Blindboy, Part 2: Where Have All the Good Men Gone?
Blindboy, a left-wing Irish podcaster diagnosed with autism, constructs a grand conspiracy linking organized crime, US intelligence agencies, and figures like Donald Trump through sexual blackmail. While hosts Chris and Matt acknowledge his self-deprecating storytelling and valid critiques of industry ruthlessness, they argue his specific claims regarding Epstein's formal agency and historical collusion lack concrete evidence, relying instead on associative leaps and Manichean framing to position himself as a virtuous outsider against a corrupt elite. Ultimately, the episode illustrates how entertaining anti-establishment narratives often conflate documented crimes with speculative geopolitics to deflect scrutiny from their own unsupported assertions. [Automatically generated summary]
Hello and welcome back to The Coding the Gurus, the podcast.
We're an anthropologist and a psychologist listen to the greatest fines the world has to offer and we try to understand what they're talking about.
And today is the first episode where The Coding the Gurus has become a fully solar-powered podcast.
I am producing huge amounts of solar energy, Chris.
I'm offsetting any emissions you may be making.
So, you know, jointly, we are making the change.
You know, we're being the change.
We're more than carbon neutral.
We're carbon negative.
We're carbon negative.
Yeah.
I mean, you're not.
You're not, but I'll offset them.
No.
I'll offset them.
I'll offset your emissions.
Look, we are a collective unit here, Matt.
We combine our carbon output together.
So whatever you're taking away, that goes into my, yeah, my registration of carbon activities.
Yeah.
So you can be.
You can really smash your queries on those AI platforms with the guilt-free.
That's great news.
Because I already was doing that.
But now that I get added in an extra layer of permission and lack of guilt, it'll be even more guilt-free engagement.
So that's fantastic.
And this is, of course, because Matthew Brown over there has gone solar punk, right?
Installing various gadgets and gizmos, which harness the energy of the sun, feed it into his house, into like a grid, and go back out into the grid and it goes around.
And it's, yeah, that's the way it is now.
That's right.
That's right.
And I forgot to say to the start, you're like the inverter to my solar panels, Chris.
That's how I think.
I'm the inverter?
Oh, I see.
Right.
That was supposed to be that introduction.
I was like, Terra Mintum again.
Self Deprecation Debate00:04:20
I mean, I forgot about that, but I also think the fact that you introduced this as part one, the first episode, and you didn't then go on to explain that this is actually part two of our Blind Boy episode.
I think that's going to confuse people.
But welcome to part one of the solar punk forecast, which is actually part two of the blind boy episode.
But, you know, what can we do, Matt?
I did get a bit sidetracked by my solar install.
But yes, you are correct.
This is the part two.
And I'm glad we had a break.
You know, I was thinking, Chris, when you've been recording for more than an hour, you can get a bit tired and grumpy, a little bit surly.
Try that, you know.
Charitability fades.
It does.
It does.
The soul gets weary.
But, you know, that's not what I want to be.
I'm not that kind of guy.
Is that what we're about here?
No.
I don't want to be a surly old git.
So I'm going to, I'm fresh.
I'm refreshed.
I'm back for the pool.
I've had my snack.
The solar panels are humming.
And I am going to be, you know, I'm going to approach this with a fresh positive lens.
I'm sure part two will be much better.
Blind boy.
Well, that's true.
So to recap for the listeners, last time we met, we were talking about the Irish podcaster slash philosopher slash cultural critic.
What's that word for the essays that he does like spoken word reflection?
Stream of consciousness.
I don't know.
Yeah, there's a specific word, but there always is a specific word, but it's not there.
You know, I could, if I could do it, I could say, you know, you know that feeling when there's a word on the tip of your tongue and it just you can almost taste it, but it's but in any case, Blind Boy is the subject.
Irish comedy hip-hop artist, previously now online audio essayist, producer of reflective monologues and stream of conscious commentary, left-wing pundit, right?
Various other things, documentary filmmaker, so on, Matt.
It's Blind Boy.
He's a veritable jack of all treats.
So last we left him off, he was advancing a number of conspiracy hypotheses, quite a few.
And we had some issues with them.
Despite the disclaimers that were offered or proffered, they still did seem to be advanced with some vigor.
There's quite a ghoulish collection of individuals.
And, you know, if you think that is how the world operates, then you know, you might be more sympathetic to Blind Boy's message.
But there are some people in Blind Boy stories that come off better, that are presented generally as doing good in the world and having good motivations.
Principally, Blind Boy.
It's a very blind boy.
And I do want to point this out because, you know, we often make the point, Matt, that self-deprecation, right, coming from Northern Ireland and Australia, come from cultures that value self-deprecation.
There's actually even this debate in the cross-cultural psychology literature about the universality of positive self-regard.
And this is questioned by the fact that when they do studies in East Asia and some other countries, they tend to find that people are self-deprecating to the point where they seem to have no positive self-regard.
And this led some people to say positive self-esteem is not a universal thing.
And other people countered that actually in self-deprecating cultures, this is how you create positive self-regard by saying that you are the most humble out of the others.
So this is a debate.
But Blind Boy comes from partly my culture, right?
The Irish culture.
So I feel like you and I are in a position to examine self-deprecation genuinely presented and when it is perhaps self-serving, self-deprecation in another way.
So I'm going to play you a little story and see what you think.
See if you pick up.
I know I've loaded the dice right in a particular way, but yeah, I think it's worth examining this, especially in contrast to what we just covered.
Tour Risks and Plateaus00:14:27
Like I work in the entertainment industry, and certain parts of the entertainment industry can be a little bit like that.
Now, I've never seen anything Epstein adjacent or anything like that, but something as simple as so I did, I did a big international tour a couple of years back.
I don't want to say the territory, but an international tour in another continent.
So if you're an artist and you want to do a tour in another continent, you need to have a promoter.
A promoter is the person or organization who will put that tour on, who will book the venues, bring it over, and make sure the gigs go ahead.
So that's what you need if you want to do an international tour.
So I wanted to do a podcast tour in this continent.
So my agent approached a big, huge, massive promoter, one of these massive companies that promote tours.
And my agent says, look, Blind Boy, he's got listeners in this continent.
He'd like to do a few gigs in different cities.
Will you promote this tour?
The big giant company said, no, we don't want to take the risk.
We don't think that Blind Boy will sell out all the gigs.
We're not interested.
We won't take that risk.
So it's like, okay, fine.
But then a tiny promoter gets in touch.
Just two lads, tiny, tiny little promotion company.
And they say, we'll bring Blind Boy for a tour.
We'll promote his tour.
We'll take that risk.
We'll bring him over.
So I said, fuck it, great.
So I went and did the tour with this tiny company.
Now they took a huge risk.
They're booking the gigs.
If those gigs don't sell out, they can lose their arses.
But that didn't happen.
The tour was every gig sold out.
It was really successful.
Everyone was happy.
Great story.
Was he leading to a point?
Are we partway through?
Well, part way through.
So far, this section reminded me of the thing that you often reference about Patrick Stewart, you know, talking on extras and that scene.
How do I act, right?
And he just describes the process.
Oh, no, sorry.
It was Ian McKellen.
Ian McKellen.
Hi, I do it.
How do I act?
Well, I just do a tour overseas.
Well, it requires a promoter.
He really took it through.
What do they do at these promoters?
Well, it's very simple.
They promote the tour.
They book the gigs.
Yeah, he definitely walked us through that with tiny little baby steps.
But I followed.
I could follow pretty easily.
You followed that in this story.
And I don't know why he doesn't want to mention the continent.
I looked up his tours.
It seems to be in Australia and New Zealand.
So I presume there was a tour like in 2024.
So I presume that's what he's talking about there.
But for whatever reason, he doesn't want to mention the name of the continent.
Well, the framing was that there were terrible, well, not, you know, not terrible, but not Epstein adjacent.
But, you know, things happen.
You see things in the entertainment industry.
So I was kind of assuming that he was.
Oh, you think it was going to be that's going to come?
No, no.
No, he's saying, he said he didn't really see that, right?
Like, you know, he's he's in the entertainment industry.
He's seen things, but he hasn't seen that.
Oh, right.
But it's just that given that he said he didn't want to name names or give any identifying thing.
I assumed that's where it's going to go.
No, it's not going to go there.
I assume there's going to be a but, you know, an implicit but.
Well, there is a but, but it's, it's not that.
So, okay.
In any case, the scene where we are now is that there is a small company that's took a risk and it was a huge success because Blind Boy is so popular that he sold out everything.
And the big company which doubted him looks like they were wrong.
Needless to say, he had the last.
So that's the first part of the story.
Okay, now let's continue on.
And this tiny company, these promoters made up of two people.
They were lovely.
They were kind to me.
They were so accommodating.
They were nice people.
They were nice.
They were decent, honest people.
They were fans of the podcast.
They really wanted to put this tour on for me.
And they said, fuck it.
If you don't sell, we'll take that risk.
We really want to do this because we love your podcast.
But you know what?
Their gut feeling was right.
All the tours sold out 100%.
Everyone was happy.
And then they said, will you come back?
Will you come back again to this continent for another tour and let us be your promoters for the next tour?
And of course, I said, yes, of course.
The tour sold out.
You're lovely people.
I love working with you.
Of course.
Next time I want to do this continent, I'm going to do it with G.
But then I get back to Ireland.
And the huge company, the big massive company that had initially said, no, we won't take you on tour, they were watching.
And this huge touring company saw the risk that this tiny promoter took.
And then they went to me and my agent and said, sorry, we were wrong.
We're going to take you out for the next tour.
And we're going to make it massive.
And you're going to play all these venues.
And we'll put all our promotion behind you.
And we're going to make you massive in this continent.
Will you do that?
And I said, no, I won't do that because that would be horrible to the two lads who took the risk and who were so nice to me.
I'd hate to do that.
I'd feel like shit.
I couldn't possibly do that.
No, I'm going to do the next tour with those two lads who took the risk because they're lovely people.
That's who I'm going to do the next tour with.
This is a fantastic story.
I mean, what is your main takeaway from this, Matt, that you're hearing?
Like, what would you take away from what you've learned so far?
I feel like the subtext of this story is that Blind Boy is a pretty good guy.
He's loyal.
He's a loyal.
He's very loyal.
Yeah, he's extremely loyal.
And also worth mentioning, everybody loved the tour.
It's so bad.
Everything's successful.
That's right.
Loyal and successful.
It was so successful that the company were watching it and were like, Jesus, we next start on this.
We got to get in there next time.
I do like how he just kept repeating those points, just to make sure we didn't miss those points.
But it's quite a segue, isn't it?
Because he goes from discussing billionaires trafficking children to maintain power to this.
And I'm not quite sure of the reason, but is he highlighting the delta, perhaps?
Well, you're going to get to that, Matt.
So here we go.
This is the end of this story.
The last part.
And the big company said, Are you fucking sure?
Because we'll make you massive.
Because you see, the big companies, the big touring companies, they can put you on newspapers, television, do all that shit in a new territory.
And I said, no, sorry.
I'd feel like shit.
I would feel like shit.
I'd rather stay at this level of success and feel like a good person than move up and be a prick.
And that big touring, they didn't even respond to that email.
Didn't even respond.
Just like, what the fuck is up with this little prick from Limerick?
Now, I'm not performatively trying to tell you that I'm a good person.
I'm just saying that's a no-brainer for me.
That's how I operate.
Treating people the way that I'd like to be treated and then feeling like a good person.
That's more important to me than having more success.
Legitimately, I wouldn't be able to enjoy more success if I got that success by being cruel or mean or dishonest.
And I only work with people who are kind.
Like I've had the same agent for 16 years.
My agent, Mark.
One of the kindest, most decent people I've ever met in my life.
So honest in how he deals with everybody.
And that's why I've been with him for fucking ages.
And I have a tiny amount of people who I work with.
And it's long-term relationships because they're all kind, honest people.
And that's important to me.
And I can't work with people who are dishonest or cruel or mean or who are bullies or any of that shit or who expect that from me and just no, not interested.
Again, really hammering that point home.
No, Matt, hold on.
He's not performatively saying he's a good person.
Just saying it would be absolutely impossible for him to, you know, have success at the cost of doing the wine would turn to vinegar in his mouth.
It like like like ashes.
Yes, and that's why him and all the people he's surrounded himself with are also good people like everybody's, everybody's good.
All the people he works with are are good, and that's a reflection of his values.
Now you might say that's him saying he's a good person, but he said Matt, that's not what he's saying.
That's not the point, right?
The point is this is just, it's just like the air he breathes.
Yeah, this is just who he is.
Well, i'm glad it's just not anti-virtue singling because he's a bloody.
He's got his head screwed on straight.
I'll tell you that.
That's that's taken from this.
Well, it reminds me Matt, of when I heard John Verviki explain to Jordan Peterson what an incredible person he is, how nice he is to everyone behind the scenes.
You know that he's so considerate.
He's just constantly the consummate people pleaser.
You know the way he attends to his staff and everything.
It's just unlike anyone else.
So just noting a parallel here, except this is blind boy saying it about himself, as opposed to John for Vicky.
But uh yeah uh, so I understand that this is being presented as a story about, you know, the kind of corrupt, evil business trying to come in and, like you, can actually be more successful by being a bastard, Matt.
And if you're not a bastard, maybe you won't have that level of fame and that success, but if you're an authentic, you know fair, honest person, that won't matter, even though, just to remind you, did sell out the tour.
It was a huge success.
So, you know, but it could have been even more successful is the thing you know.
Yeah no, you know.
So yeah this, this anecdote, is meant to serve to illustrate how, you know, the system rewards ruthlessness and punishes decency and good people like him.
He's just an example um, who say no to that, don't rise to the top.
So that's, that's the purported reason.
But uh, it's just a big, a big leap, a big leap from from the thesis to this uh, very detailed and emphatic story of what a, what a, what a, what a really really great guy.
He's a good guy, but I I, I forgot matt.
I did cut off the ending, which is the, the contrast, right?
So, blind boy is a good guy and, you know, cares about the people that were nice to him and has the same manager and so on and so forth, the other kind of people in the industry.
And I can't work with people who are dishonest or cruel or mean or who are bullies or any of that, or who expect that from me and just no, not interested.
The problem is, in my industry, conducting yourself in that way often means that you, you plateau, you can plateau, but if you're willing to be like a really selfish prick, you climb higher And then you interact with other people that are that way.
And then it spirals into this toxicity at the top.
Like it could even work against you.
Oh, there you go, Matt.
There's a cost.
There's a cost associated with it, right?
Yeah.
Yeah, with being good and kind and decent.
Yes, you go.
You can have the success, but you say, no, thank you.
No, thank you.
You say, you say no to the golden crown and you go into the West.
Yep.
I'll, you know, I'm down with that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Unfortunately, you know, Blind Boy, as he reminds us repeatedly, he's not somebody that is concerned with like reaching ever larger audiences or having these big, huge tours.
He's very content, you know, with where he is and stuff.
So that's not a big issue.
And he gives an illustration, a story to make this point clearer.
I know we just had a story, but there's another elaboration.
And this one was pretty striking to me.
So this is about him being at a festival and the treatment he received.
So let's hear about that.
Like a couple of years back, I was gigging.
I was headlining a very large tent at one of the big Irish festivals.
And I ended up having to change at the side of that tent with no dressing room.
Now that's not supposed to happen.
And it doesn't matter.
I fucking, I threw my bag on it, threw my clothes on.
I changed in the field.
Who gives a shit?
But you know why that happened?
Because my agent was like, that's not supposed.
You're headlining a fucking giant tent.
Why didn't you have a dressing room?
How the fuck does that happen?
It happened because everyone at the festival knew usher blind by sound.
He doesn't mind.
You see, there might have been other performers who were kicking up a fuss, who were being mean to people, who were being more demanding.
I need this.
I need this.
If I don't have this, the show, I'm not going on stage.
I need that.
Where's my this?
Where's my that?
So then the organizers are frightened, attending to the needs of performers that are being very demanding.
Autistic Performer Demands00:12:23
And then when it comes to me, they go, Asher, he doesn't mind.
A blind boy's sound.
No, no, no, he's grand.
He's grand.
Yeah, yeah.
So if the subtext of the first one was that he is loyal, he is principled, he could have access to greater success, but refused it because of his, he's just such a great guy.
Then I guess the subtext of the second one, and this is not a criticism, I'm just describing the subtext.
That is, he is so humble and undemanding that, you know, even to the extent that he might sometimes get taken advantage of a little bit.
You know, he'll play to a massive crowd, but doesn't act like it's a huge crowd.
It was the biggest tent at the festival, at a huge festival.
I'm just saying, carry on.
Yeah.
So it's connected to the thesis that the system rewards demanding type behavior, selfish behavior.
But once again, he himself is the example for a good and decent person.
Not known that, but he's known.
He's known to be sound.
Like the thing is that people are like, he's so sound, he won't mind at all.
We could treat him badly because he doesn't mind.
And I like the notion here.
Okay, so far, you might agree with him.
Like he doesn't, he wasn't really bothered by not having a changing room.
You know, he did say, how the fuck does that happen?
And his manager somehow heard about it, right?
And was also seemingly a little bit miffed.
But he says, you know, like it doesn't, who cares, right?
It's just getting, just getting changed.
How much space do you need to put a bag on your head?
You know, it's fine.
It's fine, right?
But, but it's a thing.
So let's let's hear a little bit more of this story.
And that then spiraled into me not having a changing room at the side of stage.
And there was, I went out to about 12,000 people.
Like it was a big gig.
And it meant my agent, I spoke to my agent about it then.
And then he went, fuck.
I'm going to have to be a bit more of a prick next year and it'll be a bit more demanding because we can't have that.
Now, the thing is, I didn't really mind changing in a field.
It was inconvenient because my socks, my socks got all wet because I had to stand in mud.
So that's not ideal.
But no one, it wasn't the organizer's fault.
No one was being mean.
It's just everyone said, Blind Boy's sound.
He doesn't mind.
Attend to that other entertainer's needs first because they're throwing a tantrum.
And what pissed me off about it was it wasn't that I had to change in a field.
It was that the system meant that I have to be, I'm forced into being a little bit demanding of people in order to get my needs met because that's the way the system is.
And that pissed me off.
Ah, okay.
So, you know, it does sound like he's a bit pissed off about it.
I mean, we got to hear that.
I mean, it didn't annoy him.
It didn't.
It doesn't matter.
I don't give a shit.
I don't care.
I don't care about it.
But I did speak to my manager and I did go and talk to them about it.
And my socks got muddy.
But, you know, I mean, you know, it's fine.
I didn't care.
Who cares?
Because I don't care about socks.
But what makes me angry?
It's the system, man.
Like, it's not me.
I don't care.
It's not for myself.
I wouldn't complain.
I wouldn't want to complain.
It's not like I want the changing room.
That's not the moral of this story.
You know, the moral of the story is everybody said, I'm too sound.
And to help other people, he has to complain to request like a bigger changing room.
He has to do that.
Otherwise, you know, it's to fight the system.
The good people will get taken advantage of.
Exactly.
Not for himself.
He doesn't mind.
No, he didn't mind.
He doesn't care about that.
I mean, it actually does sound like a fantastic Alan Partridge sketch.
You can actually imagine Alan Partridge telling a story like that.
Anyway.
Yeah.
I like that.
I enjoyed that.
Yes.
So this, you know, I'm somebody, a connoisseur of people engaging in self-deprecation here.
And I can detect the subtle undertones when someone is using a self-deprecating tone, but are actually in certain ways saying self-aggrandizing things.
And I detected a note.
You just detected a note.
Would you be describing humble bragging, perhaps?
Is that the term?
That's part of it.
That's part of it.
Yes.
You know, like, I don't know.
I mean, hitting the key points from that story, Blind Boy will never sell out because he's too genuine and he could even be more successful.
These big companies want him because his success is so big that it's unexpected.
And then, you know, the capitalists want the net, but he's too loyal to allow that.
He surrounds himself only with good people, the best people, to the extent that he's known across the industry as the soundest person that you can mistreat without any fear of reprisal.
And even worse, because there's so many bastards in the system taking advantage of good people, he's forced to complain about things that he doesn't care about, like having a changing room.
It's a burden.
It's a cost he has to bear, Chris.
Look, I did, I have to admit, after hearing these stories, I did do a little bit of online research to see whether there was a bit of a pattern there.
And look, I don't, yeah, no, it was a casual search, but I, you know, I did see a theme.
I think a little bit of moral grandstanding and humble bragging kind of, yeah, there's a bit of a theme there.
These are not isolated anecdotes.
Yes, and there's another episode that came out recently where there were two like Irish, I think one's a comedian and one's a talk show host or whatever, but they were talking about autism diagnoses and the prevalence and the kind of prominence that this has reached in recent years with people getting adult autism diagnosis, right?
Where the guy involved, I think, has had autism since he was a kid, right?
And in that exchange, they make reference to Blind Boy, who is somebody that has had an adult autism diagnosis, right?
And it was a little bit disparaging because they made reference to like the person's Muller saying, you know, an offhand kind of comment.
And Blind Boy mentioned it on his podcast, played the clip and was very clear to say he's not mad.
He's not annoyed at them.
This is just people having banter.
You know, he knows this guy.
This is the clip.
Something.
And I go, we're all the same.
We're all neurodiverse.
No, we're not.
Some people have different levels.
So I just wonder about that.
And that's your call as to when you see someone going, yes, I'm so neurodiverse.
You're going, are you?
You know, do you get bothered?
Right.
And do you get, I do, I wonder, do you get bothered when certain people say they've got certain things going on?
Or do you say, no, that's your thing?
Well, like recently when like Blind Boy, the podcaster, he came out as neurodiverse.
And when I said, when I said that to my mom, he says he's autistic now.
And she's like, don't let them take that away from you.
Yeah, they're all saying it.
They're all saying it.
So that's the audio, right?
Now, first I want to say, both Phil and Ryan Tubberty, they're just having crack.
What they're saying there is pretty harmless.
If I heard it in a pub, I wouldn't blink an eyelid.
Neither of them are being nasty, mean, anything like that.
And I really don't want anyone to be pissed off with either of them.
And he doesn't want anybody to go and, you know, call them out for this and whatnot.
But he did get quite irrelevant about the clip being shared.
And again, the issue was the system.
When I got a diagnosis, I did get a tiny bit of pushback from some autistic people.
Like there was one fella on Twitter.
Now, this fella was also a long-term begrudger of me.
Like, very, very jealous.
A Twitter user.
Always be in my mentions with jealousy.
But he was autistic.
And when I got diagnosed, he goes, unlike you, I got diagnosed in childhood.
Ridiculous.
But when you live under fucking capitalism, people will try and hoard anything and maintain the scarcity of that thing to increase its value.
So for some people, a minority, if they're ADHD, if they're autistic and this becomes their identity in a bit of a fucked up way, it can feel like a threat to their identity when autism becomes mainstream.
The hipsterification of autism.
People can hoard and defend autism like it's a cool band that they don't want the normies to find out about.
That exists.
I've encountered it.
It's rare, but it exists.
Somebody had used this clip to promote the podcast.
And it's not about him.
He doesn't really care if people doubt his diagnosis or whatever.
What he cares about is that other people might be badly affected by people calling people's diagnosis into doubt.
And I'm saying it because if any of you listening were pissed off by that clip, I'm asking you to please not take it out on either of those two people.
I'm pissed off with Virgin Media.
They should not have broadcast that.
That flies in the fucking face.
Like this is a TV show, The Assembly, where they're trying to center autistic voices, raise awareness about autism, what autism can be.
The entirety of the autistic spectrum.
Not editing that bit out flies in the fucking face of that mission statement.
Here's the facts.
The facts are.
I'm a diagnosed autistic person.
And Virgin Media aired a clip where the legitimacy of my autism diagnosis is called into question.
It's in the form of a harmless anecdotal joke.
So that bit's grand, like I said.
But the context, the editorial context now is very different.
You fucking can't do that.
I came across that clip also.
They were using that clip on TikTok and Instagram.
Virgin Media were using that clip on TikTok and Instagram to advertise the fucking show, to advertise.
Someone thought it was a good idea that a good advertisement for a show that raises awareness around autism is to broadcast a clip.
And the entire context of that clip is two people calling into question whether or not a public figure is actually autistic or not.
I complained about it on Instagram in my stories.
And loads of people were pissed off.
So they went to the comments underneath Virgin Media's video on both TikTok and Instagram.
And people were very pissed off, just going, what the fuck?
What are you bringing Blindby into this for?
Are you saying he's not autistic?
What are you doing?
There was hundreds of comments.
I commented as well, just basically asking them, like, why are you doing this?
And they deleted the videos, which means they know they're wrong.
And then when they deleted the videos, I thought, right, okay, the episode hasn't actually gone out.
It's due to go out on Monday night.
Maybe because they deleted these clips from Instagram and TikTok, they know that they fucked up and they're going to edit that out from the final episode.
And they didn't do that either.
It's really irresponsible.
Like, I'm saying this not just as an autistic person, but I'm saying it as I make television.
And to be clear, we're not calling his diagnosis into diet.
I'm just reporting that this fits the theme of, I'm not really bothered about this thing, but I am going to spend a significant segment highlighting I am not bothered and I do sound bothered.
It is deeply problematic, not because of its impact on me, but because of, you know, the society, the system, etc.
Historical Conflict Analysis00:12:36
Yeah, I get it.
Yeah, so that's it.
So, you know, as we said, there is a significant dichotomy that's set up here, which is like those vampiric capitalist bloodsuckers in the Epstein files.
Bad, Blind boy.
Good.
Good, good.
He's good.
He's good.
So we've got that.
We've clarified that.
That is the clear subtext.
I mean, it's meant to serve a role in the sort of analytic or argument that he's developing, but it is a long bow to draw, like going from, you know, child trafficking and sex trafficking, whatever, to here are some anecdotes about me entering and being a good guy.
It's a bit of a lurch.
But then he moves on, doesn't he?
To historical stuff.
Hey, Chris.
Oh, yes.
There is a section on historical stuff.
And this is a very common feature within his podcast.
He actually does do, you know, deep dives on historical topics.
And on a positive note, I will say, Matt, that oftentimes he is giving potted histories of the type that you see in other podcasts.
And he covers the stuff reasonably well.
Now, there are also mixed into it.
Oftentimes inaccuracies or whatnot, but he's not a professional historian, right?
So he's more like of a storyteller.
So in this case, he talked a little bit, for example, about Bloody Sunday.
You have in 1972, Bloody Sunday, 30th of January, right?
The anniversary was a couple of days ago.
Catholic civilians were marching for their civil rights in derry, unarmed Catholic civilians marching for their civil rights.
And British paratroopers opened fire on them on peaceful civilians marching for their civil rights.
Paratroopers opened fire on them.
They killed 13 people and injured 15.
Okay?
The injustice and barbarity of that exploded into what we'd call the troubles in the north of Ireland.
The IRA started to take their war against British military presence in the north of Ireland.
So Frank Kitson goes, right, this doesn't look good.
The eyes of the world are upon us.
We're after shooting a lot of innocent civilians.
This doesn't look good.
How are we going to stop this?
Okay, what we need is chaos.
We need chaos.
The British Army can't just take on the IRA.
We need fucking chaos.
So here's what I'm going to do.
So Frank Kitson formed the military reaction unit.
This isn't conspiracy theory.
It was conspiracy then.
Now this is all out in the open.
The military reaction unit were British Army soldiers, plain clothes.
And what they did is they murdered civilians indiscriminately.
Protestant civilians and Catholic civilians.
Why?
To create violent sectarian conflict, to create chaos.
So now there's civilians randomly being shot in Catholic areas, civilians randomly being shot in Protestant areas.
It's the British military doing it in plain clothes.
Either side think, you did it, you did it.
Now you have chaos.
Now you have sectarian war.
And the British Army go, should we have to be here?
Look at the paddies.
They're killing themselves.
They're killing each other.
That was what Frank Kitson did in the 70s.
It was a very novel form of control.
Destabilize.
Destabilization.
Don't just go in and colonize.
That's the old way of doing things.
Get in there and fucking destabilize it.
Get them fighting amongst each other.
Then nothing can get solved.
Did you know about that history, Matt?
Well, I knew some of it.
I knew about Bloody Sunday, of course, and so on.
But you, you are our authority on all things, Catholic and Northern Irish.
I will defer to your evaluation of that one.
Well, I don't know that I consider myself an authority, more just somebody that, you know, happened to be in both of the sessions.
Yeah, that was there, right, for some portion of the troubles.
But yeah, so I think he outlines the events of Bloody Sunday pretty accurately.
And you can quibble about that that caused the troubles, right?
The troubles already were in effect before that.
But it is true that that event, you know, helped to propel the response and support for the IRA.
But the military reaction force that he mentions, right?
So there he's why he's mentioning this, apart from just giving historical things, is he wants to link it to this thesis that he has about, as we discussed in the first episode, that the elites are setting up conflict.
They're faking attacks from different sides and they're, you know, like Gillian Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein with the slash Paul and Reddit boards, right?
Or the collapse of the created the culture wars so that they could destabilize the Occupy movement.
This is the theme, right?
Yes.
But here's the thing.
And it's just, it's actually a little bit surprising to me because he described it as the military reaction force were, you know, out murdering people from both sides, both communities in order to increase the conflict.
And as far as I knew, and as far as I researched, there's no evidence of that.
Like the evidence is that they targeted Catholic communities.
And in particular, they were trying, you know, they justified the attacks by saying that they were targeting, you know, suspected paramilitaries and so on.
But they did open fire on like unarmed civilians and they would in some occasions like flee towards Protestant areas, you know, in order to give the impression that that's where they were coming from.
But they weren't terrorizing unionist communities.
So it's kind of odd that that was slid in because they were a very partisan force, right, against the Catholic communities.
And I say that by, you know, being a Catholic person, but it's not, I'm not saying that because I want to diminish, you know, the suffering of the people in loyalist or unionist communities.
It's just in this specific instance, the evidence isn't there for this being a.
Yeah, it's an interesting thing to get wrong because he does cover like a lot of historical things with this.
And, you know, it'd be kind of more understandable, perhaps, to get the other stuff wrong.
But that seems like, I was surprised to hear that too.
I was like, really?
Like, that's quite outrageous to be doing both with the purpose of inciting more sectarian conflict.
And yeah, so it's interesting you got that fact wrong because that seems like that should be something he would know much better than some of the other topics he covers.
Yeah.
And to be clear, there's evidence of covert operations, right?
Evidence of unlawful shootings of civilians.
And there's plenty of evidence around collusions, including, you know, leader in it that's well documented between the police and the loyalist paramilitaries.
But there again, it's not collusion between the IRA and the police force, right?
Because the police and the army are very much on the side of the pro-British forces.
I mean, the specific point you're debating or doing, well, not debating, the specific point you're challenging, thank you, is that they were assassinating Protestants with the intent of giving the impression that it was the Catholics who did it, right?
Yeah, like it was a regime of terror against both sides.
Like there were terror at both sides, but not by this particular group.
So yeah, that was just, it's just a surprising thing.
But I think it might be that, you know, he's mostly focused on building his narrative and he's slotting things in.
And so this, this like account gets a little bit mangled.
Yeah, it's something I might hallucinate if it was building an argument for something.
But that's fine.
Okay.
But that's right.
But that's, but that's the argument he's looking to build, which is that there's these false flag operations, essentially.
What do the Weinsteins like to call it?
There's various phrases for this kind of...
Hey, Fabie.
K-Faby, that's it.
Yeah.
That this is an ongoing thing that has been used regularly historically and is happening now.
Yeah, and and to give a bit more flavor of the kind of historical stuff does so this is him talking about Irish gangs and you know whenever they immigrated to the States and the impact there.
So just just a little bit of flavor.
You get gangs called like the dead rabbits who beat the living shit out of each other, the same as they did back in Limerick, back in Tipper Area.
Now their kids are doing it and you've got gang culture in New York City, in the slums of Chicago.
It's like 1850, 1860.
Now a lot of those Irish.
They turned on their African-american neighbors and lynched them because some of those Irish were sent to fight in the Civil War and they blamed their African-american neighbors for the reason for that they turned against them.
Really it was the.
It was the rich wealthy, fucking Yanks going, here's some poor Irish, send them down to fight.
I don't want to go down and fight.
I I was escaping war back home in Ireland.
I'm here in New York.
I don't want to go to the fight for the Union or against the Confederates.
I don't even know what that is.
Oh, you're fighting for those black people over there for their freedom.
And then the Irish turned against their African-american neighbors.
Instead of going to the rich people and saying, fuck you anyway, the Irish bring gang culture to New York City, to Chicago, to Boston, the whole shebang.
There you go.
There's this Gangs OF NEW YORK type stuff right, yeah?
And again, I mean I think it's it's broadly accurate what he's describing, but I think he's overplaying the extent to which the, the Irish immigrants were, I guess, the victims of wealthy um, you know, American kind of things.
And yeah, the reality is it was pretty ugly like they.
There was targeted, systematic racial violence where they hunted black people through the streets and lynched them and you know a lot of.
It was just straight up like a, like a racist pogrom with very enthusiastic participants because there was direct economic competition between that.
You know, they saw the, the black African Americans, as competitors, like which they were, for a lot of the similar jobs you know, and also just genuine racial animosity, straight up, simple racism.
Yeah yeah, like.
So I mean, at least, to his credit, he is acknowledging there that Irish people, like they weren't, all you know, freedom fighters fighting for the rights of black people or whatever.
He kind of suggests that like, even the ones that were fighting for the north were reluctant about it which again, I think it varies, but yeah, so I played that not to cribble with all the historical things, but kind of point out this is what I think a lot of his listeners enjoy, that he's he's going through these different epochs and historical stories and and linking them into, you know, a broader basis and for the most part, like it often,
is a reasonable recounting of the broad sweeps of the history.
Yeah, like I think, if you at a certain level, I agree, like it is, it is nice to have this tour And be reminded of a lot of historical events that most people probably haven't heard about or don't think about very often.
That part I like.
But the thing that's very common, not just in Blind Boy, but in some strands of left-wing analysis, which is that you reduce everything to class conflict, essentially.
And when the bad thing happens, that seemingly is not mainly about class, it might seemingly be mostly about racism, actually is interpreted as a kind of they were manipulated into racism, they were given false consciousness and so on.
Epstein Agency Connections00:14:52
And, you know, just being aware that there's a there is selective emphasis and a certain spin that's getting applied.
Yeah, and he goes through a bunch of other things.
He talks about Jewish immigration, right?
And the mafia, the Italian crime families, right?
Their immigration and the kind of effects, right, of these criminal elements, right, coming into society and importing their approach to things, right?
And it links into the broader thesis as things go on along these lines.
Taking techniques from Meyerlansky and the Jewish mafia and the Italian mafia.
The CIA were running brothels now.
But in these brothels, they had two-way mirrors.
And they were.
So you'd have middle-class family men turning up to these brothels.
Then the CIA would emerge from the two-way mirror with photographs and say, We have, you know, there's photographs.
And they would dose these men with LSD without their consent to see if they could control their minds.
I know that sounds insane.
Look it up.
Operation Midnight Climax and Operation MK Ultra.
Do you know about Operation Midnight Climax and Operation MK Ultra, Matt?
I did not.
I did not.
Well, he is correct about this.
It was a program.
And in this specific case, it wasn't about extracting blackmail material, which is what it will go on to.
It was mostly about seeing if they can use LSD and other such things and sex in order to make people give out sensitive information when they're in a suggestible seat, right?
So that's what it was about.
It wasn't like collecting information on high-ranking senators in order to blackmail them.
It was more like a program to see if they could develop a kind of truth serum.
But it's the kind of shit that like in the 70s, the CIA was doing a lot of this shit.
Yeah, creative approaches to interrogation.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, so, okay, you have that.
And then, as he mentioned, the narrative is these groups came in, they engaged in these ways to control, you know, politicians and so on because we're criminal elements that had ways to manage, you know, getting permission, getting access, and all these kind of things that often involve blackmail, often involved criminal undertakings, right?
The CIA were copying from their playbook to learn how to extract information and manipulate people and so on.
And then.
So if a judge comes down and a member of the Gambino family or Myerlansky, Roy Cohn steps in and meets the judge and says, Here's photographs of you in a brothel.
Are you sure you want to pursue my client?
And then it disappears.
Roy Cohn then becomes the mentor and lawyer of young Donald Trump in the 1970s.
He began Trump at this point is Trump's dad was rich.
It was real estate.
Roy Cohn is instrumental to the rise of young Donald Trump in the 1970s through these techniques of extortion and blackmail of people in power, all sexual blackmail.
Donald Trump wants to build a building.
He can't get money for it.
Or there's legislation in place that he says he doesn't have to do it.
Then Roy Cohn gets blackmail on whatever George or politician is standing in the way.
and then it happens.
If you want to see that in detail, there's a fucking brilliant film by the name of, it's called The Apprentice.
It came out last year.
And the actor Jeremy Strong plays Roy Cohn.
Jeremy Strong is Kendall from Succession.
It's an amazing fucking film.
Roy Cohn, a historical figure with a documented connection to young Donald Trump and his follower, and also somebody that had connections with the FBI and the CIA, right?
Now, there, it is true that like Cohn was connected with Joseph McCartney, relationships with prosecutors and politicians and so on, but there isn't the evidence that he was like an official CIA, FBI operative.
He was an aggressive fetcher, more of adjacent connections, mentored Trump.
But the key claim is that he systematically used sexual blackmail with judges and people in power.
And by implication, that Trump learned that.
And then that's how he came to power through using these same techniques, potentially through Epstein.
But that is the bit that's not well supported.
Like Cohn is a figure that's pretty documented at using blackmail and, you know, strong arming and connections.
But the sexual blackmail being his go-to technique is not the, you know, the piece of the puzzle that fits in.
And wasn't Maya Lansky mentioned before as the connection that goes to Cohn, where there's like some organized crime figure that did the similar kind of thing, right?
And I think like, so I think it's true that he is compromising material against politicians and judges and things like that.
He did that.
But the specifics on the sexual blackmail and stuff like that is kind of tenuous.
But anyway, so the point is, is about what you're describing.
The proposition is that there's a series of links here.
There's a connection between Lansky and Cohn, a connection between Cohn and Trump and Trump to Epstein.
And the thesis is kind of that they're handing off, or there's an ongoing some sort of knowledge about sexual blackmail that's going between them.
Is that the idea?
Yeah, yeah.
And just to make it clear how it ties into the Epstein stuff, so there's two clips that speak to the connections that are being posited.
So here's one.
What you're seeing is organized crime and also it's blackmail.
It's a blackmail network.
The files also strongly suggest that Epstein was working for somewhere between Mossad, who are the Israeli intelligence services, and the CIA, and MI5 were stuck in there too with some Libyan shit that he was doing.
But intelligence services like the CIA or Mossad or MI5.
You think of them as these operate to service their respective countries, like the militaries of their respective countries or the safety of those countries.
Think of them more as the organized crime wing of wealthy industrialists and billionaires who use lobbying to control governments.
So the notion there, right, Matt, is that it's well established by the files that like Epstein was not just an agent for Mossad.
He was possibly like working for several agencies or key node, you know, all of them.
And I'll just say that isn't strongly supported by the material.
There's specific emails that people point to, but like what the emails do not present is somebody clearly working for intelligence agencies.
They present somebody who is a socialite financial person who wants to go out and meet people and foster all these connections.
And the rest is classified.
This podcast, which is about, you know, spies, espionage, covert operations, and it's hosted by people with expertise in this.
They did a two-part series on like the alleged connections between Epstein and Mossad, right?
And their general read of the evidence is very counter to Blind Boy, which is that the evidence that he was in any sense like a formal agent is extremely thin and mostly relies on this kind of associative thing that Gillian Maxwell's father was associated with Mossad and a big supporter of like Israel and Zionist stuff.
And Jeffrey Epstein was heavily involved with Gillian Maxwell.
Now he met her the year that her dad died.
So presumably they did the handoff in that year.
And like he, he wasn't, you know, this was in 1991 as well, Matt.
So, you know, many, many years before.
But what they said in that episode, and I defer to their expertise in the matter, is like there isn't the kind of smoking gun evidence that you would expect in many of the things that he was doing would be very bad for an intelligence agency.
There'd be a liability in a lot of respects.
And they couldn't use like most of the stuff for various reasons, right?
But what they did say is like, obviously, intelligence agencies would be interested in someone like him, right?
Because he has connections, he has a lot of money and is working with powerful people and so on.
So you would expect them to try to cultivate, you know, links.
But there's a big difference between a subject that they are cultivating than an agent that is.
Yes, it's a difference between like Eric Weinstein's view that he's a construct created by intelligence agencies.
A bit more reasonable is that he's an actual agent.
And then this position, right, that people suggest that he would be an asset for the kind of information that he could provide.
So it's likely that intelligence agencies would want to try and foster friendly relations with him.
And also clear that he liked Israel, right?
He had connections with people in the Israeli government.
And, you know, the people often point out that he let a Israeli prime minister stay at his house and so on.
But he also let Chomsky stay at his house.
And he also was meeting with Steve Bannon.
You know, he was a prolific networker.
So you have to really emphasize, you know, selectively emphasize the potential ties to Mossad.
But here, Blind Boy kind of just asserts that, you know, like it's very obvious from the material that that's the case.
Yeah, it's kind of like a version of the base rate fallacy, isn't it?
Like applying to Epstein, right?
Because he was so prolific, knew so many people and had so many contacts and relationships, and that there is so much material there that, you know, when something is spotted, it's so easy to cherry pick that and forget for the moment that he was doing that with everybody, like anyone who was in any way, you know, a person of influence or importance.
Yeah, yeah.
And, you know, to make it clear, Matt, that, you know, this isn't us overreaching him.
I mean, I think it was pretty obvious from that clip, but there's another section where he spells out the connections pretty clearly.
So what you see with the Epstein thing, it's it's it appears to be a big, massive blackmail operation for the most powerful people in the world.
Doing the most horrendous shit imaginable.
Because a lot of them, that's what they want, that's what they're into, that's what they enjoy.
And then about trying to bring people into that club to condition them into that way of behaving and using peer pressure or drugs or coercion to get them to behave that way or to do it dishonestly.
Maybe somebody went to Epstein's Island, thought it was just a big cool party with rich people, ended up meeting a girl at that party, thinking that she was overage and that it was consensual.
Then having sex with that person, there's a hidden camera and then afterwards it turns out, oh, she's actually underage.
You thought that she was maybe 20 or 21, but that's not the case at all.
And she didn't have sex with you out of free will.
She was coerced into that.
And we have footage of it now.
And you're very wealthy and powerful.
And now you have to toe the line.
I would wager that there was also some of that.
How does it get to that point?
And again, like I said, judging by the files, it would appear that Epstein works for both Mossad and the CIA.
Gheelain Maxwell, her father was Robert Maxwell.
Robert Maxwell was definitely with Mossad.
You have to go back to prohibition in America.
Do you know what, even further than that, I'll take it to, to, this is a hot take episode lads.
This is a ramble.
I'm going to take it to Limerick in the early 1800s.
I'm aware how insane this sounds, but you'll just have to trust my process.
So that's how it got on to the Irish history about immigrating to New York, Gangs of New York stuff.
Yeah, yeah, it's it's it's a wild arc, isn't it?
It ranges from 1800s Limerick, you know, through so many things.
The troubles, the gangs in New York, prohibition, the what is it, the MK Ultra?
Like it's it's all it's such a broad sweep and and it all gets connected together for this thesis.
Yeah, yeah.
So, I mean, the overall conspiracy, he summarizes it neatly at the end, like this.
And then into the fucking middle of that steps, Jeffrey Epstein, into that circle.
Roy Cohn was definitely working with the FBI, probably the CIA as well.
Those are all kind of tenuous links, but what you see there, you see a thread of sexual blackmail at first with organized crime.
Then US intelligence services start to work with organized crime.
And you go from Meyerlanski, Roy Cohn, Trump, Epstein.
Somewhere along the way, fucking CIA Mossad get involved.
I'm guessing with Epstein, it's so he did work with Gheelane Maxwell's dad, Robert Maxwell.
Tenuous Intelligence Links00:15:32
And you can see this in the files.
And Maxwell, he was 100% Mossad.
Most definitely.
So what I'm trying to get at with this phone call.
You're looking at organized crime.
That's what this is.
But we don't call it that.
Because these people are so powerful, you don't fucking call it that.
But that's what we're witnessing.
This is organized crime on a grand scale, and it appears to be operating above the law.
Yeah, so it's kind of clear.
Like he's got this thread, as he says himself, which stretches from 1800s Libric to the 2025 Epstein files, in which all of these disparate things and everything serves this underlying function, you know, of depravity and blackmail and control by elites and manipulation of the masses, etc.
And, you know, it's such a like it's such a tidy narrative.
Like it should be a massive red flag.
If you look at all of these disparate events and you can nitpick and find little exceptions, but when it's that incredibly tidy, that all of these diverse things are all examples of this one underlying thesis that there's a continuous international program of elite control that spans two centuries.
I think that's a red flag.
And it's entertaining.
And I think, I think, you know, many of them, many of the details are true, but I don't think that makes the overall arc, the single thread true.
Yeah, yeah.
And like, again, the timeline, Matt, is that, you know, the connection's drawn specifically around Epstein here.
And I've heard some of the other clips.
There's a lot made about Gillian Maxwell's father, but it's worth noting he died, you know, in November 1991.
And Gillian Maxwell moved to New York in 1991 or thereabout, right?
So at best, they only have a couple of months before his death, right?
So he doesn't mention that, but you know, he obviously hammers that point home.
He mentioned it, like, he repeated it three or four times.
Gillian Maxwell's dad was definitely a must.
It's like he's got one solid stone to stand on.
So you've got to repeat it a few times to make sure that it really hits.
And he keeps saying things like, you know, it's not, that's documented in the that's definitely true.
Yeah.
Yeah.
If you look into it, it's, it's not.
You're right.
It's, it is people extrapolating rather significantly.
No, to be clear, there are people that make those extrapolations, but they tend to be people who were always doing those extrapolations, right?
Yeah, so like, like he's not innovating massively now in this sense.
He has sources for this.
There are other people that basically posit versions of this.
Yeah.
And I will say, Matt, I mean, we mentioned right Operation Midnight.
There's also, you probably know more about this than me, but you know, there was the famous Salon Kitty thing in Germany, right, during World War II, where they used a brothel and they basically did what he's outlining, right, about getting people, foreign ministers and whatnot, in compromising positions and then using that to blackmail them.
There's various verified honeypot operations, right, by Russia and China and so on, where they are trying to get people to be in intimate relationship with spies.
These are things that actually occur.
So did the CIA programs.
But it's the broader claim, right?
It's like he takes the things which are well documented, like that Operation Midnight.
But what that is not well documented to be is the thing that is well documented around the Salon Kitty.
It wasn't a case of them gathering information on influential individuals to blackmail them.
That's what happened there at that Salon Kitty.
And that was well documented.
But he like it's weaving a tale where it's all plausibly connected, but the actual links are a lot more tenuous than what is suggested.
So it's not like me and Matt are saying no government anywhere has ever used sexual blackmail to try and advance its interests or get people to behave as spies or no, no.
I'm sure that has happened many times in history.
But that Epstein was doing that. is not well documented in the material.
Whereas he keeps saying like the emails show this, but what the emails show instead is just like it is criminal and it is a network of people who feel that they're above the law or like that the rules don't apply to them.
But it isn't in the way that he suggests, which is like, it's all to do with geopolitics and it's all to do with like destroying class consciousness and stuff.
No, it seems much more to just be about very rich people being abusive and acting entitled and not giving a shit about, you know, crimes that people commit.
Yeah, like it's equally unpleasant and unsavory, but it's it's more tawdry rather than a grand Machiavellian Illuminati type scheme to, I guess, recruit, coerce and control the elites forming this ultra-powerful body of compromised people with the implication that that can be then used to control like the rest of us.
I mean, everything.
Everything, you know, and that's, you know, that's the narrative that is being built out of the constituent pieces.
Yeah.
And there's another technique that comes up.
You know, you, with Brett Weinstein, you get the disclaimers that he's just, he's not conspiracy theorizing.
He's hypothesizing.
It's scientific to consider different possibilities, right?
Eric Weinstein is always saying, he's not saying this definitely happened.
He's just raising the possibility and you're not even allowed to talk about these kind of things, right?
And this is the mode, of course, that Jordan Peterson often used to take, which is he's, you know, this, of course, this may, this may well not be true, but it might not not be true.
But, you know, I mean, but more, but more usually, just like exploring, right?
Exploring a stream of argumentation and thought.
And it's the framing that they will use is that this is, you know, speculation.
They have that caveat sort of at the beginning.
But then you hear the tone of their voice and the amazing confidence with which they are building on that.
And it's clear that they are not treating it as speculative.
No, and sometimes, Matt, there's very vocal and very obstinate conspiracy theorists who are absolutely clear that this definitely happened in this way.
But the more common mode, even amongst your hardcore conspiracy theorists, is that they add disclaimers that like, well, I'm not sure about all those details, right?
But this is this is possible.
And it's clear that something happened, right?
Like it's clear something went on there.
Yeah, because the official story just doesn't add up.
So exactly.
And this is why often they will tolerate conflicting narratives where people have incompatible explanations for things, right?
You know, it's just think about COVID.
It's at once like a bioweapon designed by the Chinese that is, you know, extremely destructive and so on.
And it's also a thing that's being overhyped and they need to count more bodies.
And it's also a thing which the scientists have cooked up.
You know, like it's both, it's hardly a fair.
It doesn't kill anyone.
And it's also the most dangerous bioweapon and, you know, scientists playing God and so on.
And they're all relatively mutually incompatible when you get down to like the specific details.
But that doesn't mean you can't have a conference with eight people nodding along in agreement, even though they're all advancing competing conspiracy theories.
And I mentioned this because there are disclaimers.
We heard at the start of the episode the biggest one, which is that this is a phone call episode.
It is going to be not as well researched.
It's just going to be throwing out a lot of things.
And, you know, and that serves as like a disclaimer, right?
Where you can say, well, come on, like, he's just weaving a narrative based on the things that he saw.
But as we've seen when we saw clips from other episodes, this is not an uncommon mode that he takes in the non-phone call episodes.
And this is the disclaimer that comes towards the end of the podcast, Matt.
I'm aware this podcast is absolutely insane.
You were all asking me to talk about Epstein, so I spoke about it.
What was the point of that podcast?
It's for people who feel so confused that you have no language for what's happening whatsoever.
So that tries to add explanation or narrative or story or words to it.
I think viewing it in that human way where it's this is organized crime, this is power, this is about blackmail coercion and the evilness that rises to the top in an evil system.
I think that's a much more healthy and helpful way to look at something so terrible without needing to resort to interdimensional shape-shifting lizards, Illuminati, ritual.
Even if there is satanic rituals and shit like that, it doesn't have to mean anything.
It's not supernatural.
Ritual can be an initiation.
Ritual can be brainwashing isn't the word, but bringing someone into a club.
Like there's some weird shit in the Epstein files.
Like there's reports of him wanting Mormon blood.
There's reports of him wanting very specific artifacts from the Muslim faith.
And you're just going, what are you at?
Ritual doesn't have to be supernatural.
Or super, supernatural.
Supernatural.
It's used to construct legitimacy.
So I'll just mention there, Matt, whenever you highlight that you're not endorsing some of the most extreme claims, right?
Like you're not saying it's about, you know, creating supernatural demons and doing satanic rituals and whatnot.
It serves to kind of make it seem that like the things that you're alleging are much more reasonable.
Alex Jones does this too, right?
Or people, when they want to contrast themselves with Alex Jones, they'll say, it's not about fourth-dimensional reptiles and stuff.
What I'm talking about is like actual genuine things.
So there's that disclaimer that there's much more crazy controversies.
But even with that, he still does the thing of saying, and there's this weird stuff, right?
There's him looking for artifacts and him getting so you get this still mention, you know, the kind of unusual things and then say, but you know, but I'm not saying that's supernatural, right?
But as we've seen from what he's alleged, it's not necessarily supernatural, but he is basically positing like an evil ruling class of overlords who are psychologically just very cruel.
They get off on sadism.
They engage in like taboo busting rituals and so on.
And they're, they're not like normal people, right?
It's it is in some ways like it doesn't have to be supernatural, but it's certainly a class of very extraordinarily evil people.
Yeah, yeah, that's right.
So it's, yeah, as a disclaimer, it's not really doing much.
It's not disclaiming much at all.
Oh, it will for his audience, though.
It will for the audience.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, you know, the thing about those disclaimers, of course, is that they're a form of protection, right?
It's a way to insulate yourself from criticism.
And that's one of the things that struck me about this episode altogether, which is that there are so many layers in which I don't know whether Blind Boy is doing it consciously or not, but they are certainly there.
And that is, I guess, served to make it difficult to criticize what he is asserting.
And, you know, like, first of all, there was the format disclaimer.
You know, it's a phone call episode.
It's not rigorously researched.
It's just off the top of my head.
But then the episode is about a whole bunch of purported facts about history and stuff like that.
It is actually developing quite a strong rhetorical argument.
So the disclaimer doesn't really match.
Like that disclaimer would be appropriate if you were going to then free associate about your dreams and how you saw a bird and stuff like that.
Not so much this kind of thing.
And then we discussed the sort of virtue anecdotes where the subtext was that he is a virtuous person, which again, it's like, well, you know, don't criticize me.
I'm a good person, right?
I'm on the side of light.
And, you know, the fact that he, you know, part of his public profile is his autism diagnosis, which means that he sees things differently.
He sees things in wild and wildly different ways.
He sees patterns and gets overwhelmed by.
So there's always that escape clause, which is, well, you know, maybe some of that didn't connect or it doesn't connect for you, but it does for someone who thinks differently.
And, you know, different neurodivergent ways of thinking are perfectly valid, of course.
Well, it just means that, like you say, there's overlapping layers that you can invoke to, you know, defend.
And it also means that by criticizing Blind Boy, you can easily be portrayed as like you are, on the one hand, dismissing concerns about any criminal activity, right?
You're defending the system.
You don't want to acknowledge like the crimes that are being conducted.
You're pro-capitalism.
You're pro-exploitation.
It's kind of that in the same way, like with Gary or whatever, that if you're critiquing his narrative, that you want there to be inequality.
You want there to be exploitation.
Are you saying that rich people are good people?
You know, that Elon Musk has our best interests at heart, that the political class, like the MIGA administration, isn't above blackmailing or abusing people or they treat women well.
And like, no, right.
Like none of that follows.
But there is the implication that if you are going to be criticizing that, that you are.
Yeah, you're on the side of darkness.
And, you know, I guess that's the thing with Manichean framings.
And, you know, we have moral grandstanding in our garometer.
And, you know, most of our gurus do it in different ways where the world does get kind of sorted into the side of light, however you want to define it.
For some, it's, you know, classical liberal values and science and so on.
And then the bad people are the shrieking woke or it could be a more class-oriented thing as Blind Boy is doing.
And just to mention, I think a final layer of protection there is that those disclaimers around emotions, right?
Capitalism Indictment00:11:10
So the sort of gut feeling stuff, you know, this is something in the pit of my belly and I just can't separate these things.
And, you know, that's not something you can really cripple with, right?
Because your feelings are valid and it's making an argument.
Like the argument is clear, right?
That you're saying these things are connected.
But by framing it as a feeling, then that is quite helpful rhetorically.
Yeah.
And so here's an example of these kind of things being connected together to traditional left-wing anti-capitalist anti-colonial concerns.
This is a phone call podcast, so allow me to go on bizarre tangents.
I'm aware that only five minutes ago I was talking about the Hells Angels having sex with corpses.
What I'm trying to get at is that under the system of capitalism is very, very cruel.
It's based on domination, exploitation.
The 1% is me and you.
It's people who live in the global north.
The quality of life that you have if you live in America or Europe or Australia.
The quality of life that you have in the global north.
The access to cheap food, clothes.
These things come to us as consumers under the capitalism and globalization.
Like I know someone who got arrested for growing and selling cannabis to a few of their friends.
All right.
Someone who was growing their own cannabis in their house and selling this cannabis to a network of about six friends.
They were arrested.
They were brought to trial.
They're a criminal now.
They spent a few weeks in prison.
They're a criminal.
But purchasing cannabis from that person is more ethical than the underpants that I buy in a high street shop where the raw materials and labor and construction of those underpants is made in the global south.
In a sweat factory where people are being exploited and abused.
It's almost impossible to live outside of that system.
Our phones contain rare earth minerals that are mined in artisanal mines in the Congo, where children have their hands chopped off.
Is that still happening in the Congo?
No, I checked this.
And there's a lot of mistreatment and so on, but children having their hands chopped off as punishment for not working hard enough.
No, you know, I'm sure there's probably been an instance where something like that has happened, but that is more associated with, you know, the brutal Belgian regime in the Congo.
So, so yeah, but you know, the broader picture is that ultimately the villain, surprise, you know, when you when you pull off the mask, the real villain.
Not me.
I just installed a whole bunch of solar.
You're a solar pod.
Well, you paid for those.
And what are those made out of, Matt?
And where did those people?
Oh, God.
I don't dare to think where the metals came from, Chris.
Well, yeah.
So, you know, it does remind me, and Bind Boy's analysis in general, I have to say, does remind me of this.
That, you know, I went to university at SOAS, a good left-wing university in the UK.
I worked on the side, Matt, scrimping to get by, editing essays for people, being a proofreader for their PhD thesis as well.
And in that university, God bless SOAS, I will say that I knew every single essay where the final conclusion was coming.
And it always, always was neoliberal globalization is the like the root cause of all evil.
And some in some cases, well-argued, in other cases, less well-argued.
And here, I do think that the events around Epstein and the, you know, the emails and what they reveal is an indictment of capitalism.
The same way Elon Musk rising to the top of the global wealth charts is an indictment of capitalism, right?
You imagine that capitalism only rewards people who are good people or working very hard and so on.
Like, no, no, no, it clearly doesn't.
And people can profit from being terrible and exploitative.
And there are plenty of opportunities for that under capitalist systems.
But I just think that being the key takeaway somewhat takes the focus off what the actual thing should be, which is that Jeffrey Epstein, primarily him, some of his associates, but him and Gillian Maxwell primarily were engaged in abuse of young girls and women.
And that is the primary crime.
The primary crime isn't geopolitics and CIA and globalization.
Should we be so harsh on Epstein?
Because, I mean, there's really no ethical behavior possible under capitalism.
So, well, there's degrees, Matt.
There's degrees.
That's true.
That's true.
And clearly, me and Blind Boy are two of the good ones.
I mean, we're doing our best within a corrupt system, I think.
That's the takeaway.
Yeah, if I see a general pattern, it's that there's a real harm or historical injustice that is referenced, right?
Then it's often linked in an emotionally evocative, moral outrage way, right?
The most lurid example, chopping hands off, having sex with corpses.
It's always, you know, the most extreme thing which is reached for.
Then harm caused is framed as like an intentional cruelty being acted by a cruel class, right?
An elite class of vampiric, evil people.
And then this is linked in with, you know, like some psychology lesson or a broader framework about how this is inevitable under the neoliberal capitalist system.
Yeah, that's that seems to be the kind of steps that follow in most of the stories that we've heard.
Yeah, I agree with that.
Yeah.
So have we reached the end of our journey, Chris, through the episode?
Well, yes, I think the last thing just to play is the clip where he talks about the research that he did for this and where he got the information from.
Because, you know, he did say it's a stream of consciousness thing.
And I do think that he's going on, you know, tangents that come to mind.
But it's also clear that he's referencing a body of information and factoids and details, right?
So he does give details about that at the end that I think are worth mentioning.
The information that I got there in the second half, the connecting it from Meyerlanski to Roy Cohn to Epstein to Trump.
I want to give a shout out to a journalist called Whitney Webb.
She did all that research there.
She's done for years has been one of the few, one of the few journalists looking at the Epstein shit from like an evidence-based, rational point of view and framing it as a giant blackmail operation.
The Illuminati conspiracy theory shit.
All that crazy stuff is a distraction, interdimensional shapeshift and lizards.
That's all a distraction.
And it's unhelpful.
These are human beings doing bad things.
All right, God bless.
I'll catch you next week.
In the meantime, wink at a swan.
Genufleck to a snail.
Whistle at a cat.
And whimsical, you know, a little bit brandish at the end there.
And I'll note, Matt, that he makes reference to Whitney Webb.
And she has a book which is called One Nation Under Blackmail from 2022, right?
Which is essentially outlining the thesis that he outlines, right?
So this is where he's making a lot of those connections.
But that book, I went and read quite a lot about this, right?
And this is a like very dense book, which collected a lot of material together.
And it's really regarded as like a Bible of sorts amongst the conspiracy minded because it's so dense with footnotes and references to documents and so on.
But critical evaluations of it note that that is actually the weakness, that like it's collating huge amounts of references and materials.
And some of it is like well validated, some of it isn't.
And she kind of moves easily between things that are documented to speculative conclusions, to put it mildly.
And yet the fact that there's so many references and pieces provided, it kind of creates the impression of rigor.
It's not a book that is regarded as rigorous by the more critically minded or like historians or this kind of thing.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, it's it sounds similar to the Epstein files themselves, which is the plethora of information makes it a happy hunting ground for connecting dots.
I mean, you know, this is not this is not unusual, right?
Like religious texts are like this too.
Like the Bible is treated by some as a similar kind of happy hunting ground because kind of it's got it's got it all.
There's something in there for everyone.
And with a bit of mental flexibility, you can connect together a lot of dots and come up with a lot of interesting theories.
So yeah, I think you're right in that a book like that, which assembles such a vast amount of tidbits of varying quality can provide the source material for a lot of different narratives, depending on what your preference is.
Right.
And this book came out before the current tranche of documents were released.
Right.
So like if it were true, you would have expected in the documents to see all these details about like the blackmail plants and whatnot, right?
But you don't see that.
Like what you see is people arranging massages and networking and being sycophantic and making business deals and giving insider information and all this kind of things, like genuine crimes, but much more mundane than the evil vampire.
Manichean Worldview Critique00:11:33
And he makes the point, Matt, that they're human.
You know, these are just humans, but his presentation of them doesn't throughout just present them as humans.
Like they're almost like an unholy evil, like not like normal humans.
Whereas I think the actual reality is much more like depressing, which is these people are, for the most part, with some exceptions, perhaps, you know, Jeffrey Epstein and others, like unusually callous or unusually willing to carry out abuse.
But like the fact that they can ingratiate themselves with people or have a vibrant social life, it doesn't mean that like the reason Chomsky was hanging about with him was because he likes kids or the reason Bill Gates ever had contact with him because they shared the predilections.
But it is very much that that's the way that Blind Boy and others take it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And I think there's another rhetorical move there, which you were hinting at, which is that there's the kind of like throwing a bone, like he emphasizes, look, I'm not saying there's actual magic happening, like nothing supernatural.
Yeah.
I'm just saying that they were like getting blood to like do the rituals and, you know, like, you know what I mean?
Like, it's like, was anyone who was thinking that there was real magic happening?
And like with this one, he said, you know, it's not, there's not shapeshifting aliens here.
You know, these are people.
These are humans doing this.
It's like, I think everyone is there, was anyone thinking that they're actually lizard people?
I think who's the audience for that?
I mean, unfortunately, probably some people.
Probably a few, but you get my point, which is that, I mean, and we've heard other gurus do this, actually, which is that puts him in the sort of anti-conspiracist camp, right?
He's the one saying poo-pooing.
Now, you know, that's crazy, right?
In contrast to what I'm proposing, which is, which is more grounded.
Yeah.
So I just wanted to point out that, you know, there is a source referenced, right?
So there is preparation that went into it.
So not purely stream of consciousness then.
Some research involved.
Some research is available.
Yes.
So do you have any big picture thoughts, Matt, before we wrap things up?
G, OG, OG.
I don't think I do have too much to add, Chris.
I understand why the content is attractive.
Actually, the ASMR thing doesn't really work for me.
I much prefer your harsh accent, Chris, of Irish accents.
But I do see the entertainment value in it.
And, you know, there's a lot of interesting stuff there, which is true that is covered, right?
All of that big historical thing.
You know, a lot of the elements are accurate enough.
And it's an interesting journey to go on.
But at the same time, as we covered at the very beginning, he is absolutely proposing quite lurid conspiracy theories.
And a lot of that broad sweep of interesting history was presented to sort of slot into a pretty big claim and connecting a bunch of disparate dots.
Yeah, similar to what a conspiracy theorist does.
So, you know, and this, in the case of Blind Boy, of course, it's situated within this, you know, anti-capitalist, anti-globalist, anti-elite sort of class-oriented political slant where you have the very good, or not the very good, but, you know, decent, real people, you know, of which Blind Boy is first and foremost, no doubt.
As he established, yes.
He does that quite effectively, I think.
You know, and this Manichean sort of worldview.
But at the same time, as per standard sort of doctrine in those circles, we're all trapped in a system of mutual abuse and exploitation.
And there's no way to get out of it because it pervades everything and it is everything.
So that's kind of what he is, in my humble opinion.
And, you know, take it or leave it, I suppose.
If you enjoy that kind of thing.
Yeah, I liked your point.
And I'll just reiterate it to finish about like the layers of rhetorical defense that are, they are operating simultaneously, right?
Because you, you have the format, which is a disclaimer, which we've covered, right?
You've got the anecdotes about like only the purest motivations, virtuous things that he, he isn't about trying to grow his audience or get the biggest slice of the pie or a dressing room.
There's also that he thinks differently because of autism or because of his background, not being an elite person or whatever the case might be, right?
He is from not the establishment.
He's not part of the great and the good.
Yes, he does sell out world tours and those kind of things, but he does it while maintaining his principles and honor.
And then you have that what's being invoked isn't being completely endorsed.
It's just, you know, his feelings, stuff which he admits there are aspects of it that maybe, you know, that it's, it's loose connections and whatnot, but it just feels like there's something there.
And then last is just this systematic appeals, which is like it, it's fundamentally connected to, you know, the events in Gaza, to capitalist exploitation, to neoliberal globalism, to colonialism, so on and so forth.
And of course, in a certain sense, Matt, if you look hard enough at everything that functions in the world, it is connected to, you know, repressive regimes and to systems of capital flow and to politicians lying and so on.
But I think you have to be very selective in your framing in order to make it.
That is the number one factor that goes into all the stuff around Epstein, right?
Because there are people that are equally as wealthy, equally as focused on treating influence and whatnot, and they aren't engaged in what Epstein was.
Like it is not the case that all people who are wealthy CEOs are blood-sucking demons, right?
Like or abusing young underage girls.
Like as much as I share his biases, I don't think that's the case, right?
They're people and some of them are bastards and some of them aren't.
And that is the nature of the world.
The people that get to the top of capitalist systems might be more inclined towards like certain personality types.
But I think the way that he presents it is like a cartoonish evil at the elite levels.
Yeah.
Look, and I think maybe just a thing to be aware of is that his audience is obviously one that is, you know, very, very much in on this.
It's a popular worldview amongst certain groups.
So he is hitting those points and the grand narrative that he is constructing there is one that is going to resonate really strongly with the audience.
So when you take the whole package, it is going to feel incredibly satisfying.
You're going to see all the connections.
It is all going to point and confirm the worldview you have.
And it's not so much that I disagree and say, oh no, that worldview is wrong, you're deluded, everything like that.
I'm just saying be cautious of a grand narrative that explains everything and be cautious when the discourse is constructed to appeal to all of the things that you like so neatly.
That's just something I would advise.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And I think it's worth noting that like everybody in the IDW world, in the heterodox world, in blind boys world, they always present it, but they are saying the thing which nobody wants to hear, which is unpopular.
But like in actual fact, it is very popular amongst their audience, right?
Like if you take a survey saying, you know, is it okay to attack, you know, rich capitalists and bankers and colonialism and so on, these are popular positions, but they're often presented that like it's very brave to say it.
Whereas for that audience, it's what everybody agrees, right?
Like it's the broadly endorsed position.
So it's a bit less brave in the case where it might be true.
It can still be true, but I'm just saying it isn't the kind of renegade thing where you're not going to get booked for any more left-wing book tours if you're reeling against capitalism.
No, no.
Actually, you reminded me of Konstantin Kisson because he's great at this.
His favorite drums to beat is just, you know, he's so brave.
He doesn't care if he offends your feelings, you know, all of that stuff.
He loves to self-aggrandize.
Like that's his form of virtue signaling, right?
In his crowd.
And yet when he did a survey or somebody did a survey of the voting intentions of his audience, it was like 90% for reform.
It wasn't even reform, Matt.
It was the more extreme one.
What reform?
It was like revive.
Yeah, anyway, regardless of the details, it was like his audience just eat that shit up.
Everything that he says is absolutely tailored to make them happy and make them feel more confident about their worldview because we all enjoy that, right?
We all enjoy that feeling of being right that our worldview is confirmed.
So, you know, it's just, it doesn't mean you're wrong, but just be aware that that's something that all human beings enjoy.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I agree.
So for the final thing, I'll say, Matt, is just how well does he align to the secular guru template?
You know, at the start, we said that's what we're about.
We're trying to match him up.
And of course, we'll do it officially through the grammar, highlighting various things.
But I do detect notes of things that we often see around the self-aggrandizing and the conspiracy hypothesizing, the anti-establishment rhetoric, the strategic disclaimers.
And the, you know, in some sense, this is the format of Blind Boy's podcast that he's doing associative, like somewhat indulgent monologuing, right?
So I don't think it's fair to completely ding him on that.
But I also do think that people that are able to do that, people who are good storytellers, often also meet people who are good gurus.
And Blind Boy does have, you know, a broader worldview and things that he links things into.
And your agreement with it may vary, your mileage may vary, or you might be totally on board.
Whatever the case might be, I invite anyone who's listened to the episode to consider, you know, even if you think we're getting things completely wrong, are we completely wrong about the, you know, the various motifs and the parallels that we see with other content that we've looked at?
Because from my lens, it's quite clearly there.
Doesn't mean he's at the tippy top of the, you know, the worst gurus that we've covered or this kind of thing, but I do think he fits within a left-wing style of modern guru and that the whole podcast delivery is in a way framed in that way.
But it carries with it, you know, the self-deprecation and the motifs that you usually would see in left-wing content, which means it's not like the right-wing bombastic or heterodox stuff that we often cover.
Conspiracy Hypothesis Warning00:03:26
So that's all I wanted to say.
Yeah.
And, you know, if you're generally left and progressive people like us, then it's incredibly easy to spot the tenuous connections, the conspiratorial logic and the rhetorical tricks that are done by people on the right.
It's really easy because we don't like the messaging, right?
We don't like the message to begin with.
So that's very easy.
It's a lot harder to acknowledge that it might be there to a small degree or a large degree when somebody is presenting a message that you very much like.
But it is logically possible.
It can happen.
It can happen.
That's right.
A good message for all, Matt.
And on that note, shall we now finish off by thanking our patrons for supporting us?
Would you permit me to do that?
Please.
Oh, of course.
My good sir.
By all means.
By all means.
Okay.
Okay.
Well, now, Matt, remember, this was the last month where people could sign up as conspiracy hypothesizers.
Now, after this, we will just have revolutionary geniuses and galaxy brain gurus because everybody then can have access to the all-important decoding academia series.
But don't worry, if you're already a conspiracy hypothesizer, you will always remain there.
It will never go away.
So we warned people, Matt, it was happening.
The capitalist, I mean, we couldn't do any alert because it was the system, right?
We tried to fight it and yet it came all the same.
So the last of the conspiracy hypothesizers, we will thank them, Matt.
And they are Matthew Huser, Taylor Washbun, Sparks Kiels 133, C.W. Malone, Christopher Kira-Wisse, Jordan Levin, Stephen Quinn, Aniya Marchinak, Frank Boyce,
Botan Ballo, Flores Diden, Asting, Peter Jordanstein, Roland Boltz, Oliver Martin, Aram Doolean, Nathan James Myers, Sammy Vessa, Pateri, Fernando Amado, Peter Gavin, Peter Blum, Miles, Iga Kulisma, KW, David Tiger, Food and Beverage Executive, Tom Robert, Thomas Wilson Lawrence, Celine Bernstein, Joshua Witson, Carol Kunsell, Jan, and Luke Hill.
We got a food and beverage executive in there.
Why aren't they at Ohio Tier, Chris?
They can afford it.
That's right.
You're shaming them now, Matt.
Shaming them.
And I will also mention Logan Mayate, who did not join this month, but has been a long-serving conspiracy hypothesizer.
So thank you all and all previous conspiracy hypothesizers as well.
We love you all equally.
All equally.
I feel like there was a conference that none of us were invited to that came to some very strong conclusions.
And they've all circulated this list of correct answers.
I wasn't at this conference.
This kind of shit makes me think, man, it's almost like someone is being paid.
Like when you hear these George Soros stories, he's trying to destroy the country from within.
We are not going to advance conspiracy theories.
We will advance conspiracy hypotheses.
There you go.
They will.
There you go.
Engaged Disagreement Style00:03:10
Thank you.
Never truer words were spoken.
And he's still doing it.
Yes.
Yeah, that's right.
Now, revolutionary geniuses, Matt, we have a couple of those as well.
And there we have Andrew Hurie, Jan Murris, Sonnegal Olson, Ryan Weeks, Kieran Mulhone, Michael Savarda, Shane, Benjamin Newcomb Grosser, Listen Lad, Ryan Ross, Value Soup, Dan Morris, Matthew Roche, Trenton Dodson, Julius Stein, Nathan Armagost, Brandon Bosch, Kat Valentine, Ashling, Mike Carrow, Jack O'Horrow, Jay Art, Blake Potter, Travis Welsh, Albiorg, Albion.dear,
Joshua Peck, Telmo, Rob Ebes, Chris O., Salix, Aaron Isaac, Rex Ashus, C. H. Lefargiklad, and Roof Tahl.
Would you like to I think we did mention this name before, but I still want to hear you say it because I think you did it better than me before.
Oh my God.
Oh my God.
Oh, I need to put my glasses on.
That's important.
Have a go at that one.
Let me prepare.
Albiog, Al Bjorgs, Al Biog.
Al Bjorg Albiogieu.
Okay, very, very, very cool.
Thank you.
Apologies to apologies and thanks all at the same time.
Try my best.
I'm usually running, I don't know, 70 or 90 distinct paradigms simultaneously all the time.
And the idea is not to try to collapse them down to a single master paradigm.
I'm someone who's a true polymath.
I'm all over the place.
But my main claim to fame, if you'd like, in academia is that I founded the field of evolutionary consumption.
Now, that's just a guess.
And it could easily be wrong, but it also could not be wrong.
The fact that it's even plausible is stunning.
I never get tired of the timbre of his voice as he's just stunning.
It's a thing of beauty.
It even being plausible, Matt.
It's stunning.
Yeah, I'm still hung up on the number of umlauts and stuff on Al Bjorg's name.
That seems impressive.
It's a cool nium.
That's it.
Yeah, it's something.
That's something.
That's a hell of a neon.
It's a hell of a neon.
Well, speaking of hell of a neon people, Matt, the Galaxy Brain Gurus, the highest in the Guru Sky, the ones that can hang out at the monthly live stream things that we do, that would include Matt Stian Hagli, David Tynhammer, Carl Winterling, Josh Killeran, Effie Donatello, and Jelham Deshpande.
Johan Deshpande.
Yay.
These are the people who, you know, you are available to argue with them.
That's right.
As much as they want.
You will argue on any topic.
Final Opinion Reflection00:02:30
Yeah.
If you don't want to attest to this, that if you join the Patreon, assuming that it means that I will not disagree with you, that's not true, right?
So there's disagreeing and there's disagreeing, Chris.
Your disagreeing is you know, I mean, it's engaged disagreeing.
Engaged disagreement.
I like that.
It's an incredibly engaged disagreement.
Nice.
That's right.
That's the way it goes.
Well, and we thank them all for it, Matt.
We thank them all.
Yeah, if he's getting his money's worth.
Hello there, you awakening wonders.
You may not be aware that your entire reality is being manipulated.
Become part of our community of free speakers.
We are still allowed to say stuff like this.
Science is failing.
It's failing right in front of our eyes, and no one's doing anything about it.
I'm a shell for no one.
More than that, I just simply refuse to be caught in any one single echo chamber.
In the end, like many of us must, I walk alone.
There we go.
Oh, my God.
Well, we all walk alone at the end, don't we, Matt, into the embrace of the eternal dark deepest.
That's something the long, the long sleep, Chris.
Yeah, it's kind of cool.
We're just walking trudging towards it.
Yeah, that's okay.
Okay.
Well, that was great.
That was good fun.
You know, I enjoyed some of the stories.
I enjoyed some of the history stuff.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Some of it wasn't totally accurate.
Accurate enough.
It's all right.
I look forward to the feedback for this episode.
I'm sure it won't create any Reddit threads or consternation amongst it.
Just remember, at the end of the day, it's just our opinion, man.
Okay.
Here's our own disclaimer.
You put the content out there.
Other people are allowed to critically evaluate that.
You can do it to us if you want.
Be my guest.
Get clipping.
Yep.
Yes.
Get clipping.
That's a high bar.
A lot of people will not clear that one.
That's a lot of work.
Don't I know it, Matt?
Don't I know it?
Well, on that note, I bid you adieu.
You know, kiss little snails, dance with spiders, and slap a wallaby on the butt.
Are you doing a black boy?
I'm doing a whimsical wheel.
Yeah, that's a good tone, but I respect the effort.