker 1: They put up the letter for the week, they put
Speaker 1: up if there's gonna be any changes that are happening,
Speaker 1: they put up, the bus schedule they put up there.
Speaker 1: You know, if they have pbis, wearing special things. They
Speaker 1: put up all of this stuff on Facebook. They don't
Speaker 1: send letters home anymore like they used to. They used
Speaker 1: to print stuff out and then they would send it home,
Speaker 1: and now they don't do that, so they put it
Speaker 1: on the Facebook. So if you don't have Facebook, then
Speaker 1: you're not connected to your kids' school exactly. Also same
Speaker 1: with sports. Now you can't just go to the websites.
Speaker 1: They have websites up, but you won't know when the
Speaker 1: registration is because they only put it on Facebook. Or
Speaker 1: if you're doing for example, like Marti gross stuff, you
Speaker 1: had like to find all the lists, you need to
Speaker 1: have a Facebook. So they've made it to where now
Speaker 1: we're reliant upon these things, yes, especially the transactional things.
Speaker 1: Everyone's like, well, what's your LinkedIn profile? You know, you
Speaker 1: can't apply for jobs without this Lincoln profile or indeed
Speaker 1: or this or that or this, and also it h
Speaker 1: the financial thing is a whole big thing in and
Speaker 1: of itself. Hell, you can't even hardly pay rent unless
Speaker 1: you use Zell or mainly Zel but you know whatever, Zell,
Speaker 1: Venmo all this stuff. You can't buy goods, you can't
Speaker 1: go to farmer's markets. You know, they don't really take
Speaker 1: cash a lot of places anymore. So it's smart, it's
Speaker 1: really ingenious. I'll give them that.
Speaker 2: And to further that ingenuity right later on LinkedIn co
Speaker 2: founder Reid Hoffman Heild at dinner where Musk Teal Zuck
Speaker 2: Jeffrey Epstein, all the top shtheads got together and they
Speaker 2: decided that cryptocurrency was going to be the way of
Speaker 2: the future. And we talked about that in a form
Speaker 2: of episode not too long ago. Cryptocurrency is the brain
Speaker 2: child of these shitheads, including Jeffrey Epstein, and all of
Speaker 2: it was to send mass amounts of money from point
Speaker 2: A to point B and let it not be tracked
Speaker 2: by anybody. Okay, now, remember we talked about that guy,
Speaker 2: I forget his name, Dan something, who was talking about
Speaker 2: how if you knew who owned crypto or who owned bitcoin,
Speaker 2: it would plummet.
Speaker 1: Right, Oh, the white guy with a nice suit.
Speaker 2: Yeah too. As of time of recording, Bitcoin recently dropped
Speaker 2: five percent in two hours. It dropped twenty eight percent
Speaker 2: in the past month. It has dropped forty four percent
Speaker 2: in the last six months. It is on the decline
Speaker 2: and it is not slowing down. If anything, it's it's
Speaker 2: exponentially getting faster.
Speaker 1: Good. I agree.
Speaker 2: Good.
Speaker 1: I personally don't think that we should be moving towards
Speaker 1: digital currency. I think that once that happens, we are
Speaker 1: all screwed big time, right, because then then they can
Speaker 1: just they can just shut everything off. That was a
Speaker 1: big thing. If anybody be remembers with the Canadians doing
Speaker 1: the the truckers driving across and protesting and stuff, they
Speaker 1: were like holding up their bank accounts yep, and things
Speaker 1: like that. So I mean, you know that they're going
Speaker 1: to do this. It's not a hidden thing. So if
Speaker 1: they push forward, especially how England is like hell bent
Speaker 1: on pushing this into fruition but pretty much happening, then
Speaker 1: we know this is probably something we shouldn't be doing.
Speaker 1: And the fact that all these shitheads are the ones
Speaker 1: that invented it. Plus you know Fink is Elon's like home,
Speaker 1: me home. I mean, they were just they were just
Speaker 1: sitting at the World Economic Forum joking around back and
Speaker 1: forth with each other about how much of what is
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not oh yeah, it's not even just that,
Speaker 1: but like they were just joking around with each other,
Speaker 1: like if people can't simply draw the connections themselves, Like
Speaker 1: I understand listening to people that are involved in conspiracy theories,
Speaker 1: you think they're crazy, but you could literally just look
Speaker 1: at this you're self and really be like, you know,
Speaker 1: they sure all seem pretty chummy together. The money all
Speaker 1: seems to trail back and forth between each other. Epstein
Speaker 1: seems to be the center person of all of this.
Speaker 1: Maybe what they're pushing forward is not a positive thing
Speaker 1: for humanity.
Speaker 2: I'm glad once again we have been vindicated. The conspiracy
Speaker 2: community has been vindicated.
Speaker 1: And I can't on the deaths of millions or thousands, probably, but.
Speaker 2: I understand that I'm not happy that we were right
Speaker 2: about these things. But also we have been saying it
Speaker 2: for years, even before the cult of conspiracy was a thing.
Speaker 2: And I'm not talking about just Jacob. I'm not talking
Speaker 2: about just Raven, I'm not talking about Jonathan. I'm talking
Speaker 2: about people who have been looking into conspiracies for years
Speaker 2: and years and years, have been trying to get this
Speaker 2: word out. And now so many people are like, yo,
Speaker 2: I'll be real with y'all. I think we owe the
Speaker 2: conspiracy theorist in a Poulo because they were right about
Speaker 2: like everything, there's tons of not just comedians, not just
Speaker 2: TV personalities, all these things. They're like, Okay, you know,
Speaker 2: perhaps we should be listening to a whit conspiracy theories
Speaker 2: a little bit seriously, because like, yeah, no shit, sharelock.
Speaker 2: We've been saying it forever.
Speaker 1: The problem is a conveniency aspect that they have created
Speaker 1: with AI and the need for the technology in a
Speaker 1: world where technology is so prevalent, it's making it challenging
Speaker 1: for people to actually stand up and also break the
Speaker 1: cycle of conveniency. That's the problem. So they know now
Speaker 1: one hundred percent. Wayfair never went out of business. No,
Speaker 1: Wayfair never went out of business. Like, let's really just
Speaker 1: like reiterate this. We all know that Wayfair was selling children. Yeah,
Speaker 1: children that were taken, missing children that were taken, proven
Speaker 1: that they were. Wayfair never stopped selling Etsy proven to
Speaker 1: be selling children as paintings and has never let up once. Never,
Speaker 1: people have not stopped buying from Etsy. You're creating Etsy
Speaker 1: shops at all.
Speaker 2: Course, Pizzagate has now been confirmed to be a real thing.
Speaker 2: For the past I would say maybe ten years that
Speaker 2: was laughed at. Oh you mean that whole Pizzagate thing,
Speaker 2: you know, No, no, no, the fucking Pizzagate thing. Dog,
Speaker 2: that's a real thing. Everybody laughed, They made jokes about it,
Speaker 2: they blasted on the on the news and all these things.
Speaker 2: Oh oh so you're one of those q tarts. Oh
Speaker 2: you're one of those Pizzagate believers. It's like Yeah, you're
Speaker 2: underplaying something very very serious the same way they underplayed wayfair.
Speaker 2: The common pizza joint, if I'm not mistaken, is still.
Speaker 1: Open own by the same I would even doubt it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, even though it's now been confirmed.
Speaker 1: Pessa has a fucking video of him or sturing a
Speaker 1: child and he's not arrested and put in jail.
Speaker 2: John say, and I pulled that up on an episode
Speaker 2: years ago. But like, that's a real thing.
Speaker 1: It's a real video. It's circulating, it's making its rounds
Speaker 1: again right now because the Clintons are obviously are supposed
Speaker 1: to testify and all this stuff. So okay, so you
Speaker 1: have actual proof, and yet this person has been walking
Speaker 1: for you this whole time. I don't know what it's
Speaker 1: going to take for people to understand that, Like maybe
Speaker 1: we really should be opening our eyes up to what
Speaker 1: is the actual narratives and what have they been working
Speaker 1: on all this time. That's what's the scary part, is
Speaker 1: what they've been working on and how successful they have
Speaker 1: been in the background while we have continued to be
Speaker 1: little worker bees and working and just trying to survive.
Speaker 2: The scary part is that they have had whistleblowers come
Speaker 2: forward and talk about this raven cut to Edward Snowden
Speaker 2: warned us that these things were going on.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he got slayed.
Speaker 2: He's still living in Russia for fear of his life.
Speaker 2: Because even though even now, even now, as we are
Speaker 2: talking about the Epstein connections, the Bitcoin connections, eugenics connections,
Speaker 2: AI connections, the whole ring of pedophiles, all of this,
Speaker 2: the spying on us. They have been using Facebook, PayPal,
Speaker 2: everything to spy on the American people. Four years Snowden
Speaker 2: blew the whistle on this and was ousted, and still
Speaker 2: to this day, the government will not allow him to
Speaker 2: come back home, even though like, oh, we'll totally take
Speaker 2: you back home. He's like, yeah, you can get fucked
Speaker 2: because I guarantee I'm going to be found dead somewhere.
Speaker 2: So let's read about that. Right, So, the NSA continues
Speaker 2: to violate American's Internet privacy rights. This was written in
Speaker 2: twenty eighteen, but again, this all ties back to Epstein.
Speaker 2: All of this ties back to Epstein. Let's get into
Speaker 2: it here. So a federal court will be scrutinizing one
Speaker 2: of the National Security Agency's worst spying program on Monday.
Speaker 2: The case has the potential to restore crucial privacy protections
Speaker 2: for the millions of Americans who use the Internet to
Speaker 2: communicate with friends, family, and others overseas. Yeah, Unfortunately that
Speaker 2: didn't happen, right because Edward Snowden was telling everybody about PRISM.
Speaker 2: The unconstitutional surveillance program at issue is called PRISM, under
Speaker 2: which the NSA, FBI, and CIA gather and search through
Speaker 2: Americans international emails, internet calls, and chats without obtaining a warrant.
Speaker 2: When Edward Snowden blew the whistle on PRISM in twenty thirteen,
Speaker 2: the program included at least nine major Internet companies, including Facebook, Google, Apple,
Speaker 2: and Skype. So once again the connections. As far as
Speaker 2: how Facebook got started based off of a ADARPA program
Speaker 2: to spyle on the American people, this was proven in
Speaker 2: twenty thirteen. They were using PRISM to do it. Nobody
Speaker 2: paid attention, nobody cared. Today it is very likely that
Speaker 2: includes an even broader set of companies. So the government
Speaker 2: insists that it uses this program to target foreigners, but
Speaker 2: that's only half the picture. In reality, it uses PRISM
Speaker 2: as a backdoor into americans private communications, violating the Fourth
Speaker 2: Amendment on a massive scale. We don't know the total
Speaker 2: number of Americans affected even today because the government has
Speaker 2: refused to provide any estimate. This type of unjustifiable secrecy
Speaker 2: has also helped the program eve a public judicial review
Speaker 2: of its legality because the government also are excuse me,
Speaker 2: almost never tells the people that it's spied on them
Speaker 2: without a warrant. Indeed, the government has a track record
Speaker 2: of failing to tell Americans about this spying, even when
Speaker 2: the person in charged or is charged with a crime
Speaker 2: based on the surveillance. That's one reason why this case
Speaker 2: is so important. This time the government has admitted to
Speaker 2: the spine and that's the thing, this absolutely thing. So
Speaker 2: we talked about this before too near us, just one
Speaker 2: parish over, there was a police officer, his wife was
Speaker 2: a teacher out of high school. They were doing horrible
Speaker 2: shit to children and they were making like he was
Speaker 2: coming into cupcake batter and his wife was making these
Speaker 2: cupcakes and bringing it to these kids and all this
Speaker 2: for years and years and years. There was pictures. There
Speaker 2: was abuse that was happening to these kids. They were
Speaker 2: bringing home these high school girls and doing unspeakable shit
Speaker 2: to them. They also were producing child porn and distributing it.
Speaker 2: All this they were caught from spying from the Patriot Act.
Speaker 2: So like that is a case where this was absolutely
Speaker 2: being used for a good purpose. But that's the one
Speaker 2: in a million. The reality of it is that this
Speaker 2: was being done by the pedophilic elite to the American public,
Speaker 2: and every now and then they had to throw the
Speaker 2: American public a bone. But even when they were under
Speaker 2: a being tried, they said that this was obtained through surveillance.
Speaker 2: They never actually admitted that it was through the Patriot Act,
Speaker 2: even though that's clearly what it was. If it walks
Speaker 2: like a duck and quacks like a duck, but either
Speaker 2: way it goes. They just say that they found this
Speaker 2: on them, and here we go. They never expressly said
Speaker 2: that it was from government surveillance like that. They waited too,
Speaker 2: Yes they did, Yes, they waited.
Speaker 1: They had because they had gotten a tip and they
Speaker 1: and she is the reasons why she is the actual
Speaker 1: reason why nobody in this state can bring any food
Speaker 1: from outside that's not completely sealed to anything at all
Speaker 1: to the school because of her. Yep, and it's it's
Speaker 1: really the whole story is horrific. And the child porn
Speaker 1: that they were creating and all this stuff, like they
Speaker 1: waited and he was that and other people in the
Speaker 1: department had heard rumors about him, but they didn't come
Speaker 1: forward with anything as well. So the surveillance, you can't
Speaker 1: because they have triggers in set set in to people
Speaker 1: looking up child porn, you get flagged. Yep, Like in
Speaker 1: the systems, you're being monitored. Everything is being monitored. You
Speaker 1: can't tell me that people are just happily watching child
Speaker 1: porn or creating it and then uploading it to the
Speaker 1: dark web, and they're not being flagged right away, like
Speaker 1: you're as soon as you even distribute though or watch
Speaker 1: like intake it. You should be getting charged instead of
Speaker 1: just sitting on these people for months and months and
Speaker 1: months or years on end while you can see them
Speaker 1: abusing people, abusing children, and then like you're just building
Speaker 1: a stronger case. No, you should be one and done.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there should.
Speaker 1: Be no building a case. Apparently there's another lady that
Speaker 1: just was charged last week for horrific and it's the
Speaker 1: terms are horrific child pornography. And according to the news,
Speaker 1: they had information for like over a year that potentially
Speaker 1: she was creating this stuff and it's like, wait, so
Speaker 1: you sat around a year while children were being horrifically
Speaker 1: abused for what purpose? Now if this isn't like I
Speaker 1: understand being able to use this in a sense of
Speaker 1: certain things. The problem is is there's no ethical boundaries
Speaker 1: when it comes to the Patriot Act. Who is enforcing
Speaker 1: enforcing ethics when there is no there no no one's
Speaker 1: check and balancing it. It's just we own this technology,
Speaker 1: We're gonna use it how we see fit. No one's
Speaker 1: holding any ethics to this. There's no framework when it
Speaker 1: comes to oh, you know, it's there's a loose framework,
Speaker 1: but no one is actually checking and balancing the government
Speaker 1: and ensuring the safety and privatecy of the citizens. Because hell,
Speaker 1: most of the people don't even know that their shit's
Speaker 1: like it's like a long standing joke at this point, like, oh,
Speaker 1: if you talk next to your phone, your phone's gonna
Speaker 1: pick up your shit. Ha ha ha though, but it is real.
Speaker 1: But like it's a long standing joke though now throughout
Speaker 1: America that we all know that is going to do this,
Speaker 1: but people keep continuing on and it's like, ah, you know,
Speaker 1: but again we're kind of like we kind of got
Speaker 1: our hands tied behind our back of what do we do?
Speaker 1: I think the question is, is trying to protect our
Speaker 1: future from becoming transhumanism and having transhumanism and allowing the
Speaker 1: more integration of AI. That's I think what people really
Speaker 1: should be focusing on when it comes to this.
Speaker 2: So let's continue on here. So this is large to
Speaker 2: your point. This large scale internet surveillance grew out of
Speaker 2: the Bush administration's Post nine to eleven warrantless wiretapping program.
Speaker 2: It is conducted under a controversial law known as Section
Speaker 2: seven oh two of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Relying
Speaker 2: on Section seven oh two, the government intercepts billions of
Speaker 2: international communications, including many sent or received by Americans, and
Speaker 2: it hunts through them in investigations that have nothing to
Speaker 2: do with national security. The Government of attempts to defend
Speaker 2: this spying by pointing out that it's quote unquote targets
Speaker 2: are foreigners located abroad, but this is no defense at all.
Speaker 2: Americans regularly communicate with individuals overseas, and the government uses
Speaker 2: prison surveillance to collect and sift through many of these
Speaker 2: private communications. The government has even admitted that one of
Speaker 2: the purposes of section seven oh two is to spy
Speaker 2: on Americans international communications without a warrant. The government casts
Speaker 2: a wide net, making it easy for innocent Americans who
Speaker 2: communicate with family, friends, and other overseas to be swept up.
Speaker 2: Relying on a single court order, The NSA uses section
Speaker 2: seven oh two to put more than one hundred and
Speaker 2: twenty five thousand targets under surveys each year. These individuals
Speaker 2: need not to need not be spies, terrorists, or accused
Speaker 2: of any wrongdoing. They can be journalists, business people, university researchers,
Speaker 2: or anyone else who may have information bearing remotely on
Speaker 2: foreign affairs. So, for instance, this helmet that I have
Speaker 2: sitting behind me for Boohert. I got this from a
Speaker 2: Ukrainian armor smith before the rush of the Ukraine conflict
Speaker 2: took off. And if Igor, who's the guy who made this,
Speaker 2: if I was to order some more armor from him,
Speaker 2: there would be some sort of a communication between me
Speaker 2: and Igor. I would get flagged under section seven oh two,
Speaker 2: and the government would start monitoring me even more heavier
Speaker 2: than they already are.
Speaker 1: It's wild.
Speaker 2: It could be something so innocuous as that it doesn't
Speaker 2: matter anything that could why, especially because it's a Ukrainian
Speaker 2: armor smith. Oh man, how do they know I'm not
Speaker 2: trying to get in some sort of a collusion with
Speaker 2: Ukraine about some military options. They don't know. They're just
Speaker 2: they're monitoring it, and that could lead them to find
Speaker 2: anything that they decided to drum up charges on, even
Speaker 2: if I'm not breaking the law, because that's not the point.
Speaker 2: So anyway, so where was I at here? So Snowden
Speaker 2: told us about this, right, he told us what was happening,
Speaker 2: but the extent wasn't fully understood until the Cambridge Analytica
Speaker 2: scandal of twenty eighteen. Ravenly, do you remember ever hearing
Speaker 2: about this?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 2: Okay, so d you?
Speaker 1: But I don't like remember a bunch of it. But
Speaker 1: I remember hearing about.
Speaker 2: This, okay, So let's dig into it here. So the
Speaker 2: Facebook Cambridge Analytica data scandal twenty eighteen, this came to light,
Speaker 2: and it pretty much validated everything Snowden said in the
Speaker 2: twenty tens. Personal data belonging to millions of Facebook users
Speaker 2: was collected by British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica for political
Speaker 2: advertising without informed consent. Basically, Facebook got caught selling your
Speaker 2: data to British ad agencies. The data was collected through
Speaker 2: an app called quote This is Your Digital Life end Quote,
Speaker 2: developed by a data scientist, Alexander Cogan and his company
Speaker 2: Global Science Research in twenty thirteen. The app consisted of
Speaker 2: a series of questions to build psychological profiles on users
Speaker 2: and collected the personal data of the user's Facebook friends
Speaker 2: via Facebook Open graph platform. The app harvested the data
Speaker 2: of up to eighty seven million Facebook profiles. Cambridge Analytica
Speaker 2: used the data to analytically assist the twenty sixteen presidential
Speaker 2: campaigns of Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Cambridge Analytica was
Speaker 2: also widely accused of interfering with the Brexit referendum, although
Speaker 2: the official investigation recognized that the company was not involved
Speaker 2: quote beyond some initial inquiries and that quote no signs
Speaker 2: magnificant breaches took place, okay in interviews with The Guardian
Speaker 2: in The New York Times. Information about the data misuse
Speaker 2: was disclosed in March of twenty eighteen by Christopher Wiley,
Speaker 2: a former Cambridge Analytica employee. In response, Facebook apologized for
Speaker 2: their role in the data harvesting, and their CEO, Mark
Speaker 2: Zuckerberg testified in April twenty eighteen in front of Congress.
Speaker 2: Y'all may remember that time frame when Zuck had to
Speaker 2: show up before Congress, and it was a whole thing.
Speaker 2: The memes he was sitting on two cushions to make
Speaker 2: himself look taller, the way he was sipping water was
Speaker 2: very weird, and all of Congress, these old cats were like, so,
Speaker 2: mister Zuckerberg, if the WiFi is on, can the Facebook
Speaker 2: see my face? And He's like, uh, I'm sorry, what
Speaker 2: if my TV's on and my WiFi router one of
Speaker 2: them lies is blinking? Does the Facebook have access to
Speaker 2: my bank accounts?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 2: And Zuck was just kind of like it's like explaining,
Speaker 2: like like you know, back in the day, you'd have
Speaker 2: to explain to the Geriact, except with how the VCR worked,
Speaker 2: it was like watching that in real time in Congress.
Speaker 2: It was very embarrassing for all parties, including Zuck. But yes,
Speaker 2: he was caught red handed selling information and intelligence to
Speaker 2: foreign actors to influence elections. And you know, there was
Speaker 2: some varying levels of success with this, and some of
Speaker 2: this really amounted to nothing anyway, but this is definitely
Speaker 2: what took place. But anyway, in July twenty nineteen, it
Speaker 2: was announced that Facebook was to be fined five billion
Speaker 2: dollars by the Federal Trade Commission due to its privacy violations.
Speaker 2: That was it, That was the slap on the wrist
Speaker 2: was five billion dollars not to zuck to the company,
Speaker 2: very important. In October twenty nineteen, Facebook agreed to pay
Speaker 2: five hundred thousand pounds to find to the UK Information
Speaker 2: Commissioner's Office for exposing the data of its users to
Speaker 2: a serious risk of harm. In May twenty eighteen, Cambridge
Speaker 2: Analytica filed for Chapter seven bankruptcy. Other advertising agencies have
Speaker 2: been implemented implementing various forms of psychological targeting for years,
Speaker 2: and Facebook had patented a similar technology in twenty twelve.
Speaker 2: Let me say that one again. In twenty twelve, Facebook
Speaker 2: patented a form of psychological targeting. Okay, just so we're
Speaker 2: all on the same page and we all heard the
Speaker 2: same thing. Nevertheless, Cambridge Analytica's methods and their high profile clients,
Speaker 2: including the Trump presidential campaign and the UK's Leave EU campaign,
Speaker 2: brought the problems of the psychological targeting, and scholars have
Speaker 2: been warning against to public awareness. The scandal sparked and
Speaker 2: increased public interest in privacy and social media influence on
Speaker 2: politic The online movement hashtag delete Facebook trended on Twitter.
Speaker 2: Shocker that it did such, and this is before it
Speaker 2: became x, So there we have it. Anyway, So basically,
Speaker 2: Cambridge Analytica paid large amounts of money for access to
Speaker 2: a backdoor to Facebook that Zuck and Teal left. So
Speaker 2: Zuck and Teal when they created this entire website of Facebook,
Speaker 2: they left a series of backdoors that they hailed the
Speaker 2: keys to. And I don't mean this in the metaphorical sense.
Speaker 2: In the internet world and in the hacking world, a
Speaker 2: backdoor is how you gain access to a website's code,
Speaker 2: and certain things have a key. Now sometimes that is
Speaker 2: actually a hard key, like an actual thumb drive that
Speaker 2: unless you are somebody who has this thumb drive plugged in,
Speaker 2: you're not getting access to this website. But there are
Speaker 2: hackers that are able to do very very impressive things
Speaker 2: with a little bit of time and determination whatever. But anyway,
Speaker 2: Cambridge Analytica paid huge sums of money to Mark Zuckerberg
Speaker 2: and to get access to this back door, and they did,
Speaker 2: and they used it against everybody. It gave the British
Speaker 2: company access to user data not just a Facebook, but
Speaker 2: of all of your friends, Facebooks, and very critically every
Speaker 2: other app on your phone. This is this is a clincher,
Speaker 2: right the same way that Timu, for instance, anybody who
Speaker 2: has the Tu app, but anybody who has Temu downloaded
Speaker 2: on their phone, understand that the CCP is using a
Speaker 2: backdoor to gain entry into your phone. And they can
Speaker 2: use that back door to get access to every app
Speaker 2: on your phone, including your banking apps, your emails, your
Speaker 2: web browsers, your socials, your location, your camera, your microphone.
Speaker 2: They're able to do that through Timu, and that's also
Speaker 2: been confirmed and understood to be a factual thing. This
Speaker 2: in a hypothetical conspiracy theory. Right to prove that point
Speaker 2: that they have access to do this, Cambridge Analytica was
Speaker 2: caught doing it in twenty eighteen through Facebook. So moving on.
Speaker 2: It's wild things, y'all, It really really is. So Cambridge
Speaker 2: Analytica was caught using this backdoor to influence elections in
Speaker 2: multiple countries mixed results, most notably Singapore their elections. Cambridge
Speaker 2: Analytica actually swayed that pretty substantially. Believe it or not,
Speaker 2: but that's that's more of a talk for another day.
Speaker 2: Once they had fifty thousand data points on every single user,
Speaker 2: they sold it to the highs Bidder. So Cambridge Analytica
Speaker 2: is just using this to get data points. Now real quick,
Speaker 2: you might ask, what is a data point? This could
Speaker 2: be something very small and innocuous, or this could be
Speaker 2: something very large, for instance, your retinal scan or your
Speaker 2: facial recognition. To lock your banking app, or to log
Speaker 2: into your password app, to get into all of your
Speaker 2: other shit, that's a data point, but so is every
Speaker 2: single thing that that unlocks. Also, you stopping at lunch
Speaker 2: at a certain restaurant could be a data point. What
Speaker 2: you order at that restaurant could be a data point.
Speaker 2: It's basically just a thing that the agency or whoever's
Speaker 2: looking into you would find of interest. That's essentially it.
Speaker 2: Some of these are more serious than others, of course,
Speaker 2: but a data point isn't necessarily like, oh, this guy
Speaker 2: all he does is go to work and go home.
Speaker 2: There's nothing to see here, No, no, no, What YouTube
Speaker 2: channels does this guy subscribe to? What does this guy
Speaker 2: listen to and from work every day? What where does
Speaker 2: he work in what regard, all of these things are
Speaker 2: data points to collect a basically a dossier on you.
Speaker 2: So once Cambridge Analytica collected fifty thousand data points from
Speaker 2: every single Facebook user, every single Facebook user, they sold
Speaker 2: that data to the highest bidder and were caught red.
Speaker 1: Handed and nothing happened.
Speaker 2: Nothing really, they got a find they did the cleared scene.
Speaker 1: It's whatever, I mean, banks, how many times is Trump
Speaker 1: declared bankruptcy? Like the whole shit done yet?
Speaker 2: Well, I know at least for probably more, but at
Speaker 2: least openly.
Speaker 1: For It's not even a big deal for them, so
Speaker 1: especially if they use it to their advantage. I know
Speaker 1: somebody talked about that the chapter seven, how the big
Speaker 1: corporations can use that to their advantage. Yep, So he
Speaker 1: got fined, but like nothing actually changed.
Speaker 2: It was all slap on the wrist. Essentially, Zuck had
Speaker 2: to pay not even Zuck the Facebook company, which all
Speaker 2: they did pretty much to just sell off that many
Speaker 2: shares of their company and pay it off. Like nobody
Speaker 2: saw jail time for spying on the people that way
Speaker 2: and influencing elections. No, and everybody's like, oh, it's all
Speaker 2: Russian collusion. Not exactly. Actually it was Russia didn't collude
Speaker 2: with anybody on that election. We're gonna talk about certain
Speaker 2: people colluding on that election and swaying the vote. We
Speaker 2: could have that conversation for sure, what in Russia? What
Speaker 2: in Israel? It wasn't though it wasn't. It was a
Speaker 2: very select cabal of individuals who have been in cahoots
Speaker 2: doing this literally since two thousand and two, probably longer
Speaker 2: than that, but at least this particular group of shiittheads,
Speaker 2: we have a track record and a chain of custody
Speaker 2: that brings them back to two thousand and two. And
Speaker 2: once again, and I cannot stress this enough, it all
Speaker 2: ties back to Jeffrey Epstein. And now that these files
Speaker 2: have been released and these emails are open source and
Speaker 2: all these things, and now we have a chain of
Speaker 2: custody and we have names and dates and places and things.
Speaker 2: It's all been verified. All the claims we've been making
Speaker 2: have been validated. Without Jeffrey Epstein, the government would not
Speaker 2: have had the ability to spy on us in the
Speaker 2: way that they do, because Peter Teal wouldn't have had
Speaker 2: the contacts that he had, meaning Mark Zuckerberg wouldn't have
Speaker 2: had the contacts that he had, which means Pallenteer in
Speaker 2: totality wouldn't have had the things that it had. All
Speaker 2: of the things, like I said, going down the list
Speaker 2: LinkedIn PayPal, Facebook, Instagram, Spotify, you name it, any tech
Speaker 2: startup that is quote unquote American over the last twenty years,
Speaker 2: all ties back to these.
Speaker 1: Shitheads Peter tele has mentioned two and eighty six times.
Speaker 2: Of course, why not.
Speaker 1: So all of it's linked, which is wild. So I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm glad that you brought more attention to the AI
Speaker 1: aspect of it and the data collection, because the data
Speaker 1: collection is the biggest thing. When we talk about AI
Speaker 1: gaining sentientsts and being able to be compatible more with humans,
Speaker 1: it's collecting data. It needs the data to understand how
Speaker 1: to predict and to be able to move forward.
Speaker 2: And that's the other part, y'all. We have been saying
Speaker 2: four years, And I know, I know some people out
Speaker 2: there are lazy and they think that AI is the
Speaker 2: greatest thing since slice bread. Y'all using AI as a
Speaker 2: tool for a certain job function. All right, Okay, I
Speaker 2: understand it expedites certain things, but please understand what you're
Speaker 2: sacrificing for that AI, and please understand where that AI
Speaker 2: came from. It is not a crazy concept to say
Speaker 2: that Jeffrey Epstein is the god fathing funder and one
Speaker 2: of the godfathing godfather founders of AI as we know
Speaker 2: it today, going back in time from the two thousand
Speaker 2: and two Common Sense Symposium that he hailed at his
Speaker 2: house in the Virgin Islands all the way to now
Speaker 2: where we have AI takeovers and all of these careers
Speaker 2: are being lost to AI in robotics and engineering and
Speaker 2: everything that Elon Musk is involved with, everything Peter Teel
Speaker 2: is involved with. Y'all. Notice how AI is taking over,
Speaker 2: And I don't mean that in some sort of a
Speaker 2: silly turn of phrase way, legitimately taking over to a
Speaker 2: level to where the Terminator movies are looking like a
Speaker 2: real possibility here in the next five years.
Speaker 1: I think once that we do my episode, the next
Speaker 1: episode we're shooting, I'm going to be talking about the
Speaker 1: genetics and stuff. I think the next one after that
Speaker 1: we should do about the actual technology that we have
Speaker 1: right now as of the date for AI, because they've
Speaker 1: made massive advancements just in the last two months. And
Speaker 1: I don't think people, I mean, it's not if you
Speaker 1: don't care about it. You're not going to keep up
Speaker 1: with it. I guess the only reason I really care
Speaker 1: about it. Like I don't enjoy technology stuff, I think
Speaker 1: there's some of it that's actually really fascinating and some
Speaker 1: of the AI. I will say this, I know that
Speaker 1: a lot of people are like you hate AI. I
Speaker 1: hate AI in the sense there's certain things of why
Speaker 1: I dislike AI. There is actual good technology when it
Speaker 1: comes to AI. I think the one that's really cool
Speaker 1: that I could see how it could turn nefarious, but
Speaker 1: I think as right now it's a cool one is
Speaker 1: the memory preserving one, because as looks so the memory
Speaker 1: preserving one, and I'll actually play the video. I'll find
Speaker 1: a video for it so that way we can watch it.
Speaker 1: They take your memory and they reconstruct your memories using AI,
Speaker 1: being able to like pretty much put a slideshow together
Speaker 1: per se of like your life, so you don't forget
Speaker 1: all the things because if you notice, you only hold
Speaker 1: on to like certain moments, feelings, smells, you know, like glimpses.
Speaker 1: As you get older, you start to lose some of
Speaker 1: your memories with when you're a child and stuff. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this can actually recreate them before you and be able
Speaker 1: to show you like a movie, which I think is
Speaker 1: kind of cool. To be honest, there's really there's some
Speaker 1: really good robotic things when it comes to surgery, where
Speaker 1: they're so technical that it's been very difficult for human
Speaker 1: hands to be able to do specific surgeries. There is
Speaker 1: benefits to AI and robotics, but there is a lot
Speaker 1: more negatives when it comes to the advancements and what
Speaker 1: they actually want to do with it is where the
Speaker 1: true ethical concerns, at least for myself are.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I'd agree with that, But I mean, I'm
Speaker 2: not saying the AI is like there's no place for it.
Speaker 2: You know, I absolutely can see benefits to it in
Speaker 2: certain regards, but it's the manner at which people are
Speaker 2: relying on it now, not using it as a tool,
Speaker 2: relying on it now, And then to cut back, how
Speaker 2: children now are not doing research for projects anymore. Most
Speaker 2: schools are not even doing some sort of I remember
Speaker 2: a time when you, yeah, you would pull up Wikipedia,
Speaker 2: and we all know that Wikipedia is not that trustworthy
Speaker 2: of a source in all regards. Sometimes it is a legitimate, historical,
Speaker 2: documented thing and there's sites underneath it and all the stuff.
Speaker 1: But for a while.
Speaker 2: There, anybody could edit it, right, And that's why we
Speaker 2: weren't allowed to use Wikipedia when we did research projects. Oh,
Speaker 2: it was so easy to copy and paste an entire
Speaker 2: thing and just change up a couple little things and
Speaker 2: put it up as that's your research project for a
Speaker 2: science project or whatever the case. Right, And then the
Speaker 2: teachers started. Every time you turn something in, they would
Speaker 2: copy the whole thing, plug it into a plagiarism website
Speaker 2: and find what website that came from the teachers aren't
Speaker 2: even doing that anymore because these kids are turning in
Speaker 2: shit that's straight up AI, and the teachers are basically like, ah,
Speaker 2: well fuck it. Whatever AI is gonna be the way
Speaker 2: of the future anyway, I'd rather the kids learn how
Speaker 2: to use it than worry about it they're cheating or not.
Speaker 2: And it's like, no, that's not the right fucking answer.
Speaker 2: You kunt, like, what are we talking about here? But
Speaker 2: that is what I mean. These kids and adults are
Speaker 2: relying on AI for all of their information, all of
Speaker 2: their research, all of their truth. That I have a
Speaker 2: very very deep problem with, especially when you learn that
Speaker 2: AI is wrong more often than it's right, and there's
Speaker 2: gonna be people that disagree with that statement. AI is
Speaker 2: right more often I'm sorry, that's incorrect. That is incorrect.
Speaker 2: AI is giving you whatever the most Google searches tells
Speaker 2: it to give you. That doesn't mean that it is
Speaker 2: fact checked the data that it's presenting to you. And
Speaker 2: if you have a question about that type in anything
Speaker 2: that's politically objectively a little questionable, it's going to give
Speaker 2: you a certain side of the conversation, typically the incorrect side.
Speaker 2: Take the how you want it.
Speaker 1: Yep. I think all of this is interesting, how it
Speaker 1: all ties into E. F Seen and Peter Teal and
Speaker 1: how really Peter Teal's name needs to be brought up
Speaker 1: more and more and more. I was just as we've
Speaker 1: been talking, there was an article from last year of
Speaker 1: talking about how he's collecting kids from universities like fucking
Speaker 1: Pokemon cards, yeah, and making them drop out so once
Speaker 1: they get selected, they have to drop out of their programs,
Speaker 1: and it was a whole article about it, and like
Speaker 1: he's still living his best life out and about over
Speaker 1: two thousand times, as he mentioned in this, he's created,
Speaker 1: he did a literal killing machine that is being utilized
Speaker 1: to be able to predict human ways and to help
Speaker 1: be more effective and efficient when it's coming to warfare
Speaker 1: just let alone everything else that he has his hands in,
Speaker 1: and how he's tracking all of your data all the time.
Speaker 1: And it was their brainchild to get these people together
Speaker 1: and to do this. And Epstein is actually praised in
Speaker 1: an article. It's him on the front and it's his
Speaker 1: whole thing praising him that you can look up from
Speaker 1: two thousand and three praising Epstein about hosting this symporium
Speaker 1: and how amazing it was and how revolutionary this is
Speaker 1: to get everyone together and to really push forward and
Speaker 1: create ideas and all this stuff. And then there's photos,
Speaker 1: tons and tons of photos of him at Harvard with
Speaker 1: all of these people having these deep in depth intellectual
Speaker 1: conversations of quote, you know, just thinking just whatever we're
Speaker 1: doing theology and blah blah blah. No, I think that
Speaker 1: they're going over eugenic stuff. I think that they're talking
Speaker 1: about these programs and what else they can do and
Speaker 1: how they can make it moving forward, how they can
Speaker 1: make it more beneficial for people, and people want to
Speaker 1: actually take this and accept it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And you know, it's funny whenever you're talking about
Speaker 2: the AI and how it's being used to create a
Speaker 2: more efficient killing machine. That reminded me of the story
Speaker 2: where they use the Marines to try to test out
Speaker 2: that new computer system, and because Marines are the Marines,
Speaker 2: they fucked it up. You remember hearing about this, So
Speaker 2: all right, so once upon a time, and I just
Speaker 2: tried looking up the year, but I'm a little fuzzy
Speaker 2: on the details, but it was sometime in or like
Speaker 2: mid two thousands. The a DARPA group came out with
Speaker 2: a computer program that was rigged up to a camera
Speaker 2: that was basically going to see an enemy combatant when
Speaker 2: it looked at and they programmed it to look at marines.
Speaker 1: There was like a group of six of.
Speaker 2: Them, I think, and they were told your job is
Speaker 2: to start here, and it was like one thousand yards
Speaker 2: off and run past this computer or this camera without
Speaker 2: being seen as a threat. So we need you to
Speaker 2: move in a way that is non soldierly quote unquote
Speaker 2: as a way to trip up the computer. The Marines,
Speaker 2: being Marines, were like, bro, got you. One of them
Speaker 2: somersaulted for one thousand meters and the camera did not
Speaker 2: pick it up them. Two of them grabbed big ass
Speaker 2: boxes and like ran with boxes over them and you
Speaker 2: could even hear them giggling to themselves, laughing as they
Speaker 2: kept tripping and falling all over each other as they
Speaker 2: were running for one thousand meters past this camera, and
Speaker 2: it didn't pick up that this was like a ruse
Speaker 2: because it was still a developmental stage. Another one, another
Speaker 2: one cut down a little sapling and walked up quote
Speaker 2: moving like a tree for a thousand meters past this
Speaker 2: camera to where it didn't pick it up. And it's like, brother,
Speaker 2: what do you mean you moved like a tree for
Speaker 2: a thousand meters? Showed me a tree that moves a
Speaker 2: thousand meters and it's like, look, it worked. Okay, it's
Speaker 2: only done if it daring the Lord of the rings,
Speaker 2: I guess.
Speaker 1: So, I mean you want some examples, I got you.
Speaker 2: But like, yeah, that was a thing that took place
Speaker 2: and that was in the developmental stage of this DARPA
Speaker 2: program for literally what became what is being used in
Speaker 2: Gaza right now, or was last year. But yeah, it's uh,
Speaker 2: it's crazy how much the research and development has changed
Speaker 2: and gotten so much better. This is deadly, this is dangerous,
Speaker 2: and people are still championing AI like it's the new Savior,
Speaker 2: and all of it is indeed tied back to Jeffrey Epstein,
Speaker 2: his pedophile ring, his dirty blood money. Start to finish,
Speaker 2: there's no way around y'all. Yep So, anyway, while we
Speaker 2: wrap this episode up, I thought this was a wild one.
Speaker 2: I'm glad that I brought it up to the good
Speaker 2: cult members, but we want to hear what y'all think
Speaker 2: about it before I go ahead and give that send off.
Speaker 2: I want to go ahead and give the send off
Speaker 2: that if you would like to get your start in
Speaker 2: the buying and selling and trading of gold and silver bullion,
Speaker 2: then go to the link of the description below to
Speaker 2: coecsilver dot com and get your start today. When you
Speaker 2: fill out your information, our homeboy Wayne Clark would be
Speaker 2: the one to reach out to you and get you
Speaker 2: squared away. Listen, talk to your financial advisor, talk to
Speaker 2: your CPA whoever's handling your retirement, and ask them what
Speaker 2: they think about investing in precious gold and silver, precious
Speaker 2: metals and totality and let me know what they think.
Speaker 2: And once they tell you the truth of the matter,
Speaker 2: you'll want to get your hands on some because they're
Speaker 2: gonna tell you at least a portion of your retirement
Speaker 2: portfolio needs to be invested in precious metals. While it
Speaker 2: is still affordable to get your hands on some silver
Speaker 2: golds over three thousand and ounce.
Speaker 1: That shit's way up there.
Speaker 2: Silver is affordable, why still get your hands on some
Speaker 2: Get your start over at cecsilver dot com link in
Speaker 2: the description below. If you are somebody that likes to
Speaker 2: season your food and have good, healthy seasonings and flavors,
Speaker 2: then go to Flavors of the Forest right now. Go
Speaker 2: get you some bigfoot breath. Go get you some lines Maine.
Speaker 2: Go get you that spicy bigfoot breath. It's amazing products
Speaker 2: I have. I use this shit on a daily basis.
Speaker 2: And if you use the promo code cult at checkout
Speaker 2: see ult, you'll get fifteen percent off of your order.
Speaker 2: And it's amazing. I promise you're not gonna regret the purchase.
Speaker 2: Let me think if there's anything else we need to
Speaker 2: plug raveingly you got anything on your in.
Speaker 1: Nope, we got everything. Join the Patreon, come hang out
Speaker 1: with us.
Speaker 2: Indeed, indeed, come get that listening experience. Come get it
Speaker 2: for yourself here. But good call members another to support
Speaker 2: the show and let us know what you think about
Speaker 2: this episode. Do you think we're crazy for saying that
Speaker 2: Epstein is the godfather of AI? Do you think that
Speaker 2: he might just be the financier and not necessarily the godfather. However,
Speaker 2: these shitheads wouldn't have come together if it wasn't for Epstein.
Speaker 2: But look, that's my opinion in the facts of the matter.
Speaker 2: But hey, we want to hear from you. What do
Speaker 2: you think about it? The best place to let us
Speaker 2: know what be to please hit the five stars at
Speaker 2: the Shares of the Life suscribes to comments, Leo postly reviewers,
Speaker 2: shares with their friends and family, share us everywhere.
Speaker 1: Here's the deal.
Speaker 2: The more activity the algorithmsease across all of our listening platforms,
Speaker 2: the more we get promoted more potential listeners who could
Speaker 2: then become potential cult members. I addressed you, fine ladies
Speaker 2: and gentlemen.
Speaker 1: Why are you going to go check out Menimistics.
Speaker 2: Jonathan's other show and getting the same level respect over
Speaker 2: there with the five star views on the positivity in
Speaker 2: the comments. Come check out the Cage tonight and come
Speaker 2: join each of us for our individual Patreon Liz that
Speaker 2: we host every Wednesday night in nine PM Central. Links
Speaker 2: to those are in the description as well, and we
Speaker 2: thank you. Everybody's already gone and done so. And with
Speaker 2: all of this being said, this was another beautiful episode
Speaker 2: of the cult of conspiracy. And I am the Cage
Speaker 2: to Night. I am really and there's one very important,
Speaker 2: extremely vital piece of information we need to learn just
Speaker 2: as soon as humanly possible at all