Decoding the Gurus - Supplementary Material 50: The String Theory Mafia, Shameless Propagandists, and The Topography of Semantic Space

Episode Date: June 10, 2026

We become highly effective at exploiting the gap between salience and relevance as we universalise semiotic capability and listen to more brave renegades talking about how amazing they are. Join us, won't you?Supplementary Material 50 (Full Episode: 2hrs 23 mins)00:24 Introduction02:07 British People Struggling with Compliments04:53 Matt loves SOME episode titles08:42 Nachos Pronunciation10:13 Brett Weinstein vs Michael Tracey29:08 Brett pivots to his Anti-Vaxx Hits42:32 The Hug Box World of Podcasting45:55 When Eric met Joe (again)47:29 Eric and Rogan re-litigate Sean Carroll's criticisms55:55 Eric's insatiable desire to be linked with Epstein01:14:36 Eric Weinstein is a Construct01:16:36 When Ana met Candace01:18:18 Useful Idiots and Shameless Propagandists01:19:59 Ryan Grim's reaction to being in Iranian Propaganda Videos01:26:22 Zeteo gets to the bottom of the Iranian Casualty Figures01:30:24 Ana and Candace's Hug Session01:36:31 A horse named shoe?01:47:26 The Holocaust Media Industry01:53:48 Jimmy Dore makes the Religious Pivot02:01:39 The Brave Renegade Narrative that Never Gets Old02:12:57 Horseshoe Populism02:16:23 Jordan Hall x AI Instructions02:21:46 Agent Hall infecting your MattrixLinksThe Romesh Ranganathan Show: Tom Davis On Success, Setbacks & Being a DadFULL PANEL: Should we abolish all podcasts? Michael Tracey, Bret Weinstein, Lauren SouthernJoe Rogan Experience #2503 - Eric Weinsteinhttps://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/candace-owens-tate-brothers-visit-russia-kremlin-touts-thaw-rcna348311Candace Owens x Ana KasparianFinancial Times - How China is breaking apart a people and its cultureZeteo: Where Did the 40,000 Iran Protests Death Toll Number Come From?Ana Kasparian repeating anti-semitic conspiracies about 9/11More fun tweets from AnaThe Young Turks: Tucker’s 9/11 Documentary Raises Some HUGE QuestionsJimmy Dore has tapped into God after stopping smoking PotJordan Hall Decodes AI

the guru's supplementary material edition with the professor of psychology, Matthew Brown, and the associate professor of psychology, Christopher Kavana. Me, that's a terrible. That's a terrible low-energy introduction. You should describe ourselves as guardians of the institutions, servants to the discourse, hand baitens to the blue church here we stand we can't do no other well see that's why you do the introductions for the main episodes because

I don't have that level of inventiveness in my in my soul so yes I agree that would have been better but that I didn't do that you are to your credit you are good at impressions though you are good at impressions you do impromptu impressions to me

all the time just on the phone when you're describing somebody. You did a Zizek impression to me and I was blown away. It was like I was being regaled by the man himself. You're in the room of him. It was like I could feel the spittles spreading over my face. It was amazing.

To be fair, there is a lot of snuffling and sniffling. It's the fair amount of the impression of Zijak. But Zerjizek. Yeah, prozieszac. It's a joke. You can't take a compliment. I was complimenting you and you were like, stop taking the piss. I was like, no, you really are good at this.

Oh, see? Yeah. That speaks to the dynamic that we have. And actually, there's a, this is a very random note, but I'm just going to mention it. There is a podcast I occasionally come across by two comedians that I like, Ramesh, Ranganaffin, and Tom Davis. I probably pronounced Ramesh's surname wrong, but in either case, they're British comedians.

And they do comedy podcast together, and it's funny. And Ramesh has his own interview show, like he's interviewed Louis Faroo and Ben Elton and so on. And he interviewed his co-host, Tom Davis, for that show. But you know, like in an interview show, if you're like doing a two-hour interview or someone or whatever it often involves adopting a more serious tone like a kind of

and what got you interested in that but because they do a show together usually they're just taking the piss out of each other right all the time and they're and they both British so they find it like it was kind of interesting because remorse was saying nice things about Tom and they both like I found it a little bit hard to be kind to each other.

They find it much easier to just, you know, be insulting or make fun of each other. And yeah, I was like, this is a good example of how that dynamic plays out in self-deprecating style cultures or cultures where kicking the piss is the way to be affectionate to each other. It's true. When you're interviewing somebody who's a little bit famous, you feel like you have to be sincere, if not serious. And for God, no, do we have to be sincere and serious? Can we be the opposite? Yeah.

Well, it would be kind of rude if you had a podcast where you were sincere and serious with everyone else and you treated them as like, you know, you want to hear their insights about their career and whatnot. And then you had on your friend and you just took the best for a couple hours. I think that's the dynamic that is a play. But anyway, it's an interesting episode I thought because they manage it very well. They're like both at various stages, very uncomfortable worth saying nice things about each other, even though they clearly, you know, love and respect each other a lot. So it's just, you know, if you want to see cross-cultural dynamics in the fact, Matt,

this might be a good thing for some American people, North American listeners, their tune in to you. What's the name of this show? It's Wolf and Oil is the main comedy podcast and the interviewer is the Ramesh Rangana. from interview podcast or something like that. Yeah, Chris, I've been going through some of our old episodes and, you know, we're doing a little bit of, I don't know, cultivation, curation of our output.

So I see if we can get things organized. Our archives. Yeah, going through the archives. And I've noticed some of the old episode titled, I have to say, it's not cool to laugh at your own jokes, but I did appreciate some of them. I'd totally forgotten them, but I like them. I liked the title of the Ibrahim X. Kendi.

episode, inside of you are two wolves. One of them is racist. Do you know who came up with that title? Sure it was me. Sure it was me. It was you. Yeah, it was you. I was just like, I'm just checking that you know it was your joke that you're free of seat now. But I agree. That's a good title. I didn't have a good title with Ibermax candy. I like the Alchemical lemon one, even though it's like it's a very obscure reference with Jordan Peterson. it's very abstract you know the titles you choose are always ones that you only understand after you've heard the episode

but that kind of defeats the purpose of a title that's it oh i guess so yeah it's not a great advertisement no did you think about that this is the sort of stuff i think about that you don't this is why i'm a professional and you're an enthusiastic amateur but you've been is your one that there's two there's two wolves inside you one is a racist is that an advertisement for it? people listen. Is it the entire people? Yeah, I think you would intrigue them.

Okay. Maybe some people really are there. What's the reasons what we've got through? I haven't even kept track of the titles from more recent episodes because you've been taking care of this stuff.

Are they good? Are they good? Oh, they're pretty good. They're pretty good. Let's just say the Elron Hubbard the coding the gurus one was sleeping with bandits hunting with pygmies and so on oh and so forth you got the quite wrong was no was it no he actually he says both it's and so on and so forth but actually i'm just wondering i didn't check i assumed i had written and so on but it might have been and so forth

it could have went the low way i did consider both opportunities but he says both so okay yeah that's fine that's fine okay okay Well, Keith Reneer, the serpent and the cognizant of fog. That's all right. Yeah, I rate that one. That's true. Oh, that was me. That's right.

It was me. Stop creating your ones. I don't like these other ones, but there's Keith Reneery one. That's very great. That's the only one you did. Sorry. There you go. You try to be nice, and this is what happens.

This is right. Well, I know my, you're deep in the archives. we're working for filing systems and ways that we can catalogue the guru techniques that come in up in our old content. And yeah, we're making progress in that respect. And it's good because it reminds you of the earlier examples of the themes that we often discuss now and how the grometer came to be. And so, you know, just for the listeners, maybe do you want to go back, check out the early back catalog. There's some chance. Yeah.

or the new catalog, whatever. Either or, whatever you want to do. So, Chris, you promised to carry this episode because I complained of being low energy, and I am low energy. You're low energy, Matt. I'm getting more energy just from seeing you. That always sparks a certain fire in my soul. You're like an energy vampire. And you did wait patiently for me to eat my nachos, because I had to have that because I realized I'd skip lunch. And you can't skip lunch, Chris. You just can't. And the thing is, though, I sent your photo of the nachos and you have to agree. It's pretty pretty, pretty great. I was going to let it pass, but is it nachos or nachos? I'm pretty sure it's nachos. Oh, it's not nachos? Natchos. I don't think so, but that could be

another matter ofism. Or maybe that's the authentic way to pronounce it. But yes, I've only nachos. So, but I like that. Natchos. I get a lot of people, even my own family. My cousin Juanita was messaging me because she listened to the podcast, which is nice. And even she was making fun of my pronunciation. So it's like it's raised to my awareness just how badly I apparently pronounce so many things,

which was not something I was aware of before this podcast. So thank you, Decoding the Guru is incorporated for that. There are occasional threads on the subreddit where they say, just to be clear, I'm Australian, and that's not an Australian production. Just to be clear, I'm Australian, and what Matt's doing is not okay. I can't hide behind the Antipodean Shield.

So yeah, so fuck you to whoever posted that. Well, there's been several friends that are longer slats. All of them. It could all get stuffed. Well, you know, part of what we cover here is things that have occurred, including with gurus that we are familiar with, but we don't really want to spend a full-length episode covering the kind of stuff that they're doing. But we'd be remiss if we didn't flag up what they were up to.

And I wonder if you had noticed that Brett Weinstein, a little while back, was on a panel about whether we should ban podcasting. Should We Abolish All the Podcasts. That was the title of the panel. And it featured Brett Weinstein, Michael Tracy, and Lauren Sovereign. God, okay. So tell people, the people who don't know, tell people who Michael Tracy and Lauren Southern are. Lauren Southern are.

Lauren Southern is former white nationalist slash right wing provocateur, went on tours with Stefan Mullenew and I think now it has took like a little bit of a you know a pivot towards what's the word like whenever people so not not not not not not not pivoting towards the center but somewhere that's adjacent to somewhere that's adjacent that's more towards the center is yeah that's pitching yourself to a more a broader audience yes that is the way so not quite repudiating former views, but in a sense saying I was young and a victim of polarization and that kind of thing. She also had a relationship of destiny previously, which came out.

Who hasn't at this point? Destiny gets about, given that, he does well, I think, given his physical attributes. That's one way to put it. Yeah. So that's Lauren's Sovereign. Like I say, she did a tour with Stefan Mullinue. I think they got kicked out or banned from entering Australia at one point. So there you go. So that's that's Lauren Southern. And Michael Tracy is a heterodox grand fly, but heterodarks in the inverted cameras sense of it, where a lot of it ends up lining up with fairly predictable right wing reaction. stuff, right? Like, kind of like,

Glenn Greenwald is a heterodox gadfly, right? So Tracy was part of the anti-woke, you know, Barry Weiss type independent journalist. And then during COVID

was like lab leak and against public health measures and that kind of stuff. And more recently, he has focused on Jeffrey Eppel stuff. But actually, unlike most of the other people in that space, he's taking the position of it's all a nothing burger. There's nothing there. It's all exaggerated. And the women who are

presenting themselves as victims, they were totally on board with everything. And that Jeffrey Epstein is unfairly maligned. So he does point out, you know, the same kind of things we were pointing out about Emma Bigland and Coe, you know, the rampant Epstein conspiracy hypothesizing that is going on. But he is doing it from a position that Jeffrey Epstein did nothing wrong and, you know, staking out a very strong stance on this. He had a podcast with Matt Taibi and it came to a close in part because of disagreements over this. So that's him. He looks very disheveled and used to walk around campuses carrying like a portable speaker and microphone

so he could debate people during campus outreach stuff. Now, is he one of the pro-Russia? Oh, that's a pretty question. I think he would likely be so. I'm pretty sure he has been a both-sider person at least,

but I think, yeah, as far as I recall, he has engaged in Russian apologetics, but he wasn't paid by, kind of video or that kind of thing. So it's just doing that freelance. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, who knows, who knows. But there's certainly been a lot of them. It's interesting those characters, because, I mean, you struggle to find an adjective to describe him and heterodox of might do. But that's kind of too, too flattering a term for it. Like, I understand they're not easy to pigeonhole

as simply being whatever, I don't know, paleocons or whatever label. But it seems that they select a grab bag of controversial positions that are all pretty much on the populist end of the spectrum. And in general, towards the populist right side of the spectrum. But they may well have a spatter, you know, horseschew theory-esque. They may have a smattering of populist left-wing takes as well. Yeah. And they're all controversial. They all tend to appeal to, yeah, a pretty broad segment of the online. Yeah. So the after a brief search, Matt,

it says that Tracy has drawn significant attention for his controversial stances on Russia and the war in Ukraine. Raller than adopting the mainstream Western consensus, he has positioned himself as a critic of US intervention, arguing that Western powers are engaged in proxy war mongering and the US

should actively pursue diplomatic negotiations with Vladimir Putin. So very familiar kind of stance. So Michael Tracy, not a source that I would endorse for anyone better on certain issues than like Brett Weinstein. But in terms of his actual approach, it's mostly about his idiosyncratic investigations into things and sneaking out controversial stances. He's known for being a bit confrontational as well. This is something he has a reputation for. And in this conversation,

he has with Brett, he is being confrontational with Brett. And it's quite cathartic in a way, because he's on stage with Brett. And I think Brett, well, you will see anticipated that we're going to do the usual, you know, alternative media round table where you just take turns to talk and, you know, yes, and maybe you say some points of disagreement, but you're all agreeing that you're important, renegade truth tellers. And that's not exactly what, what occurs. here. So yeah, maybe I should play some clips. So this is part of Tracy's like opening speech where he is talking about, you know, well, we should abolish podcasts. And in his case, he's provocatively arguing that yes, we should because of all the misinformation, right? But he's not actually arguing

that because he has his own podcast and stuff. But, you know, provocative thesis or title for it be not that uncommon. Okay. Well, let me just, let me just finish my opening remarks. And you can respond however you see fit. And so I thought, okay, maybe I'll investigate a little bit more about Brett's perspective on this Epstein issue. Since he says it's the most central issue facing our society today, it gets to the very core of our entire democratic system. So he's on another podcast a few weeks earlier with this guy, Chris Jones, over a million followers on YouTube alone, and Chris Jones introduces the topic by saying, shouldn't we have riots in the streets right now over Jeffrey

Epstein because all these files show that they were trafficking and eating children. And Brett just sits there and nods in affirmation. So there is your standard on these podcasts. Thank you very much. We'll cut you off right there. Brett, chance to respond and then we'll go to Lauren. Yeah, I don't know exactly why I should need to respond. I was asked to join.

Or you can have your own opening statement. I was asked to join a conversation about whether we should end all podcasts. And I believe that that is a candidate for being one of the five worst ideas ever. And really there's some doozies on that list already. But the reason I say that is because what is a podcast? iPodcast. It's the idea that somebody gets to record a conversation and put it up for anybody who wishes to download it and listen to it.

It's synonymous with free speech with a new technical twist. Now, you might agree with Michael, and I think with me that most podcasts are pointless at best. They are not contributing to the culture. a good thing. But that is not an indictment of the form. In fact, many things that are vital have exactly this characteristic. All media, in fact, pretty... Right, all media. So the question is, what is really being advocated here? Well, cryptically, it's an attack on our ability to discuss issues and reach our own conclusions by whatever mechanism we deem fit. This is literally the central

concept undergirding the West, and I believe the West is the best hope that our species has for continuing to exist. Okay, Chris, but before he seguated to the West's best type stuff there, I thought Brett was making reasonably good points there. Podcasting is okay. It's simply a mode of communication. It is okay to have discussions. If I didn't know who Brett was, then I would go, yeah, that's all perfectly true. It was interesting, though, he just did it respond at all to Tracy's attack on him. He just said, I'm going to ignore that and I'm going to give my prepared stump speech. Yes, exactly. That was the notable thing is like Tracy goes, you know, yeah, well, let's take an example. Brett said this stupid shit recently and that's

an example of the kind of crap that is on podcast. What would you say? And then you heard the host as well, the moderator guy, get a bit like, oh, okay, okay. Let's let you've had your time. okay, let's let's let's let Brett respond. He didn't like, I guess, a speaker calling out another speaker. But Brett just pivots away. Interior is prepared, very important sounding speech, about free speech and protecting the West, and we should be allowed.

And he talks, Matt, here as well, as if this is a proposal by some government entity or whatever. There's no a proposal on the table to abolish podcast. And it's like, just to provoke, the title for a talk. It's like in high school debating, which I did, where they would just come up with a stupid thing to debate about, like whether we should ban television or something and debate. And so that's what it is.

But yes, it's true. He just treats it as a, okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. But my uncle Tracy is not a agreeable sword. So he doesn't let it drop. So there's more that comes there, but let's hear a little bit what comes up next, where Trissy presses the issue.

I'm not calling for the imposition of any fascistic laws, and I'm not literally calling for the abolition of podcasts as such. Unto themselves, podcasts are a neutral forum or a neutral format. But, yeah, Brett, I'm sorry to say it is an indictment of the current podcast ecosystem for your podcast, the Dark Horse podcast, to put out a segment entitled, quote, Is Epstein still alive? Brett Weinstein thinks so. Brett Weinstein argues that Epstein is probably still alive based on game theory. That was February 13th, 2012.

So I'm not saying the government should come in and penalize you for spreading that totally bogus hysteria fomenting information. But I don't know, maybe we have to have a kind of cultural expectation that there will be some kind of repercussions for you to be peddling that nonsense. Even before you respond to that. Did you read the Epstein files that you love to talk about so much

with Epstein autopsy photos before you put out? your game theoretical theory? I want to put a proposed two remedies. Okay. You have raised a segment that I did. The remedy on that one is go watch it. See whether or not. You get the views and the clicks and you benefit financially from it.

I don't care about the views of the clicks. You can look for it on somebody else. Hence the warped incentive structure. Look, the remedies are clear. You can watch the content and you can decide for yourself. And for Michael, who is offended by the content, he can turn it off. The remedy already exists. Well, I greatly dislike Michael Tracy.

So, as always, conflicted feelings when the worst person in the world does make a good point. It is true. What is saying about Brett in his dumb episode on? We covered that episode. We covered that episode. We covered it. Yeah. Yeah.

But so, Brett, of course, is doing the platitudinous standard free speech line, which is that no one is under an obligation to listen to me. and listen to the content and make up your own mind. That's what it's all about. And feel free to make your own content disagreeing with me, which, you know, it's not entirely wrong either. It's just platitude and as free speech standard. Yeah.

Well, it's kind of a side issue, right? Because as Tracy said at the start, he's not advocating that your things be taken away or people aren't allowed the access. He's saying for you promoting nonsense, and not being able to back it up, there should be some penalty to that. And the fact that there isn't this causing problems.

So like, you know, somebody could say, well, look, Holocaust and aisle stuff, you don't have to agree with it, but you should go and listen to the arguments that I present and you can agree or disagree. It's like, yeah, you can't do that, but somebody's criticizing you for promoting low-quality sensationalist conspiracy theories.

and that's your content. And your responses like, well, agree or disagree. So he doesn't like make any effort to defend his thoughts. I don't even know if he'd be able to remember all the points that he makes. Because, you know, Brett likes to throw out conspiracies and whatnot. But he doesn't often keep track of like how they connect in. No, he never seems to return to many of them either. Yeah, but I guess I'm very familiar with it.

I've seen that kind of line so many times. from this is like you know I'm a good liberal I like free speech in principle all that stuff but it now triggers me because I'm I'm so used to the line that Brett is providing there I've seen it so much online and social media which is just this kind of shrug like you'll have people that are like literal Nazis doing Nazi stuff doing whatever anti-Semitic stuff or just saying vile stuff about women or whatever and they'll go shrug who cares it's free speech you don't like it, don't listen to it. It doesn't matter.

And it's not very satisfying to me. No. So you'll hear a bit of an exchange, Matt, that is making these points. It goes the way you would expect. But I would highlight the people that Brett constantly doesn't actually want to address any of the actual evidence. Like, he always wants to escape to abstractions, the same as Eric does and the same as so many. do when they're actually like in a situation where they're pushed, they're often like very quick to escape away to, you know,

I want to talk about free speech or I want to talk about this. So anyway, here's that kind of to be between two terrible people. That's how the West works. And Michael is actually more interested in having some authority, not elected, tell you what to think than allowing the messiness of us hashing it out for ourselves. That's completely wrong. I'm urging everyone to do what they can,

to develop the critical faculties necessary so that when they consume a podcast like Brett's, and they're told blaringly that Epstein could still be alive because of some game theory nonsense that Brett cooked up and just throws out there and then rakes in the clicks and the cash from, that they'll have the cognitive abilities to see that they're being fed total nonsense.

And you notice he doesn't even attempt to defend what he puts out on the merits. He accuses me of wanting to arrogate some authority to myself to gate keep or to, restrict anybody from consuming this podcast slop, I'm not saying that is even possible to do. What I'm saying is we need a social norm of some kind so that you face some kind of penalty for putting out this stuff. And then also, and then using that as a basis, you're telling people, you're telling people that there were children were eaten by cannibals. And you don't think

there's an issue with that. You bring up a communist manifesto? Of course, I don't want to ban books or even ban podcasts. I want a more healthy media ecosystem where there's some penalty to be paid if you chronically there is dilute the masses there is you are contributing to there is a penalty to be paid and also oh my god on tucker's podcast you and him are so you're so concerned epstein is the rosetta stone the pedophile trafficking rosetta stone that will explain why trump went to war with iran trump has no power because of this hidden

power structure rather than doing a real political critique that is fact-based and empirical what you do is invoke all these metaphysical clap trap concepts that gets everybody you know worked up and gets you a lot of that revenue and everybody is much less well-informed because there's a proceeding my part not hey hold on hold on hold on right i do i do like how micro trace his response to when the opponent isn't punching back he just keeps punching He just is going on. I know. Like this, you can imagine, Matt, this in a different situation where he's talking about

lab leak and he would be arguing in the exact same manner, right? Like against a scientist or on COVID vaccines or that kind of thing. So it is enjoyable to see this particular personality characteristic being deployed against a worthy target. like Brett, but just remember that this particular technique of rapid firing things and talking over people, it's like a technique that you can use regardless of whether you're arguing for something that's right or not. In this case, Tracy is arguing for a reasonable point of view, but yeah. Yeah, important to remember. Yeah. And okay, so now, Matt, as well, there's, of course,

Brett, when he feels under pressure, he has to go to his greatest hits compilation, and anti-vaccine stuff is up there, right? So listen to this appeal. My podcast was demonetized for five years by YouTube for discussing vaccine dangers with the MRNA platform, okay? We paid a huge. Everybody's life doesn't revolve around vaccines. No, a lot of people's do, and a lot of people aren't here because they took them. And there's a very clear reason. I'm going to disagree with you on that one. You want to disagree?

Then let's do it. I don't disagree with your right to say what you're saying, but I think that they saved millions of lives. And I think that the science is on that side anyway. You know that the claim that they saved millions of lives is based entirely on a computer model. I would moderate this battle. Holy grand mother. Yeah.

What did he say at the end there? So the moderator didn't like this, this moderator, I, I think, I like him least of all. There's a certain respect, because the thing that he said there was, I had no idea what I agreed to moderate. Like, he doesn't know that Brett's an anti-vaccine. Okay, so this is the first time he's hearing,

you know, like Brett saying, oh, the vaccine's killed. And he's like, oh, whoa, whoa, whoa. I don't agree with that. And, you know, like, so he doesn't know, Brett's an anti-vaccine guy. And he's kind of in real time being like, what the hell is?

going on. So he wants to say, I'm not endorsing anti-vaccine stuff. So, yeah, Brett is saying, you know, look, I had all these costs to my monetization on YouTube. Of course, he did just send the money to a different platform. Like he, I can't remember which one it was. He went to, it might have been Petron at that time that went up, or it might have been Kitt or Locals or Odyssey or Rumble, whatever it is. You know, Brett has all our monetization, not just YouTube. But he's saying, you know, I paid this cost because I'm a renegade truth teller. And there are penalties to people like me who tried to, you know, push things forward. Yeah, yeah.

Demonetization is far too good for that kind of anti-vaxxery. But, yeah. Yeah. And I think Michael Tracy also here doesn't push back because he probably agrees with various points that Brett would make about the public health response and all that kind of things. So he wants to keep arguing. But also, Matt, just to highlight how deluded Brett is, he thinks that his anti-vaccine stuff is like a round of applause-worthy position, right? So you hear this again.

He talks about boosters. Right, I just ask, how many of you are still getting your boosters? I don't see. Oh, there's a hand. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 in a room of, I don't know, 100. So you're welcome for that. That was podcasters who were not accepting the mainstream narrative, challenging it. And because of those podcasters, you now have reasonable doubt that this virus originated from nature.

You know it might have come from a lab. You know that those vaccines have massive risks that were not acknowledged up front. And maybe you even know that there are repurposed drugs that can safely deal with the disease. That's a benefit of podcasting. If we didn't have it, you'd still all be taking your boosters. That's so crazy. When was the last time you had a COVID booster, Chris? I know, that's so stupid.

Like, the boosters are, like, years ago was the last recommended booster or that kind of thing. So Brett taking that as vindication. And of course, he's something at Ivermectin there, right, as well with the repurpose drug that can safely deal with the virus. And you heard a moderator say, interesting. at the like a gear idiot this one it's so dumb so stupid I mean just to be super clear

like even if like take someone like I probably barely took the last booster that was offered to be you know what I mean because COVID had become essentially a non-issue and you'd already been infected right? Yeah yeah I'd already taken like you know multiple ones or whatever and I knew that

you know just like it was commonly understood that there is a there is an asymptote right and getting you know further boosts will bump you up closer to that asymptote, but there is a law of diminishing return. So, you know, the marginal utility was already decreasing. So to take someone who, for instance, didn't choose to get their second or third booster

that doesn't put them automatically in Brett's camp of being a rapid anti-vaxxer. That's insane. It's so dumb. But I guess in Brett's watch. Yeah, it is. I mean, that shows the insights into Brett's mind. And the notion that, like, you know, you heard loudly invoked and the dangers of getting vaccines and stuff.

So he's very proud, as we know, of his anti-vaccine thing, which counter to the actual reality where his advocacy will have killed various people or in the best case made them sick, loved ones sick by, you know, increasing vaccine hesitancy and so on. I mean, statistically speaking, it's very clear, right? I mean, yes, there is some small inferential leaps, but in places like the United States, which were strongly influenced by that kind of libertarian, slightly government-suspicious, anti-Fauchy type of narratives that were pushed by Brett Weinstein and all the rest of them, Joe Rogan, Brett Weinstein certainly wasn't alone. They all did their part. But the differential rates of mortality are massive.

So even if only a small portion of that is attributable to these influences, then it's definitely a very large number of people who would be alive, if not for them. So yeah, fuck them. And it's so annoying. Like that's the power, isn't it, of just living in this alternative universe. In Brett's universe, oh, all the evidence that the vaccines did anything is all based on computer models or something. It's like it's so delusional and so self-serving. Yeah, and actually I'm triggered by this as well because I was going through some of the old material, including Brett and Heather's stuff.

And it was one of the times I was reading back through the transcript. It was one of the times I got a bit upset because at every point, both of them cloaked themselves in the garb of science. They use all the language. They take every opportunity to emphasize how they epitomize all the very. best of science while undermining it at every opportunity and with real world consequences. It's, uh, I do you have a clip that will highlight that they're still doing that now and in this very talk. But the just before it, Matt, I just want to give one body blow to the moderator, who already he knew nothing about Brett, despite, you know, moderating. Wouldn't you just Google

if you're going to moderate free people, like just Google who they are, whatever the case. You can see what his concern is here from him responding to the tone of the conversation that's been going on. We're going to give Lauren the floor a little longer because you guys have talked a lot. And also, she seems to make some sense. Second. Have I made no sense? You have made some sense, but you were also very vitriolic, which sometimes detracts.

Right. So, I should probably ramp up. So you hear the host kind of being like, you know, you're too vitriolic and I don't like that, right? And then Lawrence Open, by the way, in this debate, her takes are mostly moderate, reasonable ones, you know, kind of echoing Michael Tracy's position and talking about the podcast ecosystem having bad effects. But they're not really not like Michael Tracy in terms of delivery, but in terms of the message, they're quite similar. And Michael Tracy points this out leading to this. She's just advancing a nicer version of my thesis. I know. I know.

I'm sorry, there should be some social. I'm Canadian and it's good to be nice. Not a legal repercussion, not Trump coming in and throwing you in a prison cell, but some kind of social repercussion for putting out a segment on March 28, 2006. Okay, okay. On the second largest podcast in the United States. Make your comments a little more general. Michael.

Michael. I mean, we're on stage with people who are they I understand. All right, all right. But I don't want to bring out the pitch for it. Then I get to respond. Yes. So Brett, since you like alluding to it because it really gets everybody enticed and enthralled

and clicks on the video or downloads the podcast or tunes into the stream, why don't you just say straight up whether you think Donald J. Trump has been blackmailed by Jeffrey Epstein and or Israel, and that is why he went to war with Iran. Because you like just. Okay, let him answer that question. Let him answer that. Okay. Michael.

Michael. Michael. Let him answer that. The Brett Wine Scene podcast, to spell it out. Michael. Brett, please answer the question. Thank you.

I'm entertained. All right. Are you not entertained? Brett, briefly and without the vitrile would be nice. I did not sign it to be here on trial. So I'm going to respond as if this were a podcast. We're just having a discussion. Now, Michael has advocated that there should be some penalty for being wrong.

Okay. Now, my point would be in science, and I am a scientist, I'm also a game theorist, so this is my specialty. In my world, the only arbiter of truth is not whether it's published in a journal, and it's not whether it's said by somebody with an advanced degree. It's whether it has predictive power, a model's value, its truth value, is built entirely based on whether it has predictive. It's such a pretentious little worm. I know. He's an expert on game theory, is he? Yeah, according to himself.

Yeah. Does his conspiracy hypotheses have predictive power in his opinion? This is how science works in Brett's mind. It's just like Brett and Eric and all of them constantly saying, I'm a scientist. And like, no, you're not. You're a conspiracy theorist hypothesis. with a degree. That's your actual occupation. And also, you heard Michael Tracy,

for all his faults, of which there are many, he waffles on, but then he gets to the point of, well, you meet this claim. So do you stand by that? This specific claim. Do you endorse that right now? Because you've, you know, insinuated that. And then you can hear how Brett's going to respond, right, which is immediately now in science, we have these things called theories and models. And so he never returns to it. Yeah. No. Of course,

it never answers that question. And yeah, just as a science dance, basically on front of the audience. And you heard the moderator there again, Matt. Like, I understand he's exasperator, by the way Michael Tracy conducts himself. But he also is like,

Brett, can you respond? And, you know, let's try to keep it not personified. I don't want to get the pitchforks or whatever. So like, his main concern, even when he's heard, Brett, do his anti-vaxing thing. Let's just all be polite and not directly criticize each other. And oh my God, I don't care of your Canadians. Stop being such a fucking wet blanket.

Yeah, this guy is insufferable. And they're all insufferable. Like it's something when the white nationalist is the most likable person. It's white nationalist. You know, I have it stay hard. Yeah, that's really something. Yeah. Yeah, notice Brett's thing there of, you know, I didn't come here to be put on trial because

he certainly didn't, right? Because he would never put himself into a situation where somebody is going to challenge him publicly. And this is, that's the whole thing, which is zero responsibility. They'll never put themselves in a position where they need to take responsibility for what they've said or done. They only have those sorts of interviews or appearances with people that are going to give them softball interviews where they mutually praise each other. That is the only public discourse that gurus like Brett are prepared to engage in. And if anyone attempts to pin them down or tries to get them to justify what they've said or explain. themselves, they will get in a huff and say, well, you know, I don't have to do any of that.

I don't have to explain myself to you. Yeah. Anyway, I don't need to stand for this. That's right. How dare you? How dare you? How dare you? How dare you?

That's right. You know, that is the issue with podcaster stand. You know what I mean? Like at some point, I guess previously in human culture and media and so on, in all kinds of forums, whether you're a journalist, a politician, any kind of public figure. There was some kind of expectation that if you were an influential figure saying controversial and influential things, then at some point, other people might be able to challenge you and you might actually have to back that stuff up.

But there's just like they take maximum freedom from the whole free speech, you know, free discussion ideas kind of thing. But it's like children because there's no responsibility attached to anything they say or do. Yeah, yeah. And it's, I mean, I think it's particularly obvious in the podcast and guru content that we cover. But this kind of sycophantic interactions, it's beneficial for both parties in most occasions, right? because they get to cross-promote, they get to present themselves as insightful and important people with big ideas. And we are going to look at Professor Zhang right next on the next decoding, his appearance on the diary of a CEO.

And you see that dynamic exactly in play where Professor Zhang is the important big thinker. And the diary of the CEO guy is the thoughtful, open-minded interviewer who's there to absorb the big ideas. and bring things together and challenging him or, you know, pointing out that he's talking bullshit is just like completely antithetical to both of their interests in that. And it's such a corruption of like the intellectual tradition. And I mean across multiple disciplines, across multiple cultures, right? All of the intellectual traditions that humanity has had has involved, yes, some speculation, some creative and controversial ideas being tossed around,

and then some kind of debate, some kind of rejoinders, some kind of hammering it out. And that's the two sides to intellectual progress of any kind. And academia and science is just one instantiation of that, right? Which is you can have your theories, you can have your speculations and your hot takes and so on, and other people will get their turn with their rejoicing.

joined us and that's what happens. But like the public discourse in at the moment with podcasts and all of these characters, they just do the first bit. You know, it reminds me of the Amiga rule from the sense makers. They, they just want the first bit where you get to speculate and play around with ideas. But they never get challenged. They never get scrutinized. They never get taken any further. It's like evolution and natural selection. It's like you have the Cambrian an explosion of ideas, but you never weed out any non-functional organisms. Things don't evolve. Things don't move forward with that the other side of the coin.

So anyway, it just strikes me as, it's just reminding me how childish the, what discourse is at the moment. Well, I've got another clip for you, Matt, that speaks to this from a different guru, but a family member of our esteemed Brett, the other Weinstein, Eric, he went on Rogin. I've got a couple of clips from it that I want to highlight, but one that speaks exactly to what you're talking about is, you know, Eric was challenged in public on a alternative media platform. Pierce Morgan, who brought Sean Carroll on to respond to Eric. And Eric did not like that, right? And in general, after that, Eric has talked about how he, you know, doesn't like doing that kind of appearance.

He much more prefers to be invited by himself and have time to. cover things. And he's talked about that interaction that he had with Sean Carroll in several places, complaining about it, right, on Twitter, relitigating it and so on. I'm speaking relitigate it so much. Yeah. Yeah. Whereas Sean Carroll has generally said, you know, oh, that was an annoying interaction and whatnot, but he doesn't want to make a habit out of doing that or whatever. So when he's been invited, again, the furlough, he's kind of like, oh, I said my piece, you know, like, let's move on. Eric, no. So Eric, no. So Eric.

And Joe. That's not that Eric rolls. No. Eric and Joe, of course. And this is very much Joe Rogan's habit as well. He likes to get in a little safe space with his chosen intellect. 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. 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.