#0041 - Gregg Braden

podcast is sponsored by Talkspace.

You know, when you're really stressed or not feeling so great about your life or about yourself, talking to someone who understands can really help.

But who is that person?

How do you find them?

Where do you even start?

Talkspace.

Talkspace makes it easy to get the support you need.

With Talkspace, you can go online, answer a few questions about your preferences, and be matched with a therapist.

And because you'll meet your therapist online, you don't have to take time off work or arrange childcare.

You'll meet on your schedule, wherever you feel most at at ease.

If you're depressed, stressed, struggling with a relationship, or if you want some counseling for you and your partner, or just need a little extra one-on-one support, Talkspace is here for you.

Plus, Talkspace works with most major insurers, and most insured members have a $0 copay.

No insurance, no problem.

Now get $80 off of your first month with promo code Space80 when you go to TalkSpace.com.

Match with a licensed therapist today at talkspace.com.

Save $80 with code space80 at talkspace.com.

Your global campaign just launched.

But wait, the logo's cropped.

The colors are off.

And did Legal clear that image?

When teams create without guardrails, mistakes slip through, but not with Adobe Express, the quick and easy app to create on-brand content.

Brand kits and lock templates make following design guidelines a no-brainer for HR sales and marketing teams.

And commercially safe AI, powered by Firefly, lets them create confidently so your brand always shows up polished, protected, and consistent everywhere.

Learn more at adobe.com/slash go/slash express.

On this episode, we cover the Joe Rogan Experience 2387 with guest Greg Braden.

The No Rogan Experience starts now.

Welcome back to the show.

It's a show where two podcasters now with 120 hours of Rogan experience get to know Joe Rogan.

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

I'm Cecil Cicarella, joined by Michael Marshall.

Today, we're going to be covering Joe's October 2025 interview with Greg Braden.

To date, this has been viewed 1.1 million times on YouTube alone.

Marsh, how did Joe introduce Greg in the show notes?

So according to the show notes, Greg Braden is an author, scientist, and educator.

His latest book, Pure Human, The Hidden Truth of Our Divinity, Power, and Destiny, is available now.

Oh, okay.

All right.

So how did YouTube's new AI summary describe the show?

Yeah, I saw this new summary that YouTube have added.

So I thought, we'll see if there's anything interesting here.

According to YouTube's AI summary, author, scientist, and educator Greg Braden joins Joe Rogan to discuss consciousness, ancient civilizations, and the human condition.

They explore the implications of recent scient discoveries, including the origin of human DNA.

Prepare for a thought-provoking conversation spanning history, spirituality, and technology.

Wow, that sounds completely objective.

I love it.

Okay, so is there anything else we should know about?

Yeah, I think so.

So Greg will push often in his work and in this interview his scientific credentials.

He'll also talk about how he's worked with Fortune 500 companies in the past i think between the uh early 70s and 1991 he said he was working for these kind of big uh big fortune 500 companies but really his work for at least the last 20 years has been all about using his ability to talk in the language of science to describe how we're all created by an intelligent designer who may or may not be an alien but who informed the writing of the bible so the christian god but not in so many words, essentially.

In fact, a lot of this interview will be him talking about the Christian God, but not in so many words, essentially.

That's what this interview is going to be.

Yeah, pretty much.

Among the many books that he's written includes his 2004 book, The God Code, which argues that there are four letters in the Hebrew name for God, Yahweh,

and then there are four letters in the DNA code.

Therefore, God has coded his name all throughout our DNA.

If you ignore the fact that they're totally different letters, that the DNA is A, T, C, and G, only one of which appears in Yahweh.

Okay.

So what did they talk about on this particular show?

So they talked about Art Bell's radio show.

They talked about lunar missions and the face on Mars.

They talked about Greg's belief that astronauts saw evidence of aliens on Mars.

They talked about where the human chromosome came from.

and who made it, dot, dot, dot.

They talk about AI.

They talk about technology.

they also talk about how those two technologies are being pushed to separate us from our spiritual side, but pushed by who?

Dot, dot, dot.

Also, as a bit of an aside, we do a lot of our notes based on the transcript of this episode.

Our transcript software thinks they kept talking about Trevor Burrus and Aaron Powell, who are two guys that I had to look up.

They're from the Libertarian Think Tank, the Cato Institute, but they're not actually mentioned at any other point in this show.

At all.

They are in almost every other line of our transcript, but they have 44 mentions of Trevor in this.

But they're not actually in the show at all.

So I think our transcript tool was hacked by aliens and all code.

But yeah, thanks for that for the G.

Amazing.

All right.

Well, before we get to our main event, we want to say thank you to our Area 51, all Access Past patrons.

That's Blue Ridge, True Crime Podcast, Dr.

Messiandy.

If we work together, we can make them say anything.

Mike Fish, Clarissa Gunderson, Slarty Bartfast, Stargazer97, The Fallacious Trump Podcast, Chonky Cat in Chicago punches Nazis, Grodius, the end of all things, Scott Laird, Am I Robot?

Capture says no, but maintenance records say yes.

Dollen, KTA, Stone Banana, fine, I'll just put normal names.

11 Gruthius, Laura Williams, no, not that one, the other one.

I decided on an unironic normal name.

It's Fredar Gruthius.

Don't think me your show is just worth investment.

Billionaire oligarchs and tax-free nuclear beer run.

They all subscribe to patreon.com/slash no rogan.

You can do that too.

All patrons get early access to episodes as well as a special patron-only bonus segment each week.

And this week, we're gonna actually learn how ghosts can cure trauma and what your star sign means.

So, you're gonna wanna check that out: patreon.com/slash no rogan.

But for now, our main event

is

time.

Huge thank you this week to the veteran voice of the podcast.

That was Sophie Bofi announcing our main event.

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

Send that to noroganpod at gmail.com, as well as how you would like to be credited on the show.

So the beginning portion of the show, the main event of this show is

talking about all the pieces where they imply or directly say that humans are not naturally involved.

We evolved from some other thing that pushed us in a certain way.

It's intelligence design.

Oh my God, it's intelligent design.

And so that's what we're going to be focusing on for the main event this time.

And we're going to start out talking about fragments of skulls from archaeology digs where humans came from.

I'm skeptical about those because they find one fragment and there's a lot of interpretation that's going on there.

The consensus has been for a long time that we appeared.

I'm just going to preface this by saying I'm a degree geologist.

I believe in evolution.

Evolution is a fact.

I've seen it in the fossil record for plants, animals, insects.

Darwin's theory of evolution breaks down when it comes to humans, and it breaks down for this reason.

We now can do what used to sound like science fiction.

If you ever saw the first Jurassic Park, where they pulled the DNA out of the fossilized remains of ancient forms of life, in the movie, they brought them back to life.

To the best of my knowledge, we haven't done that.

What we have done is we can extract that DNA from the bone marrow of fossilized remains of beings that we used to believe were our ancestors.

And what's happening is, and this is a mind-blower, we know that we didn't descend from Neanderthal.

We shared the earth with them.

Certainly, and some people have some Neanderthal DNA because of that, but we did not descend from them, and we didn't descend from many of the other forms that you see on those traditional trees.

You know, you've got modern humans here and

all these lines connecting.

But if you look close at the lines, most of them are broken lines, Joe, because there's no solid evidence.

It's called inferred or speculative relationships.

I've got a picture of it here if we want to see that.

But what they're showing is that

we showed up about 200,000 years ago.

And now there's a little evidence that may have been back as far as 300,000.

But the kicker is that we can now look at the DNA and reverse engineer it and say, what did it take to get where we are?

So, yeah, he doesn't believe that humans go

all the way back that far.

He's skeptical, but the reason he's skeptical is because he believes in the Bible.

That's why.

He's just not telling us that properly yet.

But that's kind of what's going on here.

He's telling us that, you know, he's very happy to accept that evolution is true for everything else around us, but not us.

We're this sort of special case, in which case he's going to special plead us into being exceptions to all of the rules of evolution.

Like why?

And he said, well, you know, it must be, that must be a reasonable position for him to take because he just told us that he believes in evolution.

So he isn't a crazy person who rejects evolution.

He just, he's just not, he just will, will, you know, will accept, he won't accept everything that every evolutionary expert will tell you, which will include that we definitely are part of evolution.

We just evolved.

So that's what he's trying to do is couch his doubts, his biblical doubts in being reasonable because he accepts the rest of evolution, just not when it comes to us.

Right.

He's occupying your guards of skepticism while he smuggles intelligent design through the door.

You know,

it's sort of a way for him to sort of sneak that past the goalie by just making it seem like I'm just like you.

I totally believe in all this other stuff.

It's just this one little piece.

I'm sorry, there's this one little piece and that one little piece is all the pieces it's literally the biggest piece of the puzzle yeah exactly and you know he's saying he's kind of mind blown that we uh about this stuff with neanderals he should be that mind blown that we didn't descend from neander tolls because we didn't descend from neander tolls we were around at the same time both us and the endotals actually descended from a common ancestor nobody thinks that we are the descendants of neandertals um we diverged from the ancestor uh for that were that were before both us and the undertills uh some time ago we also didn't immediately diverge completely.

There was an interbreeding period within the last 50,000 years where Homo erectus were interbreeding with Neanderthals.

So yeah, we didn't come from Neanderthals.

He's just wrong about that here.

There's also part of this where he's talking about,

I'm pretty sure we haven't done a Jurassic park yet.

Like, you're pretty sure we haven't done it.

I'm 100% sure we haven't done a Jurassic park yet.

That's a real easy thing to be sure about.

It could be like 99% sure.

There might be a little island somewhere where, you know, Dickie Attenborough has made him like he's dead now.

He can't tell you.

We can't ask you.

Do you want to make a Jurassic Park?

It's impossible for us to know.

Somewhere out there, there's a dinosaur getting called a clever girl right now.

Yeah, it's like there's Russell's teapot and there's the dead Dickie Attenborough's Jurassic Park.

There are things that you can't prove are negative.

Okay, so this beginning piece here, we're not cutting any tape.

This is literally where they just left off.

And what scientists are now calling the smoking gun, and there's still a lot of controversy around this, is human chromosome number two.

Human chromosome number two is the second largest chromosome in every cell of the body.

It's got about 1,200 or so genes in that chromosome.

And just one of them, gene TBR number one, is responsible for most of the brain that we have for our neocortex.

So our humanness, our empathy, sympathy, compassion, love, our cognitive abilities, the mirror neurons, all these kinds of things are because that one gene.

Well, where this gets really interesting is where did chromosome 2 come from?

And scientists have the answer, but they don't like the answer because chromosome 2 is the product of a fusion.

Proceedings from National Academy of Sciences, the volume Genetics, says this very clearly.

We conclude that the origin of human chromosome 2 is the product of an ancestral fusion, of telomere-to-telomere fusion of two pre-existing chromosomes.

That does not happen in nature.

It can't happen in nature.

Okay, so this is the smoking gun that, you know, science aren't happy with.

He's talking about like this is a very recent discovery in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

This was not that recent discovery.

It was published in 1991.

I'll link the paper in the short notes.

So this is

quite an established discovery.

And scientists, rather than being fearful to admit it and hiding from this smoking gun, they're pretty comfortable with it.

It's been part of the literature for over 30 years at this point.

I don't know if you heard him correctly.

They have an answer, but they don't like their answer, but they're still publishing their answer, I guess, very reluctantly.

They bring it to the publisher and they say, you know what, I don't want to publish this, but I have to because it's the truth, I guess.

I don't understand his argument here.

Well, in fairness, I mean, that's how science should work.

It's like, I don't want to publish this because i don't like what it says but it's true so i have to publish it that is kind of what science should be doing but that's not what's happening here yeah because there aren't scientists who are going i don't want to publish this there isn't a scientist jumping in the way of the publisher like a bullet like no

jumping across yeah it's silly Yeah, it's well established in the field at this point.

Look, I'm not an expert in chromosomes.

I had to do a little bit of digging into this to try and understand what he's talking about, which again shows you that he's talking at a level that I don't think Joe is able to just roll with and understand whether it's true or not.

Certainly the average listener wouldn't be because

if I'm an average listener, I had to go away and check upon this kind of thing.

But I would still be incredibly wary of anybody who tells you that just one of your chromosomes is responsible for what makes you human.

What's responsible for things like compassion, empathy, love.

These are very complex things and they don't just, there isn't a gene for whether you love or not.

There isn't a gene for

whether you have compassion.

These are complex interplays with how the brain develops and how the structures of

your upbringing and experiences all layer on into

your brain.

So TBR1, which is part of the chromosome that he's talking about, that is indeed required for normal development of the cerebral cortex, which are the parts of the brain that do those things.

So he's saying that without that, you don't have a functioning brain and you can't do the things, therefore, that a functioning brain would do.

and that's true but it's also incredibly reductive because you could just as easily take out other parts of your genetic code for that that code for your development and equally you wouldn't be viable either to have those various functions take away this thing here and your heart never forms well enough to power your brain to have the ability for compassion so maybe we can blame it over here as well um TBR1 is unequivocally important, but it's not singularly so.

And whenever anybody says there is this gene for this complete set of traits that that define your humanity, I'd argue they're trying to pull a bit of a fast one here.

But all of this is trying to build a picture.

That's what the fast one is trying to do.

He's trying to build this picture of this is the one gene that makes you human.

It only occurs on this chromosome.

And this chromosome developed in this fusing way that we just can't explain.

Things don't fuse like that.

Chromosomes don't just fuse like that naturally.

Something must have made it fuse.

Dot, dot, dot, God.

That is what he's doing here.

Scientists don't like the answer because the answer is when we look at how this chromosome came about, the only explanation is God.

And he says at the very end here, that doesn't happen in nature.

It can't happen in nature.

Except it does.

So I'm going to link in the show notes to four separate papers.

There was a man in China recently who was found with 22 pairs of chromosomes rather than 23 because two of his chromosomes had fused.

There's papers from 1989 which described a translocation, so a fusal, a fusion between chromosomes 14 and 21 in

one of the

people here.

There's one in 1988 which has three distantly related families in Finland all have translocations in their chromosomes 13 and 14 which have fused.

And then in 1984 there's another family of three adult siblings who had 44 chromosomes, so two pairs of 22, because like chromosomes 13 and 14 fused.

So he is saying fusion like this does not happen in nature.

Well, there are four examples just of where people have had their chromosomes checked and found that actually they had some naturally occurring fusion.

I would also say that isn't every example of people whose chromosomes have fused because what are your chromosomes like Cecil?

Can you describe your chromosomes?

No.

I need to take a DNA test from that last guy.

And then if I do that, then I'll know.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Like the average person doesn't have their chromosome checked.

It's actually ideal.

It used to be quite a laborious and expensive kind of procedure to do that sort of thing.

It gets cheaper and easier now, but it's no routine reason to be doing it.

I suspect if we were routinely testing things, we'd find all manner of different things.

And in fact, that's the kind of conversation that comes up when people try to define sex by chromosomes alone.

What you find is the more you look at chromosomes, the more variation there actually is to the standard models that you were expecting.

I want to reiterate one point you made where you said it's

very dangerous to say all these things lead, all these things lead to one chromosome, because then it's really easy to strip humanity away from people too.

By saying certain things about how easy it is not to be human, then you can make someone not human really easily.

And we currently have people on the planet right now talking about chromosomes and genes and how people don't have good ones.

So that might tell you that this sort of talk can lead to very dangerous things.

That's a thing that we probably want to stay away from.

Yes, exactly.

And that's not to say that that's what Greg's getting at.

No, I'm not saying that.

It is a conclusion that some people can take this stuff and end up further down the road in this much more dangerous place.

It's nudging you in a direction you probably don't want to go.

Okay, so he continues on with chromosomes, and we haven't cut anything out yet.

This is the continuation of that discussion.

So here's what they're saying.

You got

two fully formed, fully functional chromosomes, and on the end are the telomeres that protect those chromosomes when the cells divide.

And that's why they're on the end.

They take the hit.

It's a trauma in a cell

when those chromosomes are pulled apart and some of the DNA doesn't make it.

So nature puts telomeres on the end to take the hit so the good DNA remains intact.

And that's why it's on the ends.

Human chromosome 2, those telomeres are right in the middle of the chromosome.

where they shouldn't be because those chromosomes were fused together about 200,000 years ago when we

appeared.

And if that was the only one, you could say, well, maybe it's a fluke.

Chromosome number seven.

I'm a musician when I'm not doing what I'm doing now, long before I was a researcher.

And one of the things I always used to wonder about, you know, we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, but you don't hear chimpanzees sing.

You know, you're never going to hear a chimpanzee sing Led Zeppelin Stairway to Heaven.

And you ask, well, why not?

I mean, 98% of the DNA is we share with them, but it's because of chromosome 7.

And for about 175 million years, this chromosome was stable and all primates, all of them, orangutan, gorilla, chimps, all the primates, all of a sudden, there was this little, hmm, this little switch of a couple of genes.

that connected our tongue and our brain and our jaw, and we can sing and we can have complex speech like no other form of life.

It happened 200,000 years ago.

Now, what are the odds of that that happening when chromosome 2

is fusing?

We got a classic one.

We got a classic Joe woe there, like the 200,000 years ago.

It happened, whoa.

And I was like, what is he woeing?

Just that's a large number.

It's a big number.

There's also an

at the end there.

It's

a little of him in that one.

Yeah.

One of these days, we'll have to kind of grab every one of those guys.

But he's saying here, you know, again, what he's trying to nudge at is the thing that changed us from being descendant from chimpanzees, like the other fellow chimpanzees and ape-like creatures,

into what we are now are these nudges to our chromosomes that seem to happen out of nowhere.

He said, only one, maybe that's a fluke.

But what if there's another one?

So, right, but if there's another one, it's less of a fluke.

But then if it turns out it's relatively common for it to happen, it stops becoming a fluke or intervention by God and just becomes maths, essentially.

Yeah.

So that's what he's not kind of getting at here.

He also says in this one particular gene, you know, this chromosome number seven, it was stable for, you know, all of this time, this whole kind of time with chimpanzees, it was stable for 175 million years.

What is he basing that on?

Has it, because, because I would argue that, yeah, you can find plenty of examples of it being stable in that time, but I...

There may well be plenty of examples where it wasn't stable, but the mutation it created wasn't viable for procreation.

It produced sterility and therefore wouldn't have been able to be passed down.

It also is possible that there's a lot of stuff out there where we haven't done the full genetic sequencing of it to know how stable it is.

So maybe he's right.

Maybe there is 175 million years of unbroken evidence of a stable gene.

He's a big fan of, you know, not inferred evidence, but an unbroken line.

So maybe there's 175 million years of unbroken, stable lines of that stable gene.

Or maybe he's just saying that in order to bolster his argument a little bit.

But he ends by saying, what are the odds of that happening where chromosome 2 is fusing?

Okay, let's think about that.

What are the odds of a gene mutating across 175 million years in one of the 40 trillion cells that we all contain that have got our genes in them?

Those cells divide something like on average every 24 hours, faster in some cases, slower than other cases, but call it once a day.

Those 40 trillion cells inside us will divide, each time replicating the DNA, each time giving an opportunity for something to go wrong.

Call that something like 8,000 opportunities per cell per year across 40 trillion cells multiplied by every year of the each of the number of apes and pre-humans that live for that 175 million years.

What are the odds that at some point something weird happens with one of those?

I reckon pretty good.

The number of opportunities we have.

That is the thing about evolution and mutation.

Our genes are doing this all the time.

In fact, I found two studies.

There's one study, estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans, which said the average mutation rate was estimated to be approximately

2.5 times 10 to the minus 8 mutations per nucleotide site, or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation.

Diploid genome is a pair of chromosomes.

So 175 mutations per generation is what you'd expect to see just on random chance.

Now, a lot of those mutations will be neither beneficial nor harmful.

They'll just be in some of the parts of DNA where we've got enough duplication that it doesn't really spoil anything.

But all it takes is for one of those mutations to be useful.

And

it could be heritable.

It could pass on an advantage.

It could then influence the direction of that species.

That is natural selection.

That's what we're talking about here.

That's the evolution that he said he believed in earlier.

He's now saying, well, it's only true for those things and not for us.

Another study here, the rate of spontaneous mutation, mutation, a human genome accumulates around 64 new mutations per generation because each full generation involves a number of cell divisions to generate gametes.

So yeah, every time your cell divides, there's an opportunity for a mutation.

What are the odds?

Well,

the odds are small, but the number of opportunities is incredibly large.

You're more likely to win the lottery if you're playing 50 million tickets a week.

The chance of winning the lottery is still small, but you're buying a lot of tickets.

Yeah.

And he veers off here with a claim that says that basically primates don't sing, and that makes us different than the primates.

That's not true.

I found a link to an article that says scientists have found that a type of ape called a gibbon not only likes to sing, but also sings in duets and pairs.

So it basically sings, they sing together.

So it's, he's not, it's not, he's not being truthful here with this because he's trying to make a point that we are unique.

But if we're not unique, then his argument doesn't have the same weight that it has if he's, if we are.

So he's trying to push that on us to make it seem like we are more unique than we actually are.

And even that is in quite a narrow span because he's saying about like animal, about apes that don't sing.

Well, apes don't, but there are other creatures out there that absolutely do sing.

Plenty of bird, famously, pretty singy.

So

you're narrowing it down to distinguish us from the things that are nearby, but it's not a unique trait to humans.

Okay, so we're still continuing on with that tape.

There's no jumps forward.

This is the next bit.

So

I've worked with scientists my whole life, both in academia and in the corporations.

I was a problem solver for Fortune 500 companies through the late 70s, 80s, and 90s.

And one of the things I've seen about scientists, it's fascinating, is

that there is one way of thinking that says we take all the evidence and we force it into a pre-existing model, like all the new discoveries, trying to force that into Darwin's theory of evolution, or we allow the new evidence to lead to the story that it tells.

And this is where science is stuck right now, because the old theory, Darwin's theory of evolution is in trouble.

And it's the DNA is the reason it's in trouble.

It's no longer superficial or fossil evidence.

I mean, the DNA is telling the story.

And the new story suggests, at the very least, a scientist has to say there's been some kind of intelligent intervention.

And this is where science gets stuck, because science says it's not equipped to talk about any kind of an intelligent intervention.

But that ties in to everything that's happening.

Now, you know, if we're going to talk about ancient civilizations or if we're going to talk about we've been here before, are we going to talk about

what it is that is the disclosure?

All of those kinds of things.

So science is kind of at the crossroads right now.

There's something called the standard model, and that applies to evolution.

And what the evidence suggests is that we are the product of an intelligent and an intentional act.

Who or what that is, that's where

it can get sticky.

Okay, so we've seen a lot of attempts from guests on Joe Shaw to take on a level of credibility,

to establish themselves as having credibility.

This is the first time I think I've seen a, I used to know some some scientists 30 years ago.

Because he says I worked with scientists 70 in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

My man, the 90s was 30 years ago now.

And

you note that where he stops his interaction with scientists is around about the time he started writing these books.

So like, I used to know scientists.

until I started to believe this stuff.

This is kind of what he's telling us under the covers here.

What Greg is actually doing here is walking Jaw through intelligent design as an argument, which is just creationism in a slightly different dress.

The idea that you can't explain everything through science.

There has to be an intelligent creator.

And he's even saying that scientists now have to accept that there's an intelligence behind all of this.

And I would argue not a lot of scientists working in this field think that's an inevitable conclusion of their work.

Yeah.

And this is a great way to smuggle this into Joe's.

brain, right?

Because I think Joe probably is pretty skeptical if someone sat down in front of him and said, you know, there's there's a God, he's got robes, he sits on a big throne, and he's got angels with a bunch of eyes and they hang out around him.

If they gave him the traditional story of Jesus or the traditional story, he might say, oh, that's a nice story or it has a good, there's a good moral to that story or whatever.

And we could debate whether or not that's true.

But he might be susceptible to the morality behind it or the ideas behind it, but not the actual story.

But if you start talking about, start poking at all the different pseudosciences that he believes, right?

Oh, I mean, it might be aliens.

It might be this.

It might be that.

We're not saying God.

I'm not saying this God did it.

I'm saying that there is, you know, God can mean a lot of different things.

That's a great way to smuggle it into Joe's, into getting Joe to think that intelligent design is real.

And I wonder.

If this is going to be one of the things that we look at in the future to say, this may be one of the seeds that

led Joe on this path, where now he, when he has someone else there, he starts talking about the intelligent design in this way, where he's talking about chromosomes and the evidence he heard in this particular podcast.

Yeah, I think it's possible.

And I think even in this show, Greg references a conversation Joe had with Wesley Hoof, where Wesley claims that he got Joe to go to church and things.

So we haven't done that one, but it is on our list to maybe come back to and sort of track how Joe might be changing in terms of his religiosity.

But yeah, I think that's very astute to talk about the aliens.

We're also, what else comes up in this conversation?

AI, psychedelics.

It's the Joe Rogan backlog hit list.

And it does make me genuinely wonder what what arguments, what positions could you massage Joe into if you couched it in terms of aliens, AI, social media?

Like, could we get him to go full socialist if we just presented it as, well, you know, there are aliens out there who gave us these resources and told us we need to share these resources as equally as possible.

And

we might be able to backdoor him into a kind of democratic socialism.

You never know.

But what Greg's talking about here is science is now at the crossroads.

Well, I don't think scientists are at the crossroads on this issue.

Certainly, no credible scientists who are working in this field,

who are trained in this field, who've been doing this

since the 1990s, in the years, since the 1990s, when discoveries have come on a long way.

The ability to sequence genomes, for example, is hugely more advanced than we were nowhere near that in the 90s.

Now we can do it so easily that you can spit in a test tube and find out how Scandinavian parts of your heritage are, for example.

So like genome stuff has changed massively in the time that Greg's talking about here.

None of those will say that we're at a crossroads on evolution.

None of them will say that there is an intelligent or intentional act that created us.

And that's what the science leads us to.

So I think Greg at best is way out of date with his interaction on scientists here.

And this whole argument about the chromosomes has actually been brought up in explicitly creationist places.

So places like Answers in Genesis, which is a website dedicated to forwarding creationist arguments, talks about this chromosome 2 question.

And another creationist resource called the Institution and Creation Research,

they cover this, but their coverage of this from 2020 about the chromosome 2 fusion is actually denying that that ever happened.

There's no such thing as a fusion of chromosome 2 because that was a problem for them.

And so

in the beginning, when we found this issue with chromosome 2, they had to explain that it couldn't have happened.

So, they said, nope, that's just not a fusion at all.

You're completely mistaken.

That's not what it is.

That didn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

So, they've moved to, okay, that's true, but God did it.

So, pretty clearly, creationists are the ones who've been at a crossroads on this issue.

That's where the crossroads has been.

All right, we're going to take a short break.

We'll be back right after this.

But

if I'm not going to be able to do it, that's a reliciosis big market with two patients of carnives.

It is a refreshing Coca-Cola.

No, in cunts, in some trouble, because McDonald's is the unicorn that I offer the Big Mac extra value for solo 20 minutes, disposed to be a little bit more difficult.

It is a

pretty equal de Unicoli demas for

granted unless

you have a very good idea.

First of participation can bear coming to see a professor to combine.

People are the promotion to ensure that the communities.

Coca-Cola is not quite historic of Coca-Cola Company.

Ever wanted to stay on vacation longer?

Us too.

With Verbo's long stay discounts, you can stay longer and save more on select properties.

Gotta love a win-win.

Book the perfect summer getaway today with Verbo private vacation rentals.

Your future self will thank you later.

So, your AI agents.

They make the team that uses them more productive, right?

But if they aren't connected to other agents, or your data, or your existing workflows, how productive can they really make your teams?

Any business can add AI agents.

IBM connects your agents across your company to change how you do business.

Let's create Smart to Business, IBM.

Ah, the Florida Coast.

Verbo has over 57,000 exclusive vacation homes on the Florida coast.

That's 57,000 vacation homes Airbnb wishes they had.

Make it a Verbo for your next Florida Coast trip.

Okay, welcome back.

Let's jump right back in.

Okay, so now this is the first jump forward.

They're going to start talking about the struggle of good and evil.

My first degree is in geology and computer science.

This is a very different way of thinking, and it's where the evidence is leading us.

What the our most ancient and cherished texts, whether you're talking about religion or not religion, They say that we are born into an ancient struggle that began long before we ever got here.

And for lack of a better term, and this is where

words are powerful and they carry a lot of baggage.

It's a struggle between good and evil.

We're born into this struggle between good and evil.

It's not a religious struggle.

When we talk about evil, I think it's important to quantify what that evil is.

And to do that, we have to talk about who we are.

There's something inside of us, Joe, and this is where science is stuck.

This is where science and spirituality come together in a beautiful way.

And this is where language may fail me.

So I'm going to do my best.

There is something inside of us that is so rare and so precious and so ancient and sacred and powerful and beautiful that there are forces that have in history and are currently working to deny us access to this force.

The force is the reason for the ancient texts, the spiritual traditions.

And there's two ways that we can have this conversation.

You can say we can do it from a biblical perspective perspective and talk about angels and demons.

We could do it from a high-tech perspective and talk about an advanced civilization from another world and another time.

And you're talking about the same thing.

Exactly the same conversation.

As to our origin,

there was an intentional intervention that created this.

Biblical traditions are giving us one perspective.

The Mesopotamian texts are telling us that we are the product of the blood of a higher form of life.

And now the archaeological sites are revealing that those, which are reported in those Sumerian texts, actually existed.

This is one of those moments where they're doing that.

You know, ancient wisdom knows more than we do now.

And it's very easy to dip into this ancient wisdom.

And if you read this ancient wisdom, you'll see that this struggle has been going on a long time and it totally matches what's happening today and how we feel and our thoughts and

the way in which we understand humanness.

It's all linked to to all this stuff.

Yeah, I mean, you know, this is one of those choose your own God moments because he even says in here, he says, look, it could be that it's aliens fighting over us, but that's also just God, by the way.

He's just, he's just, he literally says, it's just, that's just the same name for this other thing that they were talking about a long time ago.

Yeah, it's very much, you know, how you care a lot about aliens, Joe?

Well, that's God.

So you're already on the same page as us.

Yeah, we're already there.

It's a little bit like what christians did when they were encountering like pagan traditions now you know you're already kind of worshiping this thing at this time of the year well actually did you know that's actually linked to jesus so if you carry on doing that but do it with a jesus like flavor he'll be even happier and it's kind of co-opting other traditions in in order to kind of say that you're already doing jesus to this degree so you might as well come a bit further and join us in the jesus um and you'll notice at the start of this clip he's talking about his science he talks about hiker he start and he comes back to talking about you know we can do this from a biblical perspective, or we can talk about the high-tech perspective.

That pin in that, because we're going to talk about that more in the toolbox, the way that he's using technical language to essentially prove that the Bible was right all along.

But one of the things I think is interesting is he's saying about, you know, there are forces that are trying to keep us away from this rare and beautiful thing inside of us.

Who are those forces?

What are those forces?

He doesn't get there.

It's going to take a while before he starts to fill that in.

And he's trying to say that this isn't just about, this isn't really about religion.

But what he's describing here, it certainly sounds a lot like a religious structure.

Sure does.

This sounds very sermon-like.

And it sounds like, and this is an hour into the conversation.

So it feels like he's done enough groundwork with the alien talk and the chromosome talk and the science talk to be, okay, I think I've got Joe on board now.

Now I can start to sort of saying, and did you ever hear the good word of our Lord and Savior?

There's so at the end of this, he ends with this sentence.

He says, and now the archaeological sites are revealing that those, what's reported in those Sumerian texts actually existed, is what he said.

Now, I just want to say, we did cut a little tape here, but he never gets to what actually was in those sites.

What he says is, what he brings up is the Nag Hammadi Library, which is ancient texts that we found.

So if he's saying what's in those ancient texts, ancient sites is ancient texts, then yes, but that's not what he's talking about.

He never actually clarifies that.

So when he says that, that's not true because he never supports it with any evidence whatsoever.

And then we move on to a few minutes later where he's talking about those very specific, that's very specific library, the Nagamati Library, and talking about the Gospel of Thomas.

These, and I'll be very clear, if you had Wes Hough here, I know you've had before, and I think he's a brilliant scholar, he would say that these are not accepted

because they're not accepted by the church because of dating and because of, of you know there's a lot of reasons but there's a lot of new research showing that

that these are worthy of

of exploring

with the same validity that we give to the other texts that we're talking about what are they dated to the they're dated the late first early second century somewhere right around there some some of them later

the the uh the book of john the the secret book of john what makes it so exceptional is that he believes, he said that it was dictated to him by

Jesus of Nazareth after his crucifixion.

So it wasn't before, it came after.

But the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas is probably the most controversial.

It's 114

sayings

that were recorded by

Thomas, and the book says Didymus Thomas

was the name.

And it's almost like it's different from all the other books in that it is each saying is a teaching unto itself.

And

what he is saying are,

again, I'm hesitating because we're just covering so much ground here.

What Yeshua was his name, what he was teaching was so profound for his time.

There were outer teachings and inner teachings.

The outer teachings were for the masses, and it's primarily what you see in the Gospels.

The inner teachings were for those initiates that could really understand what it was he was saying.

And that's what the Gospel of Thomas appears to be.

It did come from a later time.

I don't think it then validates that,

you know, what it is that is being said in there.

I think it's interesting that he says he's kind of, he's very hesitant going through all of this.

And I think part of the reason he's hesitant is because he doesn't want to get too deep into scripture or kind of the

non-gnostic kind of scripture talk at this point in case Joe rejects it.

Because that's not, this isn't the game for how you get Joe on side.

And I'm not saying that he's deliberately playing a game.

He may genuinely be like having a very honest conversation, but certainly from the outside, it seems that this is how he's trying to get Joe on board.

And maybe Joe isn't ready for the parts of the conversation that are very scriptural-based just yet when he knows he wants to get to aliens and AI and those sorts of things.

He could just be unconsciously tentative, right?

Like he could just be unconsciously being tentative because he realizes if he says it out loud, you know, it could be, it could really get rejected.

So to a million listeners so far,

exactly.

Yeah.

But also, what's his argument here?

His argument is, well, the book says it was dictated by Jesus.

Therefore, it must have been.

Okay, what if the book says that?

A book can't lie about itself.

Right?

Also, hold on a second.

It was dictated after the crucifixion?

What, like through the rock on the tomb wall?

Like, what are we talking about here?

Yeah, like Morse Cord knocking on the, on the

glass to the tomb wall so he can

hear Jesus.

Either that or it's Jesus yelling down from the cross before he was taken down.

Although,

given that when he died on the cross, the skies in the middle of the day at noon went dark for three hours.

That might explain if there's any poor handwriting in the dictation because it's pitch black.

Yeah.

I mean, all of this, it sort of feels like it's kind of the hipster religion.

It's for the insiders.

It's for the ones who only care about the B-sides.

They don't go for the mainstream albums that everyone else bought.

I only liked Jesus when he was in his garage days.

That's when I liked Jesus.

Back in his carpentry days.

Okay, so we're going to continue talking about God here.

Then you get into the whole conversation, Genesis, you know, where it says God created man,

but that's a translation error because the original texts say Elohim, and Elohim is a plural.

Some people will say it's not.

There's exceptions to that.

But it says Elohim said, let us create man in our image.

So even if Elohim is not plural, us implies more than one God.

So the point of all of this, and we can drill down into the weeds and all these, but it appears that there was a collective of intelligence that is responsible for us.

Okay?

That's not science.

That's the text.

Now you look at the science, the DNA is telling us that 200,000 years ago, there were mutations that cannot happen in nature that imbued us with the ability to communicate with one another and all of these things that we're talking about.

And almost from the moment that we were imbued with these things, there was an attempt to deny us our power, and that attempt continues today.

So I think a good case can be made.

Everything you're seeing happen in the world, it's all important.

The wars,

the economies, all the conversation of climate, is all important.

And there's a level where it has become a distraction to keep us spun up in in fear so that we, because we're so close, Joe, we're so close as a species to awakening this fundamental force within us.

The closer we get to that awakening, the more chaos you see in the world to keep us distracted.

So, okay, we have here the book of Genesis, which it's not saying God because it's saying a plural, therefore it's aliens.

I mean, I'm not going to get into the definition of Elohim and how it's translated.

I know you had a comment there about

the actual translation.

Personally, I mean, until we can say for certain that the book of Genesis is an accurate depiction of what happened and not a

literature

fictional event, it doesn't matter what the definition of the word is.

You know, for me,

it's fine either way, because this is a story.

You can't prove that it's true.

Prove it's true first, and then we'll kind of care about the details and split hairs over the definitions.

But it's saying we're made by aliens.

That's what it is.

The book of Genesis is actually saying it's aliens.

So the Bible is saying aliens did it.

And then when we look at his version of the science that says the chromosome thing couldn't possibly have happened by itself, even though it's been happening multiple times, even in the last couple of decades.

Well, therefore, what can you say?

The science agrees with the Bible that aliens slash God are responsible for all of us.

So Joe, maybe you should start going to church.

That's kind of what we're trying to get at here.

Um, and then the other side, what we're getting at is he's talking about all these bad things that are happening, all these attempts to deny us and to hold us back.

Um, the chaos in the world, he's never actually naming what's behind all of that.

He's just sort of saying the closer we get to being fully spiritual, the more the things will try and stop us, the more things will deny us and keep us from it.

And it's got this kind of real big battle kind of energy, but he's not naming any of the fighters in this battle.

He also says, you know, that we're so close to awakening a fundamental force.

It's like, can just one of us awaken the fundamental force and then teach the rest of us how to be Jedis or whatever it is that you think is happening?

It seems like it must be a collective.

I don't understand.

I can't follow his logic, right?

But like, is he talking about us like subliming to another universe?

What are we talking about here?

Again, it's also vague.

And I think there's, it's very purposeful because basically it's, it's insert your own belief system into this really set of vague beliefs that I've created.

So if he says we're awakening a fundamental force, that could totally mean different things to all kinds of different people.

And it's really easy for you to sort of flip yourself into that, into that idea.

Yeah, it is.

And I think even there, he's using specific language.

He's saying we're awakening a fundamental force.

Well, a fundamental force is a very specific thing.

You know, the fundamental forces are gravity,

weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, and electromagnetism.

And I don't think he's talking about wakening any of those.

He's not saying eventually we all get together and we all wake gravity up and we'll be able to like you know bend water with our minds in a matrix style.

He's saying essentially God spirituality is a fifth fundamental force, but he's talking in the language of physics in order to counter religion as something kind of more robust than that.

Okay, so Marsh hinted at it just a second ago.

What are we talking about here?

And Joe finally asks a real question about who it is that's keeping us down.

Who are they?

They are.

Why would they want to do such a self-destructive thing?

Do they know this?

Do they know this data?

Well, let's break it down.

Joe, let's just, let's step through this.

Okay, let's step through this.

Climate.

Yes.

If we were to meet those climate goals, it's not good for us.

All right.

Let's put that.

As a human species.

As a human species.

Let's put that over here.

Okay.

We're being pushed for war, and I think you can see that.

And the nations of the Earth that have the capability for war are waging that war.

And what's happening is we're depleting our resources as nations.

We are, and I just did a search on this the other night.

The superpowers are dangerously low on weapons and on the ability humans to fight in those wars.

If Earth ever needed to fight, we don't have what we need right now.

So our weapons are being depleted.

Okay, let's put that over here.

Now there's a concerted effort to break the social bonds that have held us together as societies, as nations, as communities.

And that is working very successfully.

We're breaking down those borders.

That's not good for us.

That's not good for anyone.

So yeah, we're back to this big conspiracy theory about the evil they.

And even though Joel is saying, who's they?

He doesn't answer that.

He still avoids that.

He still comes to like this other kind of vagaries around it instead.

Yeah.

What a weird diversion to sort of nudge yourself over to climate goals really quickly.

Be like, hey, just so you know, climate goals are all so bad.

And then, and then he starts talking about how superpowers are dangerously low.

We don't have enough people to fight against what, man.

What are you talking about?

But he's talking about the superpowers on Earth.

So like, you know, America, Russia, et cetera.

Yeah.

You know, the EU.

So they don't have enough weapons right now.

But he's talking about fighting collectively.

So

he must be talking about Earth fighting outwards.

It's a battlefield earth.

Not earthly.

Yeah,

it's incredible.

I also think that climate thing, I wonder whether that's another one he's like of the little put a little coin in Joe to make sure he's sticking on track when he's talking about the Bible

on the wheels.

Also, it just occurred to me as we were listening there, what if the they that they're talking about is Aaron Powell and Trevor Burrus, and that's why they're mentioned all the three hours transcript for no clear reason.

Maybe the transcript is actually tuning into the fundamental force of the universe and it knows that Trevor Burris and Aaron Powell are the real evil in the world.

Listen, as if only we could explain why our transcript is filled with those costumes for the real reason,

it would make me sleep better at night.

Okay, so they still haven't gotten to a they yet.

Let's see if he actually elaborates in this next clip.

Now you look at the transhuman movement to replace us with technology, with machines, to

debilitate our ability for critical thinking, our ability for imagination, for creativity, for all the reasons that we just talked about, use it or lose it.

When we give our power away to that technology, we're not the best version of ourselves.

That's not good for us.

None of those are good for us.

So if I said that to you, what would you say to me?

Who would that be good for?

If it's not good for us, who's it good for?

Satan.

Well, now is where you go back and you look at all those ancient texts.

You look at the,

and depending on what language you're using, if you're looking at Sumerian texts,

this world

was never ours to begin with, is what those texts say.

And

there is a good argument that can be made that earth is being modified in ways that are not necessarily good for us.

Who are they good for?

There's a whole conversation that we can have.

you know, around

that.

Is that Satan as well?

I mean, look, we've got Satan.

We've got got a Satan.

I do love that he spent the whole time going, like, well, they, and oh, they're holding us back.

Oh, there's powers out there.

And then Joe's like, is it Satan?

Just trying to scribe.

And I can't tell whether Joe is just saying that because he's been led there.

Yeah.

And so he just feels that that's how he's filling it in.

It doesn't normally feel like Joe would talk about Satan as a real and functional force, as a destructive force on the earth.

But I also don't think he's joking necessarily there.

So, yeah, weird.

It's hard to know.

It's hard to know.

You're right.

It's hard to know if he's just, if it's like a snarky Satan or if it's a real snake and you're not sure.

But I want to point out to the listeners, we're two and a half hours into this podcast.

So Satan's name hasn't really come up yet, as far as I remember.

I think this is sort of when they, and this is 15 minutes before the close of the show.

So they have been talking for two and a half hours around the they until they finally get to it right now.

And Joe gets it on the first try because he was led there like Homer with a donut.

donut he was just led there the whole time

okay last clip in our main event uh this one is talking about uh you know joe this is joe desperately trying to end the conversation that they're having this is right at the end of the show this is him giving his sign off

we can begin seeing ourselves and really i think the greatest task that we're cherish that we're that we're tasked with right now is to cherish and honor and care for the gift of the human body because I believe it is a gift because there was an intervention that created the mutations that give us what we have today.

We don't know who or what, but we're not the product of natural evolution.

And until we understand fully what that is, Joe, why would we want to give that away to technology before we even know what it means to be human?

And once we give it away, we can never go back.

This is how you lose a species.

And I think we're worth preserving.

And that's my message.

I'm advocating for our humanness, for our divinity, for our

love,

because that's what sets us apart from all our forms of life.

And I think we're worth preserving.

I agree with you 100%.

And I appreciate you very much.

And thank you very much for coming on here.

It was a lot of fun.

Joe, you agree with him 100%?

Like, not even 90%, 80%?

You agree with the thing about being preserved, maybe?

No, but you agree with the full 100% of all of this.

It's all of it.

He signed his name to this i it's got to be that last comment it can't be

stuff right it can't be the satan stuff it can't be the i know we're not the product of natural evolution although i don't know whether joe's been wavered on that by this line about chromosomes so i don't know i'm not sure i do not think we're worth preserving as evidenced by my child-free status i don't think i think i'm pretty easily on the no column on that one uh yeah there's a there's this is his thesis statement this is the end this is his thesis this is he's repeating it at the end and saying, look, we can't give a, I don't even know what he's really talking about when he's like, you can't give away your humanness to technology.

I'm thinking that has to do with AI, although he never really talks about it.

No, there are parts he is talking about, like when it comes to your creativity, don't outsource your creativity.

Yeah, don't use chat GPT.

Yeah, so you'll use it or lose it.

We'll don't let the machines think for us, like those types of things.

I'm not against that bit as an idea.

Like you shouldn't make, sure, don't let AI do all of your thinking for you, but that's as far as he's going, I think.

We really couldn't pin it down, folks.

Sorry.

We're going to take a quick break and then move on to our toolbox section.

Wow.

So that's the tool bag?

And something just fell out of the toolbag.

All right.

So here we are.

Our toolbox this time is a mixture of two different logical fallacies sort of smashed into one.

Yeah, so we're going to talk about, I was trying to put my finger on exactly what we'd call this.

And it is somewhere between, you identified it somewhere between technobabble and false analogy.

But what we're going to do is we're going to look at the way in which Greg uses the technical language he has about space, about physics, about technology, AI, things like that, things that are modern and cutting edge.

He uses all that language and then he represents it as if it is agreeing with something from the Bible or from Christianity more generally.

And he does that as a way of portraying his version of God.

And he doesn't really ever say God in any of this, in fact.

He's trying to portray that as, well, his version of God and religion is so far ahead of our time and always has been that we're only now starting to make the discoveries that help us understand what the Bible was referencing all along.

So that latest thing that you've seen in space, that's referring to this thing that was actually in the Bible, that God was telling us all along.

So maybe my religion is super forward thinking, you know, I can make this technology sound like a little bit like this thing from my religion.

Therefore, my religion has been science the entire time.

Okay, so we're starting off the toolbox section.

The first clip is about the Bible.

Well, you know, yes, and kind of a little bit, a little bit, because if there's no evidence at all, that is not even an interview with a guy who talks about when I was on the moon I saw writing.

Well, then this is where you start going into the ancient texts

and the traditions that are

relating

our relationship to intelligences from beyond this world.

Yes, there's a lot of that.

And there's a lot of that.

There's a lot of that in various religions, too.

It's very fascinating.

Well, this is what I think is important.

It is in religions, but I think you can break out their historical text and there's religious texts.

So if you're reading the Bible, there's religion and history in the Bible.

If you're looking at Sumerian,

Akkadian,

Babylonian text from the Mesopotamian era, they're telling similar stories, and you've had guests on talking about this, where the stories are similar, but the religion is not part of that.

And so I think what we're doing, we're kind of beating around the bush to a deeper conversation here.

And that's why I've hesitated a couple of times because I just don't want us to, you know, to

get so far down one side that...

Oh, don't worry about that.

That's what this show is all about.

Okay.

We should call the show rabbit holes

because people are always in the middle of talking about one thing and they pivot.

It doesn't matter.

So, yeah, he's saying that there's no evidence of the aliens and things on the moon, but there is evidence in the Bible.

You know, there's religion in the Bible, but there's not really history in the Bible.

But he's trying to say that the Bible is accurate because there's things in there.

There's religion and history in the Bible, and that counts as evidence.

There's not really history particularly in the Bible, but even if there was history in the Bible, like history from before the Bible was written, so what?

Like the Captain America comics include Captain America fighting Nazis in World War II.

There's issues of Spider-Man where they're cleaning up after 9-11.

The fact that World War II and 9-11 are historical events.

doesn't mean that comics are true or that superheroes are real.

It means that when you're writing something, you can reference the things you already know.

So even if there was pre-history, pre-biblical history in the Bible, it wouldn't mean that it it was true.

It wouldn't mean that you have to trust the Bible inherently.

Yeah, and there's like this moment where he feels like he's trying to shock us that the idea that these different cultures, they all had similar stories, but these cultures all live near each other in a geographical sense and also in a timeline sense.

They all kind of lived around each other or they sort of led into each other.

So they influenced each other's religions and folktales.

I mean, we aren't stunned that the Roman gods are really pretty similar to the Greek gods.

there's no, there's no stunning revelation there.

They just use those gods.

That's all they did.

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

And also, just as an aside, and it's a slightly snarky aside, but Joe says we should call this show rabbit holes.

And I agree, he should call it rabbit holes because it is dragging people into worlds that are more and more divorced from reality.

And also because Joe looks a bit like Tweedledee, ate Tweedledum in the movie.

Totally fair.

Okay, so now we're going to talk about.

He's a joke.

He likes jokes.

Yeah.

Yeah, jokes are back, everybody.

You're allowed to make jokes now.

So we're going to talk about the universe being conscious and intelligent in this next clip.

The universe.

We've had physicists on here and really good physicists.

And some of them are not aware of some of the new information that's come out now.

But when I was in school back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, I was taught that the universe is dead.

inert, just cold.

And we happen to be lucky biology.

You know, that's kind of what they used to teach.

Now, physicists are suggesting the universe is alive, it is intelligent, and it's conscious.

And one of the reasons for this, and you can go to the NASA website and you can look at some of these images, the James Webb Space Telescope, they're showing galaxies that are in proximity of something that is dangerous to them, like an exploding, you know, whatever.

And what they'll do is they'll create jets from the center,

both directions, these jets that actually move them out of the way.

And I talk about, I've got a new book, and I talk about that in the new book.

So it's documented in the book.

They actually move them to a safer place.

And you say, well, maybe that's a fluke.

It's a one-off.

And now, but they have found that.

They found it happens time and time again.

So space itself is conscious in some form.

Conscious, okay, conscious and intelligent.

Those are two very different things.

So there's a lot to unpack here.

First of all, he's talking about like physicists don't know the new things, don't know like what's the new information that's come out.

Then he compares it to when he was at school in the 50s.

That was 70 years ago.

Like sure, like things have moved on in almost three quarters of a century.

It's going to do that.

But what he's talking about here, about these kind of these galaxies that move around when they're under threat from things that are blowing up near to an exploding, you know, whatever that is near some of these galaxies and things.

I actually looked this up because I've never heard of this before.

And he's broadly right that these galaxies do move away from the exploding whatever.

But he's not right that this is a sign of consciousness of the universe.

He's vastly, vastly misrepresenting this.

What he's talking about is kind of just pure reactive physics.

So matter gets pulled into a black hole, a supermassive black hole, something like that.

When it does, it forms this superheated accretion disk that orbits around the black hole and has these incredibly powerful magnetic fields.

And those magnetic fields can start to eject particles outwards in jets of super fast ion ionized matter and those jets can collide with things and anything in their path and move them like you're blowing blowing air on so blowing air in a sail essentially so it isn't the galaxy deciding that it's just too dangerous to stick around and to get out of dodge or anything.

It's just these

very well understood physical forces are blowing ionized particles, ionized matter at the galaxy, and it's moving it for that reason.

It's kind of pushing it as a reactive force.

But all of this, all of this physics language, all of this, you know, brand new discoveries that they didn't know about in the 50s and very well eminent physics people don't know about now even.

All of this he's bringing out in an attempt, you know, in service to his attempted proof that physics is finally waking up to the fact that universe has consciousness all the way through it, as his spirituality has been saying this entire time.

And that consciousness, Albert Einstein, no, God, God, the consciousness he's talking about.

And then we all slow clapped.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah.

We slow clapped and moved away from our nearest

accretion.

If we clap really hard, we move way faster.

It's just, that's how it works.

That's physics.

But he's literally saying that the reason that leaves move is because they want to go somewhere and not because there is wind acting upon them.

That's the same argument he's making.

Well, yeah, that leaf was here and now it's over there, so it must have wanted to move.

Yeah, that's not a sign that leaves a conscious.

It's a sign that wind was blowing.

Yeah, but he doesn't call it wind.

He calls it an exploding thing or, you know, whatever.

He doesn't actually

define wind.

Okay, so now he's going to start talking about DNA and technology.

Well, it seems to me the people that I have encountered that use it maybe a little bit too much, they seem to have a loss of a perception of how other people see them.

They get slippery, like the world gets slippery.

They act weird and they don't know they're acting weird.

And it seems like there's like

a piece of the interface has been damaged, if that makes any sense.

It makes total sense.

And I knew no matter where we go in this conversation to start with, it's going to bring us back

to the same place.

And I can show you exactly where that slipperiness comes from in just a moment.

Okay.

When we get there.

Because, and I'll just, I'll say it right now, there's a part of us that doesn't live inside the body, but that the body tunes to, and I'm using that from an engineering perspective, that the body tunes to through the antenna of neurons and DNA.

And this is where it gets the fascinating conversation.

Scientists now, a segment of scientists, are beginning to look at the human body as more than soft, sticky, wet, gooey, mushy cells and skin.

Joe, they're actually looking at us from an IT perspective.

And this sounds crazy, but they're looking at the human body from the perspective of information passing through and communicating with the world around us.

That we are such an advanced form of life.

We're not primitive computer chips.

and wires and chemicals.

We're more than that.

We're neurons and cell membranes and ion potentials moving across cell walls.

And the ability for us to self-regulate what is now being called soft, we are a soft technology.

The ability to do that is the core of all the ancient and cherished spiritual traditions in the mystery schools.

How we go about regulating this technology.

So now let me just break that down a little bit.

So yeah, this is a perfect example of what we're talking about here.

He's talking about, you know, all of this kind of mystical kind of stuff, but he's doing it.

He's talking about the soul without talking about the soul.

He's talking about it

instead of in the senses of, well, scientists are now thinking about us in times of IT.

We're not computer chips, but we are ion potentials moving across cell walls, that we have this kind of connectedness, this communication with the world around us.

So he's talking in the language of technology.

He's talking in the language of science, but what he's saying is the soul.

This is techno-Christianity, essentially.

There's also a part where he's saying, you know, no matter where we go in this conversation to start with, it's going to bring us back to the same place is what he says in this conversation here.

That's a sign of someone who's got an agenda, whether they realize it or not.

I don't care what you're bringing up.

I'm going to carry on talking about the thing that I'm here to talk about.

That's kind of a sign that I think.

I think I'm not saying that he went there cynically.

I don't think that's necessarily the case, but I do think he went there with the intention of following up on conversations Joe's had with other people about religion and spirituality in order to impress upon Joe the importance of thinking about the world and his place in the world in a spiritual kind of way.

And he's doing that by connecting with Joe on the types of topics that

Joe's interested in and using the language of science in order to convey his religiosity.

Yeah, and you could tell that it's not that he's not leaning into science here.

He's talking about ancient texts to understand it, right?

So we're not talking about we're not talking about science or our understanding or how our understanding is changing to make us understand the the body better.

He's saying, yeah, we understand it now way better.

And what's happening is we're actually looking back to these ancient texts.

And these ancient texts are telling us that we need in ways in which we can understand all of everything in a sort of a holistic sense way better.

And that's really just saying the Bible was right all along.

The ancient texts were right all along.

We already had the programming manual.

We just didn't understand how to read it.

And so, and people might look at that and say, well, isn't that fine?

Isn't it fine if some people describe something that you didn't understand at the time, but then you've later gone away and done some work that helps you understand what was previously written?

And that is, that can be valid, that people can be,

there can be a differential in how much understanding there is in various different parts of the world at various different times.

But what we're actually saying here is people have already said this book is the thing that I value.

Then they find something new out and then they

go back into the book looking for whatever they can to find evidence that supports that the book already knew it.

And think about what I I mentioned in the intro.

Greg published a book where he said the four letters that are in Yahweh are the equivalent of the four letters that are in our DNA, even though they are completely different letters.

And that is a sign that God has called himself through our DNA.

That is a sign that actually somebody is looking to prove the thing they already thought is true and trying to find any evidence they can that they can twist in order to assure themselves of that.

Yeah, it's a post hoc rationalization, right?

Look at this.

After it's over, you look back at this thing.

That's really easy to do once it's over.

Okay, so now they're still talking about DNA in this clip.

Blockchain technology.

Our DNA stores information.

And the way that it's described is that it is secure, it's transparent, and it's immutable, and it's distributed.

And those are exactly.

the terms being used for blockchain technology today because blockchain technology in the world actually mirrors the technology of human DNA.

We have a record, and you and I, every human body, we have a record of every successful genetic transaction for our species.

It is transparent, it's immutable.

If you know how to look for it, it's not hidden.

It's secure and it's distributed across all the nodes that we call humans.

This goes on and on and on.

The point is that we are the only form of life that can consciously self-regulate all of this technology and apply it to our healing, to our intuition, to our resilience, to change, to any of these kinds of things.

And the ability to do that is the secret that has been hidden within the mystery schools, within the religions,

and it is the reason for everything that you're seeing happening in the world today.

There's a concerted effort, Joe, to deny us our ability to express our humanness.

And part of that effort is replacing our humanness with technology.

So that's a big statement.

And I know we'll...

But that's fairly recent, right?

So again, this is just more techno-spirituality.

They're using the language of now to describe the same old religious ideas.

So you can say, you see, God was so advanced, he was talking about the blockchain even back then.

DNA is the blockchain.

How advanced God is, that he knew what block, like decentralized technology was even back then.

He put it into our DNA.

Therefore, we know we are only now starting to understand the majesty of god technology proves my religion's right but is this actually an accurate way of thinking about things is dna that similar to blockchain he says that dna is storing information in a way that's secure is it secure every time it copies there's a chance of it going wrong immutable he's already talked about mutations happening he talked about mutation on the on the second chromosome he talked about mutation on the seventh chromosome um he said those were guided by aliens, Elohim gods, whatever you want to call it.

He also said that he believes in evolution for animals other than us.

Animals other than us have also got genetic cords that are not immutable.

So very clearly it's not immutable here.

And transparent, how transparent is the DNA?

Like, Cecil, could you tell me like one small segment of your DNA for full transparency?

Yeah, for yeah, just so we could share it.

Yeah.

Yeah, of course not.

Like it took us a long time before we even invented the technology to be able to tell what was in like what the genetic sequence of anything was.

That's not particularly transparent.

It's not transparent if you need incredibly complicated technology to do it.

You could say that a safe is incredibly transparent if you happen to have the ability to crack into any safe in the world and look at its inside.

That's not transparency.

This analogy of blockchain as a DNA might be impressive to Joel from the way that it's being framed here by Greg.

But if DNA was being used, if blockchain worked in the same way as DNA, it would be terrible because every single time with the blockchain, every time you copy the ledger of past transactions, it remains exactly the same and won't go wrong.

That's the whole foundational point of it being sort of like validated on the blockchain.

With DNA, as we've seen, it goes wrong all the time.

You copy it all the time.

He's even talking about telomeres that are there to protect the ends of the DNA for when you copy it and it goes wrong.

This is like saying, well, in the blockchain, yeah, we put like garbage at the end so that if when we copy it, we forget a few ones and zeros.

Don't worry about it.

It's all good.

It's like, yeah, it's all good.

They are not analogous at all, except in the world that he can create to say that the blockchain was God's idea all along.

Yeah.

And he's using words to try to make you think that they're the same.

It's like, yeah, like, sure.

The creation of the universe mirrors making an omelette.

As long as we're talking about abstract, abstract concepts and we're really loose how we connect things.

I can make you think, oh, well, it's a lot, you know, the universe is a lot like cooking.

And I can, I can make that analogy.

Sure, is it a good analogy?

Maybe not.

It might not be a good analogy at all.

And I think that's that's the key here.

It's easy to connect these things because they're they have a couple of connectors that make them seem like they're the same thing, but it's a great way for him to smuggle his spirituality into technology, which is what he's been trying to do this whole episode.

Yeah, and I don't even think he's using it as an analogy.

An analogy is to try and understand this one complex thing.

Here's a thing that you would know that's a bit similar.

He's saying this is the same thing.

He's not using an

analogy, right?

He's saying

error.

I'm a systems thinker.

And rather than get into the weeds of the Democrats and the Republicans and liberals and conservatives, which is all important, and we can have that conversation.

But there's something much, much bigger that's playing out here.

And it literally, we're in a battle for our humanness.

And if we don't claim our humanness, there are powers and forces that will stop at nothing to deny us our humanness.

One of the reasons they're denying it is what we just said, because it's through our humanness that we have these extraordinary potentials that empower us as sovereign, critically thinking, self-regulating human beings.

And it's very difficult to play out the agendas that are proposed for the world upon populations that are sovereign, critically thinking, self-regulating human human beings.

We just have to pause and question, what is he suggesting?

There are these dark agenda that are being pushed out onto the population of the world.

So by who?

By people not on the world?

Who was trying to deny us our humanness?

This was another point where he wants to couch it in the language of geopolitics and things.

What he means is Satan.

What he means is the Prince of Darkness, who I guess in his world may or may not be an alien.

It's hard to tell.

His God may or may not be an alien.

Satan might be too, but that's what he's talking about here.

He's just couching it in these other terms in order to pretend that what he's talking about isn't just straight spirituality and religion.

Yeah.

And he says, if we don't claim our humanness, there are powers and forces that will stop at nothing to deny us our humanness.

Like, hold on.

Just being human isn't enough to claim our humanness?

Do I have to do something else other than being a human to have humanness?

I don't know what that other thing is.

And yeah, actually, I do know what it is.

I have to be religious.

That's the thing that you need to do to claim your humanness.

That's what he's talking about here.

And

it's either that or you have to go to like the butcher counter with your number to claim your humanness.

I'm not sure which one it is.

Well, I think there's a phone number, but it's one of those among things that you've got to stay on the phone for a while.

And then when you get on, it's like, oh, yeah, you can claim your humanness.

You just need to pay this small admin fee.

And there's a whole kind of scam about that.

Yeah, that's called tithing.

So

this reminds me of when I read Heidegger for the first time, when they're doing the being of the being is also the being of the being of the being.

And he just keeps saying humanness over and over again.

It starts to lose meaning after a few minutes.

All right, they're going to talk about brain power in this next one.

Okay, so I remember when I was a kid, Einstein had died, and they had his brain thin-sectioned in

the University of Kansas because they wanted to see what made his brain different from everybody else.

And it looked pretty much like everybody else's with one exception.

He had a whole lot of folds in his brain.

So when you stretch those folds out, he had more surface area.

He had more neurons.

So they're thinking, but there was E equals M C square wasn't in the brain.

All right.

So now they're looking at those neurons.

They're saying, where's the instructions for Pong?

You know, and they're trying to figure out where it is.

Well, here's what this experiment is telling us.

The instructions aren't in the neurons.

The neurons are a biological antenna, a molecular antenna that tune to the place in the field where Pong is pervasive.

All right?

The field.

There was a time when the field was a metaphor.

You know, metaphysical people, spiritual people, you say, oh, yeah, you know, it's out in the field.

July 4th

of 2012, the CERN Superconducting Supercollider made an announcement that they had discovered a field that had been predicted by Peter Higgs, the physicist Peter Higgs.

Higgs boson.

Well, they found the Higgs boson, and what that implied was that there was a field supporting the boson, and now it's accepted science.

They say, oh, yeah, there's a field.

So, but here's the thing.

I was at a conference recently.

Here's what scientists are doing.

This is a hoot.

They're still saying this.

They're saying, oh, yeah, there's a field out there that connects everything, and their hands are doing this.

The field's not out there.

We're the field.

Okay.

50 trillion cells in the human body.

Every one of those cells has about 100 trillion atoms emerging from the field and collapsing into the field.

Right now, you and I, we're constantly, the atoms in our bodies are emerging and collapsing into that field.

We are the field, and that is what makes us so powerful.

So, yeah, they start off there talking about Einstein's brain.

I will point out, I don't know what they were expecting.

Like, Einstein's brain is just going to be a brain.

I mean, you're doing extraordinary things with it, but there are lots of people who are incredibly smart in lots of different areas.

It's not because their brain has like, it's not necessarily because their brain has an extra bit of capacity here or an extra functionality there.

A lot of it is kind of the neurons and the way that you connect things.

This kind of feels like a sort of biological essentialism that he must have had a gene in his brain that made him super smart or something like that.

Yeah, I'm kind of leaning back into that genetics thing that we were talking about at the beginning.

Yeah, and he talks about neurons.

I will point out he talks about the field where pong is pervasive.

That doesn't come out of nowhere.

They're talking about

neurons in a Petri dish play pong.

So like, it wasn't like he's, he's he thinks that above all of his religiosity there is a field in which there is pong like the aliens the eloeen versus satan in a it is a great out of context quote though it is it is great um but yeah he but notice the language here back to this kind of techno-spirituality here you know neurons in the brain are antenna that tune into the field around us and we know there's a field because cern did an experiment and they found a field

so Those are both fields, the one that I'm talking about, one that they're talking about, that must be the same thing.

But cern thought the field was out there and i'm saying my version of the word field is inside us brackets it's the soul shush you know that's what he's kind of saying here

and all of this

the field he's talking about as being the consciousness of the universe and the soul and the spirituality is nothing to do with the Higgs field.

He's using that word in a very, very different way.

When he's talking about neurons being antenna, he's using the language of technology in order to hook Joe in because if he just said our brain is able to tap into the spiritual consciousness of God that tells us we're all connected in a oneness, Joe would switch off, and so would his listeners.

Yeah, and so now they're going to continue talking here about the sort of dancing around that language that Marsh had already talked about: the field and the soul.

But someone who

and that is closely linked to the soul, which is not the spirit.

So the soul is our localized, you know, lifetime experience.

When

we

sever that relationship,

that is

what allows the individual to carry out those kinds of atrocities.

Because an individual who is connected to their divinity and their soul could never look another human in the eye and hurt them the way that we know that it has happened in our lives.

And it has.

It's happened throughout history.

So

my focus, what I'm really passionate about,

and it's not just like any old time in history.

We're on the precipice, Joe.

I mean, the decisions are being made within the next couple of years as to whether or not we will give our humanness away to technology or if we'll allow the technology to serve us but not enslave us.

AI is an example of that.

The brain-computer interfaces.

that are going on, BCI, that's a big conversation going on right now.

And if we get lost in the weeds of just AI or just the BCI, it's easy to do that.

But I think it's important to keep, there's a bigger picture.

There's a struggle.

There's an ancient struggle going on here.

And it is because, and this is what's so powerful, it's because there's something inside of us that's worth the struggle.

And our children are not being taught that.

Our young kids are being told that they're a flawed form of life.

They need something outside of our bodies.

We need to protect our kids.

What do you think that thing is?

Do you think that's what the soul is?

Yes, he thinks that's what the soul is.

Yeah, very, very much so.

Yeah, absolutely.

And notice what he's saying here, essentially, is that anyone who does anything bad, he's talking about atrocities and things, that's because they're severed from the soul, which is an extraordinarily extraordinarily convenient way of saying, of essentially distancing any bad acts, bad things, bad ideas from the belief system that you hold.

Well, it can't have been someone who agreed with me because they did a bad thing.

Therefore, they must be distanced.

It must be severed from their soul.

It's kind of a way of absolving yourself of any link to anyone who agrees with you in any kind of way.

There's a part here where he says, and our children are not being taught that.

Our young kids are being told that they're flawed, a flawed form of life.

They need something outside their bodies.

We need to protect our kids.

First, I want to say that's literally the Christian narrative is that we're flawed, a flawed form of life, and we have to repent in order to become holy and spiritual enough to go into heaven.

So you're flawed already, like you're a sinner and you need to repent.

That's the Christian narrative.

That's not anything I've ever heard from humanists.

I've never heard humanists be like, you're bad.

You need to repent for what you are.

They just, they don't say that.

They don't start at that premise.

And I also want to say that that is coded language there about gender, I think.

It feels, because he talks about gender a couple of times in this.

We might get into it in the gloves off section, but he does talk about gender ideology.

a couple times and talking about it in that sense, I think is tapping into Joe's ideas about gender and how strong those, that is a sort of through line in Joe's thought.

Yeah, I think you're right there.

And then notice that from what they're talking about there, he transitions straight into brain chips and AI as if that stuff is linked because he has to get back to the technical language because he's trying to couch all of this in this kind of techno-spirituality.

Last clip in the toolbox section.

Let's talk about the gift of humanness.

So I think what we're looking at right now is, is do we love ourselves enough?

Do we love ourselves enough to accept the gift of our humanness and what it means to be human and what it means to be divine and not bring religion into the conversation?

But maybe just find another word if people aren't comfortable with that word.

But I really want people to know, and especially, you know, I do live events with these young kids, Joe.

and they've been taught to worship technology.

The computer chip is God.

AI is God.

And then I show them, and I showed some studies.

Salk Institute in Northern California did a study, and they compared a human brain to a microprocessor.

And you say, well, how can you make that comparison?

I said that.

The microprocessor has about the same number of transistors that the human brain has of synapses in the brain.

Interestingly, it's about the same number.

And so they ran all these tests.

And what they found, literally, the human brain, okay, the computer chip, is it fast?

Yes.

Is it efficient?

Yes.

Is it scalable?

You can only scale the chip.

It'll only run as fast as the physics of the stuff it's made of will allow, the silicon or whatever it is, and then it tops out.

The human brain, is it fast?

Yes.

Is it efficient?

Yes.

Is it scalable?

What is the top end?

of a human brain.

And the answer is we don't know.

Because every time we push a human brain to what we think is the limit that we've been taught to accept, this is the beauty of our divinity, What we do is we morph and adapt and open up a whole new vista of potentials.

So, I think he actually gives the game away a little bit here because he says, you know, if people aren't comfortable talking about the term religion, talk about hearing words like religion talk about it in a different way, talk about technology instead.

That is what he's doing to Joel.

He knows that Joel isn't really going to have a conversation about religion and Christianity and spirituality and be on the same page.

So, he's come here talking technology and using that to smuggle his religion in through this techno-spirituality.

Great catch.

There's also a point here too, Marsh, where he says the computer chip is God.

AI is God.

I don't know anybody who's talking about computer chips being God or AI being God.

That feels like it genuinely a straw man there.

And when I first heard this, I was like, the brain is scalable.

Are we trying to get a big brain?

And then I realized he's talking about it being us moving forward and being able to use the same technology to

think better rather than the other.

And I was like, wait, scalable.

I was like, are we making a big person?

Cause I want to see us make a huge head.

That's what I want to do.

This is Einstein's brain.

That's why he didn't even button it all out.

They just unfold it and it turns into like a sheet you could put on your bed there.

Look, I just want to point out his comment.

He said that.

brains and computer chips have about the same number of transistors to synapses.

That's not true.

There's billions of transistors on a chip.

There's hundreds of trillions of synapses.

So it's a little different scale there.

Yeah, absolutely.

But notice that we're straight back into all this techno-speak.

That's what he's trying to do here.

Yeah, absolutely.

Let's wrap it up with that.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate you very much.

You're a beautiful person.

All right, Marsh, we're at the end of this.

Something good.

So, first of all, I'd say a lot of this is fairly harmless nonsense.

I think it's nonsense personally.

I don't agree with him, but I think it's fairly harmless.

I don't think there's any real massive urgent danger here, which is a nice change from a lot of the stuff that we cover on the show.

Even though it might well be leading Joe to a more religious position, we'll have to see how much that actually holds or whether he's just doing that thing where he's going with the person he's talking to in the moment and then kind of regressing afterwards.

It feels like it's building on the work of a previous interviewee that we're yet to cover, like Wesley Huff.

And also, another good thing is credit to Joe.

There is a point at which Greg tells a story that we'll actually cover in the gloves off section about how he was in a business meeting with somebody who was pure evil, he said.

And that made him compelled to say something out of character that he had no control over because the evilness took over him and he said something out of character.

And Joe calls bullshit on that.

Yeah.

Which is a weird line to have given the rest of this entire conversation, but it is a line and we should acknowledge there is a line.

There's a couple times Joe questions seriously what this person is saying.

There's another part about NASA and visiting the moon and things where he seriously questions.

So there's some pushback here, but it's all pushback in like really weird places.

I was actually very surprised Joe didn't push back on evolution there a couple of times because it seems like he's very much smuggling in an intelligent design conversation that Joe just lets right past.

I would think that he would push back on that, but he didn't really very much.

This arg, you know, his argument sort of veers off into some anti-trans stuff.

He talks about some genetic stuff, which is a little iffy.

He does some both sides are equally bad stuff too.

But all in all, not terrible, not awful, and certainly more coded than what we've seen.

It's not as overt as the messaging we've seen.

It's not a Chris Ruffo, right?

It's definitely not that.

It's something a little softer.

And I think at some points he's talking about how, you know, people aren't unfixable.

And he talks about that a few times.

And that feels positive, right?

That's like a positive thing to say that you're not like, there's nothing so fucked up in you that you are fucked up forever, I think is a positive thing to say.

So, you know, not awful.

All right, that's it for the 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 at Skeptics with a K and the Skeptic Podcast.

We're going to be back next week for a little more, 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.

At Carrington College, we're ready to help you begin your next chapter.

We've been helping students launch healthcare careers for over 55 years.

Our hands-on programs in nursing, medical assisting, pharmacy technology, and more are taught by experienced real-world professionals.

With programs completed in as little as nine to twelve months and convenient learning options, we make sure your education works with your life.

Classes start soon in Pleasant Hill, San Leandro, and San Jose.

Visit Carrington.edu to find out more.

Programs vary by location.

For information about student outcomes, visit Carrington.edu slash SEI.

Beautiful anonymous changes each week.

It defies genres and expectations.

For example, our most recent episode, I talked to a woman who survived a murder attempt by her own son.

But just the week before that, we just talked the whole time about Star Trek.

We've had other recent episodes about sexting in languages that are not your first language or what it's like to get weight loss surgery.

It's unpredictable, it's real, it's honest, it's raw.

Get Beautiful Anonymous wherever you listen to podcasts.