Latest / INSPIRE STORY / #0104 _STORY INSPIRE: Decisions that transforman, with Eric Weinstein

Transcript

#0104 _STORY INSPIRE: Decisions that transforman, with Eric Weinstein · INSPIRE STORY

• 0:04
  Speaker 1: The Joe Rogan Experience. Train by day, Joe Rogan podcast
• 0:08
  by night, all day. I was like, there's only one
• 0:15
  way to do this. I've just not drank for a while.
• 0:17
  So I took like eight months off, and then I
• 0:18
  had like a margarita at dinner once. I was like, oh,
• 0:20
  I missed this. And then I had a glass of
• 0:23
  wine here and there.
• 0:24
  Speaker 2: I was wondering how that was going to hold up.
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: But I know that you're not captured by it.
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: No, no, no.
• 0:30
  Speaker 2: Neither am I, but our religious observance requires it.
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: You require abstinence or drinking?
• 0:36
  Speaker 2: No, we drink.
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: When do you have to drink?
• 0:39
  Speaker 2: Shabbat, any Friday.
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: How much do you drink on Shabbat?
• 0:42
  Speaker 2: I probably have two and a half glasses of wine.
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: Is there like a number that you're supposed to hit? No,
• 0:47
  there's a communal cup.
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: Well, that's Purim. We should get into Purim.
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: We're getting into it. Do we need glasses? You want
• 0:54
  to have a drink?
• 0:56
  Speaker 2: Usually, I tend to go a while, so I usually
• 0:59
  do that at the end.
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: Well, let's get some ice and some glass. Are we
• 1:03
  rolling already? Okay. Let's get some, tell Jeff to get
• 1:06
  us some ice and some glasses.
• 1:07
  Speaker 3: I didn't know we were.
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: And a bottle of Buffalo Trace.
• 1:12
  Speaker 4: Do you want to wait until I get back to start?
• 1:13
  Because we either haven't started or we started.
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: We started. Fuck it. We started. Let's just roll. We'll
• 1:19
  get Jeff to do it.
• 1:21
  Speaker 3: What's that?
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: I don't even have headphones.
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: Are we rolling still?
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: Are we doing headphone shit?
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: We can. Headphones, no headphones. I don't give a fuck.
• 1:28
  We mix it up.
• 1:29
  Speaker 3: Okay. You know?
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: Are you more comfortable? You got a nice head of hair. What? See,
• 1:33
  for me, it doesn't matter. I feel bad when people
• 1:35
  work on their hair real good, especially ladies, and they
• 1:37
  get it all nice, and then they have to fucking
• 1:39
  smush it with this thing.
• 1:40
  Speaker 2: Okay, if you ever have that kind of consideration for me,
• 1:43
  I'm going to be very disappointed. I thought we were closer.
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: Some people worry about that.
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: No, I worry about the gray.
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: That you have gray in your hair?
• 1:52
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: Well, you're like pretty dark for your age. How old
• 1:56
  do you know?
• 1:56
  Speaker 5: 60.
• 1:57
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: You have fucking dark ass hair for your age. If
• 2:01
  I had hair and it grew out like my side hair,
• 2:03
  it's mostly gray now.
• 2:05
  Speaker 3: Yeah?
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm starting to get some gray hair in my.
• 2:08
  Speaker 3: Eyebrows a little bit.
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: What's up?
• 2:09
  Speaker 2: I should have thought ahead like you did. what shaved
• 2:12
  it yeah shaved it when everyone knew it wasn't gray
• 2:14
  and then it's just normal because it's very clear if
• 2:16
  i shave it now i.
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: Think you can avoid gray hair with proper supplementation at
• 2:22
  least that is the the thought today that with uh
• 2:26
  enough zinc and copper and that somehow or another that's
• 2:30
  involved in the diet i'm talking out of my ass
• 2:33
  here i don't know that much about um What causes
• 2:37
  your hair to go gray.
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: This is Austin tap.
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: Other than this is a Buffalo trace older than America.
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: Really?
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: Yeah. This is a distillery from 1773. I believe they started.
• 2:50
  Speaker 3: Wow.
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: Them apples.
• 2:52
  Speaker 4: Huh?
• 2:52
  Speaker 2: It's like that Chinese sounding beer. Yunling or something.
• 2:55
  Speaker 3: Cheers. My friend.
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: Buffalo trace is like you.
• 2:58
  Speaker 3: Why is there.
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: Their beard? Really old beer. Really old.
• 3:03
  Speaker 2: Um, they have an old beer. Yudeling.
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: Is it old as fuck?
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: Jamie knows everything. He knows a lot.
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: 1829.
• 3:13
  Speaker 2: You see? People say, I have this AI. I'm using cloud.
• 3:17
  I'm using chat GPT.
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: I use Jamie.
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: Jamie, for sure.
• 3:22
  Speaker 3: He's way better than AI.
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: He's way better than AI because he's kind of psychic.
• 3:26
  You're a little psychic, right? A little bit.
• 3:28
  Speaker 4: Well, I mean, I've listened to you talk a lot.
• 3:30
  Speaker 2: My theory is that he also looks ahead. He knows
• 3:33
  sort of where you're likely to head, so he's got
• 3:35
  it ready.
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: Oh, 100%. He knows how my goofy fucking brain works.
• 3:39
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: For sure. Good to see you, my brother. Good to
• 3:44
  see you. Hello, Joe. What was it exactly? How would
• 3:48
  you describe it? A speech? A presentation?
• 3:51
  Speaker 2: I gave a talk on dark energy. to the Karch
• 3:56
  Group at the UTexas Austin Physics Department.
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: This is what I wanted to ask you about. Michio
• 4:00
  Kaku has been saying that he believes that dark energy
• 4:03
  is possibly something leaking in from another dimension. Is that–
• 4:06
  look at that face. Look at that face.
• 4:13
  Speaker 2: Go on.
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: He gave a little side eye. Well, let's see what
• 4:16
  he says. James, see if you can find that, please.
• 4:17
  I think– He said it was gravity. Hands from different.
• 4:22
  Speaker 2: Colonies and put them together as a kid just to
• 4:24
  see what happens.
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: Did I? No, I never did that.
• 4:28
  Speaker 3: I did that.
• 4:29
  Speaker 6: Oh, why?
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: Just watch him fight?
• 4:30
  Speaker 6: Oh, yeah.
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: Oh, you're a fucking psycho.
• 4:31
  Speaker 2: Yeah, a little bit.
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: No, I never did any of that.
• 4:34
  Speaker 2: You were saying about Michio.
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I didn't even read it. I just saw it
• 4:39
  and went, oh, Jesus, I got to talk to Eric
• 4:40
  about this. Michio suggests dark matter isn't matter at all.
• 4:46
  It's gravity leaking in from a parallel dimension. And this
• 4:50
  guy won't do mushrooms. Isn't that wild? What do you
• 4:56
  think about that?
• 4:56
  Speaker 2: Do you remember when I was here and I said,
• 4:59
  get Michio Kaku in here with me?
• 5:01
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: What is it about? Well, clearly he's a brilliant guy.
• 5:05
  Speaker 2: He is and was a brilliant guy. He's decided to
• 5:09
  do something else. And to be entirely honest, I don't
• 5:13
  love going after other named people. In general, my shtick
• 5:18
  is that I go hard after institutions. I'm a huge
• 5:21
  institutional supporter and their worst nightmare in the current world.
• 5:26
  Individuals I don't like beefing with. I watch all of
• 5:29
  the energy, the beauty of life lost to beefing with people.
• 5:33
  Michio Kaku is doing a tremendous amount of damage to
• 5:36
  theoretical physics.
• 5:37
  Speaker 3: How so?
• 5:38
  Speaker 7: Yeah.
• 5:43
  Speaker 2: Theoretical physics is in my estimation, the most beautiful, most powerful,
• 5:47
  most economically potent thing you can do with your life.
• 5:52
  And we are the best. The United States is in
• 5:55
  my opinion, the greatest nation in the history of the
• 5:58
  earth for theoretical physics, because we are cowboys. We are irreverent.
• 6:04
  We are the, we are the people who invented the
• 6:06
  atomic and hydrogen bombs, the semiconductor, um, This is what
• 6:13
  we do and we've lost the ability to do it
• 6:18
  at a level that I cannot believe happened during my watch,
• 6:21
  my lifetime. So from 1984 to the present, those 42
• 6:27
  years have been the greatest intellectual implosion I think that
• 6:34
  I know of where people just got dumber.
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: And what do you think is the cause of that?
• 6:38
  I'm going to distract this.
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: Quantum gravity.
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: Quantum gravity?
• 6:42
  Speaker 3: Yep.
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: In 1984, there was a result, and it's called the
• 6:49
  Green-Schwartz anomaly cancellation. And the guy that I've talked to
• 6:53
  you about before in UFO context, the guy who is
• 6:57
  Lewis Witten's son, Lewis Witten, happy birthday, turned 105, was
• 7:03
  the anti-gravity guy from the 50s. His son, Edward Witten,
• 7:07
  decided that the 1984 Green-Schwartz anomaly cancellation meant that we
• 7:13
  should all, all the smartest people should pile into one
• 7:16
  narrow subspecialty and that that was the future. And because
• 7:20
  he was so much smarter than all of us, people
• 7:23
  listened and I didn't. And Michio Kaku is part of
• 7:28
  his wave. Almost all of the people that you've traditionally
• 7:31
  had on in physics have some connection to this. So
• 7:35
  you've had on, I don't know, probably Sean Carroll, Neil
• 7:42
  deGrasse Tyson, Brian Green, nobody wanted to say what was happening,
• 7:48
  which is that we were, we were being unraveled and destroyed.
• 7:51
  Our ability to be the world's greatest theoretical physicist was
• 7:55
  being eroded year by year for 42 years.
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: And specifically the pursuit of string theory.
• 8:02
  Speaker 2: It's not string theory itself. That's the problem. String theory
• 8:06
  is harmless. It's just a bunch of equations, a bunch
• 8:08
  of ideas, and it's beautiful mathematics in many places. So, um,
• 8:13
  That's not an issue. The issue is the exclusion of
• 8:18
  everything else. And this goes under the name TOGIT or
• 8:22
  the only game in town, T-O-G-I-T. And it's this idea
• 8:26
  that only we, the enlightened, can do theoretical physics and
• 8:31
  the rest of you are just doing finger exercises and
• 8:35
  you're too stupid to know it.
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: So specifically, what is– What's isolationist about string theory? What
• 8:43
  is it about this one particular theory that all this
• 8:47
  thought has been pushed into that?
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: The claim is that there's this thing called UV complete physics.
• 8:57
  There's no way that we can have a discussion about
• 8:59
  that directly. If I could ask Jamie, could I impose
• 9:03
  upon you to call up on YouTube Wheel of Fortune
• 9:08
  And then use, I've got a good feeling about this.
• 9:12
  I can explain it to you.
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: Wheel of Fortune, I've got a good feeling about this?
• 9:15
  Speaker 2: I've got a good feeling about this.
• 9:17
  Speaker 5: Okay.
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: Is that an episode of Wheel of Fortune?
• 9:18
  Speaker 2: It'll be over briefly. It's very, very quick. It's about
• 9:21
  a minute and a half or something. And the key
• 9:25
  point is it's a tight analogy for the problem faced
• 9:28
  in physics that anyone can understand. So I don't, people
• 9:31
  think I try to make things complicated. I really try
• 9:33
  to make them understandable. But what I do is I
• 9:35
  talk about things I don't know that you've ever had
• 9:38
  anyone talk about UV completeness on the.
• 9:40
  Speaker 3: Joe Rogan experience.
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: I don't believe so.
• 9:41
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: Okay, put your headphones on.
• 9:43
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: Well, you're not going to be able to hear it
• 9:46
  unless you have headphones on.
• 9:47
  Speaker 2: I know it like the back of my hand.
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: Wheel of Fortune.
• 9:53
  Speaker 8: We need a phrase this time.
• 9:55
  Speaker 2: That's the category for this puzzle.
• 9:56
  Speaker 3: And it is a prize puzzle.
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: Go ahead, Rick. Gladly. And what do we get here?
• 10:12
  Speaker 2: 500. R.
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: Boy, you'd think there'd be an R in there somewhere,
• 10:17
  wouldn't you?
• 10:17
  Speaker 6: Oh, man.
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: Oh, man. L.
• 10:28
  Speaker 3: One L.
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: What's that?
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: Can I solve? Okay.
• 10:37
  Speaker 4: It is a prize puzzle.
• 10:38
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 10:39
  Speaker 7: I've got a good feeling about this.
• 10:43
  Speaker 3: That's right.
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: That's insane. That lady's a wizard.
• 10:49
  Speaker 2: That lady is what I want to do with my life.
• 10:53
  That is what great physics looks like. It's totally irresponsible. And,
• 10:58
  you know, Pat Sajak is like trying to ask her, like,
• 11:01
  how'd you do that? And she says, well, I had
• 11:03
  a good feeling about this. You know, and the funny
• 11:06
  part about it is you can figure it out. If
• 11:09
  you go back, Jamie, can you show the board right there?
• 11:13
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 11:14
  Speaker 2: So clearly that apostrophe is a huge clue, right? So
• 11:18
  the idea is that if you read that property, is
• 11:20
  that I'll? Is it I've?
• 11:23
  Speaker 3: Right?
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: And then there's no R. So think about all of
• 11:29
  those blank squares as orders of magnitude that you are
• 11:33
  away from the energies that would allow you to do
• 11:35
  experiments that would explain physics. And think about the apostrophe,
• 11:39
  the L in that pattern, as well as the fact
• 11:42
  that there's no R as the standard model of physics.
• 11:47
  So right now, what you have is a debate about
• 11:49
  whether or not we should buy more and more letters
• 11:51
  with higher and higher energy. Or like should we build
• 11:55
  bigger accelerators and spend more treasure trying to collide particles?
• 12:00
  Or should we just Caitlin our way out of this?
• 12:02
  So Caitlin Burke is my model of what I think
• 12:05
  we're supposed to be doing.
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: So an exceptional mind with an ability to see or
• 12:11
  propose things that other people aren't seeing.
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: How– I guarantee you that if we studied this, if
• 12:17
  we spent a month with the world's smartest people on
• 12:20
  this puzzle, we'd learn that there are certain things that
• 12:24
  were present, that the frequency of certain– the fact that
• 12:28
  there's a single letter there that almost certainly is I
• 12:31
  or A. She took a tiny number of clues. But
• 12:35
  here's the really important thing. Jamie, can we show the
• 12:39
  filled-in puzzle?
• 12:39
  Speaker 3: Sure.
• 12:45
  Speaker 2: So you'll notice that the word this could be changed
• 12:49
  to that because the only letter that's been excluded is
• 12:52
  an R. So that is what the issue of unique
• 12:57
  UV completion is. In other words, a unique UV completion
• 13:02
  would say there's only one phrase that fits there. She
• 13:05
  guessed– she couldn't have known it isn't I've got a
• 13:07
  good feeling about that or I've got a nice feeling
• 13:10
  about this or that. So it's actually not– or I'll
• 13:16
  get a good feeling about this. But all of those
• 13:19
  were much less probable because they're just not as natural.
• 13:25
  So this is a combination of science, guesswork, and raw courage.
• 13:31
  Like the most marvelous thing about that exchange is she says,
• 13:34
  can I solve? And there's like, he's not even sure
• 13:38
  he's hearing her properly. And then finally he says, okay,
• 13:42
  that's gatekeeping. Can I put this article on the archive?
• 13:45
  Can I give a seminar in your department? I want
• 13:49
  to solve the puzzle. And a lot of what we're
• 13:51
  arguing about is that the string theorists are the only
• 13:54
  ones who have the right to try to solve the
• 13:57
  puzzle at the moment. So imagine that somehow there's a
• 14:01
  rule that only Rick, poor Rick, who guesses that there's
• 14:05
  an R, imagine that he's the only one allowed to
• 14:07
  solve the puzzle. And when she asks, may I solve
• 14:10
  the puzzle?
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: No, no, no.
• 14:12
  Speaker 2: You can't. That's pseudoscience. You're a charlatan. That is crank physics.
• 14:21
  So that's what the problem that we're facing is, is
• 14:23
  that we've got one group that got control of the
• 14:27
  gatekeeping who is very good at mathematics, extremely bad at physics.
• 14:35
  And they've redefined what physics is and what good science
• 14:38
  is where they're the only ones who are guessing the puzzle.
• 14:40
  They can't guess the puzzle. And everyone else is like,
• 14:44
  here's a crazy story from yesterday. I wasn't allowed to
• 14:49
  say that I gave a talk in the physics department,
• 14:51
  even though any normal person would say that that happened.
• 14:55
  And I wasn't allowed to do that when I visited
• 14:57
  a physics institution in Canada. I wasn't allowed to say
• 15:01
  that I was visiting for a week, nor was I
• 15:04
  allowed to say that I gave a seminar that lasted
• 15:06
  nine hours.
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: But you just did.
• 15:08
  Speaker 8: Yeah.
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: Are you a lawbreaker?
• 15:10
  Speaker 2: I'm breaking the rules now because I've Now I've had it.
• 15:14
  I agreed to not do this. And with these missing scientists,
• 15:20
  I've changed my mind. I'm not going to deal with
• 15:24
  these people anymore. And whatever is going on with science
• 15:27
  and the suppression of different ideas is terrifying. Right now
• 15:36
  we have a situation. I gave a talk at the
• 15:38
  University of Chicago. There's no record of it.
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: Who's asking you to do these talks and who's asking
• 15:44
  you to not give a record? You don't have to
• 15:46
  name names.
• 15:47
  Speaker 2: Yeah, particular people. In general, the funny part is that
• 15:51
  the people who ask me to give talks in the
• 15:52
  physics departments are the most courageous person in each department.
• 15:58
  So the problem is that the person that you end
• 16:01
  up feeling resentful towards, how dare you tell me that
• 16:03
  I can't give this talk in this department officially, is
• 16:07
  the person who's arranging for your stay. And is arranging
• 16:11
  for the room. And they are under the most pressure
• 16:15
  from the institution.
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: So the institution is forcing them to say, you're allowed
• 16:21
  to give the talk, but you're not allowed to talk
• 16:24
  about it on social media. You're not allowed to advertise
• 16:27
  that you're doing it. You're not allowed to say that
• 16:29
  you're doing it.
• 16:29
  Speaker 2: So in this case, in the case of UTexas Physics Department,
• 16:33
  I was allowed to say I'm speaking in the Karch
• 16:35
  Group Seminars. It's like a condom to make sure that
• 16:38
  the physics department doesn't get pregnant.
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: Well, isn't that really bizarre? Because University of Austin, Texas
• 16:43
  was supposed to be a university that fixed all the
• 16:47
  bullshit that was wrong with other universities.
• 16:50
  Speaker 2: Oh, it's much more insane than that. This was the
• 16:52
  home of Steven Weinberg who moved from Harvard to Texas
• 16:56
  because the money– the oil money was used to buy brains.
• 16:59
  So– Basically, Texas raided Harvard for people like John Tate
• 17:04
  in the math department, Steven Weinberg, who was probably the
• 17:07
  greatest living theorist. And that was the continuation of the
• 17:12
  Bryce DeWitt group from North Carolina Chapel Hill that was
• 17:16
  set up to do anti-gravity by Agnew Bainson. So you're
• 17:20
  right next to an amazing physics department with a crazy
• 17:25
  history that in fact touched anti-gravity. This is one of
• 17:30
  the tiny number of places that has a real legacy
• 17:35
  in that department. And I was speaking there on gravity,
• 17:39
  on dark energy. And look, I've been lying my whole
• 17:47
  life about my relationship with the physics world because of
• 17:50
  this pressure. They can't listen to me if I say
• 17:53
  I'm a physicist. So I say I'm an entertainer.
• 17:57
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 17:58
  Speaker 2: But people say, well, why would you do that? Why
• 17:59
  would you say that you're an entertainer when you obviously
• 18:02
  are conversant at all this stuff? And the answer is
• 18:05
  I don't want to die. I don't want to lose
• 18:07
  my ability to enter a physics department. So I take
• 18:10
  on this completely wrong persona. And I have the emails.
• 18:14
  You're not giving a talk. You're having conversations in room 5308.
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: It literally says you're not giving a talk?
• 18:21
  Speaker 2: I could read what it is that they write to me.
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: But what is the benefit of this formal declaration or
• 18:28
  this formal designation of the way you're talking?
• 18:31
  Speaker 2: So when I was at a physics institute in Canada,
• 18:35
  I was told, we're worried that you're going to use
• 18:37
  it to legitimize yourself. It's like, I'm going to do that.
• 18:43
  Of course I'm going. I have a PhD from Harvard,
• 18:46
  you stupid.
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: I mean, like.
• 18:50
  Speaker 2: You guys imagine I'm a podcast guest.
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: This episode is brought to you by Squarespace. Once you've
• 18:58
  got a great name for your business, you need a
• 19:00
  great domain. And Squarespace makes it easy to lock in
• 19:04
  a domain. You just search the name you want, buy it,
• 19:07
  and then you're ready to build. No hidden fees, no
• 19:10
  weird upsells. Go to squarespace.com slash Rogan for a free trial.
• 19:16
  And when you are ready to launch, use the code
• 19:18
  Rogan to get 10% off your first purchase of a
• 19:21
  website or domain.
• 19:23
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: Just a regular dude with some wacky ideas.
• 19:26
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 19:27
  Speaker 2: And so the idea is I have to play that
• 19:28
  character as opposed to.
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: Legitimizing yourself is a very bizarre phrase.
• 19:34
  Speaker 2: Tell me about it.
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: Because it's assuming that you're not legitimate. Do you know
• 19:39
  what I'm saying?
• 19:40
  Speaker 2: I don't think you're understanding this.
• 19:42
  Speaker 1: No, I am understanding it. But from their perspective, saying
• 19:46
  that you're going to use it to legitimize yourself and
• 19:47
  your ideas is a really crazy way to phrase it
• 19:51
  because like they're acting from the assumption that you're not legitimate.
• 19:55
  Speaker 2: So that's– you remember when like I think Reagan thought–
• 19:59
  I forget who it was. Reagan thought there were recallable missiles.
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: Well, you could turn them around?
• 20:03
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: Sorry. We changed our mind. So– Like a base jumper
• 20:07
  who's also a suicide jumper?
• 20:08
  Speaker 8: Yeah.
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: On second thought.
• 20:12
  Speaker 3: Halfway through.
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: Halfway in, he's like, oh, fuck this. No, I like cheesecake.
• 20:16
  Speaker 2: Yeah, a lot of these people who survive jumping off
• 20:18
  the Golden Gate Bridge, they learn, like, I love life.
• 20:20
  Speaker 3: Yes. Yes.
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: Most of them. They're reborn. Yeah.
• 20:24
  Speaker 2: So what I would say is the problem is that
• 20:28
  I am– this is not a boast. As you know,
• 20:32
  I don't usually put my credential first. I'm probably the
• 20:36
  most blue-chip. defector from the institutions, mutineer, let's call it that,
• 20:45
  I have essentially perfect credentials. And that's the problem. So
• 20:51
  it's not a question about you're going to legitimize it.
• 20:54
  I already legitimized myself by Harvard PhD, MIT postdoc, NSF
• 21:00
  postdoctoral fellow, ONR top in the country, Sloan Foundation grantee.
• 21:04
  I've been in math, physics, economics departments. I'm so bulletproof that.
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: So that's the problem.
• 21:10
  Speaker 2: That's the problem.
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: That's the problem. It's not that you're a kook.
• 21:12
  Speaker 2: That's what I was trying to say. You didn't understand.
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: No, I do understand. I just don't understand why they
• 21:17
  want to do that to you. That's what's bizarre. Narrative. Okay.
• 21:22
  Speaker 2: I am the greatest danger to the narrative. I'm the
• 21:26
  most followed mathematician in the United States. Maybe the world,
• 21:31
  Hannah Fry, maybe above it. That danger to the narrative.
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: Well, specifically for people who don't know what we're talking about,
• 21:40
  what is– to make this a standalone show, the people
• 21:43
  that are not aware of your work, what is it
• 21:45
  about you and your ideas that they are so hesitant
• 21:50
  to platform or legitimize or why you're such a danger?
• 21:55
  Speaker 2: Okay. So in 2001, I said mortgage-backed securities were a
• 22:00
  great danger to the world. I have one of the
• 22:02
  first published papers on the danger of illiquid– of the
• 22:05
  pricing of illiquid securities. I went on Chris Williamson's show
• 22:09
  and he asked me who's going to win, Biden or Trump.
• 22:13
  I said, you don't even know whether Biden's going to
• 22:14
  make it to November. I said that the people, representatives
• 22:18
  of the Democrat Party reached out to me and said,
• 22:20
  stop talking about Biden's dementia. You need your affirmation that
• 22:24
  you're seeing something real. We've put in three people as
• 22:27
  a committee to replace the president. And I said, like,
• 22:30
  I'm supposed to feel good about that?
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: Yeah. So I keep– What they told you?
• 22:36
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: They put in three people?
• 22:38
  Speaker 2: They put in a committee of three people and if
• 22:40
  you knew who those people were, you'd be pleased as punch.
• 22:42
  So shut up.
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: That's what they said to you?
• 22:45
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 22:45
  Speaker 2: Correct.
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: You would be really happy. So shut up? Yeah. They
• 22:49
  didn't even tell you who the people were?
• 22:50
  Speaker 2: I think that they did and I've conveniently forgot them.
• 22:53
  One of them might have been the chief of staff.
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: Wow.
• 22:58
  Speaker 2: So– It's like– But I say this, right? And I'm
• 23:01
  not trying to– I mean I keep lots of secrets
• 23:07
  that people ask me to keep that I should keep,
• 23:09
  things having to do with national security for example. But
• 23:13
  these people are incompetent and they're a danger to us.
• 23:17
  And right now the string theory narrative is a complete danger.
• 23:20
  It's not string theory that's the problem. It's the only
• 23:23
  game in town. And so there was a– look, people
• 23:29
  are willing to spend their entire credibility– Just to make
• 23:35
  me go away.
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: Could you briefly just describe like what is the– so
• 23:40
  there's not a problem with string theory or string theory
• 23:43
  not complete or is string theory– has it reaped actual results?
• 23:49
  Speaker 2: Mathematically, it's reaped results. And string theorists have occasionally done
• 23:55
  really great work in a subject called quantum field theory.
• 23:58
  But quantum field theory isn't about the quantum field theory
• 24:01
  of the world. Quantum field theory is like calculus. It's
• 24:04
  something that's very useful and it grew up in physics.
• 24:09
  But we've now found out that quantum field theory has
• 24:11
  to do with pure problems in mathematics that have nothing
• 24:14
  to do with physics. And what they haven't done is
• 24:18
  they haven't dealt with the physical world. So if you
• 24:20
  take physics, why do we care about physics so much
• 24:23
  more than really almost any other aspect of the sciences
• 24:26
  other than biology? I had to give a talk at
• 24:30
  the New York Deep Tech Week. Shout out to those guys.
• 24:34
  And I put it on the slide as three things.
• 24:37
  There's boom, vroom, and zoom. Easy to remember. Boom is weapons.
• 24:43
  Physics will create weapons. You'll dwarf everything else with the
• 24:49
  possible exception of biologicals. Vroom is energy. And the story
• 24:57
  of energy is basically the story of prosperity and control.
• 25:00
  If you look at wealth and the amount of fossil
• 25:02
  fuels burned, it's more or less like a one-to-one correlation
• 25:06
  as to which nations are rich and poor per capita.
• 25:09
  And Zoom is everything else. It's propulsion. It's computation. It's communication.
• 25:17
  And those things, if you take them together, more or
• 25:22
  less define the economy in the world order. Physics is...
• 25:26
  the center of what makes us modern humans. And it
• 25:35
  became too dangerous in the 1950s. Even the 40s, you know,
• 25:40
  atomic weapons are extremely bad, but they're not hydrogen bombs.
• 25:45
  Somehow in November of 52, everything changed and we became
• 25:52
  We became too dangerous. The community of physicists is the
• 25:55
  most powerful group of people made into completely ineffectual humans.
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: And do you think this is by design?
• 26:04
  Speaker 2: Partially.
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: And what was the purpose of it? By saying that
• 26:08
  physicists became too dangerous, the ideas became too dangerous, is
• 26:12
  the idea that the weapons would become so immense and powerful?
• 26:16
  That they had to do something to stop and curb that?
• 26:18
  Speaker 2: Well, we didn't know how to control it, right? So
• 26:21
  in other words, for example, in 1940, we set up
• 26:25
  something called the Reference Committee, which I'm sure your listeners
• 26:28
  have never heard of. And the Reference Committee lived inside
• 26:30
  of the National Resource Council. Now, why was it important?
• 26:34
  Because chain reaction physics was so hot. Once the neutron
• 26:38
  was found, So think about neutrons as bullets. They can
• 26:43
  go right into the middle of an atom because they're
• 26:45
  not positively charged. So they're not going to be repelled
• 26:47
  by the nucleus. And they can bust apart atoms that
• 26:51
  are barely being held together. And that's why you get bullets,
• 26:56
  be getting bullets, be getting bullets. And that's what a
• 26:58
  chain reaction is. The people who were doing that in
• 27:01
  the 30s suddenly found that when they mailed off a
• 27:04
  paper to a journal, if they weren't part of the
• 27:07
  secret group in Los Alamos... their paper got held up
• 27:12
  and sent back for revisions. And there was no money
• 27:16
  in it. We secretly set up this thing to shunt
• 27:19
  real research into the National Resource Council. I think this
• 27:23
  was organized by a guy named Bright, B-R-E-I-T. And That
• 27:30
  was the beginning of this whole peer review control mechanism.
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: And this control, do you think is this ego-based that
• 27:37
  the people who are the gatekeepers want to remain in
• 27:39
  the position of?
• 27:41
  Speaker 2: We all want to survive, Joe. I mean, this is
• 27:43
  a real problem. So you and I can hate on
• 27:45
  the institutions all we want from the safety of the JRE.
• 27:49
  But what are you going to do when it becomes really,
• 27:53
  really easy for people to commit like mass murder, if
• 27:59
  you think about all the really bad mass, like the
• 28:01
  Vegas shooting that never really got sorted out, it's very
• 28:05
  hard to kill large numbers of people using things like bullets.
• 28:11
  If you want to really kill a large number of people,
• 28:13
  you're going to go to biologicals and you're going to
• 28:15
  go to nuclear. And what happens when that becomes easy?
• 28:19
  Like maybe it's a lot easier to build these weapons
• 28:21
  than the way we currently do it. Right now we're
• 28:25
  bottlenecked on things like centrifuges. And by the way, who
• 28:29
  knows what the next innovation in physics is going to bring?
• 28:32
  So I always say this thing about if you're not
• 28:33
  tracking everybody at my level, what are you doing as
• 28:37
  an intelligence service?
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: Is this part of your concern about the missing scientists?
• 28:41
  Speaker 2: Yeah, of course.
• 28:42
  Speaker 5: Yeah.
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: So the missing scientist narrative for people that aren't aware
• 28:45
  of it, I think they're up to 15 now. And
• 28:48
  a lot of people say that some of these connections
• 28:49
  are baseless and that some of them– We're not really
• 28:52
  up to 15.
• 28:53
  Speaker 8: No.
• 28:54
  Speaker 3: OK.
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: So what do you think we're actually up to?
• 28:55
  Speaker 3: I don't know.
• 28:56
  Speaker 2: Probably 15. Five or six.
• 28:59
  Speaker 1: But I saw someone online did a breakdown of it
• 29:02
  and essentially they were saying that the odds of this
• 29:04
  being a coincidence are off the charts. That the people
• 29:08
  that are all involved in very specific types of technological research,
• 29:14
  different things that are top secret, that all of these
• 29:18
  people either wind up missing.
• 29:19
  Speaker 2: There's a lot of murder in math and physics first
• 29:22
  of all. People don't really appreciate that. The Unabomber was
• 29:26
  a famous PhD mathematician.
• 29:30
  Speaker 1: He's a big story, though. There's a lot of great stories.
• 29:31
  Speaker 3: Yeah, sure.
• 29:32
  Speaker 2: There was a guy named Cantor who broke into David
• 29:37
  Rittenhouse Laboratories in the University of Pennsylvania. where I was
• 29:40
  an undergraduate and shot up a seminar. There was this
• 29:47
  situation in Iowa where a relative of mine got a
• 29:50
  seat in the physics department because somebody was killed by
• 29:54
  one of the graduate students. I think it became a
• 29:56
  movie like Dark Matter. So there's an incredible amount of murder.
• 30:02
  The ball-peen-hammer killing of, what was it, Carl DeLue by
• 30:06
  Strzelecki at Stanford. So first of all, there's just a
• 30:12
  lot of death because mathematicians and physicists are somewhat close
• 30:17
  to unhinged. And it's a really nasty– there's a lot
• 30:21
  of nasty culture and sometimes it becomes violent.
• 30:23
  Speaker 1: Why do you think they're close to unhinged?
• 30:28
  Speaker 2: You spend that much time in your head? I'm amazed
• 30:32
  that I'm as well grounded as I am.
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: No, seriously.
• 30:35
  Speaker 2: You're just way out in the stratosphere. I completely forget
• 30:39
  who I am, where I am, that I'm even a
• 30:41
  human being. When you're using your body as an instrument,
• 30:44
  as you do in combat sports and training, you become
• 30:48
  a different thing. You know that archery thing where you
• 30:52
  have to twist your arm? a lot of people don't
• 30:56
  know that they can do that initially, like just a
• 30:58
  small thing like that.
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: Or, you know, he's talking about archery thing that you
• 31:00
  twist your arm.
• 31:02
  Speaker 2: If you have an old style bow, you often get
• 31:06
  burned by the.
• 31:07
  Speaker 1: Oh, the, you have to twist your arm like that.
• 31:09
  Speaker 2: Just like, yeah.
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: So you're not like this.
• 31:11
  Speaker 2: And get hit, but you don't see what you're saying,
• 31:13
  but then you twisted your wrist. You keep your wrist straight.
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: Just, I don't do that kind of archery. That's why
• 31:18
  I'm confused.
• 31:19
  Speaker 2: Well, okay. Sorry.
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: You do real this, this kind.
• 31:22
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: You keep your hand like that.
• 31:23
  Speaker 6: Okay.
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: Um, That's a torque issue.
• 31:26
  Speaker 2: But like if you're, if you're, if you're a sniper,
• 31:28
  you know, there are all sorts of things about breathing
• 31:29
  in your eye, how you adjust your eyes.
• 31:31
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 31:33
  Speaker 2: You use your body as an instrument as a mathematician
• 31:35
  or a physicist. One of the reasons that I, I
• 31:37
  wish I were in better shape is that in order
• 31:39
  for me to keep my mind in a particular way,
• 31:42
  I have to not think constantly about suppressing food, you know?
• 31:46
  So what you're doing, you're doing a very unnatural thing.
• 31:51
  And that unnatural thing, uh, Not everybody can handle it.
• 31:57
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 31:58
  Speaker 2: I see what you're saying. And we snap. And also
• 32:01
  our minds are more perfect. The messiness of the world
• 32:04
  and the perfection of our minds is at odds with
• 32:06
  each other. And I love disappearing into math and physics
• 32:11
  because it's perfect.
• 32:12
  Speaker 1: But how does that lead to violence?
• 32:15
  Speaker 2: You're upset because people are lying. Like the Unabomber had
• 32:19
  really interesting points. He wasn't a dumb guy. He was
• 32:23
  really correctly– You know, he has an amazing story called
• 32:28
  Ship of Fools. I highly recommend anybody read it. Just
• 32:31
  the way Charles Manson's Look at Your Game Girl is
• 32:34
  a great song.
• 32:36
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 32:37
  Speaker 2: It's a great song.
• 32:37
  Speaker 5: Okay.
• 32:39
  Speaker 2: Yeah. We're not comfortable in part with coming back to
• 32:46
  the half measures and the special pleading that sort of
• 32:51
  characterizes normal life.
• 32:53
  Speaker 3: So.
• 32:54
  Speaker 2: To get back to the missing scientist narrative, I don't
• 32:58
  think there are 15 missing scientists in this data set.
• 33:00
  That's bullshit.
• 33:02
  Speaker 1: It seems like they're adding as many as they can.
• 33:03
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 33:04
  Speaker 1: They're trying to make connections that don't seem to.
• 33:06
  Speaker 3: Don't do that.
• 33:07
  Speaker 2: It's like the junkification of the UFO narrative. All of
• 33:10
  these narratives have a junk to them so that– and
• 33:15
  I believe a lot of the junk is affixed to
• 33:17
  the narrative so that those who want to follow the
• 33:20
  institutional instruction to ignore the fact that this is happening.
• 33:24
  can point to the crappiness, right? And so that's the out.
• 33:29
  And the really difficult thing that you do and you
• 33:32
  do really well is you try to piece together, okay,
• 33:36
  what's bullshit, what's real? There's a lot of real in
• 33:38
  the UFO story and there's a lot of nonsense. There's
• 33:41
  a lot of real in the COVID story and a
• 33:43
  lot of nonsense. The same thing is true for physics,
• 33:46
  but physics is more dangerous. And the fact that we're
• 33:50
  not tracking, like I always wonder why they allow me
• 33:53
  to come on the JRE and say stuff. I know
• 33:59
  a lot of stuff that I don't know what it unlocks.
• 34:03
  Speaker 1: Well, it's easy to dismiss anybody who comes on here.
• 34:06
  Speaker 2: Sure, but China is smarter. And by the way, the LLMs,
• 34:09
  I mean, look, there are a lot of threads here.
• 34:13
  To get back to the physics, and I'm giving a
• 34:15
  talk tomorrow at the UTexas Austin on supporting science, math,
• 34:22
  and physics and renewing our commitment to it. I don't
• 34:26
  want to give the impression that it isn't dangerous or
• 34:28
  that the gatekeeping is stupid. It's really important to do
• 34:32
  great gatekeeping around mathematics and physics. It's cryptography. It's weaponry.
• 34:38
  It's propulsion. It's a sudden change in the world economy.
• 34:44
  If you figured out how to do fusion, it would
• 34:47
  have immediate geopolitical results.
• 34:50
  Speaker 1: So these specific scientists that are missing– whatever the number is, five, six,
• 34:56
  that you think are legitimate, what specifically are they working
• 34:59
  on that's so dangerous?
• 35:01
  Speaker 2: Well, the fusion guy, obviously, is at MIT, is anybody
• 35:06
  who might, I don't know, fusion isn't my thing, plasma
• 35:09
  isn't my thing. But that is unquestionably dangerous if you
• 35:15
  imagine how much depends on oil.
• 35:17
  Speaker 1: And is it a good assumption that if you have
• 35:20
  one incredibly brilliant person that's at the head of this
• 35:23
  thing And they make a breakthrough. If you kill that guy,
• 35:26
  the whole thing is in disarray because the people that
• 35:29
  are under him, whatever people he has working with him
• 35:33
  aren't as fully immersed in it as he is. That
• 35:37
  you can kind of like handicap a problem. It's like
• 35:41
  let's say if there's– The top five people. It's an
• 35:43
  energy thing. Let's say if it's an energy thing. Let's
• 35:45
  say if someone has some new technology that's going to
• 35:47
  completely disrupt the fossil fuels industry.
• 35:49
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: And they go, listen, we can kill this fucking guy.
• 35:53
  And it's still coming down the pipe, but we'll delay
• 35:56
  it by 10 years and make $ 15 trillion.
• 35:59
  Speaker 2: So this is a question about the far right tail,
• 36:05
  like the extreme right tail of human intelligence and ability.
• 36:09
  And if you think about certain areas where you have
• 36:11
  a dominant figure, Rodney Mullen in skateboarding, for example, what
• 36:17
  percentage of all tricks derive from Rodney Mullen? You couldn't
• 36:21
  have stopped skateboarding. but you could certainly have held it
• 36:24
  back by getting to Rodney Mullen.
• 36:26
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 36:27
  Speaker 2: Uh, when it comes to, you know, guitar, the, the
• 36:30
  amount of impact that, uh, Jimi Hendrix and Eddie Van
• 36:35
  Halen had is just wildly disproportionate. You know, when I,
• 36:39
  when I was doing my podcast, I was really excited
• 36:42
  to do Rodney Mullen and Eddie Van Halen together. I
• 36:45
  wanted to get them, you know, totally different sports, but, um,
• 36:50
  Those two guys are sort of the same. They just
• 36:52
  created so much vocabulary, you can't even imagine it.
• 36:55
  Speaker 1: Eddie Van Halen doesn't get the credit he deserves either.
• 36:59
  Speaker 2: Tell me. Talk to me.
• 37:00
  Speaker 1: Well, it's just Van Halen became Van Hagar, and it
• 37:07
  became a different kind of music. And I think a
• 37:12
  lot of the original hardcore fans left, but I think
• 37:16
  it got more popular with Sammy Hagar. Sure. But it
• 37:19
  was a different kind of music. And not that it's bad,
• 37:23
  but it's different. And then I think a lot of
• 37:26
  people just went, nah. But if you go to some
• 37:32
  of the big Van Halen with David Lee. I think
• 37:35
  Van Halen with David Lee Roth in his prime was
• 37:38
  literally a perfect band.
• 37:39
  Speaker 2: It was phenomenal.
• 37:41
  Speaker 1: They were the shit when I was in high school.
• 37:43
  I mean, everybody had Van Halen on their notebooks. They
• 37:46
  made the VH.
• 37:47
  Speaker 2: I remember it.
• 37:47
  Speaker 1: They were awesome. And they were so good. And Eddie
• 37:52
  specifically could shred so hard in some of those classic riffs.
• 37:58
  I just don't think in the mainstream world he got
• 38:01
  the credit that he deserves.
• 38:05
  Speaker 2: I see it differently.
• 38:06
  Speaker 1: Well, people mention Clapton, who, of course, is a great wizard.
• 38:10
  Always it's number one is Hendrix. Most people have Hendrix
• 38:12
  as number one because he was so revolutionary. Well, nobody's
• 38:15
  going to say Alan Holdsworth. Yeah, I don't know who
• 38:17
  he is.
• 38:18
  Speaker 3: Exactly.
• 38:18
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 38:19
  Speaker 2: I mean, my point is, is that David Lee Roth
• 38:24
  kept Eddie Van Halen from becoming Alan Holdsworth. And that's.
• 38:30
  Speaker 1: Who's Alan Holdsworth?
• 38:32
  Speaker 2: Oh, it's interesting. Alan Holdsworth. Like if you talk to
• 38:36
  your hot shit guitarist friends, they will very often. Like
• 38:40
  everybody will just pause and say, well, yeah, that's Alan Holdsworth.
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: Really? Yeah.
• 38:46
  Speaker 3: And.
• 38:47
  Speaker 2: It's sort of like listening to a modem for normal
• 38:49
  human beings, right? That's why it's just not popular.
• 38:54
  Speaker 1: So Eddie Van Halen was this– Who did he play with?
• 38:57
  Speaker 2: I don't know. Alan Holdsworth.
• 38:58
  Speaker 1: Just by himself?
• 38:59
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 38:59
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 39:00
  Speaker 2: Can we just actually weirdly put Alan Holdsworth? Just like
• 39:03
  choose something with a.
• 39:04
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. We'll listen to some of his music. We
• 39:05
  might have– we'll edit it out of the episode because
• 39:07
  otherwise we get dinged on YouTube.
• 39:08
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 39:09
  Speaker 2: Well, I don't want you to– okay. But we'll play it.
• 39:10
  Speaker 1: We'll play it and then we'll just come right back
• 39:12
  to it.
• 39:12
  Speaker 3: All right. Let's do that.
• 39:13
  Speaker 1: Give me some, Jamie. Was it– is there any specific
• 39:15
  song that you'd like?
• 39:17
  Speaker 2: No, at all. It's all mind-melting.
• 39:19
  Speaker 4: Check it to see if he's got anything popular we
• 39:21
  might have known so I could tap into that, but
• 39:24
  I don't see nothing.
• 39:27
  Speaker 1: Is there a song that you like that you could recommend?
• 39:29
  Speaker 2: I just listen to a certain amount of it, and
• 39:31
  then I don't listen to it again. I'm not at
• 39:33
  that level where I need Alan Holdsworth.
• 39:36
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 39:37
  Speaker 2: What does that mean?
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: No, what does that mean? Thank you, Jamie.
• 39:41
  Speaker 2: I'd rather see some guy flying through the air with
• 39:44
  his pants on fire than listen.
• 39:46
  Speaker 5: To Alan Holdsworth.
• 39:46
  Speaker 1: Panama.
• 39:49
  Speaker 3: Okay, here we go.
• 39:50
  Speaker 1: Live in Tokyo. 1984, live in Tokyo.
• 39:52
  Speaker 4: Tokyo Dream.
• 39:59
  Speaker 1: See if you can use the histogram to figure out.
• 40:02
  Speaker 2: Where the nerds are going.
• 40:04
  Speaker 1: Histogram?
• 40:05
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it shows you where people spend their time on
• 40:08
  a video.
• 40:09
  Speaker 3: Oh, really?
• 40:12
  Speaker 1: I would go right into the middle of it or something.
• 40:14
  Speaker 3: I'm already checking.
• 40:15
  Speaker 1: What are you doing?
• 40:15
  Speaker 3: All right.
• 40:22
  Speaker 2: These concerts sell out?
• 40:23
  Speaker 1: Nothing's going on right now. Put it in the middle, Jamie.
• 40:55
  Speaker 4: You've heard this before, though?
• 40:56
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 40:57
  Speaker 1: Is that a bass?
• 40:57
  Speaker 4: What is the other guitar I'm hearing? Because that is
• 41:00
  not matching up with what that bass player seems to
• 41:03
  be playing. Do you hear that extra guitar?
• 41:07
  Speaker 1: That's slower and off time.
• 41:10
  Speaker 2: I don't know.
• 41:11
  Speaker 1: That's a bass, I think.
• 41:20
  Speaker 2: It doesn't sound like it's playing. My guitarist friends will
• 41:23
  just salivate. And I'll look at them.
• 41:27
  Speaker 1: They need help.
• 41:27
  Speaker 2: They need help.
• 41:29
  Speaker 4: I mean, no offense, but it's... It can't be very.
• 41:36
  Speaker 1: It sounds like jazz, right? So it's like jazz guitar. Like,
• 41:40
  there's no singing. I apologize, sir.
• 41:42
  Speaker 2: Well, look. If I put on.
• 41:44
  Speaker 3: No more Jerry. I've had it.
• 41:51
  Speaker 1: Oh, Jamie.
• 41:55
  Speaker 2: Jamie, you are going to have so much nerd hate.
• 41:57
  Speaker 1: That's fine. He gets that every day.
• 41:58
  Speaker 4: People will agree with me too, I believe.
• 42:01
  Speaker 1: Oh, 100%.
• 42:02
  Speaker 2: More will agree with you.
• 42:02
  Speaker 1: I'm on your camp.
• 42:03
  Speaker 2: That was my point. I think David Lee Roth had
• 42:07
  some comment about it. If it weren't for me, the
• 42:09
  brothers would be playing biker bars in the Far Valley
• 42:13
  or something. And so David Lee Roth came up with
• 42:16
  what we would call the syntactic sugar formula. The thing
• 42:19
  that made Van Halen fun and listenable and danceable, like
• 42:24
  Dance the Night Away.
• 42:25
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 42:26
  Speaker 2: I didn't like Van Halen.
• 42:28
  Speaker 1: I love that song. I never liked Van Halen. Oh,
• 42:31
  how dare you.
• 42:31
  Speaker 2: Well, but I loved Eddie Van Halen.
• 42:33
  Speaker 1: You didn't like Van Halen?
• 42:38
  Speaker 3: I didn't.
• 42:39
  Speaker 2: I'm not even embarrassed about that. The one I'm embarrassed about,
• 42:42
  I completely dismissed ACDC in real time because I'm an idiot. Oh,
• 42:48
  I've never been more wrong about something in my life.
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: How did you dismiss ACDC?
• 42:52
  Speaker 2: Good question. They had a dumb thing going on with
• 42:56
  the school pants and the dirty deeds done dirt cheap
• 43:00
  and fucking song.
• 43:01
  Speaker 3: What?
• 43:01
  Speaker 2: Great song. Well, you know, like musically hot for teacher
• 43:05
  is an amazing composition.
• 43:07
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 43:08
  Speaker 1: Unbelievable.
• 43:09
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 43:09
  Speaker 2: But, but it's the key thing that they figured out
• 43:12
  is making things marketable.
• 43:14
  Speaker 6: Right.
• 43:15
  Speaker 1: And that's David Lee Roth.
• 43:16
  Speaker 2: And I think it's David Lee Roth.
• 43:19
  Speaker 1: He was so charismatic and did jumping splits. Yeah, he
• 43:23
  was amazing.
• 43:24
  Speaker 2: Amazing. And he had a secret weakness for old-timey music.
• 43:29
  Speaker 3: Right. Right?
• 43:30
  Speaker 2: Like Just a Gigolo, Ice Cream Man, all that kind
• 43:33
  of stuff. So he's like almost a throwback to 1930s, even.
• 43:39
  Speaker 3: Earlier, vaudeville.
• 43:40
  Speaker 1: He's an odd guy. Have you ever met him?
• 43:42
  Speaker 2: I've wanted to so bad.
• 43:44
  Speaker 1: I'm so jealous. But I don't think you ever really
• 43:46
  get to him. It's always the show. Like in podcasts,
• 43:52
  I really enjoy talking to him, but it's a little odd.
• 43:54
  Speaker 2: I didn't love the way he was. I would go
• 43:59
  the Jewish angle. I would connect to him based on
• 44:02
  shared cultural heritage. But what I think about Eddie is
• 44:08
  that Eddie wasn't just a guitarist. He was an electronics guy.
• 44:11
  He was a keyboard player. He was... handsome as the
• 44:14
  day is long bursting with charisma. And like you and
• 44:20
  I mostly don't know whether guys are good looking. I
• 44:23
  know Eddie Van Halen was good looking.
• 44:25
  Speaker 1: Tell me more.
• 44:28
  Speaker 2: He, he, he was the whole thing.
• 44:30
  Speaker 1: Yeah, for sure. Right.
• 44:32
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 44:32
  Speaker 2: And so my feeling is, is that those two guys really,
• 44:37
  you know, it's, it's one of those things where you
• 44:38
  have two guys in a band that, Both of them
• 44:42
  are one in a billion kind of people, and they
• 44:43
  happen to meet. I'm happy to be wrong about Van Halen,
• 44:50
  but I didn't do it in real time. I came
• 44:52
  to it later. But I remember the first time I
• 44:54
  heard Van Halen 1, I had the same mystical thing.
• 44:58
  What is that? Nothing sounds like this. I've almost never
• 45:04
  had that in music. The first time I heard Smells
• 45:07
  Like Team Spirit, what is that? Those, you know, there
• 45:10
  are these moments where something discontinuous happens.
• 45:12
  Speaker 1: But you heard, like, Ain't Talk About Love and that
• 45:15
  never got you?
• 45:16
  Speaker 2: No, Panama doesn't get me. Ain't Talk About Love.
• 45:20
  Speaker 1: Is a fucking jam. When was the last time you
• 45:25
  listened to it?
• 45:28
  Speaker 2: This year.
• 45:28
  Speaker 1: And nothing? It's not that.
• 45:32
  Speaker 3: Well, okay, so.
• 45:34
  Speaker 2: Part of the thing is, is that do you play
• 45:37
  an instrument?
• 45:38
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that is a problem. Yeah, I don't play anything.
• 45:41
  Speaker 2: You know, the thing about Eddie Van Halen is that
• 45:43
  he accepted the geometry of the neck of the guitar.
• 45:48
  And very often you see musicians say, I don't care
• 45:51
  what key it's in. I can figure out how to
• 45:52
  do anything. Eddie Van Halen didn't do that. He said, look,
• 45:55
  there's certain things that this thing makes possible. And I'm
• 45:59
  going to accept the limitations of the instrument. And figure
• 46:05
  out how to push it in all sorts of ways.
• 46:06
  Another quote of his that I just love is this
• 46:08
  thing about... If it doesn't cry, weep, moan, I don't care.
• 46:17
  He wanted all of those noises. And figuring out how
• 46:22
  to get those noises. Figuring out how to make the
• 46:24
  guitar into more. This is a thing that obsesses people
• 46:26
  like Jeff Beck or Roy Buchanan or Eddie Van Halen.
• 46:31
  Where they're just... They're in some other space where it's
• 46:37
  no longer an instrument the way you and I see it.
• 46:41
  You know, I've never wanted a whammy bar on my
• 46:44
  instrument until I saw Jeff Beck do crazy stuff that
• 46:51
  just isn't possible.
• 46:52
  Speaker 1: I never tell you I drove him around once.
• 46:53
  Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
• 46:54
  Speaker 2: We had that car on air.
• 46:55
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 46:56
  Speaker 2: And that, you know, you've never had Derek Trucks on
• 47:02
  the program, have you?
• 47:03
  Speaker 1: Tedeschi Trucks?
• 47:04
  Speaker 2: Uh, yeah, no, that guy would not a human.
• 47:11
  Speaker 1: Oh, he's amazing.
• 47:12
  Speaker 3: Amazing.
• 47:13
  Speaker 1: And, um, there's a bunch of different people sing songs.
• 47:17
  Speaker 2: So yeah, I look, I care tremendously about the guitar.
• 47:21
  And the funny thing that I realized is that I
• 47:23
  stupidly mentioned guitars on Jerry and I got sent amazing guitars.
• 47:28
  And I had, I had Jamie sent a, a quad cortex. Um,
• 47:34
  I should have mentioned like Lamborghinis or like jewels or something.
• 47:37
  Speaker 1: It doesn't work.
• 47:38
  Speaker 2: I've mentioned all those things. Okay. But I became friends
• 47:42
  with like the greatest guitarists of our time. And they're
• 47:47
  all suffering because nobody cares. And I heard, and I
• 47:50
  haven't seen it, that you had Marcus King on and
• 47:54
  talked about the death of rock.
• 47:56
  Speaker 1: Well, I talked about the death of rock before and
• 47:58
  Marcus reached out. And that's why I had him on.
• 48:00
  He's like, man, rock's not dead. We're doing it every
• 48:02
  fucking night. And I was like, all right, come on, man.
• 48:03
  Let's talk.
• 48:05
  Speaker 2: And did you get to the blues, which he excels at?
• 48:08
  Speaker 1: Well, we mostly just were talking about just music in
• 48:11
  general in his life.
• 48:12
  Speaker 2: Boy, did he give you a nice guitar.
• 48:15
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's beautiful, right? He's a cool motherfucker.
• 48:17
  Speaker 2: He's a cool guy.
• 48:17
  Speaker 1: And he's super talented, too.
• 48:19
  Speaker 2: Never met him.
• 48:20
  Speaker 1: Well, it's like these, this is what my conversation was about. Like,
• 48:26
  this is what prompted it, rather. When I was a kid,
• 48:30
  rock and roll music was the big popular music.
• 48:33
  Speaker 2: 100%.
• 48:34
  Speaker 1: It was all Rolling Stones, ACDC. These bands were huge. Zeppelin.
• 48:41
  They were fucking huge. They were the biggest bands. That's
• 48:45
  not the case anymore.
• 48:45
  Speaker 2: That's right.
• 48:46
  Speaker 1: And that's weird. And what I said is I don't
• 48:49
  understand how a music genre that's so popular can stop
• 48:55
  being popular when it's still so good. Like when we
• 48:58
  have Protect Our Parks and we'll play Freebird, we still
• 49:02
  go nuts for that. Guitar solo?
• 49:04
  Speaker 2: What happened to Freebird? I'm pretty sure if you looked
• 49:08
  at Google's data, Freebird was in– it went away for
• 49:13
  a long time. And then it got resurrected as a meme, right?
• 49:18
  Because you can feel this insanely long intro. Just so luxurious.
• 49:25
  You can't believe anybody would put up with it anymore.
• 49:28
  Speaker 3: And then.
• 49:28
  Speaker 1: It's two different songs.
• 49:29
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 49:30
  Speaker 1: Lord knows I can't... And then all of a sudden
• 49:34
  it becomes alive.
• 49:35
  Speaker 9: Right?
• 49:36
  Speaker 2: Fly high, free bird.
• 49:37
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 49:38
  Speaker 3: And then.
• 49:40
  Speaker 2: Suddenly you're on fire.
• 49:41
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 49:42
  Speaker 2: You know, it's just like, you want to fly an
• 49:43
  American flag. You want to shoot lasers, whatever it is.
• 49:48
  That feeling I think went away. And I think that,
• 49:52
  I think that free bird, if I'd love to see
• 49:54
  the data, it came back. And in part, it was
• 49:58
  probably Trump and Elon and this re we're in a
• 50:03
  masculinity crisis world over. And the masculinity crisis is, Originally
• 50:10
  killed Freebird, and it brought it back.
• 50:12
  Speaker 1: I think Freebird was brought back by Protect Our Parks. Okay.
• 50:17
  You think so?
• 50:17
  Speaker 4: I mean, as Google Trends says, it's never really gone away.
• 50:22
  Speaker 3: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. What is.
• 50:24
  Speaker 1: There's a peak in 2010.
• 50:25
  Speaker 4: There's a peak around December 9th, 2010.
• 50:28
  Speaker 1: Wait, wait, that's 20... A peak in 2010. That's weird.
• 50:33
  Speaker 4: Something could have happened.
• 50:34
  Speaker 2: We could look it up.
• 50:35
  Speaker 1: I wonder what it was.
• 50:36
  Speaker 8: Yeah.
• 50:36
  Speaker 4: Probably was in a movie or something.
• 50:38
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it seems pretty steady.
• 50:39
  Speaker 2: Well, the reason that I said that is that I
• 50:42
  would make this reference because you used to be able
• 50:45
  to refer to Freebird. It was a meme.
• 50:48
  Speaker 1: Right, right, right.
• 50:48
  Speaker 2: Everybody knew it.
• 50:49
  Speaker 1: Yeah, people would yell it out.
• 50:50
  Speaker 2: And then there was a period of time where no
• 50:52
  young person had any clue what I was talking about.
• 50:55
  And I know, oh, that's interesting because they still knew
• 50:58
  Stairway to Heaven. If you remember these like top 500
• 51:01
  songs of all time.
• 51:02
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 51:03
  Speaker 2: And then it would always come down to the last
• 51:05
  two and it would always be Freebird and Stairway to Heaven.
• 51:08
  Those would invariantly.
• 51:10
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 51:11
  Speaker 2: Then suddenly nobody knew what Freebird was and now everybody
• 51:14
  knows again. So I– Yeah. I will stay uncorrected but
• 51:21
  there was a period of time when young people didn't
• 51:23
  know it.
• 51:24
  Speaker 1: Well, is this Google Trends? Is that what that is?
• 51:25
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 51:26
  Speaker 1: So it's just people looking up.
• 51:27
  Speaker 4: I could even go like that's probably when they put
• 51:29
  the video on YouTube for the first time or it
• 51:32
  became available on Apple for the first time to download
• 51:34
  and it wasn't only on Napster or something like that.
• 51:36
  Speaker 2: But to go back to the blues aspect of it,
• 51:39
  it's blues-based rock that feels like that thing that you
• 51:44
  and I relate to.
• 51:46
  Speaker 1: And this episode is brought to you by Manscaped. Wondering
• 51:50
  what to get your dad on Father's Day? The beard
• 51:54
  and dome bundle from Manscaped is a really solid option.
• 51:58
  I've been using their dome shaver for a while now,
• 52:00
  and the thing I like about it is how easy
• 52:02
  it makes everything. You don't have to think about it.
• 52:04
  It just glides over your head, gets everything clean, no
• 52:07
  weird patches, no going over the same spot 10 times. Honestly,
• 52:12
  it's so much better than any of the other brands
• 52:14
  I've tried. And then there's the Beard Hedger. It's got
• 52:17
  this zoom wheel with 20 different length settings that's built
• 52:20
  right in. So if you want to get your dad
• 52:23
  something he'll actually use, the Beard and Dome Bundle from
• 52:26
  Manscaped is an easy pick. Get 15% off plus free
• 52:31
  shipping with the code ROGAN15 at manscaped.com. That's 15% off
• 52:36
  plus free shipping with code ROGAN15 at manscaped.com.
• 52:41
  Speaker 2: You know, we're not most, I'm really into the blues,
• 52:45
  but that's, uh, it's its own controversy because when black
• 52:49
  audiences stopped showing up to blue shows, the performers got
• 52:53
  worse because the audience was a huge part of the experience.
• 52:59
  I tell you about this argument I got into with
• 53:00
  John Mayer about the blues.
• 53:02
  Speaker 1: No.
• 53:04
  Speaker 2: So I, I ran into John Mayer, um, San Vicente bungalows. And,
• 53:11
  I've been in awe of that guy intellectually. When he
• 53:15
  talks about music, I get so much out of it.
• 53:17
  He's just a very perceptive, very brilliant guy. And so
• 53:21
  I was really excited to meet him. And we get
• 53:24
  into this discussion. And I said, you're like a huge
• 53:27
  Stevie Ray Vaughan fan. And I said, I really don't
• 53:31
  get it. I like him. I think he's a great player.
• 53:34
  But I don't understand the focus. And he said, oh,
• 53:36
  I can explain that. He said, I came from the
• 53:38
  MTV generation. And he was the blues packaged for us.
• 53:43
  Like a genius guy, for sure, but packaged for MTV.
• 53:48
  He said, but you know, blues isn't really, blues isn't
• 53:56
  a real musical form. It's an ingredient. I said, what
• 53:59
  are you talking about? He says, well, you would never
• 54:01
  go to a blues show. I said, I can't believe
• 54:05
  I'm saying this to John Mayer, but I don't think
• 54:08
  you know what you're talking about.
• 54:10
  Speaker 1: House of Blues.
• 54:12
  Speaker 2: It's literally– Well, he meant something.
• 54:15
  Speaker 1: A bunch of different venues.
• 54:16
  Speaker 2: So the thing is, is that I caught the end
• 54:18
  of black audiences, like old black people listening to the
• 54:23
  blues and paying for it. So there's who pays and
• 54:25
  who plays. And black people are still paying for blues,
• 54:29
  but a lot of them aren't– are still playing blues,
• 54:32
  but a lot of them aren't paying for it. So
• 54:34
  when I go, for example, to see Cadillac Zach's Maui
• 54:38
  Sugar Mill show every Monday night, I go– occasionally in, uh,
• 54:42
  in Tarzana, it's like 70 year old and up white people.
• 54:48
  So you see like hot chicks in their eighties and
• 54:51
  crop tops dancing. And that's what it is now. It's
• 54:55
  like a really old crowd keeping this thing alive. And
• 54:59
  I can't understand it because it feels great, Joe.
• 55:01
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 55:02
  Speaker 2: And, um, and that's the thing. It's just like, you know,
• 55:07
  Bonamassa is, He does these cruises, keeping the blues alive.
• 55:11
  My feeling is like, F that. We've got to actually
• 55:15
  get people back into understanding what it is. So if
• 55:20
  you picture those huge bands in your youth, stop thinking
• 55:24
  about the band on stage rocking out and pan in
• 55:28
  your mind into the audience. And what do you see?
• 55:32
  Speaker 3: Young people.
• 55:33
  Speaker 2: Young people.
• 55:36
  Speaker 3: What are they doing?
• 55:37
  Speaker 1: Dancing, having fun.
• 55:38
  Speaker 2: They're dancing. There's some chick in a crop top on
• 55:42
  some guy's shoulders rocking out.
• 55:45
  Speaker 1: Free bird.
• 55:46
  Speaker 2: When hot chicks stop dancing to your music, it starts
• 55:50
  to enter its death throes.
• 55:51
  Speaker 3: Damn.
• 55:51
  Speaker 2: And that's true with jazz. It's true with traditional R
• 55:55
  & B. And it's true with the blues. It's true
• 55:59
  with rock. And so the important thing, and I keep
• 56:01
  telling people, is that you have to get people dancing.
• 56:05
  Once you start becoming intellectual, like Alan Holdsworth. Nobody's dancing
• 56:08
  to Alan Holdsworth.
• 56:10
  Speaker 1: Maybe you are.
• 56:10
  Speaker 3: That's not my shit.
• 56:14
  Speaker 1: You have no idea. I don't have any answers to it, Jamie.
• 56:17
  Speaker 2: What do you think?
• 56:17
  Speaker 3: Dude.
• 56:17
  Speaker 4: Honestly, you guys sound old as shit right now. There's
• 56:20
  so much music and rock music in arenas right now
• 56:24
  that's selling out.
• 56:24
  Speaker 1: What is rock in arenas right now?
• 56:26
  Speaker 4: There's a bunch of bands.
• 56:28
  Speaker 1: Bad Omens, Beartooth.
• 56:30
  Speaker 4: Korn just posted a video in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
• 56:32
  Speaker 1: 50,000 people going crazy. Yeah, like Meshuggah. It's out there. Yeah.
• 56:38
  Speaker 4: But it's not what you guys don't like it either.
• 56:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah, but it's not the big popular music that it
• 56:44
  was when I was a kid.
• 56:45
  Speaker 4: There's only five artists in the world that are popular
• 56:48
  like all over the.
• 56:49
  Speaker 2: Place right now. That's right. Because it's now micro.
• 56:52
  Speaker 1: Right. Right, because there's too many bands. There's too much music.
• 56:54
  Too much content.
• 56:55
  Speaker 2: The control of the institutions to tell us what we
• 56:58
  like has slipped. And so in part, you know, like
• 57:04
  it was our version of payola that, you know, when
• 57:09
  I was growing up in LA, it was KMET and
• 57:12
  KLOS that determined or KROQ. Those are the three stations
• 57:16
  that mattered. And they told us, here's the offering, boys.
• 57:22
  This is what's on tap. Right now, you know, are
• 57:25
  you into MathCorp?
• 57:26
  Speaker 1: Do you think that's it? It's the death of– because, wow,
• 57:30
  now that you're saying that, I'm thinking the death of
• 57:32
  radio and the death of rock and roll, they sink.
• 57:37
  Because radio really stopped being a thing early 2000s. Early 2000s,
• 57:47
  radio stopped being a thing.
• 57:48
  Speaker 2: Well, remember when LimeWire came through and everybody could get
• 57:51
  all the songs that they wanted.
• 57:53
  Speaker 1: Right. That was an issue. But it felt like, if anything,
• 57:56
  I thought at the beginning when Metallica was railing, when
• 57:59
  Lars Ulrich was railing against Napster, I'm like, these are
• 58:02
  just your fans. They're just your fans that are getting
• 58:05
  your music for free. You're going to have to adapt,
• 58:07
  but they still love you. And don't you make most
• 58:10
  of your money touring? Or I don't know. I don't
• 58:12
  know what the economics of it are, but they're going
• 58:14
  to change. This is a new thing.
• 58:15
  Speaker 2: Right now, micro markets, just in prog metal, there are
• 58:20
  so many different flavors.
• 58:22
  Speaker 1: I understand, but- What we're getting at is that the
• 58:27
  radio sort of dictated what became popular in a lot
• 58:31
  of ways. And now things become popular in more of
• 58:34
  a sense of a viral way.
• 58:36
  Speaker 2: Sure. Well, one thing is that these clips, if your
• 58:39
  clip gets picked up by TikTok and Instagram reels, that's
• 58:44
  some tiny fraction of a song is the catnip that
• 58:48
  leads everyone to your door.
• 58:49
  Speaker 1: 100%. I've downloaded many, many songs that way.
• 58:53
  Speaker 2: But I was hanging with Misha Mansoor who was making
• 58:56
  the Jamie claim like you got old grandpa. And his
• 58:59
  point– yeah. The thing is I have at least the
• 59:04
  courage to hang out with actually cool people. He said–
• 59:07
  his point was you're just not even watching it. correctly.
• 59:10
  I said, what do you mean, Misha? He said, video games.
• 59:14
  Video games. The music in video games matters much more
• 59:18
  than you imagine. It's like totally right.
• 59:21
  Speaker 1: That makes sense.
• 59:22
  Speaker 2: And so what we are thinking about in get off
• 59:26
  my lawn mode is– There was something lost and it
• 59:31
  hasn't been reborn anywhere. So that's the part that young
• 59:34
  Jamie is not getting correct. Something was just lost. Now,
• 59:39
  lots of new stuff sprouted up. But like EDM and
• 59:43
  DJing is really where a lot of that dancing hot
• 59:47
  chick energy went.
• 59:50
  Speaker 1: That makes sense.
• 59:51
  Speaker 3: Yeah. Right?
• 59:52
  Speaker 1: And that's where guys want to go, where the dancing
• 59:55
  hot chicks are.
• 59:57
  Speaker 2: They will follow anywhere.
• 59:59
  Speaker 3: Right. Right?
• 1:00:00
  Speaker 2: And, you know, that's the whole.
• 1:00:02
  I was in.
• 1:00:03
  Speaker 1: What's this, Jamie?
• 1:00:04
  Speaker 4: This is EDC Vegas 2026. This is just the example
• 1:00:07
  of what you're saying.
• 1:00:08
  Speaker 1: Is this electronic?
• 1:00:09
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:00:10
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 1:00:10
  Speaker 4: This is like as big as it gets. If I
• 1:00:11
  look at the stage, look at all these lights.
• 1:00:14
  Speaker 1: I wonder if Molly didn't exist, how much of this
• 1:00:16
  would be out there?
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 6: I mean.
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 1: It's a good question, right?
• 1:00:19
  Speaker 4: LSD didn't exist, how much of that music wouldn't have
• 1:00:21
  gotten big, too?
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 1: Oh, a lot.
• 1:00:23
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 1:00:24
  Speaker 4: But yeah, this is where all the.
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 1: Girls sing out. Right.
• 1:00:26
  Speaker 2: So, like, I found myself in... In Vegas.
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 4: Except for Ella Langley now is sort of antithesis to that.
• 1:00:34
  Speaker 1: What is? Ella Langley. What's that?
• 1:00:36
  Speaker 4: She's biggest country artist in almost ever now. First female
• 1:00:40
  with like two top 100 songs ever.
• 1:00:43
  Speaker 1: How am I so out of the loop? What's her
• 1:00:46
  big song? Oh, I know that song. That song's great.
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 2: She's got another one now.
• 1:00:50
  Speaker 1: And has she been around for a long time? Nope.
• 1:00:52
  Speaker 2: Pretty new.
• 1:00:53
  Speaker 1: She's like 24, 25. And she's killing it.
• 1:00:55
  Speaker 3: Murdering it.
• 1:00:58
  Speaker 2: So part of what's going on is there's no way
• 1:01:01
  to monitor. Like even if you have really current young people,
• 1:01:06
  they're monitoring a subset of what's going on. Nobody is
• 1:01:10
  tracking the whole thing.
• 1:01:11
  Speaker 1: Right. And why country though? Why is country exploding the
• 1:01:14
  way it's exploding?
• 1:01:15
  Speaker 2: Well, because we're all in a meaning crisis. If you
• 1:01:17
  think about the way in which country music, for example,
• 1:01:22
  can develop a story through tropes very, very quickly.
• 1:01:28
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 3: Right?
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 2: And so in part, the idea is that story songs
• 1:01:34
  and a return, try that in a small town, is transgressive.
• 1:01:42
  Try that in a small town.
• 1:01:43
  Speaker 3: Is a.
• 1:01:44
  Speaker 2: Really powerful message.
• 1:01:46
  Speaker 8: Right.
• 1:01:47
  Speaker 2: You don't have to say a lot. And we all
• 1:01:49
  want the cowboy. We all want the girl at the
• 1:01:52
  county fair. We just don't know how to get back
• 1:01:56
  to her.
• 1:01:58
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 1:01:58
  Speaker 2: We don't want a wholesome existence. You know, I got
• 1:02:03
  a barbecue stain on my white t-shirt. That's Tim McGraw, right? Like,
• 1:02:07
  you know, she's killing it in that miniskirt, you know,
• 1:02:11
  heart don't forget something like that. Beautiful story. Very, very
• 1:02:15
  quickly told. That's old now, but the point being, um,
• 1:02:23
  hip hop is, And its storytelling and the return to
• 1:02:26
  spoken word and poetry and the legacy of the talking
• 1:02:29
  blues had a great run, spread worldwide. You know, you
• 1:02:35
  talk about whites taking over. What do you mean whites?
• 1:02:37
  Like Tamils. And, you know, indigenous Peruvians have taken over
• 1:02:43
  hip hop in their local sectors. So hip hop was
• 1:02:47
  just this great platform that once every local culture figured
• 1:02:53
  out some version of that. And I talk about when
• 1:02:57
  I entered Bollywood, there was a song, you know, mama, look,
• 1:03:05
  your child is being ruined. And it has this like, hey, mom, hey, dad,
• 1:03:11
  don't moan and groan. Why don't you learn to live
• 1:03:13
  with the times and please leave us alone? Which is
• 1:03:16
  every generation's message. Yeah, but it's delivered in boogie-woogie, reggae, rap,
• 1:03:21
  rock and roll, and bungra. It was the first lame
• 1:03:26
  attempt at rap that I saw in a Bollywood film
• 1:03:29
  with Jackie Shroff. And they've all made it theirs. And
• 1:03:34
  so I was hanging out in India now with a
• 1:03:35
  DJ on his program, Untriggered. And it's changing the developing world, um,
• 1:03:47
  at a level that rock and roll changed us. It
• 1:03:50
  was a, you know, the music of liberation. John Mayer's
• 1:03:52
  point of course, is that the guitar, the electric guitar
• 1:03:54
  retains the stylistic characteristics of cars in the 1950s. And
• 1:04:00
  that thing was the twin experience of having a car
• 1:04:04
  and having a guitar was, was personal expression and liberation
• 1:04:07
  for fifth, for American males in the fifties.
• 1:04:11
  Speaker 3: So, um, Yeah.
• 1:04:15
  Speaker 2: But I think a lot about our guitarist friends because
• 1:04:17
  they're suffering. The world's greatest guitarists are living today and
• 1:04:20
  nobody cares. They all follow each other. The funny thing
• 1:04:25
  is if you start following these people on Instagram, as
• 1:04:27
  I do, um, I look to see which of my
• 1:04:30
  friends are following the great guitarists and it's other great guitarists.
• 1:04:37
  It's none of my normal friends. Like how many of
• 1:04:40
  my normal friends know who Tim Henson is a great
• 1:04:42
  Texas guitarist, uh, I do. This man.
• 1:04:47
  Speaker 1: Do you?
• 1:04:47
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:04:48
  Speaker 1: What kind of music?
• 1:04:50
  Speaker 4: I can't even explain it. He pretty much invented a
• 1:04:53
  genre that only he mastered and can explain.
• 1:04:57
  Speaker 1: It's like Tex-Mex.
• 1:05:00
  Speaker 3: Melodic.
• 1:05:02
  Speaker 2: If I had a glass and I broke it, if
• 1:05:04
  I took Tex-Mex and I broke it on the ground
• 1:05:05
  and I reassembled it from different things, it's completely angular
• 1:05:09
  and an idea will last. It's like a psychedelic thing
• 1:05:12
  where it'll last for five seconds and it'll be on
• 1:05:15
  to the next thing and it's just angular and fragmented
• 1:05:18
  and sewn together and beautiful and inspiring.
• 1:05:21
  Speaker 1: Give me some, Jamie.
• 1:05:22
  Speaker 4: Yeah, I have to play it for you because the
• 1:05:24
  drummer and bass player are also awesome, but it pretty
• 1:05:28
  much revolves around the guitar.
• 1:05:30
  Speaker 2: And you see, the thing is that they're so tight
• 1:05:32
  with each other that, you know, a better example even
• 1:05:36
  than this would be this thing that they released called Goat,
• 1:05:38
  which was the thing that put them on the map.
• 1:05:41
  Speaker 1: And That was great.
• 1:05:46
  Speaker 2: Right?
• 1:05:47
  Speaker 1: Also, Tim is just like the loveliest human being.
• 1:05:49
  Speaker 4: I watched him as a young boy.
• 1:05:51
  Speaker 1: Boy, I was him before he got all the crazy
• 1:05:52
  neck tattoos. Oh. Well, that's just broken out.
• 1:06:02
  Speaker 3: I don't know.
• 1:06:04
  Speaker 5: It's not Tim, is it?
• 1:06:06
  Speaker 1: They posted it. It says it's Tim.
• 1:06:11
  Speaker 2: This is a different human.
• 1:06:13
  Speaker 1: Let's hear the song.
• 1:06:14
  Speaker 8: Okay.
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 1: I think that's someone posting a riff. That was their account. Yeah,
• 1:06:20
  I know, but maybe he just put.
• 1:06:21
  Speaker 3: It up there.
• 1:06:24
  Speaker 2: By the way, do you hear the Mexican influence?
• 1:06:27
  Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely. So like, this is very unique, very unique sound.
• 1:06:31
  Speaker 2: This is who I hang with. I love these guys.
• 1:06:33
  This is, this, this matters to me. And this is new, right?
• 1:06:37
  And just the way this, uh, what like Antoine de Patrain,
• 1:06:41
  that's taking over the world is basically you hear the
• 1:06:44
  middle East. Um, But these guys are basically into microtones.
• 1:06:49
  If you take 24 beats, you can divide it by sixes.
• 1:06:51
  You can divide it by fours. So the mathematics of rhythm,
• 1:06:59
  you know, the stuff that like only Vinnie Cayuda was
• 1:07:01
  able to do before people are sort of getting hip
• 1:07:04
  to things that were happening on Oud are now happening
• 1:07:06
  on microtonal guitars. And what it is, as I see it,
• 1:07:10
  is this violent birth of people bored by standard Western forms.
• 1:07:16
  And I'm For this, I'm not for all of the
• 1:07:21
  slop that, you know, like young people are always into
• 1:07:23
  the coolest stuff. No, they're not. There are lame times.
• 1:07:26
  There are cool times. There's really cool stuff happening now.
• 1:07:29
  But it's the fact, particularly this Quebec kind of thing
• 1:07:36
  that broke out with these guys in costume.
• 1:07:39
  Speaker 6: Huh?
• 1:07:42
  Speaker 2: You don't know this?
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 1: Antoine de Portrain, something like that. There's something back costumes.
• 1:07:48
  Speaker 2: Look, you remember the residents who were this art group
• 1:07:51
  from San Francisco and nobody knew who they were. They
• 1:07:53
  would have giant eyeballs as heads and they would play
• 1:07:57
  completely insane things like Johnny Cash's ring of fire, but
• 1:08:01
  in angular, bizarre ways.
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 1: I missed that too.
• 1:08:04
  Speaker 2: Okay.
• 1:08:05
  Speaker 1: Did you miss it?
• 1:08:07
  Speaker 2: So Antoine, the pot train is, is this thing that
• 1:08:11
  took over, which doesn't sound like anything. It's like that
• 1:08:14
  new thing. So, you know, because... So look at that guitarist, Fred. It's... Now,
• 1:08:53
  the mathematics of this is that there's this freak fact,
• 1:08:58
  which is that if you take the octave. which is
• 1:09:00
  doubling a frequency, you take the 12th root of it,
• 1:09:04
  break it into 12 semitones, and then take 19 of
• 1:09:07
  them stacked. 2 to the 19 over 12 is equal
• 1:09:10
  to 2.996 something. It's almost 3. And that means that
• 1:09:14
  you can force people into this quantized music where you
• 1:09:18
  come up with this number 12, which is magical for
• 1:09:21
  number theory reasons. And you can fool the ear into
• 1:09:25
  thinking that 19 of these 12 semitones is a complete
• 1:09:31
  tripling of frequency. And because of that, we've been in
• 1:09:35
  even tempered music since the time of Bach. And these
• 1:09:37
  guys are breaking us out together with Jacob Collier. They're saying,
• 1:09:42
  why would you accept that as a prison?
• 1:09:45
  Speaker 1: And so how does stuff like this become popular? Is
• 1:09:47
  it just viral?
• 1:09:49
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:09:50
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:09:50
  Speaker 2: Because suddenly you see two guys in costumes that don't
• 1:09:53
  look anything like anything you know making music. There's a
• 1:09:58
  moment where it switches into six beats per unit, into
• 1:10:03
  four beats per unit because it's on a 24 cycle.
• 1:10:06
  And suddenly you just feel good.
• 1:10:08
  Speaker 1: And also if any of these guys get cocky, you
• 1:10:10
  can just swap them out. put a mask on some
• 1:10:16
  new guy, get them in there. No, but it's, it's anti-egoic.
• 1:10:19
  Speaker 2: It's anti-egoic.
• 1:10:20
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 1:10:21
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 1:10:21
  Speaker 2: So in part, you know, it's like buckethead, buckethead didn't
• 1:10:24
  want to be like, you have trouble being Joe Rogan.
• 1:10:27
  I even have trouble being Eric Weinstein. I'm a fraction
• 1:10:30
  of a Joe Rogan. It's hard to be well-known. And
• 1:10:33
  these guys are erasing themselves. And that idea of, you know, um,
• 1:10:38
  it's very funny. Tim Henson, I think has a song
• 1:10:40
  called ego death with, uh, Steve Vai. Um, Ego death
• 1:10:45
  is really hot because people are racing themselves is what
• 1:10:48
  everybody isn't trying to do who's chasing clout.
• 1:10:54
  Speaker 1: And people like that.
• 1:10:56
  Speaker 2: Yeah, because it's a form or they don't just like that.
• 1:11:00
  They also don't mind if you're chasing clout and you say,
• 1:11:04
  I'm chasing some clout.
• 1:11:07
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 1:11:08
  Speaker 2: I'm trying to get that bag. So what they don't
• 1:11:10
  want is somebody saying like Bill Gates.
• 1:11:14
  Speaker 8: Right.
• 1:11:14
  Speaker 1: I'm just looking out for humanity and global health. So
• 1:11:19
  what I'm doing, I'm engineering ticks so that they bite
• 1:11:22
  you and you get allergic to red meat and I'm
• 1:11:24
  dropping them off from helicopters.
• 1:11:27
  Speaker 2: We're going to administer vaccines involuntarily through ticks.
• 1:11:31
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:11:32
  Speaker 1: And mosquitoes.
• 1:11:33
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:11:34
  Speaker 1: So all of this stuff really bothers people.
• 1:11:37
  Speaker 2: It's the disingen... Well.
• 1:11:38
  Speaker 1: It's also he doesn't have any friends, you know, and
• 1:11:41
  he can't get any pussy anymore because he keeps getting caught.
• 1:11:44
  Speaker 2: He can get it.
• 1:11:47
  Speaker 1: But if we were smart, we'd feed that guy pussy.
• 1:11:51
  Speaker 2: We did.
• 1:11:51
  Speaker 1: Keep him happy. We did. We? I wasn't involved.
• 1:11:55
  Speaker 2: Neither was I. Yeah, allegedly. What do you mean allegedly?
• 1:11:58
  Speaker 1: Just kidding.
• 1:11:59
  Speaker 2: I didn't go to that island.
• 1:12:01
  Speaker 1: You didn't?
• 1:12:02
  Speaker 6: No.
• 1:12:03
  Speaker 1: No, you were one of the people that saw through
• 1:12:05
  him right away.
• 1:12:06
  Speaker 2: No, but he offered me partnership and I didn't take it.
• 1:12:09
  And I regretted that for a while.
• 1:12:11
  Speaker 1: Because you would have been cha-ching.
• 1:12:15
  Speaker 2: I would have been made. Rich or deceased?
• 1:12:19
  Speaker 1: Probably both.
• 1:12:19
  Speaker 2: Probably both. Yeah. A couple of times I've been offered
• 1:12:23
  real wealth and with crazy stuff. But the Epstein thing,
• 1:12:28
  I don't know that I've actually said that on a podcast.
• 1:12:32
  He offered me partnership and the only condition was that
• 1:12:35
  I had to get rid of my existing partners. Like
• 1:12:39
  I had to stab my partners in the back in
• 1:12:41
  order to become his partner.
• 1:12:42
  Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. So he'd own you.
• 1:12:45
  Speaker 5: Yeah.
• 1:12:46
  Speaker 2: It's like, show me that you're.
• 1:12:47
  Speaker 4: I don't want to sidetrack this. I'll come back. But
• 1:12:50
  these two are 333-year-old aliens, time travelers.
• 1:12:54
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:12:55
  Speaker 1: So they cannot be easily replaced. Yes, they can. That's horseshit.
• 1:13:00
  Speaker 2: Look, I'll make a prediction. If these guys haven't been unmasked,
• 1:13:03
  you're going to unmask these guys and you're going to
• 1:13:05
  find out that they've got Middle Eastern heritage.
• 1:13:06
  Speaker 1: Well, please don't unmask them. They already unmasked Banksy. Can't
• 1:13:10
  we have some fucking mysteries in this world? Damn it.
• 1:13:13
  I think they're cool. I like that music.
• 1:13:15
  Speaker 3: That was fun.
• 1:13:16
  Speaker 1: That's fun. Um, I like viral things too. I like
• 1:13:19
  things that just spread just from weirdness. You know, someone
• 1:13:23
  sends it to me. That's one of the things that
• 1:13:24
  I love about Spotify. If I'm listening to something weird,
• 1:13:27
  it'll suggest something weird, you know, like that I've never
• 1:13:30
  heard of before. Bands have never heard of before. And
• 1:13:32
  also when I click on it, the suggestion thing, that's
• 1:13:34
  how I get new music now. Or I use, um,
• 1:13:37
  what's that fucking app? Shazam. Shazam. If I'm at a,
• 1:13:40
  you know, pool hall or something, something cool comes on.
• 1:13:42
  I'm like, Ooh, what is that?
• 1:13:44
  Speaker 2: So yeah, I do that, but then I can end
• 1:13:47
  up in these ruts. Like, for example, I really like
• 1:13:51
  songs that go between A minor and E major. And
• 1:13:54
  that is, so it just gives me more and more
• 1:13:57
  of that. You're a nerd.
• 1:13:59
  Speaker 1: You're a music nerd. Listen, that's your algorithm. There's nothing
• 1:14:03
  wrong with that.
• 1:14:04
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 1:14:05
  Speaker 2: You're a mixed martial arts nerd.
• 1:14:07
  Speaker 4: I am.
• 1:14:07
  Speaker 1: I know. And also, there's a lot of things that
• 1:14:10
  are way more boring than that. Pool. I watch professional
• 1:14:13
  pool probably three or four hours a day. Yeah. Yeah.
• 1:14:18
  That's how I escape. I escape in the geometry and
• 1:14:21
  the movements, the patterns.
• 1:14:23
  Speaker 2: Dude, you should have seen the comedians in the physics
• 1:14:25
  department yesterday.
• 1:14:27
  Speaker 1: Oh, it was hysterically funny. It must've been amazing. Duncan
• 1:14:30
  and Kurt together. First of all, together, they are the
• 1:14:33
  fucking dynamic doer. They are such a good duo because
• 1:14:36
  they're both sarcastic and they're both like heavily engaged in satire.
• 1:14:40
  Speaker 2: They were so well behaved as far as they could.
• 1:14:43
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:14:44
  Speaker 2: But then, um, I don't know whether I can tell
• 1:14:48
  these stories.
• 1:14:48
  Speaker 1: Tell these stories. Tell them. What happened? What did Kurt do?
• 1:14:52
  So part of the.
• 1:14:54
  Fuck, I love that guy. He's so awesome.
• 1:14:57
  Speaker 2: I love that he's a real person.
• 1:14:59
  Speaker 1: Whenever he comes into the Mothership green room, I'm like, yes.
• 1:15:04
  Give me a dose. Oh, he got real.
• 1:15:05
  Speaker 2: He gave me some wild anti-Israel stuff, I think. I
• 1:15:08
  couldn't tell whether it was pro or anti. So at
• 1:15:13
  the end, there was an experimentalist who was like, come
• 1:15:16
  to my parlor. I'll show you my etchings.
• 1:15:20
  Speaker 3: No, no, no.
• 1:15:20
  Speaker 2: Cryogenic giant vacuum tubes from hell or whatever. So we
• 1:15:24
  all went down there. So we're in the basement of
• 1:15:26
  the physics department. You can tell the difference between the
• 1:15:29
  theory floor and the part where they actually do things.
• 1:15:33
  And these guys were just, you know, were effectively at
• 1:15:36
  77 degrees above absolute zero with conditions that only occur
• 1:15:42
  in deep space inside of this thing coated in Like tinfoil.
• 1:15:47
  So these guys are just cracking jokes about growing weed
• 1:15:49
  and what happens if you put hydroponic weed in that chain.
• 1:15:55
  But the other thing is that comedians are really intellectual nerds.
• 1:16:02
  And a lot of them, not all of them. Those
• 1:16:05
  two guys are, for sure. For sure. Yeah. And they
• 1:16:08
  really wanted to know, okay, what is it that you
• 1:16:10
  guys are doing down here and how do I understand?
• 1:16:12
  Speaker 1: The good ones. The good ones are very curious.
• 1:16:13
  Speaker 2: Well, Duncan's amazing.
• 1:16:14
  Speaker 1: Very curious.
• 1:16:15
  Speaker 2: Although he drew it completely pornographic. I know. He was
• 1:16:18
  making notes.
• 1:16:19
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Let me send it to Jamie because Kurt sent
• 1:16:22
  it to me. This is the notes Duncan was taking
• 1:16:24
  during the physics test.
• 1:16:25
  Speaker 2: Because I'm like doing battle a little bit with the–
• 1:16:29
  there's one extremely smart string theorist in the audience named
• 1:16:32
  Jacques Dissler. And so almost all the interactions between Jacques
• 1:16:36
  and myself were– we were both being very collegial. But
• 1:16:40
  it was pretty hot.
• 1:16:43
  Speaker 1: I sent it to you, Jamie.
• 1:16:44
  Speaker 2: And so he says, while you were doing that, I
• 1:16:47
  did a little sketch of you. I can figure out
• 1:16:50
  your exact anatomy. It's a gift.
• 1:16:56
  Speaker 1: Well, you need something like that.
• 1:16:57
  Speaker 2: That's the last talk he's ever coming to.
• 1:17:00
  Speaker 7: No.
• 1:17:00
  Speaker 2: No, I'm kidding. No, actually, I was really trying to hook.
• 1:17:04
  Speaker 1: So he's taking notes.
• 1:17:06
  Speaker 3: Oh, no, please.
• 1:17:06
  Speaker 1: Give me some volume.
• 1:17:07
  Speaker 3: Joe.
• 1:17:12
  Speaker 2: Thank you, Joe. Hey guys, I got some other things
• 1:17:20
  to do this afternoon. It's been great.
• 1:17:22
  Speaker 6: Okay.
• 1:17:23
  Speaker 3: Bye.
• 1:17:23
  Speaker 1: Oh my.
• 1:17:25
  Speaker 7: God.
• 1:17:29
  Speaker 5: So, but yeah, I wanted, You know, C.P.
• 1:17:40
  Speaker 2: Snow did this famous essay called The Two Cultures, and
• 1:17:44
  it was about how literary intellectuals and scientific intellectuals used
• 1:17:49
  to be one group, and then they moved apart, and
• 1:17:52
  so now we can't hear each other across the chasm.
• 1:17:56
  I really wanted to create a pipeline of not the
• 1:18:01
  seven scientists we see on all of the podcasts, but
• 1:18:05
  like Choose who you want to talk to. Who's doing
• 1:18:09
  cool shit. The comedians belong in our science departments. Otherwise,
• 1:18:17
  how are people going to know what's going on? There's
• 1:18:19
  funny shit happening. Well, and by the way, the UFO
• 1:18:24
  thing that's now blowing up. There's going to be some
• 1:18:29
  crazy science collision with the UFO narrative. There's no way
• 1:18:32
  of stopping it at this point.
• 1:18:34
  Speaker 1: So you've turned a corner on this. Let's talk about
• 1:18:37
  that because I saw you on Jesse Michaels' show and
• 1:18:41
  you were talking about how just a few years ago
• 1:18:43
  you thought that the entire narrative was complete nonsense. Probably five,
• 1:18:47
  six years ago by now. And what changed?
• 1:18:57
  Speaker 2: There was no way to explain. So Jesse was going
• 1:19:00
  on and on about it. I said, Jesse, you're a
• 1:19:02
  smart guy. And I often would call him the back
• 1:19:07
  alley scholar. So he knew a lot of stuff that
• 1:19:12
  was sort of forbidden knowledge. And he wouldn't be quiet
• 1:19:17
  about it. So I said, okay, I'm going to disabuse
• 1:19:21
  you of the idea that you're actually into something. And
• 1:19:23
  I realized very quickly, at a minimum, there is a
• 1:19:27
  massive denied program, like usually called a special access program.
• 1:19:34
  Speaker 3: One or more.
• 1:19:36
  Speaker 2: There's no way to synchronize that number of people who've
• 1:19:38
  had experiences that are so similar. And there's a lot
• 1:19:42
  of stuff that I couldn't make sense of. And what
• 1:19:44
  attracted me in a certain sense was I couldn't come
• 1:19:49
  up with any explanation. It's so rare. I usually have
• 1:19:52
  exactly the opposite problem, which is I come up with
• 1:19:55
  too many explanations. I can't come up with a single
• 1:19:58
  explanation that makes sense of what I now know. And
• 1:20:01
  also the fact that the government outreach to me and
• 1:20:03
  to Sam Harris and to Lex Friedman. And, you know,
• 1:20:06
  there was this thing where these guys who checked out
• 1:20:10
  said there's going to be a massive disclosure and we
• 1:20:12
  need people to disseminate these things to the public. And
• 1:20:16
  you have a share of the public who listens to you.
• 1:20:20
  And we need to get you informed so that you
• 1:20:22
  can help mediate the disclosure.
• 1:20:25
  Speaker 1: So what prompted this change in narrative?
• 1:20:29
  Speaker 2: What's going on behind the government?
• 1:20:32
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:20:32
  Speaker 2: We don't know.
• 1:20:33
  Speaker 3: We don't know.
• 1:20:34
  Speaker 2: Look, we don't know what the thing or things is
• 1:20:38
  are yet. Some of it is, again, so low quality
• 1:20:43
  that it's embarrassing to be seen with it. So my
• 1:20:45
  colleagues who don't want to take this seriously use that. Like, okay,
• 1:20:50
  so you're now on the little green men train. And
• 1:20:55
  I said, no, I'm on the special access program train.
• 1:20:57
  There is for sure special access program or programs that
• 1:21:02
  have UFO on the side of them. that may or
• 1:21:04
  may not have aliens or craft or non-human intelligence in them.
• 1:21:08
  It may be that it's decoys. It may be, I
• 1:21:10
  don't know what it is. There's no way to deny
• 1:21:13
  that there's like a giant lump under the carpet.
• 1:21:17
  Speaker 1: And what prompted you to change your opinion and decide
• 1:21:22
  that there is some sort of a special access program?
• 1:21:26
  Speaker 2: When I started coming in contact with totally sober people
• 1:21:29
  from reasonable walks of life who would say the craziest
• 1:21:32
  things to me, And a lot of them checked and
• 1:21:34
  they didn't yet know each other.
• 1:21:36
  Speaker 1: Like what kind of crazy things?
• 1:21:39
  Speaker 2: Let me take somebody who's public. Brandon Fugel, for example,
• 1:21:44
  was at a dinner where he started talking about being
• 1:21:48
  visited by a craft a few feet over his head
• 1:21:51
  that came over the mesa. And his head of security
• 1:21:54
  was catatonic, standing in the back of a pickup truck,
• 1:21:58
  unable to move. And it was just way too specific.
• 1:22:05
  And a shared experience that multiple people had had.
• 1:22:09
  Speaker 3: Right?
• 1:22:09
  Speaker 2: And so, you know, the joke, of course, is that
• 1:22:14
  the secrets of Skinwalker rants or, you know, whatever this is.
• 1:22:19
  There's real stuff going on there. And there's nonsense BS
• 1:22:25
  that the History Channel has packaged to come up with
• 1:22:27
  a salacious series. And one is funding the other. So
• 1:22:31
  I don't know what that is. But, like, some of
• 1:22:33
  these injuries are real. And, you know, like Gary Nolan
• 1:22:38
  talking about people reporting, you know, Gary Nolan told me
• 1:22:43
  a story that somebody had said that a ball of
• 1:22:46
  energy would come and enter the body and move around
• 1:22:52
  and then leave. And he said, you know, the craziest
• 1:22:56
  thing is, is that when I inspected the tissue, there
• 1:23:00
  was a path of necrosis that can't be explained. Like
• 1:23:05
  something that shows up on imaging and that's– Gary is
• 1:23:11
  a really smart, serious guy. I can check a lot
• 1:23:15
  of the things that he says scientifically. Why would he
• 1:23:17
  say something like that? I mean I didn't see it
• 1:23:20
  myself but … Trevor Burrus, Jr.
• 1:23:22
  Speaker 1: Well, he's also done some very strange work on material
• 1:23:26
  science where he's analyzed Particles or little pieces of metal
• 1:23:32
  and alloys that have come from wreckages from the 1970s
• 1:23:36
  and 60s.
• 1:23:37
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that I don't know the providence. Like he'll carry
• 1:23:39
  around a little thing and he'll show.
• 1:23:41
  Speaker 1: It to me.
• 1:23:41
  Speaker 2: I'll say, you know, there's no combination of materials and
• 1:23:46
  alloys that this matches that we know how to produce.
• 1:23:50
  And I say, okay. It doesn't mean anything to me. Again,
• 1:23:52
  it's just– it's all– I have no– at this point,
• 1:23:56
  I have no primary.
• 1:23:59
  Speaker 1: Contact.
• 1:24:00
  Speaker 2: With anything anomalous. I just have all sorts of secondary stuff.
• 1:24:04
  And by the way, the thing that you saw with
• 1:24:05
  the Jesse Michaels in American Alchemy, boy, did that get
• 1:24:11
  a response inside the government, that particular episode.
• 1:24:15
  Speaker 3: How so?
• 1:24:15
  Speaker 2: I had a lot of people who had stopped talking
• 1:24:18
  to me about UFOs who suddenly, you know, I had
• 1:24:22
  like eight calls immediately after it aired. hey, Eric, just
• 1:24:26
  thought I'd catch up with you. And I was like, oh, okay.
• 1:24:28
  There was a huge discussion inside. And the first, without
• 1:24:34
  getting into particulars, the first official outreach, like really official outreach,
• 1:24:40
  the checks in the wake of that episode. And I'm
• 1:24:45
  not under any NDAs. Nobody's told me anything that I
• 1:24:48
  can't discuss. That may change. One thing that's very clear
• 1:24:55
  to me is that when I hear something from many sources,
• 1:24:58
  I don't need to protect it anymore. It's already out.
• 1:25:01
  Speaker 6: Okay.
• 1:25:03
  Speaker 2: I have now heard the white sand story from many sources.
• 1:25:07
  Speaker 1: This is the one where the crafts hovered over the base,
• 1:25:12
  shut down the nuclear program. Is that it? I'm just
• 1:25:18
  going to say what I can say. That's fuzzed out.
• 1:25:19
  Speaker 2: That can't be traced to anybody.
• 1:25:21
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 1:25:23
  Speaker 2: Um, I was very upset with the shutdown of the
• 1:25:27
  El Paso airspace.
• 1:25:30
  Speaker 1: That was recently.
• 1:25:31
  Speaker 2: Yeah. It was supposed to be we had a problem
• 1:25:33
  with cartel drones.
• 1:25:35
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 1:25:35
  Speaker 2: I don't believe that. I think Texas is another name
• 1:25:39
  for New Mexico. I think El Paso is a name
• 1:25:41
  for White Sands. Can we get a map of the
• 1:25:44
  United States that can focus on White Sands and El Paso?
• 1:25:50
  I think we have a problem that we've lost control
• 1:25:52
  of our airspace.
• 1:25:55
  Speaker 1: You think this was part of what happened in New
• 1:25:57
  Jersey as well?
• 1:26:01
  Speaker 2: I can't say as much because what I know, no.
• 1:26:07
  What happened around New Jersey, I don't have from as
• 1:26:10
  many sources that I feel comfortable saying that this is
• 1:26:14
  fuzzed out. I can fuzz out the El Paso story.
• 1:26:17
  Nobody has told me that El Paso was shut down
• 1:26:19
  because of the problem at White Sands.
• 1:26:21
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 1:26:23
  Speaker 2: People have said things about New Jersey.
• 1:26:25
  Speaker 3: That is.
• 1:26:26
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 1:26:27
  Speaker 3: All right.
• 1:26:27
  Speaker 1: So there's El Paso.
• 1:26:29
  Speaker 4: El Paso here, White Sands, right above it.
• 1:26:31
  Speaker 1: How far away is that?
• 1:26:32
  Speaker 2: My guess is about an hour.
• 1:26:34
  Speaker 1: By driving? Yeah, let's see.
• 1:26:36
  Speaker 4: It's probably 60, 70, 80 miles at most.
• 1:26:39
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 1:26:40
  Speaker 2: So I don't know what's going on, but my guess is.
• 1:26:48
  So on Pierce Morgan, I said this thing, which is
• 1:26:52
  that New Mexico... Is the connector of the nuclear story,
• 1:26:56
  the Epstein story, and the UFO story. They're all going
• 1:26:59
  to come together. Remember when we were only talking about
• 1:27:10
  the island? Somehow– I think I was the first person
• 1:27:18
  to seize on this. There's this thing that isn't an interview,
• 1:27:22
  which is Steve Bannon trying to train Jeffrey Epstein how
• 1:27:25
  to respond to rehabilitate it. And if you can find this,
• 1:27:30
  this is.
• 1:27:30
  Speaker 1: I've seen it.
• 1:27:31
  Speaker 3: Okay. It's very weird.
• 1:27:33
  Speaker 2: So he says, you want to know about why I
• 1:27:40
  got Zorro Ranch in New Mexico. Can we play this clip?
• 1:27:44
  Can you find... I think Jesse repackaged it after I
• 1:27:48
  pointed it out. But this is the story. Like somehow
• 1:27:57
  we're so hung up about sex. We're either angry about
• 1:28:01
  trafficking or we're getting off on the idea that all
• 1:28:03
  these rich people are going to get their comeuppance. We
• 1:28:07
  keep turning the Epstein story into something other than a
• 1:28:10
  scientific espionage story, which is one of its facets.
• 1:28:15
  Speaker 1: It's one component.
• 1:28:16
  Speaker 2: It's one component.
• 1:28:18
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:28:18
  Speaker 2: But it doesn't excite us that this is a guy spying.
• 1:28:23
  Control of science, Joe, is not something that is officially
• 1:28:29
  a big issue. And it is a massive issue.
• 1:28:32
  Speaker 1: It's not publicly a big issue.
• 1:28:33
  Speaker 2: That's correct.
• 1:28:34
  Speaker 1: And he clearly had a.
• 1:28:37
  Speaker 8: Big interest So why did I buy a ranch in
• 1:28:39
  New Mexico in 1993? So that gives you some sense.
• 1:28:43
  I would have funded it in 1990. Los Alamos, which
• 1:28:49
  was the high-energy lab up in New Mexico, was losing
• 1:28:53
  all its scientists.
• 1:28:54
  Speaker 7: In Los Alamos, it was where Oppenheimer and where a
• 1:28:58
  lot of the nuclear weapons program, the bomb.
• 1:29:00
  Speaker 8: That's from the Manhattan Project.
• 1:29:02
  Speaker 7: Manhattan Project was in Los Alamos, and you bought your
• 1:29:05
  property out in New Mexico to be near that?
• 1:29:07
  Speaker 8: Yes, because the scientists were going to cut the funding
• 1:29:11
  for high-energy physics. But the people who worked in Los
• 1:29:15
  Alamos would still be in the Santa Fe area.
• 1:29:17
  Speaker 7: They cut that because this was the Cold War dividend, right?
• 1:29:20
  Speaker 9: Right.
• 1:29:20
  Speaker 3: I don't remember exactly why.
• 1:29:22
  Speaker 8: It was because, again, people thought that physics and high-energy
• 1:29:26
  physics really wasn't that important.
• 1:29:27
  Speaker 7: Because that was about nuclear weapons.
• 1:29:29
  Speaker 8: No, it was because they decided it was maybe not right.
• 1:29:33
  This was the same time that Murray Gell-Mann came up
• 1:29:35
  with the term quark, Q-U-A-R-K. He picked it out of
• 1:29:41
  an old poem, the word quark. But it was mysterious.
• 1:29:45
  So they were starting to understand in the 90s that
• 1:29:48
  in our world of, the physical world, there was things
• 1:29:52
  that were just unexplainable. They called it strange things.
• 1:29:56
  Speaker 7: You gave it a name.
• 1:29:57
  Speaker 8: You gave it some characteristics. You called it, it had charm.
• 1:30:00
  Speaker 2: It was one of the terms.
• 1:30:01
  Speaker 8: It had a charm.
• 1:30:02
  Speaker 7: It had a flavor. It had a color.
• 1:30:05
  Speaker 1: But nobody really, no one, Mr. Bannon, understood what it was.
• 1:30:11
  Just like the financial system.
• 1:30:13
  Speaker 7: And you wanted to investigate that?
• 1:30:16
  Speaker 8: I wanted to see if we could build tools to
• 1:30:18
  so others smarter than me could help investigate it.
• 1:30:21
  Speaker 7: And that was the beginning of your concept of the
• 1:30:23
  Santa Fe Institute.
• 1:30:24
  Speaker 6: Yes.
• 1:30:25
  Speaker 7: And Santa Fe Institute was founded to do study in
• 1:30:28
  this type of.
• 1:30:29
  Speaker 8: Can these areas of strange things be described by some
• 1:30:35
  form of mathematics?
• 1:30:38
  Speaker 2: Okay. Now, what you're seeing there is fascinating. Just take,
• 1:30:44
  by the way, very well isolated, exactly the bit that
• 1:30:47
  I wanted. In that interview or that training, he claims
• 1:30:51
  to have founded the Santa Fe Institute. Santa Fe Institute
• 1:30:55
  was founded, I think, in 1984, not 1990 or 1993.
• 1:31:00
  Bannon clearly knows more about why these scientists were being
• 1:31:05
  defunded than does the person who buys this property. Now,
• 1:31:11
  that property is not only close to Los Alamos. It's
• 1:31:13
  also close to Sandia National Laboratory. Like people said to me, Eric,
• 1:31:20
  you said he was an idiot. He's clearly very knowledgeable.
• 1:31:24
  You can see there that you were wrong. That is
• 1:31:28
  an actor. That is not anyone smart with proximity to
• 1:31:36
  Murray Gell-Mann and others. Like he knew Murray Gell-Mann well.
• 1:31:40
  Murray Gell-Mann didn't name quarks in 1990. It goes back
• 1:31:45
  to like the 60s when George Zweig called them aces
• 1:31:48
  and Gelman called them quarks, three quarks for muster mark
• 1:31:51
  that came out of James Joyce. So he's just repeating
• 1:31:55
  stuff that he doesn't understand. And why did he buy
• 1:31:59
  the house, Zorro Ranch? To be close to the scientists
• 1:32:04
  whose funding was cut. The people who make weapons and
• 1:32:08
  who do high energy physics, who had the rug pulled
• 1:32:12
  out from under them. by the United States when they
• 1:32:14
  won the Cold War by putting this pressure on the
• 1:32:17
  Soviet Union. Like, there's no thing more important than theoretical physicists,
• 1:32:23
  you idiots. And you don't fund these people and you
• 1:32:27
  don't watch them. Like, the Department of Energy is supposed
• 1:32:30
  to have counterintelligence to stop creeps from hanging around the
• 1:32:35
  National Labs, which is America's secret university system.
• 1:32:38
  Speaker 1: Hello?
• 1:32:41
  Speaker 2: And That's what he was doing. He was buying a
• 1:32:49
  property to be close to the national labs in New
• 1:32:52
  Mexico that make the weapons and that are in charge
• 1:32:56
  of trying to figure out the future. So if you
• 1:32:58
  think about the national labs as this parallel thing to
• 1:33:01
  the university system, but it's the secret part where you
• 1:33:04
  have to be American and you have to have a
• 1:33:06
  security clearance and all this kind of stuff. Epstein set
• 1:33:10
  up a listening post. Now, what's the UFO story? The
• 1:33:14
  UFO story is all about nukes. And what was Epstein
• 1:33:19
  doing in Cambridge, Massachusetts? The analog of Zorro Ranch is
• 1:33:23
  named One Brattle Square. It's right in the heart of
• 1:33:26
  Harvard Square. I know it like the back of my hand.
• 1:33:31
  It's a seven-minute walk to the Science Center. The Harvard
• 1:33:35
  Science Center on floors three, four, and five is where
• 1:33:39
  the math department is. And who was Epstein's initial contact
• 1:33:43
  in the math department? It wasn't Martin Nowak who he funded.
• 1:33:47
  It was a different guy named Benedict Gross. Dick Gross
• 1:33:52
  was an expert in number theory and in elliptic curves.
• 1:33:57
  And elliptic curves are what power the cryptography behind Bitcoin,
• 1:34:01
  behind public keys. You're talking about a guy who was
• 1:34:08
  setting up listening posts Next to extremely sensitive stuff that
• 1:34:13
  we've stupidly left unprotected in the open university system or
• 1:34:17
  defunded in our national labs.
• 1:34:19
  Speaker 1: And when you say listing posts, like what do you mean?
• 1:34:21
  Speaker 2: He's going to hold.
• 1:34:22
  Speaker 5: No, no, no.
• 1:34:23
  Speaker 3: No?
• 1:34:23
  Speaker 1: He just remained in contact with these people?
• 1:34:27
  Speaker 2: Joe, you've got real money. Guys with real money use dinner.
• 1:34:32
  Dinner is an incredible thing. I watched Peter Thiel use dinner.
• 1:34:38
  Fly people in for dinners. You put people up in
• 1:34:41
  a nice hotel for three nights, serve them amazing food
• 1:34:45
  from a private chef. You get a black car to
• 1:34:46
  collect them and they'll tell you anything. I don't think
• 1:34:51
  that mean that Peter was doing this in an evil way,
• 1:34:53
  but I watched dinner after dinner after dinner as people
• 1:34:56
  disgorged all they knew because they were so happy. They're
• 1:35:01
  getting a $ 200 bottle of wine and being treated like humans,
• 1:35:05
  you know, like respected. So in part, you have to
• 1:35:09
  understand that dinner in and of itself or a mansion
• 1:35:14
  or first class ticket is all it takes to get
• 1:35:18
  people to start talking.
• 1:35:22
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein was CIA. The communications network at Zorro Ranch
• 1:35:26
  prove it. The DOJ's own file showed Epstein built a
• 1:35:29
  military grade encrypted link to satellite orbit at Zorro Ranch.
• 1:35:34
  The contractor who built it now holds a Pentagon missile
• 1:35:37
  defense contract.
• 1:35:41
  Speaker 2: So remember, Jeffrey Epstein is a construct. You know, there's
• 1:35:46
  this whole question about, like, why won't Jews talk about
• 1:35:48
  Jeffrey Epstein and the sex shit? It's like, as if
• 1:35:51
  I haven't been on this since 2004. Yeah, no.
• 1:35:55
  Speaker 1: One can accuse you of not talking about it. If
• 1:35:58
  they can, they're just being ignorant.
• 1:36:00
  Speaker 2: No, they're being a bitch because it used to be
• 1:36:02
  super dangerous. This was, like, one of the really costly things.
• 1:36:07
  So what do you think that was, though?
• 1:36:09
  Speaker 1: This satellite... Encrypted. All right.
• 1:36:15
  Speaker 2: Let's go there. But I'm a little bit nervous. Why
• 1:36:19
  was Jeffrey Epstein able to get all of these people
• 1:36:22
  much richer than him into his orbit? That's the question
• 1:36:27
  you should be asking. So here's my theory. Just be careful.
• 1:36:37
  Speaker 6: Okay.
• 1:36:38
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 1:36:40
  Speaker 2: What happens when you become a billionaire? I don't know.
• 1:36:44
  Speaker 3: Not there.
• 1:36:45
  Speaker 2: Nowhere close. What happens is that you find out that
• 1:36:50
  it's not what you thought it was. First of all,
• 1:36:53
  you now have staff everywhere. You can't move around easily
• 1:36:57
  because you need a security detail. When I first met
• 1:37:02
  Peter Thiel, I said, wow, your security detail on this
• 1:37:05
  beach is amazing. I can't even tell where they are.
• 1:37:07
  He says, am I supposed to have a security detail? Peter,
• 1:37:10
  you've got to be kidding. Now he's got one. So
• 1:37:14
  the first thing is that you find you lose your privacy.
• 1:37:17
  You lose your freedom of movement. You've got a retinue
• 1:37:19
  of people who have to be constantly maintained. They're under
• 1:37:22
  your roof. This isn't what I signed up for. I
• 1:37:25
  wanted to be rich. Well, you are rich. You can
• 1:37:27
  buy things. Well, you can't buy privacy. You can't buy freedom.
• 1:37:31
  You can't buy anonymity, all these things that you want.
• 1:37:35
  And you can't buy the ability to do fun, naughty stuff.
• 1:37:39
  I'm not talking about little kids. I'm saying like if
• 1:37:43
  you're going to take drugs, you're at risk of having
• 1:37:46
  everybody want to tell the story. If you want to
• 1:37:47
  have a menage, you're at the same risk. So the
• 1:37:51
  question becomes what do I do to get what I
• 1:37:55
  thought I was going to do, which is the right
• 1:37:57
  to have freedom over my own life and to misbehave
• 1:38:00
  in fun ways, whatever. Nobody can figure out how to
• 1:38:05
  do it. Jeffrey Epstein could do it. Now, why is
• 1:38:07
  it that he could do it? Who's spoken to the
• 1:38:11
  contractors who built his island? It's the most obvious thing
• 1:38:15
  to do. If I was an investigative journalist, that's what
• 1:38:17
  I'd do. I'd talk to like the plumbers, the maids,
• 1:38:21
  all of the people who are just working for a living.
• 1:38:26
  Those are the people who constantly leak information about their employers. Well,
• 1:38:32
  who's the only person who has the ability to build something?
• 1:38:38
  The CIA has its own construction company. Sovereigns, countries, nations.
• 1:38:48
  have the ability to do stuff where they know how
• 1:38:53
  to keep things under wraps. If you think about S4,
• 1:38:57
  I guarantee you there's a men's room at S4. Well,
• 1:39:01
  who cleans it? That's a really important question because that's
• 1:39:06
  the weak link. And so rich people haven't figured out
• 1:39:09
  how to be rich. That's what everybody was attracted to
• 1:39:15
  in that upper income bracket.
• 1:39:17
  Speaker 1: That he would provide them with experience.
• 1:39:19
  Speaker 2: He would provide them with things that they couldn't figure
• 1:39:22
  out how anybody could provide because they were dealing with
• 1:39:25
  a state. I assure you that the Sultan of Brunei
• 1:39:33
  knows how to do stuff because he's both an individual
• 1:39:37
  and a state.
• 1:39:41
  Speaker 1: Most of us.
• 1:39:43
  Speaker 2: Are either in this sort of black ops world Or
• 1:39:48
  we're dreaming about being very rich or just normal human beings.
• 1:39:57
  The very rich are very disappointed. Epstein felt rich, as
• 1:40:02
  I said before, in a movie sense. He had freedom.
• 1:40:07
  He could say and do things that other people couldn't.
• 1:40:13
  You know, Elon... is constantly tripping over the fact that
• 1:40:19
  I think he's a wild guy. I'm up for wild guys.
• 1:40:23
  I want cowboy billionaires, cowboy physicists, cowboy everything. But in general,
• 1:40:28
  we don't want cowboys. And, you know, again, this has
• 1:40:32
  nothing to do with little kids. That's a different thing.
• 1:40:36
  But if you want to go take drugs, take drugs.
• 1:40:40
  If you want to have a menage, have a menage. Fine.
• 1:40:43
  I don't want to hear about it. I don't spill
• 1:40:45
  the tea. I can't stand this culture. Epstein knew how
• 1:40:49
  to keep quiet stuff quiet. And why is that? His product,
• 1:40:52
  as I've said before, was silence. If you want a
• 1:40:55
  really dangerous question, ask the question, did the people who
• 1:41:03
  were in his direct orbit have an unusually high number
• 1:41:07
  of disappearances around them?
• 1:41:10
  Speaker 1: Did they?
• 1:41:11
  Speaker 3: I don't know.
• 1:41:13
  Speaker 2: But it's a dangerous question. I've never investigated it, but that's...
• 1:41:15
  Have you ever seen... Everybody talks about Eyes Wide Shut now.
• 1:41:20
  You notice that nobody talks about Crimes and Misdemeanors? Where
• 1:41:23
  Woody Allen was directly in his orbit?
• 1:41:27
  Speaker 1: God, I don't even know if I've seen that movie.
• 1:41:29
  Speaker 2: There is a scene where Martin Landau and Jerry Orbach's
• 1:41:33
  characters are a pair of brothers. I think that they
• 1:41:36
  only meet on screen once. And Martin Landau's having an
• 1:41:40
  affair with... And the woman has decided that she has rights.
• 1:41:45
  And Martin Landau is a very wealthy ophthalmologist or something
• 1:41:49
  like that. And he has a brother who's a starker.
• 1:41:54
  Starker being the Yiddish word for a tough guy. And
• 1:42:00
  it's one of the most, can we find Jerry Orbach,
• 1:42:04
  Martin Landau, Crimes and Misdemeanors is the most blood curdling,
• 1:42:08
  so well done.
• 1:42:09
  Speaker 4: Which scene description though, you didn't really get to it.
• 1:42:12
  Speaker 2: Well, they're only in one, if they're only in one
• 1:42:15
  scene together, they'll be at a, I haven't seen it
• 1:42:17
  in ages, but my memory is that they're at a
• 1:42:20
  house walking around a pool and then they walk inside
• 1:42:24
  to the pool house. And there's a resentment that the
• 1:42:28
  brother who's in the life is only called to the
• 1:42:35
  house occasionally. And it's this way in which the genteel
• 1:42:40
  and the people who can get things done that you're
• 1:42:42
  not allowed to do within the law are connected. And
• 1:42:47
  so Woody Allen is clearly writing this from personal experience.
• 1:42:49
  He has some interaction between being in high society and
• 1:42:57
  knowing Starkers. And I actually knew his old, Woody Allen's
• 1:43:04
  old producer is the father of a friend of mine,
• 1:43:06
  so a guy named Jack Grossberg. And Jack Grossberg was
• 1:43:10
  an epitome of a tough Jew in Hollywood who would
• 1:43:13
  deal with the Teamsters or when there was a labor dispute. And,
• 1:43:18
  you know, he wasn't in the life, but he was
• 1:43:20
  a guy who could stare down a mafioso. I think
• 1:43:24
  that in part, Woody Allen is writing about what Jeffrey
• 1:43:27
  Epstein was providing, which was a measure of silence.
• 1:43:31
  Speaker 3: No, no, no.
• 1:43:34
  Speaker 2: No, we're looking for Martin Landau. and Jerry Orbach in
• 1:43:38
  Crimes and Misdemeanors.
• 1:43:47
  Speaker 4: Yeah, that's going to be hard to find because.
• 1:43:49
  Speaker 2: It's... Oh, that one. I think that this is the
• 1:43:56
  scene that nobody's talking about.
• 1:43:58
  Speaker 5: I don't know, but she's killing me.
• 1:44:01
  Speaker 3: Want me to have somebody talk to her? Like what?
• 1:44:05
  Straighten her out. What do you mean? Threaten her?
• 1:44:09
  Speaker 1: That's all I need.
• 1:44:11
  Speaker 3: How else do you expect to keep her quiet?
• 1:44:12
  Speaker 1: Can you turn that up?
• 1:44:13
  Speaker 4: As long as I can get it, unfortunately.
• 1:44:15
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 1:44:18
  Speaker 6: Well.
• 1:44:20
  Speaker 3: Christ, Jack, why don't you suggest? What did you call
• 1:44:23
  me for? I don't know.
• 1:44:26
  Speaker 1: I hope you'd have more experience with something like this.
• 1:44:31
  Speaker 3: You called me because you needed some dirty work done.
• 1:44:33
  That's the one you have to call for. Look how
• 1:44:38
  bitter you are.
• 1:44:41
  Speaker 6: You've staked me plenty of times. I don't forget my obligations.
• 1:44:46
  Speaker 1: Threatening will only make it worse, Jack.
• 1:44:49
  Speaker 3: Okay, forget about it. What do you want me to say?
• 1:44:52
  How the hell can I forget about it?
• 1:44:54
  Speaker 7: I'm fighting for my life. This woman's going to destroy
• 1:44:57
  everything I've built.
• 1:44:59
  Speaker 3: That's what I'm saying, Judy.
• 1:45:01
  Speaker 10: If the woman won't listen to reason, then you go
• 1:45:02
  on to the next step.
• 1:45:05
  Speaker 3: What? Threats? Violence? What are we talking about here?
• 1:45:07
  Speaker 10: She can be gotten rid of. I mean, I know
• 1:45:10
  a lot of people. Money will buy whatever's necessary.
• 1:45:12
  Speaker 3: I'm not even going to comment on that.
• 1:45:13
  Speaker 5: That's mind-boggling.
• 1:45:15
  Speaker 3: Well, what did you want me to do when you
• 1:45:16
  called me?
• 1:45:17
  Speaker 5: Not to do.
• 1:45:18
  Speaker 3: Dirty work, despite what you think.
• 1:45:22
  Speaker 7: Anyway, it's gone beyond just Miriam now. She's... She's talking
• 1:45:27
  financial doings.
• 1:45:30
  Speaker 1: I'm out of ideas. I don't know what I.
• 1:45:33
  Speaker 3: Expected from you, Jack, but.
• 1:45:35
  Speaker 4: You know.
• 1:45:36
  Speaker 3: You're not aware of what goes on in this world.
• 1:45:39
  I mean, you sit up here with your four acres.
• 1:45:40
  Don't give me any of that stuff. And your country club.
• 1:45:41
  Speaker 6: I don't want to hear about my success.
• 1:45:43
  Speaker 3: And your rich friends. And out there in the real world,
• 1:45:45
  it's a whole different story.
• 1:45:46
  Speaker 6: Come on. I've met a lot of characters from when
• 1:45:49
  I had the restaurant.
• 1:45:50
  Speaker 3: I know you have. I've heard these stories before. From
• 1:45:51
  Seventh Avenue, from Atlantic City.
• 1:45:54
  Speaker 10: And I'm not so high class that I can avoid
• 1:45:56
  looking at realities. I can't afford to be aloof. I mean,
• 1:46:00
  you come to me with a hell of a problem,
• 1:46:02
  and then you.
• 1:46:03
  Speaker 3: Get high-handed on me. Jack, I don't mean to be hind-handed.
• 1:46:07
  I haven't been sleeping nights. I'm irritable, okay? Okay. Okay,
• 1:46:11
  forget I said anything. Let me just get something straight here.
• 1:46:21
  Speaker 2: Am I understanding you right?
• 1:46:22
  Speaker 7: I mean, are you suggesting getting.
• 1:46:26
  Speaker 3: Rid of her? You won't be involved, but I'll need
• 1:46:31
  some cash. What will they do? What will they do?
• 1:46:40
  They'll handle it. I can't believe I'm talking about a
• 1:46:46
  human being, Jack.
• 1:46:46
  Speaker 7: She's not an insect you don't just step on.
• 1:46:52
  Speaker 3: I know.
• 1:46:53
  Speaker 6: Playing hardball was never your game. You never like to
• 1:46:56
  get your hands dirty. But apparently this woman is for real,
• 1:47:01
  and this thing isn't just going to go away.
• 1:47:09
  Speaker 1: I can't think that way.
• 1:47:23
  Speaker 2: So while everybody's watching Kubrick, this is a guy in
• 1:47:27
  Epstein's direct orbit. This is what Epstein was. He was
• 1:47:30
  a starker. He was a science spy. He was a starker.
• 1:47:35
  He had buttons. We're just all pretending like we have
• 1:47:39
  no memory of this, no idea about how we're all connected,
• 1:47:43
  how the highest in society are connected to the people
• 1:47:47
  who get things done.
• 1:47:49
  Speaker 1: And blackmail.
• 1:47:51
  Speaker 2: Blackmail is a lot– like we're over-indexed on– in my opinion.
• 1:47:56
  Speaker 3: Again, who am I?
• 1:47:57
  Speaker 2: I'm just a guest. But this is this assumption. Well,
• 1:48:01
  I was very early saying he was a construct when
• 1:48:04
  nobody would listen. Here's the next piece of it. I
• 1:48:08
  think he had buttons. He had button men at his control.
• 1:48:13
  He made problems disappear. Things went away. That's how you
• 1:48:18
  make sure. that you have the experience of being a
• 1:48:21
  king rather than a billionaire. The billionaires had more money
• 1:48:25
  than him. But they didn't have the ability to make
• 1:48:29
  their problems go away. And by the way, I'm not
• 1:48:33
  suggesting that all the people in his orbit were availing
• 1:48:36
  themselves of this as a service. But if I was
• 1:48:39
  a competent investigator, I would be talking to Woody Allen
• 1:48:42
  and saying, what did you mean by that scene?
• 1:48:50
  Speaker 3: Look.
• 1:48:51
  Speaker 1: Because you think that scene is directly connected to Woody
• 1:48:54
  Allen's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
• 1:48:55
  Speaker 6: No.
• 1:48:56
  Speaker 2: I think that that scene is directly connected to the
• 1:48:59
  connection between Hollywood and Teamsters and unions and organized crime.
• 1:49:06
  There are people who know how to make things happen.
• 1:49:08
  happen that aren't within the law. What is the mafia?
• 1:49:11
  We go, we watch all these mafia pictures, right? The
• 1:49:16
  mafia is about contract enforcement when you can't use the courts.
• 1:49:20
  That doesn't sound like what the mafia is, but that's
• 1:49:22
  what it is. It's a business. What happens when you're
• 1:49:26
  in an illegal business and you can't enforce a contract, right?
• 1:49:33
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 1:49:33
  Speaker 2: You have to use muscle. So we, we use genteel. He,
• 1:49:37
  like he says, we, You want me to talk to her?
• 1:49:43
  We can handle it. This is the genteel language of
• 1:49:50
  roughing somebody up, killing somebody, and making problems go away.
• 1:49:58
  So the mafia is about business. It's not about violence.
• 1:50:05
  Speaker 1: Okay, so his connection to scientists, though, Was the purpose
• 1:50:09
  of that?
• 1:50:10
  Speaker 2: We don't know, but I keep saying- What's your assumption?
• 1:50:12
  My assumption is that he was a clearinghouse, that somebody
• 1:50:18
  set him up at fair expense. I'm going to say
• 1:50:21
  nine-figure expense. So I think this was a nine-figure fortune,
• 1:50:24
  hundreds of millions. And what it had was it had
• 1:50:31
  the trappings of multibillionaire. It had trillionaire written all over
• 1:50:39
  it for a nine-figure fortune. So it's orders of magnitude
• 1:50:42
  off of what it was. And I believe that that
• 1:50:45
  was only possible because there was a collection of sovereigns
• 1:50:49
  behind him. I don't think it was one nation. I
• 1:50:52
  think it was a bunch of countries. And the most
• 1:50:56
  obvious country is not Israel. It's the US because he
• 1:50:59
  was operating on US soil. Do I think Israel was involved?
• 1:51:03
  Speaker 3: Certainly.
• 1:51:03
  Speaker 2: Do I think that the UK was involved?
• 1:51:06
  Speaker 3: I do.
• 1:51:07
  Speaker 2: Saudi Arabia, I do. I think that this was a
• 1:51:12
  massive piece of structure confused with a sex scandal and
• 1:51:15
  a blackmail operation. We're all sort of taking the bait.
• 1:51:20
  Speaker 1: So the sex scandal and all the sex stuff was
• 1:51:24
  sort of to keep people happy and give people a
• 1:51:26
  place to go to where they could have these experiences.
• 1:51:29
  If you're dealing with physicists or some high-end scientist guy,
• 1:51:35
  They don't have access to this. They've probably never been
• 1:51:37
  with a beautiful woman in their life. All of a
• 1:51:39
  sudden they're hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein. We do better
• 1:51:41
  than you think, Joe. I'm not talking about you, bitch.
• 1:51:42
  Speaker 2: No, I'm not talking about me either.
• 1:51:43
  Speaker 1: I'm sure you're fine.
• 1:51:44
  Speaker 2: Ain't talking about love.
• 1:51:45
  Speaker 1: But let's be realistic. Most of these guys aren't– they're
• 1:51:48
  not hot, right? And then all of a sudden they're
• 1:51:51
  around tens who are giving them back massages and drugs
• 1:51:54
  are being used and there's this feeling of anonymity.
• 1:51:57
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:51:58
  Speaker 2: Of safety.
• 1:51:59
  Speaker 1: Safety. You can get away with this. Everybody else is
• 1:52:01
  doing it. It's been going on for decades. It's fine.
• 1:52:04
  Speaker 3: It's fine.
• 1:52:04
  Speaker 1: This is the place you go. And it's fun. And
• 1:52:06
  they look forward to it. And they probably also do
• 1:52:09
  have intellectual discussions because you are surrounded by– Who wouldn't
• 1:52:12
  want in?
• 1:52:13
  Speaker 6: Right.
• 1:52:14
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 1:52:14
  Speaker 1: And so that's how he ropes you in.
• 1:52:16
  Speaker 2: That's right.
• 1:52:16
  Speaker 1: So what is his– why scientists? And what would be
• 1:52:20
  the benefit of having access to these scientists and having
• 1:52:23
  this place on Zorro Ranch and being able to talk
• 1:52:25
  to these people?
• 1:52:27
  Speaker 2: Think about it from the perspective of– Who is doing
• 1:52:30
  the constructing rather than the constructed? So he's the construct.
• 1:52:35
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 1:52:35
  Speaker 2: He's an incompetent. He just lied to Steve Bannon. You
• 1:52:39
  see him touch his face. Classic tale of lying.
• 1:52:42
  Speaker 1: Touching your face is a classic tale of lying?
• 1:52:45
  Speaker 2: If you looked at what he just did.
• 1:52:46
  Speaker 1: The way he did.
• 1:52:47
  Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
• 1:52:48
  Speaker 3: Okay. 100%.
• 1:52:48
  Speaker 1: So he's lying about the information or he's lying about
• 1:52:53
  his depth of knowledge? He's a liar.
• 1:52:54
  Speaker 3: Yes.
• 1:52:54
  Speaker 2: He's lying about his depth of knowledge.
• 1:52:55
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 1:52:56
  Speaker 2: So how did I know he was a construct? In part,
• 1:52:58
  one of the things- Like they're dumb tells that we
• 1:53:01
  give away. One of his was he was supposed to
• 1:53:04
  be a currency trader. And when we say we're trading currency,
• 1:53:07
  we're not trading currency. We're trading what are called spot
• 1:53:10
  contracts that are to be settled with an exchange of
• 1:53:13
  currency in two days' time.
• 1:53:15
  Speaker 3: Right?
• 1:53:16
  Speaker 2: So in other words, if I do a euro trade,
• 1:53:18
  it's really a dollar euro trade. And you and I
• 1:53:19
  are going to trade dollars for euros. And we agree
• 1:53:21
  to do it in two days' time. And then if
• 1:53:23
  you want to keep the position on, you exchange that
• 1:53:26
  contract for a contract that will follow on. to erase
• 1:53:29
  that contract and form a new contract which pushes it
• 1:53:32
  out two days. You call that rolling things over. He
• 1:53:36
  didn't know that Dollar Canada was on a one-day contract
• 1:53:39
  rather than a two-day contract where everything else. So in
• 1:53:42
  other words, there was an anomaly. And anybody in currency
• 1:53:46
  trading would have known that. Or I forget whether he
• 1:53:49
  didn't know that trading pounds for dollars is called cable
• 1:53:54
  in the business. So there were just dumb tell's. that
• 1:53:58
  he didn't know about foreign exchange.
• 1:54:01
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:54:02
  Speaker 2: So, you know, he's claiming to be an FX hedge
• 1:54:05
  fund manager to me. And there were, there were stupid
• 1:54:07
  tells like that.
• 1:54:08
  Speaker 9: Right.
• 1:54:09
  Speaker 2: And then he like, he knows way too much about
• 1:54:12
  my exactly particular specialty in mathematics. Like the number of
• 1:54:21
  people could come from would be five or fewer. Um,
• 1:54:25
  So technically what I did my thesis on is something
• 1:54:27
  called self-dual Yang-Mills theory, which is about every force other
• 1:54:32
  than gravity is a Yang-Mills force. Except my thesis was
• 1:54:37
  really about gravity. And I didn't disclose it. And only
• 1:54:40
  people very, very close to me knew that that's what
• 1:54:42
  it was about. He was obsessed with gravity. And he
• 1:54:49
  shows up, I think, in the Harvard Math Department in
• 1:54:51
  2002 with Dick Gross. And clearly he was talking to
• 1:54:58
  people in the Cambridge mathematical physics world who would have been,
• 1:55:03
  you know, there's something called the Chern-Simons theory, which is
• 1:55:10
  mistakenly associated closely with Yang-Mills theory, but is really all
• 1:55:14
  about gravity. And my work really shows that there is
• 1:55:20
  a parent theory that has Chern-Simons theory and gravity as
• 1:55:24
  its two consequences. He knows about that without knowing anything
• 1:55:27
  about the structure and the subject matter. He knows about
• 1:55:31
  the history of my stuff and something called Seiberg-Witten theory.
• 1:55:35
  He doesn't know anything concrete. How does he know all
• 1:55:38
  this stuff? He was in my world. And he was
• 1:55:43
  very focused, you know, on... I met him through Jess Staley,
• 1:55:50
  who was at J.P.
• 1:55:51
  Speaker 1: Morgan.
• 1:55:53
  Speaker 2: Now, Jess Staley is... deeply implicated in this. I didn't
• 1:55:56
  know that at the time. And Jeff Epstein has been
• 1:56:02
  mirroring my entire life, everything that I do. And I
• 1:56:05
  became well known when I was writing these essays for edge.org.
• 1:56:08
  And he was in with John Brockman at the Brockman
• 1:56:11
  literary agency. Uh, when I got married, uh, the rabbi
• 1:56:16
  came from Harvard Hillel, which was a building now called
• 1:56:18
  Rosofsky hall, which he put together with less Wexner's money. Um,
• 1:56:24
  He was funding probably the conference at the Perimeter Institute
• 1:56:29
  that we did on the financial crisis. At every turn
• 1:56:32
  in my life since I was a young man, Jeffrey
• 1:56:35
  Epstein was there in the background even though I only
• 1:56:39
  meet him once.
• 1:56:40
  Speaker 1: Why do you think that is?
• 1:56:42
  Speaker 2: Because we're interested in the exact same thing.
• 1:56:44
  Speaker 1: And what is that?
• 1:56:47
  Speaker 2: The most powerful stuff in the universe.
• 1:56:49
  Speaker 1: Why is he interested in that if he doesn't know
• 1:56:51
  the science?
• 1:56:52
  Speaker 2: What do I care about? I care about finance and
• 1:56:54
  financial markets. I care about the CPI. I care about
• 1:56:57
  the fate of Israel. I care about evolutionary theory. I
• 1:57:02
  care about mathematics that goes like geometry, like the geometry
• 1:57:07
  of elliptic curves, but really more differential geometry. I care
• 1:57:10
  about physics. Every time that I care, and I care
• 1:57:15
  about the world's smartest people at a functional level, not
• 1:57:19
  the people with the highest IQ, but the people who
• 1:57:21
  are irreverent enough to actually move the needle. So he
• 1:57:25
  and I were just, we're interested in where's the action,
• 1:57:32
  where's the high-end intellectual action in the world that actually
• 1:57:36
  moves things? And, you know, quite frankly, he was meeting
• 1:57:44
  in my offices in San Francisco while I wasn't aware
• 1:57:47
  of it in 2017. I didn't know that.
• 1:57:51
  Speaker 1: Meeting in your offices.
• 1:57:52
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 1:57:52
  Speaker 1: Meaning he went to your office and met with who?
• 1:57:56
  Speaker 3: With Peter.
• 1:57:56
  Speaker 2: That's in the records.
• 1:57:58
  Speaker 1: About you?
• 1:57:58
  Speaker 6: No, I don't know.
• 1:58:01
  Speaker 2: Hopefully not. I know that I'm in an email that
• 1:58:03
  he sends Peter late in the story, but I'm not
• 1:58:07
  going to discuss specifics. But no, I was telling Peter...
• 1:58:10
  not to deal with him and Peter thought I was
• 1:58:12
  overblowing the danger. He scared me because I know what
• 1:58:23
  element he came from. That was not a refined person.
• 1:58:27
  That was a scary, scary person. That was a person
• 1:58:32
  who came– you know like the Hesh character on The Sopranos?
• 1:58:40
  Or Mo Green in The Godfather?
• 1:58:43
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:58:44
  Speaker 2: That's that element.
• 1:58:47
  Speaker 1: And you recognized that immediately?
• 1:58:50
  Speaker 2: That was my point in bringing up crimes and misdemeanors.
• 1:58:53
  It's not like I don't know people.
• 1:58:56
  Speaker 1: I understand all this. But what do you think his
• 1:58:59
  purpose was? So getting connected to all these scientists, being
• 1:59:03
  around all this knowledge, the New Mexico, I still don't understand.
• 1:59:06
  What was the end game?
• 1:59:07
  Speaker 2: Can I get another drink? Absolutely. Thank you, sir.
• 1:59:10
  Speaker 4: Can I share this article with you?
• 1:59:11
  Speaker 1: Please do. Okay.
• 1:59:12
  Speaker 4: This was the one I just pulled up a second ago.
• 1:59:15
  Speaker 2: If we could get another ice cube too, that would
• 1:59:16
  be great.
• 1:59:17
  Speaker 1: How about this? Jeff, can you get us an ice cube, please?
• 1:59:21
  Speaker 4: I would just, down here, this is a long article.
• 1:59:24
  I believe most of this comes from the Epstein files
• 1:59:27
  that came out on the DOJ's website. The woman who
• 1:59:30
  wrote this, she's a former Boston Globe and New York
• 1:59:33
  Times reporter, also LA Times. The summary here is what
• 1:59:38
  I was kind of getting at, because it's two or
• 1:59:40
  three paragraphs, but it explains a lot of what you're
• 1:59:43
  asking here.
• 1:59:46
  Speaker 1: Standard framing of Jeffrey Epstein as a Mossad asset is
• 1:59:49
  well supported. Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine's father, sold Israel backdoored Promise
• 1:59:53
  software to Sandia National Laboratories in 1985. His eldest daughter,
• 1:59:58
  Christine Maxwell, built the FBI's post-9-11 counterterrorism data warehouse through
• 2:00:03
  her company, Chiliad. Isabel Maxwell, Christine's twin sister, co-founded ComTouch
• 2:00:10
  with Israel unit 8,200 alumni. Ghislaine ran the human intelligence operation,
• 2:00:17
  the Israel Intelligence Network, around both Maxwell and Epstein is
• 2:00:21
  documented and substantial. But the intelligence infrastructure supporting Epstein and
• 2:00:26
  Maxwell at Zorro Ranch points somewhere else or to somewhere additional.
• 2:00:31
  It points to the United States military intelligence, plain and simple.
• 2:00:35
  The contractor who built his encrypted link to orbit is American,
• 2:00:39
  headquartered in Georgia, and now holds a missile defense agency contract.
• 2:00:42
  The satellite uplink was authorized by an American FCC license.
• 2:00:47
  The project was managed out of New York office. The
• 2:00:49
  man who recruited Epstein as a child served in the
• 2:00:53
  American OSS, and his own son was in charge of
• 2:00:56
  the Federal Justice Department when Epstein died or didn't in
• 2:01:00
  its custody.
• 2:01:00
  Speaker 4: Bill Barr and his father, that's who that's referring to.
• 2:01:03
  Speaker 1: The man whose ranch provided the ideal relay point was OSS,
• 2:01:08
  built American missile guidance systems and military drones. And just
• 2:01:11
  up the road, another former OSS guy, Carl Ingwer, sold
• 2:01:15
  his New Mexico ranch to the strangest duo of all time,
• 2:01:19
  Donald Rumsfeld and Dan Rather. Hmm.
• 2:01:24
  Speaker 2: So this is what I've been trying to say all along.
• 2:01:27
  The only country that I'm absolutely positive was behind Jeffrey
• 2:01:30
  Epstein is us. You can't operate here.
• 2:01:37
  Speaker 3: Look.
• 2:01:39
  Speaker 2: Right now we are in the middle of endless anti-Semitic Christmas.
• 2:01:44
  It just goes on forever. And you can– you look
• 2:01:51
  at Jeffrey Epstein. I have no question that he was
• 2:01:52
  directly connected to Israel. But first and foremost, I believe
• 2:02:00
  that he– and I hate when we use the word asset.
• 2:02:05
  You should use a vaguer word because those technical things,
• 2:02:08
  like who's an agent, who's an operator. Agent is a
• 2:02:14
  word used differently by the FBI and CIA. Every time
• 2:02:17
  we try to sound like we're cool, like we know
• 2:02:19
  what the intelligence community actually is, we make mistakes because
• 2:02:23
  we say something that becomes deniable. You know, so like
• 2:02:28
  there's a concept of NOC, non-official cover.
• 2:02:31
  Speaker 3: Mm-hmm.
• 2:02:32
  Speaker 2: If you say somebody is a knock and you guess
• 2:02:35
  the wrong distinction, they can say, no, he wasn't. Was
• 2:02:39
  he an asset? I'm sure that has a technical meaning.
• 2:02:42
  You don't mean it technically. You mean, was he in
• 2:02:46
  any way affiliated with the intelligence community? And it's not
• 2:02:50
  just the intelligence community. One of the ways that the
• 2:02:52
  intelligence community functions as a cover for the special operations community.
• 2:02:59
  Covert operations is something the CIA does through ground branch
• 2:03:03
  that is not intelligence. So we call it intelligence and
• 2:03:08
  we give them a free pass all the time. No,
• 2:03:12
  those are the guys who do the wet work. That's
• 2:03:15
  a paramilitary organization.
• 2:03:19
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 2:03:20
  Speaker 2: So my claim is that Epstein is a major piece
• 2:03:25
  of structure and having nothing to do with the actor
• 2:03:27
  that they hired.
• 2:03:30
  Speaker 1: Okay. So you think Epstein is essentially just a construct
• 2:03:34
  figurehead of an intelligence gathering organization?
• 2:03:38
  Speaker 8: No.
• 2:03:39
  Speaker 1: No?
• 2:03:40
  Speaker 2: Epstein is a construct, first of all. Second of all,
• 2:03:44
  there is an intelligence part of the intelligence community and
• 2:03:49
  there is a covert operations part of the intelligence community.
• 2:03:53
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 2:03:53
  Speaker 2: Covert operations is not intelligence. I know it's under that roof.
• 2:03:58
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 2:03:58
  Speaker 2: That is totally wrong.
• 2:03:59
  Speaker 1: Got it.
• 2:04:00
  Speaker 4: Right.
• 2:04:00
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 2:04:01
  Speaker 2: So if you want bad things to happen to somebody,
• 2:04:04
  you don't call intelligence because that's just human intelligence or
• 2:04:07
  signals intelligence or whatever. You're not going to call a
• 2:04:10
  cryptographer to make a problem go away.
• 2:04:13
  Speaker 1: Right. What does this have to do with the science community?
• 2:04:18
  Speaker 2: One, we have huge amounts of power. The United States
• 2:04:24
  is terribly configured because we pretend– that we're okay doing
• 2:04:29
  everything through our university system, which shouldn't be done in
• 2:04:34
  an open setting. Like you have to be honest about
• 2:04:36
  the fact that we're badly configured.
• 2:04:38
  Speaker 1: What do you mean by that?
• 2:04:39
  Speaker 2: We didn't know how deadly physics was. When Rutherford in
• 2:04:43
  1911 said that there's a neutron, nobody, I'm sure nobody
• 2:04:48
  said to him, oh my God, you've ended the plan.
• 2:04:51
  Now new humanity is doomed. So it used to be
• 2:04:53
  the case that physics was something that was like interesting
• 2:04:56
  and fun. But now it's like the most deadly thing
• 2:04:59
  you can imagine as well as being interesting.
• 2:05:01
  Speaker 1: In a quick timeline too if you stop and think
• 2:05:03
  about that.
• 2:05:03
  Speaker 3: 41 years. Yeah.
• 2:05:04
  Speaker 1: So literally. Yeah.
• 2:05:06
  Speaker 2: 41 years. So my claim is that we are walking
• 2:05:11
  around right now with all of these extremely deadly ninja
• 2:05:18
  priests in our physics departments, in our math departments who
• 2:05:22
  don't even know that they're deadly ninja priests. They've never
• 2:05:25
  worked on something classified. They've never solved problems for our government.
• 2:05:29
  But in part, we fund our scientists as part of
• 2:05:33
  a complex cryptic arrangement worked out by Vannevar Bush that
• 2:05:38
  is now remembered by essentially no one. So the idea
• 2:05:43
  is you people, Teller, Ulam, Feynman, Oppenheimer, von Neumann, you
• 2:05:51
  are dev groups. SEAL Team 6 of the human mind.
• 2:05:57
  You're Delta. And most of the time you're going to
• 2:06:01
  teach classes. You know, it's like Indiana Jones, you know,
• 2:06:06
  an archaeologist with a bow tie. And then he's running
• 2:06:09
  around with a whip and, you know, killing people.
• 2:06:11
  Speaker 3: Right. Okay.
• 2:06:13
  Speaker 2: That's what physicists and mathematicians are. That's why we're funded.
• 2:06:18
  That's why the Department of Energy funds physics. It's not
• 2:06:21
  the Department of Energy. It's the Department of Nuclear Weapons.
• 2:06:24
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 2:06:25
  Speaker 2: It's the Department of Physics.
• 2:06:27
  Speaker 1: So they let the physics people work out all these
• 2:06:29
  problems and then they take whatever their findings are and
• 2:06:32
  apply them to weapons.
• 2:06:34
  Speaker 2: Boom, vroom, and zoom. And that changed the economy. It
• 2:06:38
  changes the ability to compute. This is who I really am.
• 2:06:46
  This is what I really do. And I will not
• 2:06:48
  mouth this narrative that all of my colleagues will mouth.
• 2:06:53
  Physics is interesting. Yeah, a lot of the time it's dull.
• 2:06:57
  You know, physics is international.
• 2:07:00
  Speaker 3: Oh, really?
• 2:07:01
  Speaker 2: Why do you think the American taxpayer is funding this
• 2:07:03
  international effort just to educate Chinese? For all I know,
• 2:07:08
  we're trying to sterilize the Chinese and the Indians with
• 2:07:11
  string theory. So because nobody's talked to me about this,
• 2:07:15
  I can speak freely. But if you ask me, you know,
• 2:07:19
  the Indians are some of the most aggressive string theorists
• 2:07:21
  on earth. And my question is, Do we import them
• 2:07:25
  in such large numbers so that they'll go home and
• 2:07:27
  be ineffectual?
• 2:07:32
  Speaker 1: That's crazy. So that's a real possibility?
• 2:07:35
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 2:07:35
  Speaker 1: That string theory exists as a distraction.
• 2:07:39
  Speaker 2: Joe, what do you think the odds are that a
• 2:07:42
  scientist can say, my failed theory is the only game
• 2:07:45
  in town and not get laughed out of town?
• 2:07:49
  Speaker 1: Not so good. Yeah. I would imagine, in a free-thinking world.
• 2:07:53
  Speaker 2: In a free-thinking world, I would say, Ed Witten, you're
• 2:07:55
  full of shit.
• 2:07:57
  Speaker 1: Who talks like that?
• 2:07:58
  Speaker 2: You're not, you're the smartest person I've ever met and
• 2:08:01
  you have not earned the right to say that your
• 2:08:03
  failed theory, your disaster of a catastrophe of a theory
• 2:08:10
  is the most failed theory in history in physics. And
• 2:08:13
  you're saying it's the only game in town who died
• 2:08:15
  and left you King, sir.
• 2:08:17
  Speaker 1: I want to bring you to one of the weirdest
• 2:08:18
  theories that you have.
• 2:08:19
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 2:08:20
  Speaker 1: Which is you talked about this very overly supported physics
• 2:08:27
  department in this upstate university, upstate New York university that's
• 2:08:32
  attached to a hedge fund.
• 2:08:33
  Speaker 2: SUNY Stony Brook's mathematics department and physics department.
• 2:08:37
  Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah.
• 2:08:39
  Speaker 1: This is a weird one.
• 2:08:40
  Speaker 3: All right.
• 2:08:40
  Speaker 1: Because it's attached to a hedge fund that does Bernie
• 2:08:42
  Madoff type numbers.
• 2:08:44
  Speaker 2: Bernie Madoff is a loser piker. Joe, Bernie Madoff was regular,
• 2:08:53
  and that's why they called him the Jewish T-bill.
• 2:08:56
  Speaker 1: T-bill?
• 2:08:56
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 2:08:56
  Speaker 1: What's a T-bill?
• 2:08:57
  Speaker 2: A treasury security that allowed you to just earn some
• 2:09:03
  very boring, very high rate of return where you were
• 2:09:06
  supposedly having your money at risk, but you essentially never lost.
• 2:09:09
  There were like almost no down months. Renaissance technologies is like, no, no, no.
• 2:09:17
  Hold my beer. We're just going to make numbers like
• 2:09:19
  nobody's ever made in human history. There's nobody in second
• 2:09:22
  or third place relative to Renaissance technology medallion fund.
• 2:09:26
  Speaker 1: And how is it connected to this university? And what
• 2:09:29
  do you think is going on up there?
• 2:09:34
  Speaker 2: One, I don't know.
• 2:09:36
  Speaker 1: But something weird.
• 2:09:38
  Speaker 2: It's weird as hell. I know, I knew Jim Simons personally.
• 2:09:44
  Jim Simons is a genius. But a lot of other
• 2:09:50
  people are geniuses. I hate to say it, but you
• 2:09:53
  can't swing a cat in my world without hitting a genius.
• 2:09:57
  So he was great. But he wasn't that much smarter
• 2:10:03
  than every other genius at that level. So I would say,
• 2:10:08
  you know, top hundred minds in mathematics and physics clearly
• 2:10:13
  better than that. Jim Started off working for the DIA,
• 2:10:21
  the Defense Intelligence Unit. Supposedly quit out of outrage over Vietnam.
• 2:10:29
  Becomes the super young chairman of the SUNY Stony Brook
• 2:10:32
  Mathematics Department. Holds a lunch seminar with a guy who
• 2:10:39
  will become the world's smartest living physicist, a guy named C.N.
• 2:10:45
  Speaker 1: Yang.
• 2:10:48
  Speaker 2: And they discover over lunch a connection between differential geometry,
• 2:10:52
  Jim's specialty, and C.N. Yang's specialty, which is the standard model.
• 2:11:01
  Jim then quits, forms a hedge fund long before it's
• 2:11:08
  cool with the father of another guest of yours on
• 2:11:12
  this program, Brian Keating. And the two of them both
• 2:11:17
  have medals. So they call it medallion because they've won prizes.
• 2:11:22
  So what's his name? James Axe, not Keating. And the
• 2:11:27
  two of them start this thing and it takes off
• 2:11:29
  at some level that nobody's ever seen numbers before. And
• 2:11:34
  then they institute this policy, which is we're not going
• 2:11:36
  to hire financial experts. We're only going to hire math,
• 2:11:40
  physics people. So we're going to hire geometers. We're going
• 2:11:44
  to hire particle theorists, general relativists, and machine learning people.
• 2:11:51
  Who came up with this story? Do you buy this story?
• 2:11:57
  This is so strange because it sort of also mirrors
• 2:11:59
  a second story that was not associated with Brookhaven, which
• 2:12:04
  is the national lab near SUNY Stony Brook, but associated
• 2:12:07
  with Los Alamos, which is a story called the Prediction Company.
• 2:12:11
  Except In that case, the name of the person isn't
• 2:12:14
  Jim Simons. It's Doyne Farmer. And the prediction company is
• 2:12:19
  the analog of Renaissance. So what you see is that
• 2:12:21
  once people have a pattern, it seems like these patterns repeat.
• 2:12:26
  So my point is, if you ask the question, do
• 2:12:29
  we have a Manhattan Project in the current era? We
• 2:12:33
  don't know. You don't know.
• 2:12:34
  Speaker 3: I don't know.
• 2:12:36
  Speaker 2: But if we're allowed to speculate, the question would be,
• 2:12:39
  where would it be located? So how would you find,
• 2:12:42
  for example, the existence of a boys' school in rural
• 2:12:47
  New Mexico where all of these super smart people are
• 2:12:50
  holed up? That's a real puzzle. How would you figure
• 2:12:54
  out that Los Alamos was happening if that was your goal?
• 2:13:01
  You'd look for indirect evidence. Jamie, can you call up
• 2:13:04
  an article called Forbidden City from 1944 by a guy named, unfortunately,
• 2:13:10
  Jack Raper, R-A-P-E-R?
• 2:13:13
  Speaker 1: Change your name, bro.
• 2:13:14
  Speaker 3: I know, right.
• 2:13:14
  Speaker 1: At least call yourself Rapper. Add a P or something.
• 2:13:22
  Speaker 2: Or a G before everything. In 1944, the craziest thing
• 2:13:26
  in the world.
• 2:13:26
  Speaker 1: What? G, Graper?
• 2:13:27
  Speaker 2: Graper, right, exactly.
• 2:13:31
  Speaker 1: There it is.
• 2:13:32
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 2:13:33
  Speaker 2: So this article appeared Monday, March 13th, 1944. Santa Fe,
• 2:13:38
  New Mexico. The story of a secret city with a
• 2:13:44
  mayor who is the second Einstein working on a doomsday
• 2:13:48
  weapon where nothing leaks.
• 2:13:53
  Speaker 1: And this is from what year?
• 2:13:54
  Speaker 2: 1944. Okay. So the entire Manhattan Project leaked. Because a
• 2:14:02
  Cleveland journalist named Jack Raper happened to vacation in New
• 2:14:06
  Mexico and stumbled on the greatest secret ever kept.
• 2:14:14
  Speaker 1: Really?
• 2:14:15
  Speaker 3: Dude.
• 2:14:16
  Speaker 2: How can we not know this, Joe?
• 2:14:18
  Speaker 3: Wow.
• 2:14:19
  Speaker 1: And it's all about Oppenheimer. Residents must stay. Dr. Oppenheimer
• 2:14:23
  is a Harvard graduate, attended Cambridge. She's a PhD from
• 2:14:28
  Göttingen University in Germany. Germany. Professor of physics, University of California,
• 2:14:33
  California Institute of Technology, and is a fellow of too
• 2:14:36
  many organizations to enumerate. And so they were recognizing that
• 2:14:42
  Oppenheimer was doing something. They knew that he was working
• 2:14:44
  on a doomsday device.
• 2:14:46
  Speaker 2: Uncle Sam has placed the city in charge of two men,
• 2:14:49
  the men who command the soldiers. I can't read it.
• 2:14:53
  Speaker 4: See that the garbage and rubbish are collected, the streets
• 2:14:56
  kept up, the electric light and plant and the water
• 2:14:58
  works functioning and all other metropolitan work operating smooth is
• 2:15:02
  Colonel Somebody. I don't know his name, but it isn't
• 2:15:06
  so important because the Mr. Big of the city is
• 2:15:09
  called Professor Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, called the second Einstein
• 2:15:13
  by the newspapers of the West Coast.
• 2:15:15
  Speaker 2: So what I'm trying to say is Jack Raper never
• 2:15:19
  got a Pulitzer Prize.
• 2:15:22
  Speaker 1: Died in obscurity.
• 2:15:24
  Speaker 2: Leslie Groves, who was the other guy who was running
• 2:15:26
  the town, decided to send him to the Pacific to
• 2:15:30
  punish him for being the best journalist in America. And
• 2:15:35
  when he found out he was 60 years old, they decided, okay,
• 2:15:38
  we're just going to ignore this story and hope everyone
• 2:15:40
  else does because it's too crazy to be real. Now,
• 2:15:44
  what I'm telling you right now is Raper never figured
• 2:15:48
  out what Los Alamos was, but he knows that it
• 2:15:51
  doesn't make sense. I'm telling you, Renaissance technologies doesn't make sense.
• 2:15:55
  Speaker 1: So these different, what?
• 2:15:57
  Speaker 4: Another widespread belief is that he's developing ordinance and explosives.
• 2:16:01
  Supporters of this guess argue that it accounts for the
• 2:16:04
  number of mechanics working on the production of a single device.
• 2:16:08
  And there are others who would tell you tremendous explosions
• 2:16:10
  have been heard.
• 2:16:11
  Speaker 2: Oh, that Jack Raper with his overactive imagination. The problem
• 2:16:15
  with conspiracy theorists is that they say the darndest things, Joe.
• 2:16:19
  Speaker 1: Okay. So what do you think they're working on, these
• 2:16:23
  people at the sub-state New York University?
• 2:16:26
  Speaker 2: Well, what are we not working on? In other words,
• 2:16:28
  how do you discover what we're actually up to is
• 2:16:31
  in part you listen for the holes. What do I
• 2:16:36
  work on? I work on the ability to get out
• 2:16:40
  of the solar system. That is my life's mission. I
• 2:16:47
  think Elon is a bit of a pussy.
• 2:16:54
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 2:16:55
  Speaker 5: How so?
• 2:16:55
  Speaker 1: I don't know.
• 2:16:56
  Speaker 2: He won't meet with me.
• 2:16:57
  Speaker 9: Well.
• 2:16:58
  Speaker 3: It's okay.
• 2:16:58
  Speaker 1: Maybe because you call him a pussy.
• 2:16:59
  Speaker 3: Yeah. No.
• 2:17:01
  Speaker 1: Maybe he's busy. Maybe he's trying to make chicks pregnant.
• 2:17:05
  Speaker 3: No.
• 2:17:06
  Speaker 2: He meets with me. That's something he does with recreation.
• 2:17:09
  Speaker 1: Elon's a genius.
• 2:17:11
  Speaker 2: And Elon is trying to replace scientists with Grok. And
• 2:17:17
  one of the things, I was on an Indian podcast
• 2:17:20
  called The guy's name is Beer Biceps Guy. He's the
• 2:17:24
  Joe Rogan of India.
• 2:17:26
  Speaker 5: What's his name?
• 2:17:27
  Speaker 2: Ranveer Alabadia. Can you find him?
• 2:17:30
  Speaker 1: Shout out to Ranveer.
• 2:17:31
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 2:17:31
  Speaker 2: So Ranveer is a friend of mine in Versova. And
• 2:17:36
  I went on his podcast. And before SpaceX and XAI merged,
• 2:17:42
  I said, look, I don't think SpaceX is Elon's space program.
• 2:17:51
  His space program is Grok. Elon doesn't trust scientists for
• 2:17:57
  good reason, because they're weak. So he's building his own
• 2:18:01
  scientist from when we were strong. He's going to have
• 2:18:05
  it read the corpus of physics done by competent physicists
• 2:18:08
  who actually care about the physical world so he doesn't
• 2:18:10
  have to deal with any of us. That's why he
• 2:18:12
  won't meet. It's not because he's not interested, not because
• 2:18:15
  he doesn't know. I invited him to the talk as
• 2:18:19
  I did you yesterday. The goal is to get out
• 2:18:23
  of the solar system and we're so far away from
• 2:18:26
  everything good that there's no way of doing it under relativity.
• 2:18:30
  So why are we not researching the only thing That
• 2:18:34
  can save us, which is diversification. We need to spread
• 2:18:38
  out to the largest number of habitable worlds possible.
• 2:18:42
  Speaker 1: So this implies some sort of a new propulsion system.
• 2:18:45
  Speaker 2: This implies new science. Stop thinking technology. There's no way to,
• 2:18:49
  you can't engineer your way out of a science problem.
• 2:18:52
  You have to science your way out.
• 2:18:53
  Speaker 1: What would be that science?
• 2:18:55
  Speaker 2: Post Einstein, post relativity. That's what I do.
• 2:18:59
  Speaker 1: And how would that apply to us leaving the solar system?
• 2:19:02
  Speaker 2: We don't live in space-time. Space-time has a speed limit.
• 2:19:07
  Explain that. If you can only go the speed of
• 2:19:10
  light at your best and you can't even get anywhere
• 2:19:12
  close to that, how are you going to get to
• 2:19:13
  something four light years away in a fantasy world? By
• 2:19:20
  the time you go and come back, even assuming all– No.
• 2:19:22
  Speaker 1: Everybody would be dead.
• 2:19:23
  Speaker 3: No, no, no.
• 2:19:24
  Speaker 2: Assume you can go it under the speed of light,
• 2:19:26
  just under. You can use time dilation and relativistic effects
• 2:19:30
  to your benefit. but it's going to cost you eight
• 2:19:33
  years to go and come back.
• 2:19:34
  Speaker 1: Right. Okay.
• 2:19:36
  Speaker 2: I don't want to do that. If I'm going to
• 2:19:37
  explore the cosmos, I don't want to use, I don't
• 2:19:40
  want to live in space.
• 2:19:41
  Speaker 1: So what are the alternatives?
• 2:19:43
  Speaker 2: The observers, the successor to space time. I'm happy to
• 2:19:47
  predict this on your show will be named the observers,
• 2:19:50
  which is a combination of not just using a four
• 2:19:52
  dimensional space time manifold, but a 14 and a four
• 2:19:56
  dimensional space simultaneously. This was what I was talking about
• 2:20:00
  at the university yesterday.
• 2:20:02
  Speaker 1: And how would that, like when you say the difference
• 2:20:04
  between science and technology, how would that science be applied?
• 2:20:09
  If we look at the surface of this table, I
• 2:20:12
  can't do.
• 2:20:12
  Speaker 2: This to it.
• 2:20:14
  Speaker 1: Can't spread it apart, move it, right.
• 2:20:15
  Speaker 2: It's called pinch to zoom.
• 2:20:17
  Speaker 6: Right.
• 2:20:17
  Speaker 2: It's a multi-touch gesture invented around 2003 or something, debuted
• 2:20:22
  at TED. But if I come to this device, I
• 2:20:25
  can do that.
• 2:20:26
  Speaker 1: Your phone.
• 2:20:27
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 2:20:27
  Speaker 2: So imagine that this is space-time.
• 2:20:29
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 2:20:29
  Speaker 2: And this is the observer's. So if I want to
• 2:20:33
  go to a distant star, there's no way I'm going
• 2:20:37
  to just go really fast. That's dumb. And I need
• 2:20:42
  an energy source and I need to do things that
• 2:20:44
  we can't normally do. You have to jailbreak space time.
• 2:20:48
  If Einstein is in force, we all die. If we
• 2:20:51
  go beyond Einstein, some of us will live and some
• 2:20:53
  of us will die.
• 2:20:55
  Speaker 1: And what would be the energy that you would need
• 2:21:00
  in order to do this?
• 2:21:01
  Speaker 2: So how do you unlock this? One is, maybe it's
• 2:21:06
  not that energetic to do these things. Energy is technically
• 2:21:12
  time momentum. You can talk about momentum in the X direction,
• 2:21:16
  momentum in the Y, momentum in the Z.
• 2:21:19
  Speaker 3: Fine.
• 2:21:19
  Speaker 2: What's momentum in the time direction? It has a different name.
• 2:21:22
  We don't call energy time momentum, but that's what it is.
• 2:21:27
  So first of all, I don't believe that there's one
• 2:21:29
  direction of time. There's no arrow of time. That's not true.
• 2:21:33
  I believe that time is multidimensional. The only dimension that
• 2:21:37
  has an ordering is one dimension. So in other words,
• 2:21:42
  if I say to you, Joe has two cigars, Eric
• 2:21:46
  has none. Who has more cigars?
• 2:21:49
  Speaker 3: Joe.
• 2:21:49
  Speaker 8: Okay.
• 2:21:51
  Speaker 2: Joe has two cigars, but Eric has three glasses and
• 2:21:57
  no cigars. Joe has one glass and two cigars. Who
• 2:22:00
  has more stuff? Well, now it's not clear because Eric
• 2:22:03
  has more glasses than Joe. But Joe has more cigars.
• 2:22:07
  So in two dimensions, we no longer can say this
• 2:22:10
  is better than that for things where you have more
• 2:22:13
  of one and less of another. Time is like that.
• 2:22:19
  In one dimension, there's an arrow. There's an ordering. We
• 2:22:21
  call it– it's like a well-ordered set or something. In
• 2:22:25
  two dimensions, all bets are off and two and higher.
• 2:22:31
  The number of dimensions in total is going to be
• 2:22:33
  either five or seven. And each of those dimensions has
• 2:22:39
  a different kind of energy. So in other words, energy
• 2:22:44
  is unique because there's only one time dimension. But as
• 2:22:48
  soon as time has multiple dimensions, you can talk about
• 2:22:52
  multiple forms of energy. Just the way you can talk
• 2:22:55
  about momentum in the X direction, momentum in the Y direction,
• 2:22:58
  or momentum in the Z direction. So in part, what
• 2:23:03
  I'm trying to do is to jailbreak space time. That's
• 2:23:06
  what I'm actually doing. And I'm doing it with zero support,
• 2:23:11
  with no confirmation that this is real, because something is
• 2:23:15
  controlling my entire community. To make this funny ha-ha, just
• 2:23:19
  like Forbidden City, was Jack Graper has gone mad. He
• 2:23:24
  thinks that there's a city in New Mexico where there's
• 2:23:27
  a mayor who's a second Einstein developing a doomsday weapon.
• 2:23:30
  Is that funny? What a loon that guy. What an idiot.
• 2:23:35
  Speaker 5: Ha ha.
• 2:23:37
  Speaker 2: That's what's going on, Joe.
• 2:23:39
  Speaker 1: So how do you think that technology could be applied
• 2:23:44
  to these ideas in order to create some mode of travel?
• 2:23:51
  Speaker 2: Pinch to zooms, Joe.
• 2:23:52
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 2:23:52
  Speaker 1: But how? How would that be done?
• 2:23:54
  Speaker 2: So right now we're in a four-dimensional world. Call that flatland. Okay.
• 2:23:58
  Imagine that there are ten perpendicular dimensions called symmetric two tensors.
• 2:24:04
  Four of those are spatial directions and six of them temporal.
• 2:24:12
  Or four of them are temporal and six of them spatial.
• 2:24:17
  I can't tell you one of those two.
• 2:24:20
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 2:24:20
  Speaker 2: But there are additionally either four or six extra time
• 2:24:23
  dimensions or six or four space dimensions. We have to
• 2:24:30
  gain access to break out of flat land. We live
• 2:24:33
  in flatland. We don't know we live in flatland. And
• 2:24:37
  I know what that, technically the name is fiber dimension,
• 2:24:43
  what it is. We have to gain access to it,
• 2:24:45
  which is discovering that somebody gives you an obsidian rock
• 2:24:49
  that has a property that you've never seen before called
• 2:24:52
  pinch to zoom. So I need to make the distance
• 2:24:55
  to the nearest star small so I can go with
• 2:25:00
  reasonable speed.
• 2:25:03
  Speaker 1: Or instantaneously?
• 2:25:04
  Speaker 2: I don't need instantaneously. If I have something four light
• 2:25:09
  years away and I can make it 100 feet away,
• 2:25:11
  I can walk 100 feet easily enough. I can push something.
• 2:25:18
  So the idea is if I can gain access to
• 2:25:19
  the fiber, the distance becomes relatively immaterial.
• 2:25:25
  Speaker 1: So if you think that these physicists are working on
• 2:25:27
  this and all these.
• 2:25:28
  Speaker 2: No, I didn't say that I think- Okay. I'm saying
• 2:25:31
  if anybody- Is working on that. One of two things
• 2:25:34
  is happening. Either we have become the stupidest nation on
• 2:25:37
  earth destroying our own ability to do physics. We gave
• 2:25:41
  away the store.
• 2:25:42
  Speaker 1: We're morons.
• 2:25:43
  Speaker 2: That's possible. Or we're doing it in private.
• 2:25:48
  Speaker 1: And you feel like it's possible to hide all this
• 2:25:51
  from the general public?
• 2:25:52
  Speaker 2: Well, my point is you're not going to hide it.
• 2:25:53
  Speaker 3: No, no, no.
• 2:25:54
  Speaker 2: The same way they did it before would be spoiled
• 2:25:56
  by satellites. Right now, if you tried to do Los Alamos...
• 2:26:02
  You couldn't do it because of the satellites. So it
• 2:26:04
  has to be hidden in plain sight. It has to
• 2:26:09
  look like something that it isn't. So if you ask me,
• 2:26:14
  let's imagine you ask me a different question. Let's imagine
• 2:26:16
  you ask me, Eric, nobody's willing to give you money.
• 2:26:19
  Nobody's willing to employ you. Nobody's willing to have you
• 2:26:21
  speak at their seminar. Despite the fact that you have
• 2:26:24
  complete blue chip credibility. How would you, how would you
• 2:26:30
  organize a secret team? To get control of our adversaries,
• 2:26:34
  the world, and the ability to traverse the cosmos. I
• 2:26:39
  sure as shit wouldn't build a chemical rocket company. It's dumb.
• 2:26:43
  But I'd do it as cover. And I sure as
• 2:26:47
  shit wouldn't do things in an open university department. Here's
• 2:26:51
  what I'd do. I'd build an organization that could rationalize
• 2:26:57
  billions passing through it with almost no footprint. Because what
• 2:27:01
  I really need is whiteboards and coffee and smart people
• 2:27:06
  and a secure campus and a story. That's all I need.
• 2:27:11
  Speaker 1: God, wouldn't you love to have access to what they're doing?
• 2:27:14
  Speaker 2: No, because I'm going to do it myself.
• 2:27:16
  Speaker 1: How are you going to do that?
• 2:27:18
  Speaker 2: Because I know really smart people, Joe.
• 2:27:21
  Speaker 1: Don't you need insane amounts of money and a laboratory somewhere?
• 2:27:24
  Speaker 5: You know what?
• 2:27:24
  Speaker 2: It's funny. Sam Altman is racing. Dario Amadai is racing.
• 2:27:29
  Elon Musk for superintelligence. So I asked myself, if you
• 2:27:35
  could have premium subscriptions to Grok, Gemini, Xbox, sorry, Grok, Gemini, Claude,
• 2:27:48
  all of them, or you could have Edward Frankel's home
• 2:27:51
  phone number, which would you choose? I'd choose Ed Frankel's
• 2:27:54
  home phone number. So I get to call Ed Frankel
• 2:27:59
  whenever I want to. That's smart. Look, there are people
• 2:28:04
  that you don't even know about who are just terrifyingly smart, who.
• 2:28:13
  Speaker 1: Allow me to assemble that team.
• 2:28:16
  Speaker 2: Is that literally what you're trying to do?
• 2:28:18
  Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. And how are you doing it? I don't know.
• 2:28:21
  Speaker 2: I stayed with Ed for five days in Berkeley. I
• 2:28:25
  got him and another colleague.
• 2:28:30
  Who's also terrifying. I'm using Soviets, Joe X Soviets.
• 2:28:34
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 2:28:35
  Speaker 2: Cause those guys haven't, haven't lost the magic. And, uh,
• 2:28:41
  you know, I had Frankel and a guy named Misha
• 2:28:43
  Kapranoff come down for five days to kick the shit
• 2:28:47
  out of my theory. It was crazy. Absolutely crazy. We're
• 2:28:51
  drinking vodka at 10 AM having insane meals. And just
• 2:28:59
  working our asses off the way we're supposed to.
• 2:29:04
  Speaker 3: How'd it go?
• 2:29:05
  Speaker 2: Amazing.
• 2:29:07
  Speaker 1: What did they think about your theory?
• 2:29:09
  Speaker 2: So far, all systems go, Joe.
• 2:29:12
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 2:29:13
  Speaker 3: So.
• 2:29:15
  Speaker 2: In other words, the story. Can we just pull up?
• 2:29:20
  I just want to do this for my own reasons.
• 2:29:22
  Can we pull up the pinned tweet on my Twitter profile? Which,
• 2:29:26
  by the way, thank you for retweeting.
• 2:29:28
  Speaker 1: No problem.
• 2:29:28
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 2:29:29
  Speaker 2: Love you.
• 2:29:30
  Speaker 5: Love you, too.
• 2:29:31
  Speaker 1: What is it? Go to it real quick.
• 2:29:37
  Speaker 2: So, first of all, I want to show off the header.
• 2:29:40
  Can we go up to the top of the header
• 2:29:41
  before we do that? Those two formulas, the bottom one
• 2:29:51
  says CFJ. C is Sean Carroll. The middle F is fields.
• 2:30:00
  And J is Roman Jakiv, a professor at MIT. Sean
• 2:30:07
  Carroll's second most cited paper has this as its action
• 2:30:12
  or Lagrangian. Right above that is my action or Lagrangian.
• 2:30:19
  And what you see, all those zeros, are things that
• 2:30:22
  Sean Carroll doesn't know how to handle. And that thing
• 2:30:25
  where you see a P... You see star parentheses P
• 2:30:28
  in the bottom line, not the bottom, the second from
• 2:30:31
  the bottom, is Sean's relativity-violating hack. Sean Carroll did not
• 2:30:38
  disclose that geometric unity is a direct competitor to his
• 2:30:44
  most cited work. So now if we can roll the clip,
• 2:30:47
  it will make more sense as to what's going on.
• 2:30:54
  And let's blow that thing up to full screen. Your
• 2:30:56
  portrayal of the situation is nearly constant for reasons that
• 2:31:01
  completely elude me.
• 2:31:04
  Speaker 1: Sean? The good news is I have read Eric's paper.
• 2:31:07
  Here it is.
• 2:31:08
  Speaker 9: I actually have it here, right here.
• 2:31:10
  Speaker 1: First thing you got.
• 2:31:10
  Speaker 9: To do is make sure that your theory makes contact
• 2:31:14
  with modern physics as it is understood. If you have
• 2:31:17
  a new paper out, physicists are going to look at it.
• 2:31:19
  They're going to look for, you know, where's Lagrangian?
• 2:31:21
  Speaker 1: You know what? So this is, for people that are
• 2:31:28
  just listening, this is showing that you have Lagrangians in your,
• 2:31:33
  these equations.
• 2:31:34
  Speaker 2: It's showing Sean Carroll lying.
• 2:31:36
  Speaker 1: Right. Did you, did you, the interactions are in there
• 2:31:42
  as well. But you call, did you call him out
• 2:31:44
  on this, on the show?
• 2:31:45
  Speaker 2: I couldn't believe that he'd do this.
• 2:31:47
  Speaker 1: So you didn't say anything? I was stunned. Proton stability,
• 2:31:50
  that's in there as well. So essentially he's lying to
• 2:31:54
  make it seem like your theory doesn't work when you
• 2:31:56
  have all the things that he's saying your theory doesn't have.
• 2:31:58
  Speaker 2: One of two lies. We don't know which lie.
• 2:32:00
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 2:32:01
  Speaker 2: There's a lie that says, I read your paper. So
• 2:32:06
  I'm willing to entertain the fact that he's lying that
• 2:32:09
  he read my paper.
• 2:32:10
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 2:32:11
  Speaker 2: And I'm willing to entertain the fact that he's lying that.
• 2:32:16
  He read my paper and he's going to deny that
• 2:32:17
  these things are in there. But I don't know which
• 2:32:20
  lie he's telling.
• 2:32:21
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 2:32:21
  Speaker 1: One of them is a lie. Either he lied saying
• 2:32:23
  he read your paper or he lied saying– he definitely
• 2:32:25
  lied saying those things aren't in there because he did
• 2:32:27
  say those things aren't in there. That's a lie.
• 2:32:29
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 2:32:29
  Speaker 2: He just says there's none of that, none of that,
• 2:32:30
  none of that.
• 2:32:31
  Speaker 7: OK.
• 2:32:31
  Speaker 1: So my claim is– Why didn't you respond? Like right there.
• 2:32:35
  Speaker 2: Joe, what am I– just– let's just– one second. I'm
• 2:32:41
  in a world that makes absolutely no sense and I
• 2:32:44
  don't want to disappear. I'm not suicidal. I have been
• 2:32:48
  the major competitor of string theory for 42 years. I'm
• 2:32:52
  not a podcaster. I'm not a guest. I'm not an entertainer.
• 2:32:58
  What I really do for a living, I'm not paid
• 2:33:02
  to do.
• 2:33:04
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 2:33:04
  Speaker 1: I understand that.
• 2:33:05
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 2:33:05
  Speaker 1: When he's saying.
• 2:33:06
  Speaker 2: I don't know what to do.
• 2:33:07
  Speaker 1: You just didn't know what to do in the moment.
• 2:33:08
  Speaker 2: I mean, what do I want? Do I want a
• 2:33:09
  legal battle?
• 2:33:10
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 2:33:11
  Speaker 2: I've got a defense contractor. One of the world's largest
• 2:33:14
  companies is a defense contractor which has a campaign against
• 2:33:18
  me for reasons I don't understand. Just no clue why
• 2:33:24
  anyone would say you don't have a Lagrangian.
• 2:33:27
  Speaker 1: So he's attached to a defense contractor? No, no, no.
• 2:33:30
  Speaker 2: But there's a– by virtue of the fact that the
• 2:33:35
  conspiracy against me– and I literally mean technically a conspiracy–
• 2:33:40
  is organized through these Discord servers. And there's an engineer
• 2:33:47
  at Google who, for example, can't get a paper against
• 2:33:51
  me that lies about what it is that I'm up
• 2:33:53
  to published on the archive, which is where physicists share
• 2:33:58
  their stuff. So the engineer will say, how about you
• 2:34:01
  do a talk at Google, Sabina Hassenfelder? And Sabina Hassenfelder
• 2:34:05
  will come to Google. And She'll be given her thing
• 2:34:11
  if he will be allowed to post an anti-Eric screed
• 2:34:16
  or paper or whatever you want to call it against me.
• 2:34:18
  So what I'm trying to say is I'm acting as
• 2:34:20
  Jack Raper in some way. I'm doing stuff and saying
• 2:34:24
  stuff like Epstein is a construct. Well, OK, now you
• 2:34:29
  can say that. But you couldn't say that when I
• 2:34:30
  started saying it. You can't say Ed Witten is driving
• 2:34:35
  theoretical physics off of a cliff. You can't say. You know,
• 2:34:38
  the reason that we have the particles that we do
• 2:34:43
  is that there's a 10-dimensional fiber in a fiber bundle
• 2:34:46
  above space-time that isn't acknowledged. For some reason, the things
• 2:34:50
  that we're talking about on this show are dangerous. We're
• 2:34:55
  having dangerous conversations, Joe. That's what JRE does. And sometimes
• 2:35:00
  you go all the way and sometimes you puss out. But, like,
• 2:35:03
  this is a dangerous place because they can't tell you
• 2:35:06
  what to do. And that's why they put you in
• 2:35:08
  like a different color on the screen during COVID because
• 2:35:12
  you went against the narrative. The narrative was go get vaccinated.
• 2:35:18
  The narrative was if you think that COVID came from
• 2:35:20
  anything other than a wet market, you're a racist. Every
• 2:35:24
  time you've gone up against the narrative, they try to
• 2:35:26
  destroy you. You're still here, but you've been badly, badly
• 2:35:31
  bruised at various times. You are a danger to the
• 2:35:36
  narrative as I am a danger to the narrative. That's
• 2:35:39
  one of the reasons why this is like, I don't
• 2:35:40
  know what it is. It's my eighth, sixth, some large
• 2:35:43
  number of appearances. We are scary to the narrative and
• 2:35:46
  the narrative can no longer be held together.
• 2:35:49
  Speaker 1: I want to bring you back to the technology that's involved.
• 2:35:53
  So when we're talking about this program that may or
• 2:35:59
  may not exist, and when we're talking about UAPs for
• 2:36:04
  lack of a better term. Do you think that these
• 2:36:06
  are connected and do you think that– Yes. So one
• 2:36:10
  of the things that I've suspected and I'm not the
• 2:36:13
  only one. Many people suspected this. It's very odd that
• 2:36:17
  a lot of these sightings that these Air Force pilots
• 2:36:20
  and Navy pilots that they find they're over and near
• 2:36:24
  military bases.
• 2:36:25
  Speaker 2: That's right.
• 2:36:26
  Speaker 1: Which is where you would practice or restricted airspace, which
• 2:36:30
  is where you would use your stuff. And when they
• 2:36:32
  see these things and they have these experiences with these things,
• 2:36:37
  the people that they report them to don't seem shocked.
• 2:36:41
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 2:36:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, this is what Ryan Graves experienced. This
• 2:36:45
  is what Commander David Fravor experienced, that they tell these
• 2:36:50
  people about these things and no one is like, what
• 2:36:53
  the fuck are you talking about?
• 2:36:55
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 2:36:55
  Speaker 1: Because they know. Because this might be ours.
• 2:37:00
  Speaker 2: So some of this is ours.
• 2:37:01
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 2:37:02
  Speaker 2: Some of this is foreign nations and some of this
• 2:37:05
  is not understood. That's what I believe.
• 2:37:07
  Speaker 1: Okay. So some of these things they're seeing is a
• 2:37:12
  part of some undisclosed program.
• 2:37:14
  Speaker 2: I believe that, for example, some of this is not craft,
• 2:37:17
  but the ability to create the illusion of craft.
• 2:37:22
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 2:37:23
  Speaker 2: Some of this, I believe, is craft.
• 2:37:27
  Speaker 1: So the ability to create like a hologram?
• 2:37:31
  Speaker 3: I don't know.
• 2:37:32
  Speaker 2: Like a hologram.
• 2:37:33
  Speaker 3: Plasma? Like, yeah.
• 2:37:34
  Speaker 1: Projected plasma? That's right. Okay. Which we know they can do.
• 2:37:38
  We've seen them. We've shown videos. We've seen limited versions
• 2:37:42
  of this. Imagine that those things scale up. Okay. Okay.
• 2:37:49
  Speaker 2: If there were no aliens or craft, I would want
• 2:37:55
  to create a program. If I was in the disinformation business,
• 2:38:00
  I would want to create one of these things, right?
• 2:38:02
  Speaker 1: Because there's a God shaped hole in.
• 2:38:04
  Speaker 2: All of our souls and minds. And so aliens and
• 2:38:08
  spacecraft fill that hole, right? So there's like, yeah, yeah.
• 2:38:13
  It's God for atheists. So first of all, I would
• 2:38:17
  think that we were incompetent if we didn't have something
• 2:38:20
  that created UFO ghost stories. Why wouldn't you use that?
• 2:38:26
  I also believe that there are foreign nations that may
• 2:38:29
  have leapfrogged us. Clearly, we saw that where we invested
• 2:38:34
  in aircraft carriers and other people invested in drones, and
• 2:38:37
  they realized that this was about economic warfare. It costs
• 2:38:39
  too much to shoot down cheap stuff to me. So
• 2:38:44
  we're in the process of having our Suez moment, if
• 2:38:47
  you will, in Iran, if we're not careful, where it
• 2:38:52
  is revealed that our lead in aircraft carrier groups is
• 2:38:56
  not what we thought it was. So we can get
• 2:39:00
  to Iran in a second, if you like. But what
• 2:39:02
  I believe is that we've been dumped. We've been extremely
• 2:39:09
  stupid since the end of the Cold War. Bill Clinton
• 2:39:11
  and Dick Morris ushered in an era of stupidity that
• 2:39:15
  I cannot even believe is so antithetical to my notion
• 2:39:19
  of my belonging to the smartest nation on Earth that
• 2:39:24
  we've just basically gutted our smart people. The smart people
• 2:39:27
  don't even know each other. Now, what is going on
• 2:39:30
  with the technology and what we're seeing? We've lost control
• 2:39:34
  of some airspace. That's what I believe is happening. I
• 2:39:37
  don't know that to be true, but I believe with
• 2:39:39
  very high probability.
• 2:39:39
  Speaker 1: And you think that's what San Antonio is about?
• 2:39:42
  Speaker 2: San Antonio.
• 2:39:44
  Speaker 1: No, I'm sorry. El Paso.
• 2:39:45
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 2:39:46
  Speaker 2: I believe that El Paso is not about cartel drones.
• 2:39:48
  That's true.
• 2:39:49
  Speaker 3: OK.
• 2:39:49
  Speaker 2: I mean that's not to say that there isn't a
• 2:39:51
  cartel drone here or there. But I don't think we
• 2:39:53
  shut down airspace in El Paso to deal with cartel drones.
• 2:39:58
  Speaker 1: Right. So when– what were the experiences that people were
• 2:40:03
  reporting and like what– What do you know about what
• 2:40:08
  happened in El Paso?
• 2:40:09
  Speaker 2: Well, there's what I know, which is all secondhand. So
• 2:40:14
  what I know, what I can say I know firsthand
• 2:40:16
  is the reporting of various things by various people. But
• 2:40:19
  I probably had five-plus conversations about White Sands. People who
• 2:40:24
  don't know each other are not connected. So whoever is
• 2:40:27
  supposed to be keeping White Sands a secret failed.
• 2:40:31
  Speaker 1: Okay, so.
• 2:40:33
  Speaker 2: I believe that White Sands... has an infestation problem with
• 2:40:38
  stuff that is either not ours or is being blue-teamed, red-teamed,
• 2:40:46
  ours and not told to our people. How would you
• 2:40:50
  deal with the following puzzle? So maybe we're putting our
• 2:40:53
  own– one group is putting our drones or something in
• 2:40:56
  the air. And another group is being told, how would
• 2:41:00
  you deal with this problem? We've lost control of our airspace,
• 2:41:03
  but something is going on in New Mexico.
• 2:41:06
  Speaker 1: What was the descriptions of these drones? What does it
• 2:41:10
  say here? Airspace at the center of the brief but
• 2:41:12
  highly publicized incident February 11, 2026. FAA abruptly announced a
• 2:41:17
  10-day shutdown of the airspace over El Paso International Airport.
• 2:41:21
  The restriction was lifted after just a few hours. Pentagon
• 2:41:24
  anti-drone testing. The Pentagon was testing high-energy laser counter-drone technology
• 2:41:30
  out of the nearby Fort Bliss military base. The FAA
• 2:41:33
  grounded commercial flights out of an abundance of caution. because
• 2:41:36
  of the unannounced testing. Cartel drone activity. Officials from the
• 2:41:40
  Trump administration cited incursions from Mexican drug cartel drones breaching U.S.
• 2:41:44
  airspace as the primary reason for the defense systems were
• 2:41:50
  deployed in the first place. Lack of communication. White House
• 2:41:53
  officials later noted that the FAA administrator implemented the surprise
• 2:41:57
  flight ban without notifying the Pentagon, Department of Homeland Security,
• 2:42:00
  or White House officials. That seems crazy.
• 2:42:04
  Speaker 2: The story doesn't hang together.
• 2:42:05
  Speaker 1: That part doesn't hang together at all.
• 2:42:07
  Speaker 2: Well, that's the thing.
• 2:42:07
  Speaker 1: The FAA administrator implemented a flight ban without notifying the Pentagon,
• 2:42:13
  the Department of Homeland Security, or the White House officials.
• 2:42:15
  That doesn't even seem legal.
• 2:42:18
  Speaker 2: Joe– But I don't know. You and I both have
• 2:42:24
  at least 105 IQs. These are like 65 IQ stories.
• 2:42:26
  Speaker 7: Yeah.
• 2:42:26
  Speaker 1: Well– The Mexican drone cartel one seems like a dopey narrative.
• 2:42:35
  Speaker 2: But maybe there are actually Mexican drones.
• 2:42:39
  Speaker 1: I'm sure the cartels have drones.
• 2:42:40
  Speaker 6: Okay.
• 2:42:41
  Speaker 2: So the cartels have drones. And we're going to use
• 2:42:42
  the fact that El Paso is close to White Sands.
• 2:42:45
  Speaker 1: But what was the reported drone activity? Do you know
• 2:42:49
  anything about it? I do. Yeah?
• 2:42:51
  Speaker 2: I'm not going to say.
• 2:42:53
  Speaker 1: Ooh. No. Mysterious.
• 2:42:55
  Speaker 2: Hardly being mysterious. I'm saying as much as I can.
• 2:42:58
  Speaker 3: I understand.
• 2:42:58
  Speaker 2: But here's the thing.
• 2:42:59
  Speaker 1: I'm joking around.
• 2:43:00
  Speaker 7: Okay.
• 2:43:00
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 2:43:01
  Speaker 1: I'd like to know. Tell me later?
• 2:43:07
  Speaker 3: No.
• 2:43:07
  Speaker 2: It's not like that.
• 2:43:09
  Speaker 3: Look.
• 2:43:12
  Speaker 2: Oh, fuck you both.
• 2:43:15
  Speaker 1: Let's play that awesome music again.
• 2:43:17
  Speaker 4: There's a video from the AP post out just four
• 2:43:20
  days ago that says there is a Cartel attacking lots
• 2:43:23
  of people.
• 2:43:23
  Speaker 1: Well, I'm sure there's cartel drones.
• 2:43:25
  Speaker 2: What I'm trying to say is that, of course, every
• 2:43:28
  single person who knows how to keep a secret knows
• 2:43:30
  how to use the truth to hide a lie.
• 2:43:32
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 2:43:33
  Speaker 2: Of course.
• 2:43:33
  Speaker 1: And that's always been done.
• 2:43:35
  Speaker 2: So the thing that I'm doing is I am so
• 2:43:40
  grateful to this country. I love my country. I am
• 2:43:44
  going to maintain the ability till my dying day to
• 2:43:48
  help my country and advise my country. My country is
• 2:43:53
  a bitch. I don't know why she's acting this way.
• 2:43:56
  I don't know why she's been stupid since 1992.
• 2:44:01
  Speaker 3: Right?
• 2:44:02
  Speaker 2: But she's been acting like a moron since the Clinton administration.
• 2:44:08
  We're bad at being America. And I can't stand it.
• 2:44:12
  So I'm going to– I would love to tell you
• 2:44:14
  everything I know. I would love to penalize people for
• 2:44:17
  being bad at their jobs. But I'm going to retain
• 2:44:23
  the ability to advise my government on my dying day.
• 2:44:26
  And so I'm not going to say what I know.
• 2:44:27
  Speaker 1: OK. It says this is from New York Times. Inside
• 2:44:30
  the debacle that led to the closure of El Paso's airspace,
• 2:44:33
  FAA citing grave risk of fatalities from a new technology
• 2:44:38
  being used on the Mexican border got caught in a
• 2:44:41
  stalemate with the Pentagon, which deemed the weapon necessary.
• 2:44:45
  Speaker 3: Whatever.
• 2:44:46
  Speaker 1: Okay. Who knows?
• 2:44:47
  Speaker 5: Bullshit.
• 2:44:48
  Speaker 1: Come on. As many stories as you can spin, right?
• 2:44:50
  Throw them all out there, right? Throw a bunch of them.
• 2:44:52
  Speaker 2: Look, our press was largely set up in World War
• 2:44:55
  II to go to war. And it's been that way
• 2:44:58
  ever since. And during the Walter Cronkite era and the
• 2:45:02
  Eric Severides and all that kind of stuff that nobody
• 2:45:04
  really remembers, we had a measure of freedom to talk
• 2:45:10
  about things. And it got too much. And in the
• 2:45:12
  middle of the 1970s, we had the Church and Pike–
• 2:45:15
  committee hearings, and we freaked out. We found out who
• 2:45:19
  we really were. We are both the super naive, squeaky
• 2:45:23
  clean state and the baddest of the bad MFs. We're
• 2:45:29
  both things. We're a hybrid. We're extremely Machiavellian. We're extremely naive.
• 2:45:35
  There's no way of stopping that being what we are.
• 2:45:39
  Speaker 1: So you think that it's very possible that There's a
• 2:45:44
  foreign nation that has some sort of technology that can
• 2:45:48
  invade our airspace at will and that's what the shutdown was.
• 2:45:51
  Speaker 2: I believe that somebody may have leapfrogged us as they
• 2:45:55
  have leapfrogged us in drone technology.
• 2:45:59
  Speaker 1: So they may have leapfrogged us in some propulsion technology.
• 2:46:03
  Speaker 2: I believe that there's a nation in Asia, China, which–
• 2:46:11
  puts on amazing drone shows and buys up our academics
• 2:46:14
  who aren't being paid. Cause we're sitting around bitching. What
• 2:46:17
  have you, what have you technical people done for us?
• 2:46:21
  Why do you deserve to be paid from taxpayer dollars?
• 2:46:24
  And the answer is, Oh, shut the fuck up. We
• 2:46:28
  created your economy. You stupid bitches. We're the baddest of
• 2:46:33
  the bad. We are the source of your wealth and
• 2:46:35
  your strength. And you come to us bitching about your
• 2:46:38
  taxpayer dollars. You deserve to lose to China, you little–
• 2:46:46
  I have no words for the– also the new crop
• 2:46:48
  of tech billionaires who were bitten by COVID. What do
• 2:46:53
  you mean by that? Well, they think that Anthony Fauci
• 2:46:55
  was a scientist and so they believed in science before
• 2:46:58
  Fauci and now they don't believe in science.
• 2:47:03
  Speaker 1: I don't understand what you're saying. Oh, my God. I
• 2:47:06
  literally don't understand what you're saying.
• 2:47:07
  Speaker 2: All right. Silicon Valley had a huge about-face– when they
• 2:47:13
  figured out that Fauci was full of shit. A lot
• 2:47:17
  of them bankrolled our universities. They supported science. They were Democrats.
• 2:47:22
  And then somehow COVID happened. And because they had this
• 2:47:26
  childlike belief in universities, science, and the Democratic Party, they
• 2:47:30
  ran to the Republican Party like children, not understanding that
• 2:47:40
  Anthony Fauci was not a scientist. COVID is a giant lie.
• 2:47:46
  Collins and Fauci and Ralph Baric and Peter Daszak are
• 2:47:50
  menaces to the credit of science. The credit rating of
• 2:47:55
  science went into the toilet with Silicon Valley. And a
• 2:47:58
  new idea was born, which is that the engineer is everything.
• 2:48:02
  The scientist is nothing. Everything should be a for-profit, not
• 2:48:08
  a non-profit. If artificial intelligence should replace our best people.
• 2:48:15
  I mean, this is the spell that many of our.
• 2:48:20
  Speaker 3: I.
• 2:48:23
  Speaker 2: Would like to think that I count Marc Andreessen, Peter
• 2:48:25
  Thiel as friends, Sam Altman as a friend. I don't
• 2:48:31
  know what happened to all of these people. They're just wrong.
• 2:48:36
  And they're rich. And somehow we, like our public intellectuals
• 2:48:39
  became our billionaires. What does Naval say? What does Mark say?
• 2:48:44
  What does Elon say? Everybody who's talking in their book
• 2:48:47
  is now our public intellectuals. And quite honestly, they're all brilliant.
• 2:48:55
  But they're all highly motivated.
• 2:49:01
  Speaker 1: That's fact.
• 2:49:01
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 2:49:03
  Speaker 2: But Where are our scientists? Where are our intellectuals? Where
• 2:49:07
  are our people who care more about, how do I
• 2:49:11
  say this, glory and immortality rather than private jet travel?
• 2:49:22
  You could not get me to give up my claim
• 2:49:26
  on immortality for private jet travel. I don't understand the
• 2:49:31
  fascination with private jets.
• 2:49:34
  Speaker 1: They're cool, mildly. Well, it's not just private chats.
• 2:49:41
  Speaker 2: What is it?
• 2:49:42
  Speaker 1: I think they attach monetary gain to success and above
• 2:49:53
  and beyond needs. So it becomes a way of measuring success.
• 2:49:59
  They look at numbers above and beyond everything else.
• 2:50:03
  Speaker 2: My craziest brilliant friend who's completely insane is a guy
• 2:50:07
  named Michael Vassar. Michael Vassar had made a point to
• 2:50:11
  me as he often does, which is really dangerous. And
• 2:50:14
  he said, when did the world's smartest people stop caring
• 2:50:20
  about their own game and their own prizes and start
• 2:50:23
  focusing on the prizes of the people pursuing wealth and status?
• 2:50:31
  And he said, somehow when scientists care about McLarens and Lamborghinis,
• 2:50:36
  something terrible has happened. And boy, has that like a
• 2:50:41
  splinter in my mind turning over. I can't get rid
• 2:50:44
  of it. He's right. He's just right. By the way,
• 2:50:49
  this is a guy who also told me that Dario
• 2:50:52
  Amadai was like a really important person. I needed to
• 2:50:54
  pay attention to him when he was just some guy
• 2:50:57
  that I knew. Vassar's, point is the scientists stop having
• 2:51:05
  their own game with their own prizes. And so they've
• 2:51:07
  started caring about things that they should be completely ignoring.
• 2:51:11
  I don't have a McLaren and I couldn't care less.
• 2:51:15
  I do care about immortality. I do care about recognition.
• 2:51:18
  I do care about my name being removed from things
• 2:51:21
  that I've done and other people's, you know, cherry topping
• 2:51:25
  going on top of it. Quite honestly, we're a different game.
• 2:51:29
  We're You know that song, One Night in Bangkok? It
• 2:51:35
  came from a musical about chess. And he says, in
• 2:51:41
  the lyrics to that song, which we don't remember, he says,
• 2:51:44
  something like, I'd have you over, I would invite you,
• 2:51:48
  but the queens we use would not excite you. So
• 2:51:51
  you can go back to your massage parlors in Bangkok.
• 2:51:53
  The whole point is that the chess world doesn't care
• 2:51:57
  about who got laid. The chess world cares about the
• 2:52:02
  evergreen game, the immortal game. What did Fisher do to Spassky?
• 2:52:06
  What's going on with Magnus Carlsen? Somehow the science world
• 2:52:10
  stopped caring about our own stuff. And we got to
• 2:52:16
  make sure that the public intellectuals are not dominated by billionaires.
• 2:52:21
  I love these guys. They're my friends.
• 2:52:23
  Speaker 1: I think you're right.
• 2:52:24
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 2:52:25
  Speaker 2: They're smart as hell. They wouldn't have gotten to be
• 2:52:26
  billionaires otherwise. But they're always talking their book.
• 2:52:31
  Speaker 3: Always.
• 2:52:33
  Speaker 2: Look at– people are like famous libertarians and they become
• 2:52:37
  surveillance people. Bill Gates, is he just buying farmland for–
• 2:52:45
  to be– he wants to make sure that we have
• 2:52:47
  a steady supply of food, of something. We've got to
• 2:52:52
  stop the addiction to billionaires as the only people we
• 2:52:55
  trust because at least they're rich.
• 2:52:59
  Speaker 1: Let's end it there. I'm going to wrap this up.
• 2:53:01
  But I appreciate you very much. This was very good.
• 2:53:04
  Speaker 3: Yeah?
• 2:53:04
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it was a good one.
• 2:53:05
  Speaker 2: Great seeing you, Joe.
• 2:53:06
  Speaker 1: Great seeing you, too. And I think the last point
• 2:53:09
  is it should resonate with.
• 2:53:11
  Speaker 2: A lot of people.
• 2:53:11
  Speaker 1: It's dead right.
• 2:53:13
  Speaker 2: Look forward to seeing you soon, Joe.
• 2:53:15
  Speaker 1: Well, maybe we'll go to another planet.
• 2:53:16
  Speaker 6: Love it.
• 2:53:17
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 2:53:18
  Speaker 3: Bye, everybody.