Congress finally cosigns the release of a bunch of emails from Jeffrey Epstein, which confirm earlier conversation. Europe aims to feed astronauts through a pretty fascinating process using human urine (yes, it is as weird as it sounds). Over in China, Uncle Xi demands all online influencers speaking about finance, law or medicine verify that they do, in fact, have some sort of expertise in their purported fields, prompting Ben, Matt and Noel to examine the nature of free speech. All this and more in this week's strange news segment.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is Noah.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
They called me Ben. We're joined as always with our
super producer Dylan the Tennessee pal Fagan. Most importantly, you
are you. You are here. That makes this the stuff
they don't want you to know. It's our weekly strange
news program. So let us welcome you to Monday, November seventeenth,
twenty twenty five. Raise your hand. If you're not in prison,
(00:53):
Oh god, uh not in a US official prison. I
guess we're all in a prison of existence.
Speaker 4 (00:59):
An existential prison and of the mind.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Yes, there are a few people listening to this on
a cell block who just went, oh.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
Raise your hand. We're here with you. We're all in
it together. That's our segue because we have been super
tuned into a lot of strange news. As we hurtle
headlong toward twenty twenty six, and Gallaine Maxwell from earlier
is apparently getting some very special treatment in incarceration.
Speaker 4 (01:29):
We're talking neck massages, snacks. Are we what are we talking?
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Deference is the ultimate, Yes, the ultimate treat And if
you want to read more about that, there's a great
primer over on CNN where the journalist Aaron Burnett spoke
with the federal prison consultant Sam Mangle. And that's kind
of a that's kind of a setup, because I think
we've all noticed that, We've all noticed that there is
(02:01):
a bit of a division, or there has been of late,
between the US public and indeed the global public and
the official like mainstream media outlets. For a time, everybody
on the Internet and especially our favorite subreddits was saying,
ignore this political news release.
Speaker 4 (02:21):
The Epstein files comment sections are on fire with that one.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Oh yeah, Ben, if you don't mind, I just clicked
on the link that you shared with us for for
this on the dock and there the things that she's
getting access to are the puppies.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
Got a puppypy to special meal request, checking access to
exercise areas after hours?
Speaker 4 (02:47):
Oh my god.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
Yeah, A lot of a lot of stuff that wouldn't
normally happen, even in the relatively nice, comfy place Galley
Maxwell is currently incarcerated at.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
And does this feel like quid pro quo. Well, I
mean why, Like, I just don't understand she's a convicted
sex predator, child sex trafficker. It's just such a bad look.
I just is there. Does she have something on someone?
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Or that's the that's the question.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
That's with a slight eyebrow waggle and also a healthy
dose of naivete. But I mean I think, yeah, something's.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Wow, isn't it interesting?
Speaker 4 (03:33):
Though?
Speaker 2 (03:33):
That's the like, that's the feeling that you get without
knowing much about it, right, And then imagine all of
the Americans who've been following this story who do know
just enough right to feel a little bit of a
pain when they read something like that.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
And additionally, before we go to our break and our
breaking news, we must add that Gallin Maxwell's official special
treatment began shortly after a still mysterious meeting.
Speaker 4 (04:05):
Yes, yeah, I mean, and there's no question about her crimes, right,
and yet there's discussion being bandied about about the potential pardon.
You know, but anytime a pardon comes up, presidents typically like, well,
I'll look into that. And he also seems to feign
even remembering who Gallaine Maxwell is when confronted with it often,
(04:25):
which is super siss, but like, are we normalizing this
kind of stuff? I just it gives me the ick
in a in a very real way.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
I think it gives most people the echo. I'd have
your back on that. When what we can say is
that there are always serious questions about pardons that may
not seem to make sense or commutations, and then we
have to ask whether there is a bit of a
standoff or a dead man switched, like we did in
our earlier episodes on the Jeffrey Epstein News. And this
(04:57):
is where we get to the chain. And as they
say on the LA Leakers, we're going to pause for
a word from our sponsors, and then, assuming we don't
break our hyoid bones, we'll be back with something you
need to know about, folks.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
And we've returned just I guess. As a way to
get into this section, let's remember that meeting we're talking
about between Glaine and an attorney that was set up
by the Executive Branch and the Department of Justice, was
between the current president's former personal lawyer, right and Gallaiine Maxwell.
(05:39):
That was the big deal on that whole thing.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
And we don't know the substance of that conversation.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Oh no, we do not, and no one will. Because
that was an attorney, I guess, and a not a client.
An attorney and an inmate.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
There's definitely some privilege going on, at least be sure
of that.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Yes, and that is for the record. That is a
this legal beagle is not someone who specifically meets with everybody.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
Yes, yes, exactly. So let's go to Politico just again,
this is just kind of an appetizer to set up
the thing. Politico, writing in August of this year about
the statements Galaine Maxwell made after that secret of meeting
with the attorney. She is saying here that she never
witnessed the president quote in any inappropriate setting with girls
(06:30):
introduced to him by Jeffrey Epstein. She also says, quote
I actually never saw the president in any type of
massage setting. I never saw the president in any type
of massage setting.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
Quote.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
I never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in
any way. The President was never inappropriate with anybody in
the times that I was with him. He was a
gentleman in all respects. Let's keep that in mind, the
specific wording of those statements.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
Yeah, okay, squarely in mind Okay, cut to eight forty
five this morning, when my girlfriend showed me a little
news alert that she received, And this is the news alert.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
It was from PBS News an article by Liz Landers
written today that we're recording November twelfth, twenty twenty five.
The title is read Jeffrey Epstein's newly released emails about Trump.
So let's jump right to this article and see where
it takes us.
Speaker 4 (07:32):
Quote.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
Jeffrey Epstein specifically referenced his relationship with President Donald Trump
in writing before Trump was elected to office. According to
newly obtained emails released Wednesday by the House Oversight Committee,
the emails are among twenty three thousand documents Epstein's estate
release to the committee. They include correspondence between Epstein and
his former girlfriend Glaine Maxwell Matt.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
This is also the same state that released the birthday book. Correct,
A lot of this stuff has come directly from them.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Yes, the estate is releasing a lot of things. The
House Oversight Committee is getting them, and in this case,
some of these emails were released specifically by members of
the House Committee. They were also sent directly to PBS
and several other news outlets. So, fellas you want to
read some emails.
Speaker 4 (08:19):
Heck, yeah, I mean must we but okay, yes.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
First thing I want to do you, guys, I want
to talk about the disclaimer that's at the end of
each one of these emails from Epstein's email account, which
is jee vacation at gmail dot com. By the way,
that's exciting. Jeffrey Epstein's vacation email in twenty eleven. The
signature read, and this is a long one. Bear with
(08:45):
me here. The information contained in this communication is confidential
maybe attorney client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is
intended only for the use of the address e. It
is the property of Jeffrey Epstein. Unauthorized use, disclosure copying
of this communication in any part thereof is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you ever received this communication
(09:05):
in error, please notify us immediately by return email or
email to jee vacation at gmail dot com and destroy
this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
This message may or may not self destruct.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Wow, So it sounds like something that would make sense
for a financier, somebody who is helping others with monies
and helping them make investments in that kind of thing, right.
Speaker 4 (09:30):
Privlenged information right proprie trade secrets perhaps, yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Yes, but something about the including all attachments really creeps
me out. I don't know why.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
Hey could be a spreadsheet, could be a h that's right,
that's right.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Okay, without further ado, guys, we're gonna do these in
chronological order. So let's jump to email number one. This
occurs on April second, twenty eleven. That's a Saturday. According
to the email, it happened at fourteen twenty five forty five,
so two twenty five pm. We're assuming wherever Jeffrey Epstein
(10:06):
was when he sent this. And this is Jeffrey Epstein
writing this jee vacation at gmail dot com. Quote. I
want you to realize that that dog that hasn't barked
is Trump. And there's there's a redacted section right here,
which is the name of a victim. That's how it's
written and how it was released by the House Committee.
(10:27):
There it says victim spent hours at my house with him.
He has never once been mentioned police chief, et cetera.
I'm seventy five percent there. Then there's a reply from
Gmax or Gallaine Maxwell. That's Gmax one at elmax dot
com Glaine replies, quote, I've been thinking about that unquote.
(10:52):
So specifically, guys, what do we think about the wording there?
That quote that that dog that hasn't barked? And what
about this thing this phrase? I'm seventy five percent there.
I don't think about one. That one's confusing to me.
I'm seventy five percent there.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
Maybe in in my position of having Trump on lock
in some way or like owning him. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
This is this is twenty eleven.
Speaker 4 (11:16):
Yeah, you know, you're right, this is this precedes Trump's
rise in politics, but this is also insider circles. Maybe
they were whispers about future plans. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Well, Ben, specifically, what do you what do you think
that those phrases feel spycrafty?
Speaker 3 (11:30):
To me, it definitely from the outside in, feels like
there is an attempt to communicate with obfuscation, right, Like
we are not specifically saying watch out, but we're saying
things like dog hasn't barked seventy five percent. So if
(11:51):
someone is attempting to glean a deeper meaning, then they
can probably reasonably and logically find one, because otherwise, those
those exchanges of information simply don't make sense.
Speaker 4 (12:07):
Right.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Well, we know the context is everything, right, because we
know at this point Epstein has been charged with some
pretty serious crimes, and then he got off pretty easily
with his whole you know, work from home kind of
thing or get to go to work from prison and
all that stuff.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
He didn't.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
He kind of got a return to office mandate though
you know, have secured that.
Speaker 4 (12:28):
For him eventually.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
But this is twenty eleven, right, So this is the
in between times after he was first charged and arrested
for stuff, and then before he was sent back to prison.
So there's it's interesting that this kind of discussion is
being had at this time. So I guess if we're
gonna go in chronological order, we're going to jump down
to email number three at least, and according to the release,
(12:53):
So this is where we need to introduce this gentleman,
Michael Wolf. That's Wolf with two f's. He's in a
ward winning journalist and author. His work has covered numerous
subjects across the world, but his focus for the past
let's say decade and a half or so, has been
on power players in politics and in media. He's written
books like The Man Who Owns the News, A biographer Murdoch, Yeah,
(13:15):
a biography of Rupert Murdoch, the Fall, the end of
Fox News and the Murdoch Dynasty, Fire and fury, inside
the Trump White House and all or nothing, how Trump
recaptured America. So you could see a bit of a
pattern here. When he finds a preferred subject, it appears
that Michael really digs in, specifically Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump.
There another one of Michael's let's say, work interests was
(13:40):
Jeffrey Epstein, not the subject, but the actual human being Jeff.
You see, Michael spent a lot of time with Jeff
in real life. He recorded hours and hours of their conversations,
and he has been talking about those recordings and releasing
them for a while now.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
Yeah, we brought this up earlier on air.
Speaker 4 (14:01):
I mentioned it.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
I think it was back in let's see, he had
a book in twenty twenty one, Landslide, which was about
the previous Trump administration. But I think Matt he correct
me if I'm off face here. He recorded something like
one hundred hours worth of interviews with Jeffrey Epstein as
a primary source in his research. Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Well, that's what I saw that on It was mentioned
in Wikipedia, but I couldn't find a source for that.
But he but he has stated a couple of times
that he has spent a lot of time, like personal
time on the phone. Absolutely, because he's been talking and
talking and talking, and he's been releasing some stuff through
his podcast. And again, if you go to The Daily Beast,
(14:47):
there's something written on November two, twenty twenty four by
Hugh Dharty. You can just search listen to the Jeffrey
Epstein tapes. I was Donald Trump's closest friend.
Speaker 4 (14:55):
Is there is there a sense that Wolfe has swept
up in this in a way that belies his position
as a journalist. I have not seen that.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
I have not heard about that. Much of what I've
seen is Michael Wolfe's writing or you know, those recordings
that he is public he's putting out there into the public.
Speaker 4 (15:11):
Is he getting ahead of it though, I guess is
what I'm getting at, Like he's putting all this out
there to get the heat off of him, because it
would seem like if he's in these personal exchanges, that
he might have known some stuff too. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
Yeah, that's a great.
Speaker 3 (15:22):
Question, because they are journalistic guarantees for protection and sources
that are increasingly endangered in the United States. So we
know that he has made some claims for the past
several years. So the breaking news is actually the American
public being able to put some sand or some support
(15:45):
behind the claims that Wolf has been making for some time.
Is how I would say it.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
If that's all right, makes sense.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
I think that's perfectly fine. So let's jump to email three.
Here we have Michael Wolfe, whose email address has been
DAC did you guys m writing on December fifteenth, twenty fifteen,
so we've gone from twenty eleven to twenty fifteen. This
is Michael Wolfe writing to Jeffrey Epstein. Michael says, quote,
I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his
(16:14):
relationship with you, either on air or in scrum. Afterwards,
Epstein replies, if we were able to craft an answer
for him, what do you think it should be? And
then Wolf says back to him, And this is where
that line is getting a little weird to me. Know
all that you're asking about this is this is Wolf's
reply quote, I think you should let him hang himself
(16:36):
if he says he hasn't been on the plane or
to the house. Then that gives you a valuable PR
like press release and political currency. You can hang him
in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you.
Or if it really looks like he could win again
we're talking about the presidency here in twenty fifteen, if
it really looks like he could win, you could save
him generating a debt. Of course, it is possible that
(17:00):
when asked, he'll say Jeffrey is a great guy and
has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of
political correctness, which which is to yeah, and just concluding there,
which is to be outlawed in a Trump.
Speaker 4 (17:11):
Regime, which I kind of is. But he did all
of those things. That's wild.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Yeah, I just made a little note here, whoe is
Michael a journalist or Epstein's manager.
Speaker 4 (17:20):
He seems like, man, this is wild. He's crafting the
PR line for him.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
It's a little weird, right, Well, it's more it's less
of a PR line to me, no, and more of
a strategy like a strategist.
Speaker 4 (17:32):
Well, PR is strategy. Yeah, I guess it's like fallout
management or what's whatever. You know, Uh, that's a part
of pr is like crisis management. That's what he's doing here.
He's acting as a very high level player in that strategy.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
It's pretty weird, y'all, I will say, a fellow conspiracy realist,
do note that Michael Wolf is currently run at a
gofund me due to legal action by Melaannia Trump. He
has he is getting the pants sued off him. Allegedly,
(18:07):
there is a one billion dollar damages claim based on
him saying that Maladia Trump was also acquainted on some
level with Jeffrey Epstein. So to Knowle's point about consigliare
crisis management.
Speaker 4 (18:23):
Isn't a hunter Biden getting sued for the same reasons
for saying in an interview that he did with that
Channel five podcast guy that they met each other. No,
it's true, like that claim which he was repeating from Wolf,
That's what it was. He received a season desist from
Milania as well for this very same little nugglet of information,
(18:45):
the idea that Trump and Millenia met one another through Epstein.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
And then yeah, Wolf filed a lawsuit in October of
this year against Melania Trump and now then as folks,
just so I can clarify, they reportedly threatened this journalist
wolf with a damage's claim. So really the rubber is
(19:11):
hitting the road with the US government releasing these emails
that we've been talking about.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
Oh yeah, you can head over to NBC News and
you can search for author Michael Wolfe sus Malania Trump
over jeff Jeffrey Epstein threat That was October twenty second,
twenty twenty five. And that is exactly That's exactly what
we're talking about here. And it is very interesting that
it can be like a cease and desist, you know,
message from an attorney you better stop talking about this
(19:38):
stuff or we'll see you for a billion dollars. But
then it is great that you know, an author or
somebody who is trying to exercise their freedom of speech
can just say, well, actually no, your suit, don't do that,
Please don't forge.
Speaker 3 (19:50):
Yeah, at some point it ends up being a bunch
of kids playing tag you're it, or like I'm I'm rubber,
you're glue, or three spider men pointing at each other's
I mean, that's the US legal system. And I love
that we're bringing up the First Amendment because that's going
to be really important towards the end of strange News today.
Speaker 4 (20:10):
Well, hey, guys, obviously this is very new these emails.
Do you think the Trump administration is gonna say they're fake?
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Well, hey, guess what As of twenty four minutes ago
when we were recording, it is eleven forty six now,
so around eleven twenty, the Guardian is reporting that the
White House says a new batch of Epstein emails is
part of quote, a fake narrative in an attempt to
smear Donald Trump. Let's see Press Secretary Caroline Carolyne.
Speaker 4 (20:40):
Leave it.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
I don't want to say your name, says the unnamed
victim within these emails. Reference to is the late Virginia Jeoffrey,
who repeatedly said President Trump was not involved in any
wrongdoing whatsoever. However, the emails were dacted the name of
the victim when they were released, so somebody knows who
it is. Within the administration quote, the factor remains that
(21:01):
President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club decades
ago for being a creep to his female employees, including Jeoffrey.
Speaker 4 (21:07):
But we've've discussed how the timeline's a little funky about
that one too, in terms of like Trump saying he
was a good guy and then supposedly he had broken
ties with him before him saying that. Yes.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
So here's where it gets curiouser and curious her guys.
Email number two just in order there of the release.
This is twenty nineteen, so three years after President Trump's
taken office.
Speaker 4 (21:33):
Right. Uh.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Here is the message from jee vacation at gmail dot
com also known as Jay in this email and it's
written to Michael Wolfe. Here it is, the first part
of this email is a giant redacted section that is
just a victim's name according to the House Committee. Then
it says marl Lago.
Speaker 4 (21:54):
Period.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
Then there is a full redacted sentence that we don't
know what it says, then a period, and then it
says Trump said he asked me to resign, never a
member ever, of course he knew about the girls, as
he asked Glaine to stop. This is in twenty nineteen.
Speaker 4 (22:11):
Resign from what and stop what he says.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
They're talking about mar A Lago, some.
Speaker 4 (22:18):
Member of the club, Right, yeah.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Pretty weird, right, some sentence as though, because we're talking
here about how Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club.
And then in this email from twenty nineteen, it appears
to who knows, because we don't know the full context,
but it appears to say that Epstein was never a
member of mar A Lago.
Speaker 4 (22:36):
But you know, then they could argue, well, we may.
We told him to take a hike. We told him, ye,
not come around, don't go around here, no more sure?
Who knows?
Speaker 2 (22:44):
And finally from the White House, any American with common
sense sees right through this hoax and clear distraction from
the government opening back up again. Who knows? That's all
I've got, guys.
Speaker 4 (22:56):
Something to chew on. Very new, Thanks Matt.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
All right, we'll be right back with more strange news.
Speaker 4 (23:07):
And we've returned. Got a couple shorties for you all today.
I'm gonna just jump right in.
Speaker 3 (23:12):
With space a couple shorties hashtag new Epstein.
Speaker 4 (23:15):
Yeah, well, no, no, a couple shorties, some short kings
for us here today on this segment of Strange News
is going to lead off with a space story out
of the International Space Station, where they are apparently going
to debut astronaut food made of pea.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
Finally, finally, water World is real.
Speaker 4 (23:33):
Astronauts embarking on long term space missions could eat space
food made from a protein powder consisting of air and urine.
The European Space Agency, as News Nation reports, launched a
pilot program called Hobi wan.
Speaker 3 (23:49):
And don't kick it for us.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
That is an acronym come boys it Ever, the kenobia
is I think understood. It is hydrogen oxidizing bacteria in
weightlessness as a source of nutrient kenobi WHOA.
Speaker 3 (24:02):
I love how they I love how they specifically capitalize
only certain words in there because they don't because otherwise
it would be uh high bwahs ass I love.
Speaker 4 (24:16):
I love a convenient acronym. You gotta you gotta love it. Uh.
This program is essentially testing whether it's possible to create
this protein powder that's already got a pretty space spacey name.
In Soline sounds like something out of an Aldest Huxley
novel that requires nothing but microbes, air and electric current
(24:37):
to uh to generate to manufacture.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
So already sounds delicious.
Speaker 3 (24:42):
Yeah, it's like soil and green and we talked about
the flavors hopefully.
Speaker 4 (24:48):
Yeah, I want mine and bubblegum. Uh. Soline relies on urea. Yes,
uric acid, I imagine is similar to that, if not
the same thing, an organic compound found in urine, a
nitrogen source for protein synthesis. The protein powder developed by
finished startup Solar Foods will be tested by the ESA,
(25:09):
that is, the European Space Agency YEP in a future
mission aboard the ISS the International Space Station. Marks the
first time this kind of tech has been used to
develop a powder that can be used in a space environment.
So we've come a long way since freeze dried ice
cream fellas just add p.
Speaker 3 (25:29):
Yeah, yeah, it's apparently a completely natural protein, as the
website of Solar Foods originating from a quote natural non
modified single cell organism p. I love well. I love
that you're pointing out the nitrogen because when they're talking
about soling specifically, they're not just talking about space. This
(25:53):
is a great headline. They're talking about the idea of
maybe ending famine on the surface of Earth.
Speaker 4 (25:59):
I'm down with that question about it. Also, what happened
to all the discussion around creating food stuffs out of
like ground up insects. Is that still happening, because that's
always seemed like a reviable option that I'm fully on board,
and I'm not even saying that from a like feed
the poor insects. I'm into it. Give it to me.
I will eat the hell out of some insects, and
I bet you could make some tasty protein substitutes that
(26:19):
you could, you know, have around the house.
Speaker 3 (26:21):
Yeah, insects. By the way, insect consumption is still an
active debate at the United Nations. The thing is other
than folks like us. I don't know about Matt, but
other folks like you and me, nol, A lot.
Speaker 4 (26:35):
Of people get the ick we've talked.
Speaker 3 (26:36):
They hear about eating insects just the barrier to scale entry. Right. So,
right now with the United Nations, there are a ton
of world leaders who are saying this is great, and
this solves a lot of problems for everybody, but not
you know, not us.
Speaker 4 (26:52):
What's similar to the to the the issues around using
graywater for certain things. The idea of turning graywater into water.
It can be done. We've talked about stories revolving around
that kind of technology. But there is this ick factor
that causes people to really question, I don't want to
drink potentially you know, peepy water, which.
Speaker 3 (27:13):
Also seems that it could likely be.
Speaker 4 (27:15):
A case with this pea protein not pea protein, which
is also a thing people put in their muscle milk
or whatever. But yeah, I could see a barrier to
entry because that ck factor here as well. The developers
do hope it'll be available space wide by twenty thirty five.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
And another thing that I love I love you for
pointing out there is the idea of barrier to entry
has occurred before in other food stuffs. If you think
about it, milk is kind of gross. Yeah, that's a
weird flex.
Speaker 4 (27:45):
Bacon man, but's talk about the bacon conundrum. Slash creation
as a marketing ploy. It was originally considered trash meat
that was not fit for consumption and then repackaged and
sold as breakfast food.
Speaker 3 (27:58):
Shellfish as well. Lobster uh used to used to be
prison food here in the United States, and that's mainly
because of the way they cooked it.
Speaker 4 (28:06):
By the way, folks, they didn't take the shell off.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
Okay, guys, I think I'm just I'm hearing you and
and I agree with everything you're saying. I'm just trying
to imagine someone attempting to sell the concept.
Speaker 4 (28:19):
Of cow piss.
Speaker 2 (28:20):
Now drink cow piss.
Speaker 4 (28:22):
You know now that milk isn't pea Okay, well, I
have a little It might have a little pea in it.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
What I'm saying is a little bit to jump from
cow milk as like, which is objectively gross, and I
agree with you guys, But to then your own pee
drinking your own pea.
Speaker 4 (28:39):
I mean, y'all, you've seen these, some of these let's say,
quack types that are saying drinking your own urine is
like good for you. Don't stand behind that one, nor
does science if I'm not mistaken.
Speaker 3 (28:49):
But it's not.
Speaker 4 (28:50):
It's not going to kill you, but it's not good
for you, yeah, because it is literally all the bad
that your your kidneys filter out. And it seems like
maybe a bad idea to put it, but sure, we
don't know the specifics, and I'm sure we could do
some more digging. The process of refinement and processing that
this saligne undergoes would filter out those those bad things
and turn it into you know, it isolates that aspect
(29:11):
and uses it to believe fuel the process that generates
the good stuff.
Speaker 3 (29:16):
Yeah, to synthesize the protein. And also this reminds me
of our earlier conversations where we talked about how as
technology evolves, it increasingly mimics existing biological processes. We also
want to give a shout out to superproducer Tennessee who
noted that Mercedes used u rea injection to reduce harmful
(29:38):
emissions in diesel engines. And also you added Dylan, good
enough for a luxury car, good enough for a person.
So here's what I'm thinking, guys, Guys, are we losing
money every time we piss or we literally peed away profits?
Should we save our stuff and solid business, sell it
to Finland or startup investors? Uh, piss up investors.
Speaker 4 (30:02):
We'll work on it, guys.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
I just found a quote that's in a New York
Post article that is related to this, and you can
read it on your own time. But it is about
a gentleman that claims to have cured testicular cancer by
urine looping. And uh he also you'ine looping?
Speaker 4 (30:19):
You d me drink?
Speaker 3 (30:22):
Yeah, when you drink your own.
Speaker 4 (30:24):
You never heard it trot it out like that before,
And I'm gonna start using it in conversation.
Speaker 3 (30:28):
It's gonna give it some bona fide. Ah, it's gonna
give it a slight asparagus tinge of credibility.
Speaker 4 (30:35):
Oh god, that's so cute. Thank you.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
Yeah, So, Matt, where were you saying.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
No, I don't know, just I couldn't believe the post
it was. It was connected to the one you put
in the in the dock knoll. This was like linked
to it. This guy, this model who wrote a book
about being ripped at fifty talks about doing urine enemas
and splashing it on his skin and having his morning.
Speaker 4 (30:58):
Just put it right back into your own peehle.
Speaker 3 (31:01):
Just just just dock it.
Speaker 4 (31:05):
Sorry, we got gross of this one, but it's interesting
and it is more sci fi and it's cool.
Speaker 3 (31:12):
Maybe this is just an earthbound mud people prejudice, you know,
maybe astronauts in the future are going to say, you
guys just pee in holes in the crowd. You know,
this is why you guys aren't on Mars.
Speaker 4 (31:31):
There's gold in them there, your reeas there. Thank you, sorry,
thank you for finishing for me. That was the way
the way to do it. So we're going to put
a pin in that one for now and move on
to the city of Paris, the City of Love. If
they call it that, not brotherly love, that's Philly. Paris
is just love. Uh. A very romantic city, a storied
a place of poetry and art and music, and culture.
(31:54):
Also the burial place for some pretty notable folks, including
the os frontman, Jim Morrison, the Lizard King himself, as
well as Edith Peoff who else we got, Oscar wild
one hundred percent Oscar Wilde and Jean Paul Satre, as
well as Susan Suntalk, very very notable folks. A lot
(32:18):
of these people are buried in the Montparnasse Cemetery there
in Paris, which is a very storied burial place in
a city of where where you know, real estate is
at a premium. I was listening to my buddy Jonesy
on his podcast Weird a f News, and he pointed
out that Paris doesn't really build up like a lot
of modern cities. I think there's you know, there are
(32:39):
historical markers and designations and regulations that prevent them from
doing so. So what they are doing is in maybe
realizing that this there is a bit of a scarcity
of land, including burial land, the city of Paris has announced.
According to CN and Travel, Jack Guy writes a lottery
with a twist and out of a cash prize, entrance
(33:01):
can instead win the chance to be buried in one
of the French capital's most celebrated cemeteries. Cemeteries within the
city walls have been almost full since the beginning of
the twentieth century, with the clearing of abandoned tombs complicated
by local regulations. Some of the ones we were just
talking about. If you do decide to go in for
this lottery and you win, you will be granted the
(33:22):
opportunity to buy and restore. This is a restoration slash,
you know, historic preservation effort one of the thirty tombs
in three of these different historic cemeteries, with city Hall
agreeing to the lease to lease rather the corresponding burial
plots to those who meet certain standards. In recent decades,
city Hall set in a statement cemetery visitors throughout France
(33:45):
have expressed an interest in restoring an historic funerary monument
in order to obtain a burial plot, concession and return. However,
the chance to do so has been complicated by laws
governing the land in which the tombs are located, which
is owned by the state, as well as laws governing
the circumstances in which a family may rent the plot
(34:05):
for a period of time. So we've got ten plots
up for grabs in a pei Leschas cemetery which includes
one near or one's near Jim Morrison's grave. The front
man of the Doors taken from I Believe it all
This Huxley Yeah novel or a book called The Doors
of Perception where he talks about his drug addiction.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
Quick question nold for the rest of us in the
audience as well as me, what do we mean by
renting a plot? Does that mean that after the term expires,
similar to bunk them up, the person is disinterred.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
Yeah, that that didn't quite come up in this piece.
It looks like it's more like rent to own. I
think maybe the better term might be lease. But it
is a little confused in throwing that term rent. And
I think I pulled a little snippet from this paragraph earlier.
But let's just give us the whole thing, so mean
(35:02):
we can understand a little bit more. However, giving them
a chance to do so has been complicated by the
laws governing the land on which a tomb is located,
which is owned by the state, and concessions under which
a family rents the plot for a defined period of time.
It does not say what happens in that time period expires,
and I still don't understand how that's even possible. Given
(35:24):
the nature of burial. It seems like that would be
considered sacrilege and no one would sign up for that.
Why would I rent a burial plot knowing that it
was temporary, Like, what's the point of it?
Speaker 5 (35:34):
Ah?
Speaker 3 (35:35):
I can tell you, just to spin it out in
dystopian way, say you've got an alien relative that really
wants to be buried there, and you say, yeah, uncle Jimbo,
we'll put you right next to jim And then you know,
Uncle Jimbo is gone after well presumably they're not buried alive,
and so after that certain amount of time, I don't know,
(35:57):
it gets sticky real quick. As we know, there are
other parts of the world wherein burial is temporary. Right
in Japan, in parts of different parts of Central America,
you know you're in there for a minute, or you
might later get cremated to make room for other people,
depending on the water table, depending on the real estate. Well, god,
(36:19):
dozens of other variables.
Speaker 4 (36:21):
Well gosh, but if I'm not mistaken, we've discussed some
issues there with people being interred upon previously interred individuals
and they're having been in Paris, I want to say
floods that caused bodies to literally come up out of
the muck and be disinterred through other nature's actions. You're
(36:42):
absolutely correct. I do seem to remember discussing that on
one of the podcasts that we do. I will give
a little bit more figures associated with this. I think
that's actually really interesting because it's a lot cheaper than
I would have thought given the historic context you know
of these places. So each existing tomb, the article says,
be available to buy for four thousand euros or forty
(37:02):
six hundred American, with the winners also on the hook
for restoration costs which are not specified, and I imagine
that's where the real money might come in. If you
are then responsible for a historic preservation project that could
get pricey pretty quick. They will then be able to
buy a lease, the cost of which starts at nine
hundred and seventy six euros twelve hundred dollars roughly eleven
(37:24):
to twenty rather for a ten year contract, and increases
to seventeen thousand, six hundred and sixty eight euros or
around twenty grand for the right to rest their in perpetuity.
Very convoluent pricing structures here. I don't quite understand much
of this. Frankly, last bit. Applications for the lottery open
on Monday and will close on December thirty first, according
(37:45):
to City Hall, with each entrant subject to a nominal
one hundred and twenty five euro registration fee. Seems like
a bit of a cash cow for the city.
Speaker 3 (37:53):
It very much is. It kind of reminds me of
those deals you'll see folks if usip social meds, you
may see various advertisements that say, hey, buy a house
for peanuts here in rural Italy or rural Japan or
this benighted part of Scandinavia. And then if you read
the fine print, it says you also are on the
(38:15):
hook for upkeep and restoration and renovation.
Speaker 4 (38:22):
Codes prohibitively to the point of this whole thing. They
you know, folks that own historic properties, often there's a
lot of hidden costs and having to restore certain artifice,
certain features up to code in order to maintain the
the cultural integrity of the.
Speaker 3 (38:40):
Right, like an historic landmark kind of thing. Yeah, we're
just going to tell you, folks, if someone's trying to
sell you a castle Americans.
Speaker 4 (38:47):
Hear us.
Speaker 3 (38:48):
Well, if someone in Europe is trying to sell you
a castle, it is way more expensive than it sounds. Also,
perhaps this is wholesome on behalf of the French government,
because our friends are wreck ignizing that an appeal to
narcissism and vanity is a great way to keep your
ancient cemeteries up to snuff.
Speaker 4 (39:09):
Grandpa deserves to be buried next to these literary luminaries.
Oh yeah, he's a.
Speaker 3 (39:15):
Bit of a Jim Morrison himself, he's seen some doors.
Speaker 2 (39:18):
He was a bit of a lizard king. I love
the checklist. You guys, do you do you want to
be buried in historic cemetery?
Speaker 4 (39:26):
Check?
Speaker 2 (39:27):
Do you have thirty thousand dollars US just at hand
and ready to pay for this thing?
Speaker 4 (39:32):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (39:32):
Never mind?
Speaker 4 (39:33):
Well, another thing that I don't think this. There's definitely
no indication that you are required to be a French citizen.
Speaker 3 (39:39):
You're not.
Speaker 4 (39:40):
Yeah, I wouldn't think so. Jim Morrison certainly wasn't, nor
was Oscar Wild If I'm not mistaken, So pretty neat.
And I'm gonna end with this. I had another one
about AI and an open letter from let's see, I'm
just gonna say it real quick. Y'all can read upon
it yourselves. It's definitely interesting. Public Citizen is the name
of the group that is a watchdog group. This essentially
(40:03):
issued an open letter asking for open ai to withdraw
their sora to app because of just the utter chaos
it is reaking on just the believability of reporting, you know,
or getting to a point now where I've seen some
AB's where it's like, which one's the AI footage, like
people chopping onions and stuff, and I got it wrong
every time. And we're even hearing from experts, supposed experts
(40:27):
in the field that normally would be able to find
to tell some kind of indication that what you're seeing
is not to be believed, and that's becoming increasingly difficult.
So they're saying that in an effort to get ahead
of competitors, open ai released this tool, and it is
a indication of a quote consistent and dangerous pattern of
(40:48):
open ai rushing to market with the product that is
either inherently unsafe or lacking in needed guard rails. And
I'll just add I think the you know, let me
finish with their statement. Our biggest can is the potential
threat to democracy, said public citizen tech policy advocate JB. Branch.
I think we're entering a world in which people can't
(41:09):
really trust what they see, and we're starting to see
strategies in politics where the first image, the first video
that gets released is what people remember. And that's nothing new, y'all.
That's what everyone reads the headline, no one reads the retraction.
It's now an even more experiential version of that, and
I think it's absolutely dangerous. Altan is going to go anywhere.
(41:29):
An open letter, I don't know that I ever did much,
but it's it's just definitely signposting some real concerns that
I think we share here on stuff they don't want
you to know. Yeah, I don't know. Maybe let's let's
kick that around for a minute. I think it is
too important not to discuss, especially given some of what
we've already been discussing. This idea of things now being
(41:51):
claimed to be fake news or fake video or AI.
It's adding not only can we not trust it, we
can't trust whether the real thing is real because people
are saying calling into question because of where this stuff
is gone, then no, you shouldn't trust that, even if
it may well, be the truth.
Speaker 2 (42:08):
You know what we're gonna see really soon, guys, uh
Sora for emails, it just makes fake emails and then
you can say, oh, those emails weren't real.
Speaker 4 (42:18):
Well, that's a thing that it's interesting you say that
Matt I was hanging out with the buddy of mine
yesterday and it was I believe the third time I've
heard from someone who works in corporate America saying how
the biggest implementation that's being pushed for of chat, GPT
and assisted AI productivity tools is to fully write the
emails for reasons of self preservation and protecting because the
(42:42):
bot knows what not to say, what not to admit to. Maybe,
I argue, I think we all do that. It's creates
more work than it actually solves a problem. But yeah,
that's really already happening.
Speaker 2 (42:52):
It'll be scary when they can write emails from twenty eleven.
Speaker 4 (42:55):
Yeah, I don't know that's a good point. What do
you think, Ben? I know that we're very much on
the same page about the pitfalls and knock on consequences
of this move fast and break stuff mentality.
Speaker 3 (43:08):
Yeah, I'll keep it brief, but there's a thing I
almost sent all of us and fellow listeners. If you
want to hear it, or if you want to read
this yourself, check out check out a poll recently published
today to November twelfth. As we're recording this, a survey
shows that ninety seven percent of respondents cannot differentiate AI
(43:30):
music from the quote unquote real thing. Now. I know
we're running super long on our weekly strange news segment here,
but I do appreciate you bringing this up, not because
it's going to become increasingly apparent that the pendulum is
swinging wildly here from people. People tend to support the
(43:53):
idea of AI automation until it endangers them and then
we see a full one point eighty. But I love
to do a full episode in the future about deep
fakes AI generated music and all those people scrutined by
on emails, they did not write.
Speaker 4 (44:12):
A million percent, and that's exactly where it's had been.
That's that's something I think we've got more than enough
material to rock that full length episode, and I will
just add the last thing and then move on to
our final segment. The normalization of this stuff by virtue
of it seeming like a fun parlor trick that can
make mister Rogers do juggling, you know, or Stephen Hawking
skate on a halfpipe. That I think is a is
(44:34):
a a conscious effort to make these technologies feel harmless.
And I think in that it's even more dangerous because
you have folks being, you know, beguiled by the goofy
kind of parlor trick of it all, and it causes
them to maybe overlook the real danger. So here you go.
(44:55):
Let's take a quick break here whor from our sponsor,
and then we'll come back with more strange news.
Speaker 3 (45:04):
And we have returned, I want to give a shout
out real quick to everyone who clocked the idea of
the First Amendment in our earlier conversation at the first
act of our weekly strange news segment. So, folks, let's
set it up this way. In the US and abroad,
(45:25):
we are all, as as Noel mentioned, unfortunately, used to
wild claims and clear hogwash. Here in the States, A
lot of that is protected under a little something we
call the First Amendment. It reads the following, if we
could get a little fife, well founding fathers music, Tennessee,
thank you.
Speaker 6 (45:45):
Cadres shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom
of speech or of the press, or the right of
the people peacefully to assembly and to petition the Government
Address of grievances.
Speaker 3 (46:05):
Thank you, Thank you Senator Frederick for at Senator Brown
as well, for our purposes today. Look, folks, the First
Amendment has a ton of stuff in there, real quick.
Let's unpack it. They're saying separation of church and state.
They're also saying you can worship how you want. They're
(46:27):
also saying, if you are the press, you can talk
stuff without getting black bagged. They're also saying, even if
you're dumb, you can say what you want, even if
you are wrong. For instance, like you are an avid
flat earther and feel free to send an email if
you can prove flat earth. But they're saying, even if
(46:49):
you are demonstrably wrong, you can say what you want.
You can even put together a little hangout session on
the corner of your favorite Means Street or high street,
and you can get together and you can say whatever
kakameimi idea you care about.
Speaker 2 (47:08):
You just have to be influential, right, and a good speaker.
Speaker 3 (47:11):
You just have to. You just have to also not
threaten people directly. You can't say the Earth is flat,
let's you know, kill the Prime Minister of Slovakia or some.
Speaker 4 (47:23):
Other made up thing.
Speaker 3 (47:24):
So that for our purposes today, for this last act
of our weekly Strange News segment and program, we have
to note this passage of the United States Founding Documents
means again you can just talk trash. You do not
have to be an expert. You can raise your voice
(47:45):
in a public forum. You can hear here in a
physical online or you know wherever people gather a forum
of some sort. And as we record this program on
November twelfth, the First Amendment is again endangered in the
United Slates States. There are a lot of cases of
this conflict. Like we've all seen it, right, Political officials
(48:05):
are demanding rollbacks of things that were once treated as
best practices, established medical things like vaccinating your kids from
whooping cough right, which is whooping coughs having a moment,
as we all saw in Texas and in Florida, because
people are vaccinating less. We don't have to get into
(48:26):
that bag of badgers. But we know professors, researchers and
scientists are being silenced. There is a great brain drain
of foot and it will spell disaster and doom for
America's primacy in the new World order. And China proponents
argue is thinking ahead. There is a new thing happening
(48:47):
as we record. If you are an influencer in the
nation of China and you are speaking about specific areas
of expertise, you will now have to prove to the
Chiese government.
Speaker 4 (49:02):
That you have your bona fides.
Speaker 3 (49:04):
You will have to be able to say, hey, I'm
talking about medical stuff because I'm a medical person.
Speaker 2 (49:10):
Oh guys, I'm torn on this one. Yeah, I may partially,
I may partially agree.
Speaker 3 (49:17):
That's what I'm thinking. Man Like, that's the that's the
real pickle of it. That's the badger in the bag here,
because this is maybe old beings for people who are
a little more plugged in for us. But China is
officially requiring university degrees for influencers discussing specifically medicine, law
or finance. And finance is tricky because a lot of
(49:40):
people who have degrees in finance don't know what they're
talking about.
Speaker 2 (49:45):
Or they already drink the kool aid.
Speaker 3 (49:47):
Or they drink the kool aid. Yeah, because it's kind
of a religion, right, it's a dogma.
Speaker 2 (49:51):
Whoa Okay, but so so then you're only you're only
really allowed to in some minor way, parrot the things
that you learn in school, like the official versions of
how this stuff works.
Speaker 3 (50:03):
Right, great question and not not fully correct. You can
disagree with status quo. You can pose alternative stuff if
you come up to you know, like let's say you're
on social media and China like Doulin, which is basically
their TikTok now, and you say, hey, I think you
(50:26):
should maintain a urine loop for for your health Steve
Brutle style. Well, then it's okay for you to say
that if you follow it up with also, I have
a medical degree, so I can say all the beat
me here at Tennessee, I could say all the wild
and I want h oh, you could just met met it.
(50:49):
So the this is coming to us from our good
friends over at the Cyberspace Administration of China or CAC,
and they're doing this in coordination with the Ministry of
Culture and Tourism of the PRC People's Republic of China.
If you want to learn, if you want a great
(51:09):
primer on this before we get to the discussion that
I'm quite excited about. Do check out Law for Everything.
Law for Everything published an awesome primer here on November one,
twenty twenty five, and it walks through exactly what has
to happen.
Speaker 4 (51:28):
This is happening.
Speaker 3 (51:29):
By the way, if you are an influencer in China
talking about these things to the public all mass then
you have until pretty much the end of December to
show up, show out or GTFO. They will not necessarily
throw you in prison, but they will give you an
(51:52):
egregious fine. And once you get as we all know
anybody who's spent some time there, once you get flagged
by the government, once that saarn eye is on you,
it's very easy to disappear and maybe lose a kidney,
maybe a liver. No thank you, that's what they're saying.
So this is this is the question. This is what
(52:14):
I think we're We're all Natalie and Bruglia level torn
about it is. Philosophically, it's kind of a win to
prevent vulnerable prejulicue people from being exposed to absolute.
Speaker 4 (52:32):
Malarkey, right to hogwash.
Speaker 3 (52:34):
It would be kind of cool if we knew somebody
was speaking from a position of expertise or experience, were
considered concentrated thought, but it violates the First Amendment? Like
should the US do this? Should the US have everybody
(52:56):
who argues for consuming silver or gold? Should they have
to be a doctor or at the very least an economist.
Speaker 2 (53:06):
One of the major problems with this version of the Internet,
as a Dylan mentioned in our chat here, is that
the misinformation disinformation just specifically misinformation runs so rampant, specifically
across social media feeds, and that that open form that
we're talking about in the First Amendment protects that. It
(53:27):
it becomes so confusing for people who end up isolated
in a you know, specific bubble. And that's all of us,
by the way. So I do wonder if you had
people who knew what they were talking about talking about
this stuff, would that then foster the real uh what
is the what is? There's terms for this? But like
that the connecting of people who have ideas and then
(53:51):
having conversations about those ideas and then forming new ones. Yes, yes,
that like it feels like you could foster that if
you didn't hose some kind of rules like that and
then everybody else could comment on it if they wanted to,
if they aren't informed. But again that it's so restricting.
Speaker 3 (54:09):
That's another Yeah, You've raised some great issues here because
first you have to have any content that offers advice
or commentary will be accompanied by this three things. You
have to have clear indication of credentials of the speaker,
you have to have citation of appropriate sources. And you
(54:29):
have to have disclosure on whether or not artificial intelligence
is used or if there's a dramaticization so what we
would call it recree in like a true crime thing.
So you have to be able to say, like, hey,
this is not the actual Thomas Jefferson, who was alive,
you know, and died well before motion cameras existed, So
(54:55):
not the real Tommy. Also I am a real historian. Also,
so here is the paper that I'm reacting to. This
doesn't stop people from necessarily posing alternative commentary, right, but
it does seem to heighten the barrier to entry. And
(55:17):
one of the dangerous consequences of this could be and
this is just gaming it through, right, this could be
leading to a situation wherein those experts who are qualified
by the Chinese government are then.
Speaker 4 (55:33):
Told what is appropriate to speak about.
Speaker 3 (55:36):
They get an Overton window of medicine, finance, science, space exploration.
Speaker 4 (55:42):
You're a looping, et cetera. Dude.
Speaker 2 (55:45):
It makes me think about Avi Lobe and like having
all those bona fides that he has in you know,
holding that position, but still saying things on his own medium,
you know, his website essentially on medium and saying things
that end up getting caught minted on by us and
everybody else out there in Joe Rogan. And then how
somebody with bona fides can end up putting so many
(56:08):
differing ideas that are outside of the mainstream into the distroys.
Speaker 4 (56:11):
Yeah, and like I mean, yeah, having a being smart
on paper it does not preclude individuals from being nuts
about other things. I think history has shown that. Yeah, Yeah,
that's a great point.
Speaker 3 (56:24):
Like we were talking about earlier, I was, I was
listening to one of our previous conversations where we pointed
out that being an expert in one field of science
doesn't automatically make you an expert in every related field. Like,
for instance, a podiatrist is going to be very quick
to say they're not an expert on ophthalmology, which is
(56:47):
the right thing. Like a astrophysicist is also going to
be quick to say, I'm not necessarily an expert on
this other aspect of studies of space. So I think
the real question for us here, and we can't wait
to hear from you, fellow conspiracy realists, is whether something
(57:11):
like this in should exist in the United States. If so,
how would it be enforced?
Speaker 4 (57:17):
Now?
Speaker 3 (57:18):
Uncle G is saying that. Sorry, Uncle G's boys are
saying that. The they're saying that if you are not qualified, right,
if you've made millions of followers on your Chinese social
media of choice, they say, you don't have to automatically
(57:39):
shut down your circus tent. You have to stop talking
about this stuff, or you have to go to school,
which I think is like a very parental, maybe patriarchical.
Maybe you're a welliant thing, but it's a way out.
It's an off ramp to say, hey, you pretend to
be a doctor, go be a doctor.
Speaker 4 (57:57):
I'm not a doctor. I just play one on TV
or on my podcasts. Right, I mean, but is this
all a free speech issue too? Like people are allowed
to be quacks, like you're allowed to say random, and
they're the barrier to proving that someone is spouting out
dangerous information in this country at least seems real high
(58:18):
Like to prove malice in spreading quote unquote misinformation just
seems to be like the order of the day.
Speaker 3 (58:25):
Yeah, and I appreciate you bringing that up, because that's
what we're kind of talking about at the top. The
First Amendment says, no matter how uninformed or demonstrably wrong
your ideas are, you have a right to say those ideas,
and indeed you can form a club for those ideas,
even if it's something like secretly all human beings do
(58:46):
have tails and they're just cut off because of big medicine,
then you could totally do that here. Well as malleable as.
Speaker 4 (58:53):
The Constitution is supposed to be, I would argue, the
founding fathers definitely didn't think about the Internet or didn't
foresee away and information can be spread so quickly, and
now we have these extra layers with like not even
being able to try to trust the information that you
get so rapidly.
Speaker 3 (59:09):
And yeah, that's why it's a it's a pitch meeting.
That's why they didn't know about nuclear weapons. They never
thought of semi automatic firearms. They didn't think there would
be a world where people didn't wear wigs and stockings
at fancy events.
Speaker 2 (59:25):
Do you think they foresaw how influential cats would be
in the future.
Speaker 4 (59:30):
Did they predict furries?
Speaker 3 (59:31):
Is that your question said they knew about cats? Yeah,
because that's ancient Egypt right there.
Speaker 2 (59:36):
You know just how much they would fully take over everything.
Speaker 3 (59:41):
Were they aware of toxoplasmosis? This is our question? Yeah,
I mean this is so, this is the thing I
think we I hope that we provided some context here.
And one thing I love that we we all kind
of said at the top was yes, maybe speakers should
be informed, you know, on their subject of choice. I
(01:00:04):
also want to go back to something that Matt said earlier,
which is misinformation versus disinformation. Disinformation is when someone is
purposely trying to screw you over or swindle you intellectually.
Misinformation is when someone with very good intentions is also incorrect.
So if somebody is selling a book about the flat
(01:00:28):
Earth and they know the Earth is round and they
are still selling the book, that is disinformation.
Speaker 4 (01:00:33):
So it's not illegal to be dumb. Basically, it can't
be illegal to be dumb.
Speaker 3 (01:00:39):
That feels very wrong and I know.
Speaker 4 (01:00:42):
It's reductive the way I'm putting it, and I'm not
trying to talk smacked anybody, but that is the heart
of the issue right in in a way.
Speaker 3 (01:00:50):
Well to finish the comparison there too, if somebody genuinely
believes the earth is flat and they're selling a book,
then that's misinformation. And how could we fault them for
putting their beliefs out there?
Speaker 6 (01:01:04):
Right?
Speaker 3 (01:01:04):
Like, why would we hit someone with a egregious fine
or ruin their lives because they didn't know what they
were talking about?
Speaker 4 (01:01:14):
Yeah, buts sadly, it's very difficult to run a test
to see whether politicians truly believe in the Lord and
Savior of Jesus Christ and the word of the Bible.
And therefore we see weaponization and misdirection and misuse of that,
you know, under the guise of true belief. I think
it exists. I think true belief exists for some of
(01:01:35):
these folks. But I also think it's hijacked and it
is a loophole that you can't prove that I don't
believe that. Therefore, I'm basing all of my acts and
opinions on this thing and saying that I believe it
and therefore I'm not giving disinformation.
Speaker 3 (01:01:52):
Yeah, which is why Uncle G and the boys are
starting at the university or credentialed level. So if you
have a if you have a platform online in China
where you are the go to person on how to
put out fires right or how to prevent bridges from
collapsing shout out to that recent bridge collapse which I
(01:02:13):
think we all saw, then you need to have those qualifications.
You can't just be some guy vibing on how to
put out the fire in the apartment block. You can't
be some guy who grew up just sort of liking bridges.
You gotta know engineering, you gotta know how to be
a firefighter. You can if you are unqualified under this law,
(01:02:36):
fellow Chinese conspiracy realist, you can pivot to topics outside
of the regulated stuff. So if you have a big
law blog blob blog blog.
Speaker 4 (01:02:48):
Mob blah blah blah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:02:50):
Yeah you can go. You can say, hey, our channels
switch and direction. Now I talk about watches, restwatches, fancy watch,
you know, whatever case it is, it doesn't matter. But
I think our question now is should the United States
take a cue from our friends over the Pacific people
(01:03:11):
have died due to disinformation and to misinformation. And to
the earlier point, you were getting at their no with
false claims of religious belief. There is no law in
China against cynicism, right, it's just about information and disinfo
(01:03:32):
or misinfo. There is no law against cynicism here in
the United States. Actually, there's no law against let me
let me think back off the dom here. There is
no law against cynicism anywhere in current human civilization. It's
just such a natural thing. It'd be like making a
(01:03:53):
law against pooping, yeah, or sarcasm.
Speaker 4 (01:03:56):
Yeah. But I guess that's my point too, is like
how can you prove any of these things? Like how
can you prove that I'm being cynical? Maybe I'm just
being realistic, you know what I mean, Like one person's
cynical is another person's something else.
Speaker 3 (01:04:07):
Yeah. That's why I'm returning again to how smart they
were by saying it must be the following three fields,
and it must be the expertise must be proven in
those fields, and if not, you get a fine, you
might get shut down. You will get shut down, and
then you may get a chance to pivot to different topics.
(01:04:27):
So again, I think our thesis question here is should
the United States take the queue? Should? I mean people
have again died due to disinformation misinformation here in the US, right,
So if that is an opportunity to save people, should
we have credentialed experts or to what degree does that
(01:04:48):
imperil the First Amendment?
Speaker 2 (01:04:50):
Oh, I've got a question, yes, sir, if it were
in place here in the US, in this sure you know, conceptual,
in this world where it happens, would we still be
able to make this show. I knew you were going
to ask as a degree, not a not a newsboy.
(01:05:11):
Oh no, no, no, not anymore, not anymore.
Speaker 3 (01:05:15):
Yeah, that's that's something that I think is true. Now,
we of course do our level best to say what
we don't know, right, And we are grateful for you
the most important part of the show, our fellow conspiracy realist,
who are experts in all sorts of fields, and we
can't thank you enough for lending your expertise to us
(01:05:36):
and your fellow listeners. But I do posit to that
question kind of anticipated there, Matt, I do posit it
would massively change the landscape of the United States, not
just for you know, little David v Goliath podcasters like us,
but also for political pundits, also for and this is
(01:05:57):
the youmami, this is the juicy part at the end
political officials.
Speaker 2 (01:06:02):
Mm hmm. Yeah, but you didn't answer the question, or
would we still be able to make the show.
Speaker 4 (01:06:07):
We'd be fine. Okay, we'd be fine.
Speaker 2 (01:06:09):
Because no, you have aye, both of you guys have
degrees that would match up. Yeah, we'd be fine. We'd
we'd have to maybe narrow the scope of what we
talk about a little bit.
Speaker 3 (01:06:18):
Yeah, our days of big foots out right? Wait, unless
we could get a bigfoot degree. Tell us about it, folks,
and shout out to everybody who saw the northern lights
as far south as Florida. There's a ton of stuff
we didn't get to. Elon Musk wants the Optimist robot
(01:06:41):
to help pre crime. You can't get one for free.
Speaker 2 (01:06:45):
And since we last talked about that last week, he
got approved for that one trillion dollar Bay package.
Speaker 3 (01:06:53):
We're entering the era of the k shaped economy, which
speaks to that point, Matt. There's so much to get
to here. Thank you again for tuning in, folks. We
know we ran a little bit long on this, but
what do you think about the First Amendment and the
idea of requiring university degrees to be an influencer. We'd
(01:07:13):
love to hear your thoughts. You can find us on
the internet. You can give us a telephone call. You
can always write to us via email.
Speaker 4 (01:07:21):
That's right. You can find us on the internet if
you wish to do so at the handle of Conspiracy Stuff,
where we exist on Facebook where our Facebook group here
is where it gets crazy. You can get in another conversation.
There a bunch of cool folks. We also exist at
Conspiracy Stuff on YouTube. We have video content galore for
you to enjoy, as well as on axfka, Twitter, on
Instagram and TikTok. On the other hand, we're Conspiracy Stuff Show.
Speaker 2 (01:07:41):
We have a phone number. It is one eight to
three three std WYTK Breaking news guys in New York City.
Right now, there is a giant solid gold toilet. It's
just a regular sized functioning toilet made of solid gold.
It is for auction right now starting around ten point
two million.
Speaker 4 (01:08:00):
My toilet.
Speaker 3 (01:08:02):
I have to go.
Speaker 2 (01:08:04):
What would you do with it?
Speaker 3 (01:08:05):
I have to go on several levels right now?
Speaker 4 (01:08:07):
Is it a toto washlet?
Speaker 2 (01:08:09):
Ooh, ooh, where will this toilet end up?
Speaker 4 (01:08:12):
All right?
Speaker 2 (01:08:13):
If you want to call us, do if you want
to send us an email, we are the.
Speaker 3 (01:08:17):
Entities that read each piece of correspondence we receive. Be
well aware, yet I'm afraid sometimes the void writes back.
Shout out to the Yule lads. Also shout out to
the Thai government. The Kingdom of Thailand did conspire to
make Thai restaurants a thing, so tune into Ridiculous History
to learn more about that. In the meantime, please please
(01:08:38):
please tell us your thoughts about the new Chinese law
regarding influencers.
Speaker 4 (01:08:44):
Is this the right move for a social.
Speaker 3 (01:08:46):
Media age or does it endanger the things we prize
about the First Amendment conspiracy At iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (01:09:12):
Stuff they Don't Want you to Know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is Noah.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
They called me Ben. We're joined as always with our
super producer Dylan the Tennessee pal Fagan. Most importantly, you
are you. You are here. That makes this the stuff
they don't want you to know. It's our weekly strange
news program. So let us welcome you to Monday, November seventeenth,
twenty twenty five. Raise your hand. If you're not in prison,
(00:53):
Oh god, uh not in a US official prison. I
guess we're all in a prison of existence.
Speaker 4 (00:59):
An existential prison and of the mind.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Yes, there are a few people listening to this on
a cell block who just went, oh.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
Raise your hand. We're here with you. We're all in
it together. That's our segue because we have been super
tuned into a lot of strange news. As we hurtle
headlong toward twenty twenty six, and Gallaine Maxwell from earlier
is apparently getting some very special treatment in incarceration.
Speaker 4 (01:29):
We're talking neck massages, snacks. Are we what are we talking?
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Deference is the ultimate, Yes, the ultimate treat And if
you want to read more about that, there's a great
primer over on CNN where the journalist Aaron Burnett spoke
with the federal prison consultant Sam Mangle. And that's kind
of a that's kind of a setup, because I think
we've all noticed that, We've all noticed that there is
(02:01):
a bit of a division, or there has been of late,
between the US public and indeed the global public and
the official like mainstream media outlets. For a time, everybody
on the Internet and especially our favorite subreddits was saying,
ignore this political news release.
Speaker 4 (02:21):
The Epstein files comment sections are on fire with that one.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Oh yeah, Ben, if you don't mind, I just clicked
on the link that you shared with us for for
this on the dock and there the things that she's
getting access to are the puppies.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
Got a puppypy to special meal request, checking access to
exercise areas after hours?
Speaker 4 (02:47):
Oh my god.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
Yeah, A lot of a lot of stuff that wouldn't
normally happen, even in the relatively nice, comfy place Galley
Maxwell is currently incarcerated at.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
And does this feel like quid pro quo. Well, I
mean why, Like, I just don't understand she's a convicted
sex predator, child sex trafficker. It's just such a bad look.
I just is there. Does she have something on someone?
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Or that's the that's the question.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
That's with a slight eyebrow waggle and also a healthy
dose of naivete. But I mean I think, yeah, something's.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Wow, isn't it interesting?
Speaker 4 (03:33):
Though?
Speaker 2 (03:33):
That's the like, that's the feeling that you get without
knowing much about it, right, And then imagine all of
the Americans who've been following this story who do know
just enough right to feel a little bit of a
pain when they read something like that.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
And additionally, before we go to our break and our
breaking news, we must add that Gallin Maxwell's official special
treatment began shortly after a still mysterious meeting.
Speaker 4 (04:05):
Yes, yeah, I mean, and there's no question about her crimes, right,
and yet there's discussion being bandied about about the potential pardon.
You know, but anytime a pardon comes up, presidents typically like, well,
I'll look into that. And he also seems to feign
even remembering who Gallaine Maxwell is when confronted with it often,
(04:25):
which is super siss, but like, are we normalizing this
kind of stuff? I just it gives me the ick
in a in a very real way.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
I think it gives most people the echo. I'd have
your back on that. When what we can say is
that there are always serious questions about pardons that may
not seem to make sense or commutations, and then we
have to ask whether there is a bit of a
standoff or a dead man switched, like we did in
our earlier episodes on the Jeffrey Epstein News. And this
(04:57):
is where we get to the chain. And as they
say on the LA Leakers, we're going to pause for
a word from our sponsors, and then, assuming we don't
break our hyoid bones, we'll be back with something you
need to know about, folks.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
And we've returned just I guess. As a way to
get into this section, let's remember that meeting we're talking
about between Glaine and an attorney that was set up
by the Executive Branch and the Department of Justice, was
between the current president's former personal lawyer, right and Gallaiine Maxwell.
(05:39):
That was the big deal on that whole thing.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
And we don't know the substance of that conversation.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Oh no, we do not, and no one will. Because
that was an attorney, I guess, and a not a client.
An attorney and an inmate.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
There's definitely some privilege going on, at least be sure
of that.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Yes, and that is for the record. That is a
this legal beagle is not someone who specifically meets with everybody.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
Yes, yes, exactly. So let's go to Politico just again,
this is just kind of an appetizer to set up
the thing. Politico, writing in August of this year about
the statements Galaine Maxwell made after that secret of meeting
with the attorney. She is saying here that she never
witnessed the president quote in any inappropriate setting with girls
(06:30):
introduced to him by Jeffrey Epstein. She also says, quote
I actually never saw the president in any type of
massage setting. I never saw the president in any type
of massage setting.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
Quote.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
I never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in
any way. The President was never inappropriate with anybody in
the times that I was with him. He was a
gentleman in all respects. Let's keep that in mind, the
specific wording of those statements.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
Yeah, okay, squarely in mind Okay, cut to eight forty
five this morning, when my girlfriend showed me a little
news alert that she received, And this is the news alert.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
It was from PBS News an article by Liz Landers
written today that we're recording November twelfth, twenty twenty five.
The title is read Jeffrey Epstein's newly released emails about Trump.
So let's jump right to this article and see where
it takes us.
Speaker 4 (07:32):
Quote.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
Jeffrey Epstein specifically referenced his relationship with President Donald Trump
in writing before Trump was elected to office. According to
newly obtained emails released Wednesday by the House Oversight Committee,
the emails are among twenty three thousand documents Epstein's estate
release to the committee. They include correspondence between Epstein and
his former girlfriend Glaine Maxwell Matt.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
This is also the same state that released the birthday book. Correct,
A lot of this stuff has come directly from them.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Yes, the estate is releasing a lot of things. The
House Oversight Committee is getting them, and in this case,
some of these emails were released specifically by members of
the House Committee. They were also sent directly to PBS
and several other news outlets. So, fellas you want to
read some emails.
Speaker 4 (08:19):
Heck, yeah, I mean must we but okay, yes.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
First thing I want to do you, guys, I want
to talk about the disclaimer that's at the end of
each one of these emails from Epstein's email account, which
is jee vacation at gmail dot com. By the way,
that's exciting. Jeffrey Epstein's vacation email in twenty eleven. The
signature read, and this is a long one. Bear with
(08:45):
me here. The information contained in this communication is confidential
maybe attorney client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is
intended only for the use of the address e. It
is the property of Jeffrey Epstein. Unauthorized use, disclosure copying
of this communication in any part thereof is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you ever received this communication
(09:05):
in error, please notify us immediately by return email or
email to jee vacation at gmail dot com and destroy
this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
This message may or may not self destruct.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Wow, So it sounds like something that would make sense
for a financier, somebody who is helping others with monies
and helping them make investments in that kind of thing, right.
Speaker 4 (09:30):
Privlenged information right proprie trade secrets perhaps, yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Yes, but something about the including all attachments really creeps
me out. I don't know why.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
Hey could be a spreadsheet, could be a h that's right,
that's right.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Okay, without further ado, guys, we're gonna do these in
chronological order. So let's jump to email number one. This
occurs on April second, twenty eleven. That's a Saturday. According
to the email, it happened at fourteen twenty five forty five,
so two twenty five pm. We're assuming wherever Jeffrey Epstein
(10:06):
was when he sent this. And this is Jeffrey Epstein
writing this jee vacation at gmail dot com. Quote. I
want you to realize that that dog that hasn't barked
is Trump. And there's there's a redacted section right here,
which is the name of a victim. That's how it's
written and how it was released by the House Committee.
(10:27):
There it says victim spent hours at my house with him.
He has never once been mentioned police chief, et cetera.
I'm seventy five percent there. Then there's a reply from
Gmax or Gallaine Maxwell. That's Gmax one at elmax dot
com Glaine replies, quote, I've been thinking about that unquote.
(10:52):
So specifically, guys, what do we think about the wording there?
That quote that that dog that hasn't barked? And what
about this thing this phrase? I'm seventy five percent there.
I don't think about one. That one's confusing to me.
I'm seventy five percent there.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
Maybe in in my position of having Trump on lock
in some way or like owning him. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
This is this is twenty eleven.
Speaker 4 (11:16):
Yeah, you know, you're right, this is this precedes Trump's
rise in politics, but this is also insider circles. Maybe
they were whispers about future plans. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Well, Ben, specifically, what do you what do you think
that those phrases feel spycrafty?
Speaker 3 (11:30):
To me, it definitely from the outside in, feels like
there is an attempt to communicate with obfuscation, right, Like
we are not specifically saying watch out, but we're saying
things like dog hasn't barked seventy five percent. So if
(11:51):
someone is attempting to glean a deeper meaning, then they
can probably reasonably and logically find one, because otherwise, those
those exchanges of information simply don't make sense.
Speaker 4 (12:07):
Right.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Well, we know the context is everything, right, because we
know at this point Epstein has been charged with some
pretty serious crimes, and then he got off pretty easily
with his whole you know, work from home kind of
thing or get to go to work from prison and
all that stuff.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
He didn't.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
He kind of got a return to office mandate though
you know, have secured that.
Speaker 4 (12:28):
For him eventually.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
But this is twenty eleven, right, So this is the
in between times after he was first charged and arrested
for stuff, and then before he was sent back to prison.
So there's it's interesting that this kind of discussion is
being had at this time. So I guess if we're
gonna go in chronological order, we're going to jump down
to email number three at least, and according to the release,
(12:53):
So this is where we need to introduce this gentleman,
Michael Wolf. That's Wolf with two f's. He's in a
ward winning journalist and author. His work has covered numerous
subjects across the world, but his focus for the past
let's say decade and a half or so, has been
on power players in politics and in media. He's written
books like The Man Who Owns the News, A biographer Murdoch, Yeah,
(13:15):
a biography of Rupert Murdoch, the Fall, the end of
Fox News and the Murdoch Dynasty, Fire and fury, inside
the Trump White House and all or nothing, how Trump
recaptured America. So you could see a bit of a
pattern here. When he finds a preferred subject, it appears
that Michael really digs in, specifically Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump.
There another one of Michael's let's say, work interests was
(13:40):
Jeffrey Epstein, not the subject, but the actual human being Jeff.
You see, Michael spent a lot of time with Jeff
in real life. He recorded hours and hours of their conversations,
and he has been talking about those recordings and releasing
them for a while now.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
Yeah, we brought this up earlier on air.
Speaker 4 (14:01):
I mentioned it.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
I think it was back in let's see, he had
a book in twenty twenty one, Landslide, which was about
the previous Trump administration. But I think Matt he correct
me if I'm off face here. He recorded something like
one hundred hours worth of interviews with Jeffrey Epstein as
a primary source in his research. Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Well, that's what I saw that on It was mentioned
in Wikipedia, but I couldn't find a source for that.
But he but he has stated a couple of times
that he has spent a lot of time, like personal
time on the phone. Absolutely, because he's been talking and
talking and talking, and he's been releasing some stuff through
his podcast. And again, if you go to The Daily Beast,
(14:47):
there's something written on November two, twenty twenty four by
Hugh Dharty. You can just search listen to the Jeffrey
Epstein tapes. I was Donald Trump's closest friend.
Speaker 4 (14:55):
Is there is there a sense that Wolfe has swept
up in this in a way that belies his position
as a journalist. I have not seen that.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
I have not heard about that. Much of what I've
seen is Michael Wolfe's writing or you know, those recordings
that he is public he's putting out there into the public.
Speaker 4 (15:11):
Is he getting ahead of it though, I guess is
what I'm getting at, Like he's putting all this out
there to get the heat off of him, because it
would seem like if he's in these personal exchanges, that
he might have known some stuff too. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
Yeah, that's a great.
Speaker 3 (15:22):
Question, because they are journalistic guarantees for protection and sources
that are increasingly endangered in the United States. So we
know that he has made some claims for the past
several years. So the breaking news is actually the American
public being able to put some sand or some support
(15:45):
behind the claims that Wolf has been making for some time.
Is how I would say it.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
If that's all right, makes sense.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
I think that's perfectly fine. So let's jump to email three.
Here we have Michael Wolfe, whose email address has been
DAC did you guys m writing on December fifteenth, twenty fifteen,
so we've gone from twenty eleven to twenty fifteen. This
is Michael Wolfe writing to Jeffrey Epstein. Michael says, quote,
I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his
(16:14):
relationship with you, either on air or in scrum. Afterwards,
Epstein replies, if we were able to craft an answer
for him, what do you think it should be? And
then Wolf says back to him, And this is where
that line is getting a little weird to me. Know
all that you're asking about this is this is Wolf's
reply quote, I think you should let him hang himself
(16:36):
if he says he hasn't been on the plane or
to the house. Then that gives you a valuable PR
like press release and political currency. You can hang him
in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you.
Or if it really looks like he could win again
we're talking about the presidency here in twenty fifteen, if
it really looks like he could win, you could save
him generating a debt. Of course, it is possible that
(17:00):
when asked, he'll say Jeffrey is a great guy and
has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of
political correctness, which which is to yeah, and just concluding there,
which is to be outlawed in a Trump.
Speaker 4 (17:11):
Regime, which I kind of is. But he did all
of those things. That's wild.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Yeah, I just made a little note here, whoe is
Michael a journalist or Epstein's manager.
Speaker 4 (17:20):
He seems like, man, this is wild. He's crafting the
PR line for him.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
It's a little weird, right, Well, it's more it's less
of a PR line to me, no, and more of
a strategy like a strategist.
Speaker 4 (17:32):
Well, PR is strategy. Yeah, I guess it's like fallout
management or what's whatever. You know, Uh, that's a part
of pr is like crisis management. That's what he's doing here.
He's acting as a very high level player in that strategy.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
It's pretty weird, y'all, I will say, a fellow conspiracy realist,
do note that Michael Wolf is currently run at a
gofund me due to legal action by Melaannia Trump. He
has he is getting the pants sued off him. Allegedly,
(18:07):
there is a one billion dollar damages claim based on
him saying that Maladia Trump was also acquainted on some
level with Jeffrey Epstein. So to Knowle's point about consigliare
crisis management.
Speaker 4 (18:23):
Isn't a hunter Biden getting sued for the same reasons
for saying in an interview that he did with that
Channel five podcast guy that they met each other. No,
it's true, like that claim which he was repeating from Wolf,
That's what it was. He received a season desist from
Milania as well for this very same little nugglet of information,
(18:45):
the idea that Trump and Millenia met one another through Epstein.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
And then yeah, Wolf filed a lawsuit in October of
this year against Melania Trump and now then as folks,
just so I can clarify, they reportedly threatened this journalist
wolf with a damage's claim. So really the rubber is
(19:11):
hitting the road with the US government releasing these emails
that we've been talking about.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
Oh yeah, you can head over to NBC News and
you can search for author Michael Wolfe sus Malania Trump
over jeff Jeffrey Epstein threat That was October twenty second,
twenty twenty five. And that is exactly That's exactly what
we're talking about here. And it is very interesting that
it can be like a cease and desist, you know,
message from an attorney you better stop talking about this
(19:38):
stuff or we'll see you for a billion dollars. But
then it is great that you know, an author or
somebody who is trying to exercise their freedom of speech
can just say, well, actually no, your suit, don't do that,
Please don't forge.
Speaker 3 (19:50):
Yeah, at some point it ends up being a bunch
of kids playing tag you're it, or like I'm I'm rubber,
you're glue, or three spider men pointing at each other's
I mean, that's the US legal system. And I love
that we're bringing up the First Amendment because that's going
to be really important towards the end of strange News today.
Speaker 4 (20:10):
Well, hey, guys, obviously this is very new these emails.
Do you think the Trump administration is gonna say they're fake?
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Well, hey, guess what As of twenty four minutes ago
when we were recording, it is eleven forty six now,
so around eleven twenty, the Guardian is reporting that the
White House says a new batch of Epstein emails is
part of quote, a fake narrative in an attempt to
smear Donald Trump. Let's see Press Secretary Caroline Carolyne.
Speaker 4 (20:40):
Leave it.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
I don't want to say your name, says the unnamed
victim within these emails. Reference to is the late Virginia Jeoffrey,
who repeatedly said President Trump was not involved in any
wrongdoing whatsoever. However, the emails were dacted the name of
the victim when they were released, so somebody knows who
it is. Within the administration quote, the factor remains that
(21:01):
President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club decades
ago for being a creep to his female employees, including Jeoffrey.
Speaker 4 (21:07):
But we've've discussed how the timeline's a little funky about
that one too, in terms of like Trump saying he
was a good guy and then supposedly he had broken
ties with him before him saying that. Yes.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
So here's where it gets curiouser and curious her guys.
Email number two just in order there of the release.
This is twenty nineteen, so three years after President Trump's
taken office.
Speaker 4 (21:33):
Right. Uh.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Here is the message from jee vacation at gmail dot
com also known as Jay in this email and it's
written to Michael Wolfe. Here it is, the first part
of this email is a giant redacted section that is
just a victim's name according to the House Committee. Then
it says marl Lago.
Speaker 4 (21:54):
Period.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
Then there is a full redacted sentence that we don't
know what it says, then a period, and then it
says Trump said he asked me to resign, never a
member ever, of course he knew about the girls, as
he asked Glaine to stop. This is in twenty nineteen.
Speaker 4 (22:11):
Resign from what and stop what he says.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
They're talking about mar A Lago, some.
Speaker 4 (22:18):
Member of the club, Right, yeah.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Pretty weird, right, some sentence as though, because we're talking
here about how Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club.
And then in this email from twenty nineteen, it appears
to who knows, because we don't know the full context,
but it appears to say that Epstein was never a
member of mar A Lago.
Speaker 4 (22:36):
But you know, then they could argue, well, we may.
We told him to take a hike. We told him, ye,
not come around, don't go around here, no more sure?
Who knows?
Speaker 2 (22:44):
And finally from the White House, any American with common
sense sees right through this hoax and clear distraction from
the government opening back up again. Who knows? That's all
I've got, guys.
Speaker 4 (22:56):
Something to chew on. Very new, Thanks Matt.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
All right, we'll be right back with more strange news.
Speaker 4 (23:07):
And we've returned. Got a couple shorties for you all today.
I'm gonna just jump right in.
Speaker 3 (23:12):
With space a couple shorties hashtag new Epstein.
Speaker 4 (23:15):
Yeah, well, no, no, a couple shorties, some short kings
for us here today on this segment of Strange News
is going to lead off with a space story out
of the International Space Station, where they are apparently going
to debut astronaut food made of pea.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
Finally, finally, water World is real.
Speaker 4 (23:33):
Astronauts embarking on long term space missions could eat space
food made from a protein powder consisting of air and urine.
The European Space Agency, as News Nation reports, launched a
pilot program called Hobi wan.
Speaker 3 (23:49):
And don't kick it for us.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
That is an acronym come boys it Ever, the kenobia
is I think understood. It is hydrogen oxidizing bacteria in
weightlessness as a source of nutrient kenobi WHOA.
Speaker 3 (24:02):
I love how they I love how they specifically capitalize
only certain words in there because they don't because otherwise
it would be uh high bwahs ass I love.
Speaker 4 (24:16):
I love a convenient acronym. You gotta you gotta love it. Uh.
This program is essentially testing whether it's possible to create
this protein powder that's already got a pretty space spacey name.
In Soline sounds like something out of an Aldest Huxley
novel that requires nothing but microbes, air and electric current
(24:37):
to uh to generate to manufacture.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
So already sounds delicious.
Speaker 3 (24:42):
Yeah, it's like soil and green and we talked about
the flavors hopefully.
Speaker 4 (24:48):
Yeah, I want mine and bubblegum. Uh. Soline relies on urea. Yes,
uric acid, I imagine is similar to that, if not
the same thing, an organic compound found in urine, a
nitrogen source for protein synthesis. The protein powder developed by
finished startup Solar Foods will be tested by the ESA,
(25:09):
that is, the European Space Agency YEP in a future
mission aboard the ISS the International Space Station. Marks the
first time this kind of tech has been used to
develop a powder that can be used in a space environment.
So we've come a long way since freeze dried ice
cream fellas just add p.
Speaker 3 (25:29):
Yeah, yeah, it's apparently a completely natural protein, as the
website of Solar Foods originating from a quote natural non
modified single cell organism p. I love well. I love
that you're pointing out the nitrogen because when they're talking
about soling specifically, they're not just talking about space. This
(25:53):
is a great headline. They're talking about the idea of
maybe ending famine on the surface of Earth.
Speaker 4 (25:59):
I'm down with that question about it. Also, what happened
to all the discussion around creating food stuffs out of
like ground up insects. Is that still happening, because that's
always seemed like a reviable option that I'm fully on board,
and I'm not even saying that from a like feed
the poor insects. I'm into it. Give it to me.
I will eat the hell out of some insects, and
I bet you could make some tasty protein substitutes that
(26:19):
you could, you know, have around the house.
Speaker 3 (26:21):
Yeah, insects. By the way, insect consumption is still an
active debate at the United Nations. The thing is other
than folks like us. I don't know about Matt, but
other folks like you and me, nol, A lot.
Speaker 4 (26:35):
Of people get the ick we've talked.
Speaker 3 (26:36):
They hear about eating insects just the barrier to scale entry. Right. So,
right now with the United Nations, there are a ton
of world leaders who are saying this is great, and
this solves a lot of problems for everybody, but not
you know, not us.
Speaker 4 (26:52):
What's similar to the to the the issues around using
graywater for certain things. The idea of turning graywater into water.
It can be done. We've talked about stories revolving around
that kind of technology. But there is this ick factor
that causes people to really question, I don't want to
drink potentially you know, peepy water, which.
Speaker 3 (27:13):
Also seems that it could likely be.
Speaker 4 (27:15):
A case with this pea protein not pea protein, which
is also a thing people put in their muscle milk
or whatever. But yeah, I could see a barrier to
entry because that ck factor here as well. The developers
do hope it'll be available space wide by twenty thirty five.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
And another thing that I love I love you for
pointing out there is the idea of barrier to entry
has occurred before in other food stuffs. If you think
about it, milk is kind of gross. Yeah, that's a
weird flex.
Speaker 4 (27:45):
Bacon man, but's talk about the bacon conundrum. Slash creation
as a marketing ploy. It was originally considered trash meat
that was not fit for consumption and then repackaged and
sold as breakfast food.
Speaker 3 (27:58):
Shellfish as well. Lobster uh used to used to be
prison food here in the United States, and that's mainly
because of the way they cooked it.
Speaker 4 (28:06):
By the way, folks, they didn't take the shell off.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
Okay, guys, I think I'm just I'm hearing you and
and I agree with everything you're saying. I'm just trying
to imagine someone attempting to sell the concept.
Speaker 4 (28:19):
Of cow piss.
Speaker 2 (28:20):
Now drink cow piss.
Speaker 4 (28:22):
You know now that milk isn't pea Okay, well, I
have a little It might have a little pea in it.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
What I'm saying is a little bit to jump from
cow milk as like, which is objectively gross, and I
agree with you guys, But to then your own pee
drinking your own pea.
Speaker 4 (28:39):
I mean, y'all, you've seen these, some of these let's say,
quack types that are saying drinking your own urine is
like good for you. Don't stand behind that one, nor
does science if I'm not mistaken.
Speaker 3 (28:49):
But it's not.
Speaker 4 (28:50):
It's not going to kill you, but it's not good
for you, yeah, because it is literally all the bad
that your your kidneys filter out. And it seems like
maybe a bad idea to put it, but sure, we
don't know the specifics, and I'm sure we could do
some more digging. The process of refinement and processing that
this saligne undergoes would filter out those those bad things
and turn it into you know, it isolates that aspect
(29:11):
and uses it to believe fuel the process that generates
the good stuff.
Speaker 3 (29:16):
Yeah, to synthesize the protein. And also this reminds me
of our earlier conversations where we talked about how as
technology evolves, it increasingly mimics existing biological processes. We also
want to give a shout out to superproducer Tennessee who
noted that Mercedes used u rea injection to reduce harmful
(29:38):
emissions in diesel engines. And also you added Dylan, good
enough for a luxury car, good enough for a person.
So here's what I'm thinking, guys, Guys, are we losing
money every time we piss or we literally peed away profits?
Should we save our stuff and solid business, sell it
to Finland or startup investors? Uh, piss up investors.
Speaker 4 (30:02):
We'll work on it, guys.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
I just found a quote that's in a New York
Post article that is related to this, and you can
read it on your own time. But it is about
a gentleman that claims to have cured testicular cancer by
urine looping. And uh he also you'ine looping?
Speaker 4 (30:19):
You d me drink?
Speaker 3 (30:22):
Yeah, when you drink your own.
Speaker 4 (30:24):
You never heard it trot it out like that before,
And I'm gonna start using it in conversation.
Speaker 3 (30:28):
It's gonna give it some bona fide. Ah, it's gonna
give it a slight asparagus tinge of credibility.
Speaker 4 (30:35):
Oh god, that's so cute. Thank you.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
Yeah, So, Matt, where were you saying.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
No, I don't know, just I couldn't believe the post
it was. It was connected to the one you put
in the in the dock knoll. This was like linked
to it. This guy, this model who wrote a book
about being ripped at fifty talks about doing urine enemas
and splashing it on his skin and having his morning.
Speaker 4 (30:58):
Just put it right back into your own peehle.
Speaker 3 (31:01):
Just just just dock it.
Speaker 4 (31:05):
Sorry, we got gross of this one, but it's interesting
and it is more sci fi and it's cool.
Speaker 3 (31:12):
Maybe this is just an earthbound mud people prejudice, you know,
maybe astronauts in the future are going to say, you
guys just pee in holes in the crowd. You know,
this is why you guys aren't on Mars.
Speaker 4 (31:31):
There's gold in them there, your reeas there. Thank you, sorry,
thank you for finishing for me. That was the way
the way to do it. So we're going to put
a pin in that one for now and move on
to the city of Paris, the City of Love. If
they call it that, not brotherly love, that's Philly. Paris
is just love. Uh. A very romantic city, a storied
a place of poetry and art and music, and culture.
(31:54):
Also the burial place for some pretty notable folks, including
the os frontman, Jim Morrison, the Lizard King himself, as
well as Edith Peoff who else we got, Oscar wild
one hundred percent Oscar Wilde and Jean Paul Satre, as
well as Susan Suntalk, very very notable folks. A lot
(32:18):
of these people are buried in the Montparnasse Cemetery there
in Paris, which is a very storied burial place in
a city of where where you know, real estate is
at a premium. I was listening to my buddy Jonesy
on his podcast Weird a f News, and he pointed
out that Paris doesn't really build up like a lot
of modern cities. I think there's you know, there are
(32:39):
historical markers and designations and regulations that prevent them from
doing so. So what they are doing is in maybe
realizing that this there is a bit of a scarcity
of land, including burial land, the city of Paris has announced.
According to CN and Travel, Jack Guy writes a lottery
with a twist and out of a cash prize, entrance
(33:01):
can instead win the chance to be buried in one
of the French capital's most celebrated cemeteries. Cemeteries within the
city walls have been almost full since the beginning of
the twentieth century, with the clearing of abandoned tombs complicated
by local regulations. Some of the ones we were just
talking about. If you do decide to go in for
this lottery and you win, you will be granted the
(33:22):
opportunity to buy and restore. This is a restoration slash,
you know, historic preservation effort one of the thirty tombs
in three of these different historic cemeteries, with city Hall
agreeing to the lease to lease rather the corresponding burial
plots to those who meet certain standards. In recent decades,
city Hall set in a statement cemetery visitors throughout France
(33:45):
have expressed an interest in restoring an historic funerary monument
in order to obtain a burial plot, concession and return. However,
the chance to do so has been complicated by laws
governing the land in which the tombs are located, which
is owned by the state, as well as laws governing
the circumstances in which a family may rent the plot
(34:05):
for a period of time. So we've got ten plots
up for grabs in a pei Leschas cemetery which includes
one near or one's near Jim Morrison's grave. The front
man of the Doors taken from I Believe it all
This Huxley Yeah novel or a book called The Doors
of Perception where he talks about his drug addiction.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
Quick question nold for the rest of us in the
audience as well as me, what do we mean by
renting a plot? Does that mean that after the term expires,
similar to bunk them up, the person is disinterred.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
Yeah, that that didn't quite come up in this piece.
It looks like it's more like rent to own. I
think maybe the better term might be lease. But it
is a little confused in throwing that term rent. And
I think I pulled a little snippet from this paragraph earlier.
But let's just give us the whole thing, so mean
(35:02):
we can understand a little bit more. However, giving them
a chance to do so has been complicated by the
laws governing the land on which a tomb is located,
which is owned by the state, and concessions under which
a family rents the plot for a defined period of time.
It does not say what happens in that time period expires,
and I still don't understand how that's even possible. Given
(35:24):
the nature of burial. It seems like that would be
considered sacrilege and no one would sign up for that.
Why would I rent a burial plot knowing that it
was temporary, Like, what's the point of it?
Speaker 5 (35:34):
Ah?
Speaker 3 (35:35):
I can tell you, just to spin it out in
dystopian way, say you've got an alien relative that really
wants to be buried there, and you say, yeah, uncle Jimbo,
we'll put you right next to jim And then you know,
Uncle Jimbo is gone after well presumably they're not buried alive,
and so after that certain amount of time, I don't know,
(35:57):
it gets sticky real quick. As we know, there are
other parts of the world wherein burial is temporary. Right
in Japan, in parts of different parts of Central America,
you know you're in there for a minute, or you
might later get cremated to make room for other people,
depending on the water table, depending on the real estate. Well, god,
(36:19):
dozens of other variables.
Speaker 4 (36:21):
Well gosh, but if I'm not mistaken, we've discussed some
issues there with people being interred upon previously interred individuals
and they're having been in Paris, I want to say
floods that caused bodies to literally come up out of
the muck and be disinterred through other nature's actions. You're
(36:42):
absolutely correct. I do seem to remember discussing that on
one of the podcasts that we do. I will give
a little bit more figures associated with this. I think
that's actually really interesting because it's a lot cheaper than
I would have thought given the historic context you know
of these places. So each existing tomb, the article says,
be available to buy for four thousand euros or forty
(37:02):
six hundred American, with the winners also on the hook
for restoration costs which are not specified, and I imagine
that's where the real money might come in. If you
are then responsible for a historic preservation project that could
get pricey pretty quick. They will then be able to
buy a lease, the cost of which starts at nine
hundred and seventy six euros twelve hundred dollars roughly eleven
(37:24):
to twenty rather for a ten year contract, and increases
to seventeen thousand, six hundred and sixty eight euros or
around twenty grand for the right to rest their in perpetuity.
Very convoluent pricing structures here. I don't quite understand much
of this. Frankly, last bit. Applications for the lottery open
on Monday and will close on December thirty first, according
(37:45):
to City Hall, with each entrant subject to a nominal
one hundred and twenty five euro registration fee. Seems like
a bit of a cash cow for the city.
Speaker 3 (37:53):
It very much is. It kind of reminds me of
those deals you'll see folks if usip social meds, you
may see various advertisements that say, hey, buy a house
for peanuts here in rural Italy or rural Japan or
this benighted part of Scandinavia. And then if you read
the fine print, it says you also are on the
(38:15):
hook for upkeep and restoration and renovation.
Speaker 4 (38:22):
Codes prohibitively to the point of this whole thing. They
you know, folks that own historic properties, often there's a
lot of hidden costs and having to restore certain artifice,
certain features up to code in order to maintain the
the cultural integrity of the.
Speaker 3 (38:40):
Right, like an historic landmark kind of thing. Yeah, we're
just going to tell you, folks, if someone's trying to
sell you a castle Americans.
Speaker 4 (38:47):
Hear us.
Speaker 3 (38:48):
Well, if someone in Europe is trying to sell you
a castle, it is way more expensive than it sounds. Also,
perhaps this is wholesome on behalf of the French government,
because our friends are wreck ignizing that an appeal to
narcissism and vanity is a great way to keep your
ancient cemeteries up to snuff.
Speaker 4 (39:09):
Grandpa deserves to be buried next to these literary luminaries.
Oh yeah, he's a.
Speaker 3 (39:15):
Bit of a Jim Morrison himself, he's seen some doors.
Speaker 2 (39:18):
He was a bit of a lizard king. I love
the checklist. You guys, do you do you want to
be buried in historic cemetery?
Speaker 4 (39:26):
Check?
Speaker 2 (39:27):
Do you have thirty thousand dollars US just at hand
and ready to pay for this thing?
Speaker 4 (39:32):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (39:32):
Never mind?
Speaker 4 (39:33):
Well, another thing that I don't think this. There's definitely
no indication that you are required to be a French citizen.
Speaker 3 (39:39):
You're not.
Speaker 4 (39:40):
Yeah, I wouldn't think so. Jim Morrison certainly wasn't, nor
was Oscar Wild If I'm not mistaken, So pretty neat.
And I'm gonna end with this. I had another one
about AI and an open letter from let's see, I'm
just gonna say it real quick. Y'all can read upon
it yourselves. It's definitely interesting. Public Citizen is the name
of the group that is a watchdog group. This essentially
(40:03):
issued an open letter asking for open ai to withdraw
their sora to app because of just the utter chaos
it is reaking on just the believability of reporting, you know,
or getting to a point now where I've seen some
AB's where it's like, which one's the AI footage, like
people chopping onions and stuff, and I got it wrong
every time. And we're even hearing from experts, supposed experts
(40:27):
in the field that normally would be able to find
to tell some kind of indication that what you're seeing
is not to be believed, and that's becoming increasingly difficult.
So they're saying that in an effort to get ahead
of competitors, open ai released this tool, and it is
a indication of a quote consistent and dangerous pattern of
(40:48):
open ai rushing to market with the product that is
either inherently unsafe or lacking in needed guard rails. And
I'll just add I think the you know, let me
finish with their statement. Our biggest can is the potential
threat to democracy, said public citizen tech policy advocate JB. Branch.
I think we're entering a world in which people can't
(41:09):
really trust what they see, and we're starting to see
strategies in politics where the first image, the first video
that gets released is what people remember. And that's nothing new, y'all.
That's what everyone reads the headline, no one reads the retraction.
It's now an even more experiential version of that, and
I think it's absolutely dangerous. Altan is going to go anywhere.
(41:29):
An open letter, I don't know that I ever did much,
but it's it's just definitely signposting some real concerns that
I think we share here on stuff they don't want
you to know. Yeah, I don't know. Maybe let's let's
kick that around for a minute. I think it is
too important not to discuss, especially given some of what
we've already been discussing. This idea of things now being
(41:51):
claimed to be fake news or fake video or AI.
It's adding not only can we not trust it, we
can't trust whether the real thing is real because people
are saying calling into question because of where this stuff
is gone, then no, you shouldn't trust that, even if
it may well, be the truth.
Speaker 2 (42:08):
You know what we're gonna see really soon, guys, uh
Sora for emails, it just makes fake emails and then
you can say, oh, those emails weren't real.
Speaker 4 (42:18):
Well, that's a thing that it's interesting you say that
Matt I was hanging out with the buddy of mine
yesterday and it was I believe the third time I've
heard from someone who works in corporate America saying how
the biggest implementation that's being pushed for of chat, GPT
and assisted AI productivity tools is to fully write the
emails for reasons of self preservation and protecting because the
(42:42):
bot knows what not to say, what not to admit to. Maybe,
I argue, I think we all do that. It's creates
more work than it actually solves a problem. But yeah,
that's really already happening.
Speaker 2 (42:52):
It'll be scary when they can write emails from twenty eleven.
Speaker 4 (42:55):
Yeah, I don't know that's a good point. What do
you think, Ben? I know that we're very much on
the same page about the pitfalls and knock on consequences
of this move fast and break stuff mentality.
Speaker 3 (43:08):
Yeah, I'll keep it brief, but there's a thing I
almost sent all of us and fellow listeners. If you
want to hear it, or if you want to read
this yourself, check out check out a poll recently published
today to November twelfth. As we're recording this, a survey
shows that ninety seven percent of respondents cannot differentiate AI
(43:30):
music from the quote unquote real thing. Now. I know
we're running super long on our weekly strange news segment here,
but I do appreciate you bringing this up, not because
it's going to become increasingly apparent that the pendulum is
swinging wildly here from people. People tend to support the
(43:53):
idea of AI automation until it endangers them and then
we see a full one point eighty. But I love
to do a full episode in the future about deep
fakes AI generated music and all those people scrutined by
on emails, they did not write.
Speaker 4 (44:12):
A million percent, and that's exactly where it's had been.
That's that's something I think we've got more than enough
material to rock that full length episode, and I will
just add the last thing and then move on to
our final segment. The normalization of this stuff by virtue
of it seeming like a fun parlor trick that can
make mister Rogers do juggling, you know, or Stephen Hawking
skate on a halfpipe. That I think is a is
(44:34):
a a conscious effort to make these technologies feel harmless.
And I think in that it's even more dangerous because
you have folks being, you know, beguiled by the goofy
kind of parlor trick of it all, and it causes
them to maybe overlook the real danger. So here you go.
(44:55):
Let's take a quick break here whor from our sponsor,
and then we'll come back with more strange news.
Speaker 3 (45:04):
And we have returned, I want to give a shout
out real quick to everyone who clocked the idea of
the First Amendment in our earlier conversation at the first
act of our weekly strange news segment. So, folks, let's
set it up this way. In the US and abroad,
(45:25):
we are all, as as Noel mentioned, unfortunately, used to
wild claims and clear hogwash. Here in the States, A
lot of that is protected under a little something we
call the First Amendment. It reads the following, if we
could get a little fife, well founding fathers music, Tennessee,
thank you.
Speaker 6 (45:45):
Cadres shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom
of speech or of the press, or the right of
the people peacefully to assembly and to petition the Government
Address of grievances.
Speaker 3 (46:05):
Thank you, Thank you Senator Frederick for at Senator Brown
as well, for our purposes today. Look, folks, the First
Amendment has a ton of stuff in there, real quick.
Let's unpack it. They're saying separation of church and state.
They're also saying you can worship how you want. They're
(46:27):
also saying, if you are the press, you can talk
stuff without getting black bagged. They're also saying, even if
you're dumb, you can say what you want, even if
you are wrong. For instance, like you are an avid
flat earther and feel free to send an email if
you can prove flat earth. But they're saying, even if
(46:49):
you are demonstrably wrong, you can say what you want.
You can even put together a little hangout session on
the corner of your favorite Means Street or high street,
and you can get together and you can say whatever
kakameimi idea you care about.
Speaker 2 (47:08):
You just have to be influential, right, and a good speaker.
Speaker 3 (47:11):
You just have to. You just have to also not
threaten people directly. You can't say the Earth is flat,
let's you know, kill the Prime Minister of Slovakia or some.
Speaker 4 (47:23):
Other made up thing.
Speaker 3 (47:24):
So that for our purposes today, for this last act
of our weekly Strange News segment and program, we have
to note this passage of the United States Founding Documents
means again you can just talk trash. You do not
have to be an expert. You can raise your voice
(47:45):
in a public forum. You can hear here in a
physical online or you know wherever people gather a forum
of some sort. And as we record this program on
November twelfth, the First Amendment is again endangered in the
United Slates States. There are a lot of cases of
this conflict. Like we've all seen it, right, Political officials
(48:05):
are demanding rollbacks of things that were once treated as
best practices, established medical things like vaccinating your kids from
whooping cough right, which is whooping coughs having a moment,
as we all saw in Texas and in Florida, because
people are vaccinating less. We don't have to get into
(48:26):
that bag of badgers. But we know professors, researchers and
scientists are being silenced. There is a great brain drain
of foot and it will spell disaster and doom for
America's primacy in the new World order. And China proponents
argue is thinking ahead. There is a new thing happening
(48:47):
as we record. If you are an influencer in the
nation of China and you are speaking about specific areas
of expertise, you will now have to prove to the
Chiese government.
Speaker 4 (49:02):
That you have your bona fides.
Speaker 3 (49:04):
You will have to be able to say, hey, I'm
talking about medical stuff because I'm a medical person.
Speaker 2 (49:10):
Oh guys, I'm torn on this one. Yeah, I may partially,
I may partially agree.
Speaker 3 (49:17):
That's what I'm thinking. Man Like, that's the that's the
real pickle of it. That's the badger in the bag here,
because this is maybe old beings for people who are
a little more plugged in for us. But China is
officially requiring university degrees for influencers discussing specifically medicine, law
or finance. And finance is tricky because a lot of
(49:40):
people who have degrees in finance don't know what they're
talking about.
Speaker 2 (49:45):
Or they already drink the kool aid.
Speaker 3 (49:47):
Or they drink the kool aid. Yeah, because it's kind
of a religion, right, it's a dogma.
Speaker 2 (49:51):
Whoa Okay, but so so then you're only you're only
really allowed to in some minor way, parrot the things
that you learn in school, like the official versions of
how this stuff works.
Speaker 3 (50:03):
Right, great question and not not fully correct. You can
disagree with status quo. You can pose alternative stuff if
you come up to you know, like let's say you're
on social media and China like Doulin, which is basically
their TikTok now, and you say, hey, I think you
(50:26):
should maintain a urine loop for for your health Steve
Brutle style. Well, then it's okay for you to say
that if you follow it up with also, I have
a medical degree, so I can say all the beat
me here at Tennessee, I could say all the wild
and I want h oh, you could just met met it.
(50:49):
So the this is coming to us from our good
friends over at the Cyberspace Administration of China or CAC,
and they're doing this in coordination with the Ministry of
Culture and Tourism of the PRC People's Republic of China.
If you want to learn, if you want a great
(51:09):
primer on this before we get to the discussion that
I'm quite excited about. Do check out Law for Everything.
Law for Everything published an awesome primer here on November one,
twenty twenty five, and it walks through exactly what has
to happen.
Speaker 4 (51:28):
This is happening.
Speaker 3 (51:29):
By the way, if you are an influencer in China
talking about these things to the public all mass then
you have until pretty much the end of December to
show up, show out or GTFO. They will not necessarily
throw you in prison, but they will give you an
(51:52):
egregious fine. And once you get as we all know
anybody who's spent some time there, once you get flagged
by the government, once that saarn eye is on you,
it's very easy to disappear and maybe lose a kidney,
maybe a liver. No thank you, that's what they're saying.
So this is this is the question. This is what
(52:14):
I think we're We're all Natalie and Bruglia level torn
about it is. Philosophically, it's kind of a win to
prevent vulnerable prejulicue people from being exposed to absolute.
Speaker 4 (52:32):
Malarkey, right to hogwash.
Speaker 3 (52:34):
It would be kind of cool if we knew somebody
was speaking from a position of expertise or experience, were
considered concentrated thought, but it violates the First Amendment? Like
should the US do this? Should the US have everybody
(52:56):
who argues for consuming silver or gold? Should they have
to be a doctor or at the very least an economist.
Speaker 2 (53:06):
One of the major problems with this version of the Internet,
as a Dylan mentioned in our chat here, is that
the misinformation disinformation just specifically misinformation runs so rampant, specifically
across social media feeds, and that that open form that
we're talking about in the First Amendment protects that. It
(53:27):
it becomes so confusing for people who end up isolated
in a you know, specific bubble. And that's all of us,
by the way. So I do wonder if you had
people who knew what they were talking about talking about
this stuff, would that then foster the real uh what
is the what is? There's terms for this? But like
that the connecting of people who have ideas and then
(53:51):
having conversations about those ideas and then forming new ones. Yes, yes,
that like it feels like you could foster that if
you didn't hose some kind of rules like that and
then everybody else could comment on it if they wanted to,
if they aren't informed. But again that it's so restricting.
Speaker 3 (54:09):
That's another Yeah, You've raised some great issues here because
first you have to have any content that offers advice
or commentary will be accompanied by this three things. You
have to have clear indication of credentials of the speaker,
you have to have citation of appropriate sources. And you
(54:29):
have to have disclosure on whether or not artificial intelligence
is used or if there's a dramaticization so what we
would call it recree in like a true crime thing.
So you have to be able to say, like, hey,
this is not the actual Thomas Jefferson, who was alive,
you know, and died well before motion cameras existed, So
(54:55):
not the real Tommy. Also I am a real historian. Also,
so here is the paper that I'm reacting to. This
doesn't stop people from necessarily posing alternative commentary, right, but
it does seem to heighten the barrier to entry. And
(55:17):
one of the dangerous consequences of this could be and
this is just gaming it through, right, this could be
leading to a situation wherein those experts who are qualified
by the Chinese government are then.
Speaker 4 (55:33):
Told what is appropriate to speak about.
Speaker 3 (55:36):
They get an Overton window of medicine, finance, science, space exploration.
Speaker 4 (55:42):
You're a looping, et cetera. Dude.
Speaker 2 (55:45):
It makes me think about Avi Lobe and like having
all those bona fides that he has in you know,
holding that position, but still saying things on his own medium,
you know, his website essentially on medium and saying things
that end up getting caught minted on by us and
everybody else out there in Joe Rogan. And then how
somebody with bona fides can end up putting so many
(56:08):
differing ideas that are outside of the mainstream into the distroys.
Speaker 4 (56:11):
Yeah, and like I mean, yeah, having a being smart
on paper it does not preclude individuals from being nuts
about other things. I think history has shown that. Yeah, Yeah,
that's a great point.
Speaker 3 (56:24):
Like we were talking about earlier, I was, I was
listening to one of our previous conversations where we pointed
out that being an expert in one field of science
doesn't automatically make you an expert in every related field. Like,
for instance, a podiatrist is going to be very quick
to say they're not an expert on ophthalmology, which is
(56:47):
the right thing. Like a astrophysicist is also going to
be quick to say, I'm not necessarily an expert on
this other aspect of studies of space. So I think
the real question for us here, and we can't wait
to hear from you, fellow conspiracy realists, is whether something
(57:11):
like this in should exist in the United States. If so,
how would it be enforced?
Speaker 4 (57:17):
Now?
Speaker 3 (57:18):
Uncle G is saying that. Sorry, Uncle G's boys are
saying that. The they're saying that if you are not qualified, right,
if you've made millions of followers on your Chinese social
media of choice, they say, you don't have to automatically
(57:39):
shut down your circus tent. You have to stop talking
about this stuff, or you have to go to school,
which I think is like a very parental, maybe patriarchical.
Maybe you're a welliant thing, but it's a way out.
It's an off ramp to say, hey, you pretend to
be a doctor, go be a doctor.
Speaker 4 (57:57):
I'm not a doctor. I just play one on TV
or on my podcasts. Right, I mean, but is this
all a free speech issue too? Like people are allowed
to be quacks, like you're allowed to say random, and
they're the barrier to proving that someone is spouting out
dangerous information in this country at least seems real high
(58:18):
Like to prove malice in spreading quote unquote misinformation just
seems to be like the order of the day.
Speaker 3 (58:25):
Yeah, and I appreciate you bringing that up, because that's
what we're kind of talking about at the top. The
First Amendment says, no matter how uninformed or demonstrably wrong
your ideas are, you have a right to say those ideas,
and indeed you can form a club for those ideas,
even if it's something like secretly all human beings do
(58:46):
have tails and they're just cut off because of big medicine,
then you could totally do that here. Well as malleable as.
Speaker 4 (58:53):
The Constitution is supposed to be, I would argue, the
founding fathers definitely didn't think about the Internet or didn't
foresee away and information can be spread so quickly, and
now we have these extra layers with like not even
being able to try to trust the information that you
get so rapidly.
Speaker 3 (59:09):
And yeah, that's why it's a it's a pitch meeting.
That's why they didn't know about nuclear weapons. They never
thought of semi automatic firearms. They didn't think there would
be a world where people didn't wear wigs and stockings
at fancy events.
Speaker 2 (59:25):
Do you think they foresaw how influential cats would be
in the future.
Speaker 4 (59:30):
Did they predict furries?
Speaker 3 (59:31):
Is that your question said they knew about cats? Yeah,
because that's ancient Egypt right there.
Speaker 2 (59:36):
You know just how much they would fully take over everything.
Speaker 3 (59:41):
Were they aware of toxoplasmosis? This is our question? Yeah,
I mean this is so, this is the thing I
think we I hope that we provided some context here.
And one thing I love that we we all kind
of said at the top was yes, maybe speakers should
be informed, you know, on their subject of choice. I
(01:00:04):
also want to go back to something that Matt said earlier,
which is misinformation versus disinformation. Disinformation is when someone is
purposely trying to screw you over or swindle you intellectually.
Misinformation is when someone with very good intentions is also incorrect.
So if somebody is selling a book about the flat
(01:00:28):
Earth and they know the Earth is round and they
are still selling the book, that is disinformation.
Speaker 4 (01:00:33):
So it's not illegal to be dumb. Basically, it can't
be illegal to be dumb.
Speaker 3 (01:00:39):
That feels very wrong and I know.
Speaker 4 (01:00:42):
It's reductive the way I'm putting it, and I'm not
trying to talk smacked anybody, but that is the heart
of the issue right in in a way.
Speaker 3 (01:00:50):
Well to finish the comparison there too, if somebody genuinely
believes the earth is flat and they're selling a book,
then that's misinformation. And how could we fault them for
putting their beliefs out there?
Speaker 6 (01:01:04):
Right?
Speaker 3 (01:01:04):
Like, why would we hit someone with a egregious fine
or ruin their lives because they didn't know what they
were talking about?
Speaker 4 (01:01:14):
Yeah, buts sadly, it's very difficult to run a test
to see whether politicians truly believe in the Lord and
Savior of Jesus Christ and the word of the Bible.
And therefore we see weaponization and misdirection and misuse of that,
you know, under the guise of true belief. I think
it exists. I think true belief exists for some of
(01:01:35):
these folks. But I also think it's hijacked and it
is a loophole that you can't prove that I don't
believe that. Therefore, I'm basing all of my acts and
opinions on this thing and saying that I believe it
and therefore I'm not giving disinformation.
Speaker 3 (01:01:52):
Yeah, which is why Uncle G and the boys are
starting at the university or credentialed level. So if you
have a if you have a platform online in China
where you are the go to person on how to
put out fires right or how to prevent bridges from
collapsing shout out to that recent bridge collapse which I
(01:02:13):
think we all saw, then you need to have those qualifications.
You can't just be some guy vibing on how to
put out the fire in the apartment block. You can't
be some guy who grew up just sort of liking bridges.
You gotta know engineering, you gotta know how to be
a firefighter. You can if you are unqualified under this law,
(01:02:36):
fellow Chinese conspiracy realist, you can pivot to topics outside
of the regulated stuff. So if you have a big
law blog blob blog blog.
Speaker 4 (01:02:48):
Mob blah blah blah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:02:50):
Yeah you can go. You can say, hey, our channels
switch and direction. Now I talk about watches, restwatches, fancy watch,
you know, whatever case it is, it doesn't matter. But
I think our question now is should the United States
take a cue from our friends over the Pacific people
(01:03:11):
have died due to disinformation and to misinformation. And to
the earlier point, you were getting at their no with
false claims of religious belief. There is no law in
China against cynicism, right, it's just about information and disinfo
(01:03:32):
or misinfo. There is no law against cynicism here in
the United States. Actually, there's no law against let me
let me think back off the dom here. There is
no law against cynicism anywhere in current human civilization. It's
just such a natural thing. It'd be like making a
(01:03:53):
law against pooping, yeah, or sarcasm.
Speaker 4 (01:03:56):
Yeah. But I guess that's my point too, is like
how can you prove any of these things? Like how
can you prove that I'm being cynical? Maybe I'm just
being realistic, you know what I mean, Like one person's
cynical is another person's something else.
Speaker 3 (01:04:07):
Yeah. That's why I'm returning again to how smart they
were by saying it must be the following three fields,
and it must be the expertise must be proven in
those fields, and if not, you get a fine, you
might get shut down. You will get shut down, and
then you may get a chance to pivot to different topics.
(01:04:27):
So again, I think our thesis question here is should
the United States take the queue? Should? I mean people
have again died due to disinformation misinformation here in the US, right,
So if that is an opportunity to save people, should
we have credentialed experts or to what degree does that
(01:04:48):
imperil the First Amendment?
Speaker 2 (01:04:50):
Oh, I've got a question, yes, sir, if it were
in place here in the US, in this sure you know, conceptual,
in this world where it happens, would we still be
able to make this show. I knew you were going
to ask as a degree, not a not a newsboy.
(01:05:11):
Oh no, no, no, not anymore, not anymore.
Speaker 3 (01:05:15):
Yeah, that's that's something that I think is true. Now,
we of course do our level best to say what
we don't know, right, And we are grateful for you
the most important part of the show, our fellow conspiracy realist,
who are experts in all sorts of fields, and we
can't thank you enough for lending your expertise to us
(01:05:36):
and your fellow listeners. But I do posit to that
question kind of anticipated there, Matt, I do posit it
would massively change the landscape of the United States, not
just for you know, little David v Goliath podcasters like us,
but also for political pundits, also for and this is
(01:05:57):
the youmami, this is the juicy part at the end
political officials.
Speaker 2 (01:06:02):
Mm hmm. Yeah, but you didn't answer the question, or
would we still be able to make the show.
Speaker 4 (01:06:07):
We'd be fine. Okay, we'd be fine.
Speaker 2 (01:06:09):
Because no, you have aye, both of you guys have
degrees that would match up. Yeah, we'd be fine. We'd
we'd have to maybe narrow the scope of what we
talk about a little bit.
Speaker 3 (01:06:18):
Yeah, our days of big foots out right? Wait, unless
we could get a bigfoot degree. Tell us about it, folks,
and shout out to everybody who saw the northern lights
as far south as Florida. There's a ton of stuff
we didn't get to. Elon Musk wants the Optimist robot
(01:06:41):
to help pre crime. You can't get one for free.
Speaker 2 (01:06:45):
And since we last talked about that last week, he
got approved for that one trillion dollar Bay package.
Speaker 3 (01:06:53):
We're entering the era of the k shaped economy, which
speaks to that point, Matt. There's so much to get
to here. Thank you again for tuning in, folks. We
know we ran a little bit long on this, but
what do you think about the First Amendment and the
idea of requiring university degrees to be an influencer. We'd
(01:07:13):
love to hear your thoughts. You can find us on
the internet. You can give us a telephone call. You
can always write to us via email.
Speaker 4 (01:07:21):
That's right. You can find us on the internet if
you wish to do so at the handle of Conspiracy Stuff,
where we exist on Facebook where our Facebook group here
is where it gets crazy. You can get in another conversation.
There a bunch of cool folks. We also exist at
Conspiracy Stuff on YouTube. We have video content galore for
you to enjoy, as well as on axfka, Twitter, on
Instagram and TikTok. On the other hand, we're Conspiracy Stuff Show.
Speaker 2 (01:07:41):
We have a phone number. It is one eight to
three three std WYTK Breaking news guys in New York City.
Right now, there is a giant solid gold toilet. It's
just a regular sized functioning toilet made of solid gold.
It is for auction right now starting around ten point
two million.
Speaker 4 (01:08:00):
My toilet.
Speaker 3 (01:08:02):
I have to go.
Speaker 2 (01:08:04):
What would you do with it?
Speaker 3 (01:08:05):
I have to go on several levels right now?
Speaker 4 (01:08:07):
Is it a toto washlet?
Speaker 2 (01:08:09):
Ooh, ooh, where will this toilet end up?
Speaker 4 (01:08:12):
All right?
Speaker 2 (01:08:13):
If you want to call us, do if you want
to send us an email, we are the.
Speaker 3 (01:08:17):
Entities that read each piece of correspondence we receive. Be
well aware, yet I'm afraid sometimes the void writes back.
Shout out to the Yule lads. Also shout out to
the Thai government. The Kingdom of Thailand did conspire to
make Thai restaurants a thing, so tune into Ridiculous History
to learn more about that. In the meantime, please please
(01:08:38):
please tell us your thoughts about the new Chinese law
regarding influencers.
Speaker 4 (01:08:44):
Is this the right move for a social.
Speaker 3 (01:08:46):
Media age or does it endanger the things we prize
about the First Amendment conspiracy At iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (01:09:12):
Stuff they Don't Want you to Know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News
Hosts And Creators
Matt Frederick
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Show Links
RSSStoreAboutLive ShowsPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com