September 21, 2026 • 49 mins
The United States officially confirms they have active weapons in space... but they're not saying exactly what these weapons are, or what they can do. Archaeologists have discovered the world's oldest evidence of habitual drug use. An athlete apologies for pooping like crazy during an event. FBI Director Kash Patel goes to D.C. to defend the FBI's new (bizarrely relaxed) hiring practices. Join Ben and Noel for all this and more in this week's strange news segment.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
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 the stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Hello and welcome back to the show. My name is Noel.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Our colleague Matt is on adventures and will be returning soon.
They call me Ben. We're joined, as always, with our
super producer, Max the Freight Train Williams. Most importantly, you
are you. You are here. That makes this the Stuff
They Don't Want You To Know. Welcome to September 21st, 2026.
(00:51):
This is our strange news program. And Noel, Max, before
we roll on, we do have to give a little
bit of housekeeping, some of which comes from our brother, Matt.
Watch out for smart TV's. That's all we're going to
say at this point, right?
Speaker 2 (01:12):
I've been saying that for years.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
You've been saying that for years, man. No, I haven't really.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
I just go from one smart TV to the next,
and I'm not even sure what makes them that smart anymore.
But I don't know this story, Ben. We talked a
little bit off air, and I know there's some overlap
with some of the right-to-own shenanigans and its crossover into AI,
but I think we're going to save a full discussion
on this one for when Matty returns, yeah? Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
We're going to have an episode on this. We also...
In the interest of full disclosure, Noel, you and I
have to tell Max a little story. We were hanging
out in the green room of a live show we
did recently. We met a delightful older guy named Ben.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
Well, Ben, here's the thing. I know that you're fond
of other Ben's and meeting all of the Ben's of
the world, as am I, because it's a fun bunch.
But I think I missed the headline and really thought
you were just introducing me to a kindly, let's say,
Ben of more advanced years than yourself. And I was
thrilled to meet him for that reason alone. But it
(02:20):
turns out that I missed the memo of who this
Ben was.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
Yes, I also did not know Ben. when I was
introducing you, big thanks to our pal, Matt, who was
clever enough to get into the Ben Bro moment and say, hey, sir,
what do you do? The news is official, Max. Noel, Matt,
(02:45):
and I met Ben from Ben & Jerry's.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
This one, yeah, that Ben, and he was talking a
lot about the free Ben & Jerry's movement. Yeah. I
don't think any of us are particularly familiar with, but
it definitely goes into some of the kind of corporate
homogenization that we love so well to talk about and
commiserate about. Bordering on corporate conspiracy, but it turns out
(03:09):
that the Ben & Jerry's brand was purchased by Unilever
slash Magnum, which I thought was a weird combo because
Unilever makes soap and chemicals and then Magnum doesn't. which
is also a brand of condom, makes delicious chocolatey-dipped ice
cream sticks. And they apparently have not been being good
stewards to the Ben & Jerry's brand in terms of
(03:31):
their activism, which is a thing that Ben & Jerry's,
as a company, was always all about, those hippies from Vermont.
So I think Mr. Ben... short for Bennett, by the way,
which blew our minds the most, is very much trying
to wrest the company back from their corporate overlords because
he doesn't think that they've stayed true to their commitment. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
And as you know, fellow conspiracy realists, we always like
to begin our strange news program with some positive stuff, right?
And if we can, no promises, we like to end
on that. So our positive News for today is we
met Ben from Ben & Jerry's, and we can confirm
he's actually very, very cool. Good dude.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
Big Vermont energy. Yes, big Vermont energy. I think he
was even wearing a vest, like a puffy vest. At
least in my mind. He was. Maybe he wasn't.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
We can't wait to follow up on that. We have
so much strange news to get to. As you know, folks,
you can always hit us up at conspiracy.heartradio.com for further
sources on the things we discuss. For now, before we
go to a break, Noel, there's something I am so
excited about that you found regarding drugs in the ancient past.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Yeah, this is something that we probably ought to reserve
for a full episode of Ridiculous History because I don't Ben,
have we done something about getting high through history or
something on Ridiculous? I want to say that we have
to some degree, but that could be an ongoing series
in and of itself. And then I was painfully unfamiliar
with a historical method of getting high for seemingly one
(05:19):
of the most ancient methods, which involves chewing on a
particular kind of nut. So let's get into that after
a quick word from our sponsors. And we're back. Ben,
you teased it. I double teased it, doubled it down
(05:40):
on the tease. And yeah, we're talking about 25,000 year
old teeth that provided historians, archaeologists actually, with evidence of
the world's earliest habitual drug use. On Wednesday, as we
record this, September 9th, last week, Griffin University researchers announced
(06:00):
they had discovered 25,000-year-old skeletal remains in Indonesia, showing the
evidence of a drug habit that I personally was not
familiar with, something called a beetle nut. Chewing on it,
sucking on it, sucking on a beetle nut down by
the tasty freeze by ancient hunter-gatherers. This pushed back the
known timeline of human drug use by over 10,000 years
(06:24):
in one fell swoop.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
This is so nuts because I... This is so beetle nuts.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
Keep it, Max. Beetle nuts, beetle nuts, beetle nuts.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Beetle nuts, beetle nuts, beetle nuts. This is bananas then
because I... I first ran into betel nut traveling abroad
in a place where I saw people with bright red mouths.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Oh, okay.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
So it's kind of like– I guess it does something
to people's spit or their saliva, kind of like when
people drink a lot of red wine. Yeah, wine mouth.
Wine mouth.
Speaker 4 (07:09):
I didn't know that was the term, but yeah.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
So what we're saying here is that researchers have found, oh,
and betel nut apparently is addictive, like caffeine or tobacco, right?
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Yeah, or cocaine, because it does seem to have effects
in the short term similar to a powerful stimulant, but
also with some mild, almost opioidic properties, if that's a
word that I just made up, which it is, and
almost a little bit of mild psychedelia. It is reported
as causing heightened sense of alertness, a little bit of
(07:44):
pep in your step, euphoria, relaxation, increased heart rate, elevated
blood pressure, flushing of the skin. And to your point, Ben,
that red color that your saliva turns is emphasized by
the fact that it also causes a pretty serious increase
in the production of saliva. And it can hit so
(08:05):
hard to first-time users that it can cause dizzying, nausea,
and vomiting. And it can cause permanent stains to the teeth,
severe gum disease and mouth issues, almost like doing dip
or something like that. And it's classified by the World
Health Organization as a group one carcinogen, very similar to asbestos,
(08:28):
which can greatly increase risk of all kinds of oral, mouth,
and esophageal diseases. cancers. But yeah, it seems like these
old timers, these bone guys, really love the stuff.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
Yeah, and we did a series on Ridiculous History, our
sister show, titled something like Weird Things People Used to
Get High Off Of. I knew it.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
Yeah, you nailed it. Well, it does feel like a series,
that potential, right? And now that we've cracked the code
10 more thousands of years, right?
Speaker 3 (08:57):
Yeah, because we have to remember the human species is
nothing if not curious, right? And humans, just like many
other higher order mammals or higher intelligence creatures, they're constantly
seeking new experiences. So it's not really that surprising that
(09:21):
we would find hard evidence of habitual drug use. But
the interesting thing here is that fossils, especially from this
point in history, are so rare that if you find
one example of habitual betel nut consumption, that probably means
(09:44):
everybody was doing it and we just haven't found the
rest of the teeth.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
For sure. And the archaeologists previously believed that psychoactive drug
use hadn't emerged till closer to 13,000 years ago during
the Neolithic farming and fermenting craze over in Israel. But
this discovery in, I said Indonesia, the specific name of
the area is Sulawesi, predates those agricultural traditions, farming methods
(10:14):
by over 10,000 years. So this really does genuinely reshape
the history of substance abuse or use. Abuse is maybe
when you overdo it a little bit. I mean, some
might argue that any drug use is abusing your body,
but then those people also might be pounding coffee while
they're telling you that.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
I am pounding coffee right now, so I say let's
call it exploration. Also, Nola's drinking coffee too, folks.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
I just pounded it, man. It's gone. I need some more.
I just rolled in from the road, man, so I'm
a little bit on edge. I'm coming in hot.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
Well, you're coming in great on my end. We've also
got to tell you, just really quickly, folks, in the
modern world, as we record on September 17th, a Thursday
in 2026, betel or betel nut is not a controlled
substance in the United States.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
Interesting.
Speaker 3 (11:07):
You can get your red mouth on if you want,
per the decision makers of this place. but you cannot
sell or market it as a food or a drug,
which is such a weird liminal space. It makes me think, like,
do you have to go to a bodega and pull
(11:28):
one of those Dave Chappelle half-baked.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
Moves and, like, show them your butt? It reminds me, well, no,
I think I know, I have something to compare this to.
Back in the day, remember the bath salts craze?
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
That was a drug that you could buy in head shops,
what they used to call them, tobacco shops, as well
as there was some strain of like a chemical that
was similar to a THC effect, but it was actually
even more potent and more kind of psychedelic. That was
also sold at a lot of these head shops, and
they were both marketed. Bath salts was marketed as bath salts.
(12:04):
That's where the name comes from. And it specifically said
on the packet, do not ingest this, not for human consumption,
as did this other product. It was called Spice. That's
what they called it. That was the street name, Spice.
But they were selling that as though it were some
sort of incense.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
Yes, they were, very much so. Because if you are
not promising certain things, right? Caveat emptor is always right.
kind of how the United States treats customers. Beware of
what you're buying. If you're not promising specific things, you
can sell a lot of stuff. And it's also weird.
(12:44):
You know, it reminds me of when civilization found a
body with the oldest tattoos ever. People have been doing
the same things for such a long time.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
I mean, it makes sense. It's like there's only so
many things you can do with your body. One of
them is scribbling things on your skin, and the other
one is shoving stuff in your mouth and seeing what happens.
So it makes sense that people have been doing both
of those things for a very long time.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
And that is a Noel Brown quotable. I don't know
if we can afford a sound cue.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
No, it's okay. Oh, man, maybe one day. I aspire
to having a sound cue for a Noel Brown quotable corner.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
And folks, here we're going to pause for a moment
for what we've been calling Schrodinger's Sponsorship. It's an ad.
We don't know if there's an ad here yet. Is
there a cat involved? There may well be.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
Okay, we'll be right back. And we're back. There's a
pretty awesome article on Smithsonian that goes into a little
more detail about the fine. But I think we hit
the important points for the purposes of this show. But
I do want to kind of earmark this to revisit
on Ridiculous History. So I'll move on to another story
(13:58):
that you guys might have heard a little something about.
There is a elite athletic competition that takes place. all
over the world. High Rocks, I think is what it's called.
And the thing that makes it unique is it's an
obstacle course-based competition where all of the courses, wherever the
events are held, are identical. So there is this very
(14:20):
kind of unified way of measuring results from one competitor
halfway around the globe to another one. And this event,
I'd never heard of it before, this organization. I think
we're talking, it's sort of like really high-level gymming You know,
like pushing the sled and, you know, whipping the ropes
and doing all that kind of like almost competitive CrossFit,
(14:44):
I guess you could call it. Well, High Rocks as
an organization and a particular one of their events that
took place in Beijing has been making the news recently,
not necessarily for the best of reasons, in a story
that I think highlights politics. a couple of different interesting
issues around really intense competitive athletics. At Saturday's High Rocks
(15:07):
Beijing race, Saturday, yeah, like last week, this last weekend,
a 22-year-old Australian competitor named Joanna Weitrich was allowed to
continue competing and ultimately go on to winning the event
(15:28):
even after she died. severely soiled herself. There's no nice
way of saying it.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
What do we mean by severely?
Speaker 2 (15:37):
I mean just really serious diarrhea running down both legs.
There are images of it if you wish to go
that route. It's one of those things where I was
in an Instagram post where they just had that image
as the front page, and you got a lot of comments,
people saying, yo, a little trigger warning would have been nice.
Seeing a lot of two girls, one cup jokes popping
(15:58):
around on the internet about it.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
Even the Guardian made a little bit of a two girls,
one cup joke. Folks, also, while Noel is talking about-
While you're Googling the pictures, Google.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
That one too. Yeah, Google that one too. No, please don't.
Don't do it. Do you think that one's outlived its sight, Geistinus?
Do you think there's a contingent of folks that have
no idea what two girls, one cup is? It had
a moment, and then it kind of disappeared.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
Heard the phrase.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
You know you know.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
Yeah. If you know, you know, we're a family show,
so we're not going to recommend looking it up. We
also know that these high stakes, high level athletic events
are very demanding on the people who engage with them. So,
you know, we've all heard stories, for instance, about long
(16:51):
distance runners or bikers who make very out of the
box decisions about how to urinate. You know, this one
though does seem like it caught our athlete by surprise.
So if we could all exercise a little bit of empathy,
I don't want to read millions of minds right now,
(17:14):
but Noel Mack's, It is statistically inevitable that everybody listening
to this strange news program has at least at one
point pushed a fart too far.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
No question about it, Ben. We've all been there. It
would seem– Mike, I had so many questions when I
first started seeing the story making the rounds. Like what happened?
Is this a condition that she struggles with and it
just caught her off guard in some way? I think
it was just a run-of-the-mill case of serious gastrointestinal illness
(17:52):
that she maybe knew about but decided she was going
to push through. And she did go on to win
the event. A lot of people initially criticized High Rocks
organizers who did not stop her. You got to think
about this. It didn't even hit me at first where
this is like a total public health, you know, issue.
(18:13):
They're using common equipment that everyone, all the competitors are sharing.
It's incredibly not only unfair to the other competitors and
the spectators that the organizers allowed her to continue, but
incredibly unsafe and unhygienic and just quite gnarly. And Vychik
did go on to win the event and received a
(18:34):
lot of backlash as well directly. Because after the event,
she posted an image on her Instagram of her like
laying on a hospital bed, clearly getting some sort of
saline drip and just giving the thumbs up and saying
something to the effect of racing is all that matters.
Speaker 3 (18:48):
Or if I remember the Instagram post, it was a
win is a win.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
A win is a win. Exactly. And it, you know,
that's just not true. That is not– shouldn't be true.
I think there's a culture around some of these really,
to your point, Ben, high-stakes athletic competitions where people will
push themselves to dangerous and it would seem degrading heights
(19:14):
in order to be competitive. She did acknowledge that she
made a mistake, as did High Rocks organizers. They were
first to release a statement saying that they failed in
their duty and did not– disqualifies the wrong word, but
they should have just, you know, stepped in. We need
to intervene on behalf of this woman's health and the
(19:37):
health of the other competitors and spectators in the indoor,
by the way, facility. So Vychik did take to social
media to offer a sincere apology. She said to the
people of China that my fellow competitors, the spectators, and
the high-rocks organizers for what happened during the race in Beijing.
She said that she started the race feeling completely fit
(20:00):
and healthy and had no reason to expect any illness. However,
looking back, she said that she regrets the decision to
not have stepped off the track. I recognize that I
should have made a different choice. I take responsibility for
my decision to continue, and I'm deeply sorry for the
discomfort and disruption that it caused. The organization Hierox claimed
(20:20):
that this was something they were going to take into
consideration moving forward, essentially saying that any future events that
involved human bodily fluids of any kind would result in
that individual being asked to discontinue their racing.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
We've all been there.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Haven't we, though? And again, I mean, like at first
I was sort of like, oh, my God, how brave.
But then the more I thought about it, the more
I was like, I don't know, man, that kind of sucks.
That lady should have known better. And I'm not trying
to victim blame. I'm sorry that she wasn't feeling well.
It's a horrible thing to have happen to you at
any point in your life, let alone in front of,
you know, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of spectators.
(21:02):
But I think if she had thought a little bit
harder about it, she would have realized that she was
putting other people at risk and that maybe it wasn't
worth it for the win, as you said, Ben, being
the win.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
Yeah, folks, as we're wrapping up this part, please exercise empathy.
Fart not upon, lest ye be farted upon.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
Well said, Ben. Well said. Let's take a quick break.
We'll hear a word from our sponsor, and then we
will jump right back in with some more strange news.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
And we have returned. Shout out to the Russian oligarch
who secretly paid for Trump Jr. 's wedding. Shout out
to the AI conversations that we're going to continue to have. Noel,
as we're getting into this part, have you ever played Roblox?
Speaker 2 (21:56):
Yeah, I haven't played it, but my kid was into
it when they were a little younger because it, you know,
always my understanding was that it was meant to attract
younger audiences, younger.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
Players, younger users. Yeah, and bad faith actors.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
So many bad controversies surrounding the platform.
Speaker 3 (22:14):
And we have to let you know a story that
didn't make the headlines a few weeks back in August.
Roblox has argued that an eight-year-old waived their rights in
a wrongful death lawsuit. So please check that out from
our friends at the courier-journal.com. The big thing we want
(22:37):
to get to here as well amidst all this strange
news is the following. Space weapons are real.
Speaker 2 (22:46):
Thank God.
Speaker 4 (22:46):
Screw you, United Nations Treaty of 1967.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Just in time for the Spaceballs reboot or sequel. Just
in time.
Speaker 3 (22:57):
This news was breaking just a few days ago while
we were traveling and doing various other things. It is
a true story, folks. A long time ago, back in 1967,
the United Nations created something called the Outer Space Treaty.
(23:18):
The Outer Space Treaty essentially says that everything beyond the
bounds of Earth, everything in the heavens, should be considered
a subject of scientific exploration for the betterment of all mankind.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
As above, so below. Right.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
You know, that's interesting because Antarctica has a similar treaty.
No one can really own it. You can put some
research stations out there, but you cannot weaponize Antarctica. And
a big part of the UN Treaty is is arguing
that you cannot weaponize space. Now, Noel, Max, as you'll recall,
(24:03):
years and years ago, we were speculating with great attention,
especially Matt and I rabbit hole super hard on this.
We were speculating intensely on the activities of an unmanned
US craft called X-37B. And we all sort of, I
think all three of us predicted that this would be
(24:26):
for weaponization. I think it's true because despite the fact
that there is an official outer space treaty saying no
weapons can be in space, the United States of America
has very recently confirmed that they have, in fact, deployed
(24:46):
active weapons in space.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
Wait a minute you're saying we didn't follow the rules
and we just kind of did whatever we wanted i.
Speaker 3 (24:53):
Mean the same the the are you kidding me the
same institution that made all those treaties with native american
populations and then broke them as well.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
It would seem so. Ben, I recently saw, I had
the pleasure of seeing a remastered IMAX version of the
classic anime dystopian feature film Akira. And there's a part
at the end where, I won't give too much away
if anyone hasn't seen it, but mild spoilers for like a, God,
what it's gotta be 40 something year old film. There
(25:27):
is a main character who kind of gets, turns into
this weird biomechanical monstrosity at the end. And there's this
huge showdown. And there is a weapon that fires at
him on the ground from outer space, which is one
flavor of space weapon that I've always been curious about,
like something that could perhaps focus a beam from high
(25:47):
Earth orbit or low Earth orbit, rather, and then blow
something up down on the surface. Are we talking about
something like that, or are we talking about stuff to
blow up other stuff in space?
Speaker 3 (25:57):
That is an excellent question, and We are still trying
to figure it out, we being the public. If you
go to, here's where the kerfuffle begins. The Air Force Secretary,
Troy Mink, M-E-I-N-K, recently was speaking to the Air, Space,
(26:18):
and Cyber Conference, which is hosted in National Harbor, Maryland,
and said the following, and I'm going to do a
fun voice. Please don't get mad, Troy.
Speaker 5 (26:29):
Today, we continue to ensure we remain ready to meet
the challenges of evolving threats wherever they exist. This is
why the United States now has on-orbit space control weapons,
to your question, capable of defending the joint force against
hostile adversary action.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
In space?
Speaker 3 (26:51):
In space. On-orbit space control weapons. So to your earlier question.
Are we talking about like rods from God, right? Where
you drop a physical object and use gravity to make
it a world ender, like a meteor impact?
Speaker 2 (27:13):
Oh, I haven't heard that term before, Ben. Rods from God,
that's good.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
Oh man, I hope no one does it because it's
a plausible and evil idea. Or to your earlier point,
are we talking about A satellite hunter, right? Are we
talking about some kind of satellite that could emit an
electromagnetic pulse to dummy up other satellites within range? Are
(27:40):
we talking about X-37B modifying its flight path to knock
out another satellite? Or are we talking about X-37B or
something like it possessing nuclear payload?
Speaker 2 (27:56):
Good question. And, I mean, it doesn't seem like they
wanted us to know about this at all. Or was
this an announcement?
Speaker 3 (28:03):
This is an announcement.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
Oh, God, of course it is.
Speaker 3 (28:07):
Which means, again, as we've been saying for 17-plus years,
you have to be very skeptical. Like, does Uncle Sam
really have some spoopy-dupe evil stuff, offensive weaponry out there
in the ink? Or are they trying to act big?
Speaker 2 (28:26):
That's what I'm saying. I mean, a lot of these
kinds of announcements, they always have a bit of an
agenda and part of it is sort of a PSYOP effect, right?
Speaker 3 (28:32):
Exactly, yeah. And a lot of analysts are questioning whether
or not this is legit because we remember not too
long ago, not too many years ago, both the United
States and China had effectively established that they can shoot
satellites out of orbit. And they both did it in
(28:55):
a really... like creepy ominous way it was very dennis
reynolds the implication uh but you know i'm wondering what
you think here like if you had to guess at
what kind of weaponry the united states would have in
space what would be your first guess.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
I don't know man um i am just picturing the
akira thing i don't even know if that's possible scientifically
speaking My mind just tends towards doomsday type stuff whenever
we're talking space weapons, I guess. I've just consumed too
much science fiction in my lifetime to think of anything else. Yeah,
I hear you.
Speaker 3 (29:36):
And we're all big science fiction fans on the show. here.
It's also, it's still, to me, there's a conspiracy afoot
or a space because we know that there is that
hard line in the United Nations Treaty from 1967, but
we also know that the stuff Being disclosed here in
(30:01):
these statements is so cartoonishly vague.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
Weapons?
Speaker 3 (30:06):
Weapons is an umbrella term. You know what I mean? Like, oh,
we have weapons in space? What kind? Oh, we can't
tell you. It reminds me of the recent moves by
the AI tech bros who are saying, oh, we can't
do our IPO because... the models we've created are too dangerous.
(30:29):
Also give us money and don't hold us accountable. So
we need to know your thoughts, fellow conspiracy realists. What
kind of space weapons could be out there? Rods from God, evil,
powerful lasers, just basic satellite hunters. What is X-37B doing
up there? Why have there been 200 plus launches into space? And,
(30:55):
you know, How in control are the humans?
Speaker 2 (30:59):
Well, let's be honest, man. It's not particularly in the
character of this administration to be on board with pure
scientific-y research pursuits. So the fact that they're interested in
space and literally created a new branch of the armed
forces called Space Force, which, by the way, I went
to a military funeral a handful of months ago. And
(31:19):
at the burial site, they had these like crests of
all the different branches of the armed forces. And they
had added one for Space Force. And that logo, it's
the Star Trek logo.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:31):
That's what it is. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (31:33):
Did you see the new uniform pitch?
Speaker 2 (31:35):
Oh, you mean the one that looked like Imperial Death
Star captains? Space Nazis? I mean, look, no hyperbole there.
That's what the uniform looks like. It is true.
Speaker 3 (31:46):
Noel is being accurate there, folks. Don't use AI to
generate your.
Speaker 2 (31:52):
Uniforms, I guess. We'll have a little Hugo Boss spin
in there.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
Also, we are going to move on to another quick story.
We teased this earlier. Remember, Noel, at the very end
of a recent strange news program, we shouted out the FBI.
and the way that they have sort of changed their
(32:21):
standards for new hires.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
Yeah, I saw a bit of a hearing back and
forth between Mr. Bug-Eye himself, Kash Patel, and a very
gentlemanly Southern, or I believe he was from Kentucky or
something like that, a senator. And the senator was just mystified,
just bewildered at how this even came up. And it was,
it's just watching if you can find it.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
Because he, this senator- looks so just genuinely befuddled. He's perplexed.
And politicians are often performative, but in this case, the
performance seems sincere. We're going to pause for a word
from our sponsors and just for our kiddo conspiracy realist
(33:05):
in the crowd. This may not be appropriate for all audiences,
so after the break, if you're you need a trigger
warning or anything like that, just fast forward about six minutes.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
We'll be back. This is so weird.
Speaker 3 (33:30):
And we have returned thanks to Freight Train. We can
confirm that is John Neely Kennedy, a befuddled frankly, oddball
senator from Louisiana.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
Yeah, man, he is having a hard time with this one.
Speaker 3 (33:47):
So here's, yes, as are we, to be honest with you,
fellow conspiracy realists. The reason this guy that we don't
agree with for a lot of other factors, the reason
he is so perplexed and confused is because he was
speaking with the current FBI director, Kash Patel, with a K,
(34:09):
Kash with a K, Yeah, who was defending his decision
to change these hiring standards for the FBI. So embezzlement
used to be a deal breaker, no longer a deal breaker.
Another one that is no longer a deal breaker is bestiality,
which is when human beings have sexual congress with non-human animals.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
That's right. There's a real couple of notably odd parts
of this exchange, but there's a question that comes up
as to whether or not the person on the receiving
or giving end of a bestiality exchange would be disqualified.
(34:59):
And that's clarified or required to be clarified by the senator.
You're saying an animal? He's like, well, and then Akash
is like, well, we do have some great canines in
the organization. It's just so icky. Read the room, director.
What does come up in is that, and Cash openly
admits it, even though we didn't really hear who brought
(35:19):
this to him, but he said this was recommended to him.
Speaker 3 (35:23):
And, you know, folks, we obviously, we roast every high-level
official whenever they need to be roasted. I was very
interested to read the testimony of Director Patel to the
Senate Judiciary Committee. He said, he said something that, We
(35:45):
should unpack together. He said we put these new rules
in place because, quote, we did not want to make
it an automatic disqualification for the FBI to consider you
if you are a victim of these awful, heinous acts.
So what he's saying here is like the headlines and
the memes and all the social media dopamine casino crap.
(36:10):
They're saying, oh, FBI loves people who are purposely, you know,
abusing non-human animals. But what this guy is saying, what
Director Patel is saying here implies that there are people
who have been trafficked and assaulted by animals, and that
(36:33):
should not keep them out of the FBI.
Speaker 2 (36:36):
And on its surface, I don't disagree with that. Like
it's like if you are trafficked and you are against
your will, forced into sex slavery, let's just call it
what it is, that involves being forced to do dehumanizing,
literally things like that. And then you were able to
(36:57):
get through that. I could see how it could give
you some insight into sex. certain activities that the FBI
gets up to. There's a show right now that I
just absolutely adored. It's a very intense watch, but it's
called Furious on Hulu. And it's about an FBI agent
who comes from a background of sex trafficking against her will.
And it does bring some insight into the kinds of
(37:19):
crimes that she ends up pursuing. So I don't know.
I think it's an easy headline and, you know, low
be it for me to defend Cash Patel, who I
obviously can't stand. But there's part of me that does understand.
And there is a world where this is something a
little bit different than the splashy headlines of FBI now
allows perpetrators of bestiality.
Speaker 3 (37:41):
Yeah, and I appreciate you saying that because that's my
understanding or framework as well. We do have to give
you a little bit of back and forth here. As
we said, we don't entirely agree with the Honorable Senator
John Kennedy from Louisiana, but we do want to give
(38:03):
you a bit of the dialogue here from the testimony.
He said, why would you ever get into bestiality? And
Patel said, we're not into bestiality. And the Senator cut
him off and said, well, I know you're not, but
you changed the qualifications and you mentioned bestiality.
Speaker 2 (38:22):
And That's a pretty good impression, man.
Speaker 3 (38:25):
Oh, my gosh.
Speaker 2 (38:25):
No, come on. No, he does have that flavor of
Southern gentlemanly drawl.
Speaker 3 (38:31):
So what they're pushing on here is this, again, I
think he nailed it, this befuddled, perplexed question, answer, back
and forth thing about what's happening at the FBI. But
while this is occurring, folks, get past the headlines. We argue,
(38:53):
we posit to you that the true conspiracy here is
the FBI under current leadership cleaning out good career officers
and replacing them with cronies and sycophants. So this, I mean,
to me, Noel, guys, this feels like it's a headline
(39:15):
that is distracting.
Speaker 2 (39:17):
That's right. I would agree with that. And one that's
also kind of, I don't know, what's the word we
were taught in like media ethics, prurient, Yes.
Speaker 3 (39:26):
Yeah, yes, yes.
Speaker 2 (39:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (39:28):
And we would love to hear your thoughts, especially if
you're a former or current FBI. We do obviously acknowledge
that we have to reluctantly– agree with the statements of
Director Patel. If people are trafficked, they do not have
(39:51):
agency over what happens to them. So you always have
to look past the headline and the first paragraph of
a story. But Noel, before we wrap up this week's
strange news, you've got another little something we were talking
about off air.
Speaker 2 (40:07):
Yeah, I don't know. It's just kind of more doom
and gloom news involving the administration and their seeming desire
to blow up the planet. The head of the EPA,
Lee Zeldin, said in a press conference just Monday of
this week, as we record on September 17th, that the
(40:27):
days of Biden and Obama working to destroy natural gas
and coal are over. Thank God. Someone to finally stick
up for the little guys. Oh my gosh.
Speaker 3 (40:37):
I can't wait till we finally get our research done
on artificial gas instead of natural gas, right? Artificial intelligence
is so hot. So what about artificial gas and also, oh,
those villains, those political villains stopping the good, hardworking, very
(40:58):
impoverished folks at Shell and Exxon.
Speaker 2 (41:01):
And BP and so on. And of course, Lee Zeldin,
you know, in his rhetoric appeals to working class, you know,
Americans in saying that the Biden and Obama administration have
been targeting, you know, coal workers and saying something to
the effect of they were told to just get over
it and learn to code. Yeah. I can't imagine who
quite said that. I don't remember that press conference. But anyway,
(41:24):
you know, the head of the EPA, I mean, the
EPA is a regulatory agency. like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
and things like that, that are designed to protect us
as human beings, you know, from giant corporations that would
seek to pollute and, you know, looting and polluting, as
Captain Planet would say. And this just really feels like
(41:47):
a dude that's in the pocket of big business. Specifically,
you know, what is arguably an antiquated method of creating energy.
We know there are so many other options. I don't know.
I'm not like a super-duper conservationist hippie type, but it
just definitely seems like there's so much that can be
(42:08):
done with solar that isn't being done. There's so much
that can be done with wind that isn't being done.
Why is that if not to line the pockets of
these giant corporations like Shell Oil and other more, let's
call it, legacy energy producers? Basically, what he's saying is
they're rolling back all almost all of the emissions regulation
(42:32):
surrounding power plants. Yes.
Speaker 3 (42:34):
Yeah. That is correct. And that has happened. That is
incorrect from a moral, ethical, or survival standpoint. It goes
back to a concept that I wish more people talked about.
It's called path dependency, which means that early on in
(42:56):
the evolution of a system or a society or what
have you, the choices you make for a particular technology
can lock everything else into a specific path in the future.
So for instance, if we as a civilization used geothermal
(43:18):
or solar power to greater scale, then fossil fuels may
never have mattered. But because the world runs on oil
and gas, and because the people who control the oil
and gas have become so wealthy and so influential and
so powerful, this means that those entities will try to
(43:43):
preserve their catbird seat, even when they know what they're
doing is bad for the world overall.
Speaker 2 (43:51):
Well, for sure. And, I mean, you've got these legacy
companies that are backed by legacy money from legacy investors
that come from the same financial background and world as
people like Donald Trump. And so, of course, they're going
to do everything they can. I mean, anyone that's saying
that there isn't rampant– corruption and cronyism going on in
this administration. This isn't paying attention. I'm sorry.
Speaker 3 (44:13):
Anybody who say there's not corruption has been compromised.
Speaker 2 (44:17):
I would agree. Call me a cuck, lefty, loony tune
if you want. I don't give a crap. It just,
this is not controversial to me. None of this stuff.
Like you've got a guy that is clearly the mouthpiece
for his master, Donald Trump, you know, who is saying,
all of this weird rhetoric around all of the horrible
(44:37):
things that these types of, you know, seemingly common sense
regulations have done. Yeah, and it's at a time where
we know global warming is happening. He's literally using the
hoax word and all of that, acting like global warming
isn't real. This is the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, dude.
Speaker 3 (44:56):
Yeah, yeah, it's very Orwell, Orwellian stuff.
Speaker 2 (44:59):
Is it Fox protecting the hen house, Ben?
Speaker 3 (45:01):
Right, just so, Noel, just so. Thankfully, since we always
want to end on a good note, we can confirm
there is one voice of potential.
Speaker 4 (45:12):
Reason returned to Congress, Mitch McConnell. friends and neighbors, maybe
he's going to make a stand. Maybe he will preserve
the EPA. Maybe he will fight back against the rampant corruption.
Speaker 2 (45:28):
I think he's going to do a smile on us all.
He's going to murder us all. That look, dude. Have
you seen that TMZ footage? He's sitting in a van.
I mean, he just isn't there.
Speaker 3 (45:40):
He's just not. He's not there. He just isn't.
Speaker 2 (45:44):
And they brought him in for a particular vote, Ben.
Can you talk about that?
Speaker 3 (45:47):
And then his aide told him what to do. Yeah,
not the first time.
Speaker 2 (45:51):
His aide reversed his decision.
Speaker 3 (45:53):
Not the first time.
Speaker 2 (45:55):
Did you vote for that aide, the public? I'm just
putting that out there. Oh, great point.
Speaker 3 (46:00):
Because you did not, folks. And– Nola, I hate how
terrifyingly accurate that point is. We do also want to
introduce you to our word of the evening, which is gerontocracy.
Gerontocracy means governed by the elderly.
Speaker 2 (46:23):
Well, and also I would just put forth the term
elder abuse. Actually, yes.
Speaker 3 (46:28):
If we're exercising empathy, seriously, we have not met– A
lot of these people that we are discussing in Strange News,
and I love that point, Noel, because we're talking about
somebody who has tremendous world-changing responsibility, but like Ronald Reagan
(46:49):
before them, maybe doesn't have all their furniture in the
top floor.
Speaker 2 (46:54):
They've weekended Bernie's, Tim. I mean, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (46:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (46:59):
And you said we were going to end on a
high note.
Speaker 5 (47:03):
Well, we're saying something nice.
Speaker 3 (47:04):
He could save the EPA.
Speaker 1 (47:07):
Maybe.
Speaker 2 (47:07):
I hope so. He's back in the saddle.
Speaker 4 (47:10):
You're right. You know what?
Speaker 3 (47:12):
Not every at-bat is a home run. So we tried
to get to some positive news, but it was like
Joe Montana throwing a football.
Speaker 2 (47:21):
It's ugly.
Speaker 3 (47:22):
It got us across the line.
Speaker 2 (47:24):
Or Lucy pulling out the football and Charlie Brown goes
to kicking.
Speaker 3 (47:28):
Just so, just so. And we could not play these
reindeer games without you folks. But we do have some
breaking news from our pal Matt. I want to share
this here. Just look it up, folks. The news is true.
We've been looking into this for a long time. Scientists
(47:49):
have created chimera mice, mice with part-human brains.
Speaker 2 (47:55):
Nothing weird about that. Let that be our positive note.
That seems totally fine. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (48:00):
And maybe Director Patel will hire these mice. Check out
The Guardian for more. Thank you so much for joining us.
We cannot wait to hear from you. Please stay tuned
for some of the future episodes we're doing. If you
like Secret Societies, We're getting into the Bilderberg group pretty
hard in the coming weeks. Spoilers.
Speaker 2 (48:23):
Yeah. In the meantime. Brought to you by Illumination Global Unlimited.
No doubt.
Speaker 3 (48:27):
Yes, yes, yes. Proud purveyors of rutabagas worldwide. Join up
with the cause, folks. There are a number of ways
to contact us.
Speaker 2 (48:38):
You can find us at Conspiracy Stuff or Conspiracy Stuff Show,
depending on your favorite social media platform.
Speaker 3 (48:44):
You can also call us on a telephonic device of
your choice. Sing along with us at home. The number
is 1-833-STD-WYTK. Gosh, I miss doing that one. Give yourself
a cool nickname. You got three minutes. Tell us what's
on your mind. Most importantly, let us know if you...
(49:05):
are comfortable with us putting your voice and message on
the air. If you don't want to do that, if
you don't sip the social meds, if you don't like
to tippy-tap on the telephones, there is one other way
to contact us absolutely anytime you'd like.
Speaker 2 (49:22):
Well, Ben, that's by shooting us a good old-fashioned email.
Where we are, conspiracy at iHeartRadio.com.
Speaker 1 (49:47):
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know is a production
of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 3 (49:50):
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 the stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Hello and welcome back to the show. My name is Noel.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Our colleague Matt is on adventures and will be returning soon.
They call me Ben. We're joined, as always, with our
super producer, Max the Freight Train Williams. Most importantly, you
are you. You are here. That makes this the Stuff
They Don't Want You To Know. Welcome to September 21st, 2026.
(00:51):
This is our strange news program. And Noel, Max, before
we roll on, we do have to give a little
bit of housekeeping, some of which comes from our brother, Matt.
Watch out for smart TV's. That's all we're going to
say at this point, right?
Speaker 2 (01:12):
I've been saying that for years.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
You've been saying that for years, man. No, I haven't really.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
I just go from one smart TV to the next,
and I'm not even sure what makes them that smart anymore.
But I don't know this story, Ben. We talked a
little bit off air, and I know there's some overlap
with some of the right-to-own shenanigans and its crossover into AI,
but I think we're going to save a full discussion
on this one for when Matty returns, yeah? Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
We're going to have an episode on this. We also...
In the interest of full disclosure, Noel, you and I
have to tell Max a little story. We were hanging
out in the green room of a live show we
did recently. We met a delightful older guy named Ben.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
Well, Ben, here's the thing. I know that you're fond
of other Ben's and meeting all of the Ben's of
the world, as am I, because it's a fun bunch.
But I think I missed the headline and really thought
you were just introducing me to a kindly, let's say,
Ben of more advanced years than yourself. And I was
thrilled to meet him for that reason alone. But it
(02:20):
turns out that I missed the memo of who this
Ben was.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
Yes, I also did not know Ben. when I was
introducing you, big thanks to our pal, Matt, who was
clever enough to get into the Ben Bro moment and say, hey, sir,
what do you do? The news is official, Max. Noel, Matt,
(02:45):
and I met Ben from Ben & Jerry's.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
This one, yeah, that Ben, and he was talking a
lot about the free Ben & Jerry's movement. Yeah. I
don't think any of us are particularly familiar with, but
it definitely goes into some of the kind of corporate
homogenization that we love so well to talk about and
commiserate about. Bordering on corporate conspiracy, but it turns out
(03:09):
that the Ben & Jerry's brand was purchased by Unilever
slash Magnum, which I thought was a weird combo because
Unilever makes soap and chemicals and then Magnum doesn't. which
is also a brand of condom, makes delicious chocolatey-dipped ice
cream sticks. And they apparently have not been being good
stewards to the Ben & Jerry's brand in terms of
(03:31):
their activism, which is a thing that Ben & Jerry's,
as a company, was always all about, those hippies from Vermont.
So I think Mr. Ben... short for Bennett, by the way,
which blew our minds the most, is very much trying
to wrest the company back from their corporate overlords because
he doesn't think that they've stayed true to their commitment. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
And as you know, fellow conspiracy realists, we always like
to begin our strange news program with some positive stuff, right?
And if we can, no promises, we like to end
on that. So our positive News for today is we
met Ben from Ben & Jerry's, and we can confirm
he's actually very, very cool. Good dude.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
Big Vermont energy. Yes, big Vermont energy. I think he
was even wearing a vest, like a puffy vest. At
least in my mind. He was. Maybe he wasn't.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
We can't wait to follow up on that. We have
so much strange news to get to. As you know, folks,
you can always hit us up at conspiracy.heartradio.com for further
sources on the things we discuss. For now, before we
go to a break, Noel, there's something I am so
excited about that you found regarding drugs in the ancient past.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Yeah, this is something that we probably ought to reserve
for a full episode of Ridiculous History because I don't Ben,
have we done something about getting high through history or
something on Ridiculous? I want to say that we have
to some degree, but that could be an ongoing series
in and of itself. And then I was painfully unfamiliar
with a historical method of getting high for seemingly one
(05:19):
of the most ancient methods, which involves chewing on a
particular kind of nut. So let's get into that after
a quick word from our sponsors. And we're back. Ben,
you teased it. I double teased it, doubled it down
(05:40):
on the tease. And yeah, we're talking about 25,000 year
old teeth that provided historians, archaeologists actually, with evidence of
the world's earliest habitual drug use. On Wednesday, as we
record this, September 9th, last week, Griffin University researchers announced
(06:00):
they had discovered 25,000-year-old skeletal remains in Indonesia, showing the
evidence of a drug habit that I personally was not
familiar with, something called a beetle nut. Chewing on it,
sucking on it, sucking on a beetle nut down by
the tasty freeze by ancient hunter-gatherers. This pushed back the
known timeline of human drug use by over 10,000 years
(06:24):
in one fell swoop.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
This is so nuts because I... This is so beetle nuts.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
Keep it, Max. Beetle nuts, beetle nuts, beetle nuts.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Beetle nuts, beetle nuts, beetle nuts. This is bananas then
because I... I first ran into betel nut traveling abroad
in a place where I saw people with bright red mouths.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Oh, okay.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
So it's kind of like– I guess it does something
to people's spit or their saliva, kind of like when
people drink a lot of red wine. Yeah, wine mouth.
Wine mouth.
Speaker 4 (07:09):
I didn't know that was the term, but yeah.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
So what we're saying here is that researchers have found, oh,
and betel nut apparently is addictive, like caffeine or tobacco, right?
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Yeah, or cocaine, because it does seem to have effects
in the short term similar to a powerful stimulant, but
also with some mild, almost opioidic properties, if that's a
word that I just made up, which it is, and
almost a little bit of mild psychedelia. It is reported
as causing heightened sense of alertness, a little bit of
(07:44):
pep in your step, euphoria, relaxation, increased heart rate, elevated
blood pressure, flushing of the skin. And to your point, Ben,
that red color that your saliva turns is emphasized by
the fact that it also causes a pretty serious increase
in the production of saliva. And it can hit so
(08:05):
hard to first-time users that it can cause dizzying, nausea,
and vomiting. And it can cause permanent stains to the teeth,
severe gum disease and mouth issues, almost like doing dip
or something like that. And it's classified by the World
Health Organization as a group one carcinogen, very similar to asbestos,
(08:28):
which can greatly increase risk of all kinds of oral, mouth,
and esophageal diseases. cancers. But yeah, it seems like these
old timers, these bone guys, really love the stuff.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
Yeah, and we did a series on Ridiculous History, our
sister show, titled something like Weird Things People Used to
Get High Off Of. I knew it.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
Yeah, you nailed it. Well, it does feel like a series,
that potential, right? And now that we've cracked the code
10 more thousands of years, right?
Speaker 3 (08:57):
Yeah, because we have to remember the human species is
nothing if not curious, right? And humans, just like many
other higher order mammals or higher intelligence creatures, they're constantly
seeking new experiences. So it's not really that surprising that
(09:21):
we would find hard evidence of habitual drug use. But
the interesting thing here is that fossils, especially from this
point in history, are so rare that if you find
one example of habitual betel nut consumption, that probably means
(09:44):
everybody was doing it and we just haven't found the
rest of the teeth.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
For sure. And the archaeologists previously believed that psychoactive drug
use hadn't emerged till closer to 13,000 years ago during
the Neolithic farming and fermenting craze over in Israel. But
this discovery in, I said Indonesia, the specific name of
the area is Sulawesi, predates those agricultural traditions, farming methods
(10:14):
by over 10,000 years. So this really does genuinely reshape
the history of substance abuse or use. Abuse is maybe
when you overdo it a little bit. I mean, some
might argue that any drug use is abusing your body,
but then those people also might be pounding coffee while
they're telling you that.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
I am pounding coffee right now, so I say let's
call it exploration. Also, Nola's drinking coffee too, folks.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
I just pounded it, man. It's gone. I need some more.
I just rolled in from the road, man, so I'm
a little bit on edge. I'm coming in hot.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
Well, you're coming in great on my end. We've also
got to tell you, just really quickly, folks, in the
modern world, as we record on September 17th, a Thursday
in 2026, betel or betel nut is not a controlled
substance in the United States.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
Interesting.
Speaker 3 (11:07):
You can get your red mouth on if you want,
per the decision makers of this place. but you cannot
sell or market it as a food or a drug,
which is such a weird liminal space. It makes me think, like,
do you have to go to a bodega and pull
(11:28):
one of those Dave Chappelle half-baked.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
Moves and, like, show them your butt? It reminds me, well, no,
I think I know, I have something to compare this to.
Back in the day, remember the bath salts craze?
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
That was a drug that you could buy in head shops,
what they used to call them, tobacco shops, as well
as there was some strain of like a chemical that
was similar to a THC effect, but it was actually
even more potent and more kind of psychedelic. That was
also sold at a lot of these head shops, and
they were both marketed. Bath salts was marketed as bath salts.
(12:04):
That's where the name comes from. And it specifically said
on the packet, do not ingest this, not for human consumption,
as did this other product. It was called Spice. That's
what they called it. That was the street name, Spice.
But they were selling that as though it were some
sort of incense.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
Yes, they were, very much so. Because if you are
not promising certain things, right? Caveat emptor is always right.
kind of how the United States treats customers. Beware of
what you're buying. If you're not promising specific things, you
can sell a lot of stuff. And it's also weird.
(12:44):
You know, it reminds me of when civilization found a
body with the oldest tattoos ever. People have been doing
the same things for such a long time.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
I mean, it makes sense. It's like there's only so
many things you can do with your body. One of
them is scribbling things on your skin, and the other
one is shoving stuff in your mouth and seeing what happens.
So it makes sense that people have been doing both
of those things for a very long time.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
And that is a Noel Brown quotable. I don't know
if we can afford a sound cue.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
No, it's okay. Oh, man, maybe one day. I aspire
to having a sound cue for a Noel Brown quotable corner.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
And folks, here we're going to pause for a moment
for what we've been calling Schrodinger's Sponsorship. It's an ad.
We don't know if there's an ad here yet. Is
there a cat involved? There may well be.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
Okay, we'll be right back. And we're back. There's a
pretty awesome article on Smithsonian that goes into a little
more detail about the fine. But I think we hit
the important points for the purposes of this show. But
I do want to kind of earmark this to revisit
on Ridiculous History. So I'll move on to another story
(13:58):
that you guys might have heard a little something about.
There is a elite athletic competition that takes place. all
over the world. High Rocks, I think is what it's called.
And the thing that makes it unique is it's an
obstacle course-based competition where all of the courses, wherever the
events are held, are identical. So there is this very
(14:20):
kind of unified way of measuring results from one competitor
halfway around the globe to another one. And this event,
I'd never heard of it before, this organization. I think
we're talking, it's sort of like really high-level gymming You know,
like pushing the sled and, you know, whipping the ropes
and doing all that kind of like almost competitive CrossFit,
(14:44):
I guess you could call it. Well, High Rocks as
an organization and a particular one of their events that
took place in Beijing has been making the news recently,
not necessarily for the best of reasons, in a story
that I think highlights politics. a couple of different interesting
issues around really intense competitive athletics. At Saturday's High Rocks
(15:07):
Beijing race, Saturday, yeah, like last week, this last weekend,
a 22-year-old Australian competitor named Joanna Weitrich was allowed to
continue competing and ultimately go on to winning the event
(15:28):
even after she died. severely soiled herself. There's no nice
way of saying it.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
What do we mean by severely?
Speaker 2 (15:37):
I mean just really serious diarrhea running down both legs.
There are images of it if you wish to go
that route. It's one of those things where I was
in an Instagram post where they just had that image
as the front page, and you got a lot of comments,
people saying, yo, a little trigger warning would have been nice.
Seeing a lot of two girls, one cup jokes popping
(15:58):
around on the internet about it.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
Even the Guardian made a little bit of a two girls,
one cup joke. Folks, also, while Noel is talking about-
While you're Googling the pictures, Google.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
That one too. Yeah, Google that one too. No, please don't.
Don't do it. Do you think that one's outlived its sight, Geistinus?
Do you think there's a contingent of folks that have
no idea what two girls, one cup is? It had
a moment, and then it kind of disappeared.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
Heard the phrase.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
You know you know.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
Yeah. If you know, you know, we're a family show,
so we're not going to recommend looking it up. We
also know that these high stakes, high level athletic events
are very demanding on the people who engage with them. So,
you know, we've all heard stories, for instance, about long
(16:51):
distance runners or bikers who make very out of the
box decisions about how to urinate. You know, this one
though does seem like it caught our athlete by surprise.
So if we could all exercise a little bit of empathy,
I don't want to read millions of minds right now,
(17:14):
but Noel Mack's, It is statistically inevitable that everybody listening
to this strange news program has at least at one
point pushed a fart too far.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
No question about it, Ben. We've all been there. It
would seem– Mike, I had so many questions when I
first started seeing the story making the rounds. Like what happened?
Is this a condition that she struggles with and it
just caught her off guard in some way? I think
it was just a run-of-the-mill case of serious gastrointestinal illness
(17:52):
that she maybe knew about but decided she was going
to push through. And she did go on to win
the event. A lot of people initially criticized High Rocks
organizers who did not stop her. You got to think
about this. It didn't even hit me at first where
this is like a total public health, you know, issue.
(18:13):
They're using common equipment that everyone, all the competitors are sharing.
It's incredibly not only unfair to the other competitors and
the spectators that the organizers allowed her to continue, but
incredibly unsafe and unhygienic and just quite gnarly. And Vychik
did go on to win the event and received a
(18:34):
lot of backlash as well directly. Because after the event,
she posted an image on her Instagram of her like
laying on a hospital bed, clearly getting some sort of
saline drip and just giving the thumbs up and saying
something to the effect of racing is all that matters.
Speaker 3 (18:48):
Or if I remember the Instagram post, it was a
win is a win.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
A win is a win. Exactly. And it, you know,
that's just not true. That is not– shouldn't be true.
I think there's a culture around some of these really,
to your point, Ben, high-stakes athletic competitions where people will
push themselves to dangerous and it would seem degrading heights
(19:14):
in order to be competitive. She did acknowledge that she
made a mistake, as did High Rocks organizers. They were
first to release a statement saying that they failed in
their duty and did not– disqualifies the wrong word, but
they should have just, you know, stepped in. We need
to intervene on behalf of this woman's health and the
(19:37):
health of the other competitors and spectators in the indoor,
by the way, facility. So Vychik did take to social
media to offer a sincere apology. She said to the
people of China that my fellow competitors, the spectators, and
the high-rocks organizers for what happened during the race in Beijing.
She said that she started the race feeling completely fit
(20:00):
and healthy and had no reason to expect any illness. However,
looking back, she said that she regrets the decision to
not have stepped off the track. I recognize that I
should have made a different choice. I take responsibility for
my decision to continue, and I'm deeply sorry for the
discomfort and disruption that it caused. The organization Hierox claimed
(20:20):
that this was something they were going to take into
consideration moving forward, essentially saying that any future events that
involved human bodily fluids of any kind would result in
that individual being asked to discontinue their racing.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
We've all been there.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Haven't we, though? And again, I mean, like at first
I was sort of like, oh, my God, how brave.
But then the more I thought about it, the more
I was like, I don't know, man, that kind of sucks.
That lady should have known better. And I'm not trying
to victim blame. I'm sorry that she wasn't feeling well.
It's a horrible thing to have happen to you at
any point in your life, let alone in front of,
you know, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of spectators.
(21:02):
But I think if she had thought a little bit
harder about it, she would have realized that she was
putting other people at risk and that maybe it wasn't
worth it for the win, as you said, Ben, being
the win.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
Yeah, folks, as we're wrapping up this part, please exercise empathy.
Fart not upon, lest ye be farted upon.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
Well said, Ben. Well said. Let's take a quick break.
We'll hear a word from our sponsor, and then we
will jump right back in with some more strange news.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
And we have returned. Shout out to the Russian oligarch
who secretly paid for Trump Jr. 's wedding. Shout out
to the AI conversations that we're going to continue to have. Noel,
as we're getting into this part, have you ever played Roblox?
Speaker 2 (21:56):
Yeah, I haven't played it, but my kid was into
it when they were a little younger because it, you know,
always my understanding was that it was meant to attract
younger audiences, younger.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
Players, younger users. Yeah, and bad faith actors.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
So many bad controversies surrounding the platform.
Speaker 3 (22:14):
And we have to let you know a story that
didn't make the headlines a few weeks back in August.
Roblox has argued that an eight-year-old waived their rights in
a wrongful death lawsuit. So please check that out from
our friends at the courier-journal.com. The big thing we want
(22:37):
to get to here as well amidst all this strange
news is the following. Space weapons are real.
Speaker 2 (22:46):
Thank God.
Speaker 4 (22:46):
Screw you, United Nations Treaty of 1967.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Just in time for the Spaceballs reboot or sequel. Just
in time.
Speaker 3 (22:57):
This news was breaking just a few days ago while
we were traveling and doing various other things. It is
a true story, folks. A long time ago, back in 1967,
the United Nations created something called the Outer Space Treaty.
(23:18):
The Outer Space Treaty essentially says that everything beyond the
bounds of Earth, everything in the heavens, should be considered
a subject of scientific exploration for the betterment of all mankind.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
As above, so below. Right.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
You know, that's interesting because Antarctica has a similar treaty.
No one can really own it. You can put some
research stations out there, but you cannot weaponize Antarctica. And
a big part of the UN Treaty is is arguing
that you cannot weaponize space. Now, Noel, Max, as you'll recall,
(24:03):
years and years ago, we were speculating with great attention,
especially Matt and I rabbit hole super hard on this.
We were speculating intensely on the activities of an unmanned
US craft called X-37B. And we all sort of, I
think all three of us predicted that this would be
(24:26):
for weaponization. I think it's true because despite the fact
that there is an official outer space treaty saying no
weapons can be in space, the United States of America
has very recently confirmed that they have, in fact, deployed
(24:46):
active weapons in space.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
Wait a minute you're saying we didn't follow the rules
and we just kind of did whatever we wanted i.
Speaker 3 (24:53):
Mean the same the the are you kidding me the
same institution that made all those treaties with native american
populations and then broke them as well.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
It would seem so. Ben, I recently saw, I had
the pleasure of seeing a remastered IMAX version of the
classic anime dystopian feature film Akira. And there's a part
at the end where, I won't give too much away
if anyone hasn't seen it, but mild spoilers for like a, God,
what it's gotta be 40 something year old film. There
(25:27):
is a main character who kind of gets, turns into
this weird biomechanical monstrosity at the end. And there's this
huge showdown. And there is a weapon that fires at
him on the ground from outer space, which is one
flavor of space weapon that I've always been curious about,
like something that could perhaps focus a beam from high
(25:47):
Earth orbit or low Earth orbit, rather, and then blow
something up down on the surface. Are we talking about
something like that, or are we talking about stuff to
blow up other stuff in space?
Speaker 3 (25:57):
That is an excellent question, and We are still trying
to figure it out, we being the public. If you
go to, here's where the kerfuffle begins. The Air Force Secretary,
Troy Mink, M-E-I-N-K, recently was speaking to the Air, Space,
(26:18):
and Cyber Conference, which is hosted in National Harbor, Maryland,
and said the following, and I'm going to do a
fun voice. Please don't get mad, Troy.
Speaker 5 (26:29):
Today, we continue to ensure we remain ready to meet
the challenges of evolving threats wherever they exist. This is
why the United States now has on-orbit space control weapons,
to your question, capable of defending the joint force against
hostile adversary action.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
In space?
Speaker 3 (26:51):
In space. On-orbit space control weapons. So to your earlier question.
Are we talking about like rods from God, right? Where
you drop a physical object and use gravity to make
it a world ender, like a meteor impact?
Speaker 2 (27:13):
Oh, I haven't heard that term before, Ben. Rods from God,
that's good.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
Oh man, I hope no one does it because it's
a plausible and evil idea. Or to your earlier point,
are we talking about A satellite hunter, right? Are we
talking about some kind of satellite that could emit an
electromagnetic pulse to dummy up other satellites within range? Are
(27:40):
we talking about X-37B modifying its flight path to knock
out another satellite? Or are we talking about X-37B or
something like it possessing nuclear payload?
Speaker 2 (27:56):
Good question. And, I mean, it doesn't seem like they
wanted us to know about this at all. Or was
this an announcement?
Speaker 3 (28:03):
This is an announcement.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
Oh, God, of course it is.
Speaker 3 (28:07):
Which means, again, as we've been saying for 17-plus years,
you have to be very skeptical. Like, does Uncle Sam
really have some spoopy-dupe evil stuff, offensive weaponry out there
in the ink? Or are they trying to act big?
Speaker 2 (28:26):
That's what I'm saying. I mean, a lot of these
kinds of announcements, they always have a bit of an
agenda and part of it is sort of a PSYOP effect, right?
Speaker 3 (28:32):
Exactly, yeah. And a lot of analysts are questioning whether
or not this is legit because we remember not too
long ago, not too many years ago, both the United
States and China had effectively established that they can shoot
satellites out of orbit. And they both did it in
(28:55):
a really... like creepy ominous way it was very dennis
reynolds the implication uh but you know i'm wondering what
you think here like if you had to guess at
what kind of weaponry the united states would have in
space what would be your first guess.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
I don't know man um i am just picturing the
akira thing i don't even know if that's possible scientifically
speaking My mind just tends towards doomsday type stuff whenever
we're talking space weapons, I guess. I've just consumed too
much science fiction in my lifetime to think of anything else. Yeah,
I hear you.
Speaker 3 (29:36):
And we're all big science fiction fans on the show. here.
It's also, it's still, to me, there's a conspiracy afoot
or a space because we know that there is that
hard line in the United Nations Treaty from 1967, but
we also know that the stuff Being disclosed here in
(30:01):
these statements is so cartoonishly vague.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
Weapons?
Speaker 3 (30:06):
Weapons is an umbrella term. You know what I mean? Like, oh,
we have weapons in space? What kind? Oh, we can't
tell you. It reminds me of the recent moves by
the AI tech bros who are saying, oh, we can't
do our IPO because... the models we've created are too dangerous.
(30:29):
Also give us money and don't hold us accountable. So
we need to know your thoughts, fellow conspiracy realists. What
kind of space weapons could be out there? Rods from God, evil,
powerful lasers, just basic satellite hunters. What is X-37B doing
up there? Why have there been 200 plus launches into space? And,
(30:55):
you know, How in control are the humans?
Speaker 2 (30:59):
Well, let's be honest, man. It's not particularly in the
character of this administration to be on board with pure
scientific-y research pursuits. So the fact that they're interested in
space and literally created a new branch of the armed
forces called Space Force, which, by the way, I went
to a military funeral a handful of months ago. And
(31:19):
at the burial site, they had these like crests of
all the different branches of the armed forces. And they
had added one for Space Force. And that logo, it's
the Star Trek logo.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:31):
That's what it is. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (31:33):
Did you see the new uniform pitch?
Speaker 2 (31:35):
Oh, you mean the one that looked like Imperial Death
Star captains? Space Nazis? I mean, look, no hyperbole there.
That's what the uniform looks like. It is true.
Speaker 3 (31:46):
Noel is being accurate there, folks. Don't use AI to
generate your.
Speaker 2 (31:52):
Uniforms, I guess. We'll have a little Hugo Boss spin
in there.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
Also, we are going to move on to another quick story.
We teased this earlier. Remember, Noel, at the very end
of a recent strange news program, we shouted out the FBI.
and the way that they have sort of changed their
(32:21):
standards for new hires.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
Yeah, I saw a bit of a hearing back and
forth between Mr. Bug-Eye himself, Kash Patel, and a very
gentlemanly Southern, or I believe he was from Kentucky or
something like that, a senator. And the senator was just mystified,
just bewildered at how this even came up. And it was,
it's just watching if you can find it.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
Because he, this senator- looks so just genuinely befuddled. He's perplexed.
And politicians are often performative, but in this case, the
performance seems sincere. We're going to pause for a word
from our sponsors and just for our kiddo conspiracy realist
(33:05):
in the crowd. This may not be appropriate for all audiences,
so after the break, if you're you need a trigger
warning or anything like that, just fast forward about six minutes.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
We'll be back. This is so weird.
Speaker 3 (33:30):
And we have returned thanks to Freight Train. We can
confirm that is John Neely Kennedy, a befuddled frankly, oddball
senator from Louisiana.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
Yeah, man, he is having a hard time with this one.
Speaker 3 (33:47):
So here's, yes, as are we, to be honest with you,
fellow conspiracy realists. The reason this guy that we don't
agree with for a lot of other factors, the reason
he is so perplexed and confused is because he was
speaking with the current FBI director, Kash Patel, with a K,
(34:09):
Kash with a K, Yeah, who was defending his decision
to change these hiring standards for the FBI. So embezzlement
used to be a deal breaker, no longer a deal breaker.
Another one that is no longer a deal breaker is bestiality,
which is when human beings have sexual congress with non-human animals.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
That's right. There's a real couple of notably odd parts
of this exchange, but there's a question that comes up
as to whether or not the person on the receiving
or giving end of a bestiality exchange would be disqualified.
(34:59):
And that's clarified or required to be clarified by the senator.
You're saying an animal? He's like, well, and then Akash
is like, well, we do have some great canines in
the organization. It's just so icky. Read the room, director.
What does come up in is that, and Cash openly
admits it, even though we didn't really hear who brought
(35:19):
this to him, but he said this was recommended to him.
Speaker 3 (35:23):
And, you know, folks, we obviously, we roast every high-level
official whenever they need to be roasted. I was very
interested to read the testimony of Director Patel to the
Senate Judiciary Committee. He said, he said something that, We
(35:45):
should unpack together. He said we put these new rules
in place because, quote, we did not want to make
it an automatic disqualification for the FBI to consider you
if you are a victim of these awful, heinous acts.
So what he's saying here is like the headlines and
the memes and all the social media dopamine casino crap.
(36:10):
They're saying, oh, FBI loves people who are purposely, you know,
abusing non-human animals. But what this guy is saying, what
Director Patel is saying here implies that there are people
who have been trafficked and assaulted by animals, and that
(36:33):
should not keep them out of the FBI.
Speaker 2 (36:36):
And on its surface, I don't disagree with that. Like
it's like if you are trafficked and you are against
your will, forced into sex slavery, let's just call it
what it is, that involves being forced to do dehumanizing,
literally things like that. And then you were able to
(36:57):
get through that. I could see how it could give
you some insight into sex. certain activities that the FBI
gets up to. There's a show right now that I
just absolutely adored. It's a very intense watch, but it's
called Furious on Hulu. And it's about an FBI agent
who comes from a background of sex trafficking against her will.
And it does bring some insight into the kinds of
(37:19):
crimes that she ends up pursuing. So I don't know.
I think it's an easy headline and, you know, low
be it for me to defend Cash Patel, who I
obviously can't stand. But there's part of me that does understand.
And there is a world where this is something a
little bit different than the splashy headlines of FBI now
allows perpetrators of bestiality.
Speaker 3 (37:41):
Yeah, and I appreciate you saying that because that's my
understanding or framework as well. We do have to give
you a little bit of back and forth here. As
we said, we don't entirely agree with the Honorable Senator
John Kennedy from Louisiana, but we do want to give
(38:03):
you a bit of the dialogue here from the testimony.
He said, why would you ever get into bestiality? And
Patel said, we're not into bestiality. And the Senator cut
him off and said, well, I know you're not, but
you changed the qualifications and you mentioned bestiality.
Speaker 2 (38:22):
And That's a pretty good impression, man.
Speaker 3 (38:25):
Oh, my gosh.
Speaker 2 (38:25):
No, come on. No, he does have that flavor of
Southern gentlemanly drawl.
Speaker 3 (38:31):
So what they're pushing on here is this, again, I
think he nailed it, this befuddled, perplexed question, answer, back
and forth thing about what's happening at the FBI. But
while this is occurring, folks, get past the headlines. We argue,
(38:53):
we posit to you that the true conspiracy here is
the FBI under current leadership cleaning out good career officers
and replacing them with cronies and sycophants. So this, I mean,
to me, Noel, guys, this feels like it's a headline
(39:15):
that is distracting.
Speaker 2 (39:17):
That's right. I would agree with that. And one that's
also kind of, I don't know, what's the word we
were taught in like media ethics, prurient, Yes.
Speaker 3 (39:26):
Yeah, yes, yes.
Speaker 2 (39:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (39:28):
And we would love to hear your thoughts, especially if
you're a former or current FBI. We do obviously acknowledge
that we have to reluctantly– agree with the statements of
Director Patel. If people are trafficked, they do not have
(39:51):
agency over what happens to them. So you always have
to look past the headline and the first paragraph of
a story. But Noel, before we wrap up this week's
strange news, you've got another little something we were talking
about off air.
Speaker 2 (40:07):
Yeah, I don't know. It's just kind of more doom
and gloom news involving the administration and their seeming desire
to blow up the planet. The head of the EPA,
Lee Zeldin, said in a press conference just Monday of
this week, as we record on September 17th, that the
(40:27):
days of Biden and Obama working to destroy natural gas
and coal are over. Thank God. Someone to finally stick
up for the little guys. Oh my gosh.
Speaker 3 (40:37):
I can't wait till we finally get our research done
on artificial gas instead of natural gas, right? Artificial intelligence
is so hot. So what about artificial gas and also, oh,
those villains, those political villains stopping the good, hardworking, very
(40:58):
impoverished folks at Shell and Exxon.
Speaker 2 (41:01):
And BP and so on. And of course, Lee Zeldin,
you know, in his rhetoric appeals to working class, you know,
Americans in saying that the Biden and Obama administration have
been targeting, you know, coal workers and saying something to
the effect of they were told to just get over
it and learn to code. Yeah. I can't imagine who
quite said that. I don't remember that press conference. But anyway,
(41:24):
you know, the head of the EPA, I mean, the
EPA is a regulatory agency. like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
and things like that, that are designed to protect us
as human beings, you know, from giant corporations that would
seek to pollute and, you know, looting and polluting, as
Captain Planet would say. And this just really feels like
(41:47):
a dude that's in the pocket of big business. Specifically,
you know, what is arguably an antiquated method of creating energy.
We know there are so many other options. I don't know.
I'm not like a super-duper conservationist hippie type, but it
just definitely seems like there's so much that can be
(42:08):
done with solar that isn't being done. There's so much
that can be done with wind that isn't being done.
Why is that if not to line the pockets of
these giant corporations like Shell Oil and other more, let's
call it, legacy energy producers? Basically, what he's saying is
they're rolling back all almost all of the emissions regulation
(42:32):
surrounding power plants. Yes.
Speaker 3 (42:34):
Yeah. That is correct. And that has happened. That is
incorrect from a moral, ethical, or survival standpoint. It goes
back to a concept that I wish more people talked about.
It's called path dependency, which means that early on in
(42:56):
the evolution of a system or a society or what
have you, the choices you make for a particular technology
can lock everything else into a specific path in the future.
So for instance, if we as a civilization used geothermal
(43:18):
or solar power to greater scale, then fossil fuels may
never have mattered. But because the world runs on oil
and gas, and because the people who control the oil
and gas have become so wealthy and so influential and
so powerful, this means that those entities will try to
(43:43):
preserve their catbird seat, even when they know what they're
doing is bad for the world overall.
Speaker 2 (43:51):
Well, for sure. And, I mean, you've got these legacy
companies that are backed by legacy money from legacy investors
that come from the same financial background and world as
people like Donald Trump. And so, of course, they're going
to do everything they can. I mean, anyone that's saying
that there isn't rampant– corruption and cronyism going on in
this administration. This isn't paying attention. I'm sorry.
Speaker 3 (44:13):
Anybody who say there's not corruption has been compromised.
Speaker 2 (44:17):
I would agree. Call me a cuck, lefty, loony tune
if you want. I don't give a crap. It just,
this is not controversial to me. None of this stuff.
Like you've got a guy that is clearly the mouthpiece
for his master, Donald Trump, you know, who is saying,
all of this weird rhetoric around all of the horrible
(44:37):
things that these types of, you know, seemingly common sense
regulations have done. Yeah, and it's at a time where
we know global warming is happening. He's literally using the
hoax word and all of that, acting like global warming
isn't real. This is the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, dude.
Speaker 3 (44:56):
Yeah, yeah, it's very Orwell, Orwellian stuff.
Speaker 2 (44:59):
Is it Fox protecting the hen house, Ben?
Speaker 3 (45:01):
Right, just so, Noel, just so. Thankfully, since we always
want to end on a good note, we can confirm
there is one voice of potential.
Speaker 4 (45:12):
Reason returned to Congress, Mitch McConnell. friends and neighbors, maybe
he's going to make a stand. Maybe he will preserve
the EPA. Maybe he will fight back against the rampant corruption.
Speaker 2 (45:28):
I think he's going to do a smile on us all.
He's going to murder us all. That look, dude. Have
you seen that TMZ footage? He's sitting in a van.
I mean, he just isn't there.
Speaker 3 (45:40):
He's just not. He's not there. He just isn't.
Speaker 2 (45:44):
And they brought him in for a particular vote, Ben.
Can you talk about that?
Speaker 3 (45:47):
And then his aide told him what to do. Yeah,
not the first time.
Speaker 2 (45:51):
His aide reversed his decision.
Speaker 3 (45:53):
Not the first time.
Speaker 2 (45:55):
Did you vote for that aide, the public? I'm just
putting that out there. Oh, great point.
Speaker 3 (46:00):
Because you did not, folks. And– Nola, I hate how
terrifyingly accurate that point is. We do also want to
introduce you to our word of the evening, which is gerontocracy.
Gerontocracy means governed by the elderly.
Speaker 2 (46:23):
Well, and also I would just put forth the term
elder abuse. Actually, yes.
Speaker 3 (46:28):
If we're exercising empathy, seriously, we have not met– A
lot of these people that we are discussing in Strange News,
and I love that point, Noel, because we're talking about
somebody who has tremendous world-changing responsibility, but like Ronald Reagan
(46:49):
before them, maybe doesn't have all their furniture in the
top floor.
Speaker 2 (46:54):
They've weekended Bernie's, Tim. I mean, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (46:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (46:59):
And you said we were going to end on a
high note.
Speaker 5 (47:03):
Well, we're saying something nice.
Speaker 3 (47:04):
He could save the EPA.
Speaker 1 (47:07):
Maybe.
Speaker 2 (47:07):
I hope so. He's back in the saddle.
Speaker 4 (47:10):
You're right. You know what?
Speaker 3 (47:12):
Not every at-bat is a home run. So we tried
to get to some positive news, but it was like
Joe Montana throwing a football.
Speaker 2 (47:21):
It's ugly.
Speaker 3 (47:22):
It got us across the line.
Speaker 2 (47:24):
Or Lucy pulling out the football and Charlie Brown goes
to kicking.
Speaker 3 (47:28):
Just so, just so. And we could not play these
reindeer games without you folks. But we do have some
breaking news from our pal Matt. I want to share
this here. Just look it up, folks. The news is true.
We've been looking into this for a long time. Scientists
(47:49):
have created chimera mice, mice with part-human brains.
Speaker 2 (47:55):
Nothing weird about that. Let that be our positive note.
That seems totally fine. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (48:00):
And maybe Director Patel will hire these mice. Check out
The Guardian for more. Thank you so much for joining us.
We cannot wait to hear from you. Please stay tuned
for some of the future episodes we're doing. If you
like Secret Societies, We're getting into the Bilderberg group pretty
hard in the coming weeks. Spoilers.
Speaker 2 (48:23):
Yeah. In the meantime. Brought to you by Illumination Global Unlimited.
No doubt.
Speaker 3 (48:27):
Yes, yes, yes. Proud purveyors of rutabagas worldwide. Join up
with the cause, folks. There are a number of ways
to contact us.
Speaker 2 (48:38):
You can find us at Conspiracy Stuff or Conspiracy Stuff Show,
depending on your favorite social media platform.
Speaker 3 (48:44):
You can also call us on a telephonic device of
your choice. Sing along with us at home. The number
is 1-833-STD-WYTK. Gosh, I miss doing that one. Give yourself
a cool nickname. You got three minutes. Tell us what's
on your mind. Most importantly, let us know if you...
(49:05):
are comfortable with us putting your voice and message on
the air. If you don't want to do that, if
you don't sip the social meds, if you don't like
to tippy-tap on the telephones, there is one other way
to contact us absolutely anytime you'd like.
Speaker 2 (49:22):
Well, Ben, that's by shooting us a good old-fashioned email.
Where we are, conspiracy at iHeartRadio.com.
Speaker 1 (49:47):
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know is a production
of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 3 (49:50):
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.
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
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!