Latest / UK Column Radio / Language Wars and The Battle for Our Thoughts | Jerm Warfare

Transcript

Language Wars and The Battle for Our Thoughts | Jerm Warfare · UK Column Radio

0:03
Speaker 1: M M.
0:30
Speaker 2: My name is Jim. This is germ warfare, the Battle
0:33
Speaker 2: of ideas. Okay, Peter Duke, thanks for joining me in
0:37
Speaker 2: the strenchers again. I loved your article on linguistic manipulation.
0:46
Speaker 2: It's something that it's something that seems obvious but is
0:53
Speaker 2: equally very subtle.
0:57
Speaker 1: It's the issue is is like fish swimming in water,
1:03
Speaker 1: they don't see it, or birds flying in the air,
1:06
Speaker 1: they don't see it. And language is a thing that
1:11
Speaker 1: we completely take for granted. And it's interesting because in
1:15
Speaker 1: doing research for my book, I was reading another book
1:18
Speaker 1: called The Tyranny of Words by Stuart Chase that got
1:21
Speaker 1: published one hundred years ago, and he noticed the same
1:26
Speaker 1: thing that I did, which is that if you understand
1:31
Speaker 1: the blocking and tackling of the words that we use,
1:34
Speaker 1: certain things wind up becoming unlistenable because there's so much
1:39
Speaker 1: information missing that you can't listen to it. But the
1:44
Speaker 1: fact is that you have to kind of actively listen
1:49
Speaker 1: so that you can understand the three components of the
1:53
Speaker 1: compression of language. So, long story short, we have this
1:59
Speaker 1: vast array of information in our memory that we have
2:03
Speaker 1: to or in our mind. Let's just say that we
2:08
Speaker 1: need to compress in order to fit it into the
2:12
Speaker 1: number of words that we have available to communicate something
2:16
Speaker 1: to someone. And so there's three processes that we use
2:20
Speaker 1: in order to do that. We delete information, we distort information,
2:26
Speaker 1: and we generalize information. And it turns out that you
2:32
Speaker 1: can listen and because we're all doing it all the time,
2:38
Speaker 1: all is a word that's called a universal quantifier, and
2:41
Speaker 1: that's one of the trademarks that you kind of look
2:44
Speaker 1: for in linguistics because we all do it all the time.
2:48
Speaker 1: It means that even now, as I'm talking to you
2:53
Speaker 1: and people are listening, I am deleting, distorting, and generalizing
2:58
Speaker 1: my bigger picture of the world and squeezing it down
3:02
Speaker 1: into the number of words that are available for me
3:06
Speaker 1: to have a conversation with you. And that's where it begins.
3:11
Speaker 1: That's where you start to try to kind of understand linguistics,
3:15
Speaker 1: because if you realize that people are deleting, distorting, and
3:18
Speaker 1: generalizing things all the time, then you can formulate questions
3:24
Speaker 1: based on whatever it is that they're talking about that
3:27
Speaker 1: reveal whether or not they've just deleted something, distorted something,
3:31
Speaker 1: or generalized something. And as an interviewer, this is probably
3:35
Speaker 1: something that you do naturally that you don't. You know,
3:39
Speaker 1: it's not a conscious process for you. But and again
3:44
Speaker 1: that's mind reading on my part. I don't know that
3:47
Speaker 1: to be true. You can, you can let me know
3:49
Speaker 1: whether or not that's true. But linguistics, it turns out
3:54
Speaker 1: to be an incredibly powerful tool for determining what's real.
3:59
Speaker 1: And we don't learn it in middle school like we
4:03
Speaker 1: probably should, because if we did, there'd be a lot
4:07
Speaker 1: more people thinking about things in the world, and thinking
4:10
Speaker 1: winds up becoming a problem if you're trying to run
4:14
Speaker 1: a totalitarian dictatorship.
4:17
Speaker 2: What's interesting is if you think about it, the words
4:23
Speaker 2: that you know in your head and use determine in
4:27
Speaker 2: many ways how you view the world because you can
4:30
Speaker 2: only express your ideas with the language that you know.
4:35
Speaker 2: Let me give you Let me give you an interesting example.
4:38
Speaker 2: So I can speak Afrakaans. In Afrikaans, you can in
4:44
Speaker 2: one sentence say something that you can't do in English.
4:49
Speaker 2: So in one sentence, how do you say a cat
4:54
Speaker 2: ran under the table, but it also ran through the
4:59
Speaker 2: table to the other If you say the cat ran
5:02
Speaker 2: through the table, you might imply that it's physically going
5:04
Speaker 2: through the wood. And if you say it ran under
5:07
Speaker 2: the table, it means that it might have stopped there,
5:11
Speaker 2: So you have to you have to break that into
5:13
Speaker 2: two sentences. It ran under the table and it went
5:16
Speaker 2: out the other side. But in Afrikaans you're able to
5:19
Speaker 2: say that in one short sentence.
5:22
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it indicates the signal loss in language. And
5:27
Speaker 1: one of the things that I started to look at
5:30
Speaker 1: was exactly the phenomenon that you're describing, which is, why
5:34
Speaker 1: is it that in one language you can say something
5:36
Speaker 1: in a short sentence and in another language it takes two sentences.
5:40
Speaker 1: And it led me to this concept that I use
5:46
Speaker 1: a lot of Greek words when I talk about this
5:47
Speaker 1: stuff called hermaneutics and hermaeudicts is a phenomenon where the
5:55
Speaker 1: translation of a word becomes politicized. That is, if you're
5:59
Speaker 1: trying to achieve a certain kind of mindset in a population,
6:04
Speaker 1: you'll interpret a word one way as opposed to another way.
6:09
Speaker 1: And there's a lot of that that goes on between
6:11
Speaker 1: Greek and English. There's a there's a wild man classicist
6:17
Speaker 1: who's got a YouTube channel named Amin Hillman. And while
6:22
Speaker 1: I don't agree with a lot of things that Amin
6:24
Speaker 1: Hillman says, he's a he's a brilliant classicist, and he
6:28
Speaker 1: understands the Greek language better than most people alive today,
6:31
Speaker 1: I think. And he talks about how many more words
6:38
Speaker 1: Coiny Greek has than English or any of the modern languages.
6:45
Speaker 1: And in fact, in English we use a lot of
6:49
Speaker 1: Greek and Latin terms, and that's simply because the words
6:53
Speaker 1: don't exist in English. They don't, you know, we don't
6:55
Speaker 1: we don't have words for those things. And it's through
7:01
Speaker 1: that frame that I started trying to look at historically
7:04
Speaker 1: where the meanings of these words have gone, you know,
7:08
Speaker 1: between basically over the span of about three thousand years.
7:11
Speaker 1: Because words change their meaning, and I believe that the
7:16
Speaker 1: reason that the words change their meaning is political, that
7:19
Speaker 1: there's a that there's an imperative for why certain words
7:25
Speaker 1: get interpreted a certain way. But jumping back to your point,
7:31
Speaker 1: different languages are kind of like races. They are adaptations
7:38
Speaker 1: to the environment that the people who are in. You know,
7:41
Speaker 1: So if you're from northern Europe, you may have white
7:45
Speaker 1: skin because you need the white skin in order to
7:47
Speaker 1: get the vitamin D. And if you're a sub say
7:50
Speaker 1: or in Africa, you may need black skin because it's
7:52
Speaker 1: a vival mechanism, and so I think language has a
7:58
Speaker 1: similar kind of pedigree in that it adapts to the
8:05
Speaker 1: uses of the people who are using it.
8:08
Speaker 2: Amon Hillman I discovered on the Danny Jones podcast. He
8:13
Speaker 2: wasn't he a he was a Catholic or he's something
8:18
Speaker 2: He operated in some theological space and then he was fired.
8:22
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, I think that he was fired from the
8:26
Speaker 1: same school that Michael Jones was fired from. I think
8:30
Speaker 1: it was Saint Mary's in in Indiana.
8:35
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's got some he's got some pretty controversial ideas
8:38
Speaker 2: on Jesus.
8:39
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, I'm not any any bases all. He bases
8:44
Speaker 1: his ideas on Mark. And when I do a lot
8:49
Speaker 1: of work with the New Testament, and I primarily try
8:53
Speaker 1: to stick with John and Matthew. And the reason is
8:56
Speaker 1: that Mark and Luke were not in the room there secretaries,
9:01
Speaker 1: and they wrote down the stories later from you know,
9:08
Speaker 1: from the accounts of the witnesses that were in the room,
9:10
Speaker 1: but they weren't in the room. So his his thesis
9:15
Speaker 1: about Jesus is based on Mark and so, but that said,
9:23
Speaker 1: it's a very interesting analysis and it's not something that
9:27
Speaker 1: that I dismiss out of hand for theological reasons. It's
9:34
Speaker 1: interesting to me, but I prefer to look at the etymology.
9:39
Speaker 1: He looks at language, I look at I try to
9:42
Speaker 1: look at the I'm sorry, the epistemology, which.
9:47
Speaker 2: Is how how you know what you know?
9:52
Speaker 1: How you know what you know? But how you know
9:54
Speaker 1: what Jesus did, and by sticking to the words, the
9:58
Speaker 1: written words, and just so for example, to me, when
10:04
Speaker 1: I'm doing an epistemological analysis of the New Testament, it
10:08
Speaker 1: doesn't matter whether he's the son of God or whether
10:11
Speaker 1: or not it's a myth or a story or something
10:14
Speaker 1: that somebody made up. I'm just looking at what the word,
10:17
Speaker 1: the impact of the words are on people who are
10:20
Speaker 1: reading those words, what is the linguistic impact on those people?
10:27
Speaker 1: And it was through that lens that I discovered that
10:31
Speaker 1: you know so certain things that you know people take
10:34
Speaker 1: for granted. I think I have to go check my notes.
10:39
Speaker 1: I wrote this a few days ago, and I wrote
10:42
Speaker 1: sixteen thousand words, so I have a like it's a
10:45
Speaker 1: little fuzzy to me, but I think there's one hundred
10:49
Speaker 1: and ninety three instances where Jesus is talking and it
10:54
Speaker 1: says something in the Bible one hundred and ninety's only
11:00
Speaker 1: three examples out of the one hundred and ninety three
11:03
Speaker 1: where he's not having a conversation with people and his
11:07
Speaker 1: conversation is interrogedive. That is, he's asking questions. People are
11:14
Speaker 1: presenting him with a case like the Pharisees and the
11:19
Speaker 1: Herodians come to him and they ask him about paying taxes,
11:25
Speaker 1: And in that situation, he's having a conversation, right as
11:29
Speaker 1: opposed to Paul, who wasn't in the room, who is
11:33
Speaker 1: a Pharisee, who is writing letters to people and basically
11:39
Speaker 1: telling them what to believe. So again, I'm not I'm
11:45
Speaker 1: not making a commentary on whether or not you should
11:47
Speaker 1: believe any of that. I'm making a commentary on what
11:50
Speaker 1: it was. What was the blocking and tackling of the
11:54
Speaker 1: of the structure of the language, And so.
11:58
Speaker 2: Go on, nood you done. I was going to say,
12:01
Speaker 2: he he has got the most unbelievable understanding of ancient Greek.
12:07
Speaker 1: Yeah, am In Hillman you're talking about?
12:11
Speaker 2: Yes?
12:12
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, no, he's yeah, he is inspired. I've watched
12:15
Speaker 1: a lot of his Greek language videos, like how to
12:17
Speaker 1: learn how to speak Greek or at least understand it.
12:20
Speaker 1: You know, there's a US military school in Monterey that
12:26
Speaker 1: is the language Institute. And a friend of mine was
12:29
Speaker 1: US Navy intelligence and he went to that school. He
12:32
Speaker 1: told he's told me a lot about the school. But
12:34
Speaker 1: there's like three different ways that you can get three
12:39
Speaker 1: different degrees in any language. One is listening, the other
12:43
Speaker 1: is speaking, and the other is reading, actually reading and writing.
12:47
Speaker 1: I think maybe there's four. So there's four different ways
12:52
Speaker 1: that you can look at language. And I mostly read
12:55
Speaker 1: ancient Greek. I don't I don't pretend to speak it,
12:58
Speaker 1: but and Amm was very helpful in being able to
13:04
Speaker 1: do that. So, you know, he's got some wild ideas.
13:08
Speaker 1: He's kind of a wild man.
13:10
Speaker 2: He is, isn't he He comes across as if he's
13:13
Speaker 2: always high.
13:16
Speaker 1: He maybe he likes that word far makia.
13:19
Speaker 2: Yes, but I find him fascinating. I also have watched
13:26
Speaker 2: a lot of his stuff and he is very intriguing.
13:29
Speaker 2: I actually think I might invite him onto my podcast.
13:32
Speaker 1: Well why not? Yeah, you might need to take a
13:35
Speaker 1: valiant first.
13:36
Speaker 2: I think so. But going back to I mean, okay, so,
13:41
Speaker 2: I mean what you're talking about here actually is directly
13:44
Speaker 2: related because what billion people are Christians and that it
13:49
Speaker 2: all comes down to the interpretation of the text that
13:53
Speaker 2: they're reading the language. And I've interviewed people who've argued
13:56
Speaker 2: that there are many misinterpretations and those misinterpretations can lead
14:02
Speaker 2: to dramatic effects on the real world. Right, that's just
14:08
Speaker 2: the language.
14:09
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, what started me down this path was E.
14:13
Speaker 1: Michael Jones wrote a book called Logos Rising and and
14:18
Speaker 1: in that book, Jones points out that the that the
14:21
Speaker 1: word logos, which is arguably one of the most important books,
14:27
Speaker 1: one of the most important words in the New Testament,
14:31
Speaker 1: is mistranslated. And he pointed out that there were five
14:34
Speaker 1: pages of interpretations of the word in something that I
14:40
Speaker 1: had never heard of before, called the Liddell Scott Jones Lexicon.
14:45
Speaker 1: And I went and I looked it up, and he
14:46
Speaker 1: was right. There there were five pages of of of definitions.
14:53
Speaker 1: And and the reason it winds up becoming so important
14:57
Speaker 1: is that, you know, they key in the Old Testament
15:01
Speaker 1: is in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,
15:06
Speaker 1: and in the New Testament it's in the beginning was
15:11
Speaker 1: and it gets translated into English and Latin. And I
15:15
Speaker 1: write about this. I wrote a sixteenth like I said,
15:19
Speaker 1: a sixteen thousand word piece a couple of days ago.
15:23
Speaker 1: But in the beginning was the word in English, or
15:28
Speaker 1: verbum in Latin, and in Latin and in Greek. It's
15:33
Speaker 1: in the beginning was the logos. And if you understand
15:36
Speaker 1: that the word logos does not mean word, and it's
15:39
Speaker 1: not a noun, then it winds up having a huge impact. So,
15:46
Speaker 1: for example, my interpretation of John one one is in
15:50
Speaker 1: the beginning was the ability to use language and have
15:56
Speaker 1: reasoned discourse. And the ability to use language and reason
16:01
Speaker 1: discourse was with God. And the ability to use language
16:05
Speaker 1: and use discourse was God.
16:07
Speaker 2: Wow, because millions of Christians would allgue that means Jesus.
16:13
Speaker 1: Well, but it says unequivocally in John that Jesus is
16:17
Speaker 1: logos incarnate. So if you understand that what logos is,
16:24
Speaker 1: which is what you and I are doing right now,
16:28
Speaker 1: we are using logos in order to sit in front
16:31
Speaker 1: of microphones seven thousand miles apart and share ideas, that
16:37
Speaker 1: is God in the definition of John one one, which
16:43
Speaker 1: means that God is self evident and omnipresent in a
16:47
Speaker 1: way that doesn't require it's self evident, It doesn't require
16:52
Speaker 1: external proof. If you accept John one one. Then you
16:57
Speaker 1: understand that what you and I are doing as we
16:59
Speaker 1: are manifesting God by virtue of having our conversation right now,
17:04
Speaker 1: especially if we're trying to move our conversation in the
17:07
Speaker 1: direction of truth. And I write about this also that
17:12
Speaker 1: you know there's other words in the New Testament that
17:14
Speaker 1: have missed that are mistranslated into English. Crisis is a
17:19
Speaker 1: word that we use that means an emergency. Crisis is
17:25
Speaker 1: in the New Testament a lot, but it doesn't mean emergency.
17:28
Speaker 1: It means discernment. So you hear Kristen's a Lot saying
17:33
Speaker 1: that you've got to pray for discernment, Well, actually have
17:36
Speaker 1: to pray for crisis, which is discernment, and let me
17:42
Speaker 1: see that crisis. And then the other one. Another word
17:45
Speaker 1: that's mistranslated is meek. I was talking to James Dellingpole
17:49
Speaker 1: about this the other day because he's he rides horses.
17:55
Speaker 1: One of the major interpretations of the word meek, and
17:59
Speaker 1: I posted that on my substech a couple of days ago.
18:01
Speaker 1: Also is reserved strength. So in English we kind of
18:07
Speaker 1: think of meek as weak or corrying or a lack
18:11
Speaker 1: of power. Doing what you're told shutting up and standing
18:17
Speaker 1: in the corner. And there there's there's a good case
18:22
Speaker 1: that meek actually just means that strength that a war
18:25
Speaker 1: horse has when it's trained and under the light touch
18:29
Speaker 1: of the reins, meaning you you keep your powder dry,
18:35
Speaker 1: you keep your mouth shut, you assess before you act,
18:44
Speaker 1: and that that's a so the meek shall inherit. The
18:46
Speaker 1: earth winds up becoming having a completely different interpretation, and
18:53
Speaker 1: you know, the New Testament is full of Hermeneutically, I
18:59
Speaker 1: call him twisted.
19:02
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean allonging fruit is jew because that's also
19:09
Speaker 2: a mistranslation from Judea, Juda height and so on, and
19:16
Speaker 2: that in itself also has become part of evangelical Christianity,
19:20
Speaker 2: which leads to the state of Israel and the Chosen
19:24
Speaker 2: Land and the Chosen people. I mean that is also
19:28
Speaker 2: part of the linguistic challenge.
19:30
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I haven't dug into that particular word yet,
19:35
Speaker 1: but I can tell you that Hebrew means over the river.
19:39
Speaker 1: And you know, there were twelve tribes and as I
19:43
Speaker 1: understand it, and two of the tribes were south of
19:45
Speaker 1: the river, and two of the Right Canada tribes were
19:49
Speaker 1: north of the river. So the word Hebrew actually only
19:51
Speaker 1: applies to ten of the twelve tribes.
19:54
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, I'll bring that up because Netta, who
19:56
Speaker 2: is he has politicized it. That's why I bring it up.
20:00
Speaker 2: And then you saw Trump in the White House and
20:02
Speaker 2: everybody standing around him and praying when he invaded, invaded, attacked,
20:07
Speaker 2: you run.
20:09
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's again. But if you look at the history,
20:13
Speaker 1: that's why I consider myself more of a theologist and
20:18
Speaker 1: not religious, because if you if you look at the
20:22
Speaker 1: history of religion, it's basically a history of belief management.
20:27
Speaker 1: It's it's a way that you control large populations by
20:32
Speaker 1: taking taking something self evident like agriculture, and wrapping it
20:37
Speaker 1: in a mystery. You turn it into a god called Adonis,
20:42
Speaker 1: and then you put your calendar together for the year
20:45
Speaker 1: so that you understand when you need to plant, when
20:47
Speaker 1: you need to harvest, you know. And there's a lot
20:52
Speaker 1: of practical applications to religion, but a lot of religion
20:57
Speaker 1: is just religion is belief management.
21:02
Speaker 2: So in your sub stack you you let me get
21:07
Speaker 2: this right, You're talking about the battle, the battleground and
21:10
Speaker 2: how our mind process is language and if I'm if
21:16
Speaker 2: I'm correct, you were you were saying that we don't
21:20
Speaker 2: necessarily experience reality directly. What happens is that our nervous
21:26
Speaker 2: system kind of falters everything through a series of processes
21:29
Speaker 2: which you mentioned earlier, deletion, distortion, and what did you say? Generalization?
21:33
Speaker 2: Generalization which which kind of creates a map of of
21:37
Speaker 2: of how we see the world. And then some of
21:40
Speaker 2: some of the weapons used in that battlefield would be
21:44
Speaker 2: things like what did you say, blab the blab test,
21:46
Speaker 2: semantic blanks, things like that make America great again? Safe
21:52
Speaker 2: and effective?
21:53
Speaker 1: Yes, indeed, so what we what we do is we
21:58
Speaker 1: we fill in the blanks with unspecified references. So many
22:06
Speaker 1: of the words that we use. Uh, so you said
22:10
Speaker 1: make American great again? The the blank that's there is great? Okay,
22:19
Speaker 1: how do you make America great? And when you say
22:22
Speaker 1: again again meaning what is it to leave it to Beaver?
22:26
Speaker 1: Television show that you saw when you were a kid?
22:29
Speaker 1: Is it the is it the Life magazine photographs covers
22:34
Speaker 1: that you know that inspired your parents? Uh you know
22:38
Speaker 1: what what what are those things? And uh, the the
22:43
Speaker 1: the trick there is that h and it is a
22:46
Speaker 1: magic trick because you're taking something self evident, wrapping it
22:49
Speaker 1: in a mystery is that people will fill in their
22:53
Speaker 1: own ideas with what they think great is and what
22:57
Speaker 1: they think make is. And people Barack Obama did the
23:04
Speaker 1: same thing though with hope and change hope for what
23:06
Speaker 1: change what? You know? It's like so and people will say, well,
23:11
Speaker 1: these are just political slogans. And you know, to me,
23:14
Speaker 1: that's a good argument for getting rid of politics, because
23:16
Speaker 1: if that's all you need to do in order to
23:18
Speaker 1: convince enough people to believe something and give their their
23:22
Speaker 1: assign their agency to someone else with an argument like that,
23:27
Speaker 1: then maybe they shouldn't have the vote.
23:29
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I mean, look what happened during COVID. Safe
23:31
Speaker 2: and effective. Yeah, that was a phrase that everybody just
23:35
Speaker 2: said over and over and things like kill granny and whatever.
23:38
Speaker 2: Social distancing. I mean, by the way, had you ever
23:41
Speaker 2: heard the term social distancing before twenty twenty?
23:43
Speaker 1: No?
23:44
Speaker 2: Yeah, I also didn't.
23:46
Speaker 1: No. And the and the mythology around it too is
23:48
Speaker 1: that it was a sixth grade girl in a science
23:50
Speaker 1: fair who came up with the idea and then they
23:53
Speaker 1: ran with it. I like, you know, these are all
23:55
Speaker 1: stories to me, I don't know that I believe any
23:57
Speaker 1: of them. But safe in effective is interesting because not
24:03
Speaker 1: only safe and effective, deletes, distorts, and generalizes all in
24:09
Speaker 1: three words, and so uh that that really winds up
24:14
Speaker 1: becoming a magical spell, you know, And again the word spelling.
24:19
Speaker 2: Is you know it comes yes, exactly spell.
24:24
Speaker 1: We put letters together in order to cast belief systems
24:28
Speaker 1: onto other people, and so it winds up becoming why
24:34
Speaker 1: to me or how epistemology is about how how is
24:39
Speaker 1: it that three words safe and effective can get billions
24:43
Speaker 1: of people to go do something that is not in
24:45
Speaker 1: their own best interest? That's you know, that's kind of
24:50
Speaker 1: what gets me up in the morning trying to figure
24:51
Speaker 1: that out.
24:52
Speaker 2: Well, isn't that isn't that what you would call magic
24:55
Speaker 2: with a K?
24:58
Speaker 1: Magic with a K? I thought was associated with sex,
25:03
Speaker 1: magic with Aleister Crowley?
25:05
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I think it comes from that'll say, But
25:07
Speaker 2: I mean I want to say magic with the sea,
25:09
Speaker 2: because that just think you just think of wizards and
25:11
Speaker 2: well maybe maybe with.
25:14
Speaker 1: A Well again, well, it's funny because my friend Courtney
25:17
Speaker 1: Turner and I were talking about this the other day,
25:19
Speaker 1: and that is that, and I wrote an article about
25:22
Speaker 1: so I was digging into the word pharisee because because
25:27
Speaker 1: one of the groups that Jesus has a lot of
25:28
Speaker 1: problems with in the New Testament is the pharisease, And
25:32
Speaker 1: I thought, what is that word being, you know, and
25:36
Speaker 1: it comes from a Hebrew root called parash, and parash
25:40
Speaker 1: means to to proclaim and discern and delineate. And it
25:47
Speaker 1: occurred to me that that's exactly what the logo of
25:51
Speaker 1: the Freemasons means. That you use the compass in order
25:56
Speaker 1: to draw a circle.
25:57
Speaker 2: Yeah you get that, that shape, that shape that.
26:01
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you used the compass to draw a circle,
26:03
Speaker 1: and that creates a boundary condition. And the logo for
26:07
Speaker 1: the Bavarian Illuminati Isaac Isaac Adam Weishaw was what they
26:14
Speaker 1: called a circumpunct, which was a dot in the middle
26:16
Speaker 1: of a circle around it. That's the way they signed
26:19
Speaker 1: their stuff. So the compass creates a boundary condition. And
26:24
Speaker 1: then the square is what you do in order to
26:27
Speaker 1: measure people in order to determine whether or not they
26:30
Speaker 1: fit in or outside of the boundary. So it's the
26:36
Speaker 1: compass in the square in Freemasonry has the same meaning
26:41
Speaker 1: as the word pharisee. They mean the same thing, They
26:46
Speaker 1: indicate the same idea, they initiate the same belief. One
26:52
Speaker 1: uses letters in order to create the belief. The other
26:55
Speaker 1: one uses symbols to create the belief. But the belief
26:58
Speaker 1: is that people who create the circles, the people who
27:02
Speaker 1: determine what's real, okay, get to measure the people to
27:08
Speaker 1: determine whether or not they're inside the circle or outside
27:11
Speaker 1: the circle. So the boundary condition is the belief barrier.
27:17
Speaker 1: And so when you start to look at the world
27:21
Speaker 1: like that, oh, people are creating boundary conditions and then
27:24
Speaker 1: they're defending the boundaries. One of the last articles that
27:28
Speaker 1: I wrote was the metaphysical disconnect between the Declaration of
27:32
Speaker 1: Independence and the Constitution of the United States, because they're
27:35
Speaker 1: whole held up as America's holy documents, and we're taught
27:39
Speaker 1: in school that they one supports the other, and on
27:44
Speaker 1: a metaphysical level, that's not true. The Declaration of Independence
27:52
Speaker 1: has a metaphysical disconnect from the Constitution. The Declaration of
27:56
Speaker 1: Independence says that our rights are inalienable, and that they
28:04
Speaker 1: are dependent on the laws of nature and nature as God,
28:08
Speaker 1: and that we are we have these rights by virtue
28:14
Speaker 1: of the fact that we're human and that we've been
28:15
Speaker 1: born into the world. The Constitution reverses that and says
28:20
Speaker 1: that you've got these rights because we allow you to
28:23
Speaker 1: have these rights. And that's I've been having an ongoing
28:28
Speaker 1: argument with a couple of my good friends over the
28:31
Speaker 1: definition of the word liberty. Most people. Most people, if
28:36
Speaker 1: you get them into a dinner party and you ask them,
28:38
Speaker 1: can you know the difference between the word freedom and
28:40
Speaker 1: the word liberty, They think that they're synonyms. They think
28:42
Speaker 1: that they're basically the same thing, and they're not. They don't.
28:48
Speaker 1: They're absolutely not the same thing. Freedom isn't like the
28:52
Speaker 1: Declaration of Independence. Is an internal idea that you that
28:58
Speaker 1: your will can be manifested by your actions. That's freedom,
29:06
Speaker 1: and liberty is freedom that is granted to you by
29:10
Speaker 1: somebody who has authority over you. Yes, and if they
29:15
Speaker 1: can give it to you, they can take it away
29:17
Speaker 1: from it.
29:18
Speaker 2: It's very psychological because what it means is that they're
29:22
Speaker 2: putting you into a structure, into a framework, and then
29:26
Speaker 2: your idea of freedom slots into what you've been given.
29:33
Speaker 1: Well, or if you don't know the difference between the
29:35
Speaker 1: word liberty and the word freedom, they're telling you that
29:37
Speaker 1: you're fighting for liberty. The Declaration, the Declaration indicates freedom, okay,
29:46
Speaker 1: And the Constitution unequivocally states the blessings of liberty. And
29:52
Speaker 1: you know, liberty is a liberty is a word that
29:55
Speaker 1: has been twisted for three thousand years. There's a guy
29:59
Speaker 1: named Stanislaus Dimitriev who wrote a book on it. And
30:06
Speaker 1: you know, the Romans proclaimed when that Romans conquered Greece,
30:10
Speaker 1: they had a bunch of factional states that were having
30:14
Speaker 1: little civil wars with each other, and the Romans came
30:16
Speaker 1: in and they conquered everyone, and they said we're we're
30:19
Speaker 1: you're the Greeks are are are free. But what they
30:24
Speaker 1: established was Roman liberty. And what Roman liberty means that
30:28
Speaker 1: you're free to do whatever you want as long as
30:30
Speaker 1: you pay your taxes and do you do what Rome
30:32
Speaker 1: tells you to do, and if you don't, we're going
30:35
Speaker 1: to come in and smite you. That's liberty.
30:39
Speaker 2: I think it was Henry Ford you said you can
30:42
Speaker 2: buy any color car you want as long as it's black.
30:45
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, that's liberty.
30:50
Speaker 2: One of the other linguistic weapons on the battlefield that
30:57
Speaker 2: you that you were talking about was I forget now
31:01
Speaker 2: how you phrased it, but it was about putting together
31:04
Speaker 2: words that are grammatically correct but don't mean anything.
31:08
Speaker 1: Baffle gab. Yeah, baffle gab, which is a word that
31:12
Speaker 1: I learned from my friend vox Day. It is Noam
31:20
Speaker 1: Chomsky wrote about it. So Chomsky kind of wrote this
31:23
Speaker 1: seminal text. And I have a thesis that this book
31:28
Speaker 1: is so dangerous because it's kind of like the Magic
31:31
Speaker 1: Trick Book. It's like a book filled with all the
31:35
Speaker 1: magic tricks that they needed to make Noam Chomsky famous
31:39
Speaker 1: for something else. So they put him together with Edward Herman,
31:43
Speaker 1: and then they pushed out Manufacturing Consent, and they kind
31:46
Speaker 1: of manufactured Noam Chomsky as this left wing dissident, right.
31:51
Speaker 1: But and you always hear that he's a famous linguist,
31:56
Speaker 1: but he never talks about linguistics outside of him. He
31:59
Speaker 1: never talks about linguistics because it's dangerous. I think that
32:04
Speaker 1: the conversation I'm having with you right now is dangerous
32:07
Speaker 1: because if people, if people start to notice the words
32:10
Speaker 1: that they're using, it winds up becoming a way to
32:15
Speaker 1: unlock your critical thinking skills. Because as soon as you
32:18
Speaker 1: start to one of the things that I noticed when
32:21
Speaker 1: I started, you know, I read a book. It's a
32:24
Speaker 1: salacious book. And I don't I don't agree with the mindset.
32:30
Speaker 1: But a guy named Neil Strauss wrote a book called
32:32
Speaker 1: The Game Uh yeah and uh uh and and like,
32:38
Speaker 1: if you're if you're married, or you're in a relationship
32:40
Speaker 1: with somebody, you better book club it with your significant other.
32:44
Speaker 1: They're going to think that you're trying to pull something
32:46
Speaker 1: on them.
32:47
Speaker 2: But didn't he go on six Capades or something? Did
32:51
Speaker 2: that affect.
32:53
Speaker 1: It? Look, it's a morally reprehensible book, but it has
32:59
Speaker 1: a great it's the best syllabus and the best kind
33:03
Speaker 1: of how to book about how you would go about
33:06
Speaker 1: learning how to be a hypnotist, because hypnotism is an
33:09
Speaker 1: interesting thing. I got interested in it because I was
33:11
Speaker 1: a photographer and I took pictures of Scott Adams, and
33:14
Speaker 1: Scott Adams had been talking about it, and I said
33:17
Speaker 1: to him, I said, where do I learn how to
33:19
Speaker 1: be a hypnotist? And he kind of like put his
33:21
Speaker 1: weight on his back foot and he looked at me
33:24
Speaker 1: and he goes, well, why do you want to be hypnotist?
33:26
Speaker 1: You know? It's like and because it's kind of like,
33:30
Speaker 1: why do you want to be a magician? Magicians don't
33:34
Speaker 1: want other people to be magicians because it takes away there,
33:37
Speaker 1: you know, their special thing that they've got, so I,
33:42
Speaker 1: you know, I kind of had to fumble my way around.
33:44
Speaker 1: But that book was a really good book because that's
33:47
Speaker 1: how I learned about band learning Grinder and Milton Erickson
33:51
Speaker 1: and you know, Robert Dilt all of the other kind
33:54
Speaker 1: of seminal authorities on how hypnotism works.
34:00
Speaker 2: Scott actually lift the world.
34:06
Speaker 1: Yeah, I pray for Scott. I you know, he's you know,
34:10
Speaker 1: my analoy. I wrote a big piece on my substock
34:14
Speaker 1: about it when I found out that he was sick,
34:18
Speaker 1: and I thanked him for the things that he did
34:20
Speaker 1: for me. But Scott, I think was a conflicted guy.
34:28
Speaker 1: And I think he was conflict. He wrote a book
34:30
Speaker 1: that he talked about a lot when he started doing
34:32
Speaker 1: his periscope live streams called God's Debris, and yeah, God's
34:38
Speaker 1: great book it is, but it's kind of a crib.
34:44
Speaker 1: It's it's lifted from a fifteenth century Rosa Crucian named
34:47
Speaker 1: Jacob Boom. He added his Scott Gilbert kind of you know,
34:53
Speaker 1: fairy dust on it. But it's a it's a five
34:56
Speaker 1: hundred year old, seven hundred year old story and five
35:01
Speaker 1: hundred about five hundred years and it's gnostic and and
35:07
Speaker 1: and Scott was very the gnostics and the materialists, you know,
35:10
Speaker 1: they they have a metaphysical difference of opinion that uh,
35:16
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's where evolution comes from, and that
35:20
Speaker 1: you know, the Christian point of view is that, you know,
35:23
Speaker 1: we are made in God's image, and the Gnostic point
35:26
Speaker 1: of view is that we're a happy accident and that
35:31
Speaker 1: God didn't have the ability to make a perfect universe
35:36
Speaker 1: and that's why it's broken and things need to be fixed,
35:41
Speaker 1: and so it's a clockwork universe. And so Scott operated
35:46
Speaker 1: very much from that. I mean, I was writing a book.
35:50
Speaker 1: I started working on my book five years ago, and
35:53
Speaker 1: I openly have told people that the title of my
35:56
Speaker 1: book is Reframing Reality. And Scott one of his last
36:01
Speaker 1: books that he wrote was called Reframing Your Brain. And
36:07
Speaker 1: it wouldn't be the first time that he borrowed something
36:10
Speaker 1: from me. But I looked at I looked at the
36:15
Speaker 1: title of the book, and I thought, I have nothing
36:17
Speaker 1: to worry about because it's a very gnostic materialist title.
36:21
Speaker 1: That is, I don't believe that our word processing I
36:25
Speaker 1: don't believe that our minds are in our brain. There's
36:30
Speaker 1: a Materialists believe that there are these chemical processes and
36:34
Speaker 1: that because we have all these neurons in our head,
36:38
Speaker 1: that that's where all of our thoughts and ideas and
36:41
Speaker 1: beliefs live. And my way of my ontology of the
36:48
Speaker 1: world is that our nervous system is the thing that
36:51
Speaker 1: connects us to that thing that is transcendent, that is
36:56
Speaker 1: it might it might be an antenna, but I don't
36:59
Speaker 1: think that are again, just based on what I know
37:03
Speaker 1: about computer I was a computer science major in college.
37:06
Speaker 1: What I know about the processing ability of this wetwear
37:09
Speaker 1: that we've got is that it's not that good. I
37:13
Speaker 1: think that there's a reason why we have dreams that
37:15
Speaker 1: scientists can't explain. I think that there's a reason why.
37:19
Speaker 1: And I've been writing this book and I experienced this
37:21
Speaker 1: on a daily basis. I'll get stuck and I won't
37:26
Speaker 1: know how to solve a problem, and I'll sleep on it,
37:30
Speaker 1: and I'll wake up the next morning and I'll have
37:32
Speaker 1: the answer to the problem. You know, And I don't
37:36
Speaker 1: have any idea or concept of what's going on when
37:38
Speaker 1: I'm sleeping, except that when I woke When I went
37:40
Speaker 1: to sleep, I didn't have that solution to the problem.
37:42
Speaker 1: When I woke up, I did have the solution to
37:44
Speaker 1: the problem. Well, if you understand about how networks work
37:48
Speaker 1: and the speed of computers and stuff, I think that
37:52
Speaker 1: the universe, which is what we're all kind of connected to,
37:55
Speaker 1: to God, we're connected through this nervous system that we've got.
38:00
Speaker 1: And so when Scott wrote a book called Reframing Your Brain,
38:05
Speaker 1: I think, well, he doesn't have the right ontology. He
38:07
Speaker 1: doesn't understand that these ideas and thoughts that we have
38:13
Speaker 1: are not actually in our brain. That we use our
38:15
Speaker 1: brain to get to them, but they're not there.
38:19
Speaker 2: He definitely was conflicted. I think you're right. I mean,
38:23
Speaker 2: I think he reminds you of Bono constantly searching.
38:29
Speaker 1: He still has some what he's looking for. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, well,
38:34
Speaker 1: I mean yeah, And and that behavior to me and
38:39
Speaker 1: also indicates the idea. It indicates dissociative identity disorder. And
38:44
Speaker 1: then that makes you wonder whether or not Scott and
38:47
Speaker 1: Bono are just MK ultra victims.
38:53
Speaker 2: Sure, I never thought of it like that.
38:55
Speaker 1: Yeah, what's the numb on that?
38:58
Speaker 2: Yeah?
39:00
Speaker 1: I was going to say that you know, I have
39:01
Speaker 1: a lot of sympathy for there's a lot of people
39:06
Speaker 1: who say a lot of like crazy things all the time,
39:09
Speaker 1: and depending upon whatever your political ideology is, that they
39:13
Speaker 1: may piss you off. But I think that that's part
39:15
Speaker 1: of the reason that in the New Testament the advice
39:19
Speaker 1: is to love your enemy because they may be victims
39:23
Speaker 1: of something and that's the reason, and that's the reason
39:26
Speaker 1: that they're acting or saying or doing the thing that's
39:28
Speaker 1: that they do. Jeffrey Epstein might just be an mk
39:32
Speaker 1: LT victim who was doing exactly what he was trained
39:35
Speaker 1: to do.
39:40
Speaker 2: Another one of your linguistic weapons is what did you
39:44
Speaker 2: call it? Norminalization?
39:46
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that's a big one. Well again, the best
39:50
Speaker 1: example of that is logos. Logos means that which can
39:53
Speaker 1: be done with words, and it gets turned into the
39:56
Speaker 1: word capitalized.
39:58
Speaker 2: In other words, in other words science.
40:01
Speaker 1: Right, And when you nominalize something, what you're again it's
40:04
Speaker 1: a magic trick. You're taking a self evident truth. Science
40:08
Speaker 1: is a process. When you turn it into the science,
40:12
Speaker 1: you wrap it in a mystery. Okay, you separate people
40:16
Speaker 1: from the self evident facts of it, and then you
40:19
Speaker 1: introduce an intermediary, a doctor, a specialist, you know, a priest,
40:26
Speaker 1: a professor. You need to because you with the little brain,
40:32
Speaker 1: aren't smart enough to understand the very the very important.
40:36
Speaker 2: And becomes logically fallacious because they'll say, okay, but what
40:40
Speaker 2: you know, have you go to PhD.
40:42
Speaker 1: This is the Pharisee move though, This is the this
40:45
Speaker 1: is the trademark of the Pharisees. This is exactly what
40:48
Speaker 1: they did. They took they took the Torah and and
40:52
Speaker 1: I'm not convinced that the Pharisees are actually Jews. I'm
40:55
Speaker 1: I'm thinking maybe they're Babylonians, because the Jews got you know,
41:00
Speaker 1: they got taken into Babylon and they were there for
41:03
Speaker 1: forty years. And I think that the Pharisees are a
41:05
Speaker 1: post Babylonian and I could be wrong, So I got
41:10
Speaker 1: to fact chuck myself on this. But this is the
41:14
Speaker 1: route that I'm going down because I'm looking at just
41:16
Speaker 1: what do Pharisees do, Like, I don't care what they believe,
41:19
Speaker 1: what do they do? And what they do is that
41:22
Speaker 1: they create. The story is that they looked at the
41:27
Speaker 1: Torah and they said, you don't And there's interesting things
41:33
Speaker 1: about the Hebrew language. It only has consonants. And so
41:36
Speaker 1: if you want to actually want to know how to
41:37
Speaker 1: pronounce a word, that what the vowel sounds are supposedly
41:41
Speaker 1: from the priests or from the Pharisees, they give you
41:43
Speaker 1: the vowel sounds. So you don't actually know how to
41:46
Speaker 1: pronounce anything. You can read it, but you can't pronounce it,
41:48
Speaker 1: you can't speak it. Okay, that's an epistemological gatekeeping move, right,
41:56
Speaker 1: you keep the vowels from people, you know what I mean.
41:59
Speaker 1: And so once people learned how to speak the Torah,
42:05
Speaker 1: then they were told that there was an oral tradition,
42:09
Speaker 1: that there was a written tradition, and there was an
42:11
Speaker 1: oral tradition. Now this may all be true, okay, but
42:14
Speaker 1: what winds up happening is that in order to interpret
42:17
Speaker 1: the things correctly, you have to go to the designated
42:20
Speaker 1: group of people who know the secret sauce and are
42:24
Speaker 1: allowed to give you the correct interpretation. Okay, this is
42:28
Speaker 1: the same play as Fauci going on television. It's a
42:33
Speaker 1: pharisaic move. And so when you understand what the blocking
42:38
Speaker 1: and tackling is, so the Freemasons do the same thing.
42:42
Speaker 1: They not only share the same name, they share the
42:45
Speaker 1: same methodology, they put different furniture around it, and they
42:49
Speaker 1: dress it up differently, and they probably have a reason.
42:53
Speaker 1: My guess is that there's something happened called secular Judaism
42:57
Speaker 1: and they needed a way to continue. People who control
43:01
Speaker 1: the world needed a way to extend this mechanism beyond
43:04
Speaker 1: just Judaism, excuse me, and they they figured out how
43:13
Speaker 1: to replicate the pattern in things like freemasonry. And a
43:21
Speaker 1: lot of people will get upset with me, but I
43:23
Speaker 1: look at the Constitution of the United States now and
43:26
Speaker 1: I think Constitution of the United States is very faarasaic.
43:30
Speaker 1: It's and so when people think they get mad at
43:35
Speaker 1: Israel today, and I think that's all con job too
43:39
Speaker 1: what's going on in Israel. I wouldn't be surprised if
43:41
Speaker 1: Israel completely collapses at the same time the United States
43:44
Speaker 1: government collapses at this point, and that's all part of
43:48
Speaker 1: the kind of left hand right hand alchemy that goes
43:53
Speaker 1: on in the media. But I think people will get
44:00
Speaker 1: that upset with me, But I think that the Constitution
44:03
Speaker 1: is very faara saic, and so it's easy for people
44:07
Speaker 1: like my friend Stu Peters to go blame Israel for something.
44:12
Speaker 1: But if you take a look at the Constitution, and
44:15
Speaker 1: I wrote an article about this a couple of days ago,
44:18
Speaker 1: and understand that the Constitution is very faarasaic, then this
44:23
Speaker 1: is a two hundred and fifty year old problem in
44:25
Speaker 1: the United States. This is not a new thing. Nominalization
44:30
Speaker 1: is anytime you take a so one of the here's
44:35
Speaker 1: I should probably have a top ten list of the
44:37
Speaker 1: most impactful nomenalized words. Consciousness one of the big problems
44:45
Speaker 1: that the AI people are having. And there's a Rube
44:49
Speaker 1: who a billionaire who lives in Los Angeles a lot
44:52
Speaker 1: of time. They call him the homeless Billionaire. They call
44:54
Speaker 1: Nicholas berg Run who does this big contest every year
44:58
Speaker 1: where he gives away a lot of money for people
45:00
Speaker 1: who can write the best essay on what consciousness is.
45:04
Speaker 1: And consciousness is a word that the Greek root is ciniadasis,
45:11
Speaker 1: and it basically just means the ability to recognize your
45:14
Speaker 1: own frame, the idea that you have a perspective in
45:18
Speaker 1: the world and it's based on your experiences, and that
45:22
Speaker 1: that frame of reality may be different than what other
45:26
Speaker 1: people have. And that's the word of That's Peter Duke's
45:31
Speaker 1: understanding of the word consciousness, but the New Age kind
45:35
Speaker 1: of people, and this probably kicked off with Theosophy, although
45:38
Speaker 1: it's probably older, is that consciousness is kind of like
45:44
Speaker 1: this airy, fairy amorphous state of being, and it becomes
45:54
Speaker 1: a container for everything and a definition of nothing. And
46:00
Speaker 1: the reason that it winds up becoming a problem for
46:04
Speaker 1: people who are trying to develop AI and bragrun Is
46:08
Speaker 1: is definitely in that Elon Musk kind of aligned camp
46:13
Speaker 1: and trying to figure out what a AI is is
46:16
Speaker 1: that in order to under in order to determine the
46:22
Speaker 1: uh uh, what are the A g I. I can't
46:27
Speaker 1: remember what AGI stands for, but it's basically they want
46:30
Speaker 1: to they want to create a sentient being, an AI.
46:34
Speaker 1: And I, based on my ontology that I just explained
46:37
Speaker 1: to you that I think that our nervous system is
46:41
Speaker 1: a network port it's not the network itself. Then, uh,
46:46
Speaker 1: it's not possible for them to be able to do that.
46:50
Speaker 1: And so they have run up against this wall and
46:53
Speaker 1: that is what is it that makes a human being conscious?
46:58
Speaker 1: And in order to code that, you need to have
47:00
Speaker 1: a good definition of what the word consciousness means. So
47:04
Speaker 1: they keep having all of these contests with all these
47:07
Speaker 1: philosophers to try to describe what consciousness is in a
47:13
Speaker 1: way that they can code it, and it winds up
47:17
Speaker 1: becoming a problem for them because they can't move forward
47:20
Speaker 1: to AGI without something that they can code. And this
47:24
Speaker 1: is kind of I think the limit of their philosophy
47:26
Speaker 1: is that they've run up against a wall where they're
47:30
Speaker 1: they're ontology that basically the way that they put the
47:33
Speaker 1: world together doesn't fit with what they're trying to do.
47:37
Speaker 1: And that's why I don't like the world. I don't
47:39
Speaker 1: even like the term artificial intelligence. It is a large
47:43
Speaker 1: language model, and I use them all the time. I
47:45
Speaker 1: think large language models are incredibly powerful, but they're not intelligent.
47:50
Speaker 1: They're very good at doing that. We started talking about
47:53
Speaker 1: baffle gap. A lot of what large language models put
47:57
Speaker 1: out is baffle gap. And if you don't have a
47:59
Speaker 1: good understand danding of linguistics, you can read something that
48:03
Speaker 1: the AI. I see it all the time. And there's
48:05
Speaker 1: a guy, for example, named just scape Key, and he
48:10
Speaker 1: does good work, okay, but he doesn't edit his AI
48:15
Speaker 1: slop that comes out and it drives me out of
48:18
Speaker 1: my mind. I can't read his stuff the same way
48:21
Speaker 1: that I can't listen to people who are saying make
48:23
Speaker 1: America great again, because there are linguistic errors that come
48:27
Speaker 1: out of the large language models, and they wind up,
48:33
Speaker 1: they wind up. I'm sorry, I'm being distructed. There is
48:41
Speaker 1: crap that comes out of the large language models, and
48:43
Speaker 1: you've got to edit it. I've been working on with
48:47
Speaker 1: Claude for a day now to come up with a
48:50
Speaker 1: skill that takes out all of the things that are
48:52
Speaker 1: completely obvious to me that I'm generating something using a
48:57
Speaker 1: large language model. Large language model nominalize all over the place.
49:02
Speaker 1: They're constantly nominalizing, and that's because they're they're cop They're
49:07
Speaker 1: they're being trained on other people's language who have nominalized.
49:11
Speaker 1: Nominalization winds up becoming a big part of what we
49:15
Speaker 1: have learned how to do because we're not precise in
49:17
Speaker 1: the way that we use words. There's a One of
49:24
Speaker 1: the things that large language models do is that they
49:28
Speaker 1: will take abstract nouns and give them human agency, meaning
49:35
Speaker 1: that this agency did this thing, okay. And that's part
49:41
Speaker 1: of the magic trick is that if we think that
49:44
Speaker 1: the government is doing something, we think that maybe we
49:48
Speaker 1: can't do anything about it. If we understand that it's
49:50
Speaker 1: a person who works at the government who's doing something.
49:53
Speaker 1: Then that has a different frame, right, and so we
49:56
Speaker 1: need to you know, what uh Stuart Chase said is that,
50:03
Speaker 1: you know, you have to look for the referent. You
50:05
Speaker 1: have to look for what does that word, what's that
50:09
Speaker 1: word actually attached to, what is it it's supposed to
50:12
Speaker 1: be attached to, and then what is it that we're
50:14
Speaker 1: filling in our ideas of what that word is attached to,
50:18
Speaker 1: because that winds up becoming the magic trick. So baffel
50:21
Speaker 1: gap is just a way of stringing a bunch of
50:26
Speaker 1: words together that don't actually mean anything. And the king
50:29
Speaker 1: of that, as far as I'm concerned right now is
50:32
Speaker 1: Jordan Peterson.
50:33
Speaker 2: Jordan Peterson, yes, yes, yes, and Russell Brand and Russell
50:38
Speaker 2: Brand actually yeah.
50:39
Speaker 1: Russell Brand's pretty good at it too. Yeah, yeah, Jordan
50:43
Speaker 1: Peters and Russell Brand. They're both very good at stringing
50:46
Speaker 1: long chains of words together that don't mean anything.
50:53
Speaker 2: And they'll do that to sound intellectual.
51:00
Speaker 1: Well, I think that they're in a way, I think
51:02
Speaker 1: that they're kind of sprigging out. I don't think that
51:03
Speaker 1: you can do it without having an idea in your head.
51:06
Speaker 1: I think that they both have ideas in their heads,
51:08
Speaker 1: but they both have incredibly large vocabularies. And one of
51:13
Speaker 1: the things that I think you can wind up doing
51:17
Speaker 1: if you've got a large little bit, if you have
51:19
Speaker 1: a large vocabulary, is that you can start to abstract
51:23
Speaker 1: the ideas that you have by using different words to
51:26
Speaker 1: say things, and you can get halfway through a sentence
51:29
Speaker 1: and lose your train of thought. And I think that
51:31
Speaker 1: that's what happens a lot with them. But if you contend,
51:36
Speaker 1: I used to work Universal, and I was an art director,
51:40
Speaker 1: and I used to work in the producer's building, and
51:45
Speaker 1: I but all of the things that I was producing
51:48
Speaker 1: were being made in the art department, which was, you know,
51:52
Speaker 1: a quarter of a mile away, and I would have
51:54
Speaker 1: to walk from the producer's building to the art department,
51:59
Speaker 1: and I had a briefcase and a jacket, and I
52:01
Speaker 1: look very official. And I would walk past the Universal
52:07
Speaker 1: As a studio tour they have these trams that drive
52:09
Speaker 1: around in the studio and Japanese tourists are taking pictures
52:13
Speaker 1: and I would walk by one of the trams and
52:17
Speaker 1: one of the tram guides would say, oh, look, they're
52:21
Speaker 1: so and so he's the writer of this TV show.
52:25
Speaker 1: I wasn't the writer of the TV show, and all
52:27
Speaker 1: the Japanese tourists would take pictures of me. And what
52:30
Speaker 1: I realized when I worked on a movie studio is
52:32
Speaker 1: that if you walk with a purposeful walk, if people
52:37
Speaker 1: think you know where you're going, people will sign all
52:42
Speaker 1: kinds of ideas to who they think you are, what
52:44
Speaker 1: they think you're doing. And so the key to the
52:47
Speaker 1: whole thing is just having a purposeful walk. And I
52:50
Speaker 1: think that that's kind of what Russell Brand and Jordan
52:53
Speaker 1: Peterson do with their voice, is that they sound very purposeful,
52:57
Speaker 1: you know, but.
52:58
Speaker 2: I mean essentially just a word salid.
53:02
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is, and and Chomsky wrote about that. I
53:05
Speaker 1: mean that was the That was one of the key
53:07
Speaker 1: findings in his Syntactic Structures book is that it's perfectly capable.
53:11
Speaker 1: But look, there's all kinds we It happens all the time.
53:17
Speaker 1: It's on television, it's in things that we read. Uh,
53:21
Speaker 1: it were constantly bombarded. And you know what Stuart Chase
53:25
Speaker 1: pointed out in his book is that it winds up
53:28
Speaker 1: becoming once you learn how to recognize it. Two things happen.
53:32
Speaker 1: One is that your critical thinking skills go way up, okay,
53:35
Speaker 1: because you start asking a lot of questions that you
53:38
Speaker 1: weren't asking before. But the second thing that happens is
53:41
Speaker 1: that people who you used to pay attention to you
53:43
Speaker 1: can't pay attention to anymore. It wasn't that I didn't
53:46
Speaker 1: like Scott Adams, It isn't that I don't like Mike Cernovich,
53:49
Speaker 1: It isn't that I don't like Jack Pisobic. They're all
53:52
Speaker 1: friends of mine, Okay. It's that when they're on their
53:55
Speaker 1: media platforms, I cannot listen to them. I cannot hear
54:00
Speaker 1: what they're saying because it all sounds like blah blah
54:03
Speaker 1: blah blah to me. Like because I see the universal quantifiers,
54:08
Speaker 1: a universal quantifiers, a word like any all, I see
54:12
Speaker 1: the modal operators, words like just. I see the cause
54:18
Speaker 1: effect complex equivalencies. That's a big long word. It means
54:22
Speaker 1: either this makes this happen, makes and because are the
54:26
Speaker 1: two things that.
54:27
Speaker 2: You have to pay attention to this always and always
54:30
Speaker 2: and niver.
54:31
Speaker 1: Those are universal quantifiers. And always is almost it's almost
54:38
Speaker 1: never true. Always it is almost never true. Yes, because
54:47
Speaker 1: those words have a tendency to peg our belief system.
54:51
Speaker 1: All the way over to one side or the other.
54:54
Speaker 1: And it was funny because Neil Oliver was on James
54:59
Speaker 1: delling Polls show and delling Pole got he got a
55:02
Speaker 1: little rough. Yeah, he got a little ruffled with me,
55:05
Speaker 1: uh because, but but we worked it out. I was
55:08
Speaker 1: on a show because the way that delling Pole describes
55:15
Speaker 1: Oliver is that he's a fence sitter. That that you know,
55:19
Speaker 1: he's very circumspect about everything that he said, about every
55:22
Speaker 1: word that comes out of his mouth, and it's very
55:24
Speaker 1: difficult to figure out exactly what he believes in what
55:26
Speaker 1: he doesn't believe. And so James was very frustrated and
55:31
Speaker 1: he used a rhetorical move, and the rhetorical move was
55:34
Speaker 1: surely you must and Oliver cut him off after three
55:38
Speaker 1: words and he said, you know, that's a very dangerous
55:41
Speaker 1: way to start a sentence. James, and I laughed, I
55:45
Speaker 1: mean I laughed out loud. Again. This is the kind
55:47
Speaker 1: of thing that I laughed at. This is this makes
55:50
Speaker 1: me laugh because I thought Oliver caught him, you know.
55:54
Speaker 1: And the way that delling Pole defended himself and appropriately
56:00
Speaker 1: is that he was using that that he he thought
56:04
Speaker 1: his show was being boring and that he needed to
56:06
Speaker 1: get Oliver to get off the fence and and move
56:08
Speaker 1: in one direction to the other end. As a host
56:12
Speaker 1: of a show, it's completely appropriate to use a rhetorical
56:16
Speaker 1: device like, surely you must in order to kind of
56:19
Speaker 1: poke the other guy, you know, in order to get
56:22
Speaker 1: him to do that.
56:23
Speaker 2: I never do that.
56:26
Speaker 1: And the uh, and the thing that I pointed out
56:29
Speaker 1: to James is that people model like James Dellingpole. Uh.
56:34
Speaker 1: If I could speak as articulately and as circum with
56:40
Speaker 1: as much circumspect spection in every sentence as James Dellingpole
56:45
Speaker 1: appears to be able to do, which I think is
56:48
Speaker 1: a marvelous skill. Uh and uh certainly uh a product
56:55
Speaker 1: of his education, then other people will look at James
57:02
Speaker 1: Dellingpole and think the same thing that I'm thinking, which is, boy,
57:05
Speaker 1: I wish I could do that. So what I'm going
57:07
Speaker 1: to do is I'm just going to mirror his language.
57:09
Speaker 1: And that's what winds up happening a lot. I write
57:13
Speaker 1: a lot about the difference between thinking and Again, if
57:17
Speaker 1: you're analyzing people's language to determine whether or not that's
57:21
Speaker 1: a cause of factor, that's a complex equivalence, or that's
57:23
Speaker 1: an omenalization then you are critically thinking because you're analyzing
57:28
Speaker 1: things in real time as opposed to pattern matching, which
57:33
Speaker 1: is exactly what llms do, and it's what most people do,
57:36
Speaker 1: and it's what our education system optimizes for. That is,
57:44
Speaker 1: standardized testing will result in a lot of people who
57:49
Speaker 1: know the same sets of facts in order to build
57:53
Speaker 1: their world views on those same sets of facts. That's
57:57
Speaker 1: a different operation. And then thinking, thinking and knowing are
58:02
Speaker 1: two different things. And this is another problem that large
58:06
Speaker 1: language models have, because large language models have a hard
58:09
Speaker 1: time differentiating between the word no and the word think.
58:14
Speaker 1: It's it's it's curious, it's a curious situation. But in
58:21
Speaker 1: any case, people watching James Dellingpole will copy that surely
58:28
Speaker 1: you must pattern in their own everyday language, and they
58:34
Speaker 1: may use it where it's not appropriate. James Dellingpole was
58:37
Speaker 1: using it in a specific situation where he was trying
58:40
Speaker 1: to move somebody who was waffling into into into one
58:45
Speaker 1: direction or another. But people who use surely you must
58:49
Speaker 1: in everyday conversation will wind up being very annoying people
58:55
Speaker 1: who aren't actually thinking. And I think that that's that's
58:59
Speaker 1: that's the danger I see in a language like that.
59:02
Speaker 2: I'm reminded of that movie Airplane, I think it was
59:05
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy eight with Leslie Nielsen that famous line, surely
59:10
Speaker 2: you can't be serious. I am serious, and please don't
59:13
Speaker 2: call me s. It's one of the greatest lines, I
59:18
Speaker 2: think in Hollywood history.
59:20
Speaker 1: I know it's funny because I'm you know, my home
59:23
Speaker 1: burned down in the Palasts and I moved to another town.
59:26
Speaker 1: And the woman who lives down below me is named Shirley.
59:28
Speaker 1: And you can't not see that when you know, you
59:34
Speaker 1: meet somebody named Shirley, and the scene just comes into
59:36
Speaker 1: your head. Right.
59:39
Speaker 2: We haven't touched on double binds, but that's essentially when
59:43
Speaker 2: you give contradictory messaging, and that we saw a lot
59:47
Speaker 2: of during COVID.
59:49
Speaker 1: Yeah, it causes the term. Again, all of these things
59:54
Speaker 1: are as old as language. So when I say that
59:57
Speaker 1: Noam Chomsky pointed this out, or greg bates And pointed
1:00:00
Speaker 1: this out, they're the first people who wrote them up
1:00:04
Speaker 1: in English. But that doesn't mean that they're new. These
1:00:07
Speaker 1: ideas are new. But the problem with Gregory Bateson is
1:00:11
Speaker 1: that he worked for the OSS and the CIA, and
1:00:13
Speaker 1: so I think a lot of things that happen in
1:00:15
Speaker 1: the media right now are a direct result of his
1:00:17
Speaker 1: codifying this stuff, and they're weaponizing it. But specifically, a
1:00:24
Speaker 1: double bind is where you're given two bad choices and
1:00:30
Speaker 1: you don't have the ability to it. In the New Testament,
1:00:39
Speaker 1: Jesus is confronted by the Herodians and the Pharisees and
1:00:44
Speaker 1: they ask him if it's okay to pay taxes to
1:00:46
Speaker 1: the Romans. If he says yes, then one group is
1:00:53
Speaker 1: going to want to kill him, and if he says no,
1:00:55
Speaker 1: then another group is going to want to kill him.
1:00:58
Speaker 1: And so what he does is that he goes meta,
1:01:01
Speaker 1: he levels up, and he asks for a coin, and
1:01:05
Speaker 1: he says whose picture is on the coin. That's called
1:01:08
Speaker 1: changing the frame, and in a technical jargon it's called
1:01:13
Speaker 1: chunking up. He takes the argument, he moves it over here,
1:01:18
Speaker 1: and then he goes to a higher level and then
1:01:20
Speaker 1: he answers the question on his own terms. A double
1:01:23
Speaker 1: bind is when you don't have the ability to do that.
1:01:26
Speaker 1: You don't have the ability to question the frame, and
1:01:29
Speaker 1: you're confronted with two opposing ideas. One is get the
1:01:35
Speaker 1: vaccine or lose your job. Okay, neither if you don't
1:01:41
Speaker 1: believe that the vaccine is good for you, and it
1:01:43
Speaker 1: may have an existential effect on you. Then you're put
1:01:48
Speaker 1: into a double bind. And the result of double binds
1:01:52
Speaker 1: is schizophrenia. Although schizophrenia is a medical condition, and so
1:01:59
Speaker 1: when you have skitzophrenic symptoms but you don't have the
1:02:03
Speaker 1: electrochemical things going on in your brain that indicates schizophrenia,
1:02:10
Speaker 1: they call that schizo effective disorder, and and Bateson refers
1:02:15
Speaker 1: to it as schismogenesis, meaning the creation of a split
1:02:22
Speaker 1: state of mind. Well, Kathy O'Brien will tell you that
1:02:26
Speaker 1: that's how you create disassociative identity disorder. And so when
1:02:31
Speaker 1: you do that on an entire society, like happened with COVID,
1:02:35
Speaker 1: you get you get a massive schizophrenic schizo effective disorder
1:02:41
Speaker 1: symptoms manifesting itself across billions of people. And so the
1:02:47
Speaker 1: double bind is a very dangerous thing, especially when it's weaponized.
1:02:53
Speaker 1: And I believe that what we what we experienced in
1:02:56
Speaker 1: COVID was a weaponized form of the double bind. But
1:03:01
Speaker 1: I also wrote about it a couple of days ago
1:03:03
Speaker 1: because I think that the difference, the metaphysical difference between
1:03:07
Speaker 1: the declaration of independence and the Constitution also creates schismagenesis
1:03:11
Speaker 1: because you have people running around the world saying that
1:03:14
Speaker 1: they're fighting for their inalien noble rights, but those inalienable
1:03:19
Speaker 1: rights are not protected in the Constitution. So you know,
1:03:24
Speaker 1: that creates schismagenesis. That results in the ability for you know,
1:03:28
Speaker 1: bankers to take over the Federal Reserve Bank of the
1:03:31
Speaker 1: United States and then prosecute two world wars because you've
1:03:35
Speaker 1: got a bunch of people who think that they're fighting
1:03:37
Speaker 1: for freedom when they're actually fighting for liberty and they
1:03:40
Speaker 1: don't know what the difference between the two words are.
1:03:43
Speaker 2: An example that comes to mind for me is when
1:03:46
Speaker 2: people talk about fighting for free speech, but they don't
1:03:50
Speaker 2: want you to talk about certain things right.
1:03:52
Speaker 1: And that's why again there are ontological ideas in the
1:03:59
Speaker 1: which basically just means the structure of what is in
1:04:05
Speaker 1: the New Testament. In Matthew eighteen twenty, Jesus says Jesus
1:04:11
Speaker 1: who is also Logos. Okay, Logo says, where two or
1:04:16
Speaker 1: more are gathered in my name? What's his name? His
1:04:20
Speaker 1: names His name is Jesus, but his name is Logos. Right,
1:04:25
Speaker 1: So you and I right now are conveying our pursuit
1:04:30
Speaker 1: of truth by using logos. And it's very difficult in
1:04:37
Speaker 1: a group of two or three for people to be
1:04:39
Speaker 1: put into a situation where they're in a double bind.
1:04:44
Speaker 1: Because we can work it out, we can identify the
1:04:47
Speaker 1: thing that we're not allowed to talk about. You and
1:04:49
Speaker 1: I are talking about the thing that on a societal level,
1:04:52
Speaker 1: people are not allowed to talk about because they get
1:04:56
Speaker 1: another language form. This comes from a guy named Robert Lifting.
1:05:01
Speaker 1: Is something called a thought terminating cliche or loaded language,
1:05:05
Speaker 1: And the thought terminating cliche that gets used in our
1:05:12
Speaker 1: in our sphere of understanding is conspiracy theorist. Those two
1:05:19
Speaker 1: words function as a stop sign on thinking. So if
1:05:26
Speaker 1: you're talking about how you think that nine to eleven
1:05:28
Speaker 1: was an inside job, or whether or not you think
1:05:32
Speaker 1: it's Judy Woods directed energy weapons or its thermite or
1:05:36
Speaker 1: it's a controlled implosion, doesn't matter, you're a conspiracy theorist,
1:05:42
Speaker 1: and conspiracy theorist it's loaded language. It basically means that
1:05:47
Speaker 1: you're a lunatic who believe things that are not true,
1:05:51
Speaker 1: and that it's time to end the conversation. That's called
1:05:54
Speaker 1: a thought terminating cliche. So the way that you defend
1:05:58
Speaker 1: yourself against that is, you call it for what it is.
1:06:00
Speaker 1: You say to the person, why are you using a
1:06:02
Speaker 1: thought terminating cliche? Well, what do you mean? Well, I'm
1:06:05
Speaker 1: talking about what what actually happened on nine to eleven,
1:06:09
Speaker 1: not actually what people are talking about on the on
1:06:11
Speaker 1: the on the television side, but what actually really happened there?
1:06:16
Speaker 1: And what is it about your worldview that makes you
1:06:20
Speaker 1: think that people who are inquiring about alternate scenarios aren't thinking?
1:06:27
Speaker 1: Because when you use the term conspiracy theorist, you're the
1:06:30
Speaker 1: indication that you're sending. The loaded language that you're using
1:06:34
Speaker 1: indicates that the person that you're having a conversation with
1:06:37
Speaker 1: isn't thinking, and that's not very nice.
1:06:41
Speaker 2: Okay, Peter Fastening conversation. How can I follow your work?
1:06:47
Speaker 1: The easiest way is just go to the Duke Report
1:06:49
Speaker 1: dot com, which is a redirect, and it takes you
1:06:51
Speaker 1: to my substack, which is the Duke Report dot substack
1:06:54
Speaker 1: dot com where I write about all of these things.
1:06:57
Speaker 1: If you want to find stuff on an LP, just
1:07:00
Speaker 1: search for NLP. If you want to find out about
1:07:03
Speaker 1: the other subjects, just the search engine works really well.
1:07:06
Speaker 1: I've got The Duke Report has a variety of resources
1:07:12
Speaker 1: that are available for people. I've put together a book
1:07:15
Speaker 1: section where I have almost nine hundred books that I
1:07:18
Speaker 1: think are that are if you're trying to research and
1:07:21
Speaker 1: try to figure this stuff out. I have fifteen hundred
1:07:24
Speaker 1: word summaries on almost nine hundred books I have for
1:07:30
Speaker 1: over three hundred books. I have half an hour podcasts
1:07:35
Speaker 1: that are generated using notebook LM for over two hundred
1:07:38
Speaker 1: of the books. I have six to eight minute video explainers,
1:07:45
Speaker 1: and then I write about this stuff. All my original
1:07:47
Speaker 1: stuff is on substech, and that's the best way to
1:07:51
Speaker 1: find me.
1:07:53
Speaker 2: Peter Duke, thank you for joining me in the trenches.
1:07:56
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, jeer most great being,