Speaker 1: From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
Speaker 1: riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
Speaker 1: learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
Speaker 1: production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Hello, welcome back to the show.
Speaker 3: My name is Matt, my name is Noa.
Speaker 4: They called me Ben. We are joined as always with
Speaker 4: our super producer, Dylan the Tennessee pal Fagan. Most importantly,
Speaker 4: you are you. You are here. That makes this the
Speaker 4: stuff they don't want you to know. It is Thursday
Speaker 4: evening if you're hearing this as the program plays or
Speaker 4: as it's published, and that means it's time for listener mail.
Speaker 4: We're going to hear looks like quite a few voicemails.
Speaker 4: We're going to get some perspectives on a lot of stuff. Again,
Speaker 4: as we mentioned in the previous week's recording, you know,
Speaker 4: we don't always put this in episodes, but this is
Speaker 4: very much our time to hang out with you. So
Speaker 4: we want to again thank all the many, many fellow
Speaker 4: conspiracy realists who reached out to us through one platform
Speaker 4: or another to ask if we were okay in the
Speaker 4: wake of the continuing calamities. Oh and that's our gold open.
Speaker 5: We have so much other stuff to get to Oh
Speaker 5: boy do we And we have returned from our cold
Speaker 5: open with today's first installment of Listener Mail. This comes
Speaker 5: to us from Lisa, and guys, this is a long one,
Speaker 5: and I think it is some incredibly good information, both
Speaker 5: for educational purposes, just for like the you know, being
Speaker 5: fun at parties like you like to say, Ben, but
Speaker 5: also for some actionable information that I think could maybe
Speaker 5: even potentially save some lives, make you a little more
Speaker 5: aware of how the sausage is made in terms of
Speaker 5: illegal street drugs supplies and why on earth anybody ever
Speaker 5: want to intentionally put fentanyl, something as dangerous and deadly
Speaker 5: as fencinyl, into a drug supply that is sold to
Speaker 5: users on the street. Lisa addresses this question expertly from
Speaker 5: the highest level of an organization like a cartel that
Speaker 5: might be the origin of some of these drugs that
Speaker 5: are tainted to the street level users. And I'm really
Speaker 5: very appreciative of Lisa's emails, So I proposed that, since
Speaker 5: it's a long one, we break it up.
Speaker 3: A little bit.
Speaker 5: So I'll read the first bit setting things up, and
Speaker 5: then maybe we can like round robin it back because.
Speaker 3: It's a bit of a listical, so here we go. Hi,
Speaker 3: map Ben Andol.
Speaker 5: I am a longtime listener and a neuroscience PhD student
Speaker 5: in Philadelphia studying opioid addiction. Your podcast have entertained me
Speaker 5: through many a grueling experiment, and I've learned so much.
Speaker 5: I really enjoyed your collab with My Mama told me
Speaker 5: the other day. Since I study opioiddiction, I was really
Speaker 5: interested to hear your takes on the surge slash potential
Speaker 5: recent drop in fentanyl overdose deaths. But I wanted to
Speaker 5: bond too your discussion around why on earth anyone would
Speaker 5: cut their own product with something so likely to kill
Speaker 5: their customers. There are actually a few good reasons that
Speaker 5: cartels might be interested in cutting their drugs with something
Speaker 5: like fentanyl, and why dealers might be interested in selling
Speaker 5: stuff that they know or suspect is tainted with fentanyl.
Speaker 5: None of this is to say that there's no way
Speaker 5: it's the government keeping it going for the border war,
Speaker 5: something we discussed and bat it around with David and
Speaker 5: Langston from My Mama Told You podcast. Two great guys,
Speaker 5: very very smart guys, very funny guys, and I think
Speaker 5: we all three. Very much enjoyed that conversation, so thank
Speaker 5: you Lisa for tuning in. She goes on just to reiterate,
Speaker 5: this is kind of the crux of the conversation that
Speaker 5: we had with those guys. None of this is to
Speaker 5: say that there's no way it's the government keeping it
Speaker 5: going for the border war, after the way the war
Speaker 5: on drugs evolved, I'm definitely not ruling that out. I
Speaker 5: honestly would bet that both forces play a role. But anyway,
Speaker 5: here are the sas that help make it make sense
Speaker 5: financially to cut your product with fentanyl.
Speaker 3: So now we have three points.
Speaker 5: So I propose that perhaps Ben, would you like to
Speaker 5: read point number one?
Speaker 4: Sure, And first I want to thank you Lisa for
Speaker 4: taking the time to write to us. You said one,
Speaker 4: as opposed to being derived somehow from a plant, fentanyl
Speaker 4: is entirely lab made, and so compared to most of
Speaker 4: our street drugs that come from nature, it is comparatively
Speaker 4: very cheap to source and manufacture. The cheap is helped
Speaker 4: along by the fact that a little goes such a
Speaker 4: long way. This goes for its analogs, too, many of
Speaker 4: which are even more potent and thus cheaper to manufacture.
Speaker 4: The CDC doesn't separate deaths from fentanyl versus fentanyl analogs,
Speaker 4: so it's hard to say what precise compounds are currently
Speaker 4: driving overdose deaths. I want to pause there, because the
Speaker 4: lab made aspect that you're pointing out, Lisa, is mission critical.
Speaker 4: That is a huge part. That means that the supply
Speaker 4: is not beholden to the same travails or the gambols
Speaker 4: of growing things in an increasingly unpredictable environment.
Speaker 5: And outdoors where they can be monitored much more easily
Speaker 5: and seen from planes, et cetera. Labs can be subterraneum,
Speaker 5: they can be hidden much more easily.
Speaker 2: Right well, yeah, and they could be anywhere.
Speaker 4: And Lisa, you continue, So it can be attractive to
Speaker 4: cut product with fentanyls or fentanyl analogs to reduce the
Speaker 4: manufacturing cost, and you don't need to put much in
Speaker 4: to get to the other effects such as and here
Speaker 4: we get to point number two. Yield the floor to
Speaker 4: mister Matt Frederick.
Speaker 2: Ah, yes, and I too would like to take a
Speaker 2: moment and say thank you, Lisa. Here we go number two.
Speaker 2: Fentanyls chemistry produces this very quick, very intense high that
Speaker 2: fades just as quickly as it comes on, and this
Speaker 2: is true also when it's used to cut other drugs.
Speaker 2: This is useful for There are a couple of reasons
Speaker 2: for dealers. The big one is that it rapidly creates
Speaker 2: an association between that specific product and feeling intensely good,
Speaker 2: i e. It makes that dealer's product look like it's
Speaker 2: more attractive or maybe feel like it's more attractive.
Speaker 6: Lisa, anecdotally, I.
Speaker 2: Was once at a panel discussion with folks who run
Speaker 2: methodone clinics in my area, and they said that they'd
Speaker 2: actually seen a trend that when someone died of an
Speaker 2: overdose that involved fentanyl, that would actually increase traffic to
Speaker 2: the dealer who sold it, because it says something about
Speaker 2: the quality of the product.
Speaker 5: Matt, if I could just jump in real quick too,
Speaker 5: I think this answers an interesting question that we have
Speaker 5: posed in this discussion, which is why would someone lace
Speaker 5: something like cocaine, which here in the Atlanta area been
Speaker 5: reports of many people dying from fentanyl laced cocaine. Obviously,
Speaker 5: Lisa's expertise is in opioid addiction, which it's a lot
Speaker 5: more intuitive. Fentanyl creates opioid like effects. So it would
Speaker 5: make sense that you could lace something like press it
Speaker 5: into a pill and have a counterfeit pill of some
Speaker 5: kind or heroin or whatever. But why would you put
Speaker 5: it in something that's meant to engender sort of an
Speaker 5: upper effect like cocaine. And the answer here, I think
Speaker 5: is that it just makes it more addictive. It just
Speaker 5: makes it more attractive because it yields this result that
Speaker 5: if it doesn't kill you and you maybe don't even
Speaker 5: notice that it's different, it just makes you want it
Speaker 5: more and therefore maybe seek out that same supplier for
Speaker 5: your upper type drugs.
Speaker 4: Lisa, I would argue there's also a bit of psychology
Speaker 4: at play in that, now this is the real stuff quote,
Speaker 4: the idea that messing with this, it's sort of like,
Speaker 4: in a very ghoulish comparison, it's similar to the idea
Speaker 4: of children at amusement parks, the best rides are the
Speaker 4: ones that have this you must be this toll to
Speaker 4: ride kind of thing or some sort of danger inherent
Speaker 4: unto them. And so that is in part of my
Speaker 4: editorial interjection here, that is part and parcel I think
Speaker 4: of what you're talking about here, Lisa.
Speaker 2: Oh for sure that insert narcotic I bought from insert
Speaker 2: dealer's name really hits hard. And Lisa goes on to say,
Speaker 2: the other thing about this is that the quick fade
Speaker 2: means users have to take or buy that product more
Speaker 2: frequently than they might otherwise to avoid a come down
Speaker 2: that makes them sick. That means your customers are always
Speaker 2: going to be frequent customers.
Speaker 3: Point number three.
Speaker 5: Killing off your customers is generally not a good business model,
Speaker 5: But that assumes your customer base is static and that
Speaker 5: there won't be more customers to replace the ones.
Speaker 3: Your product has killed off.
Speaker 5: We are still, unfortunately, at a point where a large
Speaker 5: proportion of opioid dependency results from trying to manage high
Speaker 5: impact pain, and we're not making a lot of progress
Speaker 5: towards fixing that. And we're also still probably feeling the
Speaker 5: effects of the aggressive and unethical marketing of opioid for
Speaker 5: pain relief that happened in the early two thousands. My
Speaker 5: guess is that part of the reason fentanyl deaths climb
Speaker 5: for so many years but maybe starting to fall, is
Speaker 5: that we're finally at a point where the supply of
Speaker 5: customers is not exceeding the number that we're dying woo sobering,
Speaker 5: And as you mentioned, the increasing awareness fentanel test strips
Speaker 5: and narcan finally being available over the counter has almost
Speaker 5: certainly helped all that to say, at least anecdotally, that
Speaker 5: there are definitely financial forces that can mean that money
Speaker 5: outweighs the risk. I'd expect this to be especially true
Speaker 5: at the cartel level, when the decision makers don't even
Speaker 5: have to ever interact with the users who they might
Speaker 5: be killing and can probably live with it as a
Speaker 5: pretty abstract idea. Guys, there's one more paragraph, and I
Speaker 5: don't know if let's just maybe bend your mind round
Speaker 5: in this one out. I think there's some really good
Speaker 5: information and some stats in this last bid here from Lisa.
Speaker 4: Yes, Lisa, you knocking it out of the park with
Speaker 4: these points, and again thank you you continue. I also
Speaker 4: want to clarify when we're talking about cutting other drugs
Speaker 4: with fentanyl, that doesn't necessarily mean purposely cutting them with
Speaker 4: a lethal dose. On the contrary, in twenty twenty three,
Speaker 4: seventy point five million Americans reported using illicit drugs nearly
Speaker 4: nine hundred times more people than overdose fatalities, and Lisa
Speaker 4: bonus points for the class. My guy, you got the
Speaker 4: citation with twenty twenty three National Survey on Drug Use
Speaker 4: and Health. And just to pause there, guys, we know
Speaker 4: the population of the US is only a little bit
Speaker 4: north of three hundred and twenty something million people. So
Speaker 4: that's a pretty significant number, right.
Speaker 5: Yes, Ben, Knocking it out of the park is really
Speaker 5: the only way to put it. These stats are incredibly sobering.
Speaker 5: The scale here is something that had never really occurred
Speaker 5: to me, the idea of you know, all this hay
Speaker 5: is being made rightfully, so oh, of all these fentanyl overdoses,
Speaker 5: but I never really factored it into the overall number
Speaker 5: of drug users, Like it is a fraction of the
Speaker 5: overall drug use. So the implication here is that, yeah,
Speaker 5: it's being done, but no one's out there lacing things
Speaker 5: for the purposes of killing people.
Speaker 3: That is not the goal.
Speaker 5: It is just an accidental byproduct of a larger business model.
Speaker 2: Yikes, that's a lot of people out there just using drugs, man.
Speaker 3: It's true.
Speaker 4: I mean, and it doesn't count legal drugs like tobacco,
Speaker 4: caffeine or alcohol.
Speaker 6: Also well yeah, or legal use of opioids.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's still out there, that's definitely legal use of
Speaker 2: empetomines or any of the other drugs, right, I mean,
Speaker 2: it's all of that stuff.
Speaker 6: It's just.
Speaker 2: And Lisa continues here, that is a horrifying and devastating number,
Speaker 2: but that proportion can probably help keep the risk pretty
Speaker 2: abstract to the people who are actually making the decisions
Speaker 2: to cut their products with fentanyl. That's exactly what you
Speaker 2: were saying, no, especially since those decision makers are unlikely
Speaker 2: to ever have to directly interact with someone who could
Speaker 2: overdose on their product.
Speaker 5: Going on, and people who physically create drugs like chemists,
Speaker 5: are used to working in the microgram or nanogram range
Speaker 5: as opposed to the much larger milligram or gram range
Speaker 5: we're used to thinking about in everyday life. It's easy
Speaker 5: to weigh out a non lethal dose of fence and
Speaker 5: AOL with the right equipment. All that said, it's probably
Speaker 5: not that cartels are purposefully creating a product that they
Speaker 5: know is going to be lethal for a large proportion
Speaker 5: of their customer base.
Speaker 3: It's more that killing off.
Speaker 5: A small proportion of their customer base is a risk
Speaker 5: that they're willing to take.
Speaker 3: Then I yield the floor to you for the wrap
Speaker 3: up here. I think this is just a fire email.
Speaker 4: Oh, we yield the floor to you, Lisa, because you
Speaker 4: gave us a juicy little academia academia joke that just
Speaker 4: made the evening. You say, I hope you follow up
Speaker 4: on this topic. I'd be really interested to hear whether
Speaker 4: there's evidence for government manipulation slash intentional life, lack of
Speaker 4: oversight of the current drug supply and Lisa fellow conspiracy realist,
Speaker 4: you're talking to You're talking to some guys who are
Speaker 4: pretty convinced about that part. Is that fair to say?
Speaker 5: Absolutely, at the very least, Like to the point that
Speaker 5: Langston made, or maybe it was David, it's not that
Speaker 5: they're like feeding fentanyl into the system.
Speaker 3: They're just kind of letting it happen. It's a talking point.
Speaker 4: It creates a talking point, a scent of negligence for me.
Speaker 2: It doesn't even require the government to do anything. You
Speaker 2: just need a couple of people whose hands get greased
Speaker 2: and the drug supply gets in and out exactly how
Speaker 2: it's meant to.
Speaker 4: And then if you are as we mentioned in that
Speaker 4: conversation with the guys, you are therefore guaranteeing yourself a
Speaker 4: year over year job security, right.
Speaker 2: And probably profit like you're probably gonna get a raise
Speaker 2: if you do a good job.
Speaker 4: And further funding. Yes, And so Lisa, you continue regarding
Speaker 4: the government obstinates in the face of clear evidence about
Speaker 4: what works and what doesn't to curb overdose risk is
Speaker 4: super suspect, or, as we say on this show, super
Speaker 4: suss my field. You say, Lisa loves to overuse the
Speaker 4: word elucidate, but I also feel like it's an excellent
Speaker 4: description of what you all do. Thanks for elucidating the
Speaker 4: inner workings of society for me, and I'm excited to
Speaker 4: see what you come out with next. Ah Noel Matt elucidates,
Speaker 4: it's like being scratched behind the ears.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I felt the same exact way, and I wrote
Speaker 5: back to Lisa thanking her for this email, and I
Speaker 5: complimented her the same way. This email elucidated all of
Speaker 5: this stuff for us. I mean, it is just a
Speaker 5: demystifying way of describing a very very complex problem. And
Speaker 5: if we're getting a compliment from someone that writes like
Speaker 5: this and has the communication ability dare we say science
Speaker 5: explainer capabilities, that is a compliment worth its waiting goal
Speaker 5: li Thank you so so much. This is heavy stuff,
Speaker 5: and we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of
Speaker 5: the potential conspiracy of it all.
Speaker 3: But I think you're right, Matt.
Speaker 5: It doesn't require a whole heck of a lot of
Speaker 5: moving parts or even a nefarious plot. It's just a
Speaker 5: thing that happens, and then it's allowed to continue to happen,
Speaker 5: and it just becomes an incredible talking point, you know,
Speaker 5: blaming the other side for the existence of this stuff
Speaker 5: in the supply and just further demonizing drug use, rather
Speaker 5: than perhaps addressing, to Lisa's point, the ways that overdoses
Speaker 5: could be curbed. I mean, we only just recently got
Speaker 5: fentanyl available over the counter, to Lisa's point, and I
Speaker 5: believe I mentioned the other day a story that I
Speaker 5: heard about how just now there's some kind of legislation
Speaker 5: in place, or I believe it's a guideline issued by
Speaker 5: the CDC or anyway some government body that would require
Speaker 5: any prescription of heavy pain relief drugs pain medication to
Speaker 5: also come with a prescription for.
Speaker 3: A narcan, which is a good thing.
Speaker 4: Lisa, I'm sure you are read up on this, given
Speaker 4: the fentanyl conversation, but in the realm of international trade talks.
Speaker 4: There is what Corporate America would call a healthy conversation,
Speaker 4: which means they're arguing about the provenance of fentanyl and
Speaker 4: what if any regulations there should be around the manufacturing
Speaker 4: of this substance. The US House Committee just in April
Speaker 4: of twenty twenty four had released this report which accuses
Speaker 4: the government of China, which is not the people, of
Speaker 4: directly subsidizing the manufacturing and export of fentanyl because to
Speaker 4: their mind, officially, this is something like an industrial substance
Speaker 4: more so than a dangerous addictive drug. And they're also
Speaker 4: going to be honest, if you read it in Mandarin,
Speaker 4: you get different news from the English. Well see some
Speaker 4: kind of to be fair out there, Chinese officials arguing
Speaker 4: that this is the next step in the opium wars.
Speaker 5: And to think I had a little conversation off Mike
Speaker 5: again transparency, but like this stuff is coming from China,
Speaker 5: it is coming from Asian countries. It is also to
Speaker 5: the point of this not being something that has to
Speaker 5: be grown out in the open. These labs can be
Speaker 5: set up anywhere, and I imagine the quote unquote recipe
Speaker 5: for making this stuff isn't like some sort of proprietary
Speaker 5: secret that only one company has. If you have the gear,
Speaker 5: you can make the stuff. You can synthesize this stuff
Speaker 5: in a lab. Not to mention all of the analogs
Speaker 5: that Lisa was talking about, which we know are a
Speaker 5: problem for all kinds of other drugs. You change one
Speaker 5: little molecule or whatever. Sorry I'm not a scientist, but
Speaker 5: I believe it's as simple as that. You've got something
Speaker 5: that may have the same exact effect or even more
Speaker 5: intense effects, and it is not categorized as the same drug,
Speaker 5: and therefore flies through some kind of legal loophole.
Speaker 4: Sometimes, yeah, because the legis, as we always say, lags
Speaker 4: behind the technological innovation. And to be to get in
Speaker 4: front of this part when to be fair, the people
Speaker 4: in Congress, who surely are well intentioned, are sometimes being
Speaker 4: a little bit hyperbolic just to get stuff moving through
Speaker 4: the legislature. Far be it from me, dare I say,
Speaker 4: But the thing we have to remember is a lot
Speaker 4: of the subsidization that is occurring. To your point, NOL
Speaker 4: is not the end product. It is the subsidization of
Speaker 4: what we call the precursor chemicals. So you're saying you
Speaker 4: know you're saying, hey, look, pineapple cake is killing people.
Speaker 4: We're not selling pineapple cake. We are selling pineapples. We
Speaker 4: are selling flour. But what happens after that is, you know,
Speaker 4: not our business.
Speaker 3: We're not the ones who turn it upside down.
Speaker 4: Right, Just so, and thank you for picking up Come on,
Speaker 4: get out of my house.
Speaker 3: That was very well.
Speaker 5: Becosed, saying I think we've gone over on this one
Speaker 5: because it was too good not to read every word
Speaker 5: of this email. So again, huge thanks from all three
Speaker 5: of us to you, Lisa, Matt. Sorry I didn't want
Speaker 5: I want to give you last word because you didn't
Speaker 5: really have a chance to chime I much. I think
Speaker 5: I was blown away by this and was probably gabbing
Speaker 5: a little too much.
Speaker 2: Oh no, I was just gonna say thank you Lisa
Speaker 2: on behalf of you know, our friends at Elucidation Worldwide
Speaker 2: in perpetuity.
Speaker 5: Yes, indeed, let's take a quick break here we're from
Speaker 5: more sponsor and then come back with more messages from you.
Speaker 2: We've returned, guys, We've got three quick voicemails to go
Speaker 2: over today. The first one is from egg Salad with
Speaker 2: a minor correction. I don't think it's really a correction.
Speaker 2: It's just something that we should put out there because
Speaker 2: we've talked about it off Mike before, and I think
Speaker 2: in an episode we were discussing the Secret Service and
Speaker 2: specifically their origins and we just kind of left it
Speaker 2: at a place where we were talking about them connected
Speaker 2: to the Treasury.
Speaker 4: Or a clarification.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's exactly what it is. It's a clarification. We
Speaker 2: you know what, we don't need to play egg Salad's message.
Speaker 2: We just need to say thank you egg Salad for
Speaker 2: pointing it out to us, and then we will say
Speaker 2: the Secret Service began as directly connected to and underneath
Speaker 2: the Department of the Treasury. Then that whole nine to
Speaker 2: eleven thing happened, and then they got moved over to
Speaker 2: this newly formed Department of Homeland Security thing.
Speaker 4: And we love your work, egg Salad, Yes we do.
Speaker 2: So stinky, I hate it.
Speaker 3: Don't say stinky so gross man. It's great as a nickname, though.
Speaker 5: My ex wife and who I'm buddies with, often says
Speaker 5: egg salad is a stand in for excellent, like eggs salad.
Speaker 5: You know, maybe it's weird. You can do all kinds
Speaker 5: of wacky stuff with it. But now, as a product,
Speaker 5: don't want to go anywhere near this stuff. But as
Speaker 5: a human, we love.
Speaker 6: You, ab so lutely shout out to Tim and Eric.
Speaker 2: Okay, so I guess let's jump to then Chef Ben
Speaker 2: for our first message for this segment, Bellas, this is.
Speaker 7: Chef Ben in Chicago. As always, feel for you to
Speaker 7: use this on your show. I don't have an agenda,
Speaker 7: I don't mean anything by this, and I am honestly
Speaker 7: asking this question because I do not know. You talk
Speaker 7: a lot about microplastics. Looking at you, Matt, looking at
Speaker 7: your boss. Here's my question. While I understand the ubiquity
Speaker 7: of microplastics, they're everywhere, They're an unborn fetises, okay, and
Speaker 7: I get that it's likely not a good thing, what
Speaker 7: is the actual effect of having microplastics in your body?
Speaker 8: Right?
Speaker 7: Like, Yes, I understand it's not ideal, but why is
Speaker 7: it bad? And in what realm is it bad?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 8: Like?
Speaker 7: Does this give you cancer? Does it give you superpowers?
Speaker 7: Does it imped brain function or development? Or something like that? Like,
Speaker 7: I hear a lot of traffic and a lot of
Speaker 7: fear mongering about Oh, microplastics are everywhere, sure, but lots
Speaker 7: of things are everywhere, And so that's my question. I
Speaker 7: don't know, don't have an up. I'm simply curious. Sure,
Speaker 7: microplastics are probably not great for us. What are they
Speaker 7: doing when they're in that balls? What are they doing?
Speaker 3: Thanks, Ellas, quit looking at my man's ball? All right,
Speaker 3: give a man suprivacy. I think of that.
Speaker 5: I'm thinking about this all the time, Matt, Like, have
Speaker 5: you just made peace with the fact that we're all
Speaker 5: gonna get cancer and that it's just a matter of time?
Speaker 3: Like that's sort of how I think about it in
Speaker 3: a way.
Speaker 6: What else are you gonna do?
Speaker 3: There's nothing but do we even like?
Speaker 5: This stuff also always feels like such a dice roll,
Speaker 5: Like we know people that smoke packs of cigarettes a
Speaker 5: day and don't get cancer, and then people that have
Speaker 5: never touched the stuff in their life they get, you know, deadly.
Speaker 3: Lung cancer, lung disease.
Speaker 5: I just it's so hard to predict and to know,
Speaker 5: and and with the microplastics, you literally you cannot smoke,
Speaker 5: but you can't apparently avoid this microplastic stuff.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean when it's when it's in the water
Speaker 2: we drink, and in the food we eat, and in
Speaker 2: all the clothes we wear, and I mean, you know,
Speaker 2: it's just kind of it's gonna get in, yes, somehow
Speaker 2: or another, and it's gonna move through your body in
Speaker 2: different ways, and it's gonna stick around in different parts
Speaker 2: of your bodies, including your brain as we talked about recently, yes,
Speaker 2: and your testicles in your baby if you're pregnant. They're
Speaker 2: gonna get everywhere. But to the point of Chef Ben,
Speaker 2: why is it such a big deal. If you go online,
Speaker 2: you start searching around for resources as to you know,
Speaker 2: what microplastics actually do, you will find some stuff. You
Speaker 2: can also go back to our episode on microplastics. Guys,
Speaker 2: do you remember around what time we did that, like
Speaker 2: twenty It was in the twenty twenties, so it was
Speaker 2: pretty recent, right, Yeah, it was.
Speaker 3: It was definitely recently.
Speaker 2: Okay, awesome, Well you can go listen to that whole episode.
Speaker 2: So for the purposes of this message and in response
Speaker 2: to you, Chef Ben, this is coming from the United
Speaker 2: Nations Development Program, which is a whole episode really if
Speaker 2: we wanted to get into it. But here's a quote
Speaker 2: from an article they wrote in June of twenty two
Speaker 2: based on World Health Organization analysis on the current research
Speaker 2: related to microplastics, There is currently limited evidence to suggest
Speaker 2: microplastics are causing significant adverse health impacts. There are major
Speaker 2: knowledge gaps in scientific understanding of the impact of microplastics,
Speaker 2: and the weight of the current evidence is low to
Speaker 2: conclude the causality of adverse effects. Further and more holistic
Speaker 2: research is needed to obtain a more accurate assessment of
Speaker 2: exposure to microplastics and their potential impacts on human health.
Speaker 3: It's a very good PSA voice, by the way, Matt.
Speaker 2: Yeah, basically we need more information. We don't know what
Speaker 2: the microplastics are doing. Fully, we know they're in us,
Speaker 2: and it's probably not a good idea because their foreign
Speaker 2: bodies and their synthetic substances. You can jump to other
Speaker 2: places like Science News and you can look at an
Speaker 2: article titled microplastics are in our bodies. Here's why we
Speaker 2: don't know the health risks, which is again just the
Speaker 2: whole system of Hey, this is a fairly new thing,
Speaker 2: a fairly ne discovery that these things are in us,
Speaker 2: at least to the extent that we know they are now,
Speaker 2: and we're just going to have to study humans to
Speaker 2: figure out what the microplastics did when we're cutting open
Speaker 2: bodies of the people that it affected.
Speaker 5: You know, Benet really reminds me of that screenshot that
Speaker 5: you sent us of that EPA warning about the chlorine
Speaker 5: in the air from the chemical plant explosion here in
Speaker 5: Atlanta area and Conyers. The note that I think we
Speaker 5: all got a bit of a kick out of was
Speaker 5: it probably will be fine for most people, essentially, is
Speaker 5: what it said. But it seems like that's the language
Speaker 5: we hear a lot when it comes to this stuff.
Speaker 5: There's a lot of unknowns and gray areas.
Speaker 8: Ah.
Speaker 4: Yes, I think we all love the capital letters or
Speaker 4: the choice thereof in that text. What was it capitalized
Speaker 4: most people?
Speaker 3: Most people will probably be fine there more or less, Yes, exactly.
Speaker 4: And Chef Ben go Ben's want to thank you personally
Speaker 4: for writing with this because it is no honest question. Matt,
Speaker 4: I'm so glad you brought this voicemail up because, Chef Ben,
Speaker 4: you are speaking to something we see constantly in science reporting,
Speaker 4: which is a headline that says, this is bad. Everybody
Speaker 4: panic here is why. Right Like recently, as we're recording,
Speaker 4: there's some terrible news about glaciers, the so called doomsday glacier,
Speaker 4: which I'm sure we all read.
Speaker 3: About doomsday stuff.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, yeah, just so, and what we see here,
Speaker 4: and one thing that I think you've done really well here, Matt,
Speaker 4: is what we see is there is a need to
Speaker 4: look past the headlines. Microplastics has become a thought terminating cliche.
Speaker 4: People aren't naming polyethylene, right, or polymethyl methacrylates, or the
Speaker 4: cultures of styrage.
Speaker 3: I didn't even think about it.
Speaker 4: It saves time and to the point that you're raising there, Matt.
Speaker 4: For our pal chef Ben, the science takes longer than
Speaker 4: the news takes, you know, and that's that's a really
Speaker 4: difficult bag of badgers there. We know that there appear
Speaker 4: to be The news often doesn't even define microplastics, which
Speaker 4: is just these substances, what is it less than five
Speaker 4: millimeters in length like that?
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, but the science takes longer. But not to
Speaker 5: mention the science consensus, if there ever even is one.
Speaker 5: We always talk about how that's just kind of the
Speaker 5: nature of science. It's a lot of people arguing and
Speaker 5: for us laymans, we don't know what the hell to believe.
Speaker 5: And I'm not trying to demonize the process of you know,
Speaker 5: deduction and science and experimentation. But it can get a
Speaker 5: little bit overwhelming to the point where you kind of
Speaker 5: just have to throw your hands up and say, well,
Speaker 5: into the breach, go I right, like what am I
Speaker 5: gonna do about it?
Speaker 4: To what you said, Matt, Yeah, there goes the next
Speaker 4: two months now just reading scientific journals. Sure, the presence
Speaker 4: of you know, hormone disruption that may be associated with microplastics.
Speaker 5: It's a good way to drive yourself nuts if you
Speaker 5: don't have all of the information. It's like the ultimate
Speaker 5: form of like googling every symptom on web md when
Speaker 5: you get an issue throat or something. I mean, it's
Speaker 5: just not a good move for most of us.
Speaker 3: Mortals a web md it's cancers, yes, definitely cancer.
Speaker 2: And if it's not microplastics, it's nanoplastics, which is a
Speaker 2: whole other thing that is pico plastics. Really no, I
Speaker 2: don't know whatever nanoplastics are being focused on right now.
Speaker 5: If they're small, though, it's fine though, right they're small.
Speaker 2: Bloodstream is a whole thing, and when you've got plastic
Speaker 2: particles going through your heart, you know, what's the biggest
Speaker 2: problem with hearts, the plaque that ends up building up
Speaker 2: in places and then clots up the pathways.
Speaker 5: Now are you just making this up? Is this something
Speaker 5: that you've read or you just thinking this could be
Speaker 5: a thing.
Speaker 6: This is in science news right now.
Speaker 3: It could literally cause like an artery to be clawed
Speaker 3: with no physical material.
Speaker 2: We don't know, but think about it would makes sense
Speaker 2: if the stuff is clotting up in your bloodstream and
Speaker 2: you're adding these synthetic particles or nanoparticles or even microparticles
Speaker 2: of jam.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Yeah, it's not great.
Speaker 4: Well, I think that is fair to say to your question,
Speaker 4: Chef Ben, And I'm really sad you didn't ask about
Speaker 4: my balls. Uh.
Speaker 2: I think we made a big deal of it in
Speaker 2: the in the episode about my balls for some reason.
Speaker 6: I think that's what he was responding to.
Speaker 4: Well, I hope your ball's real.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 5: That was my favorite nineties canceled Fox sitcom. It was
Speaker 5: called Matt's Balls.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 3: It was hilarious.
Speaker 4: I don't know, Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, with uh with
Speaker 4: some of those guys from nine o two one.
Speaker 3: Oh exactly and Louis Anderson.
Speaker 6: That's right.
Speaker 3: Oh no, no, he was. This was pre Diddy. This
Speaker 3: is in no pre Diddy world.
Speaker 4: Okay, okay, okay, yeah p D versus well pre d
Speaker 4: pre Diddy.
Speaker 3: That'd be a funny thing we can use that, is it. Okay? No,
Speaker 3: I think it's too soon because it's too soon.
Speaker 4: I think we have to let the bets do their job.
Speaker 1: But again, uh.
Speaker 4: Yeah yeah, let those boys cook it.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 4: So again, Chef Ben, thank you so much, because this
Speaker 4: is a great opportunity. I would argue to investigate past headlines.
Speaker 2: Oh yes, for sure. Hey, here's another place you can look,
Speaker 2: Chef Ben, if you want to, the National Library of Medicine.
Speaker 2: Check out a little article titled health Effects of microplastic
Speaker 2: exposures colon current issues and perspectives in South Korea.
Speaker 6: It's pretty interesting.
Speaker 2: Just again, it's scientists trying to figure out what the
Speaker 2: heck these things are going to do over time to us. Well,
Speaker 2: that's it for now, Chef Ben, thank you so much
Speaker 2: for calling in. You always a delight to hear your
Speaker 2: voice on those voice lines. We got other people that
Speaker 2: we did not call out this week, so we will
Speaker 2: call you out next week. Looking at you, Phoenix, and uh,
Speaker 2: we'll be right back with more messages from you.
Speaker 4: And we have returned. Big shout out to an anonymous owl. Anonymous,
Speaker 4: this is something that will well, we'll see if it
Speaker 4: goes briefer long, but we wanted to share this. Has
Speaker 4: been putting this off for a couple of weeks here,
Speaker 4: but it's a great question that is unfortunately relevant in
Speaker 4: these our divided times, which I feel like we've been
Speaker 4: saying since you know, the eighteen nineties.
Speaker 9: Good afternoon, gentlemen. This is Anon Pal. You can use
Speaker 9: me on the air, and that is really fine.
Speaker 8: Hopefully you don't use my last message because I started
Speaker 8: to read I got romantict them. Anyway, I was recently
Speaker 8: summon for jury duty and I was filling out the
Speaker 8: questionnaire on whether or not I call FI to serve
Speaker 8: in the jury and I live in Maryland.
Speaker 9: And one of the questions, the last question actually number twenty.
Speaker 10: One, I believe, was whether or not I was a
Speaker 10: member of the regulated Maryland Militia. I believe is how
Speaker 10: it was worded, and I've never heard of such a thing.
Speaker 10: I did a quick little Google search and I discovered
Speaker 10: that pretty much every state has its own militia, which
Speaker 10: in Maryland, I believe is if you are between the
Speaker 10: ages of seventeen and sixty five, and you qualify or
Speaker 10: you are accepted. And then there's another thing called the
Speaker 10: unregulated militia. But apparently these these state militias exist under
Speaker 10: the sole discretion of the governor of the state and
Speaker 10: are not tied in any way to the National Guard
Speaker 10: or the federal level military branches. And I did notice
Speaker 10: also on I.
Speaker 9: Believe Wikipedia, and of course you know, we all know
Speaker 9: Wikipedia is fallible, but it seems legit that nineteen states
Speaker 9: have active state militias, and I'm guessing Maryland must be
Speaker 9: one of them. If we have this question on our
Speaker 9: jury selection questionnaire. And I wondered if you guys have
Speaker 9: ever looked into this, what you know about it, what
Speaker 9: the significance of it is, what kind of situations this
Speaker 9: militia might be used in. I was also considering the
Speaker 9: same thing with regards to any possible after effects of
Speaker 9: the Project twenty twenty five goals as they go through.
Speaker 9: So there you go, just kind of just kind of
Speaker 9: a weird thing that I noticed and am curious about.
Speaker 9: Those are the things that makes life worth living.
Speaker 4: Oh, I love the positive note there, Anonymous owl. Thank
Speaker 4: you so much, you guys. We have talked about different
Speaker 4: aspects of militia in the past, and thankfully, Anonymous OWL
Speaker 4: we can assure you that you are correct. There is
Speaker 4: a reason people ask about this in certain jury duty auditions,
Speaker 4: and it calls to mind, you guys, the conversations we've
Speaker 4: had over the years regarding attempts to get into jury duty.
Speaker 3: You know, did any way to get into or get
Speaker 3: out of?
Speaker 4: Well, I want to get into it, but I think
Speaker 4: they can tell I'm too thirsty because I never make
Speaker 4: the I get a callback, but I never make the
Speaker 4: final cut.
Speaker 3: Didn't you do jury duty? I did.
Speaker 5: I was excluded recently and then I was picked another time.
Speaker 5: Both times, I was very candid about doing this podcast
Speaker 5: and basically shang, I don't trust.
Speaker 3: The governments, you know, hoping I was being honest.
Speaker 5: I wasn't trying to tamper, like be you know, insincere,
Speaker 5: but I figured that wouldn't really sit well with most
Speaker 5: you know, prosecutors or whatever, that I would be the
Speaker 5: kind of person that might be like a Rabbel rouser,
Speaker 5: might be, you know, trying to turn people or who
Speaker 5: knows whatever.
Speaker 4: So that one question, do you like true crime shows?
Speaker 5: They did not come up precisely, but there were questions
Speaker 5: they differ, right, Like, there's questions that really pertain to
Speaker 5: the case, which they don't tell you all the details of,
Speaker 5: And you can glean a lot of details just from
Speaker 5: the kinds of questions they're asking you. They give you
Speaker 5: the kind of basic like X versus why you know
Speaker 5: who the parties are? They describe kind of what happened,
Speaker 5: but they don't give you the details. You know it
Speaker 5: was a case of abduction or a case of armed
Speaker 5: robbery or whatever, but they don't describe the scenario to
Speaker 5: you because that could poison the well, as they say, so,
Speaker 5: I was excluded from this most recent one, which was
Speaker 5: the one I was just describing. The first one was
Speaker 5: a personal injury case, and I actually was able to
Speaker 5: sway the jury into giving the woman who was the
Speaker 5: plaintiff less money because she just seemed like an ambulance
Speaker 5: chaser to me. I didn't like her, I didn't trust her,
Speaker 5: and she rubbed me the wrong way. And weirdly, in
Speaker 5: that case, the jury got to decide the damages, which.
Speaker 3: Blew my mind.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I didn't understand.
Speaker 3: I did not realize that was a thing. It really
Speaker 3: blew my mind.
Speaker 5: But tell me more about this malicious stuff, ben Like
Speaker 5: this is like, is that is the issue here? Like
Speaker 5: you should not be able to be asked that, like
Speaker 5: that's too pointed or what.
Speaker 4: You can ask people pretty much anything in jury selection.
Speaker 4: I'm also interested in your jury duty auditions, Matt. I
Speaker 4: got to stop calling them auditions.
Speaker 3: Did you ever get into it's appropriate?
Speaker 2: I never have, but I always wear a shirt that
Speaker 2: says nullification on the front.
Speaker 3: You're so wise to that, though, guys, they're so tired
Speaker 3: of it.
Speaker 5: I know.
Speaker 4: It's like when it's like when someone who wants drugs
Speaker 4: goes to their goes to a doctor and says they
Speaker 4: have back pain and chuckle sleeping. Yeah, Like, okay, buddy,
Speaker 4: let me just if.
Speaker 5: You lead with that unprompted, you're gonna get dinged by
Speaker 5: the judge.
Speaker 3: They're gonna, like, you know, call you out. It's not
Speaker 3: a good look.
Speaker 6: Oh, so don't do that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, don't do that.
Speaker 4: Well, it depends on what you want to accomplish. Do
Speaker 4: you want to be on the jury or do you
Speaker 4: want to get out of the d.
Speaker 5: Nullifications The segest the idea is gets you out, or
Speaker 5: at least the lawyers don't care for that right.
Speaker 4: I got in trouble one time for there were some
Speaker 4: court things going on in Atlanta which we don't have
Speaker 4: to get into, and I was one of those of
Speaker 4: just obnoxious people on the literal steps of the courthouse saying, hey, everybody,
Speaker 4: remember dury nullification.
Speaker 3: The people's voice matters.
Speaker 2: It's just scary because it is a powerful tool that
Speaker 2: can be you know, used right because generally you can't
Speaker 2: try somebody for the same crime again if you can
Speaker 2: somehow tamper with the jury right and convince, you know,
Speaker 2: convince members of it to nullify a verdict or something.
Speaker 4: Well, you know, objecting to the standing of the law itself. This,
Speaker 4: this goes into a couple different things here, Anonymous Owl.
Speaker 4: Your question in particular is perhaps an episode for us
Speaker 4: in the future, which is the idea of a militia. Now,
Speaker 4: to be completely honest, militia gets you know, a bad
Speaker 4: connotation in the United States these days, understandably, but we
Speaker 4: have to remember that citizen militias or you know, a
Speaker 4: well regulated militia, as the founding fathers call it, is legal.
Speaker 4: It is a thing. As a matter of fact. They
Speaker 4: played a big part in you know, creating the United
Speaker 4: States as we know it today. Now, I guess to
Speaker 4: be to be completely transparent, folks, we ourselves are not
Speaker 4: identifying as active members of militia's outside of our work
Speaker 4: with Illumination Global Unlimited. The People's Militia there, it is
Speaker 4: all the people's militia. I mean, do you guys know
Speaker 4: anybody who identifies as a member of a militia.
Speaker 5: Isn't that kind of a what's the word I'm looking for?
Speaker 5: Like a derisive term even or it's used that way
Speaker 5: as a catch all, kind of like microplastics, you know,
Speaker 5: like the idea of being in a militia. Do militias
Speaker 5: describe themselves as militias or do they describe themselves as
Speaker 5: like a social club with lots of guns or something,
Speaker 5: you know, I just just wonder is it a term
Speaker 5: that's used by those who actually participate in these kinds
Speaker 5: of activities?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 4: Mercenaries don't describe themselves as mercenaries. We're contractors. This is
Speaker 4: a great question because it goes back to a little
Speaker 4: bit of nerdy etymology. Militia just means soldiers in the
Speaker 4: service of some higher power. Right, So the Vatican would
Speaker 4: have a militia you know what I mean. The idea
Speaker 4: in the Swiss Guard, right, actually.
Speaker 2: We are your formations to protect a country against invaders
Speaker 2: abroad or within. Right, that's in the Constitution.
Speaker 5: I don't know, But isn't that an army? Like where
Speaker 5: at what point does a militia become an army?
Speaker 3: Is it about?
Speaker 5: Like who's calling it that or who's organizing it, or
Speaker 5: which side of the quote unquote law.
Speaker 3: It exists on.
Speaker 4: Goes back to that very very vague compilation of ideas
Speaker 4: called the Constitution and then the Bill of Rights, which
Speaker 4: is so incredibly tough. They were vague booking before Facebook
Speaker 4: was a thing. If you want to see an example
Speaker 4: of what a well regulated militia is here in the States,
Speaker 4: you're looking at something like the National Guard. That is
Speaker 4: a completely legal, well regulated militia. And many of our
Speaker 4: fellow conspiracy realists listening tonight are active National Guard or
Speaker 4: have served in that capacity.
Speaker 2: But it's under the federal government though, right it's part
Speaker 2: of one of the branches of military.
Speaker 4: Yes, National Guard is a federal militia. And I appreciate
Speaker 4: that because it goes to the question that you're asking
Speaker 4: anonymous owl regarding what the second Amendment specifically says about
Speaker 4: a well regulated militia and how that differs from a
Speaker 4: let's get together and do our thing private citizen militia. Right,
Speaker 4: So if we all of us together this evening, if
Speaker 4: we join the National Guard, that's well and good. You know,
Speaker 4: if they'll take us, and if not, I guess it's
Speaker 4: the French Foreign Legion for us. But citizen militias, it's
Speaker 4: become a really sticky thing here because if you look
Speaker 4: back on our previous episodes, I'm thinking in particular, guys
Speaker 4: of an episode we did on the Sovereign State movement,
Speaker 4: remember that one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that are attempting to basically break away from the
Speaker 2: Constitution and federal laws and even state laws a lower
Speaker 2: local municipality laws.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 4: And this is where we see things that sometimes get
Speaker 4: joked about. It happens a lot candidly in rural areas
Speaker 4: of the US, not too far from Atlanta. For a while,
Speaker 4: there were a group of guys who decided if they
Speaker 4: printed their own license plates and driver's license and then
Speaker 4: they also printed little signs on their homes that said,
Speaker 4: you know, we're the sovereign citizens of Georgia. That they
Speaker 4: had essentially seceded from the Union and created their own nation.
Speaker 4: Spoiler alert, the FEDS did not cotton to it.
Speaker 2: Have you guys ever read about the Georgia State Defense Force.
Speaker 3: I have not heard of the Georgia State Defense Force.
Speaker 6: The GSDF.
Speaker 2: It's basically militia from the seventeen hundreds that's made its
Speaker 2: way through, you know, in different iterations, all the way
Speaker 2: till twenty twenty four. They're under the direction of the
Speaker 2: Governor and the adjunct no adjudicant. What is that word adjutant.
Speaker 2: I've never seen that right before.
Speaker 3: Don't know that one.
Speaker 5: I think we should keep all this in we're all
Speaker 5: puzzling through it together.
Speaker 3: I don't know that word.
Speaker 2: I don't know what this is. I'm going to read
Speaker 2: from their website. GSDF dot Georgia dot gov says the
Speaker 2: Georgia State Defense Force is a legally constituted element of
Speaker 2: the Georgia Department of Defense, serving in support of the
Speaker 2: national and state constitutions under direction of the Governor and
Speaker 2: the Adjudatant General of the State of Georgia.
Speaker 4: Got to get your paperwork straight, and it's got to
Speaker 4: be paperwork from the other guys. You can't just print
Speaker 4: your letters of mark and then go off to the
Speaker 4: high seas of mirkwork.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but there's interesting stuff in here about like rescue training,
Speaker 2: I mean, all kinds of stuff that seems like it
Speaker 2: would be super helpful. I think the question comes in
Speaker 2: when there's a conflict between the state and federal government,
Speaker 2: what does that force do and exactly how does that function.
Speaker 2: I just watched that Civil War movie that came out
Speaker 2: pretty recently, and I don't know if you guys have
Speaker 2: seen that yet, but I would recommend it because it's
Speaker 2: worth a conversation.
Speaker 3: At least.
Speaker 4: Robert Evans had some great takes on that, and also,
Speaker 4: I will say, perhaps parallel thinking, it follows a lot
Speaker 4: of the cues of his earlier novel, which is about
Speaker 4: the same thing. But Civil War as a film is
Speaker 4: I would say, primarily an examination of journalists on the ground.
Speaker 2: Yes, but it's got an interesting through line of what
Speaker 2: happens when federal government is versus state governments that are
Speaker 2: functioning together.
Speaker 4: And it's weird that originally the first militia formed the
Speaker 4: predecessors of things like the National Guard here in the States,
Speaker 4: they go back to the sixteen hundreds, like in the
Speaker 4: colony days of Massachusetts and when they were formed. Colonies
Speaker 4: formed these militias because they didn't want to have permanent
Speaker 4: standing armies, which gets a little bit weird when you
Speaker 4: realize the United States has by far the most dangerous
Speaker 4: military force on the planet. Right, we got all the plates.
Speaker 4: Do you guys want a plane? We get a plane.
Speaker 3: But you want to toe? I can get you ton
Speaker 3: when we.
Speaker 4: Do a guy, Well, we'll just put the toes on
Speaker 4: the planes. So what this leads us to. I'm really
Speaker 4: setting this up because anonymous out your question makes me
Speaker 4: think that we should we should turn this into an episode.
Speaker 4: Do you guys think, aside from our previous work on
Speaker 4: the sovereign movements, that we could do a good episode on,
Speaker 4: just like a primer on the stuff they don't want
Speaker 4: you to know about militias?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Sure, have we not done something like that?
Speaker 5: I mean, I feel like when there was the Am
Speaker 5: and Bundy stuff, we definitely talked about that story and
Speaker 5: stuff adjacent to that. But you're right then, I think
Speaker 5: maybe the history and like all the questions that we're
Speaker 5: asking about, what doth a militia make or what makes
Speaker 5: a militia versus you know, an organized fighting for us.
Speaker 5: That's a larger scale, Like, is there a cutoff?
Speaker 2: It is weird to think we talked about it eight
Speaker 2: years ago.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and what does well regulated mean. We're going to
Speaker 4: explore this question in an upcoming episode. We also might
Speaker 4: do one shout out to you, anonymous on a Manchester pusher.
Speaker 4: I kind of divvy the accent there. It would be
Speaker 4: Manchester pusher if we're saying it in US English or
Speaker 4: Manchester push off right in a in a vaguely British.
Speaker 3: Yeah, is this like a Cockney Manchester is its own thing?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 6: The Beatles?
Speaker 3: No, the Beatles were from Liverpool. I'm a dumb dumb.
Speaker 4: No, No, you're someone from Manchester.
Speaker 3: Fellow con Oasis. They're big. They're from Manchester, Manchester from.
Speaker 4: Shout out to our palll Casper. They just released their
Speaker 4: tentative US tour dates and I Am not going to
Speaker 4: pay to see them.
Speaker 3: Oh I'm not. You know you're not then, because you
Speaker 3: will not.
Speaker 5: Be able to get tickets into the five one night
Speaker 5: stadium gigs.
Speaker 4: Not gonna There's one place in the middle of New Jersey,
Speaker 4: all right.
Speaker 3: Well, the Meadowlands.
Speaker 2: What is the Manchester Pusher just like give me one hit,
Speaker 2: what is it?
Speaker 4: Well, if you would like one vape snarf on us.
Speaker 4: The Manchester pusher is similar to the accusations that we
Speaker 4: saw in Austin and similar to the idea of the
Speaker 4: smiley face or a happy face killer. There have been
Speaker 4: multiple people discovered in the area dead around waterways, and
Speaker 4: so the current discourse, which pops up on and off
Speaker 4: again over the years, concerns whether or not there is
Speaker 4: an active serial murderer or whether these people are drowning
Speaker 4: due to cruel circumstance. We don't have the time yet
Speaker 4: to read the letter in full. I do think this
Speaker 4: is an episode we should examine. In the meantime, Please
Speaker 4: do check out our earlier work on the Happy Face murders,
Speaker 4: which goes super deep. Shout out to the HVAC company
Speaker 4: train tr A N and then also thank you to
Speaker 4: anonymous owl and state militias. We cannot wait to hear
Speaker 4: your thoughts on this. Help arm us with information, folks,
Speaker 4: Perhaps a poor choice of words for our upcoming episode
Speaker 4: on militia's are you involved with one? Do you have experience?
Speaker 4: We want to hear from you, big big thanks to
Speaker 4: egg Salad Chef Ben, big big thanks of course to Lisa,
Speaker 4: and thank you all for joining us this evening. We're
Speaker 4: going to be back very soon and we can't wait
Speaker 4: to hear your thoughts on all of this. We try
Speaker 4: to be easy to find online.
Speaker 3: Easy to find. We do try to be and hopefully succeed.
Speaker 5: You can find us at the handle conspiracy Stuff, where
Speaker 5: we exist on Facebook with our Facebook group Here's where
Speaker 5: it gets crazy. You can also find us on x fka,
Speaker 5: Twitter as well as you Tube with video content glor
Speaker 5: for you to peruse. That is also conspiracy stuff on
Speaker 5: Instagram and TikTok. However, we are conspiracy stuff show.
Speaker 2: Be like anonymous owl, be like Chef Ben and egg
Speaker 2: Salad and Phoenix and all the others. Call us call
Speaker 2: us now one eight three three std wyk. When you
Speaker 2: call in, give yourself.
Speaker 6: A cool nickname.
Speaker 2: We don't care what it is. We're excited to hear it.
Speaker 2: Let us know if we can use your name. End
Speaker 2: message on the air, and those are the only rules.
Speaker 6: Do expect a call back?
Speaker 2: You might get one if you've got more to say
Speaker 2: they can fit into that message. Why not instead send
Speaker 2: us a good old fashioned email.
Speaker 4: We are the entities that read every piece of correspondence
Speaker 4: we receive. We cannot wait for you to reach out
Speaker 4: and touch faith digitally. Give us more than that three minutes.
Speaker 4: Give us the whole story, the whole kit and kaboodle,
Speaker 4: you know what I mean, the whole Philly cheese steak
Speaker 4: of what's going on. Give us leads for new episodes,
Speaker 4: give us those photos, give us those ancillery links, and
Speaker 4: of course, be well aware yet unafraid. Sometimes the void
Speaker 4: writes back, just like we responded to our pal. We'll
Speaker 4: call t nemo h who hipped us to the possible
Speaker 4: origin of the phrase Jesus H Christ.
Speaker 5: Dude, and that back and forth and crazily it connects
Speaker 5: with Mark Twain, which we did a two part episode
Speaker 5: about on Ridiculous.
Speaker 3: History very recently.
Speaker 4: Yes, yes, Mark Dwade not his first suitedym. His first
Speaker 4: SUITEDYM was in Shah Josh. So to be more fun
Speaker 4: at parties, To help us be even worse at parties,
Speaker 4: join us out here past the edge of the streetlight
Speaker 4: in the dark conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2: Stuff they Don't Want You to Know is a production
Speaker 2: of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 2: Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.