Free two one and we are off at with Unleashed one twenty five. Welcome viewers. We have had our Christmas New Year's Eve break and we are rearing to go. Ash has lined up seven guests this evening. First two hours on YouTube, second half exclusively live on Locals. Locals link in description box and as you can see, a fully refreshed Stephen Knight is back co hosting the show of Cheese and Christmas Pudding. Basically, it's me cheese and Christmas
Pudding. Oh my goodness, all right. Six o'clock. Jay Dyer is joining us. He's an Info Wars guest presenter YouTuber, friend of the channel for many years, and he's going to be letting us know what Klaus Schwab and his cronies at the World Economic Forum having store for in twenty twenty four. Then author and photographer Peter Duke joins us first time on the show. He's got a new book out called Stealth Power and the Illusion of Democracy.
He's going to delve deep into the workings of the Power Elite, a covert group of a significant global impact, spanning twenty four principles. It reveals various strategies the elite employees to maintain control over us sheeople, and then Stephen picks up at seven do Indeed, I'll be speaking to clinical and forensic psychologist Dr
John Garrison. He goes under the moniker Doctor g. He'll be explaining why his YouTube as a master one hundred and twenty six thousand subscribers in recent years, his channel is the premiere destination for true crime analysis, in depth exploration of high profile crime cases, and a comprehensive source of information on psychology.
As a seasoned clinical and forensic psychologist, Dr g Brinn's extensive experience from thousands of forensic evaluations to the table offering a unique and educational perspective on complex psychological issues. Tonight's discussion we'll focus on narcissism relating to some trending figures in the
spotlight at the moment, looking forward to that. And then from seven thirty to eight, I'll be speaking to author of Just Another Country, a novel the final episode of the Hugh Whui trilogy, John Moody's our next guest. Moody is the former executive vice president executive editor for Fox News, a former Rome Bureau chief of Time magazine, and he is the author of four books,
including Pope John Paul, the third biography. In Just Another Country, Moody brings an emotionally shattering, politically infuriating conclusion to his fact based trilogy of China's relentless attempts to destroy the United States, be it through a deadly virus, an endless wave of illegal immigrants, shipments of penetol, or artificial intelligence. Worst of all, Chinese AI bots have acquired emotions and are now turning
humans into their slaves. Murdy. Moody will also speak about President Biden's little known private outreach to President g in recent months. And then I believe we're switching over to locals. Yep, so locals at eight first guest is with Stephen Yeah. Our first guest on locals is Dr Michael Capperelli, who is a former pastor of sixteen years and as a PhD in Advanced Studies in Human behavior. Caperelli's book Monster Mirror discusses the one hundred hours he spent talking to
son of Sam serial killer David Berkowitz about mental health and evil phenomena. And then from eight thirty to nine pm, author, entomologist and university of Wyoming Professor of Natural Sciences and Humanities, Jeffrey Alan Lockwood will be returning to the show. I really enjoyed our last discussion. Jeffrey writes both nonfiction science books as well as meditations. Lockwood is the recipient of the Push Up Prize and
the John Burrows Medal. On his second appearance on the show, he will be discussing his book Locust, the devastating rise and mysterious disappearance of the insect that shaped the American Frontier, which was described as solving the greatest environmental murder mystery in the history of North America, the sudden and unexplained disappearance of a species that once dominated the Western States and provinces. Wow. He is a great guest. Nine to ten, We've got Murray Knight, final guest on
Locals. Author and survivor. She proves that recovery is possible from deep trauma. Her films and memoir recount her healing journey from ritualistic c from human transportation, and from another word best not said on YouTube, but it is harrowing a story. Her journey to the modern day is an inspiring one for anyone who has suffered from child too trauma. I do believe she's had millions of views on other videos that she's done. Really viral, really important story.
So today I interviewed Ryan Dawson. Many of you are familiar with the who Killed E story and the E client list that has gone viral. I underestimated how viral it would go again, but it's gone mega. And Ryan Dawson came on today and we did an hour and ten minutes talking about Wexner, the client list, Prince Andrew, President Clinton, and it's all updated with all the latest information and that is going to be coming to locals soon.
The link for locals is in the description box blow this video. It's free to join, free to watch the content, most of it over there, So if you want to get that content that is banned off YouTube, then click on the locals link. And I feel like it's been like a month since i've senior Stephen, what have you been up to? Ay? Like I said and implied at the start, the show, just been pushing as much food as possible in this direction, followed by alcohol. And that's basically
how Christmas works for me. Don't know, I I guess yours is slightly different, but apart from that, have been enjoying the downtime and seeing family mostly. Yeah, so we took it was baby Ziggy's first Christmas, so we took him to Jen's parents' families and it had a big celebration over there. And if people want to see Baby Ziggy's first Christmas, it's on the Atwood Family Channel a couple of weeks back. And he's having a john a good time as you will see. How did he get on not a load
of sensory overload for him? Yeah, Well, his middle name is Wilder, and he's massive. He's in one year old clothes already. He's twenty five pounds. He's like bigger than one year olds. And he's a little rocker that we've got him now. He's rocking it so harshly back and forth. It's just amount of time he really launches himself out of it. So he's a wild He's definitely living up to his name. Yeah, future strong man maybe at Olympian, some sort future giant and I don't know, Stephen
Weather. You noticed the Golden Globe's host, Joe Coy was cracked the brutal Harry and Meghan joke at the twenty twenty four ceremony. I missed that joke. I caught the other one about the issue we can't talk about right now, which seemed to divide the rooms somewhat, which I thought was funny. Yeah, I love it when Ricky Gervai went down that road, but the
recent one. The Filipino American comedy star didn't hold back in his debut as host of the annual Awards ceremony, a job he acquired just two weeks ago, whose winners include Killers of the Flower Moon starring Lily Gladstone. I've watched that, Oppenheimer watched that and Successions Kieran Culkin. Anyway, After enthusiastically arriving on the stage, Koy poked fun at subjects ranging from Oppenheimer's running time through to Saltburn. Actor. Have you watched Saltburn? Yes, yes I have,
and I've been telling everybody else to watch it as well. I don't even know what I think about it, but I know I want people to see it. Things happened in that movie that I've never heard of happening before in real life. I think that you'll be doing a lot of this. Oh yeah, if you want, If you want a very cringey experience, beautiful cinematography, salt burns for you. I think the moment that got me the most was when he was paying respect to the dead, let's say,
and he stripped down onto the grave. And you know that it didn't get me as much as the bath scene, to be honest, that was a bit. That was a bit much. Yeah, that's because there were several well, just let's just say what you know, it's put me right off drinking from baths future. It's ruined. It's ruined drinking bath water for me.
That maybe. So what I was about to say was that coy cracked the joke, and the joke was it turns out Harry and Meghan Markle were still getting paid millions of dollars for doing absolutely nothing, and that's just by Netflix, he told the crowd, who left in response. The camera zoomed in on the streaming services CEO Ted Sarandos after he made the joke. Both
Harry and Meghan were not present. COI was addressing Netflix documentary Harry Megan, which was released in December twenty twenty two so mixed reviews, and saw the per discuss the decision step back as working members of the World family, and the joke was categorized as brutal by viewers on social media. We had a lot of Royal coverage lately on the channel. The George the Giant Slayer podcast went out last night doing really well, So if you are interested in that
subject, check it out. And we've got the Royal Mess coming back on Friday night with Ron Swanson. What have you got coming up, Stephen. I've just released an interview with singer musician Louise Distrass about her experience of the music industry and what can happen to you if you have quote unquote problematic opinions about current events and big topics, how she was canceled, and how she's trying to make her way through the world as an independent content creator and musicians.
So that's well worth a watch. That's on my YouTube and it's also on my Twitter account. You can find it there as well in full. No, it's an absolute mindfield out though, isn't it these days? Speaking of a minefield, We've got a guy who has navigated that minefield very carefully over the years. A few minds have blown him off of various platforms, here and there, So I'm going to bring in Jay Diet and Steven will be back with us in an hour or so, so we'll see you then,
my friend, see you soon. Cheers, Jay. How's it going man? Great? Sean? How are you good? Have you had a good Christmas in New Year? Absolutely? Yeah, we have a Christmas that's kind of late. So our Christmas was three years three days ago, so orthodized Christmas falls on January seventh, so I'm still kind of recovering from Christmas. How are you? Are you seeing you actually take days off from researching those Illuminati scumbags. I think in the work that we do, we never
take days off. So we're even right, even in the holidays, we're still working on our websites and our YouTube channel right indeed, because I've got a form and fall baby. It was his first Christmas, so oh congrat Yeah, thank you. It was nice to celebrate. So, Jake, just for people who are not familiar with your work, could you just give us a few lines about what you do? Yeah. I cover all kinds of stuff. We cover geopolitics over my channel. We cover kind of meta
politics, big picture stuff. I don't focus on a lot of the day to day political drama per se, but where we're going in the world looking at the writings of the elite. We've lectured through about fifty of those texts over the last few years. I cover a lot of film symbolism, Hollywood stuff. At a deeper level, we cover a lot of philosophy. We do a lot of religious debates, all the above, and we do that not just on my channel but also the fourth hour of The Alex Jones Show
every Friday. I've done that for the last three years. So that's pretty much what we do. And we've been collaborating with j for years. So I will age you've if you're not familiar, to check out previous episodes. I think many of them were moved over to Rumble. All right, Jay, so what these shape shifting reptilians? What do they have in store for us in twenty twenty four? That's the big question. Yeah. I've done
a few podcasts recently on this topic. I think you can narrow it down to about four or five potential scenarios, and I would start this discussion by going to a place that probably a lot of people have forgotten, but in the UK you may remember this a few years ago there was this thing called the Integrity Initiative, and the Integrity Initiative was a joint UK NATO situation where they wanted to figure out ways to combat the disinformation of Russia, and to
do this they were going to engage in all kinds of syops themselves. This included cybersyops and included using pop figures. In fact, yesterday, I don't know if you saw this, it just came out that they were talking about NATO was saying they wanted to use Taylor Swift as a mouthpiece for disinformation for
NATO. Now I don't think she went along with this, but they had actual people from NATO discussing how they were trying to get you know, Taylor Swift to go along with this and throwing this idea around so which by the way, ties into all of our sort of Hollywood mind control stuff that we've
talked about for so long. But the Integrity Initiative was a pretty wide ranging operation to counter or supposedly Russia, and it was part of this series of think tanks that at the same time was involved in constructing ways to counter the future Donald Trump administration. And so they talked about how they had to do anything possible to make sure that Trump didn't get elected again because quote, it would be the end of the global world order that they had constructed. Now
I'm not saying this as like a defense of Trump. I'm happy to critique and be critical of Trump. I think he made a lot of mistakes. But from their vantage point, I think that the establishment sees Trump as this sort of potential figure that can that can awaken a lot more people. And so another Trump administration they felt like was very dangerous to the existing liberal world order, as they call it, and they would have to really go back
to the drawing board. It would it would be very disruptive, is what their fear. So they then engaged in, as we know, all of the sort of made up Russia hoax stuff with Trump. Trump got elected through Russia and Russia hacked the DNC and that they bought these ads on Facebook, and this convinced all the boomers to over Trump and all this nonsense, which
is not true. And so when this Integrity Initiative sort of all fell apart, we found out that it was the British establishment, in particular former m I five in my six related people that had then constructed the Steele dossier as a big syop. I think everybody kind of knew it was a sy op,
unless you're a total normy. And again, all of that's relevant here because we're going into the election year, and I think that they have to throw whatever is big enough of a crisis that it could potentially disrupt the election, not even because Donald Trump is perfect or some kind of an angel, but you can see the lawfair they're engaging in right now, just to make
sure that he can't even run. They wouldn't exert this much influence and power and all this energy and money if they weren't concerned again that it might trigger more and more people waking up. So I think that first point I would say is that they could There's five or six things they could throw at us. The first big one is the one that Klaus always talks about and has talked about ever since the coof of the last three or four years, and
that is a cyber pandemic. So Klaus talks about cyber polygon, and that one really dangerous because the threat here is that supposedly the Internet goes down on a wide scale. They ran this drill with the Fortune one hundred. This included IBM, It included all these different mega corps and the possibility of unknown hackers out there basically taking down all of our key infrastructure in the West.
This could then be blamed on whoever they say, if you remember the wiki Leaku's Bolt seven leaks, I mean, they could say it's anybody, right, just so they could spoof the address or spoof the claims of who was behind this, Russia, China, whoever, and then they could say, well, because of all of this chaos, we're gonna have to implement new measures. So the crisis always brings out the intended effect that they wanted all along. So they want more clamp down. They want to shut down the
Internet or whatever, shut down free speech. The crisis always provides that convenient mechanism by which they can justify their tyrannical clamp down. So I think Cyberpolygon is the number one potential possible scenario they could run with. I also think that the number two scenario in my list would be another of what we've seen in the last three years. So I'm trying to use coded you know, koof language. If you know what I mean, If you want to talk
about another. I think Bill Gates called it a pandemic. Two we'll say that. So I think that's another scenario because they didn't they didn't do all of what they did in the last three years for nothing. And people say, well, they wouldn't run that again because it kind of fell apart and nobody's going to buy it. Well, if there's an even worse scenario, people will buy it. They will say, this is way worse than what we saw in the last three years, which they're estimating, you know,
seventeen million if you know what I'm talking about, had passed. So you see what I'm saying. I'm trying to use the code words here and oh yeah we got yeah. Yeah. So so that that's another potential scenario, is another of these releases or something gets loose, another virus, something like that. And again, the key thing that happens in these scenarios is that
the result is always what they wanted initially. And I think the medical tyranny was really the key element by which they brought in a lot of this stuff the last time around, or they tested a lot of stuff in the last
three years. So can we get people to go along with certain tracking and tracing measures, can we get people to basically just default to not doctors, but actually what mega corporations and the CDC or EXCO, actually the United Nations of the World Health Organization, what they lay down for everybody, mandate this for everybody. And I think a lot of people went along with it.
Maybe not so many will this time, but it doesn't matter because the new treaty that they're trying to pass, this U Entreaty, it actually just says arrest anybody that disagrees with the government, Arrest anybody that criticizes or speaks against this. So the really hard handed situations that we saw last three years like Australia, Yeah, that's kind of the model for what they want to do everywhere. And this ties into the SDG d I criteria that they want to
have. And this is like so all the Canadian Trucker protests right when they were protesting that their situation, well, they banned people from bank, they de banks people on the basis of these just sort of made up DEI scores, SDG scores, all this kind of stuff. So that that is what big the big hedge funds, black Rock, they think they're pushing that in the back and round at the same time as it would be tied into you know, the medical tyranny, the mandated you know what in the future.
So all of that, I think is another very crude And they could roll out a couple of these at once. You could get a cyber pandemic and you know, some sort of new release that comes out magically at the perfect time. Oh, we can't do the elections, so we've got to have you know, mail mail in ballots again. And then all these trucks around and suddenly it's you know, an overwhelming landslide for Joe Biden again, and Biden's going to you know, continue all of these wonderful policies that are making
America well basically it's destroying the country. Inflation, the borders, et cetera. It's really crazy. But yeah, so I think that the pandemic too is another one. Another scenario could be economic collapse. And again it could be two or three of these at one, it could be all these. I mean, they could throw all the cards at us right like their whole
their whole deck. If there was an economic collapse, then what we would have is a convenient scenario to transition us to CBDCs or something like that as
the intended results. So how do we get everybody onto some sort of UBI or government dole or international doll I guess you could say, not really government, but they But if everybody has to get a wallet or something like that after some giant economic collapse, then everybody has the incentive then to get a you know, government credits that roll out you know in your in your wallet
that you know this the central bankers have set up for you. That might be the solution to how oh, well, you know you can't have this, uh, you know, free trade anymore, you can't have a free laise fair economics. You buying this, and that it would be an easy transition into kind of a circular economy that they're always talking about at the World
Economy Forum. And in fact, I was looking past couple of days at what the WF has up on their website for problems to expect in twenty twenty four, and actually cyber crime, cyber hacking, all of that is their number one threat. So again they keep running with that the cyber polygon scenario. But yeah, so I think you could see something like that. Then
it could get even crazier. We could see the push for the announcement of alien life that could go off into all kinds of crazy directions, a staged, fake and gray alien announcement. Alien announcements could you know, drive people crazy. Who knows they're already. I think kind of testing the waters with these hearings with the David Gorrish and all this kind of stuff, talking about how, oh we found ten bodies in the crafts and they're not human,
but they might be something. I also that this is sort of I think testing the waters for a large scale alien psychological warfare operation. I think it's all fake. I think it would be very convenient for the powers that be to announce alien life, and then as a result of that, they could say, hey, we might be invaded, there might be, you know, an attack, therefore we need In fact, they've even said this for
decades. I don't know if you know about Reagan was at the United Nations in the nineteen eighties and he said that if it was ever announced that there was alien life, it might finally lead us to a world government. I don't know if you've ever seen that clip, but yeah, it's a famous, Yeah, it's a famous clip of Ronald Reagan at the United Nations in the eighties saying that saying that alien life would lead us to a one world
government. So you see the threats. Then it's not even about the threats, it's just the end The end result they want is the world government. So whatever is useful to get there. So, you know, we could have a war, a global war. That's another one of the obvious scenarios. People say, oh, what about an EMP attack. I mean that's possible too. I think that would probably be in the context with just a war, which is possible. They could say, well, hey, it's
going to spin out of control. Middle East is now going wild. We're gonna have to put troops in the Middle East and be involved in this warfare. And then that spreads from that region to other regions, so we could get another, you know, global war. So all of those, again I think are the are the big key scenario, and because they need something big enough to really distract from the coming election. Of course, if you look at things like the Integrity Leagues and all that, why they couldn't have
another Trump administration. Yeah, so I think you have to you know, the USA is kind of the center of the World Empire as it is right now, and so if you can take down that World Empire, you know, you can rebuild, you can have this reset. So but so I think there are there are certain protections in the West with you know, the
remnants of rule by law. All of that has to kind of go away before they can really move to the next stage of what the WF wants with a great reset with you know, you own nothing, you have nothing yet you're kind of given a UBI or something like that. You live in a compod in in a you know, box apartment in a giant megalopolis. I mean that's really where they want to go. So it's whatever's going to get
them to that end result. I mean they're already going crazy with you know, killing one hundred thousand cows in Ireland because cows are bad for the planet. You need to eat bugs, not meat. I mean, this is this is all very real, but you know, we I think it's it's worth gaming out. You know, what are the potential scenarios for twenty twenty four? Well, set, Jay, You've covered a lot ground there and several questions have risen in my mind on the minds of the viewers. We'll
start with anexus. How do the forces behind a cyber pandemic inoculate themselves against their personal business Internet going down? It looks like in cyberpauling on when you read the war game, they they don't really mind the businesses themselves kind of going down for a while. And in fact, it would probably be the
case that, in other words, these would be controlled and managed. So I think probably a lot of the top Fortune one hundred slash Fortune five hundred they would be aware, or they might be in on it at the top level, so they might shut down, and they might just shut it down and say, oh, well, you know, we don't know why we
just shut down, So you know, that's a possibility. I'm not like a cyber hacking expert, so I don't know a whole lot about that, but just looking at their scenario in the war game that they ran it, I don't think it's shut down the entire Internet, but basically significant portions of the Western world's infrastructure was kind of off for a while, right, So
it wasn't like it destroyed the whole Internet or something like that. It was like, you know, maybe the Internet goes down in America for a few days. Then it's back up, but banking isn't back up. You know, maybe other things like healthcare administration being online, maybe that's down for a week. So it's sort of like this staggered thing of different different scenarios, of different corporations and different things. Logistics, like maybe the logistics between how
you know, trucking is organized online or whatever through through the internet. Maybe that goes down and they can't organize where to send their trucks out, so you don't get goods. The supply lines are down maybe for a week a month, not like that, And we already kind of saw elements of that
during twenty twenty to twenty twenty two. I don't know what it was like in the UK, but where I live, even out here in the country, we had a few situations where there was I think maybe a week or two where there was no meat, like the grocery stores weren't no meat because they the trucking couldn't get here because there was COVID on everything, right, so you know, you could see I mean remember the toilet paper fiasco.
I don't know, I don't know if the UK had toilet paper, but like everybody bought up toilet paper, which is a sort of weird meme that was going around the internet like you wouldn't get toilet paper ever again. So so I think we had about a month where there was no toilet paper, and so I just basically shat myself and just looks I'm joking. Did we had toilet paper? I don't know. I mean you could, you could get you buy you know, cleanexes or whatever. But did you have the
toilet paper problem in the UK? I don't know. Oh, they was showing videos of people running around the aisles in grocery stores grabbing the last of the toilet roll and arguing and fighting, and yeah, it was mayhem. It was that when in the UK two yeah, okay, okay, but one of the first things everybody went for was toilet paper. Yeah, but in America, didn't think they go for guns and stuff like that too.
Well, it depends on where you live. I mean, where I live, everybody owns guns already, so nobody's nobody's going to be running for guns because everybody has it. But uh, yeah, there could have been some places where you know that maybe there's maybe it's harder to get a gun that they were trying to go for that. But but yeah, I think I think that to answer that question, I think that the cyber pandemic would be
very controlled. It would be very pinpoint focused at the weak points in any country's logistics, and so it wouldn't really ultimately hurt Amazon or you know, any of the big corpse. So don't throw your check books away, folks like I've done, because it may come in handy if we have to go back to the old school banking techniques. All right, Jake wants to know,
has World War three already started? Yeah, it could be. I mean, you're right, that was the you know, number four or five scenario, because they can always you know, hype up a war or take it to the next level, or say that the existing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East have spun out of control, or they can spark a new conflict in some other region, or you know, I mean, it's getting crazy to the point where in the US, I mean, there's so many
people not from the US coming into the US on a daily basis that you could have those people are potentially intended to be some sort of internal force to change the country. I know, We're not at that point yet, but it could get to that situation if we another, say, five or six years of Joe Biden. Who I mean, It's not just people who are
looking for a better life, is what I'm trying to say. Which I can understand why people would want to come, you know, from another countries, Latin South America or whatever it's, but it's people from all over the world. And a lot of the videos that you see there's no women or children there. It's like, you know, military age dudes. Where's all
the women and children? Right? And I think that that's intentional. Just talking to a friend of mine in Ecuador and he was talking about all of the ads and the promotions that they have everywhere in Ecuador for coming to America, and a lot of it is just scams that coyotes, you know, they make you into basically a tool for extracting money from your family. So
cartels will promote this. It's basically just a big scam. But the Biden administration, I'm saying, I think collaborates with the cartels to foster that border operation. Point being is that I think that that could be a potential connection
to a war scenario. Or an attempt to instigate a civil war. You could say, I mean, if you watch a lot of the pop culture, which we do not because it's like a tool for divination or something like that, it doesn't it is a perfectly predicted future, but you can kind
of tell from sometimes the propaganda that they're pushing where they might go. And so we've seen with this big Obama produced Netflix movie that came out Leave the World Behind, that has basically all the scenarios that I'm talking about, where really it begins with a cyber attack. We don't know what's going on in the film, but basically America goes down in terms of satellites and internet connection. Everybody's trying to figure out what, you know, what the cyber polygon
was. And then it turns into more of a military style conflict where you have these EMPs go off and then you have like these weird biological warfare things that are released that the film doesn't ever say who the enemies are, but it does say that basically there was this internal group, this cabal who was involved in you know, taking down the US or the West or whatever.
So again, the long long answer to say that, yeah, that's very possible that a World War three scenario, which a World War three scenario could conveniently also encapsulate all these other potential scenarios. Right, They could say, if we go into a hot war when the internet goes down, Oh the Russians took the Internet down. Oh the Russians, you know did this? Or that they collapsed the stock market through their hackers, you know, something
like that. Yeah, and Trump let them in. Going back to what going back to what you said about Trump, Biden and the eclonomy them. So you know, you mentioned these crazy allegations they made against Trump to try and torpedo his chances. But don't you think they've inadvertently increased these popularity by doing so? And as these things have been exposed to be so absurd, it's just had the opposite effect. And you did mention about the economy in
a collapse. It seems to me that they're inflating the stock market presently to try and increase the chances of the incumbent because they do realize that they have made Trump more popular. What are your thoughts on that. Yeah, I think that they really were trying anything they could, so I think they want
to use the methods that are the quickest and the simplest first. So they would rather, you know, try to use law fair for example, what's happening right now with all these court cases, to try to take them off of various ballots and so forth. So I think that's the first route they go for. If that doesn't work, I think they'll ramp up to the next levels, right, which would be the kinds of things that I'm talking
about. Another scenario, I think, maybe even before these big scenarios would be something like, well, oh, suddenly we have a craze maga person, right, and we don't even know if they are right. Maybe there's just some random you know, provocateur or some mind control lunatic or whatever let out of the asylum and they put up they put a trump pad on him, and he goes and he does some big fake flag event where he pops
off at a bunch of people in the mall. I mean, it could be anything like that as well, right, Or it could be the last time this happened in the US, it was like an OKC type event, if you if you know about the history of that, there was a kind of a rising populism at that time against the Clinton administration and the establishment at that time, and they conveniently had a crazed fundamentalist person involved in kind of
a weird far right cult called Elaheim City. Uh, and that ended up being the perfect event to show that, Oh you see all of these people who are you know, right wing populists at that time. Oh, they're all crazy and they're they're t E R R O R type people. So you know, if you look into the OKC event, I think that's it was like it was like a nine to one one before nine one one, but rather than it being Islamic oriented, it was right wing populism oriented,
and it had the did it did its job? Now it'll be harder, I think if they go with that fake flag event, you know, somebody trying to assassinate somebody or something like that, that would be harder within the days of the internet now that we're in to completely concoct a story. But I mean it's still it still would probably work. I think you still have enough of the population that are completely zombies that they would probably still believe it.
We've got just summer five minutes left with Jay Dayah. Please put your questions in the chat wherever you are watching this in the world. And the next question is from Fred, how is Jay's religious knowledge? Has he heard about the theory we're in a false timeline and Jesus has already come back and that Satan is running the show. Well, I don't know how you would
gauge my religious knowledge. I mean I do talk about theology and all that stuff quite a bit, and philosophy, metaphysics, the closest thing I could think of to what you're talking about sounds like Philip K. Dick's worldview. So I don't know if you know. You know, Philip K. Dick is the sci fi writer, right like, so he actually had this view that in sometime if you read the Book of Acts after the Life of Christ,
the apostles are preaching the Gospel in the Book of Acts. And then I don't know where he got this idea, but Philip K. Dick thought that in the middle of the Book of Acts, Jesus had come back and that it was like not successful or something, and so we were launched into this like cern alternate timeline where we're under Satan. So I don't know where Philip K. Dick came up with that it's kind of a wild, out there thing. If you watch the movie Richard Linkletter's movie Waking Life, which
is kind of a famous it was shot in rotoscope. It's kind of an edgy, twenty year old kind of art house film. In Waking Life, there's a sequence where somebody has an interview. It's a stage interview with Phil k Dick, and he actually goes into this this kind of timeline. So I don't think that that's true, and I don't think we live in a secret alternate timeline. Right. Smasha Dobson wants to know who runs the world. Let's talk about that, not actors from the government theater show. Well,
I mean I've been doing. The last fourth hour that I did was a really in depth dive into jeff Stein mceffrey. You probably know who I'm talking about. So I went pretty deep into the history of that old operation and how these high level people. I mean, I don't think it's one group of ethnic people. I think that it's a lot of different people from a lot of different groups that all collaborate at a really high level in terms
of international crime. So basically, the way I see it is, if you take the analogy of mafia organized crime, and you put that at like the fortune one hundred level. That's who's really running the planet, right, So it's like higher level super psychopath type people people at the WF, people at B I, L. D. E. R. Berg, people at you know, these steering committee meetings. They're the ones that are calling the shots. And so although jeff Stein McAffrey isn't himself at the he wasn't
at the top of the pyramid. He was an operation that's a window into how the international organized crime click works. And you can see that by going into his to just Lane's father, his role in the Cold War, his role in hostile corporate takeovers that McMillan when he took over McMillan Publishing, you can see how that kind of crime syndicate works at that level. So that's how I would say it works. Who's writting things? Non thoughts on Elon
musk Well. I was surprised when Alex did that big interview with him a couple of weeks ago. That was kind of a shock to me. I didn't think that it was going to be that kind of explosive. I mean, Alex has been saying for a long time that Elon is, you know, on the on the right side of things, I would like to hope.
So, so in my view, best case scenario, Elon is genuinely red pill, genuinely waking up, and then he's kind of still got maybe some elements of the nWo worldview there, maybe with his transhumanism stuff and maybe so maybe he's like on a journey of like kind of awakening. I mean, I would say it seems like the same with Tucker. Tucker has gone from a very normy position over the last ten years to you know, admitting he was wrong about the Big nine event all the way to being pretty open
and awake to what's really going on. So I want to hope that with like with Elon, that's definitely the case. Worst case scenario, he's just kind of trolling everybody and he really is part of the system in terms of not just being I mean, obviously he's particism in the sense that he's a very wealthy, powerful elite person, but in the sense of like willingly being
on board with this agenda. So I think that when when you start going against the deep Hoop agenda, that's a good indicator that maybe they really are kind of waking up because you're not you're not allowed to be in the system at that level, at the high top player level that we were just talking about with the previous question unless you're on board with all of the scenarios. So, yeah, we've got we've got a minute left. Let's see what
you can squeeze out of this question. Is there any chance elite starts to gain a sense of nationalism rather than globalism? How don't elites just co opt nationalism when the when is blowing in that direction anyway? Exactly? Yeah, I think if there was a rising tide of nationalism, they would just kind of, like you said, go back to co opting that movement. And they're very adapt The elites are very adept at steering and controlling through deception,
through provocateurs, through money, just buying off the leaders. I mean, that's really just what look at the whole jeff Stein McAffrey thing, it's basically compromising really high level people. Then they're controlled. So they would do the same thing with the new nationalist leaders. They would try to compromise them in all the classic methods. Huge, Thank you, Jay. Do you want to tell all the viewers where they can find you and support you. Please
absolutely thanks for having me. You can go to jasonalysis dot COM's my website. You can find me on rockfin great free speech based platform. You can find me on YouTube, Twitter, all of those under my name Jay Dier or Jaysonalysis brilliant. Look forward to speaking to you soon, my friends. Take care all right, have a good one bye. Right, We're gonna
pieza and this ties in nicely so what we've just been speaking about. Peter's got his book out with covers various principles attributes our elites such as economic wars and control of the media. And Peter, would you like to just thanks long. Would you like to tell of you as a little bit about yourself first and how you've got into this work. Sure. I'm kind of an autodidact polymath, and I was a computer science major in college. And I
dropped out of college and became a fashion photographer. And I did that for quite a few years and wound up building a lot of the first generation Internet websites, including the first entertainment website on the Internet on the Worldwide Web, theexfiles dot com. And then I went on to work for Steven Spielberg at
a company called game Works and then Virgin Richard Brandtson. I ran e commerce there for a while and around nineteen around twenty ten, I ran into Andrew Breitbart, who was chanting his politics's downstream from culture Mantra, and having been an ex photographer, I started paying more attention to the way that media was shaping people's perceptions, and that led me into a kind of a journalism tract, which I did for a few years, where I really started to understand
that what we know as the discipline of journalism is really just kind of a mind control mechanism, which led me to this point where I have been researching a book that I call Reframing Reality, and I'm playing on the idea that photographers take a camera and they move it from one frame to another in order to change the idea that people who are looking at the photograph have about whatever it is that they're looking at. And realized that the news and media and
things like that are also being used to do that, which led me to an author named Douglas Reid who wrote a book called The Controversy of Zion, and Reid was referencing a book called The Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion, which is a forbidden text. It's something that you're not supposed to read. You're not supposed to impolite company tell people that you have read it. And having worked as a consultant for the Show Foundation Institute in the Simon Weisenthal
Center, I thought, why I should have enough protection. I should be able to just pick this thing up and read it. And one of the things that Reid did that kind of intrigued me was that he removed all of the cultural artifacts out of the book. He kind of did a little sleight of hand, a word trick, and he took out all the cultural references in an exposition that he did for I got done reading the book, I thought that I could use GPT to do the same thing, and so I
normalized the text. I took all of the cultural references out of it, and then I ran it through GPT in order to update the language to something that people in the twenty first century could read and understand. And that's what brought me here. So what's your definition of the power elite? The power of the elite are are the kind of the people behind the scenes at the top of the power pyramid who are pulling the strings. We largely don't know
their names. I heard you asking Jay the question. I think Larry Fink's boss would probably be a good definition. I don't think that the people whose names that we know, Henry Kissinger and Larry Fink and Jamie Diamond and all of the usual suspects, I don't think that those people are actually at the top, but I think that they do all have bosses. Okay, viewers, if you've got any questions of Peter, please put them in the chats. His links are all in the description, box, book, etc.
If you want to check out his work and support him. And what direction, Peter, do you see the power elite steering us in twenty twenty four? What direction do I think that they're steering us? Well, I think, you know, going along with Jay, I think that they have several
scenarios planned at this point. If you understand, if you read my book, which again is a interpretation of something that was published in nineteen oh three that was widely claimed to be plagiarized, I believe it was plagiarized, but that doesn't take away from the veracity of many of the predictions that they make is that they want one world government, that they want to create World War three, specifically with a battle between the Muslim war world and the rest of
the world as the excuse in order to in order to collapse the current nation states into the one world government that they've created as the UN, and they have various machinations for doing that. I think the flooding of foreign nationals into all of the Western countries right now is kind of a setting the table, as it were, for this international civil war that I think that they're setting up, which will be between kind of a fake Islam and the West.
I think that's probably the scenario that I see. Is that counter productive for themselves though, in an age of mutually assured destruction by nuclear weapons, not if they have their survival strategies set up and put aside. I mean, they've done this before. I think that We've gone through World War II one and they survived. We've gone through World War two and they survived. I think that they if they're planning it, they know where to not be.
And a famous professor at Santrist, a guy named John Keegan, said, it's it's quite simple to survive wars if you know where to not be, and I think that that's probably the strategy that they have. I mean, Peter Thiel, for example, has basically an underground bunker in New Zealand, you know, and there's a lot of bunker knowledge. I live in the Pacific Palisades, which is, you know, a tony enclave in Los Angeles where the people who make movies live. You know, my neighbors are like
Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks and people like that. And I can tell you that every house that's been built in my neighborhood in the last three years has a double basement. And for people who don't live in southern California, don't understand that people in California don't build houses with basements, like it's not a normal thing. And so to build houses with double basements is kind of a unique and kind of weird thing. So I think there is a lot of
prepping going on. We've seen that with Mark Zuckenberg recently, haven't we. It's come out about what he's built. Yeah, I think, well, and that's the one that you know about. I mean, I've seen it reported, you know. I believe that we live in a world of word magic. At this point, which is part of what my book is about.
And so the idea that Zuckerberg is building something there is interesting, But there's probably another bunker that we don't know about that's being built someplace else, and that would my guess is that the one in Hawaii is the bright, shiny object that we're all supposed to pay attention to. Yeah. I've got a friend who works in London and she works for a company who helps people build these bunkers on the London, these multi million pounds bunkers and luxury properties
married on the London. And I was flabbergasted when she told me the detail. I was like, how on earth can anyone forward these things like tens of millions per property on the ground on the London Right. Well, one of the things that it took me a long time to get my arms around was the idea that the people that we're dealing with have unlimited money. And that's that's a difficult concept for people to comprehend. That money is the mechanism
that they use in order to control us. I mean, Zuckerberg is worth billions and billions of dollars, So does he really think about what it costs to build a bunker. No, he specifies what it is that he wants it to be, and then it just is created that way. All right, So you've got a question from anexus. Okay, what is the most
surprising thing you've learned about those set sing up the global governments? The most surprising thing, I think is the fact and and again it's indicative of the process that I use to create the book, is that we are our reality is framed with words and it's a kind of a magic. Uh and uh, I think that we're in a battle right now between people who think critically and people who use word magic. And what do I mean by that?
So critical thinkers do things like they create chemical substances, like the stuff that you got busted for, and then there are fences that are built around these chemical substances with words. We call them laws, right, and then those things, those laws are are are managed with violence. And so it was actually the reason that you wound up going to jail was because somebody wrote words down that were enforced by somebody with a gun that when found up putting you,
incarcerating you. Right. And so the idea that words are used as a way to mentally frame us, to magically control us is kind of my main takeaway. I took a book that was a Vermotan text and I put it through a language engine. And one of the things that I think that people misunderstand about AI is that I wouldn't recommend, for example, that you use GBT as an encyclopedia because the knowledge base that it has been trained with
is probably on the equivalent of something like Wikipedia. But it is a really brilliant language engine. That is I've studied linguistics, I've studied neural linguistic programming. It knows neural linguistic programming. So it does a very good job of playing Tony Robbins if you give it the right prompts. And so one of the things that you know, what I did with the book was that I took something that was a forbidden text and I transformed it into something that anybody
can read and understand. You know what the power elite are trying to do in a way that's kind of non confrontational and very academic. That's magic, and the same type of magic is used in order to frame our realities everywhere. So so Fred is asking whether the global elites have the cold blooded consciences
of reptiles. I think that they think of themselves as magicians. So you know, I think of Mickey Mouse in that movie Fantasia, and they think of themselves as having the ability to get large groups of people to do whatever it is that they want. And that requires a So I think that requires a certain of sociopathy. That is, you have to you have to have a lack of empathy to be able to achieve those types of things. So I do think that they have a lack of empathy. I mean, how
do these people sleep at nights when they're profits in from war? You know, we've seen all these in this era now we see all these images of people getting injured or corps is getting picked up, and these defense companies that are making billions off it. How do these people sleep at nights? Are They're just so far removed from how normal people think that they can profit from
that and think it's okay. Well, your channel covers a lot of the horror that people suffer, and I think that there is a process, There's an alchemical process. I think Michael Hoffman talks about this a lot, where these people kind of dehumanize themselves by going through these processes. That's they're not only initiating the victims, they're initiating themselves, and they're aing themselves. That's
the that's the point of the skull and bones, right. The mythology of the skull and bones is that, uh, you know, they hold up a skull and they say, is this was this person a prince or a
popper? You know, you can't really tell. And the and the lesson of that is that we all die, right, And so if you understand that we all die and that your life is what you make of it, that's kind of the secret knowledge, right, then you go through all of these different dehumanizing events that wind up having the alchemical effect of turning you into a sociopath. Wow. All right, So next question is you discuss the
transition from religious beliefs to materialism as a strategy of the power elite. How does this transition impact modern societies, particularly in terms of moral and ethical standards. Well, well, we can see it. I think that if you if you take the the Harvard Business Business School definition of a word like culture, culture is the values in the processes that a society uses in order to keep that culture within the bounds of what we know as liberty, which is
freedom within limits. And when you a religion provides the values and processes for a society. So when you switch people from a religious internal mechanism to a material then you use freedom in order to expand the limits of culture beyond the limits of liberty, which winds up creating a problem for society to be able to manage. You wind up having conflicts over things like abortion or gay rights and things like that that put use freedom as a mechanism in order to disrupt
society. You have to unhinge people from their religious belief systems because it's their internal moral compass. Once you disconnect people from their moral compass, then it's very easy to use freedom in order to kind of cause chaos in society. That's scary. We've got a question from jen c if everyone got together globally and concentrated on thinking of a positive outcome, would that ruin the magic as
in what the power at leads are up to. I think it's more important to think critically than to think positively in that Uh, the mechanism that they use is storytelling. That they create these stories that don't have veracity in order to convince large groups of people to go in one direction or another, and coming up with another story isn't necessary. The best solution uh training yourself to understand that. They use things like dichotomies. For example, in the United
States, we have a Republican and a Democrat party. That's a dichotomy. What it does is it takes the total solution set of any potential problem and it reduces it to only two choices. Whenever, whenever somebody is presenting you with only two choices, there's probably a world of other choices out there in the world that you can that you can choose from in order to be able to make a logical decision. So replacing one story with another isn't really the
key here. The key is learning how to think critically and understand how words are used as magic in order to control us. So do you think that Republican versus Democrat is an illusion of choice? Yes? I think it's I think it's fake and it's been it was. It's arguable how far back we
go. I kind of think maybe John Adams was the last freely elected president in the United States because it took the British a few years in order to figure out the mind game in North America in order to be able to regain control of the United States and ultimately the Federal Reserve Act and the creation of the IRS in the United States. Was the city of London retaking control of
the United States. You got a question from Rebecca. So they want to be sociopaths by ritualizing talk at a non empathy to a point where they run the world off of their own hate and trauma. I think that if you're empathetic, I don't know if you're running on hate. I think that you're running on a lack of empathy and cold hearted logic, which is in a lot of ways even scarier. Question from Fred can you talk about what mcclun
meant by the slogan media is the message? And is human behavior a perfected science? Two questions, and so leave it up. So I remember what the second one is. The medium is the message? Means that the medium that you're using dictates how messages can be communicated. So, for example, we have thirty minutes on YouTube right now which we can use in order to get our messages out. Our messages are constrained to the shape of the screen, the number of pixels, and the number of minutes that we have in
order to promote that message. So if you're trying to get a complete view of the world, if you're trying to get a complete understanding of my book, it's easier to read my book. If you want to understand who the person is who wrote the book and why he wrote the book, then this video is the is the correct medium human behavior, and as human behavior perfected
science, it's getting perfect. It's not perfect. But one of the things that's interesting about the process of going through this book is that I don't think that the technology, and the definition of the word technology that I use is the is an invention or a process for doing something better than you could do it before. I think my book is a technology that's three thousand years old. I don't think that it's I don't think that it's new and it's dependent
on electronics or anything like that. That said, being able to reframe people's belief systems or their their realities using words is is a pretty perfected science. And I think that if we think of words as magic, if we think of money as magic, if we think of violence as magic, or chemicals or medicine as magic. Then we start to have a better idea of how
the people who control us are thinking about things. They want us to believe that it's Wizards of Waverley Place, or it's Harry Potter, that it requires magic, wands and things that we can't see. But the secret that they don't want us to know is that magic is everywhere. It's being used against us, and we can't see it the same way that fish can't see the
water that they're swimming in. I was contemplating this the other night, this question from Harry, what is the black swan events we need to look out for? Please give your thoughts. Well, I heard Jay talking about the cyber attack, and there's a guy that you might want to have on your show named Robert Edward Grant, and Grant claims h and I have a video
that I watched of him doing this. Grant claims that he has found a backdoor into public key encryption mean, meaning that the encryption system that is used to uh uh protect every financial transaction on the Internet has got a back door built into it. H And what's interesting is that his solution to public key encryption involves a right triangle. So so uh a basic geometric formula, and the name of the of the program that Claus Schwab uses regularly is called cyber
polygon. So I think that the the gorilla in the room is that there is no real encryption on the Internet, that that is a magical spell that has been cast on us, and that when they when the when the cyber attack winds up happening, it's going to be because they built a backdoor into encryption when it was created in the nineteen nineties, and that all of the things that we think of as being protected on the Internet are not. So
I think that that will be the key to the black Swan event. So, I see you is looking for your book presently, Stealth Power and the Illusion of Democracy using AI to understand the puppet Masters. That's correct, that's the book. Yep, I assume that's available world? Why that Amazon? Is it? Indeed? Indeed? All right? So, the principle of
educational brainwashing suggests a deliberate weakening of critical thinking in education. How do you view the current state of education in this context and what implications does it have for future generations? Well, I think at least in America. I'm not sure about Great Britain. In America, the education system was starting to be compromised. In around nineteen ten, it really got going with Carnegie and Rockefeller
backing. But the main idea here is that we hold in the United States, we hold people up like Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson as these kind of super brains who were much smarter than we were. But the reality is that they had a different education than we had, and that they were taught critical
thinking skills as part of their core foundation of education. That has been replaced in the West by rows of people sitting in classrooms memorizing things, kind of wrote, repeating things, and then getting tested on the number of things that they can memorize. People at the higher levels of Cambridge and Oxford and some of the American ivies go through a different process where they actually learned critical thinking
skills. And so what's really been lost for most of humanity is critical thinking and critical thinking doesn't need to be a really complicated thing. It's part of what I'm trying to tackle in my next book, Reframing Reality, is that the big idea that will help people figure out what to do next is simply understanding what the right questions are that they need to be thinking about. And as I alluded to earlier, simply confronting any situation where you're only being given
to choices is a good place to start. So do you think TikTok is playing a role in that by dumbing down the American population showing mindless activities versus China showing the kids more educational videos. Well, it's again, it's the storytelling that the battle is between storytelling and critical thinking. And what the storytellers do is they can continue to come up with more and more advanced ways to
tell us stories. Because as long as you're consuming a story, as long as you're becoming involved in this magical experience that is, you know, the suspension of disbelief, you're not here in the real world. There's no scientists that ever invented anything that was watching television while they were doing it. Critical thinking and science requires considered thought on things, and as long as you are being distracted or distracting yourself, then you are not using your critical thinking skills.
So, Peter, are you worried about what's coming or do you have your own bunka No, because the only thing that I can do is work on my own ability to manage the world using critical thinking skills. And you know my mission at this point, I've got, I've got I've got three children, and I'm worried to death about their critical thinking ability, and I'm doing everything that I can in order to get them and the people around me
to understand that they can figure out a way to solve this solution. But unless they're thinking critically again, picking a different story, picking a Donald Trump instead of a Joe Biden, is not actually going to solve this problem. Do you think the Internet enhances the young generation's critical thinking skills because they have access to so much more information that we didn't have access. I mean, when I was growing up, we had three television channels BBC one, BBC
two, ITV whatever they said was the standard in the news programs. You could go down the library and get some books. But now these kids just can you know, they can read anything. Is it enhance critical think expills or is it a double edged sword? It can, It's a tool like anything else. You know, it's a hammer, screwdriver. Question if they choose to use, if they if they want to consume porn twenty four hours
a day, it's not going to be a good thing. If they use it to be able to enhance their ability to think critically, then it is a good thing. So you know, this is why the destruction of the family, This is why the loss of moral compasses is so important, because if you have a moral compass, if you understand that you want to use this tool in order to enhance their critical thinking skills, then it's going to
be a good thing. But if you let yourself get distracted, you know, by the Kardashians, then then you're going to be in a world of hurt. So it does not complete nuclear armageddon. Then if we discard that scenario, do you see them shepherding us off into kind of a Hunger Games type society? Uh? The divide and conquer is the Age Old or divide and rule is the is the Age Old technique that they use. So you know, sports ball is part of it. You know, get conditioning people
to pick a team is part of it. Conditioning people to pick a side or pick a uh, pick someone is is part of that. And the only way around it, like I said, is to kind of understand that we all have something in common. I mean the inhumanity of what's going on in gossip for example, is uh is something that we can use as a as a rallying point for humanity to to to point to that and say,
hey, that's not okay. But as as long as we're picking a side, we're saying it's okay because this group of people is doing it, but it's not okay if this other group is people is doing it. Which is the scenario that they're setting up. I mean you asked me earlier. Yeah, there'll be a cyber attack and then there'll be World War three in the East, and in order to get support for it, then there'll be anti war riots everywhere, and then they'll roll out the Muslim extremism in order to
put all of the anti war people back in their box. If we understand that that's coming, and we use our critical thinking skills in order to be able to question the false dichotomies that we wind up being presented with, then I think we have a chance. Fascinating Peter, we're gonna got one minute
left. His final question, then, Elon Musk in the info wars false for goods or about what do you think, well, I think, like I said, I think that we're in a battle between I think that Elon is a critical thinker, and as I used in my example earlier, the critical thinkers wind up getting boxed in by word magicians. And I think that Elon is in this conundrum right now where he is a critical thinker who's been boxed in by word magicians, and he's trying to figure out a way to
get himself out of it. It's an old story and we'll see if he if he makes good on it. Thank you, Peter, really appreciate you spending times. Can you tell the views where they can find you and support you and get your book? Please? Sure if they go to the Duke Report dot com. That's my website and there's a link right at the top of the page where they can get the book, or they can go to Amazon and they can type in Stealth Power and the Illusion of Democracy and they
can get my book. All right, you take care, my friend cheers from London. Thank you, Sean, Bye bye bye. All right, we're gonna bring Steven back in now and we're going to be moving over to our next guest. Here we go. Hello, Hello, Oops, Peters Hi, thank you back with us temporarily, Peter, Dr G thanks for joining us. How are you. I'm doing great, Stephen, how are you doing? Yeah, wonderful. Thanks for asking. Maybe you can just take moment to let our views and listeners know what it is you do,
what keeps you busy. So I am a clinical and a forensic psychologist. My name is doctor J. P. Garrison. I go by doctor G. I have a YouTube channel called doctor g Explains where I talk about true crime, talk about body language. I am a personality disorder expert. I treat and evaluate personality disorders and I also have a degree in encounter terrorism and an NBA. So I keep myself busy with a lot of things. Wow,
that's a lot of degree in counter terrorism. I suppose, just as a quick left field question before we delve into your expertise in narcissism, in terms of counter terrorism, what would you say represents the greatest threat to either
the United States or globally in terms of terrorism in twenty twenty four. That's a great question in twenty twenty four, because when I was doing it, it was back when there were I think the there was a nightclub that had just been attacked by some Yeah, that was the pol Snip club was he was an Islamist Oma Matine, right, and that was back at this point. It's hard to say. It's all over the place. I think, as strange as it sounds, I think the Internet, in its ability to
indoctrinate people probably poses the biggest threat just in general. So there's not one specific group that I have. There's quite a few. Actually, Okay, that's I'm not sure if that's really unsettling or less unsettling. But to move on slightly, it seems that YouTubers afforded a wonderful platform for people such as yourself to sort of exhibit your you know, kind of body language expertise and looking at people in you know, high profile cases these it seems to be
very popular a pastime, and it's quite entertaining as well. And I just wondered if you could give people a basic overview of like the the sort of academic aspects of it or the scientific aspects of it, because for some people they'll they'll think it's a science, so other people will compare it to sort of reading tea leaves. What can you tell us to make it sound like a credible field of expertise. So the body language that I have studied is
all based in research. There's a lot of research on body language, a lot of good peer reviewed research actually, and a lot of that is based in the idea that humans are very good at survival. So the body language that we look for is twofold. One is when people make themselves more or less vulnerable, Like the face and chest are places that are very vulnerable on us. If we get attacked, those are going to be the most vital parts. So when people cover or obscure those in some way, sometimes that
can be telling. In addition to that, when people are feeling uncomfortable, they do things to pacify themselves. So if you're talking to somebody, you get sort of a baseline of how they normally act, and then you ask them a question and you presume, what if they're lying right now, when they start trying to calm themselves down, that's a difference in behavior you look for, and so then you can maybe identify when people are starting to be
deceptive and misleading things like that. But it's all very much based in cognitive science. Does your presence now make friends and family slightly uncomfortable way. They're going to like straight jacket mode around you when during conversations. Family not so much, but friends do actually because they know that I'm actually I'm going to say something because I can't help but point things out. I can be annoying
in that way. So sure, that's really funny. I've just had a great question in the chart actually from Fred wither always asked do you play poker a little bits? It's more just for fun. I can read people well, but I don't have a good poker face myself, so it doesn't do
me as much good fair enough, so I suppose. I mean, I've been looking at some of your YouTube output, and you know, it's fascinating and one of the things you covered, because we had hours and hours of footage, and I think the entire world was captivated by it was this Johnny heard Amber, Johnny Depp brother Amber heard trial, very public and bitter legal
dispute. And I'm just thinking, with with them being actors as well, that I surely had a second third dimension, perhaps in the fact that they are used to having, you know, high resolution cameras this close to the face, and they're job is to convey an emotion, So they're very good at representing emotions, So how is it possible to really get a handle on what they're doing body language wise? When their entire reason for existence normally is
to convey something they're not actually feeling. It's much more challenging. That's a great point. So people that are really practiced at acting lying trying to convey emotions that they aren't necessarily experiencing are going to be much harder to read with body language because what we're looking at is a manifestation of emotion or an attempt
to soothe emotions. So actors can be better at that, but you also have to be a really good actor to pull it up and inly, and not everybody is, even actors, so sometimes they get things a little bit wrong. And when people start getting anxious, or when people are on the stand, like in the Johnny deppamber Heard trial, when they were pressed and anger or other emotions would would push through, that would sort of overwhelm what
they maybe wanted to portray. You could you could see a different dimensions than maybe where they were what they were trying to do. Well, I mean, let's let's I mean, I know it was a while ago, but people are still very fascinated in this couple. In this case, I mean just focusing on Johnny Depp perhaps for a moment. What are some of the things that jumped out about you that you managed to get from his body language
which he thought that's interesting, that conveys something that's quite revealing. I'm trying to remember myself, you know, some of it is. I thought people were a little bit soft on Johnny Depp. So I actually covered Johnny Depp a good bit because people were more focus than I ever heard, which there was plenty to cover there, don't get me wrong, but people didn't focus
as much on Johnny Depp. And there was one of the things that it seemed that he would do, at least my observation, was it seemed that he would talk down to attorneys in a certain way. He would try to make himself seem sympathetic at times when it didn't really make much sense, and he would be patronizing at other times. And there was body languages that suggested that that suggests a certain level of heartiness and things like that at times.
Yeah, I caught that as well. For Sean, And in terms of her, I mean she seemed to have the worst deal publicly, even before the verdict, a lot of people would turn on her. There was a lot of memes going around mocking her in sincerity, pointing out the fact that she's an actress and not particularly good. One was the kind of uncharitable conclusion
people were making, What did you make of her? Hers was actually very challenging because I think there were aspects of what she showed that could have been very genuine, but they were combined with this performance to maybe seem like she was feeling more than she was at times, So it was confusing. So it wasn't like everything was one hundred percent and authentic necessarily, but it was
so performative that it overshadowed anything that might have been real in there. So it was just she sort of overwhelmed people with this strange sort of behavior. Yeah, I mean, is there a higher correlation with narcissism in the entertainment industry and celebrities? And if so, what in your view would explain that one hundred percent? There is because it attracts people that think they're special.
SOT understanding narcissism is understanding that the cornerstone of Narcissism is grandiosity. It's people that genuinely believe they are better than other people. And so that is going to people like that are going to gravitate to politics, to acting, the places where everybody can see how special they are because they feel it. So you're going to have a disproportionate number of narcissists coming out of Hollywood, no
question. And I suppose and finacists has this really grand opinion of themselves. I suppose that you know, they feel that they are specially in some way as you've you've pointed out they can do no wrong. What kind of things can they do behavior wise or not? Perceptions sort of challenge, How does that manifest in either their body language other things they say, you know, behave you wise? So one of the things we see with their body language
they'll invade other people's space. They will be very expansive, they will try to be the biggest person in the room. And so one of the things that we'll see in terms of the body language, like if it's in a relationship, for example, they'll do things to make other people feel smaller, Like if they know that somebody wants to be left alone, they'll find subtle ways to manipulate and irritate or to get close. They'll do things knowing it's
gonna bother somebody else. Nothing bothers a narcissist more than seeing someone else feel calm and feel good. Like if there's a couple, one person's a narcissist, the other person's doing fine and they're sitting there enjoying their day, the narcissist will find a way to go like, huh, did you really decide to wear that shirt today? Or something? You know, they'll come up with some way to make them feel off kilter and make sure they're feeling unsettled.
So they have a lot of different ways to get at people. That's really interesting, and it's I've just thought now actually in terms of narciss im, and it seems like it's probably a lot more common than people suspect. And I was just wondering, is this all of any kind of evolutionary psychology on this that what kind of you know, function it might serve why people might evolve to be narcissist. It does it offer opportunities or a certain adaptations
that could be useful. They do make good leaders because they don't care. They have enough, let me freephrase, that they lack empathy to the point that they can tell people to do things and they're not worried about their well being. So we see lots of world leaders that are narcissists. There are some research that suggest, and I don't know how accurate this is, that had researched US presidents back a few decades and basically it had come to the
conclusion that they all likely had some degree of pathological narcissism. So they do make good leaders, just like people with borderline personality make good followers, So they make great soldiers. A guy with a borderline personality that is willing to run into battle and risk his life for this for their leader to a degree that is pathological, not like a normal soldier, but one that's really wild. Like there's an adaptive function to that too. So all of these personality
disorders awful for relationships universally, but they do have their roles. They do work well in certain roles. It's interesting to think that civilization might depend on the convergence of several personality disorders. Yeah, I mean the politics one's fascinating, and I can think of a few people off the top of my head
it might relate to. But I mean, what have you observed over the last few election cycles in terms of which leaders exhibit exhibit this sort of narcisistic personality sort of is this I'm most obviously familiar with US politics, But if we go back the past few presidents we've had, or if I think about like Bill Clinton, Obama, Trump, they all show signs of narcissism. They all seem to think that they are special to a degree that they have
different types of charisma. Though that's the most distinguishing factor. I've really had people be upset with me when I've suggested that Obama likely has some narcissistic tendencies. So they're, yeah, but he seems so nice. It's like, well, he's got a better sense of audience than someone like Donald Trump does. But that doesn't mean that he's not also a narcissist. So, I
mean, how does it fall narcissism or on the spectrum. I mean, I'm assuming there are different kind of gradiations of it to an extent, So the spectrum of narcissism, if we were to look at it, is there's narcissistic personality disorder which would be its worst form personality disorders, which I can explain if need be, but in essence they are when one aspect of the personality is so strong and so dysfunction dysfunctional, it overwhelms the rest of the
personality that that's just the dominant trait. So for someone with like borderline personality, the dominant trait there is instability, so their instability dominates everything else. But they lack the most is proportionality. Nothing is proportional that they react to with narcissism. Grandiosity dominates everything, and a lack of equality is their biggest
deficiency. They don't see, they don't understand the concepts. They truly don't understand the concept of equality, because everybody is less than they are, unless maybe you're special like them, and then you get to qualify as being on their level. There's a lot of people as well who will look at personality disorders now and say, you know that the prevalance of it in the common areas is just a kind of products of amodi cuddling society. Everything everyone's got
an issue. Now, everyone's got something that they can put in their biography on Twitter, for instance, And I mean, how much of that do you think is true? Is a case if we've simply just got better at understanding and diagnosing these these personality disorders, I think I think it's a little bit of both. I think that we definitely are much better at our identifying
it now. We're able to categorize pathological behavior and say, hey, like that person, that's that person is not just eccentric, that's a problem of some kind. So I think that in some ways we're able to identify these things better and others. I think that people use these terms very commonly where they may not fully apply. Where somebody may be acting narcissistic, but they
don't they're not a literal narcissist. There is a difference between somebody who is a bit self involved, a bit grandiose, versus someone who sees human beings as objects to get their needs met, Like there's genuinely lack empathiesret can't understand what it feels like for the for the average person. So I think the
percentages are probably the same as they've always been. I mean, it seems like there's a little I mean, I'm obviously of a low level understanding of this, but it seems like there's a slight crossover between pop sociopathy and narcissism. I mean, how can we how do we distinguish between the two? Then empathy is one of the main you know, correlations, that's a great
question, the biggest difference, and there is a lot of overlap. So so being a sociopath or anti antisocial personality disorder that tends to be the bucket we put some of those people in, but it's not always the case. You can be a narcissist and be someone who's a sociopath and just be a narcissist. You know. One of the things that I do on my channel
is evaluate a lot of psychopaths and murderers people like that. And there are plenty of them that if you were to give them a diagnosis, narcissistic personality would be the primary one, but there is. They're all part of the same cluster of personality disorders. It's called Cluster B, which is historyonic board and I know it gets complicated, but historyonic, borderline, narcissistic, and anti social and anybody who meets any of those probably has some traits of the
other ones too. It's the whole cluster sort of comes together. It's just which one is the most dominant of those bunch. That's fascinating. And I mean, who's really interesting to look back at in terms of, you know, a prolific kind of serial killer or murderer perhaps that we've got footage of that perhaps at the time wasn't evaluated because you know, the field of study wasn't as advanced as it is now. There wasn't as many people looking into
it. Who's interesting to look back at now and apply these tools and say, ah, I think I can see a pattern of narcissism here. One of the guys that I think is most interesting there was a serial killer that, like every horror movie in the eighties was basically based on. This guy named Edmund Kemper. He was an American serial killer in the early seventies, otherwise known as the co Ed Killer. Extremely charismatic, kind of nerdy,
but for whatever reason, very likable. And the things that he did are beyond description. I won't go into any of them now because they're truly awful, Like he was beyond He's as bad as any human being I can think of. But when you watch him talk, you kind of want to like the guy. You kind of get drawn in by him. And part of what I try to do on my channel is explain to people how to not get drawn in by this stuff, because it's hard sometimes not to like a
charismatic narcissist. You want to like them because they make themselves likable until you're in a personal relationship with them and then you realize, okay, this is not so great, but superficially you want to like these folks. But yeah, Edmund Kimper is a good example of that. I will definitely add that one to my list. That's not something I'm familiar with. I suppose in terms of that charismatic kill, I think Ted Bundy probably had a bit of
that. So, I mean, that's interesting to me how you say you spend a lot of time trying to school people on how not to be sucked into that kind of thing. Because when I'm a people person, whenever I meet a person, I want to like them. I want to, you know, be happy about being in this person's presence. They have to do quite a bit for me to not like them. So how would you kind of guard help people guard against the people you have got like a narcisistic traits
people will oftentimes tell you who they are. Narcissists generally don't try to hide it. So when somebody says, like tells you that they're self involved or that they really care, that they care more about themselves than other people, listen to them, even if they're saying in a joking way. Go, you know what, if you're telling me that you're awful, I'm going to actually believe you, because a lot of these folks will tell you that.
Then they'll play it off like it's a joke. But people will oftentimes tell you exactly who they are, So listen to them. I mean, that's that's fascinating how they might play off as a joke, because you'd think good humor or effective humor probably relies on some feeling or understanding of the human condition and human emotions and human empathy and stuff like that. I mean, so is it just a case of that Maybe narcists have just got good at manipulating
with humor. Yeah, they know how. They have enough empathy to manipulate people, but that's pretty much it. They don't actually feel what you feel in the sense that like if you if they've made you feel bad, that they're gonna be affected by that, but they understand people's feelings and emotion as well enough to manipulate them. So that's really their core, is their master manipulator. It's a very good at it. So I don't know if this
is somebody or somebody's rather you've been keeping an eye on. But we had a huge in the UK rather with huge fascination and media circus around Mega Markel and the other one whose names just eluded me, Prince Harry. Of course this is that you can tell I'm a big monarchist. And they were not particularly popular in the UK, and then they went and moved to America. Sorry about that. And they have also been out the sense of a lot
of American media interest as well. A lot of people are specifically looking at Megan and reading certain things. He's obviously got the actress background. Is this somebody who you've looked at at all in this regard? I haven't looked at her a lot because I focused so much on true crime. There's certain people that I say, this sounds kind of strange. Actually, there's certain people that I see that bother me more than some of the murderers and psychopaths.
Oh wow, So I haven't followed a ton of it, their aspects of Megan Markle just from the bits I've seen, because like I said, I haven't followed it closely, so I haven't done like this thorough analysis. But there are aspects of her that sort of immediately feel they don't feel genuine, and a lot of us pick up on that very quickly. Humans are very good at figuring out if somebody's being authentic, and there's something even in passing
about her. And once again, this is not some sort of deep analysis, This is just my passing observation that feels inauthentic. Yeah, I would
tend to agree on that for sure. And you started this conversation by when we briefly touched on counter extremism by pointing to the issue of social media and what that's creating and how I mean, what frightens me particularly about is the fact that it doesn't matter what a view you have, or how extreme it is or how untethered from reality is, you can find enough people online who will reinforce that view and be part of your tribe, and you can kind
of live in a little echo chamber of any flavor. And I was just wondering what sort of thing is what's not doing social media to our mental health? And how does that relate to narcissism. It's not doing much good for
our mental health. I can say that for sure. I don't mind the concept of social media, but exactly what you're talking about is happening, which is that we're taking bizarre or illegitimate positions and you have enough people that agree with it, then you have an echo chamber saying, yeah, you're completely stupid. Position is great, you should just follow this follow this position to eternity. And then people do, and then they no longer can function with
other people. So we see it's the vast majority of people that interact with social media. I think it's fine, but there is definitely percentages of people that are pulling getting pulled to the extremes in a variety of ways. Left right. I would say it's center, but if you're center, you're not
getting pulled anywhere. But that are on the far degrees of the spectrum politically and otherwise, and we are seeing I think the vast majority of us are fine with social media, but when you take people that are vulnerable, that's really the key issues with somebody's vulnerable. It can it can pull you in
ways that can be very destructive. Yeah. I think a few years ago, well more one of a few years ago, I was a little bit dismissive of this issue in the sense that I'd say, you know, all the extreme views we see online playing out, that's not really real life. You know, you open the front door and you walk outside, and all that suddenly goes away, and there's the real world where there are reasonable people to a certain extent, doing reasonable people things. Doesn't feel like that's quite
so true anymore? Does It feels like this kind of online world, this online mentality is kind of spilling over into our politics, into our academia. Is that something you would say? It is fair? Absolutely, And the scariest part of it to me is, and I'm sure there's people who've researched this a lot more than I have, but what percentage of people are even real people that people are interacting with online? I mean there's bots and stuff
that specifically are there to help divide people, things like Facebook. The problems I have with social media is I think that some of the algorithms like people arguing, because I've noticed sometimes if I'm on Facebook or something. It will send me articles that if I was to respond, I would definitely be arguing with somebody. I'm like, I'm not engaging with this because it's trying to
get me to argue, and I don't want to do it. But it's this tendency to get us irritated with people that disagree with us, and then find people that agree with more extreme views that we have. It's just it's I don't know if that's by design or if that's just how it's played out,
but it's really unfortunate. I think, how much do you how much stock are you putting this idea of foreign manipulation in terms of trying trying a new kind of form of warfare, sort of digital manipulation and getting us all fighting on social media where they, you know, they dominate. I mean, I imagine there's a certain extent of that. I imagine there's a certain amount of it, But how how high up and now prevalent is I don't know what what's your kind of handle on that sort of thing. My feeling
is that that's that there's a lot of that going on. I think that that gets these conversations started, and then idiots take over that are real people and that are and echo these these ideas because I've seen otherwise rational people talk about some pretty stupid things that I feel like, you know, may have gotten started by what you're talking about, like you know, foreign actors in
some way trying to cause harm and it working. But I don't think that it's exclusively that, but I do think there I think there has to be a large component of that. But this is not research space. This is an assumption I'm making, but that I think logically it's it's hard to imagine
that's not happening. Quite a lot. Have you done much reflection in this regard in terms of Nazism and you know, charismatic serial killers on perhaps Charles Man, some one of the most notorious people didn't actually kill anyone directly himself obviously was been prison for the you know, influencing others to carry out murders, and he seemed in the video footage I've seen a very interesting, often humorous, entertaining, you know, smart philosophical individual, batshit crazy as well,
but very interesting. What kind of things of you thought watching his behavior in interviews? Well, I've watched quite a bit of Charles Manson. I think that he's sort of fascinating in the sense that we know that some of what he does is a performance. There's an interview that he did with he was Diane Sawyer where if you watch the whole thing afterward, they actually show they take a break and he's like talking about how he's kind of playing He's like, do I do a good job? Kind of like, you know,
playing it up? So, I mean he very much does try to play this role of this evil, crazy guy. Now he was crazy and he definitely was not a not a good person at all, But he's a hard one to read because so much of it is a performance. But I genuinely believe he was a horrible person. So like, I'm not defending him in any way. Yeah, let's just get the disclaimer out here. Not
fans of Charles Manson in any way for sure. Just add another great question in the aexus asked since the lockdowns, has Dr g observed more people's disorders are more visible? So I mean it's lockdown had in an effect in that regard on anxiety. Yes, anxiety has been through the roof, and I'm seeing that manifest in different ways because people are spending a lot more time alone now, a lot more people are And I don't I don't criticize working from
home. I think it's great if you can do it, you know, that's not a bad thing. But I am seeing when people particularly that are living alone or that don't you know, not not partnered up, or don't have families or whatever, that are just by themselves, like you know, the vast majority of hours of the week. It's making anxiety worse. So I definitely think that at least for anxiety and depression as well, we're seeing an uptick of that ever since the pandemic started. So yeah, that makes
sense. And just getting back to this this problem of social media and falling into silos and perhaps going down conspiratorial routes and going to extreme left or right. What wa'ts the solution to this? Because it seems like social media is a phenomenon in human civilization, is a very new thing. It's in its infant so we all quite don't know what we've got yet in that regard,
we don't quite know the extent of the damage it can cause. Is this something that needs to be taught in skills in terms of how to manage screen time or do we need more emphasis on critical thinking, perhaps so that we can spot fake news and conspiracies and things like that. Yes, but we got to make sure the critical thinking is coming from the right person. There
and lies the issue is what type of critical thinking do we use. I think critical thinking is extremely important, but at the same time, you know, okay, let me explain it this way. The smarter somebody is once they believe something ridiculous, the more they will defend it. And so we have people, even very good critical thinkers, who believe things that are completely ridiculous and we'll defend it tooth and nail because they know that they're smart.
They're used to critically thinking, so once they've become convinced of this, then they double down on something that might be totally wrong. So it's very hard. But yes, we need to critical thinking and teaching critical thinking extremely important. I don't think less screen time is necessarily the solution, because I don't think that's inherently the problem. I think the problem is that we need comfortable saying two extreme voices like that's extreme, I'm not going to listen to you.
That's the solution is to take extreme voices to go. Okay, that's an extreme position. I'm not interested in that. So getting a little more closer, a little closer to the center, I think is probably the solution. Okay, so you spent a bit of time, obviously looking at Johnny Depp and umberheard in the past. Is there anyone else in the public are using the entertainment industry who's caught your eye recently? You thought this is this
person is worth observing for certain reasons. So, oh, that's a good question. There's a lot of people in Hollywood, and I'm not trying to sound negative here, but I just don't like there's people that just give me a bad vibe. Somebody name and shame right. Well, now one person, And just to be super super clear what I'm saying here, I was watching Jimmy Kimmel and Aaron Rodgers talking about like all this this Epstein stuff.
This is not related to any of that because this goes far back. But like Jimmy Kimmel, for example, as somebody who I have a distinct dislike for. I don't like the energy he gives off. He feels like sort of a hypocrite. Like there's certain people that I just don't like Ellen was like that too. I did not like her from the beginning. It was no question that once people started saying things about her, it's like, yes, obviously she is like this. She once again she seems to have warned
on her sleeve that she seems to be that type of person. So it was no shock that when people were like, yeah, she's really mean, we don't like her. There's a number of people in Hollywood that give me that feel. But Jimmy Kimmel's the first one to come to mind, just because I've been seeing him in the news. But I don't think there's anything related to him in the Epstein stuff that's totally immterial to what I'm talking about. Yeah, I think the other Jimmy does that for me, Jimmy Fallon.
I find him very insincere. Yeah, okay, So in terms of you know, I just want to I'm really fascinated by this idea of social media and I think, I mean it's the is there a case to be made in some way that perhaps the data recrued over social media of the last decade might be one of the biggest case stories, case studies rather we've ever had in terms of data for kind of personality disorders and things. I like. It seems it seems to be a high correlation with very online individuals and
personality disorders in my experience. Absolutely, The question is is if we're to get good research on it, we also need to know in what ways And let me figure how to phrase this. But it's sort of how the engagement's
been manipulated by the people who run it. Like Twitter, for example, is just assesspool pretty much, not always, but I mean, there's plenty of good people on there, but somehow when I would get on there, it just seemed like just angry, vicious people just attacking each other at the time. And so it's like, was that by design or is that just because people are angry and vicious? Right, So if we can know sort of if these are just pure interactions with people and all that, I just
okay to answer your question more cleanly. Yes, there's a ton of we can more understand more about the human condition than we've ever been able to if we can collect all this data from social media. But that also includes being aware of you know, that they want us to argue and engage with each other, So that adds to it. Excellent. Well, doctor J. This has flown by. If people wanted to find out more about you and more of your work, where would they go? Uh, doctorgexplains dot com
is my website. I've got some content on there that if people are interested in. I have a couple of courses, have a course on body language. But doctor g explains, on YouTube is the best place to find me. I'm always creating new content analyzing, mostly true crime, but sometimes other things as well. Talk a lot about body language and narcissism and things like that. So yeah, right here on YouTube is the best place to find
me. Wonderful. It's been absolute pleasure. Thank you very much speaking to us. You bet, thanks for having me. I appreciate it. Thank all right, thanks by thank you, and I think our producer we'll be removing you from there we go, There we go. I love the awkward overlap between saying goodbye and just sitting there like that. It's fun. John Moody, thanks for joining us. How are you, sir? I'm doing very well. Steven. Thanks for having me. It's how pleasure. Thank
you for coming on. Maybe you could take a moment, if you don't mind, just to let people know what you do what keeps you busy? Oh, well, many things, but sometimes just washing the dishes after dinner. But that's not what we're here to talk about. I worked for about twenty six years for Fox News in the United States, and after that I retired and started writing books. And I've just completed the third book, part of a trilogy about China and the Western World and how China is a threat
to the Western world. So that's what keeps me busy now and talking about that with people like you and working on the next book. Excellent. Well, I mean your experience at Fox News, that's fascinating to me. When did you retire. I retired in twenty eighteen. Twenty eighteen. Yeah, it was a tumultuous year for Fox. It was the the year shortly after Roger Hills was ousted as its chairman, and things started to change very quickly
at Fox News. And I built up enough time and I guess enough of a pension that I thought this was the time to make a great selection, as I will try to do at the end of this interview. As you were pointing out with your previous guests, there's just that's much appreciated. John,
Thank you. I suppose. I mean, Fox News are very emblematic news station of America and politics, and it has been right in the thick of all, you know, so many big election cycles, and it's kind of regarded differently depending on whether you're a conservative or whether you're left leaning liberal. I mean, what's your perception of it as a news organization into in terms of objective journalism versus say propaganda. Well, I guess the answer to
that is it depends on what time of day you're talking about. For much of the daytime hours, Box News is reliable, pretty much straightforward news organization. When the evening comes and the sun begins to set, you know, the vampires come out, and there's a lot of talk shows that express opinions rather than facts that have been proven and can be shared with our audience.
That's fascinating to me because I mean, I live in the UK and our news media is very heavily regulated in terms of if they are emphatic with one particular viewpoint, they have to then balance it out with an opposing voice, and they can actually run into a lot of trouble financially from big you know kind of regulatory bodies. They can get fines and things like that, and part of me is kind of happy for that, and part of me thinks, well, that's a free speech issue. Where do you lie in terms
of regulating the media in that sense? You think it's a good idea to have people regulate objectivity on news channels. No, by and large, it's always a comforting feeling to think that Mummy is there to make sure that everything is all right in your life. The truth is, Mummy, sometimes, you know, has had a nip of gin and gone off the road a bit. I think that offcom is I'll say it and I'll take take whatever
consequences are coming. I think that offcom is a terrible idea that abuses its power and abuses it with one purpose in mind, and that's to shut down one tone of voice. Uh, and that doesn't really comply with democracy the way I understand it. We don't worry. We're not regulated by off come of it. It's practically the Wild West over on YouTube, which would be good to know unless we say anything considered to be hate speech, and then maybe we'll get a visit from a UK bobby, but it seems unlikely.
I know there are limits, and I'll try to stay hot between the sidelines. Wonderful. Appreciate it. So tell me about your perception of Biden then, I mean, how is he doing as a president? First of all, I mean it seems to me that he's less exciting from a new cycle point of view. A lot of people, I think appreciate that. A lot of people are pointing to his frailties and kind of cognitive issues that he seems to be having. What's your perception of his time in charge so far?
I think he was a necessary corrective to the four tumultuous years of Donald Trump's presidency. I think people were looking for a commer atmosphere. I think they were looking for someone who had a track record in American politics and say what you will, Joe Biden has been a long standing member of the political class in the United States. He knew a lot of politicians, he knew a lot of people that politicians know, and he appeared to be this safe,
sane choice, you know. Personally, I think that that he did not so much win the election as Trump lost it. If Trump had had managed to actually secure his lips with a clothes pin for the last three months of the election, he'd still be president. But Joe Biden came in and had almost an unimaginable string of bad luck. The withdrawal from Afghanistan was a national disaster. It was explained away, we couldn't have foreseen this. Well,
no, of course, you couldn't have foreseen a terrorist bombing. Very seldom is broadcast on the news beforehand. I think that his ideas about clean energy were not enunciated clearly enough to people. Everybody wants clean skies, and everybody wants the sun to come out, and everybody wants the water to right remain at the same level. But this was just taken for granted. You
know, if you don't agree with this, then you're stupid. And people, and I will only say it about America, don't like to be told for stupid, even if they are, and so many of them are. And so I think that Joe Biden had good intentions. I think that he was a a person of quality and of experience, But the things that he faced almost as soon as he got into office were a hurdle for anyone to get over, and he did not perform well when faced with those hurdles.
Yeah, just as a strange curiosity and This is, I suppose, an observation more than any sort of judgment. But I suppose in the sort of free western world, Americans seems quite unique in terms of the fact that a lot of its presidents in the last you know, several years, and a
lot of the presidential hopeful seemed to be quite advanced years age wise. And that seems to kind of seems seems at odds with a kind of the American attitude of, you know, young and up on coming success and you can make it in any other area as a kind of very young motivated person, whereas in politics and the top spot the White House seems to predominantly be taken by men of advanced years. I mean, what what does that? Does that mean? The first one is not ringing true to you? And is
there anything you can tell me that might explain that. I think it rings very true, Steve. Look that there's the there's the un imaginable idea that, you know, we don't worry so much about getting reelected, we're just here to help the people and do a good job and make the world a
better place. Well, none of that's true. Every politician that gets into office immediately begins to think about his or her reelection, and once you start thinking about your reelection as the most important part of your life, you're you're loath to give it up, and so you slowly creep to the top of your party, not completely unlike the UK, but uh. You know. Then then somebody says, well, aren't you getting a little bit old?
Aren't you a little bit long in the tooth? And you react with with indignation, and you say, that's a terrible thing to say about me. I've given my life to this country. And what people are really saying is, yeah, we know you have, and it's time to start. Yeah. Now, that's a really good answer. So I mean, what can you tell me about Biden and his relationship with China now? Because China is obviously, you know, a huge threat to you know, American security.
It's a huge economic powerhouse. And I suppose it's a case of having to find this balance between finger wagon got China for things it may be culpable for or guilty of, and then maintaining this relationship so that the entire Western economic system doesn't collapse. So, I mean, what, what's the relationship like between America and China right now? I think it's a master pet relationship at
this moment. I think China has moved so far towards supremacy, and they've done it openly by the way that they don't announce it in their newspapers, but it's so clear if you follow the movements of shijiin Pings, that old leader in China and his cohorts, that China wants to become the world's one
superpower. They've had enough of the United States. They think the United States is in fatal decline, and they're all of their indications are that they want to be the most powerful country on the face of the earth, and they have a good chance of doing it. So what is the relationship. I think that when we saw Joe Biden meet Sheijinping in San Francisco in November of
last year, we got a pretty good idea of it. You know, the the It's always important not to just look at the event itself, but the advance work that went on before the event, and before Sheijenping agreed to meet Biden in San Francisco, his advanced team said, here's what we want. When President she lands at San Francisco Airport, we want him to be met by a military armed guard of you know, to to welcome him to
the United States as he comes into the city on his motorcade. We want crowds of adoring people waving only Chinese flags only no American flags, to be there to welcome him on the sides of the streets as his motorcade passed. They said, okay, we'll do that. That evening, when he addressed a lot of tech CEOs of American companies, before he even said a word, as he was walking to the stage to begin his remarks, the CEOs and everybody else in that room stood up and gave him a standing ovation.
Now, these are signals, and these are not signals that a pro like Shijinping is going to misunderstand. That was that those signals were, you know, we don't like everything you're doing. We wish you'd stop torturing and exterminating wigers in the Shinjiang province, and we sort of wish you'd stop threatening Taiwan because it's really causing us to stay up at night and think about it. But in the meantime, as long as we can make money off you,
yeah, you're well, of course you can't. Yeah, do whatever you want. Xi Jinping told Biden at that meeting, we would really really like to take over Taiwan peacefully, and Biden said, yes, I see that. No, no, no, no, no, you don't take over Taiwan. It's a country, and you know, whether you say it or not, the United States is going to defend Taiwan if you start military action
against it. And so that tempid response and the sort of half headshake were another signal that she took back to Beijing and is now in a position of unquestioned authority in China and can pretty much do whatever he dares do. Yeah. I mean that's fascinating in terms of how we kind of put aside all the human rights violations you mentioned the week is there, of course, and I mean just the animal rights record is enough for me to kind of make
my head spin. We put all that aside it. I mean, in the West, we kind of talk a good game about how committed we are to humanitarianism, you know, resourceful nurse and you know, climate change and things like that. Yet we kind of body up with China seems to be the antithesis of all them things. And I suppose my question isn't around about way if any other nation was responsible for unleashing a virus that caused a global pandemic, you know, millions dead, you know, end of you know,
economies. People are still suffering today financially and through their health. Do you think they would have just got away with it as easy as China appears to have. It seems to me that there have been zero ramifications for that whatsoever. Well, you've raised the topic, so I'll try to answer it. That was the theme of the first of the three books that I wrote about China and the Western world. You know, who created this virus?
And what are we supposed to call it? And once again, you know, the world amusing the world in parentheses, the world's step and said, well, let's just call at COVID because nobody knows what that means. And everybody said, okay, yeah, that's not good. United Nations said that, okay. Center for Disease Control of the United States said okay, and all the news media in the United States said, sure, whatever you say, Yeah, we don't want to upset China. That might be racist.
It was. It was just a it was a power play, and they got away with it. And so once again a signal was sent to Shi Jin thing, go for it, do whatever you want. Nobody's going to start you. Yeah, no, I remember that at the time. Obviously, any kind of criticism were put, you know, you're put in the racist basket just for kind of pointing out the origin of something which is very strange. But in terms of like China is this huge superpower, obviously people
tend to fear their military might. They was to report recently in Bloomberg. However, that kind of made the case that there's so much corruption within China that it might it may pose a problem for them militarritory if there ever were to be need for you know, military action from China. Is that is that something you've been keeping an eye on? But what your opinions on that? Yeah, that Bloomberg article was very important because it was based on reporting.
It wasn't just based on what they wish was true, and it wasn't these unnamed sources, et cetera. What they found were documents that showed that the Chinese military suppliers, most of whom are incorporated into the People's Liberation Army, were doing things like sending shells military explosive shells to People's Liberation Army to be launched from the ground from silos, and their warheads were filled with water, not with explosives because it was cheaper and they got away with it.
There were stories about about soldiers being sent rags instead of uniforms by these suppliers, and the soldiers would complain about it, and they're commanding officers who were getting a kickback from this deal told them to shut up and obey orders. So yes, there are I think there are now and this reached shijin Ping, of course, and he is now undertaking a purge of some of the senior military leaders. The problem is that he appointed most of them himself,
so you know, keep your friends closer and your enemies for closer. Whatever that's staying is. And now he has to undo that and go to all these people that he appointed who are his cronies, and say, you know, hey, I appointed you to do a good job and to keep the corruption to a minimum, and now you're embarrassing me. Yeah, that's what happens when you appoint bad people. So yeah, that's where that is. There are questions about whether China is ready to fight in all out war,
and by all out I mean to invade and conquer Taiwan. I don't think China wants or or would would ever allow itself to become involved in a war directly against the United States. It would always be with Taiwan as the excuse
an American aid coming into play. Yeah. So, I mean, I suppose when we look sort of tyrants in the in the Middle East and people who have a terrible human rights record, and we have to play nice with them because perhaps we're relying on oil for fuel and things like that, and it seems like perhaps one day, if this isn't just complete utopian thinking, there may be a source of green energy perhaps where we can cut ties with
people like Saudi Arabia and not have to play nice with them because we are we can become self sufficient with some sort of green fuel. In terms of China, what are we most relying on there? It seems far more complicated and far more embedded into our economic systems than say just an energy source perhaps, I mean, what are some of their main exports that we rely on, well, I mean almost everything. Trying to go a day Stephen without buying a product that was made in China, you can't do it. Unless
you bury yourself in a hole. It is. China has identified a weakness of capitalism, which is everybody wants something that's cheap, and they will buy whatever is cheap and not very good. And that includes most Chinese products because you know, they save twenty five pence on it. It's just a failing of people that live in a free, western capitalistic society that they've come to the point of saying, you know, I don't care where it comes from.
I don't care. I just want it cheap. Well, if you don't care where it comes from, then don't be surprised if one day Shijinping says I'm in control of you. Now do what I tell you. What kind of products? Among others, cars. China is now making cars and exporting them at an enormous rate. They exported four point four million cars in twenty twenty three, and they're on schedule to export five million cars this year. That will make them the largest exporter of cars in the world, way
surpassing Japanese cars. So and then I guess the point that I'd like to segue into, if possible, is that the Chinese development of artificial intelligence is moving much much faster than anything that's happening in the United States or Australia or Europe. And China is not restricted by these concerns. Oh, we have to have guardrails on what AI can do because we wouldn't want them to take over. China doesn't care. In fact, they would like AI to take
over on every issue that affects the Western world. And that's the topic of my last of my most recent book. How much of a danger does AI represent with them? Because I try and read about as much as I can at I have a basic understanding of what it can be used for and what the implications, of course can be. I mean, we just had some huge news come out the other day from Microsoft that perhaps they've used AI to kind of tell us what would be the correct amount of ingredients to produce some
extremely durable and longer lasting lithium battery. Perhaps it's, you know, the computation power it would have taken or the manpower rather to get there was much longer than AI managed to do it in. So that's that's kind of a work in progress. Everyone who's an expert in AI seems to be terrified of the thing. How much of a role do you think AI is going to play in terms of, you know, global conflicts. Well, let me answer that with two points. One, the experts that you mentioned are largely
fakers. They say that, they say there's an expert. There's no test for that. There's no way of proving it. You don't get a diploma that says expert on it. So most of them are doing what they think is good for them or for the company that they work for, and whether it's good for mankind is way down on their list of importance. Now as
to what AI can do, we have to face it. I mean, some of the great thinkers of all time, Socrates, Cicero, Albert Einstein, Oppenheimer of the most recent movie Thing, You know, we're geniuses, but they couldn't even begin to compete against an AI program. It's they're too fast, they're too perfect, they don't make mistakes, they don't need lunch, they don't get vacation, they don't do what their boss says, they
just do it, and we can never compete with that. It's like those famous chess matches where Bobby Fisher played against a robot or a computer rather played chess against them, and he was destroyed because you can't because thinking is involved in chess. Until it's not. They just the AI machine just goes yep, got it, got next, Okay, got And at the same time, somebody, you know, a human is saying, excuse me, I just need to cough for a second. Well, while you had that little
cough, a decision got made that you can't do anything about. So AI is is a it's it's It's a little bit like saying, is it good for us to go into outer space? I can't answer that question. We're there, we're doing things. We landed on the Moon, which is an amazing accomplishment. But at the same time, we've now polluted outer space with satellites and garbage. It's out there. So was it a good idea to go there or not? And what's the effect on the climate in the United
in America or in the rest of the world. We don't know these things. And at the same time, governments, well intentioned governments, are saying this is the race for the future. Future of what they don't know. They're not experts. What what's your prognosis then? Humanity wise, I mean, we haven't been here for particularly long in the in the eight. You know, how however long the earth's been here, I mean, it seems
like we obviously we know we won't always be here. What do you see in the future of Are you hopeful that if we can survive natural disasters and you know, pandemics, that perhaps we can avoid killing each other to extermination. Well, I don't want to I don't want to use cliches, and I don't want to be be misinterpreted as an idealist. I believe in God. I believe is a God, and I hope that God protects us from ourselves. You know, we've been told so many times that this is the
end of humanity. Climate change is the end of humanity. Donald Trump is the end of humanity. Nuclear weapons are the end of humanity. Well, we've gotten through them so far, but that doesn't mean that our luck will continue. And AI is is definitely a potential threat to humanity because it is so superior to the human mind. I mean, even great writers, not including myself, but you know, great writers are a little bit worried that
AI can write better than they can. And again, the reader, if he or she can get a book that costs twenty five percent of what a new author's book costs. I don't care where it came from. I'm just going to read it. Well, that's very shortsighted, and pretty soon you're going to be reading books by AQ two three, five five six sous. It's in and it's not a good idea. Well, that brings me nicely
on to a question from Carol Q one two one in the chat. And surprisingly, a lot of people are fascinating for your time at Fox News. They've asked in what aspect would you say the biggest change has been from when you first joined Fox to when you left? Oh wow. The founding chairman of Fox News was Roger Ayles. A very many dimensional has called him mayn. He certainly had some personal failings which we all have heard about and seen
movies about, et cetera. But he was a leader and he knew how to lead, and he knew how to create a workforce that was all in sync with his ideas. And that's what made Fox News so powerful in the
early days. The change you've mentioned changes, I have to I have to say that I think that when Donald Trump announced his candidacy for the presidency and cozied up as much as he tried to do to Rupert Murdoch that it had perhaps an unintended effect on the coverage of politics in Fox News, and when Trump inevitably said, hey, look, you know we're friends and we're calling it, but but you do what I say, I'm the most important one
here, not Fox, and started saying that Rupert Murdoch and others just Donald, No, no, no, no, that's not how it works. It's it's friendship. Actually, it's not master pet relationships. And so that's what caused them to do this purouette and start to become very critical of Donald Trump. And I think many people have noticed that they first tried to back Desantus for denomination, and I think now they're they're sort of pushing Nicki Haley,
none of which is good for news coverage. You're supposed to be objective about it, but certainly they've they've taken a big turn. And now I think tonight, in fact, in America, Donald Trump's going to be doing a town hall meeting on Fox while DeSantis and Haley pretend to have a debate on another network. So we had a huge effect on how Fox does things. And I just can't discount the importance of leadership. So great answer. A nex Sas has asked a good question. Does mister Moody see how the
Chinese Communist Party already has done a soft conquering of the West. Yes, I certainly do. And great question. You call it soft, but you know, soft eventually hardens into bricks, and that's what we're looking at down the road China. Here's the thing to remember about China. They have become part of the world economy, as you mentioned earlier, Stephen. But and so therefore we assume that they're going to play by the same rules as everybody
else. They don't. They cheat. They lie. That's two hallmarks of Chinese policy towards the rest of the world. They cheat and then they lie. You know, wait a minute, you said you were going to allow our products in, but now you're only allowing our products in if we make them in China and share the profits with you. You didn't say that before, Yes we did. Oh yeah, you missed it. No, no, it's there. Yeah, we said that they cheat and they lie.
I mean, that's that's what you can always count on when you're dealing with somebody from the Chinese Communist Party. Yeah, I mean, what are the solutions here then, Because, as if you've already eloquently pointed out, we're so reliant on them for so many things, it seems to me that perhaps the horse has already bolted it in that regard. Are we just in the pocket of China forever more? Now? Are there are there legitimate ways in
which we could kind of reverse the process? We can all take a deep breath and look at where these products are made and not buy something that's made in China. Now, I know we're Oh, I can't do that. It's too far gone. Look, everybody says I can't do it. It's too big for me to handle. No, it's not. Just stop buying that stuff. You'll be happier, you'll be more patriotic, and you might be making a change in the world when you don't even know what's going on.
That's a great answer as well. And obviously it takes takes kind of grassroots action, doesn't it to make any sort of change. Just a bit of a left field one. I just want to get your perception on something that was big news, making headlines not so long ago, but seems to have kind of died and gone away. It was these you know, quote unquote Chinese spy balloons that were in the sky in America, And there was a lot of security, you know, panic and concern, a lot of
debate about them afterwards. What what's your perception of what was going on there? Was it? Is it far more similar than people realize? Or is it kind of overblown? Americans have the memory span of a hummingbird. For you know, for for five days, the news media led us around and showed us pictures of these balloons and said, oh, my goodness, who could ever have believed that they would use balloons against us? Well, you know, it's not the Wizard of Oz. These are military balloons. And
then they shot it down, which was well overdue. I think I'll say this about President Biden. I think that his decision to shoot down the balloon over the ocean was the right one. It could have caused death and damage, and and he in that respect, his judgment was what showed through. But he did shoot it down. China was outraged. How can you do that to an innocent weather balloon? You know, weather balloons have feelings too, they're humans. No, No, they're not. No, And and
so our attention span is so limited these days. You know, we can't bother to continue to be interested in China and whether it's a threat to us because we have to see who won the Golden Bachelor show. You know, these things are so misplaced in their in their level of importance that we are are we are doing to ourselves what we fear China might be able to do. You know, I believe it was Lenin who said we will sell the
capitalists the rope with which they will hang themselves. They're doing it and we don't even know that. And by the way, Lenin was not just a beadle, he was somebody else. It's a big Lebowski joke in somewhere. But John, I've really enjoyed this conversation and I'm very grateful for you to bring your experience and expertise to this show and share your knowledge on China. Is there anything else you'd like to point people towards before I'll let you get
back to your day. And where can people find more of your writing and work? Well? Yeah, the books are all available on the usual sources of Amazon, Barnes, and Noble, Apple Books, et cetera. I would just say that if you are thinking about buying any of my books or any other books. If you have an independent news an independent bookstore in your neighborhood, ask them to stop it. Buy it there. We have to
keep these guys in business. We're dying otherwise, and we don't want Amazon to be the only source of books in the world because the next thing, you know, they'll be deciding what books are good. That's a great point, John, thank you very much for joining us. I've really enjoyed speaking to you, so did I. Stephen. Thank you. Have a good day. Very knowledgeable guest there. It's that point in the show where I
am legally contracted to remind you to head over to Locals subscribe there. It's completely free, and that's the way you'll be able to catch the second half of the show and all the other great guests we've got coming up. So don't make me come around there. Go over to Locals now, subscribe and watch the second half if you know what's good for you. It's not a threat. You can't You can't get me on that. We were bringing in
our next guest shortly. We'll be speaking to Dr Michael Caparelli about his book and his work on I believe the son of Sam serial killer. And here you Michael COPPEARI how are you, sir, Hi Steve, and everything is great, glad to be on your show. Thank you for this opportunity. AH our pleasure entirely. Thank you for joining us. Maybe you could let our audience know what it is you do, what keeps you busy. I'm
a PhD in behavioral science. I teach as a professor at three colleges in psychology, criminal psychology, abnormal psych I'm also or was for many years a pastor in the prisons, working with inmates. So I come from a dual perspective of both the psychological background as well as, if you want to call it a religious or spiritual perspective. I met with David Berkowitz, also known as the son of Sam, convicted serial Kelly's been incarcerated for forty six years.
I met him in New York in prison for thirty four sessions one on one. The longest analysis of David Berkowitz ever and we discussed the mental health factors that were behind his killings is twenty I'm sorry. His thirteen shootings in New York City back in the seventies as well as the fourteen hundred fires that he lit while he was at luc In Society, and we also talked about his last forty six years in prison, what that's been like, and the
findings have been included in a book called Monster Mirror. It was ranked number one