April 29, 2025 • 58 mins
Conspiracy theories have evolved from reasonable skepticism about government deception to dangerous delusions with real-world consequences, tracing their development from Cold War distrust to internet-fueled paranoia.
• American trust in government began eroding in the 1940s with the Roswell incident and changing official explanations
• MK Ultra program confirmation proved the government conducted unethical human experiments with LSD and torture
• The internet's emergence around 1999-2000 created perfect conditions for conspiracy theories to spread rapidly
• Major conspiracy drivers include 9/11 "Loose Change" video, Pizzagate, QAnon, and modern election fraud claims
• Scientific approach requires observation, question, hypothesis, testing, and conclusion—steps conspiracies often skip
• Understanding the difference between likelihood based on evidence and absolute factual certainty is crucial
• Conspiracy theories rated as "antifreeze" on the toxicity scale—deceptively appealing but potentially deadly
• Healthy skepticism is valuable, but requires relying on credible sources and willingness to change beliefs
• Some conspiracies have deadly consequences through direct violence or dangerous health decisions
Rate and like our show! Write to us about your favorite conspiracy theories at toxic@awesomelifeskills.com. Find us on Facebook, Instagram, and soon on Bluesky.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Hi and welcome to the Toxic Cooking Show, where we
break down toxic people to theirsimplest ingredients.
I'm your host, christopherPatchett LCSW, and here with me
is my lovely co-host.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Lindsay McLean.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
This week.
We're going to do something alittle different this week.
Uh-huh, I just want to give youa little bit of a background of
how we got to where we aretoday, want to give you a little
bit of a background of how wegot to where we are today and
usually, like we do like a wholething, where, where do we go
from now?
And that's actually going to bekind of the main focus of this
(00:55):
week.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Uh-huh.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
We are going to talk about conspiracy theories.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
So excited, yes, so excited.
I'm sure you've heard oneconspiracy about anything.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
I mean, I know what the internet is.
Yeah, you spend about fiveminutes on there.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
You will run into some sort of conspiracy theory
so basically it kind of startedoff like we used to have trust
in our government in America.
It was up until the 1940s wherethe Cold War started taking
(01:41):
place and all of a sudden therewas the crash in Rosdale.
Do you know about the crash inRosdale?
Speaker 2 (01:52):
This sounds vaguely familiar.
Does it have to do with aliens?
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Yeah, it was alien spaceships and things like that.
And so what had happened wasthat there was a UFO, just a UFO
, like an unidentified flyingobject.
It wasn't necessarily an alienspaceship or anything like that,
but it was just a UFO that hadcrashed.
(02:18):
Somebody, a civilian, saw thisand saw the wreck site and
caught up the government.
All of a sudden the men inblack come by and and so they
come up and they basically theytalk to this guy and they're
(02:40):
like what you saw here, it wasreally nothing Kind of was all
of a sudden secretive.
And this guy's, like you know,like I know, I saw, like what
you saw here it was reallynothing kind of, was all of a
sudden secretive.
And this guy's, like you know,like I, I know I saw, like you
know, like that is a great wayto not get somebody on your side
, by the way it was basicallyjust, they were just kind of
dismissing it.
It was just like oh, you know,there's really nothing like that
(03:02):
big.
The guy was saying well, thisis materials I've never seen
before, like that was going on.
Oh, no, no, no, there's nothing, there's nothing.
So this guy is coming out aboutit and all of a sudden, shortly
after it goes from this isnothing and this guy trying to
(03:24):
speak out about it andeverything like that.
And now all of a sudden, thisguy is now retracting everything
they said uh-huh and then youknow, it starts kind of catching
on.
Like you know, like okay, therewas something going on, like
what the hell is going on?
And now all of a sudden, thegovernment is saying, well, it
was, it was a weather blip, andthat's why these were things
(03:46):
that were never seen before,because the sky has never seen a
weather balloon before.
And so people started sayinglike okay, this is really weird,
like something's going on thatwe're unaware of.
Fast forward into the 90s.
Now, all of a sudden, peoplekept on talking about it and
(04:07):
just as you said something todeal with aliens, people kept on
saying, like it has to.
You know, there's, there's moreto it.
There's is this originally itwas an unidentified flying
object.
Had it be something like analien thing, like that?
And finally the governmentcomes out and says, well, we
were testing an aircraft.
We go from it's absolutelynothing to a water balloon to
(04:33):
all of a sudden, 50, 60 yearslater, it was a top secret
aircraft from the Cold War.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
Which I would believe , but it still looks suspicious.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
Yeah, it still looks very and that's where a lot of
people are still today, Whereaslike, why couldn't you just say
that 60 years ago that, okay,we're not going to give you any
information on it, but just saythat it was a testing flight for
a new type of plane, but we'renot going to discuss it?
(05:07):
I think people would have beenmore like, okay, yeah, we're in
harsh times right now, we dohave to have national security,
things like that.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Yeah, you bring them in, you make them sign the NDAs,
all of that.
You give them the bare minimuminformation.
You can't talk about it becausewe have told you something and
then that keeps them fromspreading the information.
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
No, all of a sudden, people are starting to have like
a little bit of starting tolose a little bit of faith in
the, in the government.
You had the 1960s, you had JFK.
Then people started believing,like you know, like the CIA had
something to do with it, the FBIhad something to do with it and
(05:56):
to be fair during that time.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
If you ever go to museums that are dedicated to
like spy history or just weirdstuff around that time, the
ideas that the cia was coming upwith to assassinate people are
wild.
Well, like the things theywould do like I remember seeing
something at one point that theyhad a plan to basically make, I
(06:20):
think, fidel castro go baldbecause they thought he was
going to like that would makepeople lose respect of.
Like the beard fell out and thehair fell out.
Like they were.
They were doing crazy shit.
So I don't blame people forbeing like this could be having,
because clearly somebody at thetime was like I have an idea.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
Oh well, so we're really going to go into this
here in a second.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
So you, you had JFK, something's going on.
You had the moon landing in1969.
We really didn't land on themoon, things like that and all
of a sudden, in the 1970s andthis is where things really kind
of go into that territoryBefore I go into the 1970s,
(07:09):
let's go back to 1953.
Okay, so this is just at thebeginning of the Cold War, and
so there were people going overto the Korean War.
They were coming back and theystarted spewing communist
propaganda and the governmentsaid okay, something's going on.
(07:33):
The communists are doingsomething that we don't know
about and they're brainwashingthese people.
So they must have found a wayto brainwash people.
So since the communists foundthis way of being able to
brainwash people, we need tofind a way to brainwash people.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
Also logical.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
So who better to do than the American public?
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Again very logical here.
Speaker 1 (08:04):
Let's just test this on our own people you think of
like ethics and you think oflike when it comes to like
trying to figure out like thingspsychologically that you're
gonna have a disclaimer, you'regonna talk to the person you're
going to, you know, let themknow what the experiment is
about.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
That's why we can't do cool experiments now.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Yeah, you know what?
To me that's like adouble-edged sword.
I mean, like a lot of cool shitcame out of that time period
but at the same time, like it'sunderstandable.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
It is very ethnic.
Ethnic, wow, ethicallyquestionable.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Speaking of ethically questionable volunteers for
this experiment.
It was called MK Ultra, startedin 1950s and what it was was
guy goes out to a bar, meets anice pretty woman.
They start talking and thispretty woman this pretty woman
(09:09):
comes up and says like hey, whydon't you, why don't we go back
to my hotel?
Speaker 2 (09:13):
He's not going to say no.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Right.
So they go back to their hoteland then all of a sudden they're
drugged up and they'rekidnapped and they're brought
out to different sitesthroughout the United States,
even in Canada, and they'regiven LSD.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
That was not where I was expecting this, but okay, we
kidnap people, we lure them in,we kidnap them and we drug them
.
Got it.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
And they, they did a lot of harsh experiments.
They would deprive them ofsleep, they would drug them with
LSD, they would basically putthem into a coma and then they
would wake them up withdifferent drugs, adrenaline and
things like that.
People died.
Different drugs, adrenaline andthings like that.
People died, and you know theynever found the brainwashing
(10:15):
formula Shocking.
But here's kind of one of thethings is you know, during this
time there was somebody who waskind of speaking up and saying,
like shit, like you know, likethis is completely fucked, which
, yeah, if you're drugging uppeople and and kidnapping them
by the cia, our own governmentand basically torturing them not
(10:39):
basically, but they aretorturing them, not basically,
but they are torturing them.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
They are yeah.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
Killing people, trying to find a formula that
would brainwash people, andstarted to speak up, and then,
all of a sudden, this personfalls out of a tall building.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Yeah, I've studied Russian history, I know how that
happens.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
So I mean, you know, it was purely an accident.
Oh yeah, and people werestarting to question, like what
the fuck is going on, like therewas nothing more to it, that
this person just fell orcommitted suicide.
His name was frank allison andin the 70s, like you know, like
(11:35):
more and more people werestarting to come out and saying
like, hey, you know I was, I wasdrugged up and I, I went
through.
You know, horrible, horriblething.
You know, I don't remember alot of it, but I believe that
this is where I was and this iswhat happened.
And so this, the family ofFrank Olson, said like hey, look
(12:00):
, you know, we really think thatsomething more happened to this
.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
And so they had him dug up, his body, did a full
autopsy and there was, you know,evidence of head trauma prior
to him falling.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
Mm-hmm.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
And so there was no omission.
It was just all of a suddenthere was a check for $750,000
from the CIA.
Hey, sorry for your loss.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
So sorry to hear this happen.
We just now found out about it.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
Judge was even said to him like, look, know, there's
not a lot that we can prove,but there's definitely more to
the story than than what you'rebeing told.
And that was when thismysterious chick all of a sudden
came from the, the cia, andthat was kind of the end of that
(13:01):
.
And and now people are likeokay, what the fuck actually
happened.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
And so it was coming up.
It was more people were comingout about it, they were
describing the same things andfinally the CIA did have to
declassify some documents, butnot all of them, Not all of them
.
So they did finally admit that,yes, we did do human
(13:32):
experiments and some of themconducted LSD use and things
like that Didn't go into thenitty-gritty, but obviously at
this point it's kind of one ofthese things where it's just
like holy shit, our owngovernment has done this shit to
(13:52):
us, to us and this shit thatthat's way out there that these
other people are saying, yeah,the the CIA is not admitting to
all of it.
But you know what?
I now believe this person overwhat the CIA is saying.
So we've gone from total trustof our government to lacking
(14:18):
trust.
And then shortly after that,that was when the Pentagon came
out saying about the weatherbloom was not really a water
bloom, but it was a top secretairplane at the time and even up
until the early 90s, Area 51.
(14:40):
51.
It wasn't I.
I remember growing up in theeighties, early nineties and
hearing about area 51.
And it was at the time.
It was like we know it's there,but the government doesn't
(15:01):
acknowledge it or anything likethat.
And finally Bill Clinton cameout and said like it's there.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
That's it.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
Wow, I'm sure that's going to make people very
trusting in you.
So I mean, all these thingscame out of the Cold War and
then the whole idea of like themoon landing, things like that.
I mean people are justcompletely all over the place of
like what the fuck is real,what the fuck is not.
And this little beautiful thingcomes out in the 90s.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
It's uh, called the internet came out the year I was
born uh.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
So it really started gaining traction back in like
maybe 99, 2000 I mean I knew so92 when it came out, and so it
was, I remember, in like 96, 97,I can only think of maybe one
or two of my friends whoactually had the internet.
(16:11):
I remember we had internetcapability on our computer but
it was there was no way in hellthat my dad was ever going to
get it, because the fact that itwas 10 cents a minute, wow.
Because of the fact that it was10 cents a minute, wow.
And I mean you got to thinkthat the early phones that we
(16:35):
had and downloading a page wasprobably slower on our computers
in 96, 97 than it would be onour phones in 2001, 2002.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
Oh, hell yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
So one page is taking two or three minutes, that's 30
seconds or 30 cents just toload up one page, so it wasn't.
That's a good use of money?
Yeah, so it wasn't.
It wasn't until like 99, 2000that, um, it really became
(17:06):
accessible to almost everybody,and I know, like my family, we
got it in 2000.
And so I remember my firstscreen name was patches
underscore 20, because I wasgoing to be 20 for the rest of
my life.
So obviously so.
(17:28):
So that would have been 99-2000.
And then, in 2001, we had 9-11happen.
And here we are at the birth ofthe internet.
Now anybody with an idea isable to start posting their
(17:49):
ideas, or able to startspreading their message across,
and things like that.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Well, because I remember even then, being in
elementary school, we learnedhow to use Ask Jeeves to look up
stuff plenty of websites outthere that they were enough,
that they were allowing a bunchof like eight, nine and 10 year
olds to get on the schoolcomputers and learn how to like
look up this stuff.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
Oh my God, you could ask it questions.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Yeah, it's so dated, but yeah, I mean people were.
They were posting things likethere were.
There were a lot of websites.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
I think it was 90.
So I graduated 97 and I'mtrying to think if it was 11th
grade or 12th grade.
We had a project that we had togo online, use the, the school
library computer, and and so Iremember the project I did was
(18:50):
on LSD, because I was a fuckingburnout in high school.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Very fitting with this whole episode.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
See, I was only preparing myself.
You know what?
28 years ago, I was preparingmyself for this.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
So you're thinking about the future.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
That's smart 2001 comes, the 9-11 happens and
shortly after that happened, avideo was posted up and it was
called Lose Change, and itstarted going down this rabbit
hole of how it wasn't really theplane that caused the falling
(19:32):
of the twin towers, that it wasbombs that were planted inside
because steel beams couldn'tmelt, or something yes, steel
beams couldn't melt uh know,melt at that degree and that
(19:54):
there were implosions that werebeing heard.
and if you look at this, thenyou'll see that there are
implosions on the side of thetower as it was coming down and
people started buying that.
Oh well, you know shit.
This was an inside job, thatBush did this in order to create
(20:26):
war with Afghanistan and finishoff the job of Iraq, and people
started buying into it and alot of these things were
debunked very quickly.
But the thing is is that oncethe message is out there, it's
there, and I mean also you willnever get it back yeah, you will
never get it back.
And and this is directly afterthe whole like mk ultra finally
(20:52):
coming to light, the weatherballoon that wasn't a weather
balloon.
So there is evidence that thegovernment has no problem
killing its own people to meettheir own agenda.
And so you know, with the, withthe internet, it got worse and
worse.
Not too long ago.
It's I mean, it's gotten downto the point where QAnon came
(21:15):
out.
There was the whole thing withPizzagate.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
Oh, my God.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
Where they were saying that there was a whole
sex trafficking in the basementof a pizza parlor.
Somebody heard it, they went in, they killed people, and then
we have the election fraud of2020.
Well at this point.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
It moves so quickly and you may get into this that
before it seemed to take sometime and now you've got issues
happening like Hurricane Helene.
And now you've got issueshappening like Hurricane Helene
(22:11):
and within a week of Heleneblowing through and just
decimating Western NorthCarolina.
I'm seeing stuff because I haveyou off your land because they
want to steal the lithium that'sunderneath.
That is how quickly that wholemachine is working now that you
have less than a week.
I mean some people still don'teven have running water or
internet.
I mean they didn't for weeksafterward, but we haven't even
gotten in contact with all thesepeople.
They're still finding missingpeople and you're already coming
up with these conspiracytheories about this is happening
(22:35):
and I bet it was.
You know the government thatcaused this.
They're doing climate change.
They made this happen.
You know the whole FEMAstealing the lithium from
underneath your house type thing.
It was fast.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
Yeah, yeah.
And I mean, like the 2020election frauds that spread
around even before the electionwas over.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
Yeah, before it even started.
Yeah, there were already, likeTrump was.
You know, we try not to getpolitical, but Trump was
definitely pushing this wholeidea that people are going to
cheat.
And then he lost and he hadalready positioned this idea and
(23:26):
, as a result, he could, fromday one, just put it out to me
Like that's why they're notreleasing the results and people
were primed to buy it.
Speaker 1 (23:35):
Right, and that's kind of the thing, is that again
, there was fraud in 2024.
That was reported.
That was reported and we haveour own government officials
that are saying that Democratscan control the weather.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
Look, if we could.
That one I hate because it's sodumb.
Some of these.
You look at them and there'ssomething that makes sense in it
.
You're like alright, yeah, Ican see you're wrong, but I can
see it.
Democrats control the weather.
Please stop for five secondsand look at that.
(24:20):
There would be evidence, rightright and then.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
So here's the thing is that a lot of this comes into
, I feel, and the thing is, isthat, again, trying not to be
too political, like I'm even,trying to say, like you know,
like in 2024,.
When the election first came out, I didn't want to believe it.
(24:56):
When I first heard of theseconspiracies with starlink and
elon musk and things like that,I wanted to believe that.
I truly wanted to believe thatthere was some other reason than
then people just voting fortrump, naturally, and so.
But the thing is, is that thereis a whole way of doing this?
(25:18):
I wanted to call you out lastepisode, but I was like I will
wait until this episode, becausethis just just happens to be
exactly what I'm talking about.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
Tell me what did I do .
Speaker 1 (25:35):
So you know something like Elon Musk and the
inauguration.
My heart goes out to you.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
Yes, that was what that was.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
So here's where I'm going to call you out.
I cannot say for certain thatthat's what it was correct.
I was going to say before you.
I cannot say for certain that'swhat it was.
I can say that through actualevidence that, yes, it really
(26:11):
did look like that, and throughactual statements that when it
came out and it came to hisattention that, rather than him
saying I understand how it cameout that way and I apologize
that it came out that way,that's not what I was trying to
(26:31):
do, he doubled down and hedecided to troll.
So the only thing that I cansay with 100% certainty is was
it a Nazi salute?
It looked.
I don't know if that's what hewas intending to do, but I can
(26:53):
at least say that he doesn'tgive a shit.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
And I agree with you on this.
I understand the importance,when you're having a debate with
somebody, to go through all ofthat, because it is important.
It is important that everybodyyou know we'll use this as the
example watches that video andthinks about it and looks at
(27:18):
what came before and what cameafter in terms of things that he
has said, things that he hasdone, how he has reacted, and
you put all of that together andyou reach a conclusion.
You know, I think that is theimportant thing to do here,
Because, yeah, if you just takea gesture and you completely cut
off for something, it couldmean anything.
(27:40):
It could have meant my heartgoes out to you, it didn't, and
I will die on that hill.
It didn't and I will die onthat hill.
(28:06):
But you know, I'm willing tounderstand the debate of making
sure that you break it down andbe like but did he really?
Did he say this is a Nazisalute and then did it?
No, he didn't.
Has he said, hi, I'm a Nazi?
No, he hasn't.
Right, you do have toacknowledge.
It's like.
We cannot 100% be like yes,that is what he, because he
hasn't said that.
Speaker 1 (28:17):
But it was and that's , and it's.
This is where, lindsay I'msorry, you're being toxic as
fuck right now yes, there is alot of evidence pointing to that
, everything from his support towhat is the German ADF.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
AFD.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
His support to the AFD.
Lot of things that he has donehas been at least on the line of
being anti-semitic and thingslike that.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
Look, I'm okay, if you want to call me out for this
, I will die on this hill, justlike the q anon supporters are
going to die on theirs.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
But again, you know like and that's kind of the
thing is that again we cannotsay that it was one way or
another, but again what we cansay, what we can say for factual
, is that he doesn't care thatit came off that way.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
Yes, which is almost as big of a problem.
Speaker 1 (29:34):
I mean I, and that's where you know like I'm not
trying to play it off as itbeing nothing, because not
caring is just as bad as sayingthat.
Yes, that was a salute.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
Did you watch the video?
I said I know you watched it,but you were half asleep.
The guy who was talking aboutyou know gestures and we don't
want to read too much into themand of course this is not going
to come over well in audio, buthe's got his.
I don't even know how todescribe this.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
How would you?
I don't even know how todescribe this.
He's holding something and he'sshaking it.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
He's holding it kind of up above his mouth and going
down an angle very close to hismouth back and forth, and
obviously you thought I wasgrating cheese onto my plate or
putting salt on my plate.
No, I was sucking a dick.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
And but you know, and that's the thing, is that like,
okay, again, I'm not trying toplay it down or anything like
that I do think that definitely,what had happened was an
extremely horrific thing, and Ithink that it does appear that
way.
However, I cannot say forcertain on that particular thing
(31:03):
.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
And I get that Me personally.
What he has said before, whathe has said after and the
gesture combined come togetherto form what I believe to be a
Nazi salute.
Speaker 1 (31:47):
I really would like to say that because but that
feel is different than factual.
So, like Right, I think too,kurt Cobain was a huge hero of
mine when I was growing up andthe fact that he committed
(32:07):
suicide.
There is a huge piece of methat still believes that it he
didn't commit suicide, that theshotgun was too long, and this,
that and the other.
But the thing is is that chrisnever saw dave's goal.
His own bandmates, a lot ofpeople around him, the fact that
he did try to commit suicidetwo months earlier all point
(32:32):
towards, yes, this was a suicide.
And the thing is is that it isvery hard because I feel inside
that no, this isn't true, thatmy hero wouldn't have done that.
But being able to draw thatconclusion that like yes, you
(32:54):
know, like there's absolutely noevidence pointing towards the
opposite, and every evidencethat we do have pointing towards
the opposite is very shaky atbest.
And that's kind of the thing isthat there is a whole way of
actually kind of looking atthings and it's science, you
(33:19):
know, taking it to like thescientific step.
So scientific step is you makean observation, you come up with
a question, form a hypothesis,conduct a test, reject or accept
the hypothesis.
So let's look at Pizzagate.
(33:39):
Okay, I made an observationthat all Democrats are evil,
baby-killing, eating,sex-trafficking, assholes.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
This has been my observation, that's yeah.
Speaker 1 (33:58):
I asked a question.
That or somebody said thatthere was a sex-trafficking
thing down in this pizza parlor.
So I asked the question areDemocrats you know
sex-trafficking out of thispizza parlor?
So I asked the question areDemocrats you know sex
trafficking out of this pizzaparlor?
Okay, I made an observation.
I asked the question.
My hypothesis is that, yes,democrats are sex trafficking in
(34:24):
the basement of this pizzaparlor.
Cool, conduct a test.
The basement of this pizzaparlor, cool, conduct a test.
Eh Well, I never went to thepizza parlor.
I never saw downstairs, I neversaw anybody actually being sex
trafficked.
Speaker 2 (34:45):
Wasn't the guy not even from the town, or was he?
Speaker 1 (34:48):
Oh the shooter.
Yeah, yeah, I don't think heeven from the town, was he?
Oh the the the shooter.
Yeah, I yeah.
I don't think he was from thetown that's what I seem to
remember.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
It was that he was.
It's not even like he knewthese people and had reason to
to believe.
It's like, well, there's alwaysbeen something weird about bob.
It's just like no, you, you sawa video online, yeah, from
somebody that you didn't know.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
So we didn't conduct a test.
So all we're at is a hypothesis.
Looking at the election fraudof 2022 or 2024.
I'm sorry, looking at theelection of 2024.
Okay, made an observation?
Well, observation is I know Ididn't vote for Trump.
(35:30):
I know the people that arearound me didn't vote for Trump
and Trump has won.
Ask a question Well, was therefraud involved with Trump's
winning Form?
A hypothesis, form, ahypothesis.
(35:51):
Well, I believe that there waselection fraud and Starlink
gathered together and hadswitched a bunch of votes in
Pennsylvania over to Trump,conducted an experiment.
Well, starlink was only in afew places in Pennsylvania and
even in those places wasPhiladelphia and Lake Pittsburgh
(36:12):
, where Harris actually got tovote.
Yeah, okay, yeah.
So now I have to accept orreject.
Well, based off the evidence,I'm going to have to reject that
hypothesis.
Speaker 2 (36:28):
But now hold on a second.
Using this, can we not go backto Elon Musk for a second?
Speaker 1 (36:35):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (36:36):
And you say, all right, he's made a gesture, hand
goes up at an angle, palm isfacing down.
He did it not once, but twice,he did it.
We've seen that.
And you say, okay, was this?
My question here is, was this aNazi salute?
And you look at the evidencewhich says he has previously
(37:01):
done a gesture that I would,that many people would call my
heart goes out to you.
So, for instance, both handstouch the heart come out.
We have seen him do this.
There's video evidence of this.
We have seen him come out insupport, both before and after
the video of the gesture, insupport of far right groups,
(37:34):
support of far-right groups.
We have seen that he did notapologize for any harm the
gesture may have caused.
He did not acknowledge thatthis could have.
You know, oh, I see what youmeant and I'm so sorry I didn't
mean it that way.
You know, nothing was said ofthe kind as you said.
Of the kind, as you said, aactual neo-Nazi came out and was
(37:55):
like hell, yeah, man.
And nothing was said to be like, absolutely not Like.
I don't delete that copy, youknow everyone quickly bury it.
Would you not then look at thatevidence and say there is an
extremely high likelihood thathe was aware of what this
gesture meant and chose to do itanyway, given the audience.
(38:16):
Therefore, we can we can saythat this was a Nazi salute.
I'm not calling him a Nazi, I'msaying the gesture that he made
.
Based off of that evidence,would you not agree then that
that is a Nazi salute?
Speaker 1 (38:34):
So the actual salute and everything like that.
It appears it follows the sameexact way and and here's kind of
(38:59):
that, that difference inwording, is it?
You know again all the evidenceI've seen?
Is it likely?
Oh fuck, yeah, a trillionpercent likely.
He purposely meant to do that.
A trillion percent.
Speaker 2 (39:08):
But at what point, though?
When you see it and you're likethis is so, so, so likely, do
you just go ahead and say I'mgoing to call it that?
Speaker 1 (39:17):
Well, so here's the difference between likelihood
and factual.
Factual is I have a pen in myhand.
When I let it go, where's itgoing to go?
Speaker 2 (39:29):
Down.
Speaker 1 (39:30):
Right, I know a trillion percent that it's going
to go down.
I can take the same pen.
I can pick it up.
Drop it again.
Pick it up.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
What if you were in space?
It's not going to go down.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
And that would be a whole different thing, because
that situation but how do I knowyou're not in space?
Oh, my God, I'm getting.
Speaker 2 (39:56):
You started this.
Speaker 1 (40:00):
But that's the thing, is that it is factual that this
pen is going to drop here onEarth.
Yes, I can test it over and,over and over again and each and
every time that is going to bethe same exact result Likely is.
Speaker 2 (40:20):
I think what I'm trying to get at is that at a
certain point, when you're likeit's, there's obviously the like
, the hundred percent.
You know, if you're on earthand you drop something, gravity
is going to like it down.
We know that.
You can't.
You can't argue with that,although people will try and.
But then there's the it is.
You can assume that it willhappen because the likelihood is
(40:44):
so small.
But where do you draw that lineof saying this is so likely?
I'm just going to, for the sakeof the argument, for the sake
of not spending 18 minutesexplaining all the little if, if
, if, if, if.
I'm just going to say yes, Fact.
Speaker 1 (41:03):
So okay, so here you go.
Likely, I am a I believe inscience Big bang.
There is so much evidencepointing towards a big bang.
There is, I mean, uh, math andequations, and what we have as
(41:26):
far as, like, the universe,everything is is towards that
there was a big bang.
Is it factual?
That's still debatable.
Is it likely?
Speaker 2 (41:39):
that nobody was there who saw it?
Speaker 1 (41:42):
is it likely that's what happened?
Well, as of right now, all theevidence is pointing to yes,
this is likely.
What it?
What it?
What started the universe?
Speaker 2 (41:54):
that's why it's a theory yeah, and that's that's.
Speaker 1 (41:57):
The thing is that it is, and, oh my god, theory in
science means it's more thanjust a guess.
The only thing that the theoryis saying is that it is.
Speaker 2 (42:13):
It's an educated guess.
Speaker 1 (42:14):
Well educated guess is a hypothesis, a theory is all
the evidence is pointing tothat.
So like there is the theory ofgravity, well, we can't really
experiment of gravity unlesswe're going to take two
(42:35):
humongous objects and actuallygo into it and really dig deep
and all that.
But what we can see from thesun and the earth, it looks like
gravity is an actual thing.
Of the Earth, it looks likegravity is an actual thing.
The fact that we are able totake a pen and drop it points to
(42:57):
gravity being a thing.
Speaker 2 (43:00):
I just realized I wouldn't know if you were in a
space station, because you don'thave any hair to float around.
Speaker 1 (43:08):
But I do have bolts that.
Speaker 2 (43:12):
Those could be.
Those could be like glued down.
Speaker 1 (43:21):
I'm just being a dick and I know it I know okay, and
this is why we're friendsexactly but yeah, you know, and
that's the thing is that, likelikelihood, like you know, again
we can kind of we can draw avery strong conclusion and but
(43:42):
that's all it is.
It's it's a very strongconclusion, you know, and that's
kind of.
The difference is that there isonly one person who knows it
being factual or not.
But again, all the evidence Isee is very highly likely that,
(44:03):
yes, that is what he meant it tobe.
But to actually say it isdifficult to say.
Speaker 2 (44:12):
I'll let you slide on this one.
Speaker 1 (44:18):
You know, and that's the thing is that we actually
have to go down these things.
So, like MKUltra that I waskind of saying about the moment
that it came out that we did dothese things, are the other
people who said that there wasmore to it than even what the
(44:43):
cia is saying now?
Very highly likely, a thousandpercent.
I believe them, but I can't saythat it's factual right and
that's kind of the difference,is you know?
again with the thing with elonmusk, I believe it to be a nazi
(45:03):
salute.
Yes, is it factual?
Speaker 2 (45:09):
can we at least agree to call them swastikars.
Speaker 1 (45:13):
Oh yeah, I'm all about that.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
Okay, great, as long as we can agree on that I'm fine
.
Speaker 1 (45:28):
But you know, and that's the thing, is that, like
it does have to go on both sides, we do have to actually look at
reasonable evidence.
Rather than Joey who does aYouTube channel, we actually
have to look at what a personactually says, as what their
past is and things like that.
(45:50):
Because again I, I I'm notgoing to sit here and say that
no, wasn't, because again, allthe evidence I've seen is
definitely pointing towards, youknow, like a Nazi salute.
But the thing is is that Icannot call that itself Nazi
(46:13):
salute, but I can say that isvery likely and that I don't
stand for it, that I don't agreewith it, that I don't agree
with him, I don't agree with him, I don't agree with his actions
, I don't agree with his actions, and that's the thing.
Is that, like, yes, likelihood,you can still make that
(46:35):
decision of where you stand onlikelihood, but looking at the
facts versus looking at thelikelihood.
Speaker 2 (46:44):
Right and I agree with that that you do need to
based on facts, and sometimesyou see something and you get
this like gut feeling thatyou're like this is whatever.
This can't be true, this can'tbe right, and you do have to
pause and back up and explorewhat the actual facts are and
where you were getting thosequote unquote facts from.
(47:07):
Where's your information comingfrom?
Sources we all learned this inschool.
What are your sources?
Your source cannot be, with afew exceptions, some random
person on TikTok saying well, Iheard no, no, it's.
You really need to be carefuland I think people have lost
(47:27):
that ability, because maybe theyhaven't lost the ability.
They have chosen to ignore that, because that requires effort
and that requires them tosometimes face hard truths that
the thing that they want tobelieve maybe just isn't true.
You know, we all want tobelieve that this person is a
(47:48):
bad person and maybe a lot ofevidence points it Jeffrey
Epstein.
Jeffrey Epstein, did Epsteinkill himself?
I don't know, I don't know.
And there are people who arelike, oh, obviously he did.
And then there are people like,well, obviously he didn't.
There are people out there whohad reason to hate him and it's
(48:09):
important to analyze thatinformation and not just kind of
take something at face valueand be like, oh, of course he
killed himself, yeah, I'm notgoing to question anything.
But you also can't take it toofar and be like I'm the question
Every single little thing.
Speaker 1 (48:21):
Sometimes you have to understand that there are facts
like gravity as long as you'reon earth, which I don't believe
you are I mean I, I candefinitely say that I am on
earth, or else molly would behaving floating ears but I can't
see molly she's on the couch.
Speaker 2 (48:41):
She's snoozing.
Our ep has zero cares to givetoday.
Speaker 1 (48:49):
so, with all that being said, we we pretty much
went into like where we go fromhere, and a lot of just comes
down to asking yourself thesequestions and actually looking
at reliable sources.
And you know, like I would say,the biggest thing is looking at
facts instead of feelings.
(49:09):
The whole idea is that, yes, weall have these gut feelings and
a lot of that kind of comesfrom the fact that we want to
believe things.
But the thing is, is that ourgut, I mean, is not all that
(49:30):
good?
What so, with all that beingsaid, where do you put
conspiracy theories on our listof toxicity?
Would you say it's a greenpotato, where you just shave off
the green and you're able toeat it?
Would you say it is a death capmushroom 50, 50 shot of killing
(49:53):
you?
Or would you say that this is aantifreeze?
Speaker 2 (49:57):
a delightful last meal talking about conspiracy
theories as a whole, I'm gonnahave to say it's antifreeze,
because, while I think it isgood to do your own research and
I know that phrase is verycharged right now it has been
(50:19):
taken over by certain groups ofpeople who use it to push
conspiracy theories or ideasthat have been proven to be not
true or not scientificallyfactual.
Like you should be drinking rawmilk, please don't do that.
By the way, I don't thinkanybody listening is drinking
(50:39):
raw milk, but I see that phraseunfortunately pop up on that
type of thing.
Just do your own research.
So I don't mean it in that way,it in that way.
But I think you shouldn't alwaysassume that everything you see
is true, even from a trustedsource.
With big things, you shouldsometimes question it, you
(51:02):
should sometimes be open to it,but you have to remain factual.
And people don't want to dothat and as a result, and people
(51:29):
don't want to do that and as aresult, people die.
People have literally died fromrun around and believe that.
I'm not going to fight you onit, but unfortunately it's a
gateway into believing thingslike the government is putting.
What were they putting in theCOVID vaccine?
Supposedly Microchips,microchips in the vaccine, or
(51:51):
that FEMA is stealing thelithium under your house that
got destroyed you, you got to becareful in there because it's a
.
It's very slippery, so and thatcan get you killed.
If you drink raw milk, you candie if you refuse to get
vaccines.
There is a measles outbreak intexas and new mexico right now.
Speaker 1 (52:11):
A child has already died from that did you hear what
your uh homegirl uh said?
Speaker 2 (52:18):
no, I avoid her, look .
Look, she's not my.
She's not my representative.
I know she's my state, but likethat's the town over, thank,
god she's saying that.
Speaker 1 (52:28):
Uh, like chicken said we should start having measles
parties.
Speaker 2 (52:39):
And her proof of evidence is an episode of the
Brady Bunch.
Yeah, see my previous pointabout please have factual source
.
We don't just trust TikTok andTV.
Oh my God, oh, marjorie TaylorGreene needs to go crawl back
into whatever awful CrossFit gymshe came out of.
But yeah, people die frombelieving in conspiracy theories
(53:00):
, and not just the people whobelieve in them.
But, like with Pizzagate, youknow it can spread and it can
have huge effects on otherpeople who get accidentally
snapped up in your delusionabout stuff.
So, yeah, I would give them.
While I think it is healthy toquestion things, I think it's
healthy to do your own researchand to not just blindly believe
(53:24):
everything the government istelling you or that you're
seeing on TV or that you'reseeing on Facebook, especially
on Facebook.
Y'all the boomers and AI needto stop.
I think that it's people go toofar and it has deadly
consequences.
Speaker 1 (53:42):
I agree with you a hundred percent.
I think that it is definitely aantifreeze.
I would also just add, as faras, like you know, I agree, like
you know, it's good to questionthings, it's good to do your
own research, but I would addthat if you're not buying into
(54:02):
the actual scientific researchand you really want to know that
badly, then put on a fuckinglab coat, get yourself you know,
like the, the, the degree ofyeah, go back to school, study,
study to be a doctor, study tobe a whatever the people are who
make vaccines?
(54:23):
yeah, I don't know um you knowand and actually do legit
research.
Because then you have peoplelike Matt Welsh who goes off
about what is a woman and thething I really loved I loved how
he talked in a town hall typething and he was going off and
(54:49):
people were asking him well, doyou have a degree in psychology?
No.
Degree in social work?
No.
Do you have a degree in science?
No.
Biology no.
Like there is a reason whythese degrees are important is
because, yeah, I went intoschool prior, you know, with
like a very liberal mind but atthe same time, like there's also
(55:14):
evidence that I wouldn't haveknown about if I hadn't gone to
school and if I would have justsaid, if I would have just
Googled my already understandingof things.
Google is going to have likeanti-vaccines.
It might have 60 trillion pagessupported by doctors and people
(55:42):
like that and it's going tohave three pages of bill
anti-fraxer and if you look uphow vaccines causes autism, then
Bill's anti-vaccine pages aregoing to show up.
Speaker 2 (56:00):
Yeah, I think we also need to do a better job of
learning to accept when we'rewrong.
It's okay, you can feel sad.
You can feel sad, you can feelangry.
I had an ex who was obsessedwith drinking milk because he
was like it gives you strongbones and that is not
(56:25):
necessarily a completely 100%factual.
You're going to grow big andstrong because you drink milk.
Speaker 1 (56:30):
Oh, the 90s.
Speaker 2 (56:32):
I know Right, and I, I got tired of him constantly
being like I must have my milkbecause I have strong bones.
I looked up this informationand I presented it to him.
I was like this is, these arethe facts.
And he literally looked at itand was like I don't feel like
believing that those, thosewords, came out of his mouth.
(56:52):
Now, the bigger issue is Icontinued to date him.
That's the real problem.
Speaker 1 (56:56):
Because I'm different .
Speaker 2 (56:58):
I'm different, yeah, but you know it's okay to be
wrong and it's okay to be upset,that something that you believe
, something that you grew uphearing or that you want to
believe.
You know you want to believethat milk is good for you.
I'm not saying you can't drinkyour milk, baby boy.
You can have it, but you can'ttell me that you must have it
(57:22):
because it gives you thestrongest of strong bones.
Speaker 1 (57:29):
You can be sad, but it's not true you can be sad,
but it's, it's not true?
Well, and, and with all thatbeing said, let us know if you
have any conspiracy theoriesthat you buy you want to hear
your best conspiracy theorieswrite to us at toxic, at awesome
life skillscom.
(57:50):
We have Facebook, instagram andsoon to have blue blue sky
should be posted on it soon.
And.
Speaker 2 (58:01):
Oh yeah, don't forget to rate and like the show yeah.
Speaker 1 (58:03):
Don't forget to rate and like the show and, with that
being said, we'll see you nextweek.
I've been Christopher Patchett,lcsw.
Speaker 2 (58:11):
And I've been Lindsay McLean.
Speaker 1 (58:12):
Bye, bye you.
Hi and welcome to the Toxic Cooking Show, where we
break down toxic people to theirsimplest ingredients.
I'm your host, christopherPatchett LCSW, and here with me
is my lovely co-host.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Lindsay McLean.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
This week.
We're going to do something alittle different this week.
Uh-huh, I just want to give youa little bit of a background of
how we got to where we aretoday, want to give you a little
bit of a background of how wegot to where we are today and
usually, like we do like a wholething, where, where do we go
from now?
And that's actually going to bekind of the main focus of this
(00:55):
week.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Uh-huh.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
We are going to talk about conspiracy theories.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
So excited, yes, so excited.
I'm sure you've heard oneconspiracy about anything.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
I mean, I know what the internet is.
Yeah, you spend about fiveminutes on there.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
You will run into some sort of conspiracy theory
so basically it kind of startedoff like we used to have trust
in our government in America.
It was up until the 1940s wherethe Cold War started taking
(01:41):
place and all of a sudden therewas the crash in Rosdale.
Do you know about the crash inRosdale?
Speaker 2 (01:52):
This sounds vaguely familiar.
Does it have to do with aliens?
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Yeah, it was alien spaceships and things like that.
And so what had happened wasthat there was a UFO, just a UFO
, like an unidentified flyingobject.
It wasn't necessarily an alienspaceship or anything like that,
but it was just a UFO that hadcrashed.
(02:18):
Somebody, a civilian, saw thisand saw the wreck site and
caught up the government.
All of a sudden the men inblack come by and and so they
come up and they basically theytalk to this guy and they're
(02:40):
like what you saw here, it wasreally nothing Kind of was all
of a sudden secretive.
And this guy's, like you know,like I know, I saw, like what
you saw here it was reallynothing kind of, was all of a
sudden secretive.
And this guy's, like you know,like I, I know I saw, like you
know, like that is a great wayto not get somebody on your side
, by the way it was basicallyjust, they were just kind of
dismissing it.
It was just like oh, you know,there's really nothing like that
(03:02):
big.
The guy was saying well, thisis materials I've never seen
before, like that was going on.
Oh, no, no, no, there's nothing, there's nothing.
So this guy is coming out aboutit and all of a sudden, shortly
after it goes from this isnothing and this guy trying to
(03:24):
speak out about it andeverything like that.
And now all of a sudden, thisguy is now retracting everything
they said uh-huh and then youknow, it starts kind of catching
on.
Like you know, like okay, therewas something going on, like
what the hell is going on?
And now all of a sudden, thegovernment is saying, well, it
was, it was a weather blip, andthat's why these were things
(03:46):
that were never seen before,because the sky has never seen a
weather balloon before.
And so people started sayinglike okay, this is really weird,
like something's going on thatwe're unaware of.
Fast forward into the 90s.
Now, all of a sudden, peoplekept on talking about it and
(04:07):
just as you said something todeal with aliens, people kept on
saying, like it has to.
You know, there's, there's moreto it.
There's is this originally itwas an unidentified flying
object.
Had it be something like analien thing, like that?
And finally the governmentcomes out and says, well, we
were testing an aircraft.
We go from it's absolutelynothing to a water balloon to
(04:33):
all of a sudden, 50, 60 yearslater, it was a top secret
aircraft from the Cold War.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
Which I would believe , but it still looks suspicious.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
Yeah, it still looks very and that's where a lot of
people are still today, Whereaslike, why couldn't you just say
that 60 years ago that, okay,we're not going to give you any
information on it, but just saythat it was a testing flight for
a new type of plane, but we'renot going to discuss it?
(05:07):
I think people would have beenmore like, okay, yeah, we're in
harsh times right now, we dohave to have national security,
things like that.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Yeah, you bring them in, you make them sign the NDAs,
all of that.
You give them the bare minimuminformation.
You can't talk about it becausewe have told you something and
then that keeps them fromspreading the information.
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
No, all of a sudden, people are starting to have like
a little bit of starting tolose a little bit of faith in
the, in the government.
You had the 1960s, you had JFK.
Then people started believing,like you know, like the CIA had
something to do with it, the FBIhad something to do with it and
(05:56):
to be fair during that time.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
If you ever go to museums that are dedicated to
like spy history or just weirdstuff around that time, the
ideas that the cia was coming upwith to assassinate people are
wild.
Well, like the things theywould do like I remember seeing
something at one point that theyhad a plan to basically make, I
(06:20):
think, fidel castro go baldbecause they thought he was
going to like that would makepeople lose respect of.
Like the beard fell out and thehair fell out.
Like they were.
They were doing crazy shit.
So I don't blame people forbeing like this could be having,
because clearly somebody at thetime was like I have an idea.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
Oh well, so we're really going to go into this
here in a second.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
So you, you had JFK, something's going on.
You had the moon landing in1969.
We really didn't land on themoon, things like that and all
of a sudden, in the 1970s andthis is where things really kind
of go into that territoryBefore I go into the 1970s,
(07:09):
let's go back to 1953.
Okay, so this is just at thebeginning of the Cold War, and
so there were people going overto the Korean War.
They were coming back and theystarted spewing communist
propaganda and the governmentsaid okay, something's going on.
(07:33):
The communists are doingsomething that we don't know
about and they're brainwashingthese people.
So they must have found a wayto brainwash people.
So since the communists foundthis way of being able to
brainwash people, we need tofind a way to brainwash people.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
Also logical.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
So who better to do than the American public?
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Again very logical here.
Speaker 1 (08:04):
Let's just test this on our own people you think of
like ethics and you think oflike when it comes to like
trying to figure out like thingspsychologically that you're
gonna have a disclaimer, you'regonna talk to the person you're
going to, you know, let themknow what the experiment is
about.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
That's why we can't do cool experiments now.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Yeah, you know what?
To me that's like adouble-edged sword.
I mean, like a lot of cool shitcame out of that time period
but at the same time, like it'sunderstandable.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
It is very ethnic.
Ethnic, wow, ethicallyquestionable.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Speaking of ethically questionable volunteers for
this experiment.
It was called MK Ultra, startedin 1950s and what it was was
guy goes out to a bar, meets anice pretty woman.
They start talking and thispretty woman this pretty woman
(09:09):
comes up and says like hey, whydon't you, why don't we go back
to my hotel?
Speaker 2 (09:13):
He's not going to say no.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Right.
So they go back to their hoteland then all of a sudden they're
drugged up and they'rekidnapped and they're brought
out to different sitesthroughout the United States,
even in Canada, and they'regiven LSD.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
That was not where I was expecting this, but okay, we
kidnap people, we lure them in,we kidnap them and we drug them
.
Got it.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
And they, they did a lot of harsh experiments.
They would deprive them ofsleep, they would drug them with
LSD, they would basically putthem into a coma and then they
would wake them up withdifferent drugs, adrenaline and
things like that.
People died.
Different drugs, adrenaline andthings like that.
People died, and you know theynever found the brainwashing
(10:15):
formula Shocking.
But here's kind of one of thethings is you know, during this
time there was somebody who waskind of speaking up and saying,
like shit, like you know, likethis is completely fucked, which
, yeah, if you're drugging uppeople and and kidnapping them
by the cia, our own governmentand basically torturing them not
(10:39):
basically, but they aretorturing them, not basically,
but they are torturing them.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
They are yeah.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
Killing people, trying to find a formula that
would brainwash people, andstarted to speak up, and then,
all of a sudden, this personfalls out of a tall building.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Yeah, I've studied Russian history, I know how that
happens.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
So I mean, you know, it was purely an accident.
Oh yeah, and people werestarting to question, like what
the fuck is going on, like therewas nothing more to it, that
this person just fell orcommitted suicide.
His name was frank allison andin the 70s, like you know, like
(11:35):
more and more people werestarting to come out and saying
like, hey, you know I was, I wasdrugged up and I, I went
through.
You know, horrible, horriblething.
You know, I don't remember alot of it, but I believe that
this is where I was and this iswhat happened.
And so this, the family ofFrank Olson, said like hey, look
(12:00):
, you know, we really think thatsomething more happened to this
.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
And so they had him dug up, his body, did a full
autopsy and there was, you know,evidence of head trauma prior
to him falling.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
Mm-hmm.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
And so there was no omission.
It was just all of a suddenthere was a check for $750,000
from the CIA.
Hey, sorry for your loss.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
So sorry to hear this happen.
We just now found out about it.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
Judge was even said to him like, look, know, there's
not a lot that we can prove,but there's definitely more to
the story than than what you'rebeing told.
And that was when thismysterious chick all of a sudden
came from the, the cia, andthat was kind of the end of that
(13:01):
.
And and now people are likeokay, what the fuck actually
happened.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
And so it was coming up.
It was more people were comingout about it, they were
describing the same things andfinally the CIA did have to
declassify some documents, butnot all of them, Not all of them
.
So they did finally admit that,yes, we did do human
(13:32):
experiments and some of themconducted LSD use and things
like that Didn't go into thenitty-gritty, but obviously at
this point it's kind of one ofthese things where it's just
like holy shit, our owngovernment has done this shit to
(13:52):
us, to us and this shit thatthat's way out there that these
other people are saying, yeah,the the CIA is not admitting to
all of it.
But you know what?
I now believe this person overwhat the CIA is saying.
So we've gone from total trustof our government to lacking
(14:18):
trust.
And then shortly after that,that was when the Pentagon came
out saying about the weatherbloom was not really a water
bloom, but it was a top secretairplane at the time and even up
until the early 90s, Area 51.
(14:40):
51.
It wasn't I.
I remember growing up in theeighties, early nineties and
hearing about area 51.
And it was at the time.
It was like we know it's there,but the government doesn't
(15:01):
acknowledge it or anything likethat.
And finally Bill Clinton cameout and said like it's there.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
That's it.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
Wow, I'm sure that's going to make people very
trusting in you.
So I mean, all these thingscame out of the Cold War and
then the whole idea of like themoon landing, things like that.
I mean people are justcompletely all over the place of
like what the fuck is real,what the fuck is not.
And this little beautiful thingcomes out in the 90s.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
It's uh, called the internet came out the year I was
born uh.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
So it really started gaining traction back in like
maybe 99, 2000 I mean I knew so92 when it came out, and so it
was, I remember, in like 96, 97,I can only think of maybe one
or two of my friends whoactually had the internet.
(16:11):
I remember we had internetcapability on our computer but
it was there was no way in hellthat my dad was ever going to
get it, because the fact that itwas 10 cents a minute, wow.
Because of the fact that it was10 cents a minute, wow.
And I mean you got to thinkthat the early phones that we
(16:35):
had and downloading a page wasprobably slower on our computers
in 96, 97 than it would be onour phones in 2001, 2002.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
Oh, hell yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
So one page is taking two or three minutes, that's 30
seconds or 30 cents just toload up one page, so it wasn't.
That's a good use of money?
Yeah, so it wasn't.
It wasn't until like 99, 2000that, um, it really became
(17:06):
accessible to almost everybody,and I know, like my family, we
got it in 2000.
And so I remember my firstscreen name was patches
underscore 20, because I wasgoing to be 20 for the rest of
my life.
So obviously so.
(17:28):
So that would have been 99-2000.
And then, in 2001, we had 9-11happen.
And here we are at the birth ofthe internet.
Now anybody with an idea isable to start posting their
(17:49):
ideas, or able to startspreading their message across,
and things like that.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Well, because I remember even then, being in
elementary school, we learnedhow to use Ask Jeeves to look up
stuff plenty of websites outthere that they were enough,
that they were allowing a bunchof like eight, nine and 10 year
olds to get on the schoolcomputers and learn how to like
look up this stuff.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
Oh my God, you could ask it questions.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Yeah, it's so dated, but yeah, I mean people were.
They were posting things likethere were.
There were a lot of websites.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
I think it was 90.
So I graduated 97 and I'mtrying to think if it was 11th
grade or 12th grade.
We had a project that we had togo online, use the, the school
library computer, and and so Iremember the project I did was
(18:50):
on LSD, because I was a fuckingburnout in high school.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Very fitting with this whole episode.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
See, I was only preparing myself.
You know what?
28 years ago, I was preparingmyself for this.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
So you're thinking about the future.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
That's smart 2001 comes, the 9-11 happens and
shortly after that happened, avideo was posted up and it was
called Lose Change, and itstarted going down this rabbit
hole of how it wasn't really theplane that caused the falling
(19:32):
of the twin towers, that it wasbombs that were planted inside
because steel beams couldn'tmelt, or something yes, steel
beams couldn't melt uh know,melt at that degree and that
(19:54):
there were implosions that werebeing heard.
and if you look at this, thenyou'll see that there are
implosions on the side of thetower as it was coming down and
people started buying that.
Oh well, you know shit.
This was an inside job, thatBush did this in order to create
(20:26):
war with Afghanistan and finishoff the job of Iraq, and people
started buying into it and alot of these things were
debunked very quickly.
But the thing is is that oncethe message is out there, it's
there, and I mean also you willnever get it back yeah, you will
never get it back.
And and this is directly afterthe whole like mk ultra finally
(20:52):
coming to light, the weatherballoon that wasn't a weather
balloon.
So there is evidence that thegovernment has no problem
killing its own people to meettheir own agenda.
And so you know, with the, withthe internet, it got worse and
worse.
Not too long ago.
It's I mean, it's gotten downto the point where QAnon came
(21:15):
out.
There was the whole thing withPizzagate.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
Oh, my God.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
Where they were saying that there was a whole
sex trafficking in the basementof a pizza parlor.
Somebody heard it, they went in, they killed people, and then
we have the election fraud of2020.
Well at this point.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
It moves so quickly and you may get into this that
before it seemed to take sometime and now you've got issues
happening like Hurricane Helene.
And now you've got issueshappening like Hurricane Helene
(22:11):
and within a week of Heleneblowing through and just
decimating Western NorthCarolina.
I'm seeing stuff because I haveyou off your land because they
want to steal the lithium that'sunderneath.
That is how quickly that wholemachine is working now that you
have less than a week.
I mean some people still don'teven have running water or
internet.
I mean they didn't for weeksafterward, but we haven't even
gotten in contact with all thesepeople.
They're still finding missingpeople and you're already coming
up with these conspiracytheories about this is happening
(22:35):
and I bet it was.
You know the government thatcaused this.
They're doing climate change.
They made this happen.
You know the whole FEMAstealing the lithium from
underneath your house type thing.
It was fast.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
Yeah, yeah.
And I mean, like the 2020election frauds that spread
around even before the electionwas over.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
Yeah, before it even started.
Yeah, there were already, likeTrump was.
You know, we try not to getpolitical, but Trump was
definitely pushing this wholeidea that people are going to
cheat.
And then he lost and he hadalready positioned this idea and
(23:26):
, as a result, he could, fromday one, just put it out to me
Like that's why they're notreleasing the results and people
were primed to buy it.
Speaker 1 (23:35):
Right, and that's kind of the thing, is that again
, there was fraud in 2024.
That was reported.
That was reported and we haveour own government officials
that are saying that Democratscan control the weather.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
Look, if we could.
That one I hate because it's sodumb.
Some of these.
You look at them and there'ssomething that makes sense in it
.
You're like alright, yeah, Ican see you're wrong, but I can
see it.
Democrats control the weather.
Please stop for five secondsand look at that.
(24:20):
There would be evidence, rightright and then.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
So here's the thing is that a lot of this comes into
, I feel, and the thing is, isthat, again, trying not to be
too political, like I'm even,trying to say, like you know,
like in 2024,.
When the election first came out, I didn't want to believe it.
(24:56):
When I first heard of theseconspiracies with starlink and
elon musk and things like that,I wanted to believe that.
I truly wanted to believe thatthere was some other reason than
then people just voting fortrump, naturally, and so.
But the thing is, is that thereis a whole way of doing this?
(25:18):
I wanted to call you out lastepisode, but I was like I will
wait until this episode, becausethis just just happens to be
exactly what I'm talking about.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
Tell me what did I do .
Speaker 1 (25:35):
So you know something like Elon Musk and the
inauguration.
My heart goes out to you.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
Yes, that was what that was.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
So here's where I'm going to call you out.
I cannot say for certain thatthat's what it was correct.
I was going to say before you.
I cannot say for certain that'swhat it was.
I can say that through actualevidence that, yes, it really
(26:11):
did look like that, and throughactual statements that when it
came out and it came to hisattention that, rather than him
saying I understand how it cameout that way and I apologize
that it came out that way,that's not what I was trying to
(26:31):
do, he doubled down and hedecided to troll.
So the only thing that I cansay with 100% certainty is was
it a Nazi salute?
It looked.
I don't know if that's what hewas intending to do, but I can
(26:53):
at least say that he doesn'tgive a shit.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
And I agree with you on this.
I understand the importance,when you're having a debate with
somebody, to go through all ofthat, because it is important.
It is important that everybodyyou know we'll use this as the
example watches that video andthinks about it and looks at
(27:18):
what came before and what cameafter in terms of things that he
has said, things that he hasdone, how he has reacted, and
you put all of that together andyou reach a conclusion.
You know, I think that is theimportant thing to do here,
Because, yeah, if you just takea gesture and you completely cut
off for something, it couldmean anything.
(27:40):
It could have meant my heartgoes out to you, it didn't, and
I will die on that hill.
It didn't and I will die onthat hill.
(28:06):
But you know, I'm willing tounderstand the debate of making
sure that you break it down andbe like but did he really?
Did he say this is a Nazisalute and then did it?
No, he didn't.
Has he said, hi, I'm a Nazi?
No, he hasn't.
Right, you do have toacknowledge.
It's like.
We cannot 100% be like yes,that is what he, because he
hasn't said that.
Speaker 1 (28:17):
But it was and that's , and it's.
This is where, lindsay I'msorry, you're being toxic as
fuck right now yes, there is alot of evidence pointing to that
, everything from his support towhat is the German ADF.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
AFD.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
His support to the AFD.
Lot of things that he has donehas been at least on the line of
being anti-semitic and thingslike that.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
Look, I'm okay, if you want to call me out for this
, I will die on this hill, justlike the q anon supporters are
going to die on theirs.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
But again, you know like and that's kind of the
thing is that again we cannotsay that it was one way or
another, but again what we cansay, what we can say for factual
, is that he doesn't care thatit came off that way.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
Yes, which is almost as big of a problem.
Speaker 1 (29:34):
I mean I, and that's where you know like I'm not
trying to play it off as itbeing nothing, because not
caring is just as bad as sayingthat.
Yes, that was a salute.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
Did you watch the video?
I said I know you watched it,but you were half asleep.
The guy who was talking aboutyou know gestures and we don't
want to read too much into themand of course this is not going
to come over well in audio, buthe's got his.
I don't even know how todescribe this.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
How would you?
I don't even know how todescribe this.
He's holding something and he'sshaking it.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
He's holding it kind of up above his mouth and going
down an angle very close to hismouth back and forth, and
obviously you thought I wasgrating cheese onto my plate or
putting salt on my plate.
No, I was sucking a dick.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
And but you know, and that's the thing, is that like,
okay, again, I'm not trying toplay it down or anything like
that I do think that definitely,what had happened was an
extremely horrific thing, and Ithink that it does appear that
way.
However, I cannot say forcertain on that particular thing
(31:03):
.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
And I get that Me personally.
What he has said before, whathe has said after and the
gesture combined come togetherto form what I believe to be a
Nazi salute.
Speaker 1 (31:47):
I really would like to say that because but that
feel is different than factual.
So, like Right, I think too,kurt Cobain was a huge hero of
mine when I was growing up andthe fact that he committed
(32:07):
suicide.
There is a huge piece of methat still believes that it he
didn't commit suicide, that theshotgun was too long, and this,
that and the other.
But the thing is is that chrisnever saw dave's goal.
His own bandmates, a lot ofpeople around him, the fact that
he did try to commit suicidetwo months earlier all point
(32:32):
towards, yes, this was a suicide.
And the thing is is that it isvery hard because I feel inside
that no, this isn't true, thatmy hero wouldn't have done that.
But being able to draw thatconclusion that like yes, you
(32:54):
know, like there's absolutely noevidence pointing towards the
opposite, and every evidencethat we do have pointing towards
the opposite is very shaky atbest.
And that's kind of the thing isthat there is a whole way of
actually kind of looking atthings and it's science, you
(33:19):
know, taking it to like thescientific step.
So scientific step is you makean observation, you come up with
a question, form a hypothesis,conduct a test, reject or accept
the hypothesis.
So let's look at Pizzagate.
(33:39):
Okay, I made an observationthat all Democrats are evil,
baby-killing, eating,sex-trafficking, assholes.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
This has been my observation, that's yeah.
Speaker 1 (33:58):
I asked a question.
That or somebody said thatthere was a sex-trafficking
thing down in this pizza parlor.
So I asked the question areDemocrats you know
sex-trafficking out of thispizza parlor?
So I asked the question areDemocrats you know sex
trafficking out of this pizzaparlor?
Okay, I made an observation.
I asked the question.
My hypothesis is that, yes,democrats are sex trafficking in
(34:24):
the basement of this pizzaparlor.
Cool, conduct a test.
The basement of this pizzaparlor, cool, conduct a test.
Eh Well, I never went to thepizza parlor.
I never saw downstairs, I neversaw anybody actually being sex
trafficked.
Speaker 2 (34:45):
Wasn't the guy not even from the town, or was he?
Speaker 1 (34:48):
Oh the shooter.
Yeah, yeah, I don't think heeven from the town, was he?
Oh the the the shooter.
Yeah, I yeah.
I don't think he was from thetown that's what I seem to
remember.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
It was that he was.
It's not even like he knewthese people and had reason to
to believe.
It's like, well, there's alwaysbeen something weird about bob.
It's just like no, you, you sawa video online, yeah, from
somebody that you didn't know.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
So we didn't conduct a test.
So all we're at is a hypothesis.
Looking at the election fraudof 2022 or 2024.
I'm sorry, looking at theelection of 2024.
Okay, made an observation?
Well, observation is I know Ididn't vote for Trump.
(35:30):
I know the people that arearound me didn't vote for Trump
and Trump has won.
Ask a question Well, was therefraud involved with Trump's
winning Form?
A hypothesis, form, ahypothesis.
(35:51):
Well, I believe that there waselection fraud and Starlink
gathered together and hadswitched a bunch of votes in
Pennsylvania over to Trump,conducted an experiment.
Well, starlink was only in afew places in Pennsylvania and
even in those places wasPhiladelphia and Lake Pittsburgh
(36:12):
, where Harris actually got tovote.
Yeah, okay, yeah.
So now I have to accept orreject.
Well, based off the evidence,I'm going to have to reject that
hypothesis.
Speaker 2 (36:28):
But now hold on a second.
Using this, can we not go backto Elon Musk for a second?
Speaker 1 (36:35):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (36:36):
And you say, all right, he's made a gesture, hand
goes up at an angle, palm isfacing down.
He did it not once, but twice,he did it.
We've seen that.
And you say, okay, was this?
My question here is, was this aNazi salute?
And you look at the evidencewhich says he has previously
(37:01):
done a gesture that I would,that many people would call my
heart goes out to you.
So, for instance, both handstouch the heart come out.
We have seen him do this.
There's video evidence of this.
We have seen him come out insupport, both before and after
the video of the gesture, insupport of far right groups,
(37:34):
support of far-right groups.
We have seen that he did notapologize for any harm the
gesture may have caused.
He did not acknowledge thatthis could have.
You know, oh, I see what youmeant and I'm so sorry I didn't
mean it that way.
You know, nothing was said ofthe kind as you said.
Of the kind, as you said, aactual neo-Nazi came out and was
(37:55):
like hell, yeah, man.
And nothing was said to be like, absolutely not Like.
I don't delete that copy, youknow everyone quickly bury it.
Would you not then look at thatevidence and say there is an
extremely high likelihood thathe was aware of what this
gesture meant and chose to do itanyway, given the audience.
(38:16):
Therefore, we can we can saythat this was a Nazi salute.
I'm not calling him a Nazi, I'msaying the gesture that he made
.
Based off of that evidence,would you not agree then that
that is a Nazi salute?
Speaker 1 (38:34):
So the actual salute and everything like that.
It appears it follows the sameexact way and and here's kind of
(38:59):
that, that difference inwording, is it?
You know again all the evidenceI've seen?
Is it likely?
Oh fuck, yeah, a trillionpercent likely.
He purposely meant to do that.
A trillion percent.
Speaker 2 (39:08):
But at what point, though?
When you see it and you're likethis is so, so, so likely, do
you just go ahead and say I'mgoing to call it that?
Speaker 1 (39:17):
Well, so here's the difference between likelihood
and factual.
Factual is I have a pen in myhand.
When I let it go, where's itgoing to go?
Speaker 2 (39:29):
Down.
Speaker 1 (39:30):
Right, I know a trillion percent that it's going
to go down.
I can take the same pen.
I can pick it up.
Drop it again.
Pick it up.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
What if you were in space?
It's not going to go down.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
And that would be a whole different thing, because
that situation but how do I knowyou're not in space?
Oh, my God, I'm getting.
Speaker 2 (39:56):
You started this.
Speaker 1 (40:00):
But that's the thing, is that it is factual that this
pen is going to drop here onEarth.
Yes, I can test it over and,over and over again and each and
every time that is going to bethe same exact result Likely is.
Speaker 2 (40:20):
I think what I'm trying to get at is that at a
certain point, when you're likeit's, there's obviously the like
, the hundred percent.
You know, if you're on earthand you drop something, gravity
is going to like it down.
We know that.
You can't.
You can't argue with that,although people will try and.
But then there's the it is.
You can assume that it willhappen because the likelihood is
(40:44):
so small.
But where do you draw that lineof saying this is so likely?
I'm just going to, for the sakeof the argument, for the sake
of not spending 18 minutesexplaining all the little if, if
, if, if, if.
I'm just going to say yes, Fact.
Speaker 1 (41:03):
So okay, so here you go.
Likely, I am a I believe inscience Big bang.
There is so much evidencepointing towards a big bang.
There is, I mean, uh, math andequations, and what we have as
(41:26):
far as, like, the universe,everything is is towards that
there was a big bang.
Is it factual?
That's still debatable.
Is it likely?
Speaker 2 (41:39):
that nobody was there who saw it?
Speaker 1 (41:42):
is it likely that's what happened?
Well, as of right now, all theevidence is pointing to yes,
this is likely.
What it?
What it?
What started the universe?
Speaker 2 (41:54):
that's why it's a theory yeah, and that's that's.
Speaker 1 (41:57):
The thing is that it is, and, oh my god, theory in
science means it's more thanjust a guess.
The only thing that the theoryis saying is that it is.
Speaker 2 (42:13):
It's an educated guess.
Speaker 1 (42:14):
Well educated guess is a hypothesis, a theory is all
the evidence is pointing tothat.
So like there is the theory ofgravity, well, we can't really
experiment of gravity unlesswe're going to take two
(42:35):
humongous objects and actuallygo into it and really dig deep
and all that.
But what we can see from thesun and the earth, it looks like
gravity is an actual thing.
Of the Earth, it looks likegravity is an actual thing.
The fact that we are able totake a pen and drop it points to
(42:57):
gravity being a thing.
Speaker 2 (43:00):
I just realized I wouldn't know if you were in a
space station, because you don'thave any hair to float around.
Speaker 1 (43:08):
But I do have bolts that.
Speaker 2 (43:12):
Those could be.
Those could be like glued down.
Speaker 1 (43:21):
I'm just being a dick and I know it I know okay, and
this is why we're friendsexactly but yeah, you know, and
that's the thing is that, likelikelihood, like you know, again
we can kind of we can draw avery strong conclusion and but
(43:42):
that's all it is.
It's it's a very strongconclusion, you know, and that's
kind of.
The difference is that there isonly one person who knows it
being factual or not.
But again, all the evidence Isee is very highly likely that,
(44:03):
yes, that is what he meant it tobe.
But to actually say it isdifficult to say.
Speaker 2 (44:12):
I'll let you slide on this one.
Speaker 1 (44:18):
You know, and that's the thing is that we actually
have to go down these things.
So, like MKUltra that I waskind of saying about the moment
that it came out that we did dothese things, are the other
people who said that there wasmore to it than even what the
(44:43):
cia is saying now?
Very highly likely, a thousandpercent.
I believe them, but I can't saythat it's factual right and
that's kind of the difference,is you know?
again with the thing with elonmusk, I believe it to be a nazi
(45:03):
salute.
Yes, is it factual?
Speaker 2 (45:09):
can we at least agree to call them swastikars.
Speaker 1 (45:13):
Oh yeah, I'm all about that.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
Okay, great, as long as we can agree on that I'm fine
.
Speaker 1 (45:28):
But you know, and that's the thing, is that, like
it does have to go on both sides, we do have to actually look at
reasonable evidence.
Rather than Joey who does aYouTube channel, we actually
have to look at what a personactually says, as what their
past is and things like that.
(45:50):
Because again I, I I'm notgoing to sit here and say that
no, wasn't, because again, allthe evidence I've seen is
definitely pointing towards, youknow, like a Nazi salute.
But the thing is is that Icannot call that itself Nazi
(46:13):
salute, but I can say that isvery likely and that I don't
stand for it, that I don't agreewith it, that I don't agree
with him, I don't agree with him, I don't agree with his actions
, I don't agree with his actions, and that's the thing.
Is that, like, yes, likelihood,you can still make that
(46:35):
decision of where you stand onlikelihood, but looking at the
facts versus looking at thelikelihood.
Speaker 2 (46:44):
Right and I agree with that that you do need to
based on facts, and sometimesyou see something and you get
this like gut feeling thatyou're like this is whatever.
This can't be true, this can'tbe right, and you do have to
pause and back up and explorewhat the actual facts are and
where you were getting thosequote unquote facts from.
(47:07):
Where's your information comingfrom?
Sources we all learned this inschool.
What are your sources?
Your source cannot be, with afew exceptions, some random
person on TikTok saying well, Iheard no, no, it's.
You really need to be carefuland I think people have lost
(47:27):
that ability, because maybe theyhaven't lost the ability.
They have chosen to ignore that, because that requires effort
and that requires them tosometimes face hard truths that
the thing that they want tobelieve maybe just isn't true.
You know, we all want tobelieve that this person is a
(47:48):
bad person and maybe a lot ofevidence points it Jeffrey
Epstein.
Jeffrey Epstein, did Epsteinkill himself?
I don't know, I don't know.
And there are people who arelike, oh, obviously he did.
And then there are people like,well, obviously he didn't.
There are people out there whohad reason to hate him and it's
(48:09):
important to analyze thatinformation and not just kind of
take something at face valueand be like, oh, of course he
killed himself, yeah, I'm notgoing to question anything.
But you also can't take it toofar and be like I'm the question
Every single little thing.
Speaker 1 (48:21):
Sometimes you have to understand that there are facts
like gravity as long as you'reon earth, which I don't believe
you are I mean I, I candefinitely say that I am on
earth, or else molly would behaving floating ears but I can't
see molly she's on the couch.
Speaker 2 (48:41):
She's snoozing.
Our ep has zero cares to givetoday.
Speaker 1 (48:49):
so, with all that being said, we we pretty much
went into like where we go fromhere, and a lot of just comes
down to asking yourself thesequestions and actually looking
at reliable sources.
And you know, like I would say,the biggest thing is looking at
facts instead of feelings.
(49:09):
The whole idea is that, yes, weall have these gut feelings and
a lot of that kind of comesfrom the fact that we want to
believe things.
But the thing is, is that ourgut, I mean, is not all that
(49:30):
good?
What so, with all that beingsaid, where do you put
conspiracy theories on our listof toxicity?
Would you say it's a greenpotato, where you just shave off
the green and you're able toeat it?
Would you say it is a death capmushroom 50, 50 shot of killing
(49:53):
you?
Or would you say that this is aantifreeze?
Speaker 2 (49:57):
a delightful last meal talking about conspiracy
theories as a whole, I'm gonnahave to say it's antifreeze,
because, while I think it isgood to do your own research and
I know that phrase is verycharged right now it has been
(50:19):
taken over by certain groups ofpeople who use it to push
conspiracy theories or ideasthat have been proven to be not
true or not scientificallyfactual.
Like you should be drinking rawmilk, please don't do that.
By the way, I don't thinkanybody listening is drinking
(50:39):
raw milk, but I see that phraseunfortunately pop up on that
type of thing.
Just do your own research.
So I don't mean it in that way,it in that way.
But I think you shouldn't alwaysassume that everything you see
is true, even from a trustedsource.
With big things, you shouldsometimes question it, you
(51:02):
should sometimes be open to it,but you have to remain factual.
And people don't want to dothat and as a result, and people
(51:29):
don't want to do that and as aresult, people die.
People have literally died fromrun around and believe that.
I'm not going to fight you onit, but unfortunately it's a
gateway into believing thingslike the government is putting.
What were they putting in theCOVID vaccine?
Supposedly Microchips,microchips in the vaccine, or
(51:51):
that FEMA is stealing thelithium under your house that
got destroyed you, you got to becareful in there because it's a
.
It's very slippery, so and thatcan get you killed.
If you drink raw milk, you candie if you refuse to get
vaccines.
There is a measles outbreak intexas and new mexico right now.
Speaker 1 (52:11):
A child has already died from that did you hear what
your uh homegirl uh said?
Speaker 2 (52:18):
no, I avoid her, look .
Look, she's not my.
She's not my representative.
I know she's my state, but likethat's the town over, thank,
god she's saying that.
Speaker 1 (52:28):
Uh, like chicken said we should start having measles
parties.
Speaker 2 (52:39):
And her proof of evidence is an episode of the
Brady Bunch.
Yeah, see my previous pointabout please have factual source
.
We don't just trust TikTok andTV.
Oh my God, oh, marjorie TaylorGreene needs to go crawl back
into whatever awful CrossFit gymshe came out of.
But yeah, people die frombelieving in conspiracy theories
(53:00):
, and not just the people whobelieve in them.
But, like with Pizzagate, youknow it can spread and it can
have huge effects on otherpeople who get accidentally
snapped up in your delusionabout stuff.
So, yeah, I would give them.
While I think it is healthy toquestion things, I think it's
healthy to do your own researchand to not just blindly believe
(53:24):
everything the government istelling you or that you're
seeing on TV or that you'reseeing on Facebook, especially
on Facebook.
Y'all the boomers and AI needto stop.
I think that it's people go toofar and it has deadly
consequences.
Speaker 1 (53:42):
I agree with you a hundred percent.
I think that it is definitely aantifreeze.
I would also just add, as faras, like you know, I agree, like
you know, it's good to questionthings, it's good to do your
own research, but I would addthat if you're not buying into
(54:02):
the actual scientific researchand you really want to know that
badly, then put on a fuckinglab coat, get yourself you know,
like the, the, the degree ofyeah, go back to school, study,
study to be a doctor, study tobe a whatever the people are who
make vaccines?
(54:23):
yeah, I don't know um you knowand and actually do legit
research.
Because then you have peoplelike Matt Welsh who goes off
about what is a woman and thething I really loved I loved how
he talked in a town hall typething and he was going off and
(54:49):
people were asking him well, doyou have a degree in psychology?
No.
Degree in social work?
No.
Do you have a degree in science?
No.
Biology no.
Like there is a reason whythese degrees are important is
because, yeah, I went intoschool prior, you know, with
like a very liberal mind but atthe same time, like there's also
(55:14):
evidence that I wouldn't haveknown about if I hadn't gone to
school and if I would have justsaid, if I would have just
Googled my already understandingof things.
Google is going to have likeanti-vaccines.
It might have 60 trillion pagessupported by doctors and people
(55:42):
like that and it's going tohave three pages of bill
anti-fraxer and if you look uphow vaccines causes autism, then
Bill's anti-vaccine pages aregoing to show up.
Speaker 2 (56:00):
Yeah, I think we also need to do a better job of
learning to accept when we'rewrong.
It's okay, you can feel sad.
You can feel sad, you can feelangry.
I had an ex who was obsessedwith drinking milk because he
was like it gives you strongbones and that is not
(56:25):
necessarily a completely 100%factual.
You're going to grow big andstrong because you drink milk.
Speaker 1 (56:30):
Oh, the 90s.
Speaker 2 (56:32):
I know Right, and I, I got tired of him constantly
being like I must have my milkbecause I have strong bones.
I looked up this informationand I presented it to him.
I was like this is, these arethe facts.
And he literally looked at itand was like I don't feel like
believing that those, thosewords, came out of his mouth.
(56:52):
Now, the bigger issue is Icontinued to date him.
That's the real problem.
Speaker 1 (56:56):
Because I'm different .
Speaker 2 (56:58):
I'm different, yeah, but you know it's okay to be
wrong and it's okay to be upset,that something that you believe
, something that you grew uphearing or that you want to
believe.
You know you want to believethat milk is good for you.
I'm not saying you can't drinkyour milk, baby boy.
You can have it, but you can'ttell me that you must have it
(57:22):
because it gives you thestrongest of strong bones.
Speaker 1 (57:29):
You can be sad, but it's not true you can be sad,
but it's, it's not true?
Well, and, and with all thatbeing said, let us know if you
have any conspiracy theoriesthat you buy you want to hear
your best conspiracy theorieswrite to us at toxic, at awesome
life skillscom.
(57:50):
We have Facebook, instagram andsoon to have blue blue sky
should be posted on it soon.
And.
Speaker 2 (58:01):
Oh yeah, don't forget to rate and like the show yeah.
Speaker 1 (58:03):
Don't forget to rate and like the show and, with that
being said, we'll see you nextweek.
I've been Christopher Patchett,lcsw.
Speaker 2 (58:11):
And I've been Lindsay McLean.
Speaker 1 (58:12):
Bye, bye you.
Popular 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. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!