Foreign.

Welcome, everybody, to the Will Spencer Podcast.

My guest this week is Courtney Turner.

Courtney is the host of the Courtney Turner Podcast, co and co host of Dangerous Dames and what Is Movement?

She's also a speaker and aerial acrobatic performer.

Having spent her academic career largely steeped in the world of philosophical and psychological texts and being a passionate athlete and performing artist, this paved the way for the world in which she is currently immersed.

Many today know her as the host of the Courtney Turner Podcast, where she boldly seeks truth, diving into a myriad of deep topics surrounding issues of health, fitness, medicine, philosophy, psychology, politics, geopolitics, and social sociocultural zeitgeist.

Courtney Turner, welcome to the Will Spencer Podcast.

Thanks so much for having me.

I've been very much looking forward to this conversation because you have a mastery of occult theosophical topics and understanding how they feed into our world today that I don't think I've ever seen anyone express such a deep and comprehensive understanding of all the many, they'll call it tentacles that stretch into culture and politics.

And so I've been really looking forward to having this conversation.

Well, thank you so much.

I don't know that I'm the expert, but I've definitely spent some time digging into this stuff.

Yeah, well, you did the reading and going back to the primary sources, because you can talk about Blavatsky and Theosophy.

I saw that you talked about Heidegger as well.

And you can talk about these things from the position of, well, I've read books about them.

Or you can actually go read their books and see what they had to say in their own words.

And as I'm sure you know, that's an incredibly revealing process.

Yes, yes, definitely.

Reading the primary sources reveals way more.

Yes.

I often feel like it's really helpful if you read the primary sources.

You read it from people who are on the inside, who are.

They're not coming from a critical bias.

I mean, everybody has a bias.

You know, you can only see through your eyes.

Right.

So they're always gonna come from bias.

But I feel like when you read secondary sources, particularly ones that are critical, it's already slanted and selected, so you don't have as much to parse through and make your own, you know, assessments.

So I actually like reading from those who are promoting it, the insiders.

I feel like they reveal way more, and then it's up to me.

I can use my discernment.

What do I agree with?

What do I disagree with?

How do I feel about it?

But it's not already curated for me.

So, yeah, it's not going to confirm your existing biases.

One of the books I've been talking about recently is Black sun by Nicholas Goodrich Clark.

And so he talks about how all these influences feed into, like, Neo Nazism, but he's only going to pick out the bits that support his thesis, naturally.

As opposed to who was Helena Blavatsky and what was she really about, et cetera.

Yes, exactly.

So what originally sparked your interest?

Well, maybe we can talk a little bit first about your origin story.

How did you get into talking about this stuff?

It's sort of a.

I mean, pun intended, esoteric world to find your way into.

Yeah, pun intended for sure.

It was like the least likely place for me to end up.

Although, knowing my history, it kind of all did come together.

I mean, if I, you know, hindsight's 20 20, but if you were to ask me even five years ago, you know, did I think I'd be doing what I do now, I probably would have said no.

And I would have thought it was crazy.

I mean, I had no idea.

I had never listened to podcasts.

I didn't know what they were in 2020.

Like, here, here's kind of a funny story.

Like someone hearing my birth story had recommended that I should be on Rogan.

And I said, why?

What's a Rogan?

Why do I need to be on it?

What's a Rogan?

Yeah, I mean, that's how clueless I was.

Amazing.

I'm like, what's a Rogan?

Why do I need to be on it?

And they were explaining, oh, he's like one of the top podcasts.

I'm like, what's a podcast?

You know, so I don't have that impression anymore.

I'm very aware of who Rogan is.

Yeah, I did my homework and, you know, ended up deciding I wanted to start a podcast.

But what happened was 2020, that was my kind of awakening, quote, unquote.

That term seems to be in great debate currently, so.

But that was.

I was very much asleep.

I always make the joke that it took me forever to find the train station.

I found the high speed rail.

And I've been scrambling to catch up since then.

But I mean, I was very, very much in the dark.

I was in the entertainment industry.

I was in a sea of leftist in New York City and then in California.

And I was never politically.

At least I didn't identify or align with the left.

But I usually tried to keep my views pretty quiet when I had Moved to la.

A few years into my being there, somebody had invited me into a, quote, unquote, very secret underground group, a fellowship that was so secret, it was on the front page of the New York Times.

Yeah.

Otherwise known as the foa, the Friends of abe.

And this was like a fellowship for, they say, conservative, but it was really anybody who is not on the left, who was in the entertainment industry because so many people were experiencing, you know, cancel culture to the extent where they were getting blacklisted, they couldn't get work if they were to say anything that, you know, didn't fully align with the mainstream narrative at the time.

So they created a fellowship.

It was Gary Sinise who had started it and I had joined that.

So, you know, then I got a little bit more outspoken.

I ended up writing for something called Politic, um, and doing some interviews.

And, you know, I got a little bit more outspoken at the time.

But I was really, for so long, just stayed out of it because, you know, of the potential ramifications of speaking up.

So it was just not something that I was ever expecting I would end up in.

But then in 2020, I was working for two gyms.

I was a CrossFit coach and a personal trainer.

And I was also an aerial acrobatic performer.

But I would speak, so I would share my birth story and use the performance as an example, a testament to what was possible when nobody thought it was.

So, I mean, it was fun to do, which I enjoyed it.

So, you know, there was that too.

But it was really talking about movement from the philosophical perspective, movement as a metaphor for life, and using physical training as a teacher to help you overcome adversities in other areas of life.

So that's what I was doing.

Of course, 2020 came around.

I got fired from both gyms.

I can't prove it, but I'm 99.999, you know, repeating forever, sure that it was over politics.

And then, of course, all the events that I was doing, all the performing, those all got canceled for a little while.

I started doing some on Zoom, but it's, you know, showing videos of Ariel is not quite the same.

So.

Yeah.

And even speaking on Zoom, it's just not quite the same.

So I ended up not being able to continue much of that.

And, yeah, so I found myself incredibly isolated.

Everybody was wearing a mask.

I was in Santa Monica, California, where, you know, it was pretty tyrannical.

And so I was.

I found myself just incredibly isolated and really depressed.

Like, extremely depressed.

I didn't realize how much I still depended on nonverbal communication for clarity of speech until all the coping mechanisms I had spent my life develop, you know, with that strip from me.

So I was born hearing impaired.

I'm blind in one eye.

I had heart surgery as a year old, a whole bunch of complications from birth.

And I got hearing aids when I was about six years old.

But I had learned how to speak by reading lips.

So I still depend a lot on the non verbal, which is why even people who want it to be anonymous will come on my show and I'll tell them I won't take anonymous people anymore, by the way, because all of them rescind it always.

They always retract it.

And I'm like, like this is too much time, too much energy.

I'm not doing it.

So.

But I have done it a couple of times and I've told them you still have to have it on video because I need to be able to see your lips.

Otherwise, you know, unless it's in person.

So, yeah, so I, I found myself just in a position where I was really, really depressed.

And you know, some people had suggested I start a podcast.

And as I had said, I had no idea what those were.

I was completely clueless.

But I started listening to podcasts when, you know, when someone mentioned that and that became kind of a.

It was like my friends, you know, I guess the way people used to feel about watching tv, you know, they're in your living room.

And they kept me company for my long hikes where I would drive an hour and a half away to go for a hike.

So I didn't have to worry about being arrested on a mountain by myself for having a naked face or being, you know, out on the beach and baring my naked face.

That was a.

Such a potential threat to people.

But listening to these podcasts was, you know, way to pass the time and not to feel so alone.

And then it dawned on me that, you know, if I started one, then at least I could have naked face conversations.

And I didn't, you know, I had no idea where it would go or if I would even continue, but even remotely through a digital interface, I felt that it would do so much for, sorry, my morale and for my, you know, just, yeah, my emotional well being.

And so I decided that I would start it and I made a commitment for six months and I told all the guests that I may never air it, you know, that I really just wanted to start six months, see how this goes.

And you know, I wanted to be able to have conversations with People meaningful discussions and see their faces.

Well, did so.

And so, yeah, I did.

And people seemed to enjoy it.

And so that was in 2020.

I really didn't start.

I think I aired my first episod, like, January of 2021.

And, yeah, I had started it very much in the political sphere, also in the medical freedom, obviously, I was really pushing back against things that they were advocating that I was not in favor of.

I had the final straw before I left was a woman chasing me down the street wearing a mask, and she had a knife in her hand, and she was screaming at me, telling me that I was a murderer because I had a naked face.

So there were many experiences, but that was kind of one of the final straws where I was like, I think it's time for me to go.

And I really did start thinking, if we could just get the right people in office, then we could turn this whole thing around.

And I kept saying that the Republican Party is behaving as a controlled opposition for the left.

And about a few months in, I was like, no, they were created to be controlled opposition position for the laugh.

And I think I really got, you know, I started to go much deeper.

It was.

I want to say it might have been December of 2020, but I'd have to go back and look exactly when.

But a friend of mine at midnight, and I don't know why midnight was like, during that time period when I'm ready to, you know, call it a night, or I shouldn't have been up anyway.

But everybody has emergencies, and you have to check this out.

And a friend of mine sent me this video from Dr.

John Coleman and said, have you ever seen this?

And it was his committee of 300 video, which actually is still on YouTube, surprisingly enough.

And I said, no, I've never heard of him.

And he said, okay, you have to watch this, and then call me back, it's midnight.

Of course I have to watch it right now.

But it was 2020, and a lot of people had nothing to do.

So I guess that's what we did.

And so I.

And then I was riveted, and I started looking online for all of his books, and I found one that was retailing on Amazon for almost $4,000.

Now you can get it for $25 plus, you know, shipping and tax and whatever, but it's 25, much more affordable.

I don't know if they've edited or whatnot, but at the time, I was not paying, you know, $4,000.

I didn't have that kind of disposable income for a book.

Yeah, exactly.

So I did not purchase the book.

I did go and get an online PDF, but I read it three times in a week because it was very captivating and it was such a.

It was the Tavistock book, the Institute of Human Relations.

And I read it three times in a week because for me, it kind of converged.

All the fields I had been immersed in, you know, the entertainment industry with the culture, philosophy, psychology, you know, and 20, around 2010, 2011 is when, you know, a lot of people in that group foa have been buzzing about the Frankfurt School and how infiltrated the entertainment industry, you know, so I had done quite a bit of research and I was a philosophy major also, so I was very familiar with those philosophers and psychologists, but, you know, had a very different perspective on them in, you know, the 2010s timeframe.

And so I had already done a dive in that, and the Tavistock kind of intersected the two.

And I think once you start diving into that stuff, you can't really ignore, you know, the occult groupings that are kind of the hidden hands behind things.

So.

Yeah, sorry, it was a long winded.

No, no, no.

It's funny, your.

Your answer.

I.

I sort of feel like I've been transported back to where I was at in 2020.

You know, I'd spent a long time in the new age and I was aware of a lot of the names that I'm sure we'll get into.

But remembering the medical freedom, remember the, the masking, remembering all, like, all the videos going around at the time, because we're all locked inside, having to watch YouTube and listen to podcasts.

And it's funny that you mentioned the John Coleman book, the committee of 300, because another one of my guests, Mike Williams, who does a lot of work with the Beatles, he referenced that book as well as very formative for him.

I wasn't aware that it was $4,000 at one point on Amazon, but.

But that was also a very formative book for him, Tavistock.

And of course, man, I haven't heard about the Frankfurt School.

That was the whole big thing for a couple years there.

I mean, obviously they're still very influential, but.

Yeah, please, go ahead.

Oh, yeah, no, it was so before I actually had my own podcast.

It's what everybody brought me on to talk about was the Frankfurt School, because most of the people I was surrounded by were leftists.

And they kept telling me, this is a crazy conspiracy theorist.

And I was like, I don't know.

Why people are calling this a conspiracy theorist.

Conspiracy theory.

It's literally like mainline history.

Yeah.

And this part of anybody who's taken a philosophy class knows about these philosophers.

Like, this is.

Or anybody who studied psychology one on one, knows these psychologists.

So I don't really understand.

And then somebody sent me a Wikipedia excerpt, and it literally right under Frankfurt School says conspiracy theory.

And I was like, this is crazy.

I mean, this is just like.

Like mainline, you know, academic material.

This is not.

This is history.

So.

But a lot of the people who I knew at the time who were doing podcasts were mostly on the left, and they would bring me on to, you know, kind of argue with me about the Frankfurt School.

What did they.

Are.

What did they argue?

Did they say the Frankfurt School didn't exist or that these guys didn't say what their writings say?

That they said, like, what was their.

What was their position?

Well, they argued, you know, the Wikipedia point, that at that talking point, that it was a conspiracy theory, so it wasn't real, and that these are just misinterpreted philosophers and that they weren't really trying to subvert anything.

And I'm like, you.

All you have to do is read.

Marcus did, like, literally, he says liberating tolerance would mean accept everything from the left and reject everything from the right.

That is a quote.

It's a direct quote.

It's not, you know, this isn't like interpretive, kind of, you know, manipulative language games.

This is just direct quote from him.

So, yeah, I'm like, I don't know.

You may support what they're doing.

That's fine.

You can argue that you think that their stance is justifiable, but that's.

They were just arguing with me that, you know, I was crazy and making things up and.

Okay, well, I had one.

One guy who brought me on a couple of times, and he.

I mean, he would always tell me because I would get into debates with him all the time.

And I remember one time I went to his house, and I actually brought a stack of books, and I said, okay, if you want to discuss this, you know, like, let's talk about it.

And I brought a stack of books to his house, and he said, oh, corny, I can't read primary sources from philosophers.

And I said, so you've been.

You've spent, like, the past year arguing with me about these thinkers that you've never read?

And he said, well, I read the, you know, secondary or tertiary sources.

And I'm like, so you don't know what They've actually said.

And he said, well, I can't understand the primary source.

I'm like, you don't know what they said.

How can you be arguing with me?

I mean, it's fine.

I'm not telling you.

You have to read them.

But don't argue with me about something you've never read.

That sounds like a personal problem, that you can't read these sources, and yet you're going to argue with me who actually has.

Maybe I should.

Maybe I shouldn't talk to you anymore.

We might not be on the same intellectual level.

It was interesting.

Yes, I can imagine.

So you were in Santa Monica at the time, I believe you said.

And so I imagine that that was all these big shifts, you know, your egg being removed from a CrossFit gym.

That's a little weird, because I always thought that CrossFit guys were a little bit more on the conservative side.

You would think so.

And actually, one of the gyms I worked at, the owner, one of it was two owners, and one of them was actually a good friend of mine.

That's how I.

I ended up falling into the position.

It was like I took the.

Just for myself.

But I lived very close to the gym, and I was friends with the owner.

And one day I showed up for class, and they were talking about how the coach just didn't show up that morning, and that's why the owner was teaching.

And I said, you know, I live.

You know where I live.

Because he would always come to use my building's pool, so he knew where I lived.

And he was like.

And I said to him, you know, I have my certification.

If you're ever in a position where that happens, I mean, I can't promise, but if I'm available, I'm happy to coach.

Well, it was happening for, like, consecutively, for a month.

And they just kept asking me, can you come?

Can you come?

And, yeah.

Finally, he's like, I think we should just hire you.

Cause, yeah, clearly there were problems there.

But that was how I ended up doing it.

I mean, I had gotten the certification already, but he was a friend of mine.

We always.

He knew where I stood.

Like, we were not exactly aligned, but they were both Navy SEALs.

And I had made a comment about how I literally just repeated the Franklin Lyon that if you're willing to trade, you know, your security for a little bit of.

Sorry, a little bit of freedom for security, then you deserve neither.

I'm paraphrasing it, but, you know, the gist of it.

And he.

They had Such a hard time.

They said, you don't understand the younger generation and what they've been through.

And I mean, they just railed against me for a good half hour, telling me that I was an idiot.

And I was shocked.

Like, wow.

I mean, these are Navy seals.

I didn't think that was a controversial kind of statement, but yeah.

And then the other one, it was over some of the, you know, requirements at the time.

And because I'm hearing impaired, I was like, I can't do this.

I just.

Yeah.

So.

That'S.

I mean, I think one of the.

Super woke, though, like, the other.

There were two that.

The.

The one I worked there, the one that was closer to me that I ended up working in two.

But the other gym was super woke.

Like, overtly woke.

The one that, you know, was my friends.

They were definitely, clearly, they had more woke kind of sensibilities.

They were definitely not politically aligned, but they were.

It wasn't super overt until then.

Got it.

So they didn't.

They didn't make it super obvious that, you know, they were on the left.

It wasn't like they had rainbow pride flags hanging up.

You only discovered the other one that I got fired from did.

And I had.

So the.

One of my co workers at the gym with the two Navy SEALs had brought me into that other gym and she had reached out to me and said she was so disappointed in me because I didn't put a black square for Blackout Tuesday.

Oh, my goodness.

And I.

Yeah.

And, you know, I tried just to be polite.

I always knew she was like a radical feminist.

She was a hardcore leftist.

And, you know, I knew we were not super aligned, but very sweet girl.

And, like, we were definitely friendly.

So I didn't see any reason to be confrontational with her.

I just said, you know, I think we can do a lot more for a cause in person than, you know, virtue signaling with a.

A square on my Instagram.

And she started.

She just kept pushing back, telling me that I had a responsibility.

And she said, you know, we can't just be white feminists.

And that was when I was like, wow.

And I kind of was just baffled.

I said, I've never claimed to be a feminist, so I'm a little confused.

It's funny when you get.

Go ahead.

What?

Well, it's funny when you get roped into a we that you didn't quite realize that you were a part of.

Yes.

Yes.

So, yeah, that got me a earful, or rather a eyeful of text that I really had no interest in.

Engaging with.

And I really just tried to be very polite and dismissive, but, you know, they were continuously coming after me on all the platforms and, you know, you know how the swarm tactics go.

So I'm very familiar with them now.

But that was my foray into social media swarm, you know, gang stalking.

Don't I know about the social media swarms?

You know, it seemed.

And that's one of the oddest things about our age today is it feels very much like if you cross a certain line, you know, you'll get it from both the left and the right these days, especially the right these days.

But, you know, I was in the manosphere a couple years ago, 2020 to 2022, roughly.

And I observed even back then that, like, okay, so I expected to make the left mad with talking about feminism and stuff like that, but I was completely unprepared for just how bad a right wing swarm would be.

When you make the bros mad, the bros are so much, so much worse.

And that's just an odd facet of our age where it's like, okay, so maybe we don't have to worry about censorship as much as we used to.

Like, I know that, you know, I posted.

Oh my goodness.

I posted a clip of myself on a podcast that I was on, and we'll call it 2021, right?

Something like that.

I posted a clip from someone else's podcast and I posted it last year, 2024, probably even after the election, something like that.

And I was talking about the jab and all the different stuff.

And even three years later, I got a hard warning over medical misinformation from three years prior of stuff that's all been validated now.

And so that was one form of censorship where the dialogue is controlled by, by institutional forces, but now we're seeing it enforced by bot armies or, I don't know, ideologues.

I don't really know what.

But it's a sad.

It's a sad facet of algorithmic feedback loops is essentially what's going on.

Yeah.

Say more about that.

Well, there's a lot to say about that, but that's where we're at.

So this.

Firstly, I'll just a little.

I think you may have seen this, but funny story about like, like pissing off both the left and the right of the dialectic.

I posted a video on Instagram because I.

I'm so censored on Facebook and Instagram, I've kind of just stopped posting anything significant.

It's mostly just like my fitness material.

I had started.

I started my Instagram as a, like, training diary for when I tried out for American Ninja Warrior.

So I've just kind of left it as more of a fitness blog kind of thing.

But I posted a video.

It wasn't even, like, on my main page.

It was in my story of me deadlifting.

And Guy reached out to me to tell me that I was a feminist, because I was.

Because I liked working out.

This is like the most asinine thing I've heard of, like, in a very long time.

It was so funny that I posted it.

I was like, this is just hilarious, you know, And I was like, yeah, this is.

I was like.

I remember a few years ago when they were saying that exercise is like extreme right wingism.

Like, it's amazing.

I've managed to piss off both sides of the dialectic by lifting a barbell.

That's it.

You know, great.

Good job, Gu.

Well done.

But the worst of the swarms I've experienced is actually talking about the biodigital convergence stuff.

And they are vicious.

Vicious.

And the only thing I can conclude is that they must be some sort of an operation.

Then there must be, like, bots involved.

But I think that it is designed to discredit and gatekeep the information because they came after me really hard when I shared a white paper.

And I was like, that's like, it's a white paper.

And if you cared about the information getting out, wouldn't you be happy I shared, you know, a white paper?

So it was very, very strange.

But it went on for a long time.

Like, I actually had to block most of those people, which is unfortunate because some of the information is that they put out is great, you know, but the.

I don't need that kind of abuse in my life.

So my emotional sanity was way more important.

So I ended up blocking most of them.

But yeah, so cybernetic, algorithmic, cybernetic feedback loop.

So cybernetics is, you know, a field of Norbert Wiener back in the.

I think it was in the 50s.

And.

And it is this, you know, kind of study of.

Essentially it's built on the.

An extension of Tavistock sociotechnical systems.

This was like Eric Trist and Emory who were working on, you know, how people interact with technology and environments.

This is really the very like broad brush strokes kind of flipness, you know, colloquial layman kind of terms.

But that's essentially what it was.

And cybernetics is studying feedback loops.

And so now that we.

That the sociotechnical systems have advanced so much.

We're in an era where we really are already, you know, people talk about the transhumanism, right, but we're already cybernetically engaged and our, even our neurology has been altered by the screens.

So the way we engage with information, the way that we process information, information has all been altered by our screen time.

But Cybernex is this feedback loop, the study of feedback loops.

So now we have these algorithms who data mine from people and then they take that information.

And it's all done mostly under the guise of marketing.

Like right, we just want to target you with ads that you want to see so that, you know, when you talk about hip pain, we're going to find like the thing that's going to cure it and we'll feed it right to you.

Just silly example.

But you know, that's how they, that's how they sell it to us.

That, that's what that's about.

And in part it is because obviously, you know, so marketing is all about profiteering.

And so, you know, that is part of it.

But part of it is also so they can data mine you and figure out what information to feed you.

But what happens is that becomes a cyclical feedback loop where you are now becoming siloed and programmed.

So this is why, you know, we'll take Twitter as just an example, but it's just one social media example.

And the, a really good document to look on.

This is the cogn warfare document.

This was done by NATO intelligence, this was back in 2020.

And they talk about how they're going to use these cybernetic feedback loops and particularly weaponized emotions.

And anger was a really big one.

So a lot of it is about targeting people to get a reaction.

And so it's heightened response because people who are either afraid or angry are much more susceptible to suggestion.

And so this way now you've got these algorith that are like I was going to say when, if you open up Twitter, for example, when I open my Twitter feed, although I, you know, I have my, I have it set to all and I, I don't even have any kind of specifications like that I select but based on my history, I'm fed a whole bunch of, you know, things whether I follow these people or not.

Now somebody else may open their Twitter feed and see something totally different.

This is because the algorithms have been not only feeding you but, but they've been data mining you and it's become cybernetic.

So it's a feedback loop.

They mine from you and then they feed you information, which programs you, right?

So now people, if I open my feed and all I see is, you know, racial violence, like people, you know, calling for racial violence, then I think, oh my goodness, this is what's going on everywhere.

You know, that's my impression, because it's all I see when I go to my feed, you know, and that's.

So it gives people an impression of what's going on.

And what happens is.

Although that.

That becomes very heightened in the online sphere because of course, people are willing to say much more than they would if they were looking someone directly in the eye.

Right.

Keyboard warriors are much more bold than, say, you know, people when they have to face the humanity of another person on the other side and they have to stare them in the eye.

It's a very different experience.

But what happens is that actually get extrapolated into the real world because people's perception has been manipulated and twisted.

I'm marveling at the speed.

I think you started out by saying you were trying to catch up to a high speed train.

So I'm kind of marveling at the speed that you went from not knowing what a podcast was to five years in the future talking about cybernetic feedback loops and data mining.

I mean, that must be.

That must be a big transition for you within yourself and your understanding of yourself.

Perhaps I can mention you're also married.

Maybe that's been a big part of.

You don't have to talk about this, but your relationship as well.

Of course, you're welcome to if you'd like.

But I'm just reflecting on how many of us have changed in the past five years into probably what are relatively unrecognizable versions of ourselves compared to where we were.

So I'm anxious to dive into more of those topics.

But maybe you can talk a little bit about that personal shift, because I haven't heard anyone talk about it quite in the same way.

Sure.

Well, though, for me, like I said, I was pretty asleep and really just.

I mean, when I say asleep, I mean I was really asleep.

But I think people have planted seeds along the way.

And I think this is really important for people to understand because I know sometimes you get very frustrated when you have all this information.

And I've been told by people, you're speaking over their head, nobody knows what you're talking about.

And I'm like, that's okay, just plant the seeds.

And that's why I always bring receipts.

So I know sometimes my material can get kind of Boring, because I will literally read the quotes and I've had people say.

I'm like.

They're like, you're literally just reading it?

Yeah, because from the horse's mouth.

So this is not me making it up.

You can't.

And I'm showing it on the screen and I do that intentionally so that you can then make your own decision.

But now you know where to go read the rest of it.

So I think it's really important for people to just plant the seeds because they don't have to get it then.

And I know that's what happened for me.

So I had people who were, I guess what you call truthers.

I kind of really hate that term lately, but.

Because it's been kind of co opted.

But I had people in my life, you know, who were in that sphere and they really tried to open my eyes and I was just not ready at all.

And everybody's got their reasons.

For me, it was because my dad and I had kind of a.

We had a complicated relationship.

But most of what he was willing to talk to me about was intellectual.

So, you know, he would talk to me about politics, he would, you know, discuss, you know, books, ideas.

And I didn't know it at the time, but he was really a neocon.

And so if I brought up any of the just, you know, kind of narratives or questions that I had around this, you know, I guess what you'd call it, the truth or space.

He would tell me that that's crazy, it's conspiracy theory.

You can't listen to these crazy.

And so I felt like I couldn't risk losing the relationship with my father to really investigate.

So I really just shut it off.

But I did have people along the way who kept planting the seeds.

And then of course, 2020 came around.

My father had passed and my now husband was very patient with me.

He just kept kind of planting seeds and he's like, oh, okay.

You know, I was ready to receive some things, I wasn't ready to receive others.

But I think the big turning point for me was I knew when the supposed outbreak happened, I knew they were gonna start pushing jabs.

I knew that intuitively that that's what that was all about.

And I had such a bad feeling about it.

So I started doing a lot of research.

And at the time I had been totally pro jabs, like regular jabs.

So the narrative, and this is a whole rabbit hole that we don't have to go down.

I mean, I know it's quite controversial for people, but I've studied it quite the whole terrain theory versus germ theory.

Just to give you the umbrella.

Yeah.

So the narrative that I was told was that I was born with congenital rubella.

So the story goes that my mom had germ measles during first trimester of pregnancy.

And so they had done a test for the titer, but the doctor read the titer as being 112 and they said, no, he was dyslexic, and it was really 121.

My parents actually sued for my birthday.

The alternative would have been abortion.

And so, you know, it was considered a wrongful birth.

You know, then they say wrong for life.

But, you know, that was kind of.

The argument was that they could have aborted me if the doctor hadn't been dyslexic.

So, yeah, I have lots of opinions about that as well.

There's a lot going on there.

Yeah.

So.

But I.

So I started doing a mage.

But of course, because I had been told my whole life that the whole reason I had all of these physical challenges was because my parents hadn't taken the.

The rubella immunization.

And so, of course, I've now become very familiar with Dr.

Steven Lanka and who won't even allow himself to be called a virologist.

He's denounced his entire field and all his degrees, and he actually brought it to the Supreme Court of Germany and nobody could disprove him.

I think he.

And he put up a lot of money for it.

He said, I'm willing to pay anybody who can disprove me.

I think it was Brady.

I might be mispronouncing, pronouncing it, but who.

On a technicality.

But yeah, he basically, it's the.

Nobody's been able to disprove him.

And so all that just to say that I started really researching, and I don't necessarily believe that that story is 100% accurate, but that narrative is what needs to be promulgated in order to sell the, you know, the fear to sell the solution, which is the jabs.

And so I ended up writing a bunch of articles.

You know, one of them, which I wrote, is a speculative piece on shedding.

And I was really hoping to be proven completely wrong.

I, you know, at the time I was doing a publication was called Truth Matters.

It was actually Alithia themada Truth Matters in Greek.

But so I.

But we.

One of my.

One of my business partners on that passed away actually because of jabs.

Interestingly enough, she was in the military and she had never had.

She had never been to A doctor, like, in her life.

Very, very healthy.

She was one of 11.

And.

Yeah.

Had never been to a doctor, and she had gotten away with two years.

And then they found out, and when they found out, they insisted within two weeks that she get caught up.

And within two weeks of that, she developed cancer.

And the interesting thing is all the doctors she saw were very honest with her, that that's what triggered it.

They did tell.

I mean, apparently she had a gene, she was predisposed to this type of cancer, but they told her without that, those injections, that she probably would never have the epigenetic expression.

What?

Yeah, we're sorry.

Catch it next time.

Oops.

Oh, my goodness.

Yeah, if there's a.

Yeah.

Reincarnation maybe, but I don't know about that.

No, I don't want that.

But, yeah, that's.

That's.

Oh, the medical field.

The medical field, yes.

I wrote on Shedding, which I was really hoping would be disproven.

And it was a speculative piece.

I made it very clear it was speculative press, But I had 39 sources in it, so it was very well researched.

And, yeah, so I now have it up on my.

My website.

But at the time, like, it had gotten circulated and a lot of doctors were passing it around, and it has very much been vindicated, unfortunately.

So.

Oh, my goodness.

You know, I guess I was very happy to leave a lot of these discussions in the rearview mirror.

I know there's a lot of conversation.

I think it's a valid conversation about, like, hey, why has no one been held accountable for any of this?

Are we just going to forget that there was a whole two years that the whole world was shut down and we were forced to let go of our lives and everything?

And I have.

I mean, I collected folders full of information during that whole time, undermining the narrative.

And I could still present some of the stuff.

And it just seems like there's a collective desire to kind of move on.

Like, hey, you know, that was a big.

A big L for civilization, but we'll be okay.

But then as we talk about these things, Things, it's like, I don't know where the reckoning is going to come from because it's so serious.

The things that were done to all of us that I understand that we're anxious to forget it.

I surely am.

And where does accountability start to come in for these disasters?

Yeah, I don't know that there will be.

I know a lot of people really want to see retribution and justice and understand that, but I think that Even if we do, it's going to be kind of like Nuremberg.

And Nuremberg, to me was not a success.

Was basically the COVID for Operation Paperclip, where we just settled in all of these scientists, right.

And now we just put them under the American intelligence programs.

And I think it just.

I don't really think it ever ended, but, you know, that's.

Obviously, I can't prove that, but.

So there's a lot of evidence to indicate that I'm right, though.

And I think Annie Jacobson's done some really good work in that arena.

But when you say you don't think it ever ended, what do you mean?

Do you mean specifically like Nazi National Socialist research or is that what you.

I've encountered some of the research that.

They were doing, a lot of the bioweapons research they were doing.

I think in many ways NASA was a cover for it.

I think the American Cancer association was also a really big kind of like, you know, funnel for the money, but a cover front.

Yeah, there's so much money that gets funneled into it, and, you know, people can argue about what they actually accomplish, but, I mean, the American Cancer association just go to their own website and of their own admission, they will say that we, you know, we've received these exorbitant funds.

I haven't seen it recently, but I remember the last time I was looking into it, I mean, it was like hundreds and hundreds of millions, like billions of dollars, you know, and they.

They were saying how, you know what, we.

We haven't really been able to make a dent, but, you know, if you give us more money, we'll solve the problem.

And I'm sorry, I don't have the exact stats, so don't quote me on how much, but it's an exorbitant amount of money.

Um, and yeah, they.

Of their own ambition, though.

They're like, we.

We have not been able to even make a dent in this problem.

But, yeah, don't worry, keep sending us more money.

So what exactly are you doing?

And I think there's a lot of evidence to indicate that they're not trying to solve the problem because there's so many doctors who have, you know, come up with all sorts of great, wonderful things.

And I don't know how much I can say here, so I'll just say great, wonderful things.

And, you know, they've been horrifically punished as a result.

So.

Yes.

So a good friend of mine, Tim.

Shout out Tim, He.

He is.

He's big into medical freedom, holistic health.

He's been a friend for about a decade or more actually at this point.

And I remember back when Covid started to happen back, we're talking like February, March of 2020.

I remember like, you know, we're, we're both looking at this.

He, he lives in Australia, so it's, you know, more or less straight up tyranny there.

But we were both looking at that and being like, oh yeah, we know exactly where this is going.

You know, you could see right away like this is.

But we even, we didn't know at the time where the jabs were going to be, you know, what was going to be introduced to us at the time.

And it's just to see how far it's all evolved.

And again, no accountability and how these are not problems that anyone is actually, genuinely trying to solve.

The system is merely, it's merely trying to propagate itself at our expense.

And the injustice is staggering when you see it that.

Yeah.

And I mean, I think the whole medical freedom movement unfortunately was really in many ways an OP just to move the overtone window.

Really.

Yeah, I do, absolutely.

So most people traditionally, historically just look at it from this perspective.

Most people, historically speaking who were opposed to, you know, who supported My Body, My Choice, not, not in the pro abortion sense, but you know, they, they were typically actually on multiple left.

It was a lot of like the crunchy moms and you know.

Yeah, they were just typically on the left and they were into more holistic kind of medicine.

And what happened in 2020 with the medical freedom movement came in and suddenly they put a right wing banner on them.

They kind of like put a little bow around them and said, you're now whatever, conservative, Republican, libertarian, they.

But they put them in the right wing camp.

And a lot of those people were actually very confused.

They're like, I've always been on the left, I've always voted Democrat, I'm a hardcore leftist, whatever, you know, whatever they said.

And they were very confused by it.

But a lot of them said, okay, I guess I'm a right winger now and I think it was a way to shift the Overton window.

And this again is speculation.

So nobody hold me to this.

When I have a theory, I'll let you know it's a theory.

But my theory is that actually I think that the Knights of Malta were behind it because let's go.

The Knights of Malta actually started as the Knights of Hospitalier.

And even today they're exoteric veneer is that they are a medical charity organization.

And so I think, but they often operate through the, you know, quote unquote, right wing wing political because they are tied to like militaristic order.

So typically the different various occult.

I, at least I look at it from, you know, kind of the left tends to be more divine, feminine and they operate through, you know, they're very emotionally charged.

It's more about worshiping like Mother Earth, Gaia religion.

And then the right wing tends to be, you know, that was a whole, there was that whole authoritarian test, right?

And so it tends to be more paternal, patriarchal, more authoritarian, disciplinarian and militaristic.

And so they tend to operate that way.

That's a part of their, how they infiltrate from what I've seen.

And so, and the nice Malta, you know, that we would follow.

So I, that, that is my theory.

Again, I haven't found the, I don't think I'm ever going to find the smoking gun to prove that, but it would make sense.

And I think they're constantly, always shifting the Overton window.

What do we see today?

Today we see people who, a year ago on the right wing who would have never bought an electric vehicle because they didn't buy into the climate narrative.

And what are we seeing now that Elon works for the Trump administration.

The people are rushing out to buy Tesl cheering these electric vehicles.

Like, what happened to you?

So here we go again.

The Overton Window shifts.

It's so wild, especially because Elon was the hero for buying electric, for propagating electric vehicles.

And now the left is like going back and buying gas, guzzling SUVs as a rebellion against Elon.

It's like, okay, fine, let's just look at this for a second.

Okay, you don't like Elon, but didn't you just spend the, the past 30 years saying how much gas and climate change and all that?

And so you're going to abandon all of your principles that you've been pushing from An Inconvenient Truth onward, basically.

And, and, and do this out of hatred for Elon Musk.

Like, of course.

Do you, do you have any core at all?

Is there anyone home in.

It's, it's, it's baffling to me.

It's all identity politics.

It's all cult of personality.

I, I just tweeted this actually, but right before we got on, I said I just wish spend like a fraction of the time they do, you know, worshiping or vilifying cult of personality, engaging in actual ideas.

If they just spent like a fraction of the time Engaging in the ideas themselves.

Like, I don't care about the people most of the time.

We don't know the people most of the time.

People are, you know, worshiping or vilifying people they've never met based on some online Persona.

It's a Persona, right?

That's the reason it's Persona, not their personality, not their character's Persona.

So this is a facade that you were seeing that has been marketed to you strategically, by the way.

And you know, I think people are just so deracinated from themselves sense of self that they, you know, they start to.

They want to feel a sense of belonging and they just, they anchor to things and so they're really easily swayed and, you know, pushed into these various cults and.

Yeah, very frustrating to watch.

I'm so glad that you see that because coming from the manosphere, that's exactly what I saw saw was small little mini cults of personality.

You know, we and our little cult of personality in this particular topic around masculinity, we have the secret knowledge and follow me for more secret knowledge.

And only I will tell you what to do.

And don't listen to that other guy who's saying the exact same thing in a different way.

And men paying to get closer to the guru and like an understanding that the masses who were involved in the this, they weren't engaging with ideas.

They couldn't pop out of the little circle.

It would be team versus team of man versus man.

And I was like, what are we doing?

And then I see it now on such a larger level, especially from people who self identify as intellectuals or I'm informed and I'm going to rally behind my guy and you rally behind.

Stop it.

Quit it.

I think so few people actually read anything today, I think, and we live in a soundbite culture.

And so.

But here's the thing.

Reading is part of how people create inner monologues.

I've recently learned that apparently a large percentage of population actually doesn't have an inner monologue, which is terrifying, like literally, because, I mean, that's how you, you can program somebody so easily if they don't have an internal monologue.

But I think that part of, you know, identity is your thought process processes.

And it's so intrinsic to being human that people do crave it, even though that so few do it these days.

And reading is part of how you develop that internal monologue and how you develop that thought process, that process of thinking that is just, you know, it's like essential to being human.

I think and consciousness and developing your consciousness.

So I think that what's happened is because people don't spend time doing that, but yet they crave it.

They get a little taste of it from these pop intellectuals and then they think they've done the thinking themselves.

So what happens is it becomes voyeurism, voyeuristic intellectualism.

So it's almost like you watch, like when you watch a movie or play or listen to, you know, a piece of any kind of art form really.

I mean, it had the power to, you know, effectuate change on a cellular level.

And.

But it.

What it also does.

And part of the reason it's so powerful, and this is part of why it's powerful for propaganda, is because when you watch it, people will allow themselves to have an emotional experience that they might not be able to access otherwise.

So like a very.

We'll just take the kind of stereotype, like the manosphere, you know, a very macho kind of guy who never allow himself to cry in public, maybe never allows himself to cry at all, even in front of his family or, you know, but go see some sort of a, you know, really tear jerker movie and then like starts bawling.

And that's so cathartic, right?

Because even the really macho guy has emotions and sometimes just needs that release.

And so, you know, that's the power of, you know, an art form.

But now we're seeing this through intellectual lecturer lectures, even the podcast sphere.

And people think they've actually done the thinking themselves, but they've heard somebody often just bloviate for a very long time and they think that they've engaged in this really deep intellectual thought processes, but they haven't worked anything out for themselves.

Themselves.

It's been voyeuristic.

And I think that's a huge part of the problem.

And so now people end up responding and reacting to that because it was so emotional for them that they align and they identify with that experience, but without having developed their own inner monologue about the ideas themselves.

Very well said.

Very well said.

And as a podcast host myself, I hope that I encourage my listeners.

Listeners to go read books for yourselves.

Think about these issues for yourselves, and please don't let me do the thinking for you.

But it's really important.

And I will often get into arguments with people over audiobooks and people get super worked up over this.

When I say that audiobooks are not the same as reading, what do you mean I have to do this when I do this?

No, sit down, pick up a real book for exactly.

The reason that you describe is that to sit down and read a physical print book, not a cube.

I don't necessarily have a problem with Kindles, but I think there's something very different about a physical print book.

Sit down, especially because it's not doing backlight in your eyes, but sit down and reading that, and that helps you develop the inner monologue, think about things at your own pace.

You're not just passively allowing words to wash over you.

And people get really upset when I say that.

But the way that you learn to think for yourself is you have to chew on very substantial material inside your own head and that forces you to think as opposed to letting the narrator do the thing.

Thinking for you.

Exactly.

I mean, it's a muscle like anything else.

I mean, you have to use it or you lose it.

And, you know, I think there's a time and a place for an audiobook.

We live in a very busy world and, you know, I think it's better than nothing if you're able to do, if you do long drives or you're a manual laborer.

I mean, I know a lot of like truck drivers are some of the most like, awake and knowledgeable people because they listen to books and podcasts all day, of course.

So, you know, they definitely have the time and a place.

But there is something very different about actively engaging, engaging with the visual written material.

And I mean, it goes even further if you take notes or you highlight or you, you know, even I put sticky marks, you know, but now you're engaging with the material, it's no longer just being fed to you.

And I think that's the problem.

We, we live in a world where so few people are able to formulate their own ideas and opinions because they've been spoon fed.

And oftentimes when things are spoon fed, sometimes it's not even intentional.

Right.

It's just you're, you're going to be, you're taking in the inherent bias that might not even be intentionally, you know, malignant.

But of course it's also a very, very great tool for propaganda.

So, yeah, I mean, you have to.

Today we all have to protect our cognitive abilities.

We can, it's very easy to get in the hypno trance of a TV show or a movie or a podcast or, or social media.

Right.

I think there's so much in our environment that wants to literally entrance us.

It's like put us in a trance, lull us into passivity and video games.

I don't think that that's inherently bad in and of itself.

I think escapism, entertainment, all of these things are fine.

But when it becomes your default way of life, and then when you throw in artificial intelligence or large language models to do a lot of the thinking for us, or I'm not going to read this book, I'm just going to have AI give me a digestive, that muscle starts to get very weak.

And it's so ironic that we're talking in an age where you have, like, RFK Jr.

And, you know, in the Department of Health and Human Services, I think, you know, being so fit and working out and it's like at the same time where people are focusing on the gym, they're not working out in the mental gym as hard as they used to.

I don't know what to make about that.

But yeah, no, absolutely.

And the AI is a huge, huge problem.

So I think it can be a tool.

The tool inherently is not evil.

Absolutely.

But my biggest concern is with children who are growing up with this.

So like you were saying, outsourcing your cognitive faculties to the AI, now you're trusting the AI to do it for you.

I think, you know, it's like the old adage, you have to know the rules before you can break them.

So if you have already developed your cognition and you use it as a tool, I think it can actually be a very helpful tool.

Yes, agreed.

You know, and I think it is inevitable.

Unfortunately, this.

This is the age we're in.

They're going to advance this AI.

It is already doubling, like, per month, every three months.

It's doubling in its capacity and speed, and it's kind of insane.

It's a little mind blowing and I mean, kind of exciting and kind of terrifying, all those things roughed into one.

But my concern is how much of it is being utilized in the schools.

And the children don't have fully developed frontal lobes.

They're, you know, they're first learning how to develop their own critical thinking skills, and they're already outsourcing all of that.

So it's like being given a calculator before you've learned how to do basic arithmetic.

Most of us have.

Have very significantly deteriorated our math skills thanks to the calculator.

I'm speaking for myself there, you know.

Yeah.

So I've outsourced a lot of that and, you know, I'm very aware of it.

But, you know, we make choices, and as an adult, I think that's fine to do, but I learned how to do, and I was actually very good at math.

When I was little, you know, but so at least I had the, I had that foundational development.

And I think that's so important for us to recognize, I think for parents to understand that.

And, and you know, it's not for me to tell people what to do, it's just to have that awareness when you're thinking about what's best for your children.

And you know, my personal opinion, I think giving them the technology and those tools before they develop their own is potentially very pernicious.

Oh yeah, I have a Christian audience and homeschoolers are a big part of that.

And I think homeschooling is probably one of the most important things that awaken aware parents of any faith background really can do is I think because that gives them the opportunity to say, hey child, I'm not going to dumb this down for you.

I'm going to give you this problem and you're going to have to work your way through it without the use of AIDS that other kids will have.

And yes, of course it's difficult, but you run that forward a number of years and you have kids who can think, not just think for themselves, but they can think, period.

They can reason, they can do math, they can digest complex ideas, ideas in books and I don't know actually what that does to humanity.

This is a question that I had heard someone articulate a couple years ago, maybe that when you have this big split coming where you have families that are going towards a more natural, holistic health, homeschooling, filtered water, you name it, right?

And they're raising their kids with this, no jabs, et cetera, they're raising their kids with this.

And then you have the, the call them the normie population who are, you know, consuming factory made food and public school and screens, especially screens for young kids.

And the cognitive impact of that on a young child who gets addicted to a screen at three or five years old, I don't think we can measure the devastation from that child's potential.

But when you have those two paths and there's really kind of only two of them, or they're certainly divergent, emerging, how do you avoid creating a two tier society where you just have one generation of kids that are just so much more capable than their cohort.

And Covid began that where you had many kids who was, what was it?

Language was so drastically impacted by kids that were, that went to online learning.

I don't know what we do about that, but that's alone.

Yeah, yeah, exactly, exactly.

Yeah.

Well, I think that there's a lot to unpack in that.

Because what's going on with the.

I don't know how familiar you are with the work I've done on the school choice issue.

I think I've done not.

Okay.

I've done over 30 shows on it, maybe more.

I've lost count at this point.

I've battled in my own state.

There are two topics that happen to be my governor's pet projects and apparently those are the two.

I've been a thorn in his side, so I don't think I'm their favorite person.

But his two pet projects are this school choice initiative, which is a very long agenda and then the conservation easements.

So the conservation easements were a part of this bigger agenda, which was the natural asset companies.

I did like a, you know, I called it an emergency broadcast.

I actually had a whole show show prepared for my radio show.

And then I was like, I like dropped all of it.

I said I have to do this.

This is like, you know, if I'm going to do a radio show, it has to be something, you know, this is too important to let go.

So the natural asset companies, they did get rescinded.

They withdrew the proposal, but they've just renamed it.

It's now being called the Sustained Act.

They're not going to let that agenda go because they think they're going to make upwards of $5 quadrillion on this.

I'm sorry, sorry.

$5 quadrillion dollars.

I know it's a number you can't fathom.

Nobody can.

So that, yeah, you might as well just say infinite.

It's just infinity amount of dollars.

Yeah, they want to quantify like the air we breathe, the water we drink, everything.

Yeah.

So this is all gonna be done through, you know, carbon sequestration and you know, the carbon taxing and the, you know, offsets.

Carbon offsets.

This is all under the, you know, the climate lie, which they've admitted it.

I have it in my.

The preview of my book.

The Hegel's Dialectic Agnostic, Jacob's Ladder and a Machinery of Control.

The preview is up on my substack and yeah, I'm gonna be pausing from some recording.

I'll still be uploading episodes next month but I'm gonna try and get this book finished so I can put out the pre order and publish it.

But I have several more chapters outlined that.

I'll finish it up.

But right now I have a preview up on my slipstack and in there I have the quote from the Club of Ro, their Global Revolution document, which was 1992, saying that their Limits to Growth document, which was 20 years earlier, you'll probably even find it for you.

But in 20 years earlier, they said that they needed to find a common enemy for man to rally behind.

And so they decided it was like, you know, the fact that we pollute all the air and the water and, you know, we are the problem, essentially.

That's why we're the carbon they want to reduce.

And they.

So they essentially said that the, you know, the enemy, if they found a common enemy, they could get everybody on board with this narrative.

And what did they decide the common enemy is?

They say, like, the enemy of humanity is man himself.

This is why we're the carbon they want to reduce.

So they've admitted that this is a complete lie, and it's a farce.

But it is a great narrative.

It's very compelling for especially people who are very susceptible to, you know, more emotional kind of manipulation and want to be perceived as compassionate.

This is what I call the compassion trap.

This is where, you know, they weaponize compassion, which I think is one of the.

They're exploiting what I think are one of the best attributes of human nature and weaponizing against humans themselves.

But this is also, you know, this is also part of how identity politics works, right?

Because you think about compassion typically as being a more feminine trait.

Not to say that men aren't compassionate, you know, they definitely are, obviously, but, you know, you think of it as being a more feminine trait.

Why?

This is biological because women need to be attuned to their offspring.

They have to have compassion, you know, for their offspring.

Compassion is derived.

And I talk about this in, in the book as well, the origins of the word empathy and how empathy is the first stage of compassion, right?

This idea of being able to, you know, feel somebody else's feelings without having the direct experience.

So it's not sympathy, it's being able to relate to it.

But compassion takes it a step further and now says that you want to alleviate that person's suffering.

And so, of course, that's what you'd want to do for your offspring.

But what happens now if you are a threat to that woman's offspring, they're not compassionate to you.

They become vicious mama bears.

And that is what we see with all of these group identity politics, right?

You have these, you know, gnostic elect leaders who are, you know, defending their group, and then the groups start fighting against each other.

And this is much more effective because much easier to get groups to fight against each other than to get individuals.

Again, you know, when you're looking at somebody in the eye and you see their human humanity, it's much harder not to say that people don't fight.

You know, one on one they do, but it's much easier to get groups to, you know, create warring factions.

So.

But yeah, so they're using this narrative of the climate agenda to rally people behind this huge.

What they think is going to be a huge money making.

Yeah.

To commodify the air we breathe.

So it was the SEC who partnered with the ieg, which is the Intrinsic Exchange group, to put a proposal up on New York Stock Exchange to create a new classification of companies called natural Asset companies.

And part of that would have been part of the vehicle to be able to usurp the land.

It's part of a 30 by 30 agenda, which Biden renamed the America the Beautiful because, you know, that sounds much nicer.

And so.

But through the conservation easements they have something called ecosystem management services which you would be able to, they would actually outsource the control over the land that you actually own.

And so all this to say, in my state, that was a big initiative, the conservation easement.

And my governor was very much on board with these and still pushing them today.

I had one of the legislators brought me in to do a presentation to the legislators and he blames me for being kicked out.

He said that it was very effective, they were pushing back.

And I told him that that was not my goal and I felt terr about it.

And I thought he was kind of kidding at first, but I was one of, I was his second guest on his podcast.

He actually brought it up twice in the podcast saying that I was the reason that he was voted out.

So it's that one.

And then the school choice issue.

And the school choice issue is of course, this is a long running agenda.

This goes all the way back several, several decades.

I, I would actually argue it's about, you know, it's over a century old with the St.

Louis Hegelians and the, you know, Prussian model of education that was exported to the United States after the Battle of Jena in 18o.

You know, they lost the battle and they decided they lost the battles because the soldiers rebelled, because they were critical thinkers.

And so they had to create a system that bred for compliance and obedience and, you know, bred out all the critical thinkers.

And so that is what they have been working very diligently to deliberately dumb down America.

But Charlotte Iserbeat was a whistleblower under the Reagan Administration on the best project.

And the best project was tied to exactly what we were talking about earlier with the.

All the.

The tech ed.

Right.

And so she was kind of blowing the whistle on all of that.

Her father and her grandfather were both members of Skull and Bones.

I think she was.

She got away with a little bit more in terms of her whistleblowing than she might have otherwise, but she also had all the receipts.

And she was very instrumental in helping Anthony Sutton with his research on how the order controls education.

She gave him like the actual black book kind of, you know, logs.

And so this is agenda has been in the works for so long and through her books and I recommend people getting the unabridged.

It's very long, very thick, huge book.

The Deliberate Dumbing down of America.

Along with John Taylor Gatto, who was very vocal against compulsory education.

I think he's absolutely right.

There's nothing in the Constitution that stipulates compulsory education.

Our founding fathers did not have formal education.

Most of them, and I would argue most of them, were far more erudite than people we see in higher education today.

So that's my own opinion.

And yeah, I don't think it was very favorable when I said that, but I think it's kind of true.

But yeah, in her book she goes through how they were going to push this school choice narrative through the political right and that that's where they would get it done.

And I think that's what we're obviously seeing that today.

I mean, Trump has now, you know, national.

He said he's advocating for it nationally, which is blatantly unconstitutional.

The school choice program sounds like a euphemism for not having a maybe.

For not having a choice.

So maybe you can unpack the school choice program.

For those who haven't heard of it.

Very clever marketing.

I always say we should all have their marketing team because we would be so successful.

We'd have these great brands.

I want the marketing team for the UN personally.

But yeah, I don't know what you have to sign to get that.

So maybe I don't want it, but I'm just saying they're pretty good at it.

Expensive.

It's pretty expensive.

But yeah, choice.

Who can argue against choice?

It sounds wonderful.

But it's government choice.

And now I fell for it.

When I was in sixth grade, I actually created a board, just start school choice.

Because I was a.

I went to a very small.

I grew up in a very small town that didn't have its own high school.

And so the town next to Me had a high school, but it was not, you know, the school was not a quality school in any regard.

Like it wasn't safe, it wasn't good education.

And I had friends who went to these other schools that were actually in closer proxim geographically.

And so I didn't understand.

You know, I was 12 years old, I kept saying to my parents, why can't I just go to one of those schools?

That doesn't make sense.

And so I started a board to, you know, advocate for school choice.

And six years later they implemented it.

I of course, knew nothing about the long range agenda at the time.

And I thought this was just, you know, why can't my parents decide where I go to school?

If it's the same distance, they should have some sort of a voucher.

They're paying taxes.

This makes sense.

But I had no idea that this is really an agenda to create, put every school under government control, that is to make all schools government run.

This is a execution of really Alice Bailey's plan that she lays out in her book Education in the New Age.

This was the inspiration for Robert Mueller, who was for 40 years worked for the UN.

He was Secretary General of the UN and he wrote his 2000 ideas.

I think it became 4000 ideas.

He fancied himself quite the visionary.

I guess so, yes, he studied under Youth Thant, who was a direct disciple of Teilhard de Chardin.

And he very much, you know, wanted to execute those visions of helping to create this noosphere.

The education system that he designed was called the World Core Curriculum.

And this was directly predicated on the works of Alice Bailey, you know, who was a disciple of Madame Blavatsky, who was one of the original members of the Theosophical Society.

And she was the founder of Lucius Trust, which of course, arcane school.

The Goodwill servers.

Yeah, and triangles.

And this is.

Lucius Trust is a direct consultancy of the UN to this day.

It was originally called Lucifer Publishing.

Also Madam Blavatsky had a magazine called Lucifer Magazine as well.

So it gives you a little indication of where their views were.

But yeah, she had laid out in her education New Age, what the plans for education would be to create planetics, which is what Robert Mueller outlines in his 2000 ideas.

He keeps talking.

I think it ended up being 4,000, but I don't remember.

It was a lot of ideas and it's pretty long, but I think it started as 2000.

And he says the word Planet X over and over again.

And this is predicated on Alice Bailey's Vision.

So he creates the world Core curriculum, which is designed to create global citizens.

And then of course from there, the United States developed what is called Common Core and Charlotte Isabit calls it Communist core.

I think it's much more aptly put.

But yeah, this is the vision to execute that in the United States.

And what we're seeing now with, of course, Cassel Sel under the Fetzer Institute, all the social emotional learning stuff and all the tech ed stuff, this is, is all just carrying out literally Bailey's plan to create a one world religion and a one world governance.

I literally just heard about social emotional learning and the roots of that, like two weeks ago and someone sent me a substack article because I spent 20 years in the New Age.

So they're talking about John Cabot Zinn and Thich Nhat Hanh and all this.

I'm like, this is the foundations of social.

It's explicit.

These are the foundations of social emotional learning.

Like Buddhism, you know, Eastern mysticism is in their own writings, the foundation of this thing.

I was like, wait, what?

So if I were, you know, an Eastern mysticist, I'd be very upset with the New Agers and Theosophists.

No, I would.

Because they butchered it.

They cherry pick.

So it's a synchronous religion.

Right.

Although they say it's not a religion.

They say it's a perennial philosophy.

You know, Aldous Huxley has a book on the perennial philosophy.

This is, that's what, you know, Madame Blavatsky herself says.

But what they do is they take elements that are, that advance their agenda and their vision and they create a Theosophical soup.

And really it's a re.

You know, it's a revised, revamped kind of rebranding of Neoplatonism, I think is really a good way to look at it.

But they incorporate a lot of aspects of Buddhism, Buddhism and Hinduism.

But it's not, you know, it doesn't maintain the integrity of either one of those.

And that's not for me to tell people, oh, they should be a Buddhist or a Hindu.

It's just if I were like a Hindu or a Buddhist, I'd actually be very offended because they've appropriated like that's actually what they've done.

Yes.

Syncretic.

It's not authentic, correct?

Yeah, no.

The New Age harvests.

I have a big two hour presentation, two and a half hour presentation I did about this start of 2023 that I should probably.

We do more with.

But they harvest teachings out of various world traditions and syncretize them into this big antichrist religion.

I mean that's really what it is because it expels biblical Christianity.

It has to.

You can't digest it.

And so but what it does is.

And then it hyper commercializes it.

And so this began in the 1960s, the 1970s with the hippie generation, and then the 80s and the 90s.

It became what we now recognize as the New age.

Paired with personal development and massive expenditures of money to create inner peace and financial fulfillment, etc.

You know, it's just essentially a prosperity gospel, using your mind as the, as a tool for manifesting it.

And it's very seductive and it seems like it's globalist in nature and oh, but look, we've got some Buddhism stuff and we've got some Native American stuff and aren't we so progressive?

And it's like you just end up getting lost in a swamp.

And that would be be bad enough except for the influences that you just talked about of where this has fed into politics, economics, culture, education, geopolitics.

And I don't think people recognize the gravity of just how significant the New age, and it's not even a great term, but how significant this theosophical influence has been on world and American culture today.

Yeah, absolutely.

And I said, I mean the new age is kind of the rebranding.

And a lot of that came out of this, as you said, it was like the 70s, 80s and a lot of that came from Stanford Research Institute.

They did the Changing Images of Man document.

So this was like, oh no, I haven't heard of this, like Lewis Harmon.

And who else was involved?

You know, based on Joseph Campbell.

And so they.

And he was.

Harman was the president of the Noetics, the ions.

Right.

Institute for Noetic Sciences for two decades.

And so Willis Harmon and Wo Mark, who did a lot of work on like remote viewing.

And so, you know, then of course CIA did their project Stargate, but they did this Changing Images man document and it was a very long.

I actually had the print out of it because to buy the book.

This is another one of those really expensive books.

So I don't have that kind of budget if anybody wants to support, you know, by all means.

But yeah, so it was very expensive, but that you can get the PDF online.

And this is where they were doing these studies about change, changing the image of man.

So man's perception of man's self, so essentially changing consciousness of man.

And they popularized those ideas in a book called the Aquarian conspiracy.

Willis Harmon's secretary was Marilyn Ferguson and he used her name as a pseudonym for this book to popularize the ideas.

And so that was.

But then really what we have now is the New Thought movement.

And the new movement is just another iteration of the new age, but with a stronger focus on mentalism, which is the first principle of hermeticism.

So I mean, all of this really does go back to the ancient mystery schools.

And now we've got.

And I just did a video on this and I really wish more people would kind of pay attention to it.

I know this is one of the problems, like I've always been kind of Cassandra, so, you know, nobody really likes Cassandra and nobody really pays attention to Cassandra.

But I did a video and I was so exhausted.

So I know it was not my most eloquent work and I will definitely do a write up on it, but I have not had time yet.

But on the Hegelian dial dialectic between Game B and the Dark Enlightenment, because this is really what I perceive as how, especially in the west, they're trying to foment the technological immunization of the eschaton so we can invite towards the Singularity.

And both movements are really predicated on various elements of these ancient mysteries.

So they just have different flavors.

So you know, whether it's chocolate or vanilla, they're still both ice cream and they're both still part of the dialectical churn that is spiraling us towards the Singularity.

The Omega point is singularity and creating the noosphere.

They're doing it.

They have different visions of how to get there.

But ultimately that's what both of them are doing.

And they are both very much so of course, the Game Be movement, a lot of them are more theosophical in their rhetoric.

You know, there was a split between that movement where.

And Jim Rutt talks about this often where you know, some of the them were a little to woo woo was his words.

And then others were more kind of hard scientists.

They were systems theorists, they were complexity theorists.

You know, he was at the Santa Fe Institute, chairman for over 10 years.

And so, you know, he said he.

That's what he says.

But they did come back together and regroup.

And so they speak in more theosophical language, at least, you know, appealing to, I call it really like they're the leftist of this technological imitation of the eschaton.

And then we've got the Dark Enlightenment who are operating through.

Through the right as a vehicle.

And of course, you know, we see this this is like the Elon Musk and the Peter Thiel and that crew.

But ultimately, they're using principles of this ancient mystery religion and the Cosmoerotic Humanists, who.

A lot of them are tied in with this Game B stuff there.

And you can find Cosmoerotic Humanism.

It's a First values, first Principles on Evolving perennialism and the 42 propositions on cosmoerotic Humanism.

And you can find this@theofficeofthefuture.com because, you know, the best way to predict the future is to plan it.

And so, of course, they are futurists.

And this is David Temple.

And I've now learned that it was a homage to him.

But the three of them, they used him as a pen name.

But the three of them comprise of David Temple.

He wasn't actually involved.

It's Mark Gaffney, Zach Stein, who was just inducted to Club of Rome last year, and who.

Kenneth Wilbur, of course, the integralist, you know, who based his whole theory of altitudes on, you know, Claire Graves spiral dynamics and the chakra system.

And I did a whole thread on that.

But they're.

But they talk about this also, right?

They're.

They're, you know, they're constantly talking about, like, even Mark.

Mark Gaffney is doing his.

Literally reviving the Mystery School.

He has a whole, you know, Eros Mystery School, he calls it.

He says that Eros is not about sex.

It's a radical love affair with the universe.

But, you know, of course, we had.

What do we have?

Eros and Eros and Thanatos.

This was Freud.

And then we have Eros and Civilization.

This is Herbert Marcuse.

Yep.

And now we've got, you know, Eros Mystery Schools.

And he talks to RB Marcus, who's helping him promote this, and he says.

Yep.

And he says, yeah, we have to revive the mysteries and we have to, you know, reinvigorate these ancient mystery.

So, yes, Eros Mystery School.

So they say it all goes back.

And so it really is.

I mean, people say it's a spiritual battle.

I don't think they've realized there's really.

Regardless of someone's worldview, there is actually an intellectual battle that's operating through, you know, it's epistemological, that is operating through the spiritual battle.

And ultimately there I.

The reason I call it a technological immunization of the eschaton is because where I see it going is that there are the people who acknowledge that regardless of your belief system, you know, they acknowledge that there is a divine Benevolent creator that we are not that and that he has endowed us with this beautiful gift of free will.

And free will is not an end.

Free will is a vehicle, it's a conduit.

It allows us the potential for virtue and morality that we have to exercise it.

And then there are the people who want to, you know, they want to obtain radical freedom.

And radical freedom is an end.

And this is, you know, very much revealed in, I think in like Crowley and Thelema do without wilt or Nietzschean will to power.

This is where we see these types of ideas manifest this kind of radical free will.

But it's very confusing to people because people hear freedom and they think that you're talking about free will, but they're not the same, at least from what I can discern.

And so you've got this kind of battle and then you've got the people who, you know, are.

They operate their lives, they live in the hopes that they will exercise their free will and that they will, that their morale, they will attain some sort of virtue morality that will give them, grant them entrance to heaven, right?

What, you know, whatever their beliefs are, but that they will, that heaven is not here on earth.

At least we can all, you know, at least they agree on that much.

And then there are people who want to bring heaven, heaven on earth.

And they can't do that in any means except for synthetic.

And this is why we are now seeing these transhuman agendas, the biodigital convergence, the technocracy that they're trying to foment and ultimately achieve a singularity which then you will have this freedom, the liberation.

But it is a liberation of the collective.

It is not individual freedom.

It is a collective ends where they become co creators, essentially become God.

I hope everyone can hear what I'm talking about when I say that you've mastered this material.

Because from my perspective, you just navigated through three or four completely disparate fields rather seamlessly to show the ways that they tie together.

So we went from social, emotional, learning to cosmohumanism to cosmoerotic humanism, which I heard about from Aubrey Marcus and which infuriates me.

And then you navigate from there into transhumanism.

And the thing is, I think anyone standing in a particular position would look at these as being separate movements, would say like, oh my gosh, I look over here and I see the transhumanists and I look over here and I see the new age romance hippies or whatever.

And I look over here and I See psychedelics and I look that way and I see, you know, school choice.

Right.

Or whatever, Medical freedom.

And the perspective is like, oh, these must all be separate or not.

Medical freedom, freedom.

What is opposed to medical freedom?

Medical tyranny.

I suppose these would all be separate, but ultimately they're all faces of the same thing and they're all linked and they have philosophical and in a sense, theological and spiritual foundations that they share.

And it's different fronts in a war against humanity to put them into a position of enslavement to a two tier.

Ultimately it's kind of communist in a way, but even that doesn't quite capture it.

It's a two tier, occultic, esoteric, communist society.

Right.

And you say that to people or I say that to people and they're like, whatever.

But then it's like, hey, if you look at each individual, one of these strands and you just start pulling, you'll see that they all tie together.

They all tie together.

Yeah.

I don't know.

That's a.

I'm like, I'm a pattern recognizer.

So it's very hard for me not to see dots connect.

Sure.

I often have to work really hard, hard to check myself like, okay, that might not be connected to that.

And this is why I do read the primary sources, because I know that I tend to see connection.

That's just how my brain works.

But unfortunately, it doesn't matter which end I come in through.

I'm like, wait, it is connected.

And oftentimes even the people start to be connected.

That's what I find.

It's like I start diving into whether it be the education field, whether it's the medical stuff, whether it's the field of psychology.

You know, it's got esoteric roots.

Literally, it is born out of esotericism.

You've got, you know, the whole trajectory of especially continental philosophy, but really all of a Western philosophy.

I mean there, there are some exceptions, but yeah, and then the technology, the whole industry, all of these things are interwoven.

That doesn't mean that there are never battles within.

I want to be very clear about that.

I absolutely believe there is free will, there's free agency.

Humans can absolute, absolutely be disruptors.

That is what, that's the reason I do what I do is I hope to inform, inspire and empower people to exercise their free will so they can have the information.

And then, you know, you never know who's going to be a disruptor and derail the plan.

In fact, the UN is a great example of that.

Because they talk about, you know, they did their summon to the future last year, and they kept saying how far behind their 2075 agenda that they are.

And they kept.

Yeah, right.

They kept pointing to the United States as the big thorn in their side.

Why they're saying so far behind?

I'm like, yes, let's keep going.

Yeah.

I mean, in a sense, I have a book about this that's sitting on my shelf that I've been meaning to read.

I think it's called In Pursuit of the Metaverse.

And I can't remember the name of the author, but Carl Tygrib and I talked about it.

I believe, you know Carl, at least, you know, of his.

Yeah, he's a great man.

And so we talked about reading that together, but ultimately, all these different threads together.

Other point to the attempt to create a new Tower of Babel.

I mean, that's really what it is, like, a totalizing view of how to control all of humanity.

Go ahead.

Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off.

I don't like to have this conversation because most people don't have the historical and the full context to really engage with it.

I almost will never even use the term Zionism, because most people don't know that the origins was literally intended to create a dialect tactic.

But when people talk about, you know, the.

They.

They call it the Greater Israel, Israel plan, I'm like, I actually think it's the Greater Babylonian agenda, which has nothing to do with Jews.

Like, nothing.

If anything, they want to eradicate Jews.

And this was actually.

I just posted a big thread on this with all the receipts from Alice Bailey herself, who talks about, in order to create the One World Religion, one of their big problems is the Jews, they have have to get rid of traditional Judaism.

She uses the term Orthodox, but you have to understand that, you know, in Greek, orthodox means correct thinking.

So she's really saying, like, the religious Jews, you have to get rid of them.

They welcome.

Madame Blavatsky says the same thing.

She says that.

She says both Christianity and Judaism are diametrically opposed to Theosophy.

And she says that, you know, really, any monotheistic religion.

So essentially Islam is as well, although they seem to be much more welcoming of that.

You know, the Islamic order is actually the largest voting bloc of the UN who is very much advancing this theosophical agenda.

But I think a lot of that has been subverted as well.

There's been institutional capture from every angle possible.

I really appreciate you saying that because obviously it's A topic that's up on X literally today, particularly in Christian circles.

But I know it's larger than that.

And Spencer Smith, I don't know if you've ever encountered read any of his work.

He did an excellent series of documentaries called Third Adam.

Just really substantial work.

He's been on my podcast a couple times.

Very, very charismatic and distinctive guy.

And he pointed out on X, I guess it would have been a couple months ago, he said the end result of every conspiracy awakening is a hatred for Israel.

And when he posted that, I remembered my time in the new age world and I got to thinking about the things that, that people were saying and I realized that he was right, that he was right.

But what I didn't realize and what you just pointed out is that this is actually in Alice Bailey's writings.

And I was aware that Helena Blavatsky had called Christianity and this is her words quote, very pernicious to the aims of theosophy.

She said the chiefs of the order regard Christianity as a very pernicious threat, meaning essentially our chief ancestors enemy in Christianity.

But to hear that Alice Bailey also points out that Orthodox religious believing Jews need to be eradicated as well validates Spencer Smith's like one of the first missions.

Yeah, yeah.

And so especially because the monotheic, the monotheistic religions, particularly embodied in sacred scripture, like this is the definitive text, it can't be modified with any outside peripheral, peripheral source like there.

It can't.

There's no special knowledge inherent in a priest class.

That's what you need to undermine scripture.

But if you say, sorry, it's just all just in the book and you just got to read the book, they hate that because then you don't have the Sarmoon brotherhood as GI Gurdjieff was pursuing, or the chiefs of the Order of the Theosophical Society or Jawal Kuhl, who I think was Alice Bailey's.

That was Alice Bailey's master.

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

Write 24 books.

Yeah.

And Kut, whom he helped, Madame Blavatsky.

But yeah, the other that Alice Bailey talks about is particularly with Judaism is the separateness.

And this is really the problem, I think with all the monotheistic religions.

Yeah.

Because this goes back to like the ancient Greeks, you know, they would call it the undifferentiated.

All Theosophists will say that we come from Source and that the mission of the human experience is to return back to Source.

Right.

This is the divine spark.

Everything is one.

And this is what they're trying to create with the membrane of the Internet, right.

I always show on my videos, Bruce Lipton, the evolutionary leader, he talks, have you seen this?

Where he of course uses the spiral because it's a spiral dynamics.

And he just like alien dialectical spiral.

But he talks about how, you know, he started off as amoeba and amoeba's intelligence came from the membrane.

This is where they collect information and then we become multicellular organisms.

And the reason they're more intelligent is because they have more membrane.

And then humans, they're so complex, they have, you know, so much surface area of membrane.

That's, that's why we're so intelligent, is what he said.

And so he said, but now we have the opportunity to co create or go extinct.

And he said we could co create the superorganism of humanity.

And he said, what does he say is going to be the membrane of the superorganism of humanity?

This is the Internet, of course, right?

So this is.

But when you talk about theosophy or it's really, you know, going back to what the ancient Greeks said with the undifferentiated all that the one is better than the many.

And so their whole goal is to, you know, eviscerate any kind of boundaries or differentiation or distinction, blend everything.

This is why we have all the, the gender blending.

And you know, nobody can have their own religion.

It's all part of one.

It's a brotherhood, universal brotherhood.

Right.

Everybody believes the same thing or it's some mishmash of a bunch of things pushed together.

But yeah, they don't want any distinctions because everything has to be part of the one.

This is how we achieve the noosphere and the collective intelligence, which is the game B term, you know, the singularity, essentially.

Yeah, I don't think people really understand just what a powerful religion, whatever you want to call it, philosophy, theological system, the all is one and all is God mindset is whether you're a pantheist, all is God or panentheist, that all is inside God.

You know, that single idea is what sets it up.

As Dr.

Peter Jones says, oneism sets it up, sets itself up in opposition to twoism, which is the, which is the Judeo Christian tradition, literally the Judeo Christian tradition as embodied in the Bible.

In the beginning, God created right, like it is.

It is not of him.

It's.

It's a completely separate thing created out of nothing.

And that eternal separateness drives the theosophist nuts.

And when you have an objective, transcendent ascend its Standard that can't be harmonized or synthesized.

They have to spit it out.

And so that's why all the efforts to undermine, like, literally, like the Judeo Christian values.

And this is the best of the Jewish tradition as embodied in the Old Testament and as well as faithful biblical Christianity.

Right.

It's not for nothing that the Chicago World Parliament of Religions, I believe it was in 1893, you know, where Swami Vivekananda made his big famous Hindu.

His big Hindu, Hindu debut.

The one religion that was not represented there was Bible believing Protestant Christianity.

Right.

And there's a reason for that because it can't be syncretized into the whole.

They're trying.

They're definitely trying from outside the faith and from inside it as well, but they are.

But that's the only place to stand.

Yeah.

Unfortunately, they're having more success than perhaps would be nice to see.

But yeah, it's definitely a challenge.

Yeah.

The World Parliament of Religions, which was revived a century later in 1993, they now have, like, the Ayahuasca religion is present there.

Don't get me started.

Yeah.

Oh, I don't.

You probably don't know this, but I've done ayahuasca 15 times before coming to Christianity.

So here on my left arm, this is an ayahuasca vine that I have tattooed on my left arm.

Oh, wow.

I'm just waiting.

I'm just waiting to go to war with these folks.

I got so much pushback for talking about psychedelics.

Oh, yes.

Yeah.

So last year was last year or the year before, but suddenly there was like this push everywhere.

You were seeing, like, mushrooms on children's clothing.

I'm sorry, like furniture.

Mushroom furniture.

Like, this is not fashion.

I don't know.

This is so obviously propaganda.

So I was trying to point this out to people.

But what you also saw simultaneous, simultaneously was they started talking about how all of these articles and studies have been done on SSRIs proving that they did not do what they had purported to do.

In fact, the results were very much the opposite, that they actually caused things like suicidal ideation and depression and anxiety and all the things that they were claiming to, you know, get rid of.

So they.

I'm careful not to use the C word, but, you know, they were, you know, all the things they were claiming to do, they were actually doing the opposite.

Okay.

So the.

All of these studies, the media was doing a huge blitz on this while simultaneously pushing, like, all this fashion with mushrooms and talking about microdosing psilocybin and, like, why Are they putting these studies out now?

So first of all, these studies about the SSRIs, we knew this back in the 90s.

Like, they had already proven in the 90s that the SSRIs cause suicidal ideation, depression, anxiety, all the things that they're supposed to fix.

They cause.

We knew this back then, so.

But suddenly this is news, and that's very strange to me.

But now what do they have?

They have all this microdosing and this ketamine therapy that they're claiming is your new fix.

And what do we also see?

Simultaneously, we see people in the technocrat arena who are working on synthetic variations of these things.

So we've got Elon Musk with his ketamine.

We've got Peter Thiel in the.

The cannabis and the psilocybin.

You know, they're working on therapies, but they're synthetic.

And so now Big Pharma is.

Or at least the Technocrats, at least Silicon Valley.

But I'm pretty sure Big Pharma as well is involved in these new replacements for the SSRI therapies.

But, yeah, it just feels like we needed Orwell's 1984 in order to usher in Huxley's Brave New World.

Right.

Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451.

I think that that's an unappreciated masterpiece that shows like the.

The big vid screens and the dumbing down and all of that, you know, and the burning of books like I think people, and very rightfully so.

Talk about Brave New World and Soma and that sort of proto socialist wokeness.

Yes, yes.

And.

But then you read.

But then read Fahrenheit 451, it's like, oh, that's coming too.

And you're absolutely right about psychedelics.

I push back so hard on those and what's coming.

And first of all, RFK Jr.

At least before the election, seemed like he was prepared to be the tip of the spear for normalizing psychedelics into American culture.

Because when he listed his top 10 or so priorities, it didn't seem to be an ordered list.

It was just in paragraph form.

But the first thing that he listed was psychedelics.

And the pitch will be SSRIs, big pharma drugs have made people miserable.

And there's all these studies that show just one psychedelic trip does what years of therapy, you know, can't.

And so that will first be pushed on the veteran community.

Like, look at all these veterans that have been helped from their ptsd.

That means Everyone must do it all the time.

And then when you have, you see the legalization particularly of like DMT and stuff like that, that in liberal states, it's crazy.

And this is all coming.

And I think it presents not only a medical challenge and a political challenge, but a theological challenge that I just don't know that people are prepared to answer.

I don't know that they have an answer for like, well, what's the theological response to trauma?

Well, it's not taking drugs.

Well, and not only that, but if you look back at the ancient mystery religions, what all do in order.

So in order to create the transcendence experience, they either had some sort of a drug ritual that was usually psychedelic to create so that you could be one with the oneness.

Right.

Open up all the boundaries and you know, do away dissolve all the boundaries or some sort of trauma induction.

And oftentimes now I'm not denying that, you know, nobody has ever had a good experience or benefited.

There's always those exceptions.

But oftentimes they go hand in hand.

A lot of people have bad trauma trips.

A lot of people, you know, not only do they experience that dissolution of all boundaries, but they actually have major traumatic events or it brings up trauma for them.

So I think that these are.

But when the, in the ancient mystery religions, most of the initiations involve this.

So it's part of the trauma bonding experience and it's also part of trauma, trauma based mind control.

So.

Yes.

Yeah, I'm glad that you pointed that out and you, and it's very frank frequently that psychedelics are paired with orgiastic rights.

That's just a thing.

You know, sex, drugs and rock and roll like that wasn't invented in the 1960s.

And all of this stuff is being hyper normalized.

And so, you know, so right now you have this anti Zionism, anti Semitism that's having a brief resurgence and I don't know ultimately how far it will go, especially because no one in the Trump administration agrees with it.

So there's no dormant ways in for that.

So I think it'll eventually run headlong into a brick wall and then all the guys who are into that will fall off a cliff and that'll go.

I don't know about that.

I think that the fact that, Yeah, I, unfortunately, I hope you're right.

I would like to nothing more than to be wrong on this, but I think it's going to create a dialectic.

Oh, please, go ahead.

Yeah, so I think you're going to have that resistance and people are going to argue that, you know, it's creating kind of a favored kind of class or.

And, you know, they're gonna argue that it's creating more censorship.

I'm already hearing these narratives, so they really.

I think the fact that they're pushing back on it.

The Trump administration is actually creating this dialectical turn.

I'm not.

This is not saying that I think we should support anti Semitism.

I obviously don't think that, you know, that is not what I'm saying.

But I do see a potential dialectical clash and a fomenting of some of these tensions.

I'm concerned about it.

I really hope it doesn't continue to escalate.

We're seeing it online, but I've actually experienced quite a bit of it, like, in person.

So it's.

Yeah, so say more about that.

Well, I mean, yeah, there's just.

I don't really know how to.

I know firsthand.

Let me not make it quite so personal, but.

And I won't use names or anything, but I know firsthand.

Somebody I know's daughter was bullied so bad, they, like, beat her head, like, bashed her head, and she couldn't go back to school.

And it was just because she was Jewish, like, nothing else, like, instigated at all.

I have seen, you know, people pull out weapons, like, just because somebody was Jewish.

Yeah.

It's getting to the point where it's becoming.

So this is what I'm talking about, about these.

Unfortunately, these algorithmic cybernetic feedback loops, we think that they're relegated to online.

But what happens is a lot of.

Of people become one.

You become a bit desensitized to what it would be like to have confrontation in person.

You also have a false sense of reality because you've been so myopically seeped in a silo.

So you think that is the world and that is where everybody lives.

But you're not seeing other people's silo.

You're not seeing their algorithmic feed.

So you go out into the world and you engage, thinking that this is how everybody's conducting.

And so you've got a lot of people, and a lot of people.

You know, the social skills have deteriorated a little bit.

Let me say that kind of a euphemistically.

So that's very interesting because I think you're probably right.

I mean, I definitely believe you.

I don't mean to say that I don't.

In my circles, I'm seeing something else.

I'm seeing, like, the fomenting of the racial Tensions, right?

Oh, my goodness.

Yeah.

But that's a validation of your point.

If people fight against each other, they're happy.

So I always say.

That's what I always say.

I say that, you know, like in Christianity there's a trinity.

I don't need to explain that to you or your audience, obviously, but I always say that the, you can call the devil the, you know, the opposition, whatever, whatever makes sense for you and your faith.

But I always say the devil has a trinity that he worships and it's the triple Ds, you know, the devil, the triple Ds.

And it is that the first one is deception.

Right.

So distort, manipulate, deceive.

Right.

He's master, trickster, deceiver.

And this is a way of convincing you of lies or, you know, misrepresenting things.

And then the second one is divide and conquer or divide and rule.

And so this is of course, the dialectical games.

And so we see so much of this, all the division and the more they can get people divided.

And I think this is a huge part of why all the, the transgender stuff, I never focus too much on it because it's really a pipeline to transhumanism.

But ultimately the, you know, war between the men and the women, it's the biggest faction that you can get to fight against each other.

When they're supposed to be like simpatico.

I mean, they were made for each other, but you can get them fighting each other.

You know, you've got the two biggest groups fighting each other.

So he's very happy with that.

And then of course, the last one is destruction.

And I say this is why they're a death cult, because they, they can only destroy, they can't create.

Yeah.

And so, yeah, but I think the division is very key.

Yeah.

The scripture says the enemy comes to steal, kill and destroy, but Christ has come so that we might have life and have it abundantly.

And so to your point, like the enemy can only destroy things, can't actually create.

And to see Christianity is having a trendy moment.

I think the long term effects of that, I think are really remain to be seen.

I suppose I'm happier that people are exploring Christianity than not.

Certainly it's been a huge blessing in my life.

But I think again, to speak to another set of silos, another set of dialectics, you have the authoritarians that are beginning to wrap themselves in Christian language for a political end and not actually becoming regenerated believers, not actually becoming sanctified.

And that's the thing that's just ripping apart my spiritual circles right now is you have brothers, like men, who are both, we'll call them both professing Christians.

But one is going in a hyper political, authoritarian, fascist direction.

And in many ways, neo Nazi.

Right, going in that direction.

And there's the other guys who are here like, hey, that don't go that way.

It's like, but we have to take America back from the evil.

It's like, not like that.

And that's again, the dialectic that's being set up by these silos.

Do you think?

Okay, so when you say cybernetic, do you mean that there's.

Is this algorithmic, cybernetic?

Is there some sort of consciousness behind this or is just this.

They just plug in numbers into the machine and the machine is just generating its output?

Well, yeah, I think it is a code.

Right.

So I think that it's.

When you say consciousness, I mean humans program code.

Right?

So right now we don't have robots doing code just yet.

But even if robots do code, they're just an amplification of the original code.

So it still originates with the consciousness of that human who programmed it.

So all of their biases and their worldview, that's going to be somehow embedded in it, and it gets amplified as it progresses as the algorithm advances.

So it's never without some sort of bias.

But yeah, I think that that's.

Do I think that there's sentience?

No, and I don't actually think that there will ever be.

That's my personal belief.

I think there's a lot invested in convincing people that they're sentience.

I've seen the messaging already, you know, them saying that it's already been achieved.

But I think that the effect of getting people to buy into that narrative could potentially be just as precarious as if they were to really create sentience.

I think that it could actually have very similar, if not the same result.

So I'm concerned about that, but I don't think that it will actually achieve sentience.

I think that that, you know, comes from a soul.

I don't think that they could create machines with souls.

What they could do, though, is with the synthetic biology, they are creating things that can mimic humans and be quite deceptive.

Um, and that's.

Yeah, that has its own set of concerns.

Yeah, there was a whole, like, Peter Thiel, I don't remember the guy's name, but Peter Thiel was informed by a philosopher or thinker or technologist who believes.

He was very influenced by Curtis Yarvin.

Who.

But he was also very influenced by Strauss.

Right.

He did his whole Straussian moment, who was actually a lot of it was talking about Schmidt.

But yeah, he's in.

They also influenced.

Influenced by Heidegger.

So a lot of philosophers who have a very kind of a gnostic worldview.

Heidegger was an existentialist.

And I get a lot of pushback when I say it's gnostic.

When I use the term, I'm not referring to the first century heretics of Christianity.

I use the umbrella little Gnosticism to incorporate a lot of these, like the hermetic and alchemical types of worldviews.

But essentially they're buying into this narrative of being trapped here on earth by a ignorant demiurge who has withheld knowledge from us.

Right.

So the Gnostic, the term comes from Gnosis.

Gnosis in Greek is knowledge.

Right.

So it's the divine knowledge.

And this is also.

Theosophy has the same kind of.

They believe through theurgy, which is the divine work, that they can achieve the gnosis and then become God.

This is a common theme through all of these.

And so that's.

Yeah, that seems to be.

But again, it's couched in a lot of Christianese is what I call it just like theosophy, when they talk about Christ consciousness, very deceptive.

A lot of Christians think that they're speaking their language.

They say the Christ is returning, but they're very careful to say the Christ and it's not Jesus Christ.

They're very clear about that.

This is a world teacher.

This is Lord Maitreya, you know, who's no different than Krishna or Buddha.

This is a world teacher that they believe is going to return.

You could say, some would say it's the Antichrist, not, you know, they say the Christ.

I think there's a lot of evidence to indicate that that's what they're talking about.

There's a prayer that they do.

You can find this on the Lucius Trust website.

And at the end of it they talk about two seal the door where evil dwells.

And I'm like, wait, wait, which side?

Where are we going here?

Right.

They don't specify.

So, you know, they speak in esoteric language.

They're very clear about that.

That's what their arcane school is all about.

You know, Blavatsky and Bailey talk about how this is specifically material for those who are spiritually evolved and familiar with the esoteric.

And I think that that's what a lot of philosophers did as well.

So my thesis for the book is Hegel's D dialectic agnostic.

Jacob's ladder is that he was speaking.

He talks about the rational absolute.

And this sounds scientific, right?

It's rational logical.

But he makes it very clear that rational is synonymous with speculative.

And of course, I'm interpreting in English.

I don't read German, so those who speak German can correct me if you wish.

But he says that speculative is no different than mystical.

So I do believe that he's speaking Sapian language, which is signaling to those who are initiated to understand that this is a blueprint.

That's why I call it a machinery of control.

And he just to use him as an example because he very much influenced, you know, Curtis Yarvin and the Dark Enlightenment and a lot of these thinkers that we're seeing through some of the quote unquote right wing technocratic army.

But he.

So Hegel talks about this.

Sorry, I totally lost my train of thought.

Where was I going?

He's talking about Curtis Yarvin and we started out talking about Peter Thiel and Dark Enlightenment and sort of some of, some of the.

I was.

You're absolutely right that he's been influenced by all of those.

And I was going to mention also that he.

There is a thinker who had influenced Peter Thiel that was talking about how through we can meme the Singularity into existence, that by gathering collection collective consciousness in a particular direction, like you get everyone anticipating the arrival of the Singularity that will summon the Singularity into existence.

And that we're actually watching is something that is propagating like backwards in time.

Like our conscious intention in this moment will alter the past to make the singularity possible in a supposed future.

Kurzweil.

I mean, I don't.

No, it's someone else.

But it's in that same vein, this idea.

Gosh.

And it's not Rene Girard either.

It was some other thinker that I'd never heard of before.

But the idea being that, yes, there are all these many thinkers she listed that definitely influenced Peter Thiel, but one of them also, that through our conscious intention in this moment, we can summon the Singularity into existence to deliver us from, you know, what this, this whatever is going on in the world that, that they want to control, let's say.

Oh, I, I feel like I'm going to have to find out who said.

This and I'm sending Courtney Turner down a rabbit hole.

Yeah, definitely.

I'm like, who said that?

Yeah, I'm like trying to find it, but I don't know that I'm going to find it that quickly.

Right.

I wish I could remember his name.

Oh, no.

Stream of consciousness.

That's not right.

Okay, well, I will look into that.

But yeah, so all of them were kind of influenced by the same line of thought.

And.

Yeah, so Hegel himself talks about how it is, you know, mystical.

And so I think he really was signaling to the initiated.

Oh, this is what I was going to say.

So he said that he rejected both Kant and Plato's notion of dialectic because it was too abstract, too intellectual.

He wanted a methodology for advancing the historicity of man.

So essentially he wanted, like, a tool, you know, and he pretty much says that and that that's pretty much what he codified, not say that he was the first.

I mean, they.

We see this kind of unity of opposites through.

And I lay that out in the book through lots of these ancient religions before him.

But I think they paid the way for, you know, what he really cemented.

And I think that had become really a tool for social engineering and empire.

What if it really were true that more than some sort of occult new age pagan awakening, which I think everyone can see very clearly, what's underlying our political moment is so much more, I guess, a cultic pantheist, you know, Antichrist in nature than people can recognize.

Like here at the top of the iceberg, we're looking at all the.

Here we are in Antarctica.

We just woke up in Antarctica, and we're seeing all these little.

The tips of the iceberg floating around like, oh, isn't this nice?

Like.

But then underneath it, it's a giant world that is ultimately at the deepest levels, interconnected and I think, surfacing in a way that, like, I don't know, all my premillennial listeners are probably like.

Exactly.

So we see it all happening around us.

Yeah, I think we do see it happening all around us.

I mean, it's definitely much more in your face than it ever was.

Right.

I mean, even when you look through.

Since we brought up, like, Peter Thiel, and they're very much influenced by the accelerationists.

And this was.

This was born out of, like, the Cybernetic Cult Research Unit and Cybernetic something.

It's ccru.

But Nick Land was one of the prominent thinkers on this.

And I mean, his.

They're very, very esoteric.

You know, he was very influenced by people like Ebola.

This is like blatant esotericism.

And it's very much in line with a lot of the same kind of, you know, Theosophical kind of premises that, you know, obviously they're talking about accelerating technology essentially towards the tech, the singularity.

So, you know, there's nuances, differences in their perspectives and their.

How they're going to foment things and what.

What the.

What the plan is, if you will.

Let the plan of love and light work out, as they say.

But he.

He does talk about like he has this document.

It's so creepy.

It's hyper racism.

And it's a.

I don't like the.

Title of that already.

I.

Right.

Hyper racism.

And so we have to go beyond racism.

So this is like the dialectical evolution of racism.

Some people are.

Some people are way ahead of him probably.

But.

Yeah, well, Elon Musk is doing his job because it's all of.

It's essentially positive eugenics using, you know, genetic selection.

So that's what it's all about, is using like.

And that's what Elon's doing.

He's using CRISPR Cas9 and, you know, donations and petri dish.

He's taking the humanity out of the procreation process.

And I think this is part of that whole thing with Sinclair.

I think part of the whole thing was to desensitize people to.

And dehumanize the procreation experience, to lay groundwork for acquiescence to the transhuman agenda.

I mean, I don't know, but it seemed like propaganda to me.

That's very interesting.

Interesting.

Oh, Ashley St.

Clair.

Oh, yeah.

That whole thing.

Yeah.

Well, that's very interesting because I've done a lot of work thinking about the sexual revolution and its impact on civilization, which I don't know that we fully understand yet.

But one of the things that I hadn't considered, which I think might be a very good point, is by depersonalizing and desacralizing sexuality and making it cheap and commercial, commercial and ultimately easy to acquire and fundamentally meaningless.

Not even for procreation and even to the point where like new generations are checking out of it.

It's interesting that that does pave the way for ectogenesis.

He's just raising children outside of the womb or germinating children outside the womb.

Maybe germinating might not be the best word, but that's very interesting.

I hadn't thought about that, but I can see if that wasn't the original conscious intention in the first half of the 20th century that it could be repurposed for that very easily.

Yeah, well, I actually do think that was largely.

I think it was a depopulation agenda.

It was to dehumanize, destroy families, destroy relationships.

I actually think there is a biological component as well.

Humans are not meant to behave in that kind.

It's not the healthiest.

So there are intergenerational ramifications to that.

And studies have been shown on, you know, those types of experiences that people have.

So I think it was multifaceted, but I think it was very destructive.

I also think that it ruins the core fabric of relationships.

You know, this is, this generation now, it's very different because everything's online, that's got its own set of problems.

But I know, like, for my generation, you saw like the Sex and the City era.

That's what I called it.

And you know, you had characters, like, they would take quizzes, you know, which character are you?

And of course, Samantha was touted as like the, you know, ultimate feminist and the.

Yeah, and what was she doing?

And that was being promoted as like, the way women should live and that we should embrace that.

But ultimately it prolongs marriage, it prolongs any kind of meaningful relationship.

It prolongs procreation, you know, and it also undervalues human life because now you're incentivized, if you happen to be inexperienced and you have a baby as a result.

And, you know, now, well, maybe you're not ready or whatever.

And so, you know, it's okay to do, discard.

It devalues human life.

I mean, that's essentially what it does.

And again, I'm not saying this from a place of judgment to judge anybody's experience or choices.

That's, you know, I'm just looking at it from a sociological phenomenon.

What is the result?

What does it do?

And I can't really look at it in any way other than, you know, to look at the result and say that that was intentional.

I.

I just think, you know, this was a psychological operation designed to dehumanize and depopulate.

Yeah.

And everyone's super invested in this way of being because it's quote unquote, pleasurable.

Right.

But we can be often led astray by the pleasures that we pursue.

Is it really pleasurable, though?

I mean, I think that was also kind of a lie.

I'm not saying that there's never any short term pleasure.

That's not what I'm saying.

But is it really pleasurable to have experiences that are devoid of real meaning, that don't have a deep attachment and significance?

I don't think that that's truly pleasurable for humans.

Humans want to have secure attachments and Build something and, you know, have foundations that, you know, blossom into something.

That's what humans want to do.

I mean, we're only here for a short time, so to think that we just chase a hit of something now.

I mean, we're biological creatures and of course you might have a short term pleasurable experience, but we really look back on it.

It.

I don't think it's, It's.

It doesn't.

It's not fulfilling, I guess is a way to say it.

Yes, exactly.

I think that's probably closer to what I meant.

Like it's maybe play, maybe sensual.

Right.

That we set up the difference between sensual versus fulfilling.

Right.

But it's not fulfilling.

Yeah, I think.

Correct.

Yeah, yeah, it's the, It's.

It's.

As we pull on all these threads, we can see the kind of web that we were to many, to much extent, even those of us who are awake to it, we're all still kind of like stuck in it.

Like, we're not lost in it.

We're not like Neo in the Matrix.

I don't want to get all gnostic with it.

Right.

Like little G.

But, but there's a way in which that this is the, the, the fabric of reality that we find ourselves embedded in at this moment.

And so as, as we just talk about all this, I guess my, my, my question is, as you research all of this and you do the primary, primary source reading and man, you've talked about stuff that even I haven't heard of, which is awesome.

How do you stay grounded in the midst of all this?

And maybe we can close on this as people begin exploring many of these topics, whether through reading or videos or your podcast or some of mine, how do you stay grounded amidst all of this overwhelming information?

Oh, that's a big question, I guess.

Yeah, it's a big question.

I think you just have to, I mean, you have to find your, like, your.

Why.

Why are you doing this?

Why are you doing whatever it is you do?

What are the things you love, what's, you know, what matters to you, and then just find things that are outside of it altogether.

You know, find things that give you pleasure and fulfillment both, but, you know, that are meaningful, like, you know, your relationships and, you know, know, and also things that are like, relaxing and detached.

So, I mean, I, I personally really like my, my physical stuff outside.

You know, I'm a, I, I like to make sure I get to the gym.

That's really important to me.

And you know, spend time with my, my family and yeah, I, I don't know, I, I think it's, I don't think it's easy.

It definitely can be dark.

And I, I would actually say sometimes reading all this stuff is less dark than watching some of the madness online.

Sometimes that actually that's to of these culture personalities and I think sometimes I feel like I'm screaming into the abyss and that can be very frustrating and I wish people would engage more with ideas.

Yeah, so that's, but the ideas themselves, I mean we're always going to be on a journey because we are limited the gnostic to get that right.

In that regard we were limited.

We are not perfect.

But I don't believe we can be perfected.

That's where we differ.

And I think that knowledge should be a tool.

It's not, you know, it's not to create self apotheosis and self divinization.

You know, it's not for that.

It's so that we can navigate.

And for me it's really, that's why I say it's to inform, inspire and empower.

It's really about free will.

So I feel like the more information I have then I am better equipped to exercise my free will.

And that's what I hope, hope to impart on onto others is to give them a sense so that they're, they're not caught in these webs, they're not caught in dialectical turns.

They're, you know, they can step outside the wizard circle.

They're, they're not like totally.

None of us are going to be impervious to programming or to you know, some extent of the brainwashing and you know, all of the various mind games and propaganda.

But I think, think that the more we can learn about these various things and the history then maybe we can fine tune our discernment and not fall for every one of them.

Yeah.

To not be taken capture by either our reason or our faith, but to maintain them both quite healthy so that we can, so that we can not fall into the many.

I love that you turn heard the term, use the term wizard circle.

I've been listening to some James Lindsay lectures where he talks about the same, the same thing.

How many wizards are trying to draw us into the circles and how many circles there are and we have to through our own discernment and our own information and our own, you know.

Right.

Hearts.

Stay out of all of them.

Yeah, well they are, I mean they're you know, linguistic masters.

This is, they play mind games, they cast spells through language and so it is literally a wizard circle that they're putting around you.

And so I actually mean it quite literally.

Some of these people are considered magnus in their various respective fields.

So I think we should recognize them as humans and deal with the ideas themselves so that we're not as susceptible to the hypnosis.

That's a really good point, is listen to what they're saying and unwind the ideas that they're saying to you.

And don't go after the man or the woman.

That's not going to stop anybody from doing that.

But ultimately, the way that you liberate yourself from the wizard circle is not by, you know, killing the wizard because you're still in the circle.

Yeah, exactly.

That's exactly right.

Yeah.

It's about, well, what did they convince you of?

What spell did they cast?

That's what you should be dealing with.

I mean, if you look at it from biblical perspective, right.

It's a battle of models of powers and principalities.

Right.

So it's not the, you're not dealing with the person.

These are these powers and principalities.

And I think that's the same thing.

These various ideas, these concepts, it's these worldviews.

And I think the less we idolize or vilify people, I think that the better off we'll be in escaping some of these wizard circles.

Yes.

Well, thank you so much for all the work that you do in providing just an incredible output of liberating information from a lot of these, again, wizard circles and ideas.

I'm continually astounded at how much you are able to process and make available.

And I think everyone listening can hear what I'm talking about a little bit.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

Yeah.

So where would you like to send people to find out out more about you and what you do?

Well, courtneyturner.com and I do spell my name a little bit differently.

It's pronounced Courtney, but I spell it like Courtenay.

And lots of people like to tease me and call me Courtney.

And that's totally fine.

But that helps you spell it.

It's C O U R T E N A Y T U r n e r.com and that's where you can find all of my various podcast platforms, all my social media, I have a contact page and of course all the ways you can support my work.

And I started a substack back, I guess about, I don't know, I want to say like six, seven months ago now maybe.

But I am putting all of my podcasts out there ad free and early access for my paid subscribers and it would be of great help to me.

I know not everybody's in a position to do so but this takes up a tremendous exorbitant amount of time and resources.

I mean just for the platforms it's actually quite expensive to do all this so any help is always greatly appreciated.

And yeah, so you can get all of that on my soap stack and I have really been working to try and get articles out to you as well.

Although it's, you know, really hard to get all of this done.

There needs to be more hours in the day so yeah but you have.

To synthesize and harmonize and express all the information simple enough for, for just someone who's involved with it casually to understand like I, I know how difficult that is.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you so much.

This was a pleasure.

Thank you.

It was for me as well.

Sam.