Knowledge Fight - #130D: Endgame, Part 4

Episode Date: February 22, 2018

Today, Dan and Jordan soldier forward through the exceedingly stupid Alex Jones "documentary" Endgame. In this installment, the gents wrap up some Nazi talk, get pretty sick of Alex's shit, then Dan breaks down the 1934 film Tomorrow's Children.

Hey, everybody. Welcome back to Knowledge Fight. I'm Dan. The voice you will hear shortly is my co-host and dear friend Jordan. This is part four of our five-part coverage of Alex Jones's very generous to call it a documentary, but we'll go ahead since that's the naming convention he came up with. His film, his flick, Endgame, that's the name of it, drew a blank there for a second. I've been doing nothing, but researching, recording, and editing about this documentary for the last two, three weeks, and yet still can't come up with a name on the spot. Anyway, guys, where we last left off on episode three, we were in the middle of some Nazi talk, and as promised, at the end of the last episode, that Nazi talk continues at the beginning of this episode, but there's not too much left of it. Look forward to us to get into some other bullshit. Alex is lying about a couple of quotes that he's faking, a couple more quotes that he's faking, and then I'll be honest, this part four, this is where I think I started to lose it. I think I got a little bit mad in the middle. I think I gathered myself decently, but there might be some cracks starting to show here in what would be our seven of me and Jordan sitting around and recording this nonsense.

Anyway, enjoy, and I don't know why I needed to put an end there. Just enjoy. Andy in Kansas, you're on the air. Thanks for holding. Hello, Alex. I'm a first-time caller. I'm a huge fan. I love your work. There's an argument to be made that what they were doing was actually defrauding these foundations. Yeah, I was going to say, this sounds like a big-ass scam. They probably didn't mean to, but in the end, the product is that's what they did. They didn't start off as a scam. Anyway. At the end of the war, the Allies protected from prosecution the very Nazi scientist that had tortured thousands of people to death. I wonder why?

I have to assume that what he's referring to is Mengele, and that's not true. They didn't defend him. He escaped. Mengele escaped to South America. Well, no, it's not untrue that they protected. There were many scientists who were absolutely involved at a high level who were protected, who were taken, and who were... But a lot of them were not involved with crimes against humanity and war crimes. Oh, yes, they were. Oh, yes, they were, Dan. Yeah. Dan, that would be naive of you to think.

Yeah. Naive. Well, do you know any other names? Yeah, David Schmarken. Citation needed. David Schmarken. Citation needed. Franklin Schmarken. That was his brother.

Okay. This is now just me making fun of the German language, and I apologize for it. It's all allowing that what you're saying is possibly true, but you're not proving it because you don't have any fucking evidence. Dude, okay, fine, fine. I'm just saying it's naive to think that the American government did not protect genociders. Well... Considering our history of protecting genociders, as well as our desire for knowledge and the immense need at the time to defeat the Russians in developing whatever, of course they protected genociders.

There's a bunch of rebuttals that I would have to that, and a number of them involved the idea that a lot of people who had access to the research that was being done, and the results of it were not involved with the crimes against humanity. Right. And so a lot of people were immune from prosecution and didn't actually commit war crimes, and the United States could have swallowed them up. Most of the people who were involved in Project Paperclip, a lot of the Nazi scientists who came over, like Werner von Braun, Yes. were in unrelated areas. Right.

They weren't involved with the exterminations and crimes against humanity. Right. The Nuremberg trials were specifically set up in such a way to only prosecute for a couple different things that were within the spectrum of the court. Right. The purview of the court. Right. What was in their jurisdiction? And I don't...

I obviously don't think they had 100% accuracy, but I don't think that someone like Mengele would have escaped prosecution. Oh, yeah. Alex Jones said specifically singular scientist, not scientists. Oh, he said scientist? Yes. He's talking about Mengele. That's stupid. That's a stupid thing to say.

Why would you say that? Mengele's history is fucking amazing, though. Like, realistically, to be a Nazi... Is this our evil Margaret Sanger situation? We're like, respect, dude. Respect. Not to give you that. Not even respect, but I'm amazed.

Like, the fact that he had the foresight to know, like, this shit's going down. Right. And escaped 10 days before the camps were liberated. Right. And just got away is amazing. Clearly the smartest Nazi there's ever been. And the fact that he did get captured and they used his name, but because of just some sort of fuck up with record keeping, they were like, oh, you're not one of the people we were looking for. Yeah.

He got released and ended up escaping to South America. Like, the luck that he had in terms of that, it's just... It's unbelievable, but at the same time... Luck? Or mind control. Maybe it's mind control. It's possible. Boy from Brazil.

Yeah. So he did escape to South America. No one's really protecting him. And Alex Jones, making that claim, he requires far more proof. Then citation needed. The Nazi brand of eugenics had embarrassed the elites, but they had no intention of... They were so embarrassed. The allies were literally fought with each other over who would get top Nazi eugenicists.

Well... It didn't matter if the SS doctors had tortured tens of thousands to death. They were free to go. Not really true. The angel of death, Joseph Mengele, and his boss, Atmar von Verscher, were not prosecuted. Atmar, that's crazy. And von Verscher even continued his work in Germany after the war. And he ate brains.

Mengele did not escape prosecution at the Nuremberg trial because he escaped to South America. He was not... He escaped escaping. Yeah, he was not there. He escaped it in the very literal sense as opposed to the metaphorical sense. Most people weren't tried in abstentia. There were only a couple of people who were like, we're going to try you even though like you're dead or you're gone, something like that.

But here's the thing. The Nuremberg trials were incredibly complicated. Oh. The first thing to keep in mind when you talk about the Nuremberg trials is there's a jurisdictional issue that it was only limited to war crimes, crimes against humanity, waging wars of aggression, and a crime of that variety. Considered under those guidelines, there's no reason to think that Atmar von Verscher would have been found guilty or was even deserving of the court's attention.

What he did, we rightly can look back on as grotesque and awful now, but it didn't rank with the Nuremberg trials. At the time, there was the appearance that he was just a scientist who benefited from receiving some samples from Mengele and Auschwitz, but not in any way an active participant in any of that. But history calls that into question a little bit. So here's the thing. Von Verscher was Mengele's doctoral advisor or whatever coming up.

He was sort of a mentor and von Verscher had a completely separate research institute and he may have received some samples from Mengele. He was not involved in the camps in any way. Who among us has not received a Mengele sample? Well, there's plausible deniability in terms of like that. If there's no way you're going to prove that he committed crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes of aggression, those sorts of things, you're not going to prove that. So if you could, though, that would make a great documentary.

If you bring him up on trials in the Nuremberg court, all you're going to do is exonerate him of those crimes and waste everybody's time. That's not going to be a good thing. No. So there's no reason why he ever would have been brought up. Now, again, in hindsight, we can look back and be like, hey, we might add that one a little while. He's probably way more guilty than we know. It's kind of like, so the way I look at it is it's kind of like the way people look at Tanya Harding.

Like at the time and for a while, people saw her as just a victim and she had no involvement with Galouli and his actions. But now in hindsight, we realize she was fucking involved. There's no doubt she was involved with that shit. So there's something like that. It's too little, too late. You can't do anything about it. Anyway.

Wait, which I didn't see the movie. Jeff Galouli was her husband who hit Nancy. Right. Right. Tanya was the one who wasn't hit. No. Yeah. Nancy was the one who was hit.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So after the Nuremberg trials, there were the doctor trials in 1946 to 1947, which would not we've been, we've been locked up in Nazis for a while now. So not as long as the roads as far as, as far as Tanya Harding and anti-carrying go. Yeah. That was on TV.

Right. And that, no, not the, not the moment. Not the actual hitting, but like the, like on TV, on the day, people were like, this Olympic athlete had her husband beat the shit out of her competitor. I'm not sure that's how they reported it, but yeah. It sounds about right. Yeah. Right.

In hindsight, yes. How fucking crazy would that be to live through? It's pretty crazy. I remember it. That's bananas. I was like 10 when that happened. I know. I was, I was very young.

I remember like, I see the, the videos in my head of Nancy Kerrigan crying and like, nah, you know, the whole thing. It's amazing to live through though. Like the idea that that is a real thing that happened to people. No big deal. I was a Kerrigan guy and this, I don't, I refuse to, I think, I don't think it's going to exonerate her. Tanya Harding is a monster, but also a terrible victim of abuse and I feel sorry for her,

but also was she a good skater though? She's amazing. She was really good. Right. Amazing. She was one of the only people to hit a triple axle in competition, but it wasn't in the Olympics. Yeah.

Yeah. Why did the, why did her husband? No, Nancy Kerrigan was also really good. Tanya Harding was really good. Right. She was one of the triple axle. Right. No, no, that's what I'm saying.

The reason that Jeff Galooly hit Nancy Kerrigan was that Nancy Kerrigan was probably going to make the Olympic team and there was only so much room on that team. Oh, it was for qualifying? Yeah. It wasn't even for, yeah. And he's, and he's a mobster. Dude. He has deep mob ties.

Really? His name is Jeff Galooly. That's how he solves problems? Yes. This, this whole thing. There's a bodyguard with a lead pipe. That's how he solves fucking problems. I don't see how you solve problems.

You don't have a friend with a pipe. Good point. Good point. Do you want to get through this or not? I don't know. I want to get to this bottom of this Tanya Harding situation. You got to the bottom of it. So in 1946 and 47, there was a doctor's trial of Nazi scientists.

And this would also not have succeeded in finding Ottmar von Verscher guilty of any of the charges that were in the jurisdiction of that court. Right. The charges they were able to make were crimes against humanity, war crimes, performing medical experience with experiments without the subject's consent on prisoners of war and civilians of occupied countries in the course of which the experiments and the defendants committed murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities and other human acts.

Also planning and performing the mass murder of prisoners of war and civilians of occupied countries stigmatized as aged, insane, incurably ill, deformed and so on by gas lethal injections and diverse other means in nursing homes, hospitals and asylums during the euthanasia programs and participating in the mass murder of concentration camp inmates. And the other crime they could have charged them with was membership in the SS. None of these would have applied to von Verscher. It would have been applied to Mengele, but he had already escaped to South America.

No one was protecting anybody. It was just a waste of time to prosecute von Verscher. Right. There was nothing they could got him. Right. He was clean, got away clean. All of his witnesses though had been hit in the leg with a lead pipe. There were no witnesses.

You just got samples. You just got samples from Mengele. I think grandpa Galooly would disagree over there. You know what I'm saying? He was there. He was hanging out with Mussolini and von Verscher. The genocists were angry that their great work had been exposed. They were pissed.

They then scrambled to camouflage their agenda. Eugenics quarterly became social biology. The American birth control league became planned parenthood. New terms like transhumanism, population control, sustainability, conservation, and environmentalism replaced racial hygiene and social Darwinism. I don't know what's going on here at all. Many eugenicists of the previous period engaged in what they called crypto eugenics. Purposely taking their eugenics beliefs underground, they became highly restricted anthropologists,

biologists, and geneticists in the post-war world. All of those things are eugenics. I don't think that's what that thing is depicting, that drawing. The Allies then smuggled thousands of Nazi scientists out of Germany and placed them in key scientific positions, ranging from bio weapons to rocketry throughout the military-industrial complex. The founder of IBM was a devout follower of Hitler. That is a little extreme perhaps.

Thomas Watson was given a medal by Hitler, but he also returned it later. I don't know if we can find evidence that he was a dedicated follower of Hitler, but he had some problems. Thomas J. Watson had supplied his punch card computers and IBM technicians to the Nazis for use in the death camps. Tattoos on camp victims were IBM human identification numbers which fed into the computers. Is that true?

I feel like that's not true, but I don't know if that's not true. That's not how punch card technology worked back then. That's what concerned me right off the bat when he was like, oh, well these tattoos mean punch cards. I don't understand how a computer at that time could then read the tattoo, but fine. The problem that I come to is that all of the citations for this aren't online anymore. It's all pages that have been taken down. I have no idea what he's trying to cite,

but Thomas Watson and IBM did have involvement with giving punch card technology to the Nazis that they were able to use that made the camps more efficient. Now the fucked up piece of it. Well, again, the ovens were made by a company named Siemens and Siemens makes all of your shit now too. They're more criminals. But the problem that I have with it is that IBM, they did provide punch card technology that bordered on computing,

but the real problem is not that they gave them support. It's that they didn't stop supporting the Germans when the Holocaust happened. The business relationship between Germany and IBM and the company that it was before, which was a German company, predated the rise of Hitler by 23 years. They were already doing all this business in Germany and just didn't stop. That part is incredibly fucked up and Thomas Watson should be deeply ashamed of himself. I can't imagine that because the histories all that I have read have been so overflowing with this concept of like,

well, we just couldn't believe it. Like that kind of excuse kept coming up over and over and over again where you talk about the people who developed the technology that they used and when you ask them like, well, we were told what it was being used for this year, but we could not believe it. And then two years later is like, oh shit, that's real. Like the Holocaust, again, where we talk about people denying the Holocaust now,

the Holocaust deniers were far and legion during the war, even right up to the end of the war. And the way you're even saying it, think about it year by year, the difference between like 36 and 37 or 37 and 38, 38 and 39, 39 and 40. Like the difference between those years in terms of perspective, what was publicly available information, it's very difficult to wrestle with. Even soldiers in like 44 were saying, well, we didn't believe that the Holocaust was real until we saw it.

And you're like, well, yeah, because how could you possibly, what kind of conception for it? Like if it weren't for the Holocaust, you wouldn't be able to conceive of a Holocaust. Like it's impossible to imagine. Well, by now there have been other genocides. Well, exactly, yeah, right now we've been crushing it. I mean, we're on genocide like 15 since then.

I think there is some sort of responsibility. I believe that exists for like these business people who were doing business with them to have some sort of oversight of like, what are we contributing to? But maybe I'm being idealistic. I'm not entirely sure. I think that's where we start talking about unregulated actual capitalism because unregulated capitalism says that corporations have no responsibility. All they are is machines to make money.

But I thought they were people. Well, yeah, but they're people who are machines built to make money. Interesting. Transhumanism. Like how all people are. But back to this, I have no idea. I can't find any documentation or evidence that the numbers that were tattooed on people were used with Watson or IBM computers. Right, but it was probably IBM.

Yeah. Continue. IBM had used similar punch card systems as early as 1928 in a Jamaican race mixing study. The first real computers were literally invented by a eugenicist for eugenics. He said literally, technically the first computer was created in 1822. You could say that an abacus is technically a computer. Yeah, where do you, where does he want to start?

Let's just grab the name that he's going to call. Even if you use just like as an electronic computing machine as opposed to something like a Turing machine, like that kind of thing. That is, that predates this. Anyway, but he said literally, that's why I got trigger. Yeah, I'm very, I'm very unhappy. U.N. Shifton and unrepentant eugenicist Julian Huxley argue that since the leaders of eugenics had founded the environmental and conservation movements

that they should be used as vehicles in the formation of the world government. None cited. Just as H.G. Wells had envisioned, this government would be controlled by a scientific dictatorship and would be guided by the principles of eugenics. Huxley created the World Wildlife Foundation, the Bilderberg Founder and former SS officer Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Again. Oh, P.B. of the NEDS?

Again, the SS group that he was in, it was a largely equestrian social club. To believe otherwise is to believe the space command guy that Daniel Estelin talks to. Horses in space. And Prince Philip of England. In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation. Boy. Prince Philip, reported by Deutsche Press Agentur, DPA, August 1988.

Well, that's a quote, Dan. We're at what? We're an hour and 43 now. This is quote number seven. How we doing on quote statistics, Dan? This shit's fake. Dan, we're going to come to you in the quote dome. This shit is fake. It's a paraphrasing of something he did say.

It's a paraphrasing of the introduction he wrote to a book called If I Were an Animal by Fleur Cowles. Here's the actual quote. I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers that it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings towards the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist? I must confess that I'm tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus. The book itself is just a compilation of famous people answering the question in the title If I Were an Animal. What would I be?

And so this is kind of a, I mean, it's misleading use of this. What a great book. Yeah. First off. Is that a way to write books? It was in 1988. Hey, I've got a question. What if suns were green?

I'm going to ask famous people. We got a book deal. There is a cottage industry for that. I actually believe you. Probably all written by people who are publicist interns. You're right. You're absolutely right. But be that as it may.

We got to get a new gig. This is a vaguely correct quote, which is a new high for Alex. If you are a famous person and would like to answer a banal question, we will be writing a book. Sure. If I was a moose, what kind of moose would I be? The knowledge buddy. Surly moose. Says Dan.

Surly moose. Oldest Huxley, author of Brave New World and brother of Julian Huxley. Oh, I get it. Huxley in 1962, shortly before his death. He admitted that his best-selling book Brave New World, written in 1932, was based not on fiction, but on what the elite were actually planning to implement. He didn't admit that this is about a half an hour long speech with a Q&A session afterwards. You can find it on YouTube.

There will be a link on KnowledgeFight.com. It's actually a fucking awesome speech. Huxley is a very charming orator. Alex is going to play clips that are selectively edited to make it sound like he's saying that there is an actual plan that he was talking about, but it's not. If you listen to the entire... We don't have the time to listen to the entire lecture, but I recommend everyone go. We're on hour eight.

It's really good. Quick question. The context within which the connotation of admitted would make sense. Are you torturing all this, Huxley? To get him to admit this information that he has been fighting against admitting this whole time? He's giving a charming speech. Oh, well, then he finally admitted it, right? So he's been wrecked by all of this guilt.

For 30 years. For 30 years, he's been wrecked by the guilt of knowing I wrote this amazing best-selling book that was actually me stealing the plans of the wealthy. And now finally, in this charming speech, I can say I admit it. That was it. Also, you know how Alex... That's his plan? You know how Alex Jones likes to talk about satire and how he does satire?

Satire. Sometimes, strictly speaking, Brave New World and 1984 are both satire. What? They're technically satire. No, don't understand. But be that as it may. I'm pretty sure they were predictive programming. Give a little context here about the speech itself.

He's giving a speech to this student collection at Berkeley. This screen grab you have up is hurting me. Yeah, it's probably... One of his eyes has a twinkle in it. It's creepy. He looks like the Sandman. I'm sorry. Let me get off this screen.

It's very frustrating to me. Thank you very much. There we go. Now you've got to go up. All right. The context of the speech, if you listen to the entire thing, is that he's having a discussion. He's talking about the fears about what form authoritarianism could possibly take. Right.

And of course, his primary point is whether or not the Brave New World model or the 1984 model is more likely. And of course, he's like, well, I think my model is more likely. Well, yeah. I wrote it. These clips that Alex is taking out of context is him talking about how, well, when I wrote that, I came up with the drug Soma and that wasn't real. Right.

The cocktail of other medications, you might be able to create that same effect, that sort of thing. Yeah. And of course, you would never want to have an authoritarian regime that's a boot on someone's face all the time. That's way less efficient than making someone love their slavery. Exactly. And he's talking about it in these hypothetical terms, mostly about how like I was right or

well was wrong. Right. That's more what he's talking about. Right. Right. And he's doing a little professional dig. Yeah. Yeah.

I think better than this guy. Right. It's all still just in the realm of like, this could happen, but Alex is making a, what's your, what's your preferred dystopia, Dan? I would actually probably say the 1984 one. So I think it's easier to give people a fight against that. You know? Oh, okay.

So you're, okay. So you're going from dystopia. All right. All right. So you're saying that it would be harder to break free of the Aldous Huxley dystopia than the 1984 dystopia. Yeah. Okay.

Well, because my conception of dystopia is get out. Well, then essentially what you're just saying is that you would rather live in the Aldous Huxley dystopia than the 1984 dystopia. No, I'd rather live in the 1984 one and fight against it. But you're probably going to die. Totally. So you'd rather die than live in either of the dystopias. Well, I think there's a hypothetical fighting against that would work in the 1984 one.

This is way better than any therapy session you've ever been to. I want to get to the bottom of why it is you feel this way about our two dystopias. Well, death would be preferable to some sort of drugged desperate existence where everyone's being genetically modified. Would it? I just smoked. I don't know. I mean, let's talk about the matrix, bro.

All right. All right. Now that you turn the subtext text on board. And here I would like briefly to compare the parable of brave new world with another parable, which was put forth more recently, in George Orwell's book, 1984. Oh, if the British are so into it. And I'm inclined to think that the scientific dictatorships of the future, and I think they're going to be scientific dictatorships in many parts of the world, will be probably a good

deal nearer to the brave new world pattern than to the 1984 pattern. They will be a good deal nearer not because of any humanitarian qualms in the scientific dictators, but simply because the brave new world pattern is probably a good deal more efficient than the other. But if you can get people to consent to the state of affairs in which they are living, the state of servitude, the state of being, well, it seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this, that we are in process of developing.

He made a cut. I feel like he didn't quite. Okay. He made a cut. Now it's time for me to let this whole Alex Jones things go. He made a cut. It's time to start talking about Aldous Huxley. Alex made a cut right before he said, it seems to me, we're talking about with the

revolution and the reason he calls it the ultimate revolution is because it's the revolution where we will be able to change ourselves as opposed to external forces changing us. But I'm sorry. Go ahead. Nothing. I'm just now running through my old papers about brave new world in 1984 and comparing the two and figuring out it wasn't high school. It was yesterday.

I'm bored. It's red papers, recreationally. White papers. Oh, man. If anybody finds out how it is, I'm going to de-euthanize them later on. I want to make sure that they have consent to it before they do. There's a slight pettiness in this speech. I'll be honest.

Yeah. He's talking about how like. Well, because the resolution of 1984 is the main character comes to love his enslavement. So that's kind of the description that Aldous is putting towards 1984 is look at how in 1984, all of these horrible things happen and there's something that the end result is the same. Well, and there's something that the person has to endure, whereas with brave new world, all of the bad things that happen are something that the main character chooses to do, whereas

what the main character is enduring in brave new world is nothing but banal pleasure. Like that kind of thing. That's not his take on. The difference. No, I imagine not. So the difference there, and if you're Aldous Huxley, I suppose that his main difference between the two of them would be when Aldous Huxley is writing brave new world, he believes that human beings are capable of breaking through, of taking off of that, that kind

of like blind, drugged out, blissed out love and finding something better in the future. Whereas Orwell is like, people, if you beat the shit out of them long enough, they're going to love you no matter what you do. So it's a very different, like I get why Aldous, no, I've left Alex way in the past. Alex and Aldous. Alex is gone. There's there's nothing there. I'm just, I'm just Aldous's take on it is that I'm just writing a fucking junior high

paper on the two of them in my head improvisationally Aldous's take on 1984 is that it was a product of the time it was written in and that the authoritarian, totalitarian fears of the time informed his version of the scary state as opposed to his pure version that he imagined. And it's pettiness to a certain extent. It's very petty. But anyway, it's not, it's not what Alex is talking about. A whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably always will exist to get people actually to love their servitude.

People can be made to enjoy a state of affairs which by any decent standard they ought not to enjoy. And these methods I think are a real refinement on the older methods of terror because they combine methods of terror with methods of acceptance. But then there are the various other methods which one can think of, there is for example the pathological method. This was one of the things I talked about in Brave New World and the result would be that I mean you can imagine a euphoric which would make people thoroughly happy even in

the most abominable circumstances. I mean these things are possible. The literal end of the speech is him saying that now that we have all these capabilities and it is our great task to make sure that all this technology is used to make sure human dignity is protected as opposed to blah, blah, blah, creating some sort of dystopia. Now that I've outlined all of the ways in which you can be fucked over by this, it's our responsibility for you now knowing how to fuck people over with this. Don't fuck people over with this.

And be wary. Yeah. The elite have left a massive wave of destruction behind them as they cold bloodedly experiment on civilian populations as if we are lab rats. A string of congressional investigations has uncovered more than 20,000 secret tests that were carried out against the American people between 1910 and 2000. I bet that number is true individually or like 20,000 tests. Oh, well that seems low.

There's no citation for this, but I have no idea how to gauge this. I would bet that number is accurate or low, but I would also bet everything I own that the bulk of those were closer to 1910 than they were to 2000. That's a wide swath of time where medical ethics was very different. So what he's doing there is cheating time and statistics. With a fair point. Shouldn't test on people. A well-known eugenics study, the Tuskegee syphilis project killed hundreds of blacks.

You're not allowed to talk about this. Alex, Alex, you're not allowed. You specifically. Alex, you personally are not allowed to talk about this. British have tested lethal nerve gas on their own personnel on land, air, and sea. Many died instantly. Still others died grueling deaths over several years. It's fucked up.

Fucked up. The federal government commissioned secret radiation experiments on thousands of non-consenting patients. Hundreds of hospitals in the U.S. injected healthy men, women, and children with uranium and plutonium at dosage levels ranging from non-therapeutic to killing many of the test subjects. Medical ethics was really fucked up back then. Medical ethics is really fucked up.

Pregnant wives and GIs were given vitamins by base doctors that actually consisted of highly radioactive uranium-239 and plutonium-241 resulting in violent miscarriages and the death of the mothers. Soldiers, sailors, and Marines were used as guinea pigs in hundreds of atomic and hydrogen bomb tests. Patriotic Americans were radiated side by side with lab animals. Oh, man. It's a good thing they didn't use any unpatriotic Americans, though.

It's true. This is really fucked up. I mean, it's fucked up this part of our history. Now it doesn't run. Violets were forced to repeatedly fly through mushroom clouds of DNA destroying radiation. A lot of this also goes to, like, they didn't know what the effects would be. They had no idea. They should have known it wouldn't be good.

You would hope. But they didn't. Well, they used to walk. 1951 to 1961. At least in March. The U.S. Army paid Israel's health ministry 3 million lira to conduct radiation testing on Sephardic children that immigrated to Israel. The government-run public schools would tell the children that they were going to get a

medical checkup and that they were receiving an X-ray. The Pentagon had already radiated more than 4,000 institutionalized children in the United States, many of which had died. More than 110,000 of the darker-skinned Jews were killed 35,000 times the maximum dose of X-rays to the head repeatedly. Many of the children died within months. All of them lost their hair. Some still live today and endure excruciating health problems.

Alex is a fucking liar. Oh, no. Here's what he's talking about. So the only citations that he offers for this are two links to a documentary from 2003 called The Ringworm Children. Right. Have you ever heard of that? Have you ever heard of the ringworms?

I have not heard of the ringworms at all. So this was a documentary which is used by Mizrahi Jews, Jews that were descended from the Middle East as evidence of injustices they suffered immigrating to Israel in the 1950s. There were almost definitely various of your issues with their integration into Israeli society, but this is a pretty bad example of it. The film claims that at least 100,000 Mizrahi Jews were subjected to radiation levels thousands of times beyond the maximum recommended dose for treatment of ringworms.

That's not good. However, the documented dosages given to Israeli children were similar to, if not less than, those administered to about 2,000 children treated for ringworm at New York University Hospital between 1940 and 1959. Oh, so it's a very different. That's not the same. No, it's a, it's a misrepresentation. So the thing that he said is not the same as the thing that is real.

The documents show. Right. Medical historian Schifrin. That seems familiar. I feel comfortable in this territory. Yeah, this is pretty cool. That actually gets really fucked up. The reality about this is really weird.

I was doing great right up until you said actually the reality is even more fucked up. No, it's not more fucked up. It's more interesting. Okay. And it's definitely more real. It seems way more real. Well, yeah. So medical historian Schifrin Schivarts investigated.

That's a harsh name to live with. It's pretty good. Schifrin Schivarts. It flows off the tongue. Schifrin Schivarts. So she investigated this piece of history and found something pretty interesting. It turns out that the protocols that were used in treating immigrants for ringworm in Israel in the 1950s, which is what all of these things were.

Right. They were called the protocols of the youth of Zion. Of ringworm. Yes. All right. I live it's another plus five for me. That in your eyes. Alex was, I got that reference at Alex is presenting it as like these kids were sent

to their, the school nurse and got radiated. Right. Right. That's not what even the documentary he cites is about. So he can't be talking about the fearmongering documentary he cites is like, whoa, hold on dude. That's too far. Yeah.

Absolutely. Right. Using radiation to treat ringworm with immigrants in the 1950s in Israel. And that protocol was based on a campaign from 1921 to 1938 among Jews in Eastern Europe. That is mostly among Ashkenazi Jews. In the course of which 27,000 Eastern European children were irradiated in identical fashion in part to allow their families to immigrate, emigrate, excuse me, since ringworm was grounds for exclusion for immigrants to the United States and elsewhere.

The folks running the program in the 1950s believed that that previous campaign had been successful and wanted to offer the treatment to the Mizrahi immigrants as well as others who were coming into Israel because Israel had just been created and it was full of immigrants flooding. Oh, those stupid fucking bastards. What they had not taken into account, dumb bastards was a large proportion of the children who were irradiated in the initial campaign had been killed in the Holocaust. Oh, no.

So they didn't know. They didn't know. Oh, no. They didn't know. Oh, my God. Damn. That's the most heartbreaking story you've ever told. Yeah.

These kids died in the Holocaust and didn't live to the point where they would have head and neck tumors like they would have had they have survived. Oh, the Holocaust takes more lives. It's terrifying. Fuck. But you've got to be fucking kidding me. I know. It's heartbreaking.

That's horrendous. It was impossible that they could have learned from the previous campaign and it's not like that happened. Like the head and neck tumors happened to everybody. So some of the people who survived may have not had that and even if they did, they might have thought it was a side effect of living through whatever irradiation or tests that were done to them in the Holocaust. I don't know what it is about that story that is somehow brutal, even more heartbreaking.

But the thing is that that X-ray treatment was incredibly effective at treating ringworms and that antifungal would not be, it was never invented until 1959. Most of the world employed the radiation treatment, not knowing the damage they were doing. Right. Generally speaking, ringworms. Again, it was advertised in toothpaste. What? Radiation?

Yeah. They used to have radioactive toothpaste. Oh, sure. Yeah. In the fifties, everything was radioactive. You would brush your teeth and be like, look, it makes your teeth glow. You would lose your teeth. Yeah.

Yeah. Like, look, it would make your teeth glow in the sink. Generally speaking, ringworm was much more prevalent among immigrant populations in the early 1900s because the means of transportation were so cumbersome, they ended up traveling and being held in really cramped quarters and hygiene was terrible back then. As Israel was just forming in 1948, that led to huge waves of immigration, which in turn meant increased incidents of ringworm and this increased radiation treatments. You can see the tragic end result of bad medicine here, but not a coordinated attack on anybody.

Right. We had tons of immigrants that came to Ellis Island. They didn't get irradiated. Right. So we didn't have that same result here because if you were found to have ringworm, which they would check for looking in people's scalps and what have you, and if you did, you were deemed unfit and sent back to wherever you came from. Right.

Really tragic piece of like one of the few non-racist pieces of terrible immigration history. Yeah. It's just a tragedy. Yeah. And Alex Jones is using it to try and score some sort of weird points and it is not working. It's just one of the few situations where it seemed like literally everybody was rooting for good things to happen and through just a bunch of oversights and mistakes, the worst shit happened.

God. The covert testing of chemical, biological and radiological agents on unsuspecting populations continues worldwide today. From 1940 to 1979, the vast majority of the British population was sprayed by aircraft more than 2000 towels with deadly chemicals and microorganisms without ever being told. In 1968, the Pentagon tested a deadly bio-weapon on New York Subways and placed personnel in local hospitals to monitor the effects. This is fucked up.

That was in 1968. Right. There's a lot of things that have happened since then, but all of them are like inert gases that are released. It's not like anything that is actually damaging. Right. It's just these studies they need to do to figure out how it'll be affected if there were an attack.

It's still fucked up. I'm uncomfortable with it, but it's not some sort of damaging test. Although that doesn't... Aggressive sterilization of matter... Right. Right. Exactly, exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

No, I'm still on board. Yeah. The United States and England are currently testing pesticides and highly toxic experimental drugs on tens of thousands of healthy foster children, many of which die as a result of the experiments. Tons across the nation have forced inmates to participate in grisly experiments, ranging from pesticides... Don't do this.

...to have this dioxin. ...so that you can prevent it. The larger group of bull bucking... Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase... Oh, don't quote Bertrand Russell. ...until they become almost different species. Don't do it.

A revolt of the plagues will become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton, Bertrand Russell. So real quick... His thing... Even when you understand Bertrand Russell, don't quote Bertrand Russell, it winds up coming back and biting you to the ass. One of the things really quick, he was talking about stuff being tested on prisoners historically, and that is absolutely...

Yeah, no, that's 100% true. That's so true that it's a trope of America's racism. The argument that he should be making really is more about... Race. Well, there's that. Race and class, certainly. But also, it should be about the system of prisons that we have, where we have exploitative just an entire...

It's enslavement. Well, yeah. To the point where your body is enslaved. Anyway, this Bertrand Russell quote... Yeah. That sucks. Let's get into it. That sucks.

Let's go on down into the fucking hole of quoting Bertrand Russell we're in now. God damn it. So this quote is actually real. No, I know this. I know this Bertrand Russell quote, which is why I said, don't quote Bertrand Russell. I don't quote Bertrand... Look, I like Bertrand Russell. I think he has a lot of very smart things to say.

I'm not going to quote him because most of what he says winds up coming back to bite yourself in the ass. So this is from a book he wrote called The Impact of Science and Society, and it's taken from a passage where Russell is describing the horrors that could come into the world were the Nazis to have won World War II. He's clearly and very specifically talking negatively about how things could become a dystopia very quickly if a totalitarian state were to apply scientific principles. Some context.

A quote. A totalitarian government with scientific bent might do things that to us would seem horrifying. The Nazis were more scientific than the present rulers of Russia and were more inclined towards the sort of atrocities that I have in mind. If they had survived, they would probably have soon taken to selective breeding. Any nation which adopts this practice will within a generation secure great military advantages.

The system one may surmise will be something like this. Except possibly in the governing aristocracy, all but 5% of the males and 30% of the females will be sterilized. The 30% of females will be expected to spend the years from 18 to 40 in reproduction in order to secure adequate cannon fodder. As a rule, artificial insemination will be preferred to the natural method. Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between ruler and ruled will increase until they become almost different species.

A revolt of the plebs will become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton. There's the quote. Such possibilities on any large scale may seem a fantastic nightmare, but I firmly believe that if the Nazis had won the last war and if in the end they had acquired world supremacy, they would, before long, have established a system, as I have been suggesting, to prevent these scientific horrors, democracy is necessary but not sufficient. There must also be that kind of respect for the individual that inspired the doctrine

of the rights of man. So flash forward a little bit. Quote, there is a tendency which is inevitable and less consciously combated for organizations to coalesce and so to increase in size until ultimately almost all become merged into the state. A scientific oligarchy, accordingly, is bound to become what is called totalitarian, that is to say all aspects, all important forms of power will become a monopoly of the state. This monolith system has sufficient merits to be attractive to many people, but to my

mind its demerits are far greater than its merits. Moving forward a little bit more to page 49, I think the evils that have grown up in the Soviet Russia will exist in a greater or less degree wherever there is scientific government which is securely established and is not dependent on popular support. Now forward to page 55, in concrete fact when it is pretended that the state has a good different, oh a good different from that of its citizens, what is really meant is that the good of the government or of the ruling class is more important than that of the other people.

Such a view can have no basis except arbitrary power. I think that so long as powerful democracies exist, democracy will in the long run be victorious over dictators and on that basis I allow myself a moderate optimism to the future. Fuck you Alex. Yeah, but also fuck you Bertrand. Yeah, that's true. You were way wrong. You were so wrong on all of that.

Yeah. On all of it. Well, not really. Not all of it. Not in terms of the thinking. I would say the thinking is good. Yeah, that's again, that's why I get it. It comes down to practical application and how shitty people are.

No, I wouldn't do it. Anyway. I wouldn't quote Bertrand Russell. Big up Bertrand. It's negative five points. HG Wells, oldest Huxley, Bertrand Russell and hundreds of other eugenicists constantly bragged about how the establishment believed themselves to be a separate, more advanced species than the common man.

Top Eugenicists were bold enough to admit that their real goal was not improving the heredity of the commoner, but to further dumb them down so that they could be more manageable. Look at those pants. Nobel Prize winner Russell wrote at length about how vaccinations filled with mercury and other brain imaging compounds would induce partial chemical lobotomies and develop a survival zombie population. Nope. Diet, injections and injunctions will combine from a very early age to produce the sort

of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities considered desirable and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. This is the exact same book. Yeah. It's the same context. Yeah. Yeah. Bertrand Russell.

Yep. We get it. Over a hundred years ago, eugenicist social planners said they used mind-altering drugs to control. Bertrand was trying to go inside the most evil mind he could think of and you were like, well, that sounds like him. By 2007, more than 20% of the U.S. population were on some type of prescription antidepressant. But in the case of foster children, a sector where the state has total control, at least

two-thirds are forced to take a cocktail made up of, on average, seven psychotropic drugs. Do you like that's not true? One of the Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians, Joe Burkett, testified before the State House Select Committee hearing on psychotropic drugs in foster care and shocked the public when he said that two-thirds of foster children in Texas had been placed on psychiatric drugs because they were very, very sick from a bad gene pool. A lot of these kids come from bad gene pools. They don't have stable parents making good decisions.

Besides the gene pools that have been traumatized by abuse, neglect, and problems, then they've been traumatized by separation and all those things predisposed to mental illness. So fuck, first of all, the gene pool stuff, and then fuck Alex. But also the end of that guy, what he was talking about, made sense. Yeah, that's, I, I, yeah, so, yeah, that was like, oh man, that's like, that's such a, a guy raised in a place where they say the N-word all the time, trying to do his nice, like he's trying to be, look, I'm just saying that the cultural pressures, these, and then he just keeps using the N-word a bunch.

But at the same time, he's never, he's, it's like, no, it's about all that society has done to all these people. And he keeps saying the N-word a bunch of, like, no, I agree with you, but you got to not do that. Jordan, I'm sorry about this heartbreaking paragraph. I agree with you, Bill. You got to not do that. I'm about to read a heartbreaking paragraph at you.

She's going to be bad. Oh, can this guy go fuck himself too? No, he's, I don't know who he is. He seems all right. This is about the bigger picture. Okay. Statistically speaking, children in foster homes are more likely to have experienced severe trauma, and then you factor in the definite separation they've experienced from

their family. Right. The population is more likely to require pharmacological intervention. This is not an unexpected spike in statistics. No. A review of the current literature on the mental health issues of children and youth in foster care revealed that said children are at a greater risk, approximately 80 percent of having psychological, social, and developmental delays as compared to children in the general

population, approximately 18 to 20 percent. The regularity and severity of emotional problems among children in foster care seem strongly related to their history of deprivation, neglect, and abuse, and the lack of security and permanence in any of their lives. Disorders that you see in children in foster care expressing specific mental issues makes some of this clearer. When you look at post-traumatic stress disorder, it's 21.5 percent in foster children as opposed to 4.5 percent in the general population.

Panic disorder, 11.4 percent versus 3.6 percent in the general population. Anxiety disorder generally, 9.4 versus 5.1 percent. Card dependence, 3.6 percent versus 0.5 percent. These are the sorts of things you would expect to see in elevated levels compared to the general population, seeing as most people are not put into foster care unless there's something traumatic that happened in their young childhood, hence the PTSD spike. Correlation not causation. What?

Yeah. Okay. And frequently... A little bit. Frequently changing living... A little bit. Frequently changing living situations would give anyone tremendous anxiety, not knowing where they'll be living next week.

They could be moving all around. Right. Now, hold on. Here's another study that I found that was really interesting. A 2012 study by the National Survey of Children's Health found that children living in non-parental care were substantially more likely to have experienced, quote, adverse family experiences in childhood. They found that 70 percent of children living with two biological parents in the household

experienced zero such events compared to 18.7 percent of children living in household with zero biological parents. There's a difference of 30 percent compared to 81.3 percent of children who'd experienced one such event. So there's that shift there. Right. But the big difference comes when you look at children who experienced multiple events. Children living with two biological parents had a 0.9 percent incidence of experiencing

four or more events compared to 29.9 percent for children living with no biological parents. That's an almost 3,000 percent increase. When you separate out kids in foster care, so you exclude people who are living with their grandparents or something like that, you find a 48.3 percent incident of four or more adverse family events in young childhood and a 15.7 percent of none. This is so statistically relevant. It's such nonsense and so cruel to imagine like, now we're just trying to drug these kids up, just trying to drug these kids up.

Now no one's taking care of them. But now that said, yes, we know all of those reasons. And yes, they all make perfect sense. But have you considered blaming the only people who are trying to help or the victims? Yeah. Okay. So we could blame the victims. Do you know what it is?

It's millennials. Millennials. They always have these safe spaces, all these millennials with their, oh, I don't like experiencing four traumatic events in my childhood. It's so fucked up to imagine that like Alex Jones is a big fan of the Bundy's and is so cool with La Voie Finnecombe, the guy who got shot during the, the wildlife preserves standoff when he had a child farm, he would raise money by having foster children. I imagine he wasn't taking great care of them.

I imagine not all of them stayed there for all that long. He was probably a part of the problem. Alex is thrilled to just ignore that and point a finger at the aftermath. Yeah. And that's embarrassing. Alex's plan, as far as I can understand it, is blame the victim. If you can't blame the victim, blame the people trying to help the victim. Yes.

There we go. And that way. And that is actually the best way to understand everything that Alex does and everything that the GOP reach prosperity. There we go. Yeah. Anyway, sorry about that. That, that rant got a little past.

No, you're, you're fucking dead on. So mad about that. No, I had a friend, I had a couple of friends in my life who have been through the foster care system and it makes it a very personal issue for me. Yeah. No, no, you're fucking nailed it. The Western world is now implementing eugenics pre-crime policies. Fetuses are now being pre-screened according to family histories of crime.

From Portland, Oregon to London, England, child protective services are enrolling newborn children into criminal databases at birth and forcing them to attend probation hearings at age two. That doesn't sound right. That's not true at all. What would that even entail? The source that he has. Who's a good boy?

The source he has on this. Not me. Got him. What's your criminal? The source he has on this is one article out of the guardian, I believe, the UK, no, the telegraph, excuse me. And the actual, the article is really fucked up because it is very much about doing visits to children who are high risk.

Like their parents are drug addicts or they've been in prison and stuff like that. And the way I was reading it, I was like, Oh, this might be a thing where they're like, maybe we can, we can do some therapeutic intervention. No, it doesn't sound right. It seems like it's like we're going to track them. Yeah. Oh, wow. That sucks.

That's the UK. I have no idea what he's talking about in Portland, but that's not good. Still none of this is probation visits for two year olds. Yeah. He has no backing for that. No evidence. The overlords of scientific dictatorship are ruthlessly prosecuting a war on our most defenseless.

In December of 1974, the US government made third world population reduction a central national security issue. No, it didn't. The US operation plan titled national security study memorandum 200 assembly and regurgitation of the British commission on population created by King George the sixth of England in 1944, which openly stated that populist third world nations posed a threat to the international elites monopoly of global power. That is nothing to do with what he's talking about.

The national security study memorandum was written by Kissinger in April, 1974. All right. King Edward. It reflected that soon to be impeached, President Nixon wanted a study carried out regarding the effects of rising population. Sounds like a king. This study should focus on the international political and economic implications of population growth rather than its ecological, sociological, or other aspects.

The memo internally even shows that it's possible the end result of the study would be that nothing needs to be done. What if any new initiatives by the US are needed to focus international attention on population problems? So if I understand correctly, Kissinger was like, hey, you guys want to find out if we should do something? Yeah. The memo further goes on to add this touch of humanity, quote, the study should take

into account the president's concern that population policy is a human concern intimately related to the dignity of the individual and the objective of the United States is to work closely with others rather than to seek to impose our views on others. All right. So it's Nixon. So that can go fuck right on. If not the objectives were actually reached by this, this document itself is not evidence of what Alex is talking about.

No, of course not. He needs to do far more work if he wants to prove his point. You would think. There's nothing nefarious and nothing evil in this document. He's a fucking asshole. Now I'm furious. You are mad. I'm sorry.

The Kissinger authored US plan. That's so fun. Targeted 13 key countries. Not to be as mad as you? Real. Where a massive population reduction was called for. This is what it feels like. I don't know.

Kissinger recommended that IMF and World Bank loans be given on condition that nations initiate aggressive population control programs such as sterilization. Kissinger also recommended that food be used as a weapon. Kissinger's food disposal. And that instigating wars was also a helpful tool in reducing population. In 1972, the Nixon White House also implemented a eugenics policy which was directed by George Herbert Walker Bush, then United States ambassador to the United Nations. Bush advised China on the formulation of their one child policy and directed the federal

government to forcibly sterilize more than 40% of Native American women on reservations. Nothing in this has citations at all. Now I believe. That seems like something you would really need a citation for. I believe it's possible that this sort of thing was done. Claiming that HW directly said we need to sterilize 40% of the Native American women population. That requires a citation.

I believe that. I think he's a monster. I think America's a monster. And when it comes to Native Americans, I don't think there's anything beyond the pale. I definitely want a citation though if you say that George HW did it. So legitimately the only citation he offers in the bibliography is a transcript of Nixon nominating Bush to be the ambassador to the UN in December of 1970. Oh, okay.

This has nothing to do with China directly. It has nothing to do with the Native peoples. The one child policy wouldn't go into effect until 1979. When Nixon went to China in 1972, Mao was still in power and wasn't into the one child policy. Searching for any backup on this claim is pretty tough. All of the references are pretty thin. Oh, is it pretty tough?

Yeah. Because everything is fucking thin as shit. All these conspiracy blogs are just like Bush stepped out of the agency and back into his father's role in the international investment bankers world from January 77 through 1980. He chaired the executive committee of the First International Bank of Houston, then directed the first international bank shares limited in London. Sounds right. These were both subsidiaries of the inter first group, the largest bank in Texas.

Bush traveled back and forth to London, the hub of the family's permanent business place in the British imperial financial and political intrigues. So intersecting with the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America. No support. During this period, China adopted the brutal eugenicist one child policy. So while George HW was just doing all kinds of other shit, China changes their policy and they're like, ha, ha, we got you. Even the fucking claims that are made on these crazy blogs that I tried to find a support

that is a paragraph out of one of it, isn't that just is a no, yeah, it's nonsense. You got to do better than this. You have to prove your claims. Do you? His documentary has been watched by more people than the timeline doesn't even work. Let's make a documentary about us watching his documentaries. Isn't that what we're doing? A little bit.

The Bilderberg dominated club of Rome, advocated environment. What did it take? Six hours to break. I don't know. We're on nine. How many hours are we on? What has it been? It's been about seven.

Western populations would accept serfdom. If it was packaged as saving the earth, we're going to make it like 20 more minutes of this. The last 20 minutes of this episode is just going to be us watching the documentary crying. We're just going to hear weeping sounds in the background or willingly give up their national sovereignty. If it were sold as a way to help the planet, why is this bullshit going on? This is, wait, are we going to get back to the Texas pipeline or whatever it was?

We actually might. Are we going to get, did he, did they build the road? They didn't. Oh, well then fuck this whole documentary spoiler alert. So this is about what he's talking about here is about the club of Rome. I don't want to get into it. We've already done the club. I don't want to get into it.

Go to knowledge fight.com. Curious at all. I did a club of Rome is bad guys. The think tank also concocted the peak oil fraud as a way to create artificial scarcity. Oh boy. Here we go. Club of Rome created the oil scale. You made it almost eight seconds into, we're not going to talk about to the club of Rome

new. Yeah. This is new. They created peak oil. All right. They did create categorically not true. The club of Rome was founded in 1968. Peak oil was first theorized by geologist Marion King Hubbard in 1956.

Time has shown that Hubbard's assessment was not really all that accurate, but available information and technologies were not what they are today in 1956 and the underlying principle of what he was warning people about might not be materially incorrect. Well it may be true that we keep developing new ways to extract oil from things like the Tarsans and Alberta, for example. The new methods we develop all come with some form of diminishing returns. At this point, most experts accept that we've discovered pretty much all of the available easily extractable oil on the planet.

There's not much more to find. As such, from this point forward, it's a countdown till the liquid oil reserves start running out, at which point we'll have to take on some additional burdens along with the oil we extract. Some of that comes out in the form of expense. Extraction of oil from shale is more expensive because the end product is way less effective as an energy source, so more of it's required to achieve the same goal. Similarly, creating fuel out of garbage is possible, but it's incredibly expensive.

A barrel of oil costs Saudi Arabia approximately $9 to produce currently, as opposed to about $45 for the United Kingdom to do the same. Using waste products to do it costs about $80 a barrel. Beyond the much higher costs of these alternatives, there are also the much more difficult, wait, yeah, there are expenses in the form of pollution along with the prices of some of these. The fracking that's required to access a lot of the more difficult oil reserves that we're finding now has been shown to increase airborne emissions of methane gas, significant danger to contaminate groundwater, and even cause seismic activity.

A further problem that complicates things is that they've found in the past that people are lying about discovered reserve figures of oil. Their motivation to do so is pretty clear, seeing as that it inflates their business's stature, and there's no formal process in place to audit reserves of the claims that people make. In January 9th of 2004, Shell announced that it had overestimated its proven oil and gas reserves by 20% or 3.9 billion barrels. Instances like this make it increasingly difficult to get an accurate assessment of how much

easily available oil is really out there right now, and how close we are to having to rely on the diminishing returns. The bottom line is the Club of Rome did not come up with peak oil, further, people making definite predictions about peak oil are kind of dumb, and they generally are a bit off, but there will come a time when we have we it's all going to be downhill. It's just inevitable, right, because of the methods that will be needed to extract the oil, it'll be too expensive, we can't charge people that much for it, no one will buy it, those sorts of things.

And the argument is just fucking simple. Prepare, prepare for that now. It's not worth it to prepare then. That's going to be a disaster. We can do it now. It doesn't, anyway. Peak oil might have been misleading. If you've ever played a game about resource management, you already understand the problem

and realize we're being dumb and not fixing it. Exactly. Yeah. And the Club of Rome has been aggressively pushing a global carbon tax as a way to fund their planetary government. In the grand copy of the United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment, it states very clearly that we must reduce the human population from what's current level of about six billion people down to about one billion.

He just repeated the same thing from a different angle. He's lied. Yeah, I know. He said the exact lie from different angles with different words. It's amazing. It's fantastic. Kaufman is talented. Perfect.

People. In the 1970s, South Africa developed race specific bio weapons to target blacks and Asians and then subsequently sold the technology to Israel in the mid 1980s. This is not true. The idea of a race specific bio weapon comes from the 1942 Robert Heinlein science fiction novel, The Sixth Column. Scientists have not seen evidence that anyone has created such a weapon, but the idea of creating a weapon that targets a specific DNA sequence is theoretically possible,

which is kind of scary. So allegations have been made that Israel created a race specific bio weapon to kill all the Palestinians. There's a paper called The Sunday Times, and they posted an article claiming Israel was making this weapon in November of 1998. But this is likely a complete misreading of a piece of fiction that that about the very topic that was sent to the paper by science fiction author Doron Stanitzky. In the aftermath of the release of the article, genetic researchers called the idea wildly

fantastical, though conceded it might be theoretically possible. The Sunday Times planned a follow up article, but most likely due to poor sourcing and the embarrassing backlash they never wrote part two. Also the articles, the authors of the article never have spoken about it publicly. So the article that was the source for the coverage, there's coverage on like a wired and foreign report of this. That's where Alex gets this idea. Those are the two authors from the Sunday Times who have never spoken about this ever

again. Right. Good call. The foreign report and rents.com reported that they sold the weapon or it came from South Africa as an apartheid weapon. It's all a lot of bullshit. Oh, God. Damn it.

Racists. There's no, there's no support for this anywhere. Of course not. What even would it be? I don't know. What even would it be? What, what, what is there that because it, it, it's not a thing.

Nope. It's not a thing. We're, it's theoretically possible. Here's the, it's, it's just not a thing. Like there's no better, there's no better proof of like, well, there's no difference in races or anything like that. Here's the best way to prove that there's no difference between white or black or Asian or anything like that.

Try and build a bomb just to kill one of us. People are trying. I know. That's fucked up. The fact that we've gotten this far suggests that there's no real genetic difference. Because they would have already done it. If we were going to be able to kill each other based on race, it would already have happened. Yeah.

Unfucking real. In September of 2000, the project for a new American Century published a document in which Dick Cheney described race specific bio weapons as politically useful tools. Now, I will say that I want Dick Cheney to die in a fire. Please. I'm channeling you a little bit. Thank you. But this is a little bit uncreatively, but I respect it.

This is incredibly taken out of context. The idea that Dick Cheney is saying that, hey, maybe race specific bio weapons could be a political tool. Can we just skip this part? I don't want to ever. I'll just sum it up instead of reading this long quote. I don't ever want to hear from Dick Cheney. He's talking about how combat is going to change in the future and how you're going

to end up using drones and stuff like that. Yeah. It's like technology is going to advance. And here's just the actual sense. Advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool. This is this is merely a glimpse of the possibilities inherent in the process of transformation, not a precise prediction.

So what he's saying is that along the way, as these things that we don't necessarily want evolved in terms of warfare, states may start using biological warfare as a political tool, whereas before it was just in the realm of terrorism. That's what he's saying. Right. In context. That's what he's saying. He's not saying he's saying that terrorists will eventually be the people running company.

He's not countries. Yeah. He's not saying that like, hey, this would be useful for us. Right. That's that's a very, and fuck him, but that's a unfair reading of his words. Yeah. No, again, I hope he gets a little fired tomorrow. Somebody mentioned, well, why would they want to reduce the human population when that

means because it's like you. Most people have no idea they're not after money. They have all the money they need. They're after power. That's their aphrodisiac. The overlords of the new world order are now aggressively pushing for a worldwide one child policy. No, they're not.

They're not. Yeah. I mean, I think that's pretty simple. They're not. We already saw how it worked the last time. Why would we try it again? They're not. I have a really long explanation.

What kind of idiot would look at what China just ended? It's one child policy, right? If you're the globalists and you see that, what possible way could you be like, that's a great idea? I actually. There's no way that that's possible. I was going to skip past this, but I'm going to read it anyway because you need a little Leo Zagami in your life.

I'm very unhappy with this. It seems so silly to even imagine it. You saw, it's a one to one. We tried an experiment. Here's how the experiment worked out. It didn't work. Let's not do it. What kind of insane, even if you're imagining an enemy, what kind of insane enemy are you

imagining that would do that? So, Leo Zagami writes in his book, Confessions of an Illuminati, the Time of Revelation and Tribulation, leading up to 2020. His information, perhaps not surprisingly, is sourced to an article written by Paul Joseph Watson on Infowars. His assertion that Bill Gates and George Soros and all the usual suspects are trying to kill off everybody is immediately followed by this passage. Quote, China is a trendsetter among the false philanthropic monsters of the elite.

From ancient times to appease the gods of the astral plane, they offered animal and sometimes even human sacrifices, as I often heard personally during my time in the sects within the networks of the Illuminati. From this point of view, the plan to limit births and force abortion certainly has a magical significance to the astral plane and could be considered as a human sacrifice when done intentionally. At the end of March 2015, a drone pilot made a shocking discovery. I was flying my quadcopter over the Georgia Guidestones and found these crazy stains that

looked like blood. Start over one more time. At the top or the Georgia Guidestones? A crazy drone pilot is our sighted source for this. This drone pilot, I was flying my quadcopter above the Georgia Guidestones and found these crazy stains. And boy, how did I see Bigfoot? That looked like blood.

He just walked right out of that. Said the pilot who works for PhenomenalPlace.com. Very intriguing. How well, who else would he show up to as a phenomenal place? Very intriguing to watch because you don't see any stains from the ground at all. These stones look completely normal from the ground level. Turns out Bigfoot is blurry. But from the top, you can see a big splash of this.

I don't know what you can make of it, but it does look like blood. So I guess what he's suggesting is that they're sacrificing people or animals on top of the Georgia Guidestones. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he's saying. Such nonsense. So anyway, this is the sort of place where you get this rhetoric. The idea that they have one child policies. Again, Leo Zagami put this in his book, citing Paul Joseph Watson, and then immediately got

into that. So there we are. All right. The Chinese one child policy was made in Russia. We're so close. This is over. We're so close. Oh, gosh.

When it began, you only had to pay a tax. All right. Only later did they imprison you if you had more than one child. Now the exact same proposals to penalize couples who have more than one child are being made in the United States, England, and Europe. I want to promise you this. The end of this is very funny. Having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanor in the same way.

Yeah. No, I agree. It's going to be very funny. According to some are the new culprits. A think tank in the UK says too many kids are what's making the planet worse. And it's children's fault that there are too many kids, right? Should be frowned upon as an environmental no, no, akin to not reusing your plastic bags, driving one of those big gas guzzling cars,

taking long trips overseas. The UK, in fact, has negative growth. I think Canada does, too, that still families in our rich countries shouldn't have more than two kids. In 1998, Ted Turner pledged to give more than one billion to the United Nations to be spent in the implementation of population reduction policies planet wide. Oh, Ted, you weird fucking lunatic. Oh, hey, we're getting the Ted Turner quote.

I love Ted Turner's quotes. I love them. Oh, I love Ted Turner. Can we get a whole, can we get a whole, can we get a ramble? This quote right here, a total world population of 250 to 300 million people. A 95% reduction from present levels would be ideal. This is quoted as being from an interview in Audubon magazine. This quote is alleged to be from that magazine.

It's not quite accurate and definitely misused. The actual quote from the magazine from November 1991 was dug up and it is screenshotted online. The quote is, we got to do it all together. That's why we have to do away with the word foreign. We've got to think of each other as neighbors. Instead of the word foreign, we need to use international. Whether we like it or not, we're going to swim together or sink together. We all five billion of us here on this little earth swimming around in space,

and there's too many of us. And most of us are living incorrectly. If we had a much smaller population and over time we could have an, an ethic where we only had one child and maybe over 300, 400 years, we could cut back to 250 million, 250, 300 million people. We could replan our cities where there was a central area and you could walk or ride your bike to work. So you don't have to drive 30 miles to work like you do in LA.

That's, that's where we stop being into this is a quote and start being in your rambling. This is a Ted Turner quote. Because it's like, and then you could walk down the streets and you could see the ocean and shit out of fucking no, I've been living in Atlanta for so long. I don't even fucking, if we had 250 million to 300 million people, that'd be more than enough. But he's also talking about over 300, 400 years of people just had less kids. You could get the number down to an acceptable level.

He's not talking about over 300, 400 years. It would take a lot. Yeah, whatever. Oh, it would actually work out pretty well in terms of the amount of people who just die every day, you know, of natural causes or of accidents and stuff like that. So we got to kill 95% of the world. No, you wouldn't. You would just have to wait a long time and have people have an ethic where you just have

less kids. He's right about like the numbers and stuff like that. Oh yeah. The math is wrong about a lot of stuff. About how that would work. Ted Turner is crazy. Ted Turner. He's crazy.

Don't fucking take him. He's traditionally been like a complete nut job. Yeah. He paid for the WCW to exist. Right. That should be all you need to know about him. He is the reason that the critic, what was the name of the billionaires? Duke.

Duke. Duke Phillips. He is Duke Phillips, which is the best, which is the best reasoning for why you shouldn't add him in your documentary. If the globalist did exist and it was all these billionaires, they would not allow Ted Turner anywhere fucking near that place. CNN. Ted Turner is going to give up the game.

Yeah. Kicked out of his own company. Ted Turner like legitimately is the world's largest owner of bison largely because he has a restaurant that serves bison and doesn't want other people to be able to have a supply chain. Because he's a fucking lunatic. But also mixed in their conservation. Yeah. He's also a part of it.

No, he's Ted Turner. He's a weird dude. Yeah. A weird dude. I can't source this quote, but I remember it from an episode of Jordan Jesse Goh. Jesse Thorne was talking about seeing him speak at a conference and he's like, he was asked about how he'd been married a bunch of times. And he's like, you know what?

Say what you want. I didn't do anything with any kids. Like that sort of an answer is like, holy shit. That is why you do not love him into the globalist meetings. No, absolutely not. So he gave an interview to fortune in 2013 that included the following exchange. Listen, say what you want. At the end of all this, Ghana is still going to be a country.

Wait, what does that mean? So he gave this interview to fortune in 2013. I'll start with the interviewer. What's your prescription for how to manage population and thus manage the environment? Well, we need to have less children. I believe it needs to be voluntary, but it needs to be encouraged. There has been tremendous progress. In 1950, not one single country had a stable population.

They were all growing, all 200 countries. Now I think 40 or so countries have negative or stable population. Japan is losing population rapidly, and quite a few other countries are too. The problem is that the rate that it's going, we're losing out on the population battle. In order to have a really healthy long-term future, we need to have about two and a half billion people. Compared to? Maybe there's a lot replies. We've got seven, seven and a half billion right now.

That's two and a half. That two and a half billion goal came from Paul Ehrlich, who wrote the population bomb 50 years ago. The good news is that if families around the world choose to have one child starting right away, we'd move back toward the two and a half billion without any abortions or population control. All we need to do is use family planning. Look, I had five children. Okay.

But when I had those five children 50 years ago, the world population killed four of them because I'm Ted fucking Turner. The world population was three billion when he had them, less than half of what it is today. So I don't know. Anyway, you know, all this idea of him being into depopulation is mostly because he's crazy. He's crazy. And he is for reducing the population, but only through voluntary means. And again, throwing Ted Turner in there is great, is because if you get the kind of answer of,

I didn't do anything with any kids come at me, say something like that. And all he's going to be like, well, I didn't kill anybody. All right, you're fine. Yeah. Like what do you like attribute a quote to Ted Turner? And Ted Turner will be like, I probably said that. The idea that he's actually into activity population and one child policy being enforced mostly comes from an article that Paul Joseph Watson wrote on this website called activist post.

And it sources back to an article in the Globe and Mail where Ted Turner spoke at an event held by the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The article asserts that Ted urged a one child policy, but the quotes that they offered do not reflect that. Right. And there is no real citation for anything only what this writer says. Right. But the quote that they do have is, if we're going to be here as a species 5000 years from

now, we're not going to do with seven billion people, which is probably anyway, we're going to do it with either far more or far less. I imagine far more and way uncomfortable. Yeah. In 1999, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gave 2.2 billion to Planned Parenthood, the United Nations Population Fund and other population reduction groups. By 2007, the Gates had given more than $30 billion, almost exclusively to population control groups. Here's what's fun about Bill and Melinda Gates.

They have a website and they have all of their tax information on it that's publicly accessible. Oh, that would never. You can go and check all of their tax returns. You can find everything that they've ever done. Untanable. Everything that they've contributed. Can't do it. According to-

They would never be president acting like that. Yeah, they give audited financial statements for full transparency. According to the International Aid Transparency Initiative, Alex is totally wrong unless you think literally everything counts as population control. For instance, between 2009 and 2015, they gave $5.6 billion to infectious disease control programs. Population control. And an additional $1.4 billion to combat malaria. Love that disease.

And how dare you fight it. $1.3 billion towards programs. Wait, what? Oh, I'm sorry. Towards STD and AIDS prevention, $1 billion towards tuberculosis relief. Coming in at number five. Tuberculosis doesn't need relief. Relieve that to be.

Coming in at number five on their giving targets is reproductive health care. That's their fifth highest giving thing. It's not number one at all. Which isn't really- Number one is actually the giving tree. Sure. But that's not even population control, really. And they gave $900 million towards reproductive health care.

Past that, you end up with about $1.6 billion towards agricultural aid, $375 million towards sanitation projects, among so many fucking other causes that add up to $21 billion in the last six years that they've given. How much? How much is Alex given? I was, what I would be, my more interesting question is, how much would it take for Alex to shut up? Like legit.

A billion. Okay. It's gotta be a billion. You're Bill and Melinda Gates. You're giving out billions of dollars everywhere. Alex, how much does it cost to get you to go away? You know, it would be an awesome thing to do. Like a legitimate question.

Be Bill and be like, I will give you $10 billion to shut the fuck up and record the call. And I didn't say, oh, okay. Yeah, yeah, for sure. I'll do that. And then be like, no way. Now you've cocked him out. You'll release the tape. No, no, no, no.

I think it would be, I think you would have to follow through with it. No, it would be, it would be more damaging if you reveal that he wanted to go for it and you're punking it. No, it'd be. Because then it takes away his masculinity. He got fooled. It would never work like that. Because if I'm Alex Jones.

None of this would ever work like this. If I'm Alex Jones like this, look, if we're going to war games, how to defeat Alex Jones, if we had Bill Gates money, we got to do this right. I think a payoff is the way to go. A prank is the way to go. Sooner or later. Right. No, you, because if you, if you come to Alex with like, I'll give you a billion to be quiet,

he's never going to say yes. He's got too much pride. 10 billion. He's got too much pride. Keep talking. Nothing. You'll never buy me. You'll never buy me.

A hundred million. Billion. Well, now that you took it down. It's not, now that you're in a hundred million range. Now I'm not interested in it that much. Yeah. I took you down by a thousand percent. You got to, you got to follow through with it.

Like if you're, if you're Bill Gates. Literally. Because if you have the tape, it doesn't matter if you follow through. All that matters is until you follow through. No, because you're recording it from your end. Because he's never going to say yes until he has the money. That's when you got to record it. Okay.

So the preliminary, uh, sort of negotiations are going to be like, I will give you 10 million dollars to shut up. Maybe. Exactly. I will say yes when I see the money. Exactly. That would be enough though. This is how I ransom.

All right. All right. Well, uh, let's get back into this. Are we still doing this? I guess so. The controlled corporate press cynically reported that the Gates were giving the money to help third world children. Judy.

Bill and Melinda Gates were dethroned as the world's most generous philanthropists when their friend and fellow population reduction enthusiast Warren Buffett gave 37 billion to fund an army of population control groups. This headline says that he gave 37 billion to charity. That doesn't say that at all. He has no reference, no citation for giving it to population control things. Well, so it's unlikely. No, he gave away 37 billion of it to charity, which we all know what charity means.

Yeah. But just all population control. Uh-huh. Well, it's unlikely that that's the case because he currently only has 39 billion dollars in assets. Um, so if he gave 37 billion dollars to charity in 2006, maybe who knows. Anyway, here's what I find interesting about this. The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation donated huge sums to organizations dedicated to

contraception and women's health research, specifically the development and accessibility of interuterine devices, IUDs. Right. According to Bloomberg, in 2013, the foundation gave away nearly half a billion dollars to organizations supporting reproductive health. Now here's what's fucking really cool about this. They did it all secretly. For the nookie.

Come on. That's a reference. Got it. I got it. I still get five. Okay. Fine. You still get five points.

So they did it secretly. They went through a bunch of different companies, didn't want to bring it back to necessarily him funding all of this massive research into like, because they're smart enough to realize that people would be fucking dicks about it. Yeah. And I mean, there was an article on Jezebel even that's like, if you have an IUD, thank Warren Buffett. Right.

A lot of the funding for the development of them was able to be, to happen because of his funding. Right. Judith DeSarno, former director of domestic programs for Berkshire Hathaway, Warren's investment fund said, for Warren, it's economic. He thinks that unless women can control their fertility, and that it's basically their right to control their fertility, that you sort of, you're sort of wasting more than a half of the brain power of the United States.

Part of the success includes the contraception program in Colorado, which provided women with free IUDs and resulted in a 40% decline in birth rates among teen moms and a 42% decline in teen abortions over the course of five fucking years. Huh. The New York Times reported. Huh. Without the fucking, and that was, that was me editorializing. Huh.

Yeah. So a lot of these initiatives that people like Warren Buffett have done who've been incredibly effective. And it's such a, it's such an obvious thing. And they get rid of abortion. It's an obvious thing because if you want to pull a fucking utilitarian argument, well, then actually divorce your utilitarian arguments from all of your racism and bigotry, and you're like, Oh yeah, well, women are equal and we're wasting them.

There's like, that's really, if you want to pull some sort of like, well, women shouldn't make 77 cents on the dollar to men because men need to buy things. Well, you're, no, get rid of that bullshit. If you want to make the most, if you want to be the most productive, recognize that you're wasting half of a woman's life or whatever it is, or you're fucking destroying all of this shit just out of your own petty, dumb, sexist, misogynist bullshit. And then you finally meet a capitalist who is unfortunately the fucking most capitalist.

And he pulls out a utilitarian argument and you're like, No, this guy's evil because he hates women. Like you're fucking stupid. Very. I'm so mad, Dan. I have been dealing with some sort of weird roller coaster up and down anger ride for this whole 10 hours we've been fucking doing this. And now he's going to throw a quote up, a quote, a quote, Dan. From there.

Dr. Oh, it says, oh God. And the quote in case this doesn't come through in the audio. And actually, I think the world will be much better when there's only 10 or 20% of us left. 10 of us left. Dr. Eric Bianca. This is a dubious quote. Prominent University of Texas biologist, Dr. Eric Bianca, while receiving an award from the Texas Academy

of Science said that the worldwide AIDS pandemic was, quote, no good. It's too slow and went on to laud the virtues of Ebola because it would kill 90% of the world population quickly. When his statements erupted into a national controversy, his graduate students defended him, stating that Bianca was too conservative and that all humans should be killed. All right. They didn't say that. But most frightening was the fact that in a crowd of over 1,000 prominent scientists,

local newspapers reported that 95% of those in attendance gave Bianca sustained standing ovations every time he stole the virtues of mass culling microbes and man's destruction. So here's what I want to say about Eric Bianca. Well, based on what we've heard so far, you're going to tell me that he called for the extermination of humanity. I think he might have actually. But I think he's one of these guys. Now I'm giving him a standing ovation.

I think he's like you. I honestly think you and Eric Bianca probably have a lot in common. I bet we do. Because I think that there is a commonality in terms of like saying things that you can stand behind that are inflammatory in order to sort of provoke argument. All right. I think that's kind of his style because I've looked into him been seeing like some of the positions he's taken, watched some of the interviews that he has.

How does he feel about white genocide? I think he's a soft yes. All right. All right, Bianca. I don't know. I'm not sure. He hasn't spoken on that. We are setting up a blind date.

He seems kind of like an asshole, but also like I've met professors like him in my time at colleges and stuff like that. And generally he's trying to provoke people into critical thinking. Typically. And so he ends up getting trotted out on shows like Tucker Carlson had him on and stuff like that. And they just use him as a punching bag to like throw his quotes in his face and be like, well, you know, you're not really, that's not really what I said.

Right. I'm like, well, why would you want to destroy humanity? Why do you think Ebola is so great? And like, well, whatever, this isn't going to work. And then he looks like that. He's got this giant beard and everyone's like, well, the crazy guy is getting insulted by Tucker. I hope we get big enough for them to want to do that with me. Because I'm the one who looks crazy.

No, no, no, you'd fucking crush it. You'd have facts and all that shit. And they come crazy. They would, look, the right wing would totally invite me on because they'd be like, oh, he's going to say some shit about white genocide. And I'm going to be like, you're goddamn right. I'm going to say some shit about white genocide. I'm going to be like, listen, we need to kill all white people.

You, you, I'm just going to, if I was in studio, I would point to everybody in there and then me and then I'd kill myself and it'd be hilarious. It'd be the new Lauren Duka on the Tucker Carlson, except it would be a very short appearance. So from the transcript of the 1999 speech that this is in reference to, here's some of the text that I was able to find, but here's what's going to happen. And after the human population collapses, there's going to be a lot fewer of us. Food's going to be diminished. Pollution's going to go down and which will be good, but there's not going to be much to recover from.

Our descendants are going to curse us for the party we took. The party we had. And I recommend Richard Heinberg's book, The Party's Over, Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies. This man has thought about these things deeply. The end of oil is good too, but it's not anywhere as good as the party's over. There have been wise people for a long time. John Stuart Mill in 1858 took issue with the whole business of grow, grow, grow. And he said he thought stationary systems made sense, stable systems,

where you don't have bubbles that are going to burst and you're going to go bankrupt. He said he didn't think people had to elbow their way to the top to fight, struggle with each other, just to get resources. That if we could just live in a stable world where we didn't continue to grow and weren't based on this grow, grow, grow thing, that we could work on the art of living and that we would become better human beings for it. And these are some of the things that Donella Meadows says in The End of Limits to Grow. And this is the end.

In the 60s, when I started studying ecology, there was a lot of sand at the top of the hour glass. But in my short stint of 40, 50 years as an ecologist, most of that sand has run out. There's not much time left that you can get on an airplane, go to Madagascar and study something while you can. Thank you. And you just ended the speech. That's a great way to end speech. I mean, he's kind of like this guy. I like this guy. I think he's wrong about John Stuart Mill, but I like this guy. He's kind of an extreme speaker in terms of like some sort of sensationalism and shit like that. But I think he says these things to provoke an intellectual conversation and a reaction out

of people. And he's also a geologist. So he's concerned. And he's not that high. So he's kind of worried about the ecosystem more than he is about humanity. And he makes especially about how your feelings are. Yeah. Fuck your feelings. Who am I? Ben Shapiro. Fuck your feelings. Fuck your feelings, bro. I'm Jersey Shore. Ben Shapiro. How you doing? Are you going all right? Doing good. We're on hour nine here, the money, Bob. I don't even know.

And that folks is where we will need to cut things short for the day. We have one episode left tomorrow and, you know, we will jump right back in after, as we see at the end of this episode, Jordan might have found a spiritual kin in Dr. Eric Pionka. Not entirely sure if that fully tracks, but we'll be back tomorrow with the thrilling conclusion to the end game coverage where we have completely lost interest in doing this for the most part. There's a couple of spoiler alerts for tomorrow. We finally get into climate change and a little bit about transhumanism. Super fun stuff. So check out that. We'll be back with that tomorrow. But in the meantime, if you'd like to check us out,

you can go to knowledgefight.com. That is our website. We also are on Twitter. You can follow us at knowledge underscore fight. We're on Facebook. You can check us out there. Also, we just have a, we just opened up a new Facebook group where people can get together and chat, have messages and maybe, I don't know, workshop, a meme. Isn't that what people do? I have no idea. Anyway, it's good place to have some conversations with like-minded policy wonks. If you'd like to go over there and join up, the name of the group is go home and tell your mother you're brilliant. If you go and just search for that, you can find it, request to join and we'll let you be a member. Also, we're on iTunes. You can subscribe, download past episodes,

leave us a review, all those sorts of things. We're very helpful. We do appreciate it. But yeah, I guess other than that, this has been exhausting. And if you all have stuck around for all of this end game coverage, we appreciate it and it will be done after tomorrow. So thanks again and we'll catch you on the flip side. Bye. Andy and Kansas, you're on the air. Thanks for holding. Hello, Alex. I'm a first-name caller. I'm a huge fan. I love your work. I love you.