Decoding the Gurus - Supplementary Material 23: Content Shark Psychology, Rorschach Tweets, and the Art of Radicalisation

Episode Date: February 22, 2025

Chris and Matt have their models exploded, the maps ripped up, and their minds blown as the Gurusphere expands into exciting new territory.Supplementary Material 2302:47 Chris Williamson blows our minds!08:57 Content Predator psychology and motivational posting12:28 Balancing the Scales14:07 Eric Weinstein the master of Rorschach Tweets20:26 Modern Sages Reunited: Bret Weinstein and Joe Rogan24:29 Open-Minded Joe Rogan34:26 Maybe prescriptions are actually bad!37:38 Andrew Gold expands into Race & IQ46:47 4 Warning Signs of Radicalism56:45 Monomaniacal Fixation vs. Pluralism01:05:26 Rejoinder: What if it is a diagnostic?01:09:43 Lex wants to join DOGE01:10:31 Lex's next world leader interview: Modi01:14:57 Matt's Final Thought: People contain multitudes01:16:57 OutroThe full episode is available for Patreon subscribers (1hrs 19 mins).Join us at: https://www.patreon.com/DecodingTheGurusSourcesEric Weinstein's profound tweet on history as we know itThe Joe Rogan Experience#2269- Bret WeinsteinAndrew Gold Heretics: CONTROVERSIAL: Are Some Races DUMBER? - Nathan Cofnas (4K)Lex wistfully imagines joining DOGE and thinks deeply about his upcoming interview with ModiRecent investigation of 'Race Realist' networks and outletsKruglanski, A. W., & Moskalenko, S. (2025). Psychology of the Extreme. Taylor & Francis.

Hello Hello and welcome to Decoding the Girl's supplementary material. We're back again with him, psychologist extraordinaire Matthew Brown, with me anthropologist of less over nine Chris Kavner. Here we are in the supplementary material safe zone behind the shamrock and dangling cork curtain. Yep. Just hanging out, just shooting the breeze. We are indeed. What are we shooting the breeze about? Anything's my gurus, mainly. Oh, mainly gurus. That's right. Yeah, you forgot.

This is the coding the gurus. Right. That's right. This is a supplementary materials episode the Cody Naguris. Right. That's right. This is a supplementary materials episode. I've lost track. I've forgotten what we were recording. Okay. That makes sense. Hey, do you know, Chris, that I have started painting?

I've started painting again. You've started painting? Oh, really? Yeah. Yeah. I've got a canvas. I'm looking at it right now. It's coming along okay.

Crows? Using crows? Yeah. And just holdings using crowns. Yeah. And just holding them in my fist, holding them in my fist and throwing them like that. Luke, I've drawn a picture of a dog and a house. Yep. This is my family.

It's abstract art, isn't it? Matt, you're an abstract art. You like to draw squares and shapes and colors. Yeah, that's right. The highest form of art. Very conceptual. Yeah. Anyway, stay tuned. If all goes well and I don't stuff it up, then I will post the photograph

of the finished product later. Oh, should we meet that like a Patreon bonus? Like the very top tier can see Matt's art. That's so special. It's so special. I would be very top two who could see it. No, no, we won't. Look, what a manager expectations. That could be too much pressure, Chris. I can't pay too much pressure. Okay, so you won't even the highest tier can't see the art. It's only families and friends. That's the only people that are allowed to see. just know that my is a dream art again It's good to know if we got to keep your mental health in check, you know You're an important member of this community Matt and we care about you. That's right all podcasting and research makes Jack a dull boy He also needs to get outside. He's a painting do some other things cook Indian food. I feel we're thing I need to do Have you been Chris? What's been going on in the less wholesome, less salubrious parts of the Guru's field?

Well, why don't I start with something that will blew your world, man? So, you know, Chris Williamson, modern wisdom theme, right? You're familiar with him is just rippling muscles, his come hill or smile. It's perfectly symmetrical features. Yeah, his tendency to platform absolute muppets and allow them to spike nonsense with mild pushback. We know Chris Williams said he supplies me with new tonic energy drinks to keep my mind focused with cognizant.

And we thank him for that. But I discovered a shocking revelation that shook the core of my reasoning abilities. I like to think of myself as someone with a finger on the pulse of the Guru's sphere. You know, there is not much that these gurus do that really causes me, you know, big surprise. I'm disappointment. I'm like, oh, they really did that. Right. But in most times it's within the range of possibilities, right?

Like what occurs. Now I learned something about Chris Williamson that was outside my predictive capacities. So shall I share that? Yeah, you shall. Yeah, you shall. So let me pose it to you in the form of a question. I feel like I've kind of spoiled what the answer is going to be. But nonetheless, let's imagine you're in Beaverwoods, just come along. So Matt, if Chris Williamson was to have the opportunity

to interview Trump prior to the election, what would you anticipate that he would do in that scenario? Given that many other people in the kind of Brews fear, optimizer, whatever, you know, heterodox podcast sphere had Trump on before the election, Theo Vaughan, Lex Friedman, Joe Rogan, but they all did. And Trump did numbers, baby, right? Like he very, very successful, get you a lot of downloads, get you in the news cycle. So Chris Williamson, somebody that's not averse to interviewing controversial figures, has heterodox leaning inclinations, right? A lot of Tulsi Gabbard types popping up in his show.

Would you bet that he would accept the opportunity to have Trump on? Would he jump on it? Would he turn it down? What would your model suggest? Would he accept the opportunity to have Trump on? Would he jump on it? Would he turn it down? What would your model suggest? I would absolutely bet that he would jump on that. We don't think he's terribly terrible. We don't think he's the most toxic.

I know you and he are on friendly terms and I don't dislike the man. However, if you'd asked me, I would have said absolutely. He is first and foremost a professional and is ambitious and that he would jump at that chance. That's, and I don't think, my expectation would be that he wouldn't see too much of a problem with that. Because after all, President Trump was a previous president. He was running for the United States. I mean, you could make a pretty good argument that it is totally legitimate to interview him. So yes, I would say yes. Yes, so would I. I would actually have gone so far as to probably bet my hoist on that possibility if it came to it. Right now, I don't

have a hoist, but if I did, I would have been confident enough to say, yes, that given my mental model and what I anticipate people to do, I would have bet that. But it turns out, and I saw evidence to this effect, so it isn't just a rumor, that Chris did have the opportunity to interview Trump and said no, but he didn't do it. Right? And just literally, I don't, I don't really understand that because it's not like it was a principled opposition to interviewing politicians. Cause like I said, there's plenty of politicians, including right wing reactionaries that have been on Chris's channel. So, but not Trump.

This is so, but not Trump. Yeah. Yeah. So it is amazing. So what is the reason that he gave for not interviewing Trump, Chris? I think he just didn't think it would be a good conversation or that there would be anything additional glean for it. Like it would be, you know, essentially working for Trump's campaign to boost his numbers because he's not the kind of journalist that could give, you know, a very critical, hard-nosed pushback on Trump. So it would have been similar kind of thing that you saw with Lex and Rogan and so on. But that consideration, of course, would never stop Lex or Rogan in a million years. Yeah. And I wouldn't have said it stopped Chris in general, like when you look at his channel, right? It's not like this seems to have been something that stops him, you know, engaging with other

similar figures. So like, I mean, Piers Morgan was just on Chris Williams's channel, right? No, granted Piers Morgan is not he's not going to be the prime minister of Britain or anything like that. But similarly, a kind of political figure that if you were examining them, you'd want to hear some hard questions put to him. But I suspect that's not how that interview went. I haven't seen it, but this is just my idea.

Jordan Peterson, Eric Weinstein feature prominently on the channel. So, yeah. Well, all I can say is that I wholeheartedly approve of that. Not that I think that it's absolutely critical for people never ever to interview Trump, but rather just that Chris Riddison is operating according to his own principles. He definitely sees the world a little bit differently from me, but he does have principles, it seems, and he tries to live by them. I don't know if I go that.

I guess so, but I guess for me to be a thing is just, it's very interesting when you cover something that is completely contrary to your expectations. Well, he does have principles. I mean, he's calculus in that case is clearly not just, oh, this will do numbers. This will increase my profile. I don't care whether or not it's good or not. Okay, right. Yes, that's true.

But I view the principles in effect to be kind of like a shark. Like, I feel like Chris Williamson is a content predator, but in that frame, you would expect like an Andrew Gold would jump at the chance, right? He'd be on that email within 10 seconds. Have you got the chance to interview Trump? Right. So obviously not like that, but in the same way that the shark is, you know, kind of inscrutable, like it might swim past something that you expected to bite and show no interest.

And like, you're like, you know, I understand you're a predator, a magnificent beast of the ocean and whatnot, but your mind is like an alien world to me. I feel this is what I'm like. I still, the behavior is mostly predictable. You know, I agree with white sharks, nine times out of 10, it's gonna chomp down on the thing, but just once it might just swim beside it and let you, you know, hold onto its tail or whatever. And you're like, why? You creature, I don't fully grasp your alien mind. So that's what's happening with Chris Williamson.

Well, it just goes to show, we do not have excellent working model of Chris Williamson. Well, it just goes to show, we do not have excellent working model of Chris Williamson. He continues to surprise us, and that is a good thing. On the other hand, I think, this is the thing. We do have a good working model. We do. I'm not letting that go.

Normally, what he does doesn't surprise me. Just this specific instance. It's like it's broken outside the boundaries. So like the little mental box that I had Chris Williamson and he's he's like drawn outside the boundaries of it, but I don't think I'm wrong overall. Okay, mom No, of course not Chris. You're never wrong. Um well, one of the things that Chris does that doesn't surprise me is You know like a lot of gurus he's he's dispensing wisdom. He's dispensing

modern wisdom. He's looking to help all the bros out there become better, fitter, stronger, faster. But in doing so, I feel that he does slip into aphorisms that I think he thinks some things are profound when in fact they are not. And he has been gradually making his a little bit recently, Chris. So I'm just going to say something mean now to balance out my wholehearted, unequivocal praise. Praise for his decision there. Blanket endorsement. Blanket endorsement. On the flip side, these are some of these recent tweets. Hopes of success and fears of failure become less relevant the more you do something you

genuinely love. Do you think that's true, Chris? Is that true? Very poetic, very beautiful. Very poetic. Just makes me think. That does make you think, doesn't it? Words to live by.

Here's another one. The magic you're looking for is still in the work you're avoiding. That's true of you though, isn't it Chris? Yeah. That's it. I feel like these are inspirational posters called, you know, like a sunset. These are very much in the inspirational poster category. Enemies are just friends that you haven't yet convinced. That's right. You don't have to be crazy to work here, but it helps kind of thing.

Look, that's fine. It is not the worst thing in the world. It is pretty much harmless to be posting those sorts of A for instance, but I feel that Chris Williamson thinks that there's wisdom there. And I just don't think there is. This is where we think differently, I suppose. This is where you

diverge from the modern wisdom that he offers, he and his guests offer. I can see that. Well, I can also say just to balance up, you know, we like to balance things here, right? That when I was discovering this event about the Trump or the non Trump interview and assigning mental credit and public credit, right, because like, I think it does deserve credit to turn down that kind of opportunity given the incentives in the ecosystem. But you remember when we covered the Lex episode, Matt, and you were like, whenever Lex does his Wounded Bird pose and he says, you know, I'm trying, I'm trying so hard and the people online are tearing me down and whatnot. And you were like, who does this work on?

Who feels sorry for Lex based on that kind of thing? So when when I was discovering this, Chris Williamson was also voicing his sympathy for Lex, who was obviously genuinely hurt by the attacks, the slings and arrows, you know, that had damaged him online. And I thought, there's the one, that's the person it works on. So he generated sympathy in Chris Willis. And so the credit he gets for not interviewing Trump and for, you know, resisting that siren call slightly, slightly diminished by the kind of falling for Lex's transparent wounded bird pose. So if you hear this, Chris, you hear that? Don't fall for it. Okay. It's,

it's very obvious. So, uh, yeah, that's, that's it. That makes the universe like slightly more right. Cause that's in line with, you know, my mental model. So that was like, well, I'm not completely off the reservation, as they say. No, you're not. You're not. Hey, since we're monitoring people's tweets, being the good little home monitors, discourse, police that we are, do you want to hear an error? Don't say that. I'm just going to give people, I know you're joking, but you know, people online, they don't joke, they'll clip that and be like, they call themselves the content police. Yeah, I've got to stop doing that.

Carry on. Carry on. That's right. Irony is dead. So do you want to hear an Eric Weinstein tweet? I'd love to. Yeah. Okay. So this is great. I love this and I'm going to read this to you for a reason, because it is just distilled, perfect this is great. I love this and I'm gonna read this to you for a reason because it is just distilled perfect Eric Wansu and I want to preface it by saying that it's not part of some thread. It's not in reply to something else.

There is no context. No context here. It is just a standalone thought that he has cast out there. A thought bubble. Here it goes. This goes arbitrarily deep. Everything pivotal since World War II was in part unreal. Jesus Christ.

What do you make of that, Chris? Chris Williamson retweeted? Yeah, well that's Eric, isn't it? It's just conspiratorial drivel. And I like that he said since World War II. Yes. That seems to be just heading off a problem

that I think he knows is likely to be coming, right? If he suggests that all events are, um, likely unreal historical. Yeah. Then now that had huge agreement that that tweet is followed by hundreds of thousands of responses. And it's a fascinating read because every single one of the deluded Apple people who follow Eric Weinstein has their own interpretation of what he means there.

Right. So it's almost like the perfect vague posting engagement by thing. Yep. Yep. A guru can do where everyone can project their own kind of paranoia is their own conspiratorial theories, their own take on things onto Eric's tweet, feel that Eric is speaking for them and then bounce off it and obviously create engagement. So I just think Chris, it's vague posting like this is like a Rorschach test.

It is, you know, a way to draw people out, you know, not saying anything specific. Because if it's something specific, you get bogged down with the details. Some people agree with you. Some people don't. It might conflict with their own crazy conspiracies, whatever. What you do is you do this kind of Rorschach test speaking and Eric Weinstein is the master of it. And even though it's a terrible, terrible thing, I have to

respect the master at work. Yes. And I actually did see in the responses to this that some people were saying, Eric, you've like went most of the way there, but like, are you brave enough to look at the World War Two events through that lens and, and like, reveal the real truth, right? Now, this is Twitter in 2025. So that stuff was obviously coming in and there'd be a reference to him being an ethnic Jew. So, but those are the waters that Eric paddles in, but like, I don't think he wants to play for tea with neo-Nazis.

I don't think that's the kind of people that he wants to cultivate. That just comes with the territory of being in that mega conspiratorial world. Yeah. It's just telling of modern day Twitter and the conspiratorial ecosystems and whatnot. So yes, good tweet from Eric. He's been making a lot of them recently. So yeah. And I wordly, I saw someone giving credit like, oh, I'm starting to realize Eric Weinstein

was very prescient in talking about the gated institutional narrative. Like this is his time. This is his time. This is his time. If he cannot get some attention and position of authority, when the Trump administration are handing him out like candy, any coin comes by, honk, honk. Here you go. You can be transport minister. Honk. Right?

Yes. You're the head of the FBI, whatever. Like if Eric cannot seize this opportunity, he's been wearing his coat for 20 years for no reason, because this is the most receptive regime will be to the kind of stuff that Eric pedals. But I don't think he's going to be able to seize it because he's more into the conspiratorial right leaning posting than outright maga sycophantcy, which is what he needs to do. That's right. It's not like a Chris Ruffo or, you know, these other characters that are like active partisans actually, you know, working towards some sort of goal.

You know, RFK is an active partisan towards his health anti-vax stuff and has been for decades. As a result, he eventually gets there. You can't you can't just do vague posting and cultivate this sort of generalized conspiratorial thing without putting your cards on the table and expect to get a guarantee. So yeah, I don't think he'll get in. I would disagree a little bit, I think, unless you're saying something different there, because I feel that RFK, he's not been there because like I feel that RFK, he's not been overtly a right-wing partisan for a long time. He's been an overt anti-vaxxer and he's leapt onto the MAGA thing, but he was left-wing quoted before. Even he ran initially as Democrat and then as an independent. And similarly with Eric,

I don't think, I'm saying like the vague thing is what he does, but he's not all over the shop in terms of his opinions, right? He's reliably carrying water for right-wing stuff. So I do think that he is a right-wing constant. Like his stuff always leans right-wing, it always leans towards Pidotil. It always leans towards Peter Thiel. It always leans towards the Democrats are doing bad things. But he's not overtly MAGA enough to appear loyal. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, no, I mean, that's what I meant about R.F. He's got a he's got a program of of activism.

Yes, not necessarily MAGA, but yeah, he's he's a player. Yeah. Oh, there we go. So, you know, after all those good-natured positive stories, Matt, I've got something that you might find a little frustrating. But the good thing is when you hear this, it means you don't have to listen to the whole thing that this is from. Okay? So, here's two of your favorite people who got the Geller to have an old chin

wag about how things are going. Mike Benz has been on that like a pit bull. And I've been following him on X and he's going to come back on here and kind of explain everything. But he explained it the last time he was here. And I don't think I really grasped it until Elon's six wizards, they brought in some young wizards to go in there and go over the books and they're just finding crazy shit. It's great and it's so interesting. I was listening to a left-wing podcast today. I like to mix it up.

You know, I listened to all kinds of different stuff and it was like I was listening to a different world. Like, they weren't even talking about about all this corruption and all this obvious buying of influence instead they were talking about aid overseas and how people are going to starve and like it's mind boggling and there's also I have to say I'm just I'm upset at the general pattern of a failure to recognize how right those of us who hypothesized that there was a racket that had overtaken our entire governance structure. We turn out to be absolutely right about this and no one's going to mention it. That's mind blowing. It's very strange that the media is ignoring it, especially the left wing media. It's just

too big of a win for the right. And so they're just ignoring it. And then they're just highlighting the good things that USA did, which I'm sure it probably did, probably had to do some good things to at least justify its existence while... As a cover story? I'm not even sure. Maybe it doesn't change anything. Obviously, this was a mechanism used to funnel money to all sorts of things that we didn't

vote on that don't make sense in light of our constitutional structure. Yes, Chris. Yes, yes. I recognize the topic of this conversation. These cuts to USAID and purportedly USAID is just being wasted and frittered away and all these kinds of things. They found blatant cases of it being used for the wrong kinds of things. Is this accurate, Chris? That's a good question. Who can say that they've picked up on things because Elon's wizard, the six wizards have

gone in and they've uncovered all this corruption and Matt. And Joe is like, it's crazy. All this corruption. It's crazy. They've noticed there's that. And there's also nobody's, nobody's recognizing the people that were right. Like nobody's giving credit to the people, the Weinsteins. It's a perennial issue that there's not enough credit going to the Weinsteins, right? This is the...

Oh, God, it's so annoying. Well, the annoying thing about it is that these information bubbles become these self-reinforcing things, because I've seen only just a little bit of coverage on this, on the kinds of things, supposedly the scandalous things that US aid has been spent on. And, you know, it could be the sources I was looking at were a bit biased themselves, but it certainly seemed to me that a lot of the things that Joe Rogan was in shock or about are perfectly innocuous things and very sensible things, or his facts were just wrong about them. But, you know, he's in his bubble, so he takes to this complete confirmation that he's right about everything.

There's just corruption everywhere. Um, so yeah, if you do the conspiratorial two-step, uh, and you filter the information coming in, uh, so that it fits your premises, then yes, Brett will be right in every time. There's that and all, but you know, Matt, you heard Joe, he, he listens to a wide range of things. He's seeking out disconfirming information and no bullshit. Like Joe heard something for the first time, but like you see how he responds

to any information that contradicts his narrative multiple times. He's just extremely gullible when it comes to anything from right wing media gullible when it comes to anything from right-wing media and hypercritical when it comes to any fact checking, any left-wing media or just any media which contradicts right-wing media narratives. And to highlight this, Matt, they had a little conversation about chargers. So this is the issue about wasteful spending. They're still talking about, you know, the kind of corrupt projects and this kind of thing. This is about electronic cars, infrastructure, right, for charging stations. So listen to Joe and Brett get started on this. USAID is of course riddled through whatever international madness it is that caused us to open our southern border and facilitate an invasion through the Darien Gap. So you know, seeing that structure laid bare is, it almost feels like it can't be real. Like it can't have been this close to the surface and yet here we are.

They were spending, is this number correct? I think the number that I read was $600 million every two months to ship in illegals? Sounds right. I don't know the number offhand, but... What the fuck? Well, you have to realize that basically we had a shadow apparatus functioning, and it involves all kinds of things. It involves payoffs to people who didn't deserve them.

It involves contracting to entities that were necessary to get the work done. So I don't think we can properly understand what these numbers mean and what they're actually being used for. But it was a racket. Well, we were always wondering, like, why is our debt so high? Why is the national debt so high? Like, why is our deficit so insane? Well, this is it. I mean, how about the one where they paid $236 billion for chargers? Do you know that they were trying to set up chargers? You mean car chargers and they only built a couple of them? Oh, excuse me.

$40 billion for electric carports. Eight ports have been built. You know how crazy that is? $40 billion for car ports. But I have to say, as much as this is shocking, I wasn't surprised. I thought that effectively our entire system had been turned into a racket and that we were basically being fed a cover story from it. And it's weird to now have the evidence of this, but I think it was apparent that whatever had taken over our system wasn't interested in the well-being of average people,

that it was interested in the power of the state to take people's resources and redistribute them, and that that really is what's been going on for most of our adult lives. There we go. There are some astonishing facts and the implications of the facts as discussed by Brett. Now, Chris, that particular thing you mentioned, was it $200 million to ship in illegals or did he say $2 billion?

Well, he said $600 million every two months to ship in illegals. He said $246 billion on charging stations, but then he corrected that to maybe 40 billion. Yeah. Chris, this only just happened, right? But on the Joe Rogan subreddit, actually on our subreddit, it was then reposted to Joe Rogan. And I haven't fact-checked their fact-checking, but they have gone through all of those claims and they are incredibly wrong and or misrepresented, including the 40 billion for electric carports, right? So according to them, it was more like 7.5 billion. It's 200 charges, not eight, 200 charges are running and

thousands of more are in progress. So whether or not the carport scheme is good use of money, whatever you could say, but definitely if this person is even close to being correct, then Joe Rogan's representation of it is completely wrong. You are correct. And I did look into it. There's 7.5 billion infrastructure investment and jobs act of 2021, but it's also a planned investment. It's not been spent. And actually, Jimmy brings it up. So even then, so far, Joe is wrong. He started off with $236 billion. No. $40 billion?

No. $7.5 billion, also not spent. So this is earmarked for this. So watch what happens when Jimmy brings up some of these points to him. Jimmy, in fact, tries to tell them a bit later on when they're talking about some analysis says, oh, really, I checked into it. Maybe there's a correction here. let's see how Joe reacts, you know, because he's not, he's impartial, Matt, right? You know, he's just, he listens

to a lot of different things and, uh, what's that Jamie? Was there an article about the spending on the chargers? They said that they haven't actually, according to this, they haven't actually spent all that money yet. What do they do with it? They've spent some of it to make some of those things, but it hasn't been allocated yet. It's a long article going through all the spending that's been done. It's on factcheck.org. Factcheck.org?

Who runs that? I don't know. Some of the chargers have been made. Some of them are on the way to be made, and they've built 61 at 15 stations since mid-August or through mid-August. 14,900 more currently in some stage of development. But that's where it goes into like where they are, what they have to be done, and who's getting the money from them has to be done through a long

process from each state. Yeah. The question is, how can we get a proper accounting as you put it out? Who the hell is factcheck.org? Well, the problem with fact checking organizations. That should really be illegal. Like, I think if you're a fact checking organization, we should have stringent rules on what influence is being peddled. Like, who's paying for these fact checkers? Who's behind the scenes? What is the... It should be very transparent. How did you determine whether or not this was true or false? Because there are a lot of things that get said, like I don't know if you saw this, but Elizabeth Warren got confronted, and it's on Twitter this morning, she got confronted

about the amount of money that she's received from pharmaceutical drug companies. She said she's never received any money from pharmaceutical drug companies and never received any monies from any PACs. And then of course, underneath it, community notes strikes again. And of course, she received millions. She's a fucking liar. Well, it's an arms race. How can pharma cloak the money that it's giving so that there's plausible deniability at the point that Elizabeth Warren is confronted or Bernie Sanders? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So we confronted just with being blatantly wrong straight away. He's segues to this guy.

Something wrong with the fact that you thought like, there's just no ability to correct your own. No. And then pivoting to, I saw this thing on Twitter this morning about Elizabeth Warren right in corruption, like she's a fucking liar, right? Like Zoe, first of all, fact check, what's this? Have you looked into the source? So like suddenly his epistemic standards are very robust.

Like we need to, we need to look into this. And actually, you know, like the fact checking sites typically have all the sources listed at the bottom, like the original documents and where they're getting all the information, right? But Joe doesn't care because it's just saying something that contradicts him and makes him look reactionary. So he needs to dismiss it. If you'd like to continue listening to this conversation, you'll need to subscribe at patreon.com slash Decoding the Gurus. Once you do, you'll get access to full-length episodes of the Decoding the Gurus podcast, including bonus shows,

Gurometer episodes, and Decoding Academia. The Decoding the Gurus podcast is ad-free and relies entirely on listener support. Subscribing will save the rainforest, bring about global peace, and save Western civilization. And if you cannot afford $2, you can request a free membership, and we will honor zero of those requests. the world.