Decoding the Gurus - Supplementary Material 45: Mick Drops, The Weinstein Conspiracy Hour, and Lessons from History

Episode Date: February 19, 2026

We return to some old friends, and almost immediately, we regret the decision. Also, get ready for some heady insights from history, a new conspiracy hypothesis, and Game Theory based insights.The full episode is available to Patreon subscribers (1 hour, 37 minutes).Join us at: https://www.patreon.com/DecodingTheGurusSupplementary Material 4500:00 Introduction01:15 Mick Drop04:44 Scott Galloway's Favourite Conservative06:37 Konstantin Kisin: Neither Right Nor Left11:51 Insane Ad Reads in Podcastistan17:08 Aella's insights on history20:30 Bret's New Conspiracy Episode22:10 Bret on Epstein, Pizzagate, and Ritual Murder30:58 Heather, the personification of strategic disclaimers31:49 Bret's New Conspiracy: Epstein is Alive36:31 The Real Culprit is Game Theory44:25 Bret is a Force of Nature who is always vindicated46:36 The Grand Unification of Conspiracy Theories48:25 Cenk Uygur promotes 9/11 Conspiracies51:42 Peter Thiel in Ghoulish Pro-Nazi Form55:15 The Descent of the Discourse57:47 Eric visits Triggernometry (Again): Russian Woes01:05:20 The Eric Squid Ink Manoeuvre01:14:49 Eric is pro-Nuclear weapons tests01:19:27 Weinstein drives can take us multiplanetary01:28:28 The Weinstein Function: Justifying Enlightened Centrists Everywhere01:30:37 Drew Pavlou's latest stunt backfiresSourcesIs Epstein Alive? The 313th Evolutionary Lens (Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying podcast episode)DarkHorse clip discussing the Epstein theory (YouTube)Aella’s history insights threadAella’s large thread about homeschoolingInterview where Aella discusses the perceived benefits of homeschoolingBret Weinstein responding to critics saying he has lost his mindBret Weinstein linking Epstein and COVID conspiraciesCenk Uygur promoting 9/11 conspiracy claimsCenk Uygur criticising media responses to his conspiracy theoriesPeter Thiel comments invoking Weimar-era parallelsDrew Pavlou’s stunt backfires

Supplementary material, the runaway success sister spin-off podcast to the mainstream phenomenon that is decoding the gurus, the main podcast. And that person over there absent me is Matthew Brown, the psychologist extraordinaire from Australia. Me facing you is the cognitive anthropologist of sorts from Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland, and now residing in Japan. That's where I am. Hello, good day to you, Matthew Bryan. Good day. Good day. Hello. Hello. Hello. How's your day? How's your day?

It's nice here in Queensland. It's cooling off. And yeah, the ocean's nice. Yeah, it's getting livable again. Matt, we've got to clear something right out of the gate. There's something that a lot of people were asking about a lot of questions. We just need to confirm here. You know, President Obama, he was insulting Donald Trump

at one point at a like some event and he did a thing where he held up the microphone they was talking about and he like dropped it now what would you call that what he did there what is that what he just did i sense a trap this feels like a trap but no i'm just just checking so you know he picked up and he dropped it what would you call what he did there what is that moment it's a Oh, well, it's a mic, obviously. I'd always call it a mic. Isn't that what you would call it? That's right.

It's a mic, but what do you call that event where you are dropping that dying? What do you call it? Mic drop. Mike drop? I don't sure. Yeah. Okay, which do you call it? Which one do you call it?

Look, I'm sure I've called it both. So I haven't called out for mispronunciating again. How absurd. Yeah, this one isn't seeing them. this is insane. Like, mic drop? Really? Mick drop? That sounds like you are insulting an Irish person or something. Like, yeah, you'll call it a microphone. No, look, I see the logic of it. I see the logic of it. You have to call it a mic drop, but it sounds better, Mick drop. It does it, does it? Yeah, I didn't call it out at the time because I was caught off guard.

Like, I'm innovating, right? Anyone who says, studied linguists knows that there are these funny duddies who think that it's prescriptive, and then there's the cool linguist who says that it's something else. I forget what it's called, but it's basically you can say whatever you like. That's the rules. And if people pronounce it a certain way, then that's just how they do it. And you can't judge them for it. That's how our culture evolves. That's how our language grows. So I'm actually at the cutting edge of pronunciation. I think that's the way to think about it. Is it? Okay. Well, you've been called out In five or ten years, everyone's going to be calling it mickdrop.

That's the thing. We will tolerate some of your innovative pronunciations. Matrix we've given up on, but mickdrop, there's an accord. It's been familiar. Yeah, this is the line. We will go no further. So just you be careful the next time you're saying, that's a mic drop event, okay? Mic drop, that's it.

Yeah. I'll try. I'll try. I struggle to remember things from one minute to the next, but I'm sure I remember to do that. You'll get this. You'll get this. Now, the other thing that you asked for, and I have brought, Matt, as you requested, you said, Chris, can we go back and listen to the Weinsteins?

Can we see what they're up to? Yeah. Yes. It's one of the things that sounds good in theory, doesn't it? Yeah. Now, I've went and collected material from both brothers a little bit. Speaking of other gurus, Matt, somebody we covered recently that we've brought up. And I need to play you a clip of something that a recent guru said.

Okay. So, yeah, have a little listen to this. Scott Gallo, welcome to Trigonometry. It's great to be here. Someone literally asked me who my favorite conservative was. And I had to pause. And I said, oh, this kid Constantine out of the UK, it's like thoughtful, nice. I find myself nodding more than I like.

Well, I'm 43 and not a conservative, but apart from that. You're a conservative. I totally, come out of the closet as a conservative. Let's talk about that. What makes me a conservative? I find that most of your viewpoints probably are more generally assigned to a conservative viewpoint. Yes, yes, yes. So Scott Galloway.

So he went back on trigonometry. Is that right? This is his second appearance? Yeah, I guess. I don't know. He's, uh, he was on Chris Williamson. Before. I'm getting my wires crossed.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, so this, this irritated you because he said that Constantine Kissen is his favorite right-wing podcaster, which like Constantine Kissen shouldn't be anyone's favorite anything. So I agree. Punching bike? Okay. Dunk target online, all right. But he is endorsing him here as somebody nods along.

a lot to well I defended Scott because I read that as he was saying that as a setup to trigger Constantine to get him to deny that he was right wing that's what he was doing there

come on I don't think so people suggested that that there wasn't a setup to like bring up the Constantine's right wing like no no I don't think so I think he was going to say oh come on your right wing right like he was fine doing that. But you know why I don't think it was that map? Because the exchange after that,

they talk about like what makes Constantine right ring, right? Let me just play it for you. That's what he says. But the reason I don't consider myself a conservators, well, the way I see is these things are inconsistent over time and space. What I mean by that is two things. When I was 20, the left that I saw, my great heroes are people like Bill Hicks and George Carlin, people who were pushing against the religious authoritarian right. And it was the religious authoritarian right that said, you can't make these jokes, you can't talk about this, you know, we've got, the shutting down of debate was coming from the right in that time, 100%. Number one. So that is changed. And the other thing is it's also a geographical thing. Well, I'm from Russia. In Russia,

I'm a woke libtad. In Britain, I probably am center, right? In America, I'm genuinely independent and center. But I guess the way I think about it, and I use this phrase often, it's that former British foreign secretary who said, we have no permanent alliances. We have permanent interests, and it's to them that we are allegiance. So I operate based much more principles than teams. And that's why I reject the label, even though now, it's undoubtedly the case that what I believe, which is preservation of Western civilization, freedom of expression, you know, all these other things. They do in the current climate lean more conservative, but it's very possible. And I, you know, I'm increasingly talking about this movement on the right

that I really dislike. The 10, 15 years from now, it is again Christian or not just Christian, but religious conservatives who are fighting all the things that I believe in. Does that make sense? Scott's answer is yes. Oh, yeah, yeah, that makes sense. So it's not a call-out. I mean, it's like a very mild call-out

where he's immediately mollified to say, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, because Scott, it's not you. Both things are true. He did his little job, but he was fine with the answer. You know, he's there to go along to get along. I know. I agree. That's my interpretation is like primarily what Scott's there to do is like promotersburg and have a enjoyable conversation.

So he's like greasing things up as he often is. But I do think it's likely that when he's praising Constantine, he's talking about he saw some things online, you know, where he's complaining about the woke right or he's talking about like Tucker Carlson praising Russia. And he thought, oh, yeah, this is right on. Like the chance that Scott Galloway has watched a whole bunch of trigonometry content, not high. Maybe he's watched like Sam Harris or somebody the interview, right? So like when they say, you're my favorite person. It often doesn't really mean they've actually... Exactly. It doesn't mean anything.

No, but it's discrediting still. But it's still discrediting. Because like you said, you shouldn't be saying, it's like going on Tim Poole's show and saying, you're my favorite commentator. Right. Like the fact that you would do that is, um, I think Scott Galloway, by the way, here's my prediction. In a couple of years, he's not going to be talking about the masculine stuff anymore, except incidentally as an afterthought. And he'll be talking about whatever's next book topic or interest is. Like his interest in this topic lasts as long as his book is on the potential bestsellers list.

That's my view. Yeah. Yeah, of course. Is that surprising to you? Well, I think like, you know, for other people, they might be promoted. the topic and talking about it because they have like a vested interest and scott galore very much does say that he doesn't have a vested interest his vested interest is his book and then the book will be done and then they'll have a new vested interest okay all right but his argument is his

interest as young man like in a healthy way right that is he wants to help them so yeah i'm just i'm just saying another scott galloway you can see it as a subtle dig at constantino you can see it as an invalidating admission, whatever way. But I mean, I don't think it invalidates all of the stuff that Scott will argue or say. I'm just saying another mark in the column of the sycophancy that permeates the guru's fear leading to undue flattery, ma, undue flattery. Undue, that's right. It doesn't deserve it, Constantine.

It doesn't deserve to be flattered. I agree with you. I agree with you. Like, I know that is how the online talkosphere works, where you're all best mates and you're all think each other are just the best and you agree with everything and you you downplay disagreements or you express them in such a genteel way that it's it's really no big deal and yeah you know that's the culture of this medium along with other stuff like people being willing to do personal uh what are they call it endorsements and and readings of stuff which is just like

it's just part of the culture of the medium and i don't agree with any of it i've got to say as well might You told me that the Brett Weinstein podcast, which you were listening to as well, had this. See, people, I do do research. I do research. Yeah, you're doing an independent research. But you told me the ad reads were insane. Now, that segment was 15 minutes long at the start of their podcast, all their ad reads. Oh, really?

15 minutes. 15 minutes. And it's so long. You know, it feels really long, in part because they elaborate. That's S-A-U-N-A-D-S-S-Sach-D-Rource. Discount will be automatically applied at checkout. Now, I think that ad read needs something. Somewhere in there, it needs to say that the tent has a decidedly Bedouin aesthetic.

Probably just because that phrase has never been used anywhere. But we've said it before. Well, it is decidedly Bedouin. It is. It's great. Also, fun for cats. I can speak from, experience that you turn this thing on and the cats, the cats will flock.

Yeah, it warms them right up. Yeah. And if you don't like cats and you don't have any of your own, just close the door of your house and then they won't come in. So don't be concerned that you'll get cats that you don't want. It's not going to happen. All right. I mean, you've covered the territory.

Yeah. Our second sponsor this week is Clear. But also they're just reading the script. Clear is a simple nasal spray that you use morning and evening. It takes just three seconds. It's fast and easy and healthy. If any of this sounds familiar, perhaps you listen to Brett's conversation with Nathan Jones, founder of Clear, on the inside rail in November 2024, or to Brett's conversation with Nate's father, Lon Jones, osteopath, and inventor of Clear on how xylitol interacts with respiratory viruses in May of 2025. We recommend those conversations, and we highly recommend Clear as a daily habit and prophylactic against respiratory illnesses.

That's Clear with an X, X-L-E-A-R. And Lex Friedman, I recently listened to one of the... of his podcasts. You haven't heard as much about him because he's mostly doing AI related stuff now. And it just goes to show. Like when he does that, he doesn't get a huge amount of criticism or attention, right? Like there aren't all these people calling him out. But I don't think that will last. But in any case, he's the same. His introductory segment is round about like 10 to 13 minutes of ads, just reading ad copy and giving these personalized endorsements for all the products.

And it's the same sort of stuff as well. Like obviously Lex lean a little bit more towards, you know, tech optimizer type products. But a lot of it is crunchy health and the Brett Weinstein and Heller Haying special, which is all talking about these. Like they're talking about a tanning bed, I think at one point. We're talking about some special kind of energizing light, which has special frequencies and stuff like that,

which will cure you. And they made a big point about it doesn't have any harm for electromagnetic radiation. It's only got the frequencies that send the good things. It was like, matched with the sun. Matched with the sun. It was a complete woo. Like, it's fallen woo. Several years ago, I started looking into sonas, both traditional and infrared,

and found a morass of information. Then red light therapy became popular, and like a lot of products and claims became even more confusing. Is the product effective? How long does it take to heat up? What frequencies does it actually produce? Does it emit harmful electromagnetic radiation? The only product I've found that clearly lived up to its scientific and health claims was sauna space. Sonaspace combines visible red light and near-infrared to provide deep, radiant heat for whole-body results at home. There's no harsh LED panel nor a giant wooden box. Sona space's firelight spectrum is a proprietary sun-like spectrum that was developed over a decade of research and development.

The incandescent bulbs are flicker-free, glare-free, and long-lasting staying consistent for over five years. And then they put on their mantles of very serious science people. But yeah, it is incredible the degree of excessive monetization, we call it. And, you know, I get it, especially if you're struggling. If you're not a super popular podcast, but you want to do it full time, I could imagine it's very hard to make ends meet unless you lean into excessive monetization. But people like Scott Galloway or what's his name, the idiot who's probably talking about AIs and do they feel love? What's his name?

You just said it. The idiot who's talking about. Lex Friedman. Sorry. Okay. There were so many options. I was like, I'll tell you.

I mean, these guys are rich, right? Oh, yeah, the millionaires. Yeah. So,

so do you have to do that? It's like, be like Walter, Walter Cronkite. Like covering, covering Watergate and then slipping into, you know,

selling a nice pair of Laramese he's got here under the desk. It's, you know, to do it. it's crass their sellouts Matt that's what that's they're stillouts man yeah that it used to be the people didn't like sellouts no it's like everybody wants to sell out it's the it's the it's the best

thing that can happen to yeah well you know look maybe ethical podcasting is impossible under a capitalist system Chris maybe it's that no I've heard that I have heard that now before I play a little bit more clips for you from Brett and Heller, Matt, I'm going to do that for you, that service. But you did just remind me, speaking of, you know, the tech adjacent people, that IElla, you know, Iela girl, the Twitter account and sex researcher, as she likes to describe herself as. So she tweeted out this thread, Matt, that is, it's one of those examples of people abusing the no character limit on Twitter, right? 1,300 words she wrote.

And it's a post like Lex, is what made me think about that, where she's been reading some history map. She found some things out. And she did a bullet pointed or numbered list, 18 points that she's learned from reading some history books recently. And number one, let me just read number one for you.

Okay. I sort of assumed people in the past had more freedom from their governments, but they absolutely did not. The people with the guns consistently oppressed people without as much as they could get away with. So there's an insight for you. You assumed that people in the past were much freer than people alive today, didn't you? Isn't that you something that you would have? Where did she go to the school? I should test my kids.

She was homeschooled. She was homeschooled. Oh, okay. Well, that you might explain it. But she was arguing recently for, like, she has talked about the issues of homeschooling, but she was arguing recently about homeschooling being more desirable in some respect. But there's 17 more points that I could go through, but they're all of that caliber. It's just, wow, wow.

And I don't begrudge people learning. about history later in life. But it's kind of like, what were they doing till now? Like, AL is in her 30s. Lex is in his 40s. And their, you know, their insights are like, this Hitler guy, not a good guy, you know? Yeah.

World War II. That was tough. Pretty bad stuff. Yeah, like, you know, I mean, it's nobody's fault if they're ignorant. But, I mean, A.L. sort of positions herself as like a researcher and she's, you know, like, I don't know.

I don't know. Maybe a bit more epistemic humility is required when you don't know things. Maybe that's the takeaway. All our insights, I'll just read the first line. The U.S. revolution was way derpier than I fought. Number six, sometimes history feels inevitable. Number seven, the mobs and common people are often very stupid. So on.

There's a deep insight. I know, I shouldn't be triggered by this, but I was just like, I did retweet it, not saying it's great to see young people learning about history, right? That's right. It's actually not her fault. She's just, she's learning about this stuff for the first time and sharing her thoughts. That's okay. That's okay.

And that's okay. That's okay. Just remember the people that you're getting your rationalist insights from, okay. Just put the whole thing in context whenever you're reading their other thoughts. Now, okay, so Brett, he advertised this episode as one in which he was going to outline a new conspiracy. What he said on Twitter was,

on today's Dark Horse live stream, I will explain why Jeffrey Epstein likely survived his apparent suicide and may well still be alive somewhere out of sight. This has nothing to do with the widely discussed physical evidence and or jailhouse anomalies. Right. So he's literally advertising new conspiracy hypothesis tonight.

Like, you know, okay, tune in if you want to hear my next conspiracy theory. I think I started listening to this one too, but it took him a long time to get to the conspiracy. I think I got bored and turned it off. It's actually annoying because he doesn't spend that much. No, this isn't true. He does spend about 10 or 15 minutes on it at the end. But it's one of these, you know, a podcast special where they start to talk about the conspiracy, then they go on the tangent for 10 minutes about something and then they speak about something

that. And the actual conspiracy thing is only really around one or two minutes. All right. So we just sketched this out very briefly in a couple of minutes. Jeffrey Epstein, not really dead. Oh, yeah, let me play it for you. But, you know, he said he's not going to focus on the anomalies and the footage at the prison and all that is what he spends most of his time doing he lied but he is arguing that there is another reason that we should anticipate that Jeffrey Epstein is still alive and the reason it may not come as a huge surprise when you hear it but you will not have been able to predict that so listen to this so I have an example or two

here let's show Rod Dreher's tweet here here. Rod Dreher says, from the Epstein files, I think we might owe the Q&on loons an apology. By the way, he took a lot of crap for saying loons. I would like to see a Justice Department investigation of all of this, but who can trust them? Here's a link to the email below. And then it shows one of the emails from Sarah Kay to Rich Burnett. And it says, that's having a little trouble reading. It says, hi, Rich.

Jeffrey is asking if you can FedEx the painting he had made of the massacre of the innocence to the ranch. That's presumably the Zora Ranch. It's the large nine-by-nine-foot canvas that we had rolled out for him to see on the entryway where they are killing babies. He wants to use it on the ranch and is hoping you could FedEx it to arrive by Wednesday, thanks Sarah. Now, there's an obvious linguistic ambiguity in there. The benign interpretation is that it was laid out and the painting depicts the killing of babies. Which massacre of the innocence does. Yeah.

The pernicious interpretation is that this is referencing a location where babies were killed on Epstein's ranch. Now, this... That seems like... this is the first time I'm seeing this. It seems like an insane interpretation of this. Why would anyone specify an entryway where they kill babies as opposed to an entryway where they don't? Like, that seems like an absurd interpretation. I agree with you.

A massive, a massive stretch. On the other hand, there's a pattern here. You've got a guy who appears to have been involved in trafficking young women. and a painting the massacre of the innocence. And this is an echo of what was seen with the emails that were pried loose from the DNC in which there is all sorts of suggestive discussion amongst John Podesta and his circle of all sorts of things,

including pizza, which shows up across the Epstein files. So the point is, what the hell is this? bad taste in art or taste that specifically... Immoral taste. Immoral taste in art where the immorality is even that you're engaged in some behavior and you're memorializing it in art for the purpose of making a point about how powerful you are or whatever. But the point is, that ain't actionable. Well, that's an incredible take.

That deserves just stepping through it. Carefully. So, massacre of the innocents, that's a very famous painting by Rubens, right? Yeah. I assume that's the one they're referring to. It's not actually children, though, is it? It's like, I just double-checked because of my memory. But it's like, I guess there are some children down there.

Also, just women. No, it is. It's the biblical event, Matt. Oh, that's what it's about. It's about the Bible thing where they... The massacre of the innocents. That's the title of it. There's a lot of women there.

they take up most of the space. But I'm with you. Is that, that's the Gospel of Matthew. Oh, yeah. Herod. Killing the babies. I don't know my Bible, man.

I don't know my Bible. Apparently not. No. I do not know my Bible. Okay. So it's a famous painting, right? Okay. But so Brett points out that there is,

it's something very sinister that he's asking for the mask, this painting masculine. Maybe he's referring to a place in like in the hallway where they, where Ebstone and co. Massacre. Massacre and children. That's one reading. That's one reading and he gets helped out a bit. Like that's absolutely crazy.

Yeah, I mean, he acknowledges. Yeah, I mean, that is a stretch. On the other hand, is it? That's right. I'm not saying it's aliens, but take me through it. So it's maybe not a stretch because at other times in emails, they talked about pizza. They talked about getting pizza.

And that's like Pizza Gate. and so maybe it's code. Is that what he's hinting at? Yeah, so he, I mean, he advances a number of potential hypotheses, right? And one is the one that they are referencing the massacre of innocence and in the entrance way. Even though they reference like the size of the painting and stuff, it's kind of like code for where they're performing their satanic abuse or whatever, right? Right.

And on the other hand, Matt, another reading, even if you accept that, well, that's a bit of a stretch. Like, it does seem to be referencing a painting. Isn't it telling that he is putting this kind of painting, which is about killing of innocent children, a famous biblical story? In the entranceway to his building. And what does that signify, except like an immoral attitude? So a flaunting, if you like, of what he's all about. Now, another reading is just that it's a famous piece of art and Jeffrey Epstein is somebody that would like some, you know,

Renaissance or wherever Baroque painting that features classical portrayals of nudity. You could actually accept the second one that he's like flaunting, you know, that he likes having portrayals. This is a painting of a violent crime. I also do crimes and I want to kind of, you know, Directed at children. Yeah. Directed at children.

Okay, directed at children. Yeah. But, you know, in this painting, they're like cherubic. You know, very Rubin-esque sort of figures and cherubic children. Anyway, it's a stretch. Well, so then the next possibility is that this and other things throughout, you know, the Epstein Files, Because the person he's referencing Rod Dreher at the start there was describing, you know,

the Pizza Gate people being vindicated by the Revelations and the Epstein files, right? And Brett is saying there's similar kind of things that people have found around references to getting pizza or grapefruit juice or these kind of things. So, you know, come on, Matt. We know about Pizza Gear that there was a lot of suspicious emails about pizzas and like, what were they talking about, Matt? Like, what? Is it like people eat pizzas?

I mean, this hits two of the favorite conspiratorial memes. And one of them is the hiding in plain sight. You know, like the conspirators, the Illuminati or whatever, are laughing at us, Chris. And they're proud of what they're doing. And they kind of flaunt it by leaving clues, you know, in plain sight. And so it hits that button. And also this belief that people are constantly talking in code. Now, you know, I mean, occasionally people do.

Someone might refer to something as disco biscuits when really they mean something illegal, for instance. But I'm not sure about the pizza. Sometimes pizza is just pizza. Yeah, yeah. And it is true. Jeffrey Epstein's various locations from material Ibsen feature a lot of scantily clad portraits and classical images and so on. He liked nude paintings and paintings featuring. nudity and young people being nude and so on, which aligns with what we know about his general

interests, right? So the notion that he might be in favor of art that portrays young people in nude positions, right? Like, yes. And I know, Matt, I know that it's not like a sexy photo, but I'm just saying it's not very sexy and they're mostly adults. They're mostly nude, mostly nude men and some half-nude women, just saying. Depends on which version. Rubin's one, yes, but the later variations of it feature more cherubs. But in any case, it's like it's not a sexy painting. But, okay, so this isn't the conspiracy about Epstein being alive,

but this is just to point out, you know, Brett's general reasoning about these kind of topics. And you heard the very useful thing where Heller exists to, say, well, I mean, we're not endorsing that, right? And Brett's like, no, no, no, of course, but, but are we? Like, maybe. Yeah. So it's like they both get to say, well, we said that was a stretch and we're not endorsing that. No, but it's, it's interesting though, isn't it? And it does, it does a chord. There are echoes in his words with other stuff like pizza, for instance. I also like that he noted that Rod Dreher got pushed back for calling people pizza get loons. He was like, and he got pushed back for calling them loons.

Right? That day. Yeah. She chose his words more carefully. Okay, so let's carry on to Epstein and the conspiracy. Let's get to the mate. I would understand the, I want to understand the theory of how he's still alive. Anyway, the point is, it's Game of Thrones.

It's still going on whether Epstein survived or not. Okay. Now I want to get to the reason that I think Epstein probably did survive. Before you do. does it matter? Yes and no. I mean, for one thing, it seems to me that he was

he was a puppeteer, but he wasn't, it seems, a brilliant puppeteer. Well, let's put it this way. If he survived, that describes a landscape of people who participated in dodging justice for him, in hoodwinking

the public, in breaking the justice system. So the point is, that's a vast crime of its own, right? We had a right. That's a different question from doesn't matter if he still lives. Well.

If he lives, then that implies more crimes yet. It implies more crimes yet. But it also, I think, is suggested. 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 Guru's 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 gurus.