It's a show for those who are curious about Joe Rogan, his guests and their claims, as well as for anyone who just wants to understand Joe's ever-growing media influence.

I'm Michael Marshall and I'm joined by Cecil Cicerello.

And today, we're going to be covering Joe's March 2025 interview with Ian Carroll.

To date, it's been viewed more than 3.1 million times on YouTube alone.

So Cecil, how did Joe introduce Ian in the show notes?

He says, Ian Carroll is an independent researcher, entrepreneur, and host of the Ian Carroll Show on YouTube.

Okay, well, that doesn't tell us a great deal.

So is there anything else we should know about him?

So Ian is a relatively new on the conspiracy scene.

He's basically a TikToker who got his start making TikToks about which companies are conglomerates and their ties to other businesses and brands.

He focuses a lot on BlackRock, which is an investment firm.

And then he branched out from there.

He sort sort of popped onto the scene a few years ago, some would say, out of nowhere, which is interesting.

So what did they talk about here?

Well, you know, they kind of stayed on topic, but...

Admittedly, conspiracies is kind of a huge topic.

So they covered the following conspiracies.

Moon landing, JFK assassination, bizarre literary coincidences and time travel, UFO disclosure and UAP phenomenon, reptilian theories, Jeffrey Epstein activities and elite networks, government cover-up operations and CIA influence, FBI agent provocateurs, political cover-ups, Pizzagate, election interference and political suppression, drug industry and cartel manipulation, Building 7 collapse on 9-11, COVID controversies, advanced ancient technologies, the deep state, and how the Jews.

are kind of behind all of it.

Yeah.

And so for the main event this week, we're going to talk about Pizzagate and the related conspiracies around child trafficking and Jeffrey Epstein.

But before we get to that, we want to say a quick thanks to our Area 51 all-access past patrons.

Those are Stoned Banana, Laura Williams, No Not That One, The Other One, Definitely Not an AI Overlord, Eleven Gruthius, Fred R.

Gruthius, Chunky Cat in Chicago Eats the Rich.

Am I a Robot?

Capture Says No, but Maintenance Records Say Yes.

And Martin Fidel.

So they all subscribed at patreon.com forward slash no Rogan.

You can do that too.

All patrons get early access to episodes, and they also get a special patron-only bonus segment every single week.

This week we'll be talking about Richard Nixon, Alex Jones, JFK, and Elon Musk, aka the boy band that nobody asked for.

I thought you were reading a Billy Joel song there for a second.

So you can check that out at patreon.com forward slash no rogan.

But for now, our main event.

A huge thank you to this week's veteran voice of the podcast.

That was Cindy P in Michigan announcing our main event.

Remember that you can also be on the show by sending a recording of you giving us your best rendition of It's Time.

You can send that to noroganpod at gmail.com, as well as telling us how you want to be credited on the show.

So let's get into it.

And Cecil, do you want to start us off with some Trump and Epstein chat?

Yeah, hey, let's just dive right into it.

Here we go.

But I mean, Trump is a weird guy, too.

Like, who knows what's going on with Trump right now?

He's an animal.

Yeah.

He's the most fun ever.

I love Trump conspiracy theories because people get so riled up and it's so partisan and political.

But within it, there's all this like juicy meat for thinking about what it's like, not even conspiracy theories.

It's just like his history.

Right.

And especially with the Epstein stuff now and his history with Epstein, it just gets me so interested in, you'll never know the real story.

But here's the thing about theories and stuff.

There's so many things that are so weird that you would think, wait a minute, well, this can't be real.

This is fake.

Yep.

And then it's connected to real-life events in some sort of a way that you would think there's a conspiracy.

Like, here's one of my favorites is Little Baron Trump's.

Yeah, dude, I just got the book.

It just came in the mail.

Have you read it?

No.

Dude, I'm going to read it.

I just got it.

I should buy it.

I should buy it before it gets bought.

I got it in a three-part series that has the Baron Trump one and then The Last President, and there's one other one.

And then how about the Werner von Braun one about a guy named Elon that takes us to Mars?

Werner von Braun, the fucking Nazi who ran, you know, Operation Paperclip and became the head of NASA.

Super occultist kind of stuff.

That's a novel about a guy named Elon that takes us to Mars.

And even Elon saw that and he's like, is this real?

Like, like you would think, there's no way.

Simultaneous to us kind of getting like some version of UAP disclosure that implies time travel, which is like, Lord knows what that is.

But it's just so fun to speculate because it's like, how would we know?

It's just so fun to speculate.

It's really interesting here.

This is so early on.

This is like three minutes in.

The first time that we're getting into anything, anything really.

And Ian's bringing up Trump conspiracy theories and how fun they are.

And it's interesting because Joe does not seem to pick up on any, he's not interested in any conspiracy theories about Donald Trump at all.

That's really interesting to me.

Ian brings up the links between Trump and Epstein, which there are quite a lot of those.

Trump talked extensively about how Jeffrey was a, how Epstein was a very good friend of his his and said all sorts of stuff hung out with him quite a lot.

Joe is not interested.

He doesn't bite on those connections at all, which is weird because Joe usually super loves Epstein stuff.

So what's holding him back from exploring this one?

Well, it's because Trump is an animal and he's the best.

I think that might be your clue there, exactly what he said.

Also, what's the conspiracy?

I don't understand what conspiracy they're talking about here.

They're starting to talk about this.

Oh, it's Operation Paperclip and there was a Nazi who wrote a book and it was, and now there's time travel.

Are we supposed to believe that it's a Nazi time traveler came into the future just to see who might go to Mars so they could write a novel about it?

What is happening?

I don't know if he's saying it's conspiracy or whether he's saying it's like, it's this kind of the high strangeness of it.

Like, oh, isn't the world so weird?

Isn't there some sort of higher weirdness kind of going on?

It's a coincidence.

Like there's a lot of coincidences in life.

Yeah, exactly.

I mean, and when he talks about the Baron Trump book, and it's a book, you know, talking about the Baron Trump, but like that is a coincidence.

But when you give your kid a first name that is a nobility title like Baron, you shouldn't be surprised when somebody with your surname in the past or in fiction has had that noble title.

Like if I called my son Viscount and his name was Viscount Marshall, I can't say it's then spooky if there's a Viscount Marshall out there.

I've kind of biased the game by picking that name.

And the other things aren't even necessarily coincidences.

So the idea that, you know, there was a book about

colonizing Mars and there's a person there, Elon, who's flying to Mars.

Well, Elon was the name of like an organization on Mars in the book, but the book existed before Elon was named.

Now, either that's because the book is like prescient and kind of can see the future, or Elon was named after the book, which is quite a normal thing.

And actually, in a

2022 interview, his dad even confirmed this.

Errol Musk gave an interview about why he chose Elon's name.

And what he said was, quote, Werner von Braun's book, I think it was his, or it could have been orberth's book spoke about how the head of the mars colony would be the elon now i remember that but i never thought it was a name i never thought it was a person's name when may which is elon musk's mother and i got married i was quite amazed to discover that her father's grandfather or something had been called elon which reminded me of the stories we had and so i thought well yes i like that name for elon Elon was named after this book.

And this no longer is anything strange or conspiratorial.

It is just incredibly mundane.

What's amazing is that that answer is out there and they would they would 100% scroll past it if they saw it in a list.

They wouldn't even consider that that's the actual reason why he was named Elon.

Like the interview was posted onto YouTube in 2022 and it was on Snorpes from the 4th of February this month.

It was even on the.

They would definitely, it's Snopes.

They would scroll right past it.

Yeah, they'd ignore it completely.

But if they if they had have googled and they've been open-minded enough to try and find an answer, they'd have found an answer and they would have been disappointed.

It was available for when this conversation was happening.

All right.

Let's talk a little bit about MKUltra and mind control.

I mean, the dark thing that, I mean, we don't need to go into it because it's real dark, but I think that when you study the MKUltra files, and this is where there's a lot of conspiracy theories that are hard to prove, there's a bunch of witness fiction testimony, but it's hard to prove, is the Monarch programs are an alleged program that never got disclosed.

And that's all the programs that are hidden behind child sexual abuse being a part of mind control.

Because a lot of the drugs, like, they can break people's minds and they can be involved in mind control.

but a lot of those papers talk about dissociative identity identity disorder as like the holy grail of that Manchurian candidate concept and it makes a lot of sense if you know what just how dissociative identity disorder works right and that is most commonly associated with dark grim childhood sexual abuse

so first of all there's so many caveats in this at the start where if Joe isn't on board Ian gives himself so many spaces to like backtrack and say oh there's a it's hard to prove there's witness testimony it's very hard to prove it's alleged it never got disclosed it's all kind of just leaving the outs in case Joe's not on board.

Now, it turns out Joe is quite happy to go along with this after all.

So Ian does go along with this.

It's a great point, though.

That's a great point.

It does a rhetorical thing there where he leaves the door open in case he has to exit.

Yeah, exactly.

And so he talks about dissociative identity disorder, which that used to be called multiple personality disorder.

And the thing is, that is a very controversial diagnosis.

It's unclear to what extent the other supposed identities within somebody who has this syndrome,

this disorder, are actually separate entities or are just like essentially parts being played by that person, even if it's semi-unintentionally, like you're taking on a persona, but there's a level of overtness to it.

It's not like it's a separate person inside your brain.

But Ian ignores all that controversy, goes for like the movie version of DID, the movie version of multiple personality, asserts that DID works, that it's a real thing, and then builds in that that's how to do a Mancurian candidate assassination.

And it's just an absolutely massive departure from what's actually supported by the evidence here.

And then if that wasn't far enough, he takes a step even further out to say that childhood sexual abuse is what creates disorciative identity disorder.

And so you can use, so the people are using CSA as a deliberate way of programming secret assassins.

And despite what he tries to claim, the only thing in here with any evidence is the existence of DID.

And the evidence for that is extremely flimsy.

There are a lot of experts in the field who say it's not not a real thing.

But none of, so none of this supports the conclusion that he builds on it, but it doesn't stop him holding, it doesn't hold him back at all from drawing these big, sort of sweeping kind of statements.

Also, he's really starts out this whole thing with the disclaimer that this is something that was never disclosed.

Okay, well, then why should I trust you that it's real?

If it's never been disclosed, why am I just trusting your rumor-mongering about it?

Because there's nothing that you have that's even remotely provable.

And then somehow at the end, he's talking about, you know, like you suggest, a you know, child sexual abuse turns somebody into this, but then he somehow brings Epstein Island into it and victimized children there, which I don't understand how that even relates to what he's talking about, other than

there's children in both that were victimized, but we're not presuming that Epstein's victims are assassins, are we?

I don't understand where this comes around.

I think that's what he's trying to get to is to say that the reason why the people were running Jeffrey Epstein, his handlers were running him in order to get victims to the island that they could use sexual abuse in order to program, in order to imbibe them with dissociative identity disorder and then program into being assassins.

And this was part of, even if he doesn't say that there were ever any assassins came out of it, he's kind of alleging that this is the program.

That's what they're trying to do.

That's the holy grail.

This is the experiments that they're trying to get you there.

Here's why I didn't think that that was reasonable, because it's not reasonable.

It's not reasonable.

It's no.

So, so my brain shut that door.

I didn't even consider what you just said as his take until you just

repeated it back to me.

And now I'm blown away that that could possibly be his take.

Yeah.

And if as you say, he left himself so many outs for it, but he started by saying, like, this is none of this is disclosed.

So, like, none of this is based in anything, but that is what he's trying to get us to believe is true.

This vision of the world where there are secretary hand military handlers who are trying to deliberately use abuse as an experiment to build assassins.

All right, let's do this next clip.

This is where we hear about how people have always done bad things.

It's just so hard to believe that people are that evil, but they have been throughout history.

This is why it's weird.

It's like we'll look back on the Victorian era or we'll look back on the

man-boy love of the Socrates era.

We'll go, that's just back then.

We've evolved now.

We don't work with that anymore.

But when they've identified specific aspects of traumatic past that they can use these particular victims of trauma, of childhood trauma, and take them and turn them into weapons,

that's so wild.

But that is an asset, right?

If you got someone who's so fucking crazy, you could talk to them and get them to do things and give them acid.

So that is Joe's response to that previous clip we just heard.

That follows immediately on.

Ian is talking about using sexual assault in these ways in order to create assassins.

And rather than question any of that from Ian, which would have been very easy to do, especially when Ian was saying this isn't disclosed, Joe could have found a single question to try and get to the bottom of that.

Instead, Joe goes to, oh yeah, well, I suppose bad stuff has happened in the past and sexual abuse has happened in the past.

Therefore, it is all true that you can turn people into weapons using this methodology.

This is Joe's take on what Ian is saying.

What this does is sort of cheapen the experience of the victims.

It decentralizes the experience of the victims because those people that were women who were girls who were abused by Epstein and other lots of other people like him,

those are no longer the center of the story.

The story is, ah, but it was all an experiment in order to create assassins.

And it's not that it excuses, or it's not that they're working to try and excuse the perpetrators, but it does decenter the victims completely.

And we're no longer talking about the actual trauma and the reality of what was happening.

We're talking about this fantasy version that, as you say, is informed by far too many spy movies.

Let's look skeptically a little, Marsh, at Trump cabinet picks.

What do you say?

Right now, with all these new people coming in, cash and Pam and all the picks, RFK, I'm really enjoying the process of just trying to watch their actions and trying to figure out who's doing what and how much are they going to play to the money and play to the people.

And it's just such a fascinating exercise in journalism of where do you kind of, and how much leeway do you give them, how much grace do you give them,

especially with the Epstein blackmail hanging as a cloud over the entire federal government.

I don't think that any of those three are blackmailed, but I don't feel confident that I know that they're not.

Let's look at it.

Here's a possibility other than blackmail.

Negotiation.

Well, that's always a factor.

But instead of blackmail, if you are a government and you have information on someone who's an asset or someone who is very wealthy and this person is a hey, motherfucker, like, what are you doing?

You're 26 times?

How about you shut the fuck up from here out?

No more Trump's Hitler.

How about you say that we did a good job every now and again give us a little credit let's work something out here it's not necessarily blackmail as much as it's negotiation yeah so it's interesting you're saying you know that epstein has a a blackmail cloud over the entire government is what ian's saying it's like well I don't think the entire government, but it's very hard to deny that there are potential blackmail sources with the very top of the government, given how close he and Trump were and how much Trump has like praised Epstein throughout the years.

But Ian is sort of saying, look, I don't know whether these three people,

he's talking about Cash Patel and Pam Bondi and things, and RFK.

I don't know if they are, but I don't know that they're not.

And therefore, that is fine to say.

That's the evidence standard here.

Yeah.

And he even...

Like, I feel like we need to prove that there's an Epstein blackmail before we just take it at face value that there's an Epstein blackmail.

Like, we need to.

Before we start putting names next to who might be blackmailed as well.

Yeah.

That feels libelous almost.

It feels like someone's saying something they could be sued sued for.

All right.

So now we're going to continue on with a little more Epstein.

But I think that a lot of Epstein's targets were willing.

I think that a lot of them, because I think that we're talking, it's not just Jeffrey Epstein, it's organized crime as a network.

Like he's just an employee of organized crime.

And I think that a lot of those people are basically saying, yeah, I want into the club.

Because if you are like a Reed Hoffman or allegedly, if you're one of those guys and you want more contracts or you want more deals, like allegedly.

And like, let's be clear, just because I say something on Joe's podcast does not mean that Joe fucking agrees with me, CNN.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Because like, I'm a crazy fucker.

And I got all kinds of theories about Epstein.

But like, I think that a lot of them were willing because I think a lot of them are.

I mean, if you're sick enough to rape a child like on Jeffrey Epstein's island, you're sick enough to want into that club.

So why does he think that all of, that some of Epstein's targets were willing?

Where is he getting that from?

He's got absolutely no reason to think it other than he wants it to be true because it fits into his worldview.

He's got nothing to base that on.

And bear in mind, he's talking about, well, Epstein's part of this crime network and these other people were kind of also aligned to a crime network.

He doesn't even have evidence that Epstein is part of an organized crime network, except the network that Epstein was running of child trafficking.

He hasn't gotten any evidence for any of this at all.

Well, he may not have evidence, Marsh, but he sure said it with confidence.

That is true.

That is very true.

And interestingly, later in the interview, we will actually hear what he means by the organized crime network that Epstein's involved in.

And as a hint, their logo is a star of David.

That's what he'll be saying.

Yeah.

You know, so far, the only people who were involved in sex trafficking were Epstein and Maxwell, because that's who the government had evidence to charge.

Why are we presuming that everyone that they had contact with are all guilty?

Trump was filmed and photographed hanging out with this guy all the time.

That doesn't mean he did something illegal or that Epstein has something on him, or people who flew in his jet did something illegal, or people that went to his island did something illegal.

We have no idea.

The government has, if they have these tapes or any of this stuff that they're claiming, they will charge people if they have that stuff.

If they don't have the evidence, they're not going to charge people.

Yeah, and we shouldn't assume that

there is a presumption of innocence.

There's also a strong motivation to investigate here.

We shouldn't assume that just because Trump says he didn't do anything with Epstein or anyone who's involved,

they should be fully investigated.

100%.

But But that's not even what Ian's calling for.

He's calling for assumptions of guilt.

Okay, so now we're going to talk a little more here about

perceived motivations of the people Epstein was supposedly blackmailing.

See, what you're talking about is this, it's such an important concept is that some people, like if you wanted to pay for an underage prostitute, people can, you can pay for that.

There are people, there are women that would be prostitutes underage.

The people that we're talking about in the Epstein files that were, that wanted underage girls specifically, because they weren't all underage.

Some of them wanted overage girls, some of them were just scientists, they weren't all compromised.

But the ones that wanted underage girls, they specifically want what they couldn't have.

Because if you wanted sex that you're allowed to have, you just wanted a young girl, you could just go pay for that.

What Epstein was doing is he was recruiting girls that were from like American families and kind of tricking them and coercing them.

Like they wanted a girl that they wanted the experience of coercing.

Some of these people, not all of them, want the experience of, I am doing this to a girl that I am coercing, I am manipulating, or I'm just straight up being physically violent to to get this thing.

Because if you wanted a willing 16-year-old, those do exist.

This, I think, is incredibly damaging messaging and shows like,

and I think really shows where he's coming from here, because he's saying that, you know, there are prostitutes, there are women who are very willing to be prostitutes under age.

Well, if they're under age, A, you're talking about victims by definition.

Willingness does not come into it because you are not at an age of consent.

And I don't think it would be, I don't think it would be controversial in other circumstances, even on joe rogan shaw to be explaining that if you're under the age of consent you are not capable of making an informed decision to have sex right you are by definition a victim that's like a standard that you'd think he'd normally accept when he's talking to someone else in the space but he's saying but ian's saying there are women who will be prostitutes under age You are talking about children because they're underage.

Those aren't women.

The language you are using is to try and sort of shift some of the blames.

He's painting this like there are underage girls who are absolutely up for it and are capable of making those decisions themselves whether to have sex with a billionaire in this incredibly pressured and

difficult and power dynamic issue.

But that's messed up for so many reasons.

But it also, one of them is it serves to make the crimes here seem less terrible.

It's the, well, you know, she was into it.

She was up for this the whole way.

So is it actually that bad?

That's what he is doing here.

I don't think he means to be doing that.

That's the effect of what he's doing here.

Yeah.

And he's making that particular crime of maybe soliciting an underage person as

less of a crime, you know, in that way, right?

But he's also trying to demonize the people who are part of what he calls, you know, quote, Epstein's network, because those people, they want to have a violent and disturbed interaction with someone.

So he wants to do his very best to make those people out to be as horrible as possible.

So what he's saying is, is that there's this one thing, which he's lightening by saying, oh, well, that's not that big a deal.

And now here's this horrible thing that they are actually doing, that the people involved in this conspiracy circle are actually doing.

Yeah.

And I wonder, and

this is just speculation.

I'll sort of flag it as such.

I wonder if there is a purpose to splitting out the bad ones and the less bad ones of the people who

engage with Epstein.

Because

if we've already seen that Joe's number one politician, Donald Trump is pretty close to Epstein.

If something did emerge, if they are expecting files to come out from Epstein's island and something did emerge and putting him in the space having sex with an underage person, an underage girl, well, are they then sort of carrying the water on saying, well, yeah, but he did that, but he didn't do this more, more horrible thing.

So actually, it's not that bad.

I don't know.

Maybe that's just pure speculation.

Yeah, it could be them covering bases.

It could also be, you know, in some ways,

relieving the crimes of certain people like, you know, Matt Gates, for instance, right?

Who, you know, who did something very similar.

Now we're going to introduce QAnon to the show.

But then you get into the people that are like, the whole world's a stage, trust the plan, Q's in control.

And it's like, whoa, dude, calm down.

You've gone too far.

Well, then when you see that documentary on Q, you realize what kind of people you're dealing with.

Which documentary?

Did you see

a really cool HBO thing?

Yeah, but I don't like trust a documentary like that either because like HBO is like, that's the definition of mainstream media.

So I try to stay somewhere in the middle of that.

That is true, but I think HBO let this guy uncover this story accurately.

I think

I had him in.

I'm pretty sure that I did see the documentary.

Yeah, it's like a multi-part, and it shows all the people that were involved in it, and it kind of highlights a guy who seems to be Q, who is like kind of an internet shitposter fucking around.

When 4chan was in its heyday back when all that shit was going down, like it's ripe for that kind of nonsense.

Oh, yeah.

Perfect fertile ground for that kind of like controlled reverse opposition, whatever, bullshit psyops.

And that's where, for me, the bottom line is, can I corroborate it with primary sources?

And Q is the definition of no.

Of course I can't.

This is a really interesting exchange, I think, because it definitely seems that Ian was pretty warm to QAnon here.

If Joe was willing to go that way, Ian was very happy to walk down that road.

But Joe signals that he's not into it.

And so Ian starts to walk that back.

But even then, like Joe is saying, oh, well, you know, HBO documentary showed a lot about it.

Ian's position on that is, well, that's HBO's mainstream.

So I stay in the middle.

In the middle of what?

Whether QAnon really was a

high-level secret intelligence or not.

I'm somewhere in the middle.

Like you have mid-level intelligence.

I don't know.

It's this fallacy of like in that if there are two extreme positions, the middle

position is the right one or more likely be right.

And that definitely doesn't work in binaries.

It doesn't work in lots of places, but it certainly doesn't work in the binary of, is QAnon real or not?

Yeah, it's very Aristotelian, but it's not very good.

Also, it feels like what you suggest, he's reading the room here almost like he's that T-Rex in Jurassic Park testing the fences.

Yeah.

He's kind of testing the fences constantly.

He's like, oh, nope, fence still on.

I'll stay away from that.

And, you know, Joe, and this, in this example, this is a perfect example of how Joe gets his information and decides what's true or not.

He might have gone along with Ian if he didn't interview the guy who did the documentary.

So if he didn't interview the guy who who was the director, who sat in front of Joe, and Joe was able to have a conversation with someone who easily convinced him that all this stuff is true.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think that the guy who did the Q documentary is lying to Joe, but I think that if Joe is

confronted in some way with a person who sits in front of him, who says something's true, more often than not, he's going to believe it.

And I think that this is, this is a perfect example of that.

I think he could probably sit down down with a New York Times reporter who he might disagree with all the time, but if they sit down, he may be able to convince him or she may be able to convince him of things that he didn't believe before because he's sort of easily manipulated in his own space.

And

I just want to say he's going to use these words a lot, primary source a lot throughout this entire thing.

It doesn't mean what you think it means, by the way.

It's a buzzword that makes him sound like he's doing real research.

He is not.

So do you ever get the feeling like conspiracies are almost too conspiratorial, Mark?

Well, Joe certainly does.

Do you think stuff like Pizzagate, like when they, when they have that guy come in and fire off that shot, I felt like that was a great way to put a halt to all the looking into the pedestal emails.

That was.

Because then all of a sudden it's a kook thing.

Now it's a crazy person and a dangerous person because he's got a gun.

You're causing dangerous people to take their guns.

Just like with the vaccines, it's like you're, it's a danger.

They always have to make it dangerous, right?

Yeah.

It's dangerous to say that this might have side effects, right?

Because if you read those emails, exactly right.

Those emails are bananas.

They're talking about

they're talking about young kids who are going to be coming to a party to have fun.

They're talking about

it.

They will be there for sure.

$65,000 worth of hot dogs flown from Chicago for a White House party.

The whole thing is like very weird.

Did you ever see the archived Instagram post from James Alephantis' Instagram?

No.

Because that's a dark place.

So there's so many layers to Pizzagate that they tried to cover up intentionally for very good reason.

Yeah, harassment.

That was the reason.

Harassment.

Yeah, yeah, that's why they cover it.

That's why they deleted their Instagram, dude.

Yeah, yeah, completely.

That listen how Joe introduces that.

When they had that guy come in and fire up that shot, okay, they're talking about Edgar Welsh, who was the gunman who believed in the Pizzagate conspiracy theory to the extent where he went into the restaurant they were talking about with a rifle and fired a shot and demanded to see the basement because he thought he was there to liberate children from the basement.

He'd been completely persuaded that was the case.

That was a very bad look for the people who believed in Petergate and who've been pushing it.

And so they've now written Edgar Welsh into being, oh, well, that guy was a plant.

That guy was never real.

So they had it.

And Joe has swallowed that completely.

Joe is saying, oh, they had that guy.

Whoever was in charge sent that guy in in order to discredit this.

And they have to believe that because it's the only way they can otherwise justify what happened, because what happened was very clearly unjustifiable.

And they're talking about the emails, they're talking about the podesta emails that were that were hacked and then leaked.

He says those emails were bananas, but they're not bananas unless you're reading them with the made-up code for things like, you know,

that cheese pizza means child porn or that a hot dog means a little boy.

And it doesn't mean that.

And people went through these emails with a fine-tooth comb looking for anything they could twist.

And they had to invent these weird codes in order to turn them into something.

And Joe and Ian are talking about this in a way that it was entirely established that what was in there was incredibly weird and it was very obvious code.

And that just is not true.

John Podesta was so incredibly boring that they had to make something up in order to get something on him when they got his entire email.

They got his entire email and the guy was so literally boring that they were like, well, gosh, we got to do something with this.

We have his whole email.

Let's make something up.

And in order to believe this stuff, you have to create a fake codex of words like you suggest, and you have to to replace them.

And so friend of the show, Noah, No Illusions from Scathing Atheists said this about this at one point.

He said, if you replace yours with I am and truly with an interdimensional lizard Jew who rapes children, you're not going to believe what these emails say.

And sure, if you change, you know, really common words to horrible things, absolutely, you're going to have a really terrible set of emails, but none of that makes any sense.

And by the way, listener, go, go check these emails out.

They literally still exist on the internet.

You can go find the Podesta emails and you could search through every single one.

And I, and I, here's what I, my challenge to you.

They say that the term cheese pizza means child porn because cheese and pizza are C and P.

And then they say that means it's child porn because it's C and P.

They happen to have the same first letters.

And so that's what they suggest.

Go search those emails for cheese pizza.

There isn't a single mention of cheese pizza at all all in those emails.

Now, there's mention of pizza, but there's not mention of cheese pizza specifically, which is the term that they even picked.

They couldn't even find a term that was actually in the emails that could be damning.

They picked a term that wasn't even in there.

So that should tell you on its face how fake all this is.

And can we just pretend, let's just pretend for a second that Ian is onto something, that there is sort of this child ring that's being run by Podesta for some reason, and that cheese pizza is a code word for something horrible.

Why would you decide to put some crazy dungeon in a pizza parlor then?

If that's your code word, wouldn't you put it?

I mean, there's a million less connected places that you could put your dungeon other than a pizza parlor.

It doesn't make why do you have to reveal your conspiracy to the world in some sort of code?

You don't have to do that at all.

You could just be a bad person without a code.

That turns out to be a lot of bad people in the world.

Yeah, I've never thought about that before, but you're absolutely right like you don't have it in a pizza parlor and then use pizza as your code because if you're given everything away unless you believe as a lot of people do in those kind of spaces that they have to keep tipping their hand they have to keep giving the game away they have to keep using these cords because it adds to either their thrill or it adds to the satanic powers that they're uh they're developing depending on which of those two and they're also talking like what they found in the email emails were receipts were actually transactions and things invoices.

But the thing they're referencing, like when it comes to that $65,000 party thing, the thing they're referencing is somebody writing in an email while planning a celebration party, quote, I think Obama spent about $65,000 flying in pizza slash dogs from Chicago for a private party.

So that is the quote.

That's what they're saying is the 65,000.

That isn't a receipt.

That's not an invoice.

That's someone reporting what they think someone else did.

It's not even from somebody who knew anything.

And so here's a quote about that that particular email.

This is from USA Today.

There is no proof that such a sum was spent on party food, nor any reference to a specific party at the White House.

Burton may have alluded to a Super Bowl party held at the White House a few months earlier on February 2nd, 2009.

Pizza and hot dogs, along with chicken sandwiches, chips, and salsa, pretzels, and ice cream, were served at the event, according to CNN.

However, only 75 people attended, belying a sum of $65,000.

So it's very likely that the person who sent the email saying, I think Obama spent $65,000 on pizza and hot dogs was just wrong.

They'd heard a rumor.

They were speculating.

They were saying whatever.

But that's what's become now proof that this is what they were spending on hot dogs.

And I can see Obama putting up some serious change because I've eaten East Coast pizza.

You want to get the real stuff.

You want to get good stuff sent over from Chicago.

The tavern-style pizza that we have here is clearly superior.

So why not spend that kind of money?

I just made a whole bunch of enemies enemies for our podcast, Marsha.

I just want you to know.

Yeah, we're going to get angry comments in the YouTube, but more than we currently get.

Okay, now we're going to shift to talk about Ian's takes on Pizzagate on some of the other images that he found.

Well, how about the logos?

Well, the thing is, I avoid, and the way, in the way I've talked about it, I've avoided all the symbols and logos and even some of the pizza stuff because I think there's so much more ripe, clear evidence that is way more powerful.

And James Aliphon's Instagram account is a great example where...

Can can you find it online?

So you cannot find it on Instagram anymore.

It's only been archived onto other sites, which is kind of sketchy because it's like, how do I know you're not adding photos and stuff?

So I've, you kind of have to dig and dig and dig and cross-reference over and over and over to make sure that you're getting sort of like the consensus because everyone watched as it happened.

So people like Liz Kroken, people like Alex Jones, like they saw these things come out.

And you can find plenty of different archives of all of James Aliphon's Instagram posts.

And they're things like photos of children with their arms taped to tables.

And the caption is, it looks like a fun time.

And then people that have always been commenting on his posts, like the people that are interacting with his posts all the time, have even weirder Instagrams where it's like kill room and there's a coffin that's open and things like that.

There's like a photo of like a walk-in freezer and it's like, man, looks like you've been having a fun weekend.

Things like that that are just super dark and a bunch of babies and a bunch of symbolism, a bunch of children.

And it's all photos on their Instagram in plain day, like daylight.

Notice that he started that clip by saying, I've avoided all the symbols and logos.

And he ended by saying, it's a bunch of symbolism.

And so like,

he wants to say, Ian wants to seem credible.

He wants to say, look, some of it is silly and he wants to say that or some of it isn't as

clear evidence.

It isn't as strong.

He wants to say that so he can make the parts that he does believe, or at least the parts that he's going to tell you now, seem stronger and seem more realistic.

So it's just a game of saying, well, those bits, we won't look at those bits because I think the strongest bits are over here.

And you're going to believe these bits are stronger.

Though here is where, when I was looking to do some research on this, I found that Ian gave a two-hour presentation for this, which is available on Rumble, where he does actually talk about how foods are used as symbols.

He talks about all the symbols and logos that he says he doesn't do here.

I'm not going to link that presentation in the show notes because I don't think we want our podcast flagged alongside the title of this Rumble video, which was Pedro Gate Presentation by Ian Carroll.

But if you look on Rumble, you will find it.

I skimmed through it.

What was interesting about this two-hour conversation that I saw, this hour presentation rather, that I skimmed through, it is almost exactly beat for beat, this conversation that he has with Joe.

Everything he's talking about in terms of Epstein, in terms of MK Ultra, in terms of these images, in terms of Pizzagate, all of this stuff is in that presentation.

That is really interesting.

Did they pause the dark tournament at the bar for him when they did this presentation?

I don't know.

I'd like to think they didn't.

I'd like to think there was a game on in the background and there were people sort of shouting for him to keep it up.

Hey, I've ran a lot of events in pubs.

I've done these events before.

This could be a skeptics in the public.

It is the very opposite of that.

But it's just interesting.

Like, if this does carry the same nodes, it kind of either Ian is giving this kind of presentation and talk and delivery in multiple places, and that's how Joe came across him, or somebody in Joe's orbit saw this presentation at the pub or a version of it.

But it feels specific, especially when there's that question there.

Because Ian says

the best evidence is on James Alefontis, who's the guy who warned Comet Ping Pong, the Pizza Restaurant.

He said, the best evidence is on his Instagram.

And Joe's question is, can you find it online?

Which is a weird question for someone who, if it's a weird thing to ask someone who just said, oh, you can find

the most evidence is on Instagram, to then ask, can you find it online?

Suggesting me that Joe knows that his Instagram was already taken down and wants to get that detail out there.

Because I don't understand why you ask that question otherwise.

If someone says the best evidence is on Instagram, you don't say, oh, and is that online?

Is it?

Because like everybody knows.

Is that where Instagram is?

Yeah, online.

So seems, it seems like Joe was ready to be asking this question as if he's seen some of this material before or he's talked about this before.

So yeah, James Alephantes, he owned the restaurant and he got dragged into this vile conspiracy theory to the point where a gunman opened fire in his shop.

As you say, that's why he's taken his Instagram down.

He was massively harassed over this.

And yet here is Ian on one of the world's biggest media platforms, naming him and bringing all of that back up.

And I actually found some of the slideshows from the slides from Ian's presentation on Rumble.

And he brings up the image that they're talking about, which was, you know, about a, which is a photo of children with their arms taped to the table.

And you can actually see, I've got that image in the show notes, Cecil.

I don't know if you've seen it before, but this is the image they're talking about.

Yeah, well, you know, the first image is from, it's from James Elephantis's Instagram.

It looks like it says underneath it, it's there's a comment.

And the first one says, it doesn't, it's not captioned, by the way, like he suggests where it says, looks like a fun time.

he conflated those things yeah i couldn't find that anywhere i was looking to find that link to this picture anywhere and i can't find any original source saying it was on there yeah he he's conflating things probably that he saw in different spots and he's saying that the child who's taped is uh is looks like a fun time and before you get you know freaked out the caption it's not a caption but it's there's a comment underneath that says new seating area slash procedure for our youngest guests now this child is taped very very lightly and jokingly with masking tape.

That's like literally the weakest of all tapes is

supposedly holding this kid down as a joke.

It's literally the kids smiling.

It's a joke.

This is someone who's claiming, you know, those kids be crazy and we should tape them down so we can get a little break.

That's a common joke and a common trope that's used all the time.

It's just a joke, man.

That's all it is.

But that low-flying joke flew right over your head.

And I also want to point out that this child, I've seen this child in other photos from James's Instagram.

I don't know who this child is in relation to them.

It's not their child because they were an openly gay person who, according to like what I've read, doesn't have any children of their own.

But that doesn't mean they don't know people with children.

You know, I have P, I know children in my life that I am, quote, their uncle, even though they're not related to me, right?

So I'm their uncle.

I've been introduced as their uncle multiple times and they're, they're very close.

You know, they're, they're close friends and their children are are, are close to me too.

I'm not, it's not that somehow that's weird.

I just happen to know people who have children and I don't have children myself.

So let's not presume that somehow this is awful.

This is just a joke that's on an image.

So it is a joke.

And bearing in mind, like Joe Rogan talks all the time about the incredible importance of making jokes.

Even if those jokes are dark-humored, even if those jokes upset or offend people, it's important that we do that.

This is very evidently a joke.

It's not even a particularly dark-humored joke when presented in a way that isn't like wrapped up in all of this, this overblown significance and this conspiracism and paranoia, as has been done in Ian's presentation and in this conversation.

But like, Joe

would almost certainly understand that this was a joke and would defend this joke if it was presented to him in any other

conversational context than this.

Also, there's an image that he suggests of an open freezer, right?

So there's a freezer image and there's a bunch of comments in there.

And one of those images does say kill room, right?

But if you look look at this freezer, first off, it's probably the freezer that's in Comet Pizza.

And it was probably pretty gross, right?

And then they got together and they pulled everything out and they cleaned the shit out of it.

That's what it looks like to me.

And it looks like an owner of a restaurant probably having some banter with the people who work there who might have, you know, dark humor names about like, oh, it's the kill room or whatever, or, you know, like something else that.

that is that is reminiscent of you know the murders that might happen in there maybe it had a dodgy light in the corner that flickered or something.

And so people make jokes about that sort of thing.

You're not in on the joke, but that doesn't mean that they're going to post a picture of their own kill room on Instagram.

Why would somebody do that?

That doesn't make any sense at all.

All of these images, I'm not going to put the link.

Normally I would put the link of all these places, but you can find all these images on the internet.

It's not real hard.

You don't have to go to the deep web.

There's a bunch of these websites out there that have collected these images that are filled of people who really do think this conspiracy is actually there.

And there's tons of these other images too that you can find out.

There's a one of them is of a snippet of honey boo-boo where she's a little pageant girl.

And I don't know if it's honey boo-boo or somebody else is saying, I could care.

And then it's also wrong.

They say I could care less, but it's I couldn't care less about beauty.

I just want pizza is what it said.

And this guy who owns a pizza place thought it was funny and put it on his Instagram because it's a popular show.

That doesn't mean like these people are trying to find connections wherever they can.

And I just want to say, they mentioned Liz Krokin here, and we've been covering her on our other show, Cognitive Dissonance, for years.

And she has been spreading the most vile version of this conspiracy theory, which is frazzle drip.

And she has been spreading it.

She's an awful person.

She thinks elites have tunnels between their house so they can share children with each other.

They cut the faces off children.

They drink their blood.

They suck out their essence.

She's a genuine crazy person.

And she is spewing her mental illness out into the world.

And she has been doing it for years.

And if he thinks she's somebody who you should pay attention to, you should doubt a lot of things that Ian has to say.

Yeah.

And I think this is one of the concerns, one of the big concerns that I have about Joe Rogan is that I don't think Joe would get Liz Croakin on the show.

I don't think he did that.

I could be wrong.

He has Alex Jones on, so maybe I'm giving Joe too much credit for that.

I think if he did have her on the show, I I think people who are fairly neutral, who are watching it, would see what the types of things that she was saying and say, well, this obviously isn't true.

This is ridiculous.

This is too far.

And they'd recognize it for

being incorrect and for being extreme and conspiracist and paranoiac.

But Joe not having her on doesn't stop her messaging or her ideas getting on if he has it, if he has someone who's going to launder those ideas.

And Ian is a very well-spoken, quite eloquent, relatively charismatic delivery mechanism for Liz Crogan's ideas.

So ideas that will be considered beyond the pale, I presume, to go on the Joe Rogan show will be quite happily broadcast and endorsed by Rorgan if you give them the right delivery mechanism.

And they spend this entire interview talking about, well, Liz Krogan and Whitney Webb and Alex Jones.

And there's a very solid chance that the people who tune into Joe Rogan, because they like seeing him talk to comedians and like seeing him talk to UFC fighters, see this interview and think, oh, they're talking a lot about Liz Crogan as the source on this.

Maybe I go away and check her out.

Or maybe they don't do that, but maybe what they do is they follow Ian Carroll to somewhere else that he's speaking and he talks again about this stuff.

And maybe that's the step it takes before them to get to Liz Crokin.

So like the biggest media platform in the world, arguably,

certainly the biggest sort of free on-state affiliated media platform in the world is laundering the ideas, second and third hand, from extremists.

But like you can't tell the traces of those ideas because of the steps involved.

And just go back to some of the other images that they bring up from Alephantis.

Like they talk about a kill room with the word coffin on it.

So they've got the kill room, which is the freezer.

There's another one, kill room and coffin.

Now, that one isn't even Alephantis.

It's, and Ian does say this, the people who are commenting on Alephantis's Instagram, if you follow to their Instagram, they're posting weird stuff, or their friends are commenting weird stuff on theirs.

So we're like several step

several steps removed here.

This was somebody, this was the kill room with a coffin drawing was was something that someone who had commented on Alephantis' Instagram then went and commented on somebody else's Instagram.

That's the level you have to chase around the intent to get this.

So I went to Ian Carroll's presentation.

I found that image in Ian Carroll's presentation.

He picks out Alephantas' image there.

He also picks out another image that was posted by Alephantis as something that he's saying is suspicious.

It's a cartoon of a baby reaching for a sword on a table.

And it's saying about how the kid is being annoying trying to reach the sword.

So, you know, God, goddammit, just give up and give the kid the sword that image on the right i recognized it immediately because the style is is unmistakable it is a world famous artist david shrigley who's been nominated for like lots of modern art prizes his whole style is to darkly comic cartoons i know his work really really well it's it's funny it's satirical it's darkly humorous like that is just a classic example of a david shrigley cartoon and he is a world like literally a world famous artist who exhibits in the tape gallery um this is a joke and jokes are the things that Joe used to defend.

And yet here we are on the show.

We're not defending those jokes anymore.

And it tells you something.

If Ian can be swindled so easily by something that is so obviously a joke, pay attention to everything he says and definitely bring a level of skepticism to it.

Yeah, either he's fooled by not recognizing this as a joke or he does recognize it as a joke and doesn't care because it supports his message.

It's one of those two.

All right, here's another victim of Pizzagate.

This is the Clintons they're talking about.

But if you really learn the history of the Clinton family, just as one example,

did you ever read The Strange Death of Vince Foster?

No.

Sure.

But I know a little bit about the Foster situation and a couple of those weird deaths earlier on.

I read that book.

I should read that book back in the Dizzy, and that's what got me into wondering about the Clintons.

Because that guy died.

They found his body where there was less blood at the scene that was missing from his body, and the gun was still in his hand.

I was actually just reading about that specific murder in Whitney Webb's books like two nights ago.

Because she goes over that too, because it's a huge question mark.

The gun was in his hand.

The gun's never in your hand.

And his family claimed that that wasn't the right gun.

He had a black gun and his family was like, no, you owned a silver gun.

All these weird things.

They never found the bullet.

Like all sorts of things that just don't add up.

So in any situation like this, there are going to be anomalies.

There are going to be things that seem odd.

This is just anomaly hunting.

This is just pointing out all the things that don't add up, but no situation is ever perfect.

What they're not talking about in all of this is that Vince Foster was struggling with depression at the time.

So this is just even from his Wikipedia page.

You can see here, quote, struggling with depression, which after his death was assessed as clinical depression, Foster was prescribed the antidepressant medication Trezordone over the phone by his Arkansas doctor, starting with a low initial dosage.

The next day, Foster was found dead in Fort Marcy Park, a federal park in Virginia.

He was 48.

An autopsy determined he was shot in the mouth and no other.

wounds were found on his body.

So he's saying two gunshots is what he's saying.

There's two gunshots from here.

He was shot in the mouth, no the wounds.

So he says, you know, looking at that weird stuff with the gunshot, I went to the autopsy report for Vince Foster.

I went and found that.

I went away in red.

And it does actually describe the wound that killed him.

Quote, perforating gunshot wound, entranced wound is in the posterior oropharynx at a point approximately seven and a half inches from the top of the head.

The wound track in the head continues backwards and upwards with an entrance wound, just left the forum and magnum with tissue damage to the brainstem and the left cerebral hemisphere.

So there is no talk here about multiple gunshots.

There are different entry and exit points depending on how the bullet went through his head, but there is no talk here about a second bullet.

They've made, they've introduced that in order to make this seem like it was something suspicious.

And also, like, if it was, if you're going to do it a suicide, why would you shoot him twice?

If you're part of a secret assassin to try and kill somebody, why would you shoot him twice?

Because you've given the game away then.

Yeah, it must be the new guy where he's like, yeah, how many times did you shoot him?

Well, you're fired now.

You did it twice.

Yeah, the MK also didn't work well enough on him.

He was, he shot once from each of his dissociative identities.

That was the problem.

Each of his multiple personalities shot once.

Dark humor.

You're not allowed to do that anymore.

Not allowed to do it, Joe says.

I also want to point out, too, that this is also from the wiki page.

Five official or governmental investigations into Foster's death all concluded that he died of suicide.

They did five of these, right?

So they did five full investigations, congressional.

Then one of them happened after three years, a three-year investigation.

Whitewater independent counsel, Ken Starr released a report concluding that his death was a suicide.

If anybody wanted anything out of this, Ken Starr is the guy who would have wanted something out of this.

If you're unfamiliar, Ken Starr is the guy who wound up getting...

President Clinton impeached because of what he said.

So if there's anybody out there who wants this, Ken Starr is your guy.

And in response to that, the Foster family said they agreed with Starr's findings, but criticized his investigation for taking so long and thus contributing to the existence of, quote, ridiculous conspiracy theories proffered by those with profit or political motive, end quote.

So even his family was just so

aghast because all this kept on happening and they knew exactly what had happened to him, but people keep on trying to profit off his death and that's what they were upset about.

So maybe people should stop trying to do that because the family 100% believes the official five reports from this.

Now we're going to talk about Epstein and evidence now.

We don't actually really need the Epstein files to know what was going on.

They might, they'll hopefully include a lot of new details.

But don't we need it for rock solid proof?

don't we need the so take take Leslie Waxner that we were talking about earlier.

No, we already have the flight logs.

Do we have all of them?

Unredacted.

Really?

Yeah.

All of them.

So we're going to have to go to the next one.

Well, theoretically.

The ones we know of.

And do we have flight logs with destinations?

Yeah.

So we know so we know who went to the islands.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

They're all there.

And you can read them online.

They're on archive.org as well as other places.

I think this is so interesting because Joe has been complaining for some time that the Epstein files weren't released.

And he's complaining that because that's what he's seen online.

But if we can see here, we actually know, we actually discover how shallow his interest in any of this actually is because he doesn't know what's already been released.

He doesn't know that we already have the flight logs.

It already tells you who flew where and when.

And so for Joe, this isn't about what information is actually out there, because he's not really curious about that at all.

It's all about what's not out there yet.

That's where his interest always is.

It's not a genuine interest in what's happening or

what was done to the victims.

It's always, well,

what isn't out there?

What isn't available yet?

And why haven't we got that?

Now we're going to talk a little bit about Jewish billionaires.

Simultaneously, he founded, I mean, the Wexner Foundations and the Leslie Wexner Heritage Foundation, those are also very interesting and controversial.

They're very tied to Israel because he is one of the foremost Israeli philanthropists, despite being an American.

But he founded what was called the mega group, which is a essentially a, I mean, it was not disclosed for a long time, it was secret.

And it is a group of Jewish billionaires that get together on behalf of global Judaism, which is not uncommon.

And there's nothing wrong with that if they're not committing crimes.

But they would get together and meet, and it's people like Leslie Wexner, Charles Bronfman.

The list is, we could look it up.

And that group,

it is unclear if we have proof that they were conducting espionage, but

there are

all of them have ties to organized crime through various elements, like the Bronfmans were liquor, we're rum runners, as one example, that were then involved in the mob.

Leslie Wexner is involved in these trafficking rings, et cetera.

And that group seems to have been directly associated with Jeffrey Epstein.

I love that.

It's unclear if we have proof.

That is a hell of a caveat to drop in.

Because

we could just as easily say that it is unclear if we have proof that Ian Carroll is banned from the lingerie department, lingerie section of every department store in America.

It is unclear if we have proof that that's the case.

So I can just be saying that now, apparently.

Like, I don't know if these people had ties to organized crime or not.

But even if they did have ties to organized crime, that says nothing about whether they were running Jeffrey Epstein as an asset, which is what you're claiming here.

So he's slipped from confidently throwing out bald claims to now like tiptoeing through about things that he doesn't know if it's clear that we have proof or not.

Because he knows full well that the areas that he's in right now, where he's talking about Jewish billionaires and their ties to organized crime and what they were doing with Jeffrey Epstein, this is where he'll be pulled up for anti-Semitism.

So he wants to caveat this as much as possible and see whether Joe is willing to come with him or not.

Yeah.

And it's a caveat.

So later on, he can, he can say, what, what are you talking about?

I was very, very careful here in accusing anybody of anything.

I really didn't say anything at all, but people who might just believe everything that comes out of Joe's guest's mouth will 100% believe this.

Yeah.

This is the start of a clip where they're talking about missing migrant children.

Over 300,000 children are missing that have crossed our border that we have delivered to unknown sponsors.

Well, I think the Trump administration very quickly, within the first couple of weeks, found 90,000 of them.

I don't know what the number is now.

I haven't seen that.

Yeah, there was something.

See if you can find that.

The Trump administration, they counted for, well, they started looking.

The first fucking, you know, the first administration was like, I don't know where it is.

The Bible administration closed the border.

Well, we can't close the border.

That's wrong.

So I love this.

He's brought up this 90,000.

He's made a confidence statement.

Jamie is going to come in and fact-check it.

And this fact-check goes brilliantly.

Before we get any further,

I'm reading into the kids.

It's definitely a political thing.

Oh, the children are actually missing, BBC.

Go fuck yourself.

Well, this says that they had them, I guess, in records.

And then when they sent court notices out, they just don't come to their court date.

So they consider them missing.

Okay.

that can make sense.

But I think the Trump administration accounted for quite a few of them.

Oh, that part I don't know.

That's what it's saying.

You're not going to find them on BBC.

Well, I'm just.

All right.

That's yeah.

So I worked on that.

So don't you like that?

No, don't, no, don't put that Trump administration finds missing kids.

Try that.

Yeah.

Because I work with this guy named Ryan Mata, who spent three years of his life going to the border with his own dollars and filming documentaries about this and interviewing the people that rescue trafficked children and actually interviewing whistleblowers from within the Biden regime's trafficking scheme, like the people that were dropping kids off with sponsorships.

Bottom one, Sean Fucked.

Listen to what it says there.

A Trump administration has allegedly located between 75,000 and 80,000 of the 300,000 missing migrant children, according to Harris Faulkner of Fox News.

This is without a look.

That's a source.

Okay, but just trust me, bro.

Just Google Harris.

I understand.

But Google Harris Faulkner of Fox News.

I would love for that to happen.

Harris Faulkner.

I mean, I suspect that every Fox News.

Every single, like, there's every incentive for Trump to find them and to do something about it.

But

I think the vast majority of them are dead, unfortunately.

So that's a Facebook link.

I mean,

and this is the thing is that there are certain topics that are so disinformationalized and so sensationalized that when you start to research into them, you realize you're inside of this media madness that it's so hard to find the truth.

And COVID was one of those, and J6 was one of those.

The elections was one of those.

So this shows exactly how fact-checking sometimes works on Joe's show.

That long bit that you heard in the middle where Ian is talking, and then Joe sort of goes like, oh, it's that one there.

It's because Joe's not listening to him at all.

They're scrolling down on the screen.

So he's like, okay, we'll start with this.

Jamie does a fact check.

He pulls at the BBC.

Ian's like, you can't trust the BBC.

The BBC explains it.

And Joe's like, no, there's something else that I think the BBC hasn't covered.

The BBC won't cover it.

So how about you search the exact specific search terms that I want you to use to find the thing that I want?

Yeah.

And then when he does that, they scroll down through several, like link, link, link, to try and find the thing that looks like it agrees with Joe.

And when he finds one it's it's a tweet that happens to say something he likes and even jamie points out it doesn't have a source on it it's just a guy on twitter saying a thing so what the bbc said that joe didn't want us to be reading on this was quote But Aaron Reichland-Melnick, the policy director at the American Immigration Council, a migrant advocacy group, told the BBC that figures are indicative of a bureaucratic paperwork issue rather than anything nefarious.

So these kids that we've got missing, it's a paperwork issue.

He says, when you hear the phrase missing, you think there's a child out there that someone's trying to find and can't.

That's not the case here.

The government has not made any effort to find these children.

The BBC goes on to say that many of the children, experts say, may well be at the addresses that are on file with the government, but were simply unable to make their court dates.

That doesn't mean something bad happened to them, Mr.

Reiklin Melnick said.

It means you missed a court hearing.

So they're not missing.

They just didn't turn up and they haven't been looked for, but they're probably at the place that they live.

Except, yeah, they're probably not there, are they?

That's probably not where they are because Ian has thoughts.

Ian says, I think the vast majority of them are dead, unfortunately.

At least he thinks that's unfortunate.

At least he throws an unfortunate, like, you know, commiserations to the family.

That's based on nothing.

He's saying that based on absolutely nothing.

He has them.

refine his search like you suggest.

And then when they refine his search and they scroll down to that Twitter, they scroll past two articles, one's a PolitiFact and one's a Snopes.

And I'll include those in the in the show notes, but they essentially say what you're saying, right?

Which that it's misleading.

This is a misleading thing that was said.

And this is how they do research.

So every time they use the word research, research, look it up, you know, do your own research.

What they mean is

scroll past everything that disagrees with you and confirm your own biases.

My suggestion is don't trust their research.

All right, so this is an interesting one.

This is the last clip in the main section.

This is where they start talking about, they're trying to do a little bit of pushing here, a little bit about Trump and how Ian has a Melania theory.

He also just hooked people up with wives.

Like, do you know that he claimed that he introduced Melania to Trump?

Yeah.

Yeah, that's a crazy one.

I suspect, Melania conspiracy time.

I suspect that Melania has been whispering in Trump's ear.

I think she was trafficked before, either, either bad trafficked or good, or just like knew Epstein and like knew that world a little bit.

But I suspect that she's been whispering in his ear about what that really is and does and all that things because a lot of she's been kind of like acting from the back a lot but when you really dig into what Milani's been doing she's very very uh active in anti-trafficking and in protecting trafficked victims and girls and stuff and and as Trump when he married her and then they have Baron and he's watching his son grow up so you have this young child and you have this wife telling you about her previous life probably and just whispering in your ear that like this could be your legacy this could be your legacy this could be your legacy right because he used to be friends with those people even though I don't think he I don't think he was blackmailed because I think that would have come out when the Democrats were going for him.

And maybe he was involved in the trafficking a little bit because of the things that he bought and the people that he knew and like Roy Cohn connections.

But I don't even know about that.

But regardless, he knows the game.

And then he marries Melania.

And then more and more, like, he was in charge when Epson went down.

He was the only one that when Epstein got arrested and they were going around asking for dirt.

He was like, I'll fully fucking cooperate.

Fuck that guy.

I'll tell you everything that I know.

And so I suspect that Melania has been instrumental in his sort of shift to being the only guy willing to go after those traffickers.

There's such a shift in this clip because it feels like, I mean, Ian started with, I think Melania was trafficked and Epstein used to hook people up with wives.

And it felt an awful lot like what he was saying was like Melania was trafficked to Trump, like Epstein was involved in trafficking Melania on Trump's behalf.

But then he remembered where he was.

And you can't say things like that, even if you're just doing your freestyle conspiracy spitballing, because there can be no criticism of Trump in this space right now.

And so he shifted into, by the end of that clip, and Trump's the the only one who's fully cooperating, the only one who's willing to tell the truth.

He's the hero of this.

He's the only guy willing to go after those traffickers.

None of this, none of this is based in anything at all.

He talks about primary sources and the importance of checking his evidence.

And he says that quite a lot throughout his interview, but he's just saying this.

And there's nothing at all to back up any of this that he's saying.

I will mention that the people he brings up that are bad in this are Jewish, Roy Cohen, Epstein.

He's bringing up bad Jewish people.

I'm not going to say that he's like 100% anti-Semitic, but I will point out that every time his villains are Jewish.

So it's something to think about when you think about what Ian's going to tell you.

Especially when you scroll through that presentation he did on Rumble and who he thinks are the shadowy organizations who are running Epstein and things like that.

It all ties to Mossad and Israel.

And he will even say some stuff in that kind of area, but then he'll caveat it with, I'm not saying all Jewish people are bad and the bad Jewish people are giving Jewish people a bad name, essentially.

Yeah, yeah.

The only article I could find that connected Melania to trafficking was a false one.

It was where she was wearing a dress and people thought that her

dress featured drawings by child sex trafficking victims and that wasn't true.

So people had said that online and it was like a way to say, oh, look at Melania sticking up for these people and it wasn't even true.

And then I found another very bland fact sheet in 2020 that the Trump administration released that's that here's the title of it quote the Trump administration is committed to combating human trafficking and protecting the innocent but it's a it's one of these bland pr things that the white house puts out from time to time that doesn't really say much it just says hey here's a here's a buzzword that we want to say the white house is on top of so that happens from time to time and that's what they did i did find a single article in 2017 where she spoke to the un about all children but it wasn't about trafficked children in general it was about all children and she was asking the UN to step up to protect children, but it wasn't necessary.

It was about like children in war zones and children that were hungry and other things.

And also, I'm sure children that were trafficked, but it doesn't necessarily mean that.

So he's just having a conversation between this family in his own head, and he's telling you what it is.

If you thought goldenly breaded McDonald's chicken couldn't get more golden, thank golder, because new sweet and smoky special edition gold sauce is here.

Made for your chicken favorites.

I participate in McDonald's for a limited time.

Today, we'll attempt a feat once thought impossible: overcoming high-interest credit card debt.

It requires merely one thing: a SoFi personal loan.

With it, you could save big on interest charges by consolidating into one low-fixed-rate monthly payment.

Defy high-interest debt with a SoFi personal loan.

Visit sofi.com/slash stunt to learn more.

Loans originated by SoFi Bank NA, member FDIC.

Terms and conditions apply.

NMLS 696891.

Wow.

So that's the tool bag, and something just fell out of the toolbag.

So, for our toolbox section this week, we're going to talk a little bit about research, Marsh.

Yeah, so Ian talks a lot about the importance of going away and doing your own research.

He talks about how

his process of research, how he checks primary sources.

And so we're going to sort of pull together the various times he's doing that research, see what that research looks like.

Because I think it's a very good illustration of what research looks like for conspiracy theorists.

And if we were to go away and check his working out, could we actually even do that from what he's suggesting and find what's really real or not?

So this is a clip from the start of the show, and you can still actually hear the music in the background.

So let's take, first of all, why we love conspiracies so much because I fucking love them.

Dude, I love them.

I love finding out the dirty little tactics and secrets and how the government does things and what the fuck's really going on.

Why is it so exciting?

I think it's something like deep down in humanity.

It's like we love storytelling.

Yeah.

And these days, conspiracy theories are like,

I mean, 10 years ago, conspiracy theories were fringe and they were problematic.

Tell me about it, right?

I was a conspiracy theorist way back in the day when you were a fucking nut.

Dude, you were a conspiracy theorist when I was not even here yet.

I was arguing with people about the moon landing on the radio before the fucking, before there was any podcast.

Like we are 14 seconds into this interview.

We already know what we're what we're in for here.

But like he's talking about humans love stories and that is true.

But the fact that we love stories is why it is really important that we actually do proper research and not just the stuff that he's doing here, because we need to do sense checking.

We need to verify properly because otherwise we're just telling each other stories that aren't true.

Yeah.

And they talk about how they can learn things.

And I would argue you never learn anything except for how active your imagination is and how you can pattern recognize, how you can recognize patterns.

This feels like a perfect example.

You know, Joe talks a lot about evolution and how human beings are you know a product of this evolution and how we follow these very specific things that are built into us and pattern recognition is one of those things that's built into us and these guys have taken it to a level that is in some ways very dangerous marsh i just want to let you know that conspiracies are just good fun and that's what ian thinks

The one that I just recently kind of was reminded of is, you know, the story that

Disney sent kids to Epstein Island?

yeah that's like

perfectly such a money conspiracy theory it's not true that's not true it's when you look it up you realize that that i mean a lot of the information is kind of gone it's hard to even tell if it's legitimate websites and information which is already red flag but the ones that are still up they just sent them into like the ocean they like they were going on cruises that happened to be in the vicinity of the island that's totally different which is an event to a vacation destination exactly yeah and so it's it becomes this like and and that's kind of the i think that's the fun part of the game so like they're bringing something up here that even they say isn't true so why be bringing this up?

Why bring this up?

There'll be some people come away remembering that they talk about this and therefore there's right to it.

But they just straight up admit that this is a game.

This is just a bit of fun.

They're throwing ideas around.

They're spitballing.

They're going to see where that goes.

It's just a game to them.

And that's one of the appeals of conspiracy theory, theorizing is that you can play this game of making connections when there are no consequences to you.

There's real victims here.

There's real victims.

You know, if we're talking about, for instance, the Vince Foster thing

or the child sex trafficking where there are real victims, but you're in some ways sometimes taking away the attention that those victims are not centering those victims, you're centering the conspiracy theory, like you suggested earlier.

And then there's also victims of slander.

You consistently slander people.

I mean, and I use that word in a colloquial sense because I don't know that a lot of this stuff would hold up in an American court.

But

I am saying like, you know, when they're talking about the Clintons and when like Liz Crokin is talking about the Clintons, she's saying horrible things about them.

And those are victims of these conspiracy theories because they're making up baseless lies about people.

You know, Joe is talking here a little bit about a possible real estate investment for him.

We thought about buying the island.

Dude, when the island was for sale, we talked about it for a second.

Like, let's put some of that Spotify

money to use.

That'll be funny.

I think they would have stopped you.

I think someone would have stopped you.

100%.

Me?

Yeah.

I can't just get it.

There's fucking underneath that island.

No doubt.

There's got to be something on that island that's incriminating.

And also, what's in the walls?

What's in the walls of the buildings?

Like, I would get into the wiring.

I'd bring in pros.

Oh, yeah.

I'd be like, tell them what the fuck is that?

What's under the door?

I'd scan the fucking floors.

Yeah, LIDAR, the ocean floor and the surrounding miles.

Also, he's dead.

So if he ever fucking hid some shit in there, no one knows where it is.

Yep.

They're going to race that building.

I assume he's dead.

But there was

so much shit around it that I don't feel 100% sure.

I feel like 95% sure that he's dead, 98% sure that he's dead.

Right.

I wouldn't go 100% either.

Yeah, right.

You know what I'm saying?

It's like there's very few things I feel a hundred.

But they did do an autopsy.

But they did an autopsy on JFK too, and it was not his body.

So first of all, Epstein's Island.

Joe thinks that there's still stuff going to be in there.

Does he think that the authorities haven't thought to look in the walls and look in the places that Joe can?

He thinks he can, like, it says so much about Joe.

He thinks he's the guy who can figure everything out, everything out at this point.

And so Ian, as a result of that, starts floating the idea that Epstein isn't dead.

And he's just tugging at Joe's edges.

You know, know, he's warming him up to get into these kind of things.

Like most, and most conspiracy theories, theorists, when they say Epstein didn't kill himself, this isn't what they mean by that.

They don't mean that he isn't actually dead, but he's warming Joe up and he takes Joe down from like 100% down a little bit.

And Joe's even saying, like, okay, I'm 98%.

Although they did do an autopsy, which I feel like you only do that once you've got a dead body.

You don't just do an autopsy on someone anyway.

Joe can be tugged in the direction of even quite patently ridiculous conspiracy theories if you warm him up the right way and introduce things the right way.

This next one, we're going to talk about why they love JFK so much.

I feel like if there was a conspiracy theorist training course, the JFK assassination would be like the perfect dry run training course to build it around because you have all the pieces.

You have a complex conspiracy with unknown actors from intelligence agencies and organized crime and maybe multiple governments.

It's like, and we don't know all that.

Then you have a complex cover-up that evolved over time.

You have researchers, you have bad information being fed in from outside.

You have conspiracy theorists that are taking it in directions that are unlike corroborable.

It's got all the things that you need to both learn how to dig into and learn how to watch out for.

It's a lot of fun.

Yeah, it's a lot of fun.

For Ian, this is just a lot of fun.

And this is certainly how he starts the conversation.

And I do actually think he probably feels that the type of stuff he's calling research is fun because it's not rigorous.

It's not the time-consuming stuff of fact-checking and verifying or finding out the thing that you want to be true isn't true.

Real research can be incredibly boring.

I do quite a lot of that in the skeptical work that I do.

This stuff that Ian's talking about can seem quite fun, just throwing stuff up and

making connections on it.

But as we've already covered, we will go to places where those conspiracy theories have really serious consequences.

And at that point, it should stop being fun.

What's more fun, writing a research paper or a creative writing assignment?

And clearly,

the creative writing assignment feels like a lot more fun.

So that's what Ian's been doing the entire time.

This is a term that he uses throughout.

this is a term he calls primary sources

theory about the driver shooting him that's the one i've never bought honestly no no that's people always say the driver turned around and shot him and say that's one of those theories that probably the government created yeah that's what's there's an open

there's an open piece of evidence of some kids that showed up covered in mud at a at a car shop that they worked at that it was like a dry day they showed up covered in mud and uh this there's a certain guy that theorized that they were hiding in a manhole and shot up at him out of the manhole and that they the car slows down in real in real life, and that witnesses saw the car slow down, and that there's drop frames from this apruder film.

And it's like, these are these kinds of theories where it's like, it's like, how do you dig into that and like prove that?

And the answer is you have to get to primary sources.

You have to get to, like, is there a police report for that kid showing up?

Like, is that location real?

Like, can you corroborate any of this?

Right.

And the unfortunate truth is you could if you could fucking see the files that our government was hiding from us.

Right.

Theoretically, anyways.

They're supposed to be released soon.

They were released yesterday.

And there's nothing really new in them.

They're pretty much the same old files that everybody has seen already.

And it's pretty much the Warren Commission that everybody has agreed is pretty much exactly what happened.

So all of this stuff that they're saying is all just speculation.

But what's the primary source he's talking about here, Marsh?

Do you have any idea

what could possibly corroborate this crazy story that he just suggested?

That doesn't feel like you could find anything except for just hearsay that someone said they saw a person do something.

Well, we know what eyewitness testimony isn't great anyway.

So what are we, we're going to, we're going to base this all on maybe four or five people who all think that they saw something different that it, that a whole group, a whole parade of other people missed.

Yeah.

I mean, when he talked, the thing he's talking about there, about the police reports, he's saying that would be a primary source, but that wouldn't be a primary source because that police report, as you say, would be a police report of what they got while talking to the witnesses who said that they saw a thing.

So even the police report would be secondary at best.

It would be like what the police took away from the eyewitnesses who say they saw something.

And even then, he's saying, and we'd have that report if the government wasn't hiding it from us.

But, like, not if that report isn't real because it never existed.

So, like, the hypothetical report that we haven't seen must exist, and therefore, the government must be hiding it from us, or this just wasn't true.

Those are the two options here, or two of the options.

All right, they're going to stay here on a little more JFK stuff.

Can you Google David Lifton

witnesses of the JFK assassination odds?

Because he did some sort of a calculation of the odds of all these people dying the way they died.

Yeah, dude.

And it's millions to one.

Yeah.

It's nuts.

That's a big part of what I do.

Is it how likely is it that this is a coincidence?

Is it even possible?

Right.

That one's very unlikely, which means they were killing witnesses.

Someone was killing witnesses.

I think there was people shooting from the back and the front.

Okay, so it's interesting.

Ian points out this a big thing of what he does is to how likely is it that this is just a coincidence.

And the problem with that is this leaves you very open to a logical fallacy we've not discussed before, which is the lottery fallacy.

Because the thing is, someone wins the lottery or the lotto most weeks.

You know, we accept that that's normal.

You see that someone has won it.

But then if you take their numbers and ask what are the chances that those exact numbers came up,

it's incredibly small.

So how do you square those things?

How can it be that those numbers were so unlikely to come up?

And yet we're not surprised that someone won the lottery.

it's because we're asking after the fact if it wasn't those specific numbers you wouldn't be asking about those specific numbers you'd be asking about a different set of numbers and whoever else won so like this happens in uh in in the the the case of these kind of big kind of stories you know what are the chances that these events played out exactly this way well small out of all the possibilities but this is this is the only set of events that you would be asking questions about and if they didn't turn out this way you'd be asking questions about the way that they did turn out so we're always looking after the fact and we can't work out the probability in that time.

So what we can do, though, is contrast the chances of things happening this way with the chances of what Joe's saying and say, well, which of these is more likely?

Because Joe is saying that there are two shooters, either side, front and back, coordinating at the same time.

without the witnesses being able to tell that both of them were there.

So it's twice as many chance of witnesses.

And then all of the people afterwards who were killed in order to silence those witnesses.

And the chance that nobody was involved in that and the cover-up at any point talked about it subsequently.

All of those things, you have to factor in the likelihood of all of those and you start making, it starts becoming clear that what Joe is suggesting is a more likely alternative has just the same problems with probability as any other version of things, or maybe even more problems than that.

Yeah.

And also if you can make that number bigger, because you really can't list all the people who could have possibly been involved in his assassination because there could be tens of thousands of people who are tangentially related to somehow to JFK.

You're finding the connections after they die or after

they've been, you know, they had some sort of what you might call an untimely death.

You'll find if you look into this, some of these people didn't have untimely deaths at all.

They had regular, just old deaths, but there can, you know, Joe will say this about COVID, right?

Joe will say, oh, look at these people.

They had four comorbidities and they died of COVID and they counted it as COVID or whatever.

Or these people who fell off a ladder and they call it as COVID death or whatever.

He'll call that out all the time, even though that's not necessarily true.

He'll call that out as a way to say, you can't trust the people who are collating these deaths.

But in this case, he's 100% willing to believe the people who are collating the deaths that they are actually related in some way to the JFK assassination.

And I found a conspiracy site that sort of lists all these deaths, right?

I'm not going to go through and fact check them all.

I'll put the link in the show notes, but

it's definitely a rabbit hole you could go down.

And I'm going to link to a time article that talks about some of these conspiracies, showing that these are all just people who died, and some of them were posthumously were falsely included in the assassination.

So, they and when it was reported, they're like, oh, they were part of the assassination.

Then they found out later they weren't anywhere near or part of these things, they just happened to die and they included them in the list.

And so, I'm going to do one of these here.

Now, this is a link, this link that I found talks about Hunter, Koath, and Howard.

And And that's Bill Hunter, Jim Coath, and Tom Howard.

They supposedly visited Jack Ruby's apartment the night he shot Oswald.

Okay.

And on this page, they claim that Coath died of a karate chop to the neck in his apartment.

He was strangled.

That's not true.

So he was strangled.

That was from a Time article from 1966.

So they've been talking about this for a very long time.

Tom Howard died of a heart attack at 48, which is somewhat young, but people say he wasn't even in the apartment that night.

That he was.

So he wasn't.

he didn't even go.

He just happened to die of a heart attack.

And they said, oh, well, that guy was partially involved.

And then finally, Hunter was killed in a press room by a cop that was playing around with his gun.

And here's a quote about his death.

Quote, in 1991, George Robeson, a fellow press Telegram columnist, stated that gunplay between reporters and Long Beach officers was a fairly common occurrence.

Robeson said, quote, guns had been shoved in my ribs more than once.

It was childish and terribly dangerous, fun, and finally fatal.

The only surprise is that it hadn't happened before, end quote.

And also that guy, that final guy, he wrote a story in 1964 that claimed Oswald was assuredly the guy who killed Kennedy.

So the idea that they're going to go out and whack some guy who already agrees with the official story, that feels like a bad mismanage by a project manager.

Like, oh, that guy was on our side.

Why'd you kill that guy?

We want to go out to the people who aren't on our side.

It doesn't even make make sense logically.

It doesn't make, it's not consistent.

And all of these things are all just, they're just coincidences.

Coincidences happen.

They're not conspiracies.

For this clip, make sure to add air quotes when you hear the word research.

Yeah, and people can look, I mean, everyone should look up anything that I say always.

People should always just look it up and just start typing things in that I'm saying and see if you can figure it out and what you think.

Because I am not an expert.

I'm just a dude that like is looking things up.

And I try to be really thorough, but like.

So yeah, go away and look things up.

But of course, use the prompts and the priming that I'm giving you throughout this entire thing so that you go away and find the things I'm directing you to.

That's not how research works.

That's how like you're breadcrumbing people to the narrative you want them to believe.

Yeah, exactly.

I was, I, if I wanted to search for strange deaths around the JFK assassination, it's going to bring me to conspiracy sites.

Yeah, exactly.

And so like throwing out every conspiracy theory imaginable and then resting on, but you know, check what I'm saying.

That's not how this works.

That isn't how this works at all.

It's not on us to make your case for you.

You can't just say a thing and say, and by the way, just go away and check if I'm right or not.

You should be able to evidence that as you're talking about it and not just kind of rely on people to do the research to back you up.

Let's take a moment here to talk about the family that everybody loves to hate.

It is the Clintons.

And it all got scrapped, obviously.

And that's not to mention Podesta's art collection and the Marina Abramovich connections.

It goes on and on and on and on and on.

Yeah.

And we're talking about the Clintons with the Haiti scandals, with the cocaine in Arkansas.

It's like the thing is that we sound crazy.

I sound crazy to someone that doesn't do their own research because you just start, there's so many layers of like crazy shit that's happened with some of these people.

Yeah, that if you don't know the history of a person like Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, it's really easy to think, oh, that's just so insane that you would think that they'd be involved in it.

And first of all, they frame it in the articles about Pizzagate.

They say Hillary Clinton was the mastermind of a global pedophile sex trafficking ring all headquartered in this pizza shop, which is not what anyone ever claimed.

Right.

So as soon as you can discredit that, that, you discredit the whole classic frame job.

Yeah, he sounds crazy to

someone that doesn't do their own research.

But again, you know, you've got to do the research specifically only in the ways that Ian has.

So you agree with him, unless you don't have time to do that, in which case it's quicker to just believe that he's telling you the truth because he said he's done his research.

So I guess we'll just believe it and just accept this at this point.

And that's what Joe's doing.

And I imagine it's what many of his listeners are doing.

Either it is the Clintons were involved in killing people, cocaine scandals, Haitian scandals, Pizzagate, or

hear me out here, Marsh.

There was an effort by several people to amplify any disgusting rumor or conspiracy about them because they're powerful and they hate them.

And they just don't see the connection, the real obvious connection that everybody hates them and they keep making up stories about.

Yeah, yeah, for sure.

Okay, so here's Joe telling us to watch out for young Ian.

You do a very good job of citing your sources and telling people where to look if they want to find out more information about it, too, because a lot of it is a real big deep dive.

It's the most important part.

It's hard.

it's like unless you're you unless you're a person who does it for a living like the amount of time that it takes to find out about this stuff and then even you who's been it for two years doing this like there's there's decades of layers you need to recover and it'll take forever like whitney website for how long oh i don't even know alex jones has been in the game for 30 plus years but like he isn't doing a very good job of citing sources he's directing people to a handful of books he says he's read and then some of his sources are liz croak and alex jones these aren't reliable sources they aren't people that we should be just trusting yeah and when you look at his videos, if you look at his TikTok, he does have links in his videos, but there's never any list of links in those TikTok descriptions or any list of links on any of his YouTube videos that I saw.

I could be wrong.

I'm happy to see if he did list links somewhere.

Please send them to me, right?

If I'm wrong, please let me know.

But the searching I did, I couldn't find any.

On everything we do, we include the links because we're saying, look, check our work.

Go ahead and check to make sure we're right.

If he just points to something on a green screen behind him and then there's no link, how do I know how to even find that thing?

And how do I know it's not altered?

How do I know it's not just cherry-picked out of a group of things or something like that?

If you don't provide me the link, he has the link.

He had to find it somewhere.

So why not just put that in a document and share that with everybody so they can check your work?

You're not doing that.

So that's not good research.

That's bad research.

That's deceptive research.

All right.

So here's a unique story about the origin of a nickname for a former U.S.

But George H.W.

Bush, this is one that's not totally declassified yet, but I've been digging deep into it.

I got a whole bunch of documents on it, and it's kind of declassified.

Is that during Vietnam era,

we were managing all of the opium production and the heroin production in Laos and in the surrounding area.

And it was being sold to American service members to make money for the CIA for black operations.

And that was George H.W.

Bush.

That was his time.

That's why his nickname is Poppy.

It's not because he's like the dad.

It's because he was brought into that organization with Richard Helms.

That's the reason why his name is.

That's why his nickname is Poppy.

And that is still not mainstream CIA like disclosure news.

There's a whole fucking rabbit hole about it.

Like it is kind of disclosed that we were involved in that drug trade somewhat, but it's not disclosed that that's why all the Vietnam veterans came home addicted to heroin because the CIA was selling heroin to them and to a lot of other parts of the world in order to raise funds for their black budget operations.

I can't believe that Joe actually believes him when he says that Bush's nickname was Poppy because of heroin.

But Joe clearly does believe that.

Joe is mind-blown on that.

He's going to tell someone else that eventually.

It's going to come up.

It's absolutely going to come up.

So to be clear,

George H.W.

Bush was known to his family as Poppy.

He was, that bit's true.

But his wife said...

His wife said that her husband was named after his maternal grandfather, who was known as Pops.

So the younger Bush was called Little Pops.

That nickname evolved into Poppy, which Bush hated as he got older, but it was hard to break such a long-standing habit.

So is why he was called Poppy.

Not because of anything to do with heroin or a secret tie to

the opium trade.

It's because he was named after his grandfather.

Yeah.

And I love this connection where they're like, oh, you know, we had to sell heroin to service members so we could do black ops.

Why not just use USAID?

It existed at that point.

They could have easily just used USAID.

That's what they said it's for anyway.

Yeah, for sure.

This is another part of this where, you know, the conspiracy theorist has to point point out that the

person involved in the conspiracy somehow is giving away and showing you their cards that they are linked to this in some way by having a nickname that happens to link them back to this crazy thing that happened.

It's like the Pizzagate thing we mentioned earlier.

Here's Poppy.

He can't just have like a different nickname that doesn't relate to that at all.

He's got to somehow tell you.

He's got to flaunt it.

Yeah.

And I had no idea that Bush's nickname was Poppy.

But like, if, and if that, I assume that bit was true.

Was that widely known?

Is that something that Americans?

I've never heard it before today.

Okay, because I just love the idea that that was his nickname.

It was given to him what, by the CIA, and then his family all adopted it.

Or did his family know about the heroin thing?

Like, Ian's story of the case here is ridiculous, which I guess is why it's only kind of declassified and not fully declassified.

It's half in, half out.

It's kind of declassified.

That should be a shirt we have.

Kind of declassified.

We have to know that some of this stuff isn't true, and some believers get fed misinformation.

Also, if there's a believer, get them some bullshit.

Feed the believer some bullshit.

Exactly.

They don't even have to know that they're in a right, right?

They don't have to know.

And it could be like kind of plausible bullshit, and then it could be corroborated with some other bullshit that you have.

I think that's what most bullshit artists are in most fields.

I think it's usually useful idiots, like people like myself, genuinely.

Like, I am in some ways one of those people in the sense that if I get fooled by something, I become that, which is why it's so important to think really carefully and to be okay with being wrong because you never know what your sources are.

And that's also why I'm really, I'm really careful not to do very many like leaks or whistleblows or like, because how do I know who the fuck you are?

I don't want to spend all the time to try to vet you and find out where you came from and your story came from.

I'd way rather just learn.

There's so much to learn.

What do you mean you don't know what your sources are?

Why should I believe you if you don't even know what your sources are?

Yeah, exactly.

What on earth are you talking about?

Also, this is obviously giving them plenty of ammo to dismiss things they don't want to believe.

So the things that they don't want to believe, this is perfect.

They could easily just say, oh, well, that was a plant.

That was somebody.

And that's what this is.

This is confirmation bias of conspiracy theories.

That's essentially what they're selling us right here.

Yeah, I think it is.

But also, I think there's something really interesting here that Joe is saying: if you get a believer, maybe you feed them a little bit of bullshit.

Maybe they sort of get on board with it, and then suddenly they're a big proponent of it.

There's a strong argument that that's exactly what people keep doing to Joe.

We've seen it.

How is what Joe is describing there any different from how Mark Zuckerberg or Mark Andriessen handled Joe in their episodes with him.

They fed him bullshit about debanking for crypto, or about debanking rather for political opinions, and they fed him bullshit about how hard done to Facebook was and how they were targeted by various European governments and by the U.S.

government.

They fed him that bullshit.

He got on their side and became an advocate for them.

He's the useful idiot that they are talking about in this clip.

He is the believer who got fed some bullshit and believed it.

That's what he's talking about.

It's the value of Joe Rogan to people like Mark Zuckerberg.

Last clip, this one talks a lot about the tools of propaganda.

And the thing about the internet that I love that gets me called a controlled opposition all the time is that I love that all of their tactics work backwards too.

I can use those tactics too.

I can make propaganda.

Because what propaganda is, is just convincing messaging.

And if you have convincing messaging in the hands of an evil, fucking megalomaniacal dictator, government, CIA, whatever it is, that's really bad.

But if you have propaganda tools in the hands of regular citizens that have morals and values, that want the best for the world, correctly applied, you can fight back against them.

And so there's this element where I'm like, I'm looking at how do you open people's minds?

Like, how do you strategize to like get your, because it's a balance, right?

Because when I'm reporting on something, it's important to tell the truth.

It's important to be accurate.

And accuracy, if you really dig enough and get enough accuracy, that reduces entertainment value.

But if you find a way to balance entertainment value with accuracy the right way, which is always a moving target, you can change the world.

Like I'm a regular dude two years ago.

I was an Uber Eats driver, an ultra marathon running guy.

I was like a no one in the middle of nowhere.

And then I'm like, all right, I'll just contribute and I'll start trying to tell these stories, trying to learn and communicate what's going on.

So I think he's sort of giving the game away a bit here.

This is like midway through the interview.

He says he's willing to use propagandist tactics.

And I think that's what he's doing here.

This isn't research.

This is the propagandist tactics of finding the things that tell a convincing narrative.

That if you try to be too accurate, to

based on accuracy, it reduces the entertainment value and that makes you less effective.

So it's more important to up that entertainment value and to find the balance in order to tell the things that he wants to tell.

And he says, you know, two years ago, he was an Uber Eats driver and now he's here.

And the way that he's got that isn't through rigorous truth-telling, it's through employing the propagandist tactics that he's very, he's just admitting here, he's very happy to use.

I'm the last person that thinks I'm smart.

Trust me.

All right, Marsh.

Here we are, end of the show.

Find anything good in in this?

I did go away and watch some other Ian Carroll videos.

And in those, he's got quite long, unkempt hair.

And in this, he's had a haircut.

He looks a lot smarter.

He looks a lot sharper, a lot tidier.

that's good, I guess.

Wow.

Is that still your good stuff?

That's what I've got.

That's what you got.

You know, I got something that isn't good either, but it at least is interesting.

And what's interesting to watch is how he tests his limits around Joe, and he stays perfectly within those limits the whole time, getting Joe to agree with him on anything.

And I think Joe, Joe was absolutely played this entire episode.

I think Ian knew exactly what he was going to do when he came in, which was bring as many conspiracies to bear as he could.

And if they didn't work, he was going to fall back on, yeah, but there's some people who just believe that crazy shit.

And oh, isn't Q crazy and whatever.

But if Joe would have bid on QAnon, he would have 100% been, yeah, there's definitely something to it.

And I think he played Joe perfectly this.

So he made it so he's going to be a guest again.

Joe, he, Joe agreed with him 100% because he kept on, he kept on telling him what Joe's card was.

He kept on being like, well, there's your card.

Here's your card.

And Joe fell for it every time.

Yeah, no, I think that's that's that's really insightful.

I completely agree.

He's definitely coming back, isn't he?

Yeah, he's coming back.

And that's the good stuff we found.

There'll be more of him to look at.

Yeah.

All right.

That's That's it for our show this week.

Remember, you can access more than a half hour of bonus content each week for as little as a dollar an episode by subscribing at patreon.com/slash no Rogan.

Meanwhile, you can hear more from me at Cognitive Dissonance and Citation Needed, and more from Marsh with Skeptics with the K and the Skeptic Podcast.

And we'll be back next week for a little more of the No Rogan experience.

If you love the show, please rate and share it.

If you want to get in touch with us, become a patron, or check out the show notes, go to knowrogan.com.

K-N-O-W-R-O-G-A-N.com.

Shopify helps you sell at every stage of your business.

Like that, let's put it online and see what happens, stage.

And the site is live.

That we opened a store and need a fast checkout stage.

Thanks.

You're all set.

That count it up and ship it around the globe stage.

This one's going Thailand.

And that, wait, did we just hit a million orders stage?

Whatever your stage, businesses that grow grow with Shopify.

Today, we'll attempt a feat once thought impossible, overcoming high-interest credit card debt.

It requires merely one thing, a SoFi personal loan.

With it, you could save big on interest charges by consolidating into one low fixed-rate monthly payment.

Defy high-interest debt with a SoFi personal loan!

Visit sofi.com slash stunt to learn more.

Loans originated by SoFi Bank NA, member FDIC.

Terms and conditions apply.

NMLS 696891.

← Previous: #0013 Elon Musk Next: #0015 Peter Thiel →

#0014 Ian Carroll

Listen and follow along

Transcript

More episodes from The Know Rogan Experience

#0035 - Candace Owens

#0034 - Tom Segura

#033 - Graham Linehan

#0032 - Mike Baker

#0031 - Hal Puthoff