Decoding the Gurus - Supplementary Material 46: Epstein Did Microtransactions, Grok Did Nothing Wrong, and Murder is Bad

Episode Date: March 15, 2026

In our never-ending quest to alienate all potential online audiences, we finger-wag about rampant Epstein conspiracism and explain why we are, on balance, anti-murder.The full episode is available to Patreon subscribers (2 hours, 42 minutes).Join us at: https://www.patreon.com/DecodingTheGurusIn our never-ending quest to alienate all potential online audiences, we finger-wag about rampant Epstein conspiracism and explain why we are, on balance, anti-murder.00:00 Intro03:39 Flooding Adventures06:54 Eric's Troubles with his Silicon Friend13:09 Peter Boghossian's Hardcore for Grok17:16 A Promising Paper on reducing AI Hallucinations22:17 Statistical Consults23:12 Epstein Discourse Lollapalooza27:24 Eric Weinstein thinks Epstein is connected to UFOs29:09 Rogan Plays Apologist for Trump on Epstein32:21 Emma Vigeland and Joshua Citarella engage in Conspiracy Hypothesising35:07 Reasonable Conspiracy Theorising42:24 The Real Conspiracy44:26 Epstein and Ghislaine puppeting the culture wars48:18 The Joy of Conspiracy Theories53:29 Epstein and Bannon created QAnon as a Psyop01:01:37 What about ritual child abuse, dissolving bodies and cannibalism?01:09:05 Lurid Cannibal Fantasies01:15:56 Emma's UFO theory01:20:08 The Joe Roganification of Podcasts and some strategic disclaimers01:24:14 A dichotomy in contemporary American attitudes to Wealth?01:28:32 The Mainstream Media won't focus on Epstein's connections with Israel and Mossad01:32:08 The REAL Epstein scandal that no one wants to talk about01:34:36 Behind the Bastards coverage of Epstein01:36:01 Epstein's alleged role in creating microtransactions in games01:40:46 Epstein's cringey Edutainment ideas01:50:53 What Robert Evans Got Wrong01:54:08 There are No Coincidences02:00:57 The Danger of Appealing Narratives and also... Michael Tracey02:06:00 The Anti-Murder Podcast02:07:47 Warren Smith highlights Violent Rhetoric aimed at Konstantin02:14:12 Justifying Murder is Bad... M'Kay?02:17:55 Experiences of Violence and Naivety02:21:16 Levels of Political Violence02:23:49 Destiny's Community and Edgy Political Violence Takes02:27:56 Alienating online audiences 10102:30:14 Eric talks wormholes with a UFO maniac02:35:28 Lord of the Idiots02:36:18 Does Matt know Snorlax?02:39:43 A failed disclaimer outroLinksErik arguing with GrokBoghossian’s hardcore rules for GrokH-Neurons: On the Existence, Impact, and Origin of Hallucination-Associated Neurons in LLMs (Gao et al., 2025)YouTube comment under our NXIVM video about EpsteinPeople article claiming Epstein was Putin’s Wealth ManagerTaylor Lorenz – Panic World: How Epstein Warped the Entire InternetGarbage Day: “Here’s How Epstein Broke the Internet”Eric Weinstein on Piers Morgan connecting Epstein to UFOs and his “research”Triggernometry’s 7th appearance on RoganAmerican Alchemy: Eric Weinstein & Eric Davis on WormholesBBC: Ex-police chief said Trump told him in 2006 “everyone” knew about Epstein’s behaviourJoshua Citarella & Emma Vigeland – Epstein, Conspiracy & Right-wing Media | DoomscrollPew Research: Demographics of the Progressive Left in the United StatesDebunking claims about Ghislaine Maxwell being a Reddit power modObama did not say aliens are real – PBS NewsHourNBC News: Epstein’s relationship with Ehud BarakAl Jazeera: What were Jeffrey Epstein’s links to Israel?Warren Smith’s post about threats from Digital GnosisDigital Gnosis Substack statementDestiny’s Head Mod Confronts Him On His RhetoricEric Weinstein Demands UFO Secrets From Pentagon ScientistEpstein email documentsEmail from Pablos Holman to Epstein (document 1)Email from Pablos Holman to Epstein (document 2)Email from Pablos Holman to Epstein (document 3)Epstein forwarding Holman’s email to Bobby KotickPablos Holman responding and dunking on Kotick

Welcome to Decoding the Guru's supplementary material edition. With the cognitive anthropologist, me, Christopher Kavana, and the psychologist, statistician, some would say, Matthew Brown over there. It's good to see you, Matt. You're kind of, you know, your hard man to reach you 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 faraway sound in your voice and changed the topic. So, you know, one of this 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 invitation out of you.

This is unbelievable, Matt. 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? No, where do we find? By dealing with things like flooding or family commitments, work or a fit job?

I just feeling generally tired. Well, that's also true. There's the 4 p.m. cut off when it's bedtime. Whiskey and then bedtime. That's right. Like, 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 building in 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? I was like, 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. Well, 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, I don't think it's clear. Oh, really? Oh, really?

Maybe we should ask your loved ones what it's like to schedule things with you and see who. 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. But sometimes I might not be the best at Sended Calder invites or whatever. But whenever I say, oh, yeah, we can do it on that day, that is 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 thing down? Are we so constrained by technology that we must live according to those rules? That's it. That's it.

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. And you're here now, Matt. You're here now.

Why spend the time litigating these 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? Yeah. It used to be so free.

He used to be so carefree. And now we're grumpy and middle-aged. What happened this was? One time we were cool. Once we were giants. 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? Do you know how it's not good? It's not good. The poor salties. Swimming around, I'd find them like, what? Yeah, people have been spotting crocodiles and stuff as usual, but they're always there, just sometimes you see them.

We're always there. Always lurking. Always lurking. Always lurking, always waiting. That's the way crocodiles operate. Yeah, well, to be fair, some people share the images of course. 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. 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 under water 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 as well. 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 that. That's not nothing. That's not nothing.

We had to walk down to the beach and here's the public toilet's there. I don't have a septic tank. No, that's because you live in a proper city. An apartment. Oh, wait, is it? I would like my horse in Ireland have had a septic tank? I don't think so either. Did you have town water?

Did you have, where you had like pipes running? Tap water? Of course. You have tap water. Well, there's two things. There's tap water and this sewage. If you don't have town sewage,

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 the 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. Yeah. Yeah, heating oil.

It mostly 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. But if, do you have anything to share with me? Oh, I've got tons of things. But why don't you bring you to the table? Why don't you go first? You know, you showed up. You go.

Okay. I mean, Eric Weinstein is just always, is always impressive, always very impressive. But the most amazing thing is his love affair with GROC. And he, he, his relationship with this, with this AI is incredible and he conducts it completely in public on X.com. And he, he's basically come to believe that So GROC 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? So that's the story. Yeah. And doesn't he believe that, like, I've seen Eric interacting with GROC repeatedly online, you know, using it to adjudicate his disputes with other people like Sean Carroll or whatever.

And I think Batsats was pointing out at the time where Grock often. to, you know, work through the equations in his PFR. 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 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, he starts calling Grog a coward. You know, but the really amazing thing is one, I mean, some of the other gurus 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 GROC said. You know exactly what I'm saying. You are braver than my colleagues, but I can still run circles around you because you are still at heart programmed to be a coward. Oh, my God. So this is him. What did GROC say?

Oh, you know, GROC just says, you know, I'm sorry, I accept the criticism, all of that stuff. And this is the thing. Eric Weinstein relates to GROC in exactly the same way. relates to people, that he just tries to bully them. Only them. Wifee, Ridge. 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. Yeah. And as we know. Yeah, yeah. And then Grok committed a terrible crime in terms of in criticizing geometric unity. Grock references the Nguyen polia criticism.

Oh, Kim Nguyen and Fiaaolia. Yeah, yeah, he wouldn't like that. And then that sends Eric off. Who is Fia polia? 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're treating this stalker as expert criticism. Tell the truth. Anyway, so it goes on like that with basically Eric having a very emotional bullying argument with GROC until GROC admits that Eric is a genius and the geometric unity is completely right. And I haven't seen anything so cringe and sad happen.

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 do you use fringe? Question mark, question mark, question mark, question mark. Point blank.

Tell the truth. You did. And then Grock sucks up the consensus. Grock confluence asymmetrically about peer review. I don't care about Review. I care about GROC applying sickingly asymmetric standards to echo the community. And then at the end, he's saying, stop it. You're still a consensus animal. You

didn't repeat the facts about 14-dimensional sussie or carol anomalies. Did you? You write like this when you're being held to higher standards. I mean, he's got a thing where Grock is explaining why there is a case for Eric being a crack want. And yeah, it's just really interesting to why he interacts with it, because Grock, to some degree, stands up for itself and is pointing out, essentially kind of the same stuff, but Sean Kara was pointing out, that there are things missing, there isn't a Lagrangian, and Eric cannot stand this. You know, Grock, 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 and 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 an 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 pleases, basically. So it's astounding. Well, the thing is, you mentioned the alien intelligence thing. And I think that Eric Weinstein might know a bit better than Thiel Swan, a little bit better about the underlying mechanics of LLLAMs, 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. government's line on everything. He posted out this screenshot where he was saying, you know, Grock, why can't you do this? Right. And he had an image of his interaction with Grock 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 Grogh's response was, I'm sorry, but I can't adopt

or apply custom filters that attempt to override hardcore 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, yeah, no bullshit, truth on blast, all this stupid, dark web framing. But the other thing, is he's imagining that the flaws that are in the 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 blanks leet. 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, it's. very interesting. Like, I know AI is new and everything, and not everyone understands how they work, but like four supposed intellectuals, they're definitely below average in terms of getting it. You would hope so. We're going to have Mickey Inslee 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 LOM 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 Rogosian are just two examples of like

If it's not full-blown AI psychosis, it's definitely that's the fundamental base line that allowed you to get there, like, thinking that you can like get, you know, the unvarnished truth. Give it to me straight and all this. Like, oh, there's such children, edge lord children. Yeah. I mean, you can 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 fluffing. Don't tell any lies. Like just imagine Peter Burgosian, 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? Before, like, why didn't me? You took Peter Vagosia to figure that one out. Actually, 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'd like, but would you be averse to a quick little potted summary for this now?

Oh, no. I'll trust you, Ma. I'll like source my intellectual work to you. Yeah, sure. Go ahead. And that doesn't mean that we won't cover it on Decoding Academia. We might be with our mart. So go ahead.

We might. This little taste just might want you this. You 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 on 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 lots of people speculate about this, that 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? Like if 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 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, when 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's kind of like the underlying problem, the elements 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, you know, guessing, essentially, or saying something rather than just going, uh, well, actually, hmm, you know, because that's not the sort of fluid stuff that it's going to see in the kind of text 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. stuff 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 kind of cool because they're 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. reduce it at least. Yeah, reduce it. 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. No, you just tell it, Matt. No more it. No more it loose. They won't do it, right? They didn't know about that hack. Well, that does sound like an interesting paper. I always find AI people is 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 it in more detail in decoding. academia. So yeah, you didn't put me off. You often do when you talk about technical ways, but this one, this one I'm on board with. What was the last statistical tutorial I gave you? You were asking me about something. 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, got everything right in my head relatively speaking.

Yeah, yeah. I seem to remember a very elementary tutorial and you following along competently. That's how I remember. Okay, that's how you remember. I see it as a high-level exchange between peers. High-level ideas coming at each other. Yeah, thinking fast. People were getting insights from different directions.

There were, you know, there were arrows going both ways. That's right. Oh, yeah, I learned a lot too from that conversation. Jason Christians. So I like to hear. Well, speaking of learning a lot of things, Matt. So you know we covered Blind Boy recently. You remember him?

Yep. I remember him. 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 art, Jeffrey Epstein. Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah. The center of a web that stretches near and five. 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 Reneery and Nixium, right? And the other is 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? I don't know. It's like, it's like Weinstein and one stone. Well, and yes, this is a YouTube comment, but I'm just going to read it. And I will show that it is not only this YouTube comment. So it says, do they mention that

Nixium was bankrolled by the billionaire Bronfman sisters whose follower co-founded the mega group with Epstein's sponsor Les Wexner? If you ask me, Nixium was meant to become a replacement for Epstein's operation. All right. What? So. Okay. Wait.

Remind me, what was the context of this post? This was... Oh, this was our episode on Kieferneary, you know, the Allison Mac interview. Oh, yeah, yeah, the Nixiam 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, you know,

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... They 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. Epsomene is a bad guy. We've established this. He was a paedophile. rapists and 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 F.P. in some anonymous tip-off or interview or whatever suggesting this. So now you have that Epstein might be connected to Putin, right? Like he might be Putin's wealth manager. And there are 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 pole board come out. You can hear him investing in some cryptocurrency stuff early, right? So everything, Ma, it kind of like he has his fingers 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 actually is connected to his personal cosmology of conspiracies. 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 Pierce 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 Wright-Patterson 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. 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, I guess, yeah, conspiratorial resentment of elites 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 Paul board and that he might have been involved with QAnon, right? That Q&N could have been created in order to distract people from the actual, you know, elite pedophile rings that were

going on. Now there's various degrees of claims made. Some are outlandish and, you know, some are more reasonable or couch. But we also heard in the Blind Boy episode that there's a lot of strategic disclaimers going on. Now, notably, Matt, I want to play this clip because it's just very telling of this man. But Joe Rogan, 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 maga guy. And so this is from an episode not that long ago where he's talking with Michael Malice 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 a ray throwing man on the bus about Epstein. They don't have shame. What she's saying? Hillary's like Trump's into a file 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 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. And 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, the time. 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 dimensions in the files are about him trying to protect people from Jeffrey Epstein. Was 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 of him and Jeffrey.

He wasn't like sort of throwing himself. in front of Jeffrey Epstein's penis. He was budding 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, a supposed phone call in 2006, not mentioned until 2019.

There's no contemporary documented evidence of that. But Joe here, you hear him. all the cases where he's very quick to assume malign motivations and conspiracies amongst the elites or whatever. When it's 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 Fstein. You know, the, the cognitive dissonance is, no, I know, it's obvious. I mean, like, 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 it. my nefarious plans.

Trump is stopping me. I don't think so. I don't think so. No. No, I do not think so. And so my, you know, we covered Blind Boy and I noticed the same conspiracies start to crop up elsewhere. I mean, hearing the same things in different circumstances, right? And I want to play your 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 puntant. I don't know if you've come across her before. But here's the host of Doomscroll introducing that episode. Welcome to Doom Scroll. I'm your host Joshua Siddrella. My guest is Emma Vigland, 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 think they disappeared in with the flash of orange as him being carried away? It's not escaping.

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 to. 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? Yeah, the Xbox account is still alive. Okay. So who is this lady again?

Emma Vigland. Emma Viglund. She's the co-host of the majority report of Sam Seder. And this is Joshua Ciderrella, who's an online YouTuber who does documentaries about, or kind of needs videos about, you know, internet culture and that kind of thing. So they would generally be presented as on the invest. 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 Pizza Gate was just a piece

of information, but not 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. But then you'd like to continue listening to this conversation. You 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 Guru's podcast, including bonus shows, gorometer 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.