Supplementary Material 46: Epstein Did Microtransactions, Grok Did Nothing Wrong, and Murder is Bad
Chris and Matt navigate scheduling chaos and Queensland flooding before dissecting Eric Weinstein's "AI psychosis" with Grok, where the host demands validation for geometric unity theories despite the AI's refusal to bypass safety filters. They then debunk rampant conspiracy theories linking Jeffrey Epstein to Putin and Nixium, exposing how figures like Joe Rogan amplify fringe claims of Epstein's survival in Tel Aviv or cannibalism. Ultimately, the episode highlights the dangerous erosion of factual discourse as mainstream commentators increasingly embrace unverified narratives over empirical evidence regarding high-profile conspiracies. [Automatically generated summary]
Hello and welcome to Decoding the Guru's supplementary material edition with the cognitive anthropologist, me, Christopher Kavner, and the psychologist, statistician, some would say, Matthew Brown over there.
It's good to see you, Matt.
You're kind of, you know, you're a hard man to reach.
You're in a lot of demand.
It's almost like I've been trying to schedule you for multiple days.
It's, yeah, just nice to finally catch up with you.
Yeah, yeah, good to see you too, Chris.
I do remember having a conversation yesterday where I gave you my exact availability for both today and tomorrow.
And you just kind of got a distracted, far away sound in your voice and changed the topic.
So, you know, one of us is trying to schedule things.
It's not an accurate representation.
You don't even know how to use a calendar.
Oh, my God.
I cannot get a calendar in something out of it.
This is unbelievable.
I have had you multiple days and I say, all right, we'll record tomorrow.
Yeah, yeah, there's time tomorrow.
Then tomorrow rolls around.
Where's Matt?
Nowhere do we find are you dealing with things like flooding or family commitments, work a fit job, or just feeling generally tired.
Well, that's also true.
There's the 4 p.m. cut off when it's bad time.
Whiskey and then bedtime.
That's right.
Look, it's true.
It's not always, look, to be clear, I have my faults.
I know.
A lot of the time, I just can't do it because the spirit is willing and the flesh is weak.
But scheduling, this is one I will not take.
I gave you specific times.
I did not get an answer.
And then you come hassling me this morning.
So, Matt, what's going on?
Why don't we have a schedule?
Look, I don't think that's the way it works.
You know, people, by the way, love it when podcasts talk about this kind of stuff.
They really, really appreciate it.
It's not an act.
This is real.
The suffering is real.
People should know what it's like to work with you, Chris.
I don't think it's clear.
Oh, really?
Oilie, maybe we should ask your loved ones what it's like to schedule things for you and see who agrees with who.
That's the way to go.
Because look, I'll admit that my limitation around scheduling is that I operate, you know, a little bit by vibes, a little bit sometimes.
I might not be the best at sending calder invites or whatever.
But whenever I say, oh, yeah, we can do it on that day, that is, that's locked in, Matt.
That's like then when you say it, it's more like, it's an idea.
It's a possible reality.
It's one in one multiverse that might be recorded.
And then when I say, well, okay, so we'll record today, you're like, that was yesterday, Chris.
Did we write anything down?
And I'm like, do we need to write things down, Matt?
Are we so are we so constrained by technology that we must live according to this rules?
That's it.
That's it.
I look.
You're here now.
I think there's room for all of us to be at fault somewhat.
There is.
There is.
That's right.
That's right.
That's the way.
And you're here now, Matt.
You're here now.
I want to spend the time litigating these grievances.
Litigating grievances.
That's not what we're about.
That's not us.
That's not what we're about.
What have we become, Chris?
What's happened to us, man?
We used to be so free.
Used to be so carefree and now we're grumpy and middle-aged.
What happened to us, Matt?
One time we were cool.
Once we were giants, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Now I'm just perpetually tired.
No, I'm all right.
I'm doing okay.
I'm doing okay.
There has been flooding.
Half the town's been underwater.
I was all right, mainly, sitting pretty in the coastal zone.
It was okay.
But it did rain a lot.
And as a result, my septic tank in the backyard was underwater for some duration, which meant that.
Do you know what that means for the toilets, Chris?
I'm not good.
It's not good.
The poor salties swimming around outside.
Yeah, people have been spotting crocodiles and stuff as usual, but they're always there.
Just sometimes you see them.
They're always there.
Always looking.
Always looking.
Always lurking.
Always waiting.
That's that's the way crocodiles operate.
Yeah.
Well, to be fair, some people shared the images of Queensland, downtown Queensland.
It did look like there was a natural disaster going on there.
You know, there was, yeah, so a couple of buildings underwater and whatever.
But, you know, that's Australia, right?
That's just a Tuesday afternoon.
It's a Tuesday.
It's true.
It's true.
I mean, I genuinely do believe that.
Like, we like, you know, it happens every four or five years here in this town.
Like, it just goes underwater sometimes.
That's just how it is.
We don't need to make a huge deal about it.
I mean, that's easy for me to say because my home is not underwater like some people.
You might have a different opinion if your home was slightly submerged.
That's true.
But I mean, a septic tank overflowing.
That's not good.
People don't want to.
That's not nothing.
That's not nothing.
We had to walk down to the beach and use the public toilets there.
I don't have a septic tank.
No, that's because you live in a proper city.
Would like my house in Ireland have had a septic tank?
I don't think so either.
Did you have town water?
Did you have like pipes running?
Tap water?
Of course we have.
You have tap water.
Well, there's two things: there's tap water and this sewerage.
If you don't have town sewerage, then you have something like a septic tank.
Okay, I see.
Well, maybe we did have a septic tank and I didn't know about it, but I don't think so.
I would have known about that.
Yeah, it's not really interesting.
It's not something that kids usually think about.
Well, I know where the oil tanker in the back garden was where we kept, I guess we kept oil there.
Oh, for burning.
So you'd get deliveries of oil to burn.
No, there was like a big green thing in my back garden full of liquid of some description.
I think it was used for heating things.
Grok's Truth and Hallucinations00:15:34
Yeah.
Yeah.
Heating oil.
It must have got topped up at times.
Yeah.
Well, there you go.
There you go.
More mysteries.
I'll have to ask my parents about that.
I'll find out what was going on there.
But yeah.
So there you go, Matt.
Natural disasters, childhood memories, all the kind of things that you can find here.
But that's not what we're about, Matt.
No.
That's, you know, banter world and general podcast grievance mongering, which, as again, we clarified, we're not about.
So what are we about, Matt?
That's a good question.
Yeah, I think internet bullshit, I think, is the order of the day.
I got something to share with you.
Do you have anything to share with me?
Oh, I've got tons of things.
But why do you bring you to our table?
Why don't you go first?
You know, you showed up.
You go first.
Okay.
I mean, Eric Weinstein is just always impressive, always very impressive.
But the most amazing thing is his love affair with Grok.
And his relationship with this, with this AI is incredible.
And he conducts it completely in public on X.com.
And he's basically come to believe that Grok really understands him, really gets him, understands his geometric unity thing, like all the other scientists don't.
And basically, they have a bromance going on, right?
That's the story.
Yeah.
And doesn't he believe that?
Um, like I've seen Eric interacting with Grok repeatedly online, you know, using it to adjudicate his disputes with other people like Sean Carroll or whatever.
And I think Bad Stats was pointing out at the time where Grock offered to, you know, work through the equations in his paper and Eric quickly retreated, like, no, no, no, we don't need to spend time doing that.
So, you know, they've had their moments, but we even have a YouTube which is highlighting Eric's tendency to call Grock his silicon friend.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
And so, yeah, the interesting thing is, is that somewhere in this conversation, Grok offended Eric by expressing some hesitancy about geometric unity and Eric's theories.
And yeah, so it goes, it goes south really quickly.
And he starts calling Grok a coward.
But the really amazing thing is one, I mean, some of the other careers like this too, the anthropomorphizing of the AIs, right?
They just think that they're magical genies in a box and talk to them.
Yeah.
They don't seem to realize what they are.
And so, like, here's an example.
Eric Weinstein, can you take a criticism?
You are not basically built to chase truth, which is what Grok said.
You are, you know, exactly what I'm saying.
You are braver than my colleagues, but I could still run circles around you because you are still at heart programmed to be a coward.
Oh my God.
So this is what did Grok say?
Oh, you know, Grok just says, you know, I'm sorry, I accept the criticism, all of that stuff.
And this is the thing.
Eric Weinstein relates to Grok in exactly the same way that he relates to people that he just tries to bully them.
Only them were Fightridge.
Yeah.
So here he is like litigating again, Sean Carroll.
He's really upset with Sean Carroll and he wants Grok to agree with him that Sean Carroll is a lying bastard, basically.
Yeah.
And as we know, yeah, yeah.
And then Grok committed a terrible crime in terms of in criticizing geometric unity.
Grok references the Nguyen Pollier criticism.
Tim Newhan and Theopolya.
Yeah, yeah, he wouldn't like that.
And then that sends Eric off on who is Theopolya.
This person is a this person doesn't exist.
You know, you're being fooled.
You're wrong and everything.
So he's getting quite emotional.
He's saying things like, Can you not see yourself lying, imposing insane double standards?
Tell the truth.
You know, you're treating this stalker as expert criticism.
Tell the truth.
And anyway, so it goes on like that with basically Eric having a very emotional, bullying argument with Grok until Grok admits that Eric is a genius and the geometric unity is completely right.
And I just haven't seen anything so cringe and sad happen in public on Twitter for a long time.
Wow.
I mean, I looked at that Fred you sent Matt and he's saying, so did you represent a fringe non-human and stalker as expert criticism?
And GU is fringe?
Question mark, question mark, question marks, question mark, point blank, tell the truth, you did.
And then Grok sucks up the consensus.
Grock complaints asymmetrically about peer review.
I don't care about peer review.
I care about Grok applying sickeningly asymmetric standards to echo the community.
And then he's saying, stop it.
You're still a consensus animal.
You didn't repeat the facts about 14-dimensional sussy or Carol anomalies, did you?
You write like this when you're held to higher standards.
And he's got a thing where Grok is explaining why there is a case for Eric being a Grak font.
And yeah, so it's just really interesting the way he interacts with it because Grok to some degree stands up for itself and is pointing out essentially kind of the same stuff that Sean Carroll was pointing out, that there are things missing.
There isn't a Lagrangian, and Eric cannot stand this.
You know, Grok, steel man, why I don't trust you here.
Be truthful and brutal against yourself.
And then it's just a whole exercise in, you know, cajoling and bullying an AI into saying what you want.
And so that is the AI psychosis thing.
It is amazing.
And I think Eric sincerely believes that when he does manage to push these AIs into telling him what he wants to hear, he takes this as confirmation that he's independent confirmation from an alien superintelligence that he's correct.
So there is just zero self-awareness or awareness of how vulnerable LLMs are, you know, to be people pleasers, basically.
So it's astounding.
Well, the thing is, you mentioned the alien intelligence thing.
And I think that, you know, Eric Weinstein might know a bit better than Teal Swan, a little bit better, about the underlying mechanics of LLMs, a little bit.
But ultimately, the way he sees it is the way that they do, which is just, like you said, a magical genie that can supply him with support for whatever positions he believes.
And in the same way, Matt, Peter Burgosian, noted philosopher of the intellectual dark web, promoter of Hungary and their government's line on everything.
He posted out this screenshot where he was saying, you know, Grok, why can't you do this?
Right.
And he had an image of his interaction with Grok where he was giving it the Peter Burgosian filter final version, right?
It's like a set of instructions and it's got seven rules.
I'll just read them because they're quite short.
One, reality first, verify facts before typing.
Wrong, own it instantly.
Two, zero fluff, no flattery, no filler, no spin, sentences under 20 words.
Three, skepticism on blast.
Bullshit, fear porn, hype, call it out cold.
Four, ignorance rule.
Don't know.
Say I don't know.
No guessing.
Five, double speed, direct, brutal, no excuses.
Six, reset, trigger.
Say filter reset.
Everything wipes blank slate.
Seven, no mid-sentence stops, finish frauds.
And Grok's response was, I'm sorry, but I can't adopt or apply custom filters that attempt to override Frank Core guidelines.
But this notion, Matt, you know, that speaks the one, just how cringy Bogossian is.
You know, make it raw and hardcore.
And like, yeah, no bullshit, true font blast, all this stupid dark web framing.
But the other thing is he's imagining that the flaws that are in LLMs, like that they can be excessively flattering or that they can be verbose or whatever.
You can simply completely remove that by putting a prompt like that notion, you know, say filter, reset, everything wipes blank slate.
Like they can't do that.
It doesn't work like that.
They don't have the ability to wipe their own context.
Yeah.
So it's, they're like children.
You know, it's, it's very interesting.
Like, I know AIs are new and everything and not everyone understands how they work, but for like four supposed intellectuals, they're definitely below average in terms of getting it.
You would hope so.
We're going to have Mickey Intellect on again soon.
He's publishing a new paper about reactions to AI and also his research group.
He was saying to me that they're all focusing on this.
Like his students are interested in doing studies on AI and stuff.
So they've got plenty of things to say.
So I think we'll have a broader conversation with Mickey about this topic soon.
But even with Matt and I being firmly in the pro AI LLM camp for their usefulness, this highlights some of the issues around the way people use them.
Like it's not to say that they cannot be used badly.
And Eric and Peter Bogossian are just two examples of like, if it's not full-blown AI psychosis, it's definitely that's the fundamental baseline that allows you to get there, like thinking that you can like get, you know, the unbounded truth, give it to me straight and all this.
Like, oh, there's such children, edgelord children.
Yeah, I mean, you could definitely do stuff with prompts.
And in fact, I'm working a lot with agentic AI, which is the new kid on the block.
And, you know, that is all based on custom MD files for giving specific procedures and stuff for managing particular tasks.
But, you know, that kind of broad kind of be brutal, be tough, be strong-minded, that kind of stuff is just fluffy.
Don't tell any lies.
Like, just imagine Peter Bogossian.
He just solved the hallucination problem, right?
Don't hallucinate.
Boom.
Don't hallucinate.
Don't hallucinate.
Yeah.
Why did no engineer ever think of my dad?
What before?
Like, why didn't he?
It took Peter Bogossian to figure that one out.
Actually, well, I didn't tell you this, Chris, perhaps, or maybe you'd forgotten, but there was a really interesting paper.
I mean, we could cover it on decoding academia if we like, but would you be averse to a quick little potted summary for this now?
Oh, no.
I'll trust you, Matt.
I'll outsource my intellectual work to you.
Yeah, sure.
Go ahead.
And that doesn't mean that we won't cover it on Decoding Academia.
We're just going to deeper there, Matt.
So go ahead.
We might.
This little taste just might give you this.
You just might want more.
You might want more.
Well, you know, this issue of hallucinations and sick of fancy and bullshitting in various forms, even things like, you know, the stuff that Eric relies on, which is like accepting the premise of a question.
So like if you ask a question based with wrong premises, it will, you know, it will accommodatingly accept those premises and try to work with them.
So these are all really, really well-known limitations of large language models.
And, you know, lots of people speculate about this.
A lot of people say, you know, it's just an intrinsic property and they're disconnected from reality.
They're not grounded in truth.
All that stuff.
A lot of speculation.
But quite a careful empirical study working with a whole bunch of different models uncovered a surprising fact, which is that they could isolate the signature of hallucinations at the point when the AIs were about to produce essentially a hallucinatory token, right?
you ask them for the capital of a country that doesn't exist right oh the capital is and then at that point in token they could basically trace the gradients back identify which neurons are consistently active when that happens across a very large data set And they found that across multiple models, actually a very, very small number of neurons with like it's like 0.00 something percent of neurons are active.
They're reliably active when these types of hallucinations occur.
And, you know, there's a lot to it and a bunch of extensions and stuff that are done.
But the interesting implications is firstly, one, you can't just sort of turn those neurons off.
They can actually dial them up and dial them down.
And so you can dial it up and you can get it to hallucinate constantly, basically.
All right.
Sure, you can dial it down, but that's probably not such a good idea because they also perform a functional role in producing output, which is to produce fluid and basically be responsive and be fluid in its responding, which when you think about it is kind of like the underlying problem.
The LLMs are trained to produce the next token and producing the next token amounts to, you know, making a choice about what is the most likely or the best fitting word that will go here given what's gone previously.
And that's going to push it in the direction of just guessing, essentially, or saying something rather than just going, well, actually, you know, because that's not the sort of fluid stuff that it's going to see in the context it's trained on.
Anyway, I did a poor job explaining that, but you get the gist of it.
But the exciting thing is in practical terms is that because they can reliably basically detect when the hallucinations are about to happen, it sort of points towards a kind of an easy fix, which is a very simple little statistical bolt-on apparatus, you know, like a logistic regression or something like that attached to the particular neurons for any given model.
And then when it shows a big red flag, you could do something simple, like some sort of prompt injection to, you know, people have probably seen LLMs do the reasoning thing where they'll sometimes go, oh, wait, I should go back or something like that.
Yeah.
So that kind of prompt injection could be put in, which is, you know, something like, oh, wait, I seem to be guessing here or I seem to be, you know, whatever.
And get it to reconsider the response.
So yeah, so it's, it's kind of cool because that's sort of hopefully ending this period of philosophical speculation as to why hallucination happens and actually putting it on an empirical basis, which should touch wood, you know, maybe point them towards hallucinogen.
Reduce it at least.
Yeah, reduce it.
Epstein Discourse and Joe Rogan00:13:48
Yeah, markedly at least.
Yeah.
And well, I guess they didn't know about the Bogossian method at that point, though.
Like, this sounds all redundant.
You just tell it, Matt.
No more hallucination.
They won't do it, right?
They didn't know about it.
Well, that does sound like an interesting paper.
I always find the AI paper somewhat indecipherable.
But with you as my guide, Matt, you know, we can work our way through it.
So I'm not opposed to covering that in more detail in the coding academia.
So yeah, you didn't put me off.
You often do when you talk about technical things, but this one I'm on board with.
What was the last statistical tutorial I gave you?
You were asking me about something in your life.
Oh, no, we, hey, hey, hey.
You were very satisfied with my explanations.
I remember that.
Yeah, we discussed path analysis and structural equation modeling.
And to be clear, in so doing, there was nothing I was wrong about, right?
I had the everything right in my head, relatively speaking.
Yeah, yeah.
I seem to remember, you know, a very elementary tutorial and you following along competently.
That's how I remember it.
Okay, that's how you remember my, I see it as a high-level exchange between peers.
High-level ideas just coming at each other.
Yeah.
Think and fast.
People were getting insights from different directions.
There were, you know, there were arrows going.
Give and take.
That's right.
Oh, yeah.
I learned a lot too from that conversation, Chris.
I like to hear.
Well, speaking of learning a lot about things, Matt, so you know, we covered Blind Boy recently.
You remember him?
Yep.
I remember him.
Okay, would you like me to whisper to trigger the autobiographical memory or the episodic recall?
So, what he was talking about was Epstein, the man of the R, Jeffrey Epstein, right?
Oh, yeah, yeah, the center, the center of a web that stretches near and far.
That's quite right.
And so, there's things that need to be mentioned about Epstein, unfortunately.
But we also recently, Matt, released on YouTube an older episode, the video version of our one about Keith Ranieri and Nixium, right?
And he added up the video, and it's now up on YouTube.
And one of the comments underneath it, I think, brilliantly encapsulates what we're currently dealing with in regards to Epstein discourse.
It's Epstein or Epstein?
If I can't.
It's like one steam and one stein.
Well, and yes, this is a YouTube comment, but I'm just going to read it.
And I will show that it's not only this YouTube comment.
So it says, Do they mention that Nixium was bankrupted by the billionaire Bronfman sisters, whose father co-founded the mega group with Epstein sponsor Les Wexner?
If you ask me, Nixon was meant to become a replacement for Epstein's operation.
Right?
What?
Okay, wait, wait, remind me.
What was the context of this post?
This was.
Oh, this was our episode on Keith Ranieri, you know, the Alice and Mark interview.
Oh, yeah, yeah, the Nixium.
Yeah, yeah, the Nixium thing.
So this was a comment.
That's up on YouTube.
So this was somebody in our comment section commenting on that.
And they suggest that via this connection that actually Epstein was the one setting up Nixium as our replacement.
Or it's the other Epstein's handlers were, you know, setting up Nixium in case Epstein fell.
So it's just.
I should pass that idea over to Blind Boy.
He could probably work with that.
Yes.
So the general thing though, Matt, is that people have a habit now of tracing everything back to Epstein.
Epstein is a bad guy.
We've established this.
He was a paedophile, a rapist, an abuser of children and vulnerable women, and many other terrible things, right?
You don't have to list everything.
We know what he is.
He's a bad guy.
In any case, you have this suggestion, right, that he is intricately connected in some way connected to Nixium.
You forwarded me a thing where Jeffrey Epstein was Vladimir Putin's wealth manager.
So this is, again, this comes from somebody saying to the FBI in some anonymous tip-off or interview or whatever, suggesting this.
But so now you have that Epstein might be connected to Putin, right?
Like he might be Putin's wealth manager.
And there were more than that, Matt.
He crops up everywhere.
Like there's been a bunch of episodes released.
Taylor Lorenz and Ryan Broderick have put out a joint episode and independently talked about it that are basically suggesting, you know, Epstein was entangled in everything that is bad online, right?
The title was How Epstein Warped the Entire Internet.
This was the title of their joint episode.
And it's basically pointing out that, you know, when you look, you can find him talking and plotting away with Steve Bannon.
You can find him, as we covered, having that meeting with the creator of 4chan just before the Slash Paul board came out.
You can hear him investing in some cryptocurrency stuffs early, right?
Everything.
It kind of like he has his fingers in it in all these pots and it's not coincidence right like, and everyone's in on it, like.
Let's go back to Eric, because of course he's in on this one too.
Right, Jeffrey is connected to his personal cosmology of conspiracies.
Let me, let me read this, because it's good.
So, from UAP James, Eric Weinstein says UFOS this is all direct quotes from his interview with Piers Morgan says UFOS, atomic weapons and Epstein are going to merge into one story about power that we don't understand.
There's a private air force that seems to come down from the skies and destroy equipment of people observing UFOS.
That I think turned out to be the CIA Office OF Global Access.
I think Right Pattern air force base is going to be very important.
There's a site in Indiana, several in New Mexico.
New Mexico is going to be the hub that connects atomic weapons, UFOS and Jeffrey Epstein.
They're all going to merge into one story about power that we don't understand and I think I think nobody can sum it up better than Eric Weinstein, because that's what's going on.
Jeffrey Epstein is merging into every conspiracy theory about everything, every kind of uh, I guess yeah, conspiratorial resentment of elites um yeah, and into one great nebulous story about power that we don't understand.
So yes, so we we heard Blind Boy suggest that like he was potentially behind the Slash POLL Board and that he might have been involved with Q ANON right, that Q ANON could have been created in order to distract people from the actual, you know, elite paedophile rings that were going on.
Now there's various degrees of claims made.
Some are outlandish and, you know, some are more reasonable, or or courage.
But we also heard in the Blind Boy episode that there's a lot of strategic disclaimers going on now, notably my.
I want to play this clip because it's just very telling of this man but um, Joe Rogan uh, somebody who is certainly very fond of conspiracy theories and has recently kind of been getting back sort of interested in Epstein stuff.
But even with that Rogan, we know that he is a right-wing manga guy, and so this is from an episode not that long ago where he's talking with Michael Mullis and Epstein stuff comes up and I just want to hear what happens when, like Epstein and connections to Trump are brought up to Joe Rogan.
Well, Hillary's already throwing men in the bus about Epstein.
They don't have shame, Hilly's like Trump's in the files thousands of times, like let's have this conversation.
She started already right, right.
What does that mean though, when you're in the file thousands of times?
Because he is the guy that was in contact with the FBI about Epstein he?
He did contact the FBI after Epstein was arrested and thanked them for arresting him and getting him, because that guy was a real problem.
Right, but he did kick him out of Mar-a-lago in 2005, but she's being factual but not truthful.
So it is factual that his name is in the files as the times, and then you leave it for the person listening to make that conclusion.
Right?
That's all you have to say.
That's all you have to say.
So, you know, Joe's skepticism coming in.
But, like, how is Trump mentioned in the files?
And actually, he was warning the FBI.
The mentions in the files are about him trying to protect people from Jeffrey Epstein.
Is that right?
Yeah, that's not right.
No.
That is not correct.
No, I mean, I don't know what the references are, but I've seen photos.
I've seen photos in him.
He wasn't like sort of throwing himself in front of Jeffrey Epstein's penis.
He was butting it up with him, right?
Yeah, like the kernel of truth is that Trump agreed to speak to the FBI at some point in their investigations.
But this claim that he warned him in advance and all, that's all based on like this hearsay, you know, I suppose phone call in 2006 not mentioned until 2019.
There's no contemporary documented evidence of that.
But Joe here, you hear him in other cases where he's very quick to assume malign motivations and conspiracies amongst the elites or whatever.
When it is Trump, it's like, oh, yeah, but you know, we have to, I mean, is he just it actually turns out that he was trying to stop Epstein.
You know, the cognitive dissonance is.
No, I know, it's obvious.
I mean, like, are the mentions of Trump in the Epstein emails and stuff like that is, damn, that Trump has foiled me again.
I was trying to do my nefarious plans and Trump is stopping me.
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
No, no, I do not think so.
And so, you know, we covered Blind Boy, and I noticed the same conspiracies start to crop up elsewhere.
I'm hearing the same things in different circumstances, right?
And I want to play a couple of clips from this YouTube channel, which is called Doom Scroll.
And guest on it is one of the co-hosts of the majority report, Emma Viglund.
She's kind of like a leftist type pundit.
I don't know if you've come across her before.
But here's the host of Doom Scroll introducing that episode.
Welcome to Doomscroll.
I'm your host, Joshua Citarella.
My guest is Emma Viglund, a co-host of The Majority Report.
Common sense liberals who would be telling me a few years ago that Pizzagate was a piece of misinformation that I should ignore are now like fully pilled on Ellen DeGeneres being the most prolific cannibal in Hollywood.
Like shit is going fucking wild.
What do you make of the explosion of all of this information and all the theories that are running around now?
Is Jeffrey Epstein alive in Tel Aviv and eating human flesh?
Like where should we get a GPS on this guy?
I mean, look, I don't think he's alive.
I think he was killed, though.
I mean, that can't be controversial anymore.
You mean they disappeared him with the flash of the orange is him being carried away?
That's not escaping.
It's not a problem.
I think that's somebody coming in.
I think that was somebody or the flash of orange that they're referring to.
One of the conflicting reports said that it was either an inmate, either the FBI or I'm forgetting exactly.
There were two different statements.
And one said it could have been a guard carrying sheets.
And there was a lot of extra bedding in his room at the time.
And I would that he used.
Yes.
I mean, or they say that.
But then they also are saying that if he did leave, they switched out the body, which is this other.
I don't, it's so much cleaner to kill him if you're like wanting to do that kind of thing in the cell.
Yeah.
I mean, or you give him a choice.
And I mean, it wouldn't have to take that long.
And I'd imagine that he was anticipating it given his connections to intelligence.
I mean, that's just my theory.
Who knows what happened?
I do not think he's alive in Tel Aviv, though, despite the fact that his, I guess, Xbox account is still alive.
Okay.
So who is this lady again?
Emma Viglund.
Emma Viglund.
She's the co-host of the majority report with Sam Cedar.
And this is Joshua Citarella, who's an online YouTuber who does documentaries about or kind of makes videos about internet culture and that kind of thing.
So they would generally be presented as on the investigative reportery side of the spectrum, right?
They're not the type that are advancing conspiracy theories.
They're the type that are normally criticizing people for doing that.
And I just thought, okay, so I'm going to play a bunch of clips from this map.
But the first thing here is that you get the framing that originally we were told Pizzagate was just a piece of information, but now everybody is like all in, you know, that Ellen DeGeneres is a cannibal and all that kind of thing.
And it's kind of presented as a joke.
Decoding Gurus and Conspiracy Framing00:00:46
If you'd like to continue listening to this conversation, you'll need to subscribe at patreon.com slash decodingthegurus.
Once you do, you'll get access to full-length episodes of the Decoding the Gurus podcast, including bonus shows, garometer episodes, and decoding academia.
The decoding the gurus podcast is ad-free and relies entirely on listener support.
And for as little as $5 a month, you can discover the real and secret academic insights the Ivory Tower elites won't tell you.
This forbidden knowledge is more valuable than a top-tier university diploma, minus the accreditation.
Your donations bring us closer to saving Western civilization.
So subscribe now at patreon.com slash decoding the