Politically High-Tech
A podcast with facts and opinions on different topics like politics, policy, technology especially AI, spirituality and development! For this podcast, development simply means tip, product and/or etc. can benefit humanity. This show aims to show political viewpoints and sometimes praises/criticizes them. He is a wildcard sometimes. For Technology episodes, this show focuses on products (mostly AI) with pros, cons and sometimes give a hint of future update. For Development episodes, the podcast focuses on tips to improve as a human spiritually, socially, emotionally and more. All political, AI lovers and haters, and all religions are welcome! This is an adult show. Minors should not be listening to this podcast! This podcast proudly discriminates bad characters and nothing else.
Politically High-Tech
292- Mythology, Faith, and Modern Political Identities with Noah Kennedy
Narratives and identity fundamentally shape our political beliefs more than facts or reason. The stories we tell ourselves matter deeply in how we form our worldviews and interpret reality.
• The "stolen election" narrative caught on not because of evidence but because it reinforced existing identity frameworks
• Political tribalism works similarly to religious adherence - both use narratives to create belonging and define outsiders
• Biblical stories like Joshua's conquest of Canaan serve contemporary political purposes regardless of historical accuracy
• Mary Magdalene's portrayal evolved from Jesus's most trusted apostle to reformed prostitute as institutional church power grew
• AI systems like Grok, ChatGPT and others reflect their creators' goals and can shape perception in targeted ways
• Media sources reinforce tribal identities rather than attempting to persuade those on the opposite side
• Bipartisanship on issues like immigration fails because performative opposition serves identity needs better than pragmatic solutions
America's political division continues to worsen as we increasingly view those with different political orientations as enemies rather than fellow citizens with different perspectives. We need to restore humanity to our political discourse before tribalism tears the country apart.
Follow Noah Kennedy at
His book
Check these sources out
Follow your host at
YouTube and Rumble for video content
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUxk1oJBVw-IAZTqChH70ag
https://rumble.com/c/c-4236474
Facebook to receive updates
https://www.facebook.com/EliasEllusion/
Twitter (yes, I refuse to call it X)
https://x.com/politicallyht
welcome everyone to politically high tech with your host, elias. I know some of you are tired of politics. Sounds like it's doomsday, it's never going to get better. It's always chaotic or it's like a funny reality TV show to some of you. Or some of you love the chaos.
Speaker 1:I've talked to a few people. I'm not going to rat you, I'm not going to out you, like the cool kids say. I'm just like oh, you're anarchist. I'm not going to call you out, but you know who you are. For those of you who listen, I know personally. So we love the chaos. I ain't gonna lie.
Speaker 1:Sometimes I like some of the chaos too, as long as nobody's getting killed, if it's like. If it's emotional chaos, I don't care as much if it's. But if it's real, you know rioting, violence, all that, and that's why I turn out more somber and serious. But but just be clear, okay, but there's just people yelling at each other or just be making hyperbolic, idiotic statements. That that's the kind of chaos sometimes be more emotional, dramatic kind of chaos, not the ones that causes death and destruction. Now, if you love that, then you're sick and you definitely gonna need some biblical help here.
Speaker 1:Okay, and we're gonna talk about the, the bible, but we're going to talk about the Bible, but we're going to mix it. It's going to be political, but we'll mix up Bible mythology. Which mythology? I'm doing this blindly, we're going to find out together. Okay, so let's welcome Noah Kennedy, who is going to give us infotainment, information, entertainment on why things are the way they are. I mean, I'm going to focus on politics and all that, but this is going to be a great episode because it's going to mix on the three main things in this episode Politics, technology and development. In this case, it's more myth and spiritual. So it's going to be three things meshed together. So let me shut the hell up and get to the first question. So introduce yourself. What do you want the listeners? Up and get to the first question, so introduce yourself. What do you want the listeners and the viewers to know about you?
Speaker 2:Oh well, thanks, Elias, and it's such a pleasure to be here. I really appreciate the invitation. So I'm a writer, a book author and a blogger and an occasional speaker, and I have a wide range of interests, but what I keep returning to in my writing and when I speak is on the kind of intersection between history, myth and and the more I see just the very interesting way that people behave and the way they create narratives and the way they use narratives in their politics. And one of the things that I find most intriguing about this is that I have to look at myself and the way my own politics and the way that I use narrative in my own politics. So it's not a question of, oh well, those guys are jerks and they're lying, or something like that. Of course there are jerks and there are liars, but a lot of people. That's just the way they deal with the world. That's the way they create their own identity, their own religious identity, and the way they deal with others and the way they they assign identities to others.
Speaker 1:So I just find it an endlessly fascinating topic wow, yeah, I mean, that's, I'll say, the most mature way of looking at it. So just good guys versus bad guys, and both sides love to do that. Um, you know, the dems will look at the republicans as villains, and vice versa yep, you know and that's just to me.
Speaker 1:That's a very childish way of just looking politics. So there's a reason why democrats want to do this was their intentions with the motivations, and republicans got theirs as well. Me, as a proud independent centrist, at this point I look at both sides. She was a good and a bad ugly and the interesting that's my general lens on both sides of the aisle and I think that's a very good way to look at. It's just saying, you know, as the avengers versus thanos, for example, that's a kind of myth, modern myth people. You know marvel's modern myth, you know it.
Speaker 1:No, it's more black and white, it's more complicated. I mean, in your political orientation, it's easy for you to distinguish who are the good guys and the bad guys in your mind, because you have a certain agenda and those who are opposite of you will oppose it, naturally, and then those who are in your camp will generally support it, unless there's certain issues. And I will say nothing breaks a party, like war. Yeah, nothing breaks up nothing. I mean, when it came to the israel hamas conflict, the dams split and then with now, with um, what's the thing that I would say? The republicans republicans were generally split on ukraine, that's all yeah, yeah that's when I split that.
Speaker 1:So you know, nothing breaks a party like war. I'll call that like intra-breakup within the parties. It is more of a weird bipartisanship, if you will. Yeah, enough of me. Enough of me, Yammer.
Speaker 2:I'm sure you come to hear me Yammer, as much people you know you were talking about those, those thanos and uh gosh, I can't remember the thanos and the other marvel comics there. I I think that those, that franchise which has become such a huge franchise, is a really interesting kind of silly case of of of popular narrative and in how it developed. You know if, if you, if you picked up one of the original Tarzan novels and you read about Tarzan, most people would be shocked at Tarzan's kind of social political views, the way he viewed Native Africans or the way he treated Jane, you know, and that sort of stuff. But if you go to the latest Tarzan movie he's a much more kind of sophisticated, sensitive guy. He still kind of has that animal magnetism but his views are moderated.
Speaker 2:And you look at Superman from the 1950s TV shows. You probably don't even remember that but he had these awful Poindexter outfits that he would wear, baggy pants and all that kind of stuff, and it's not anywhere near like the buff Superman you're going to see on the TV shows today and his attitudes have become a little bit more modern and with it too. And even these popular heroes carry along the values of the society around them. If they're not, then they become less popular. They just kind of, you know, fall away A little tangent there, just on that particular point.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, no problem. The other one you referred to, the DC Marvel's, the two big kind of companies in America. Yes, very America centrist. So I am not sorry for those of you who are not American because I love to talk about these things, but you could join. You know, it's the Internet. You could join along if you want my fellow non-American viewers and listeners. So you have a good chunk from India. I'm sure some of you know what I'm talking about. So I'm talking about because you got access to stuff as well. But, yeah, I do get your point. It's just that, yeah, it does reflect on what it's he values, because it does kind of change, I think. For another example I want to bring up, I think um cinderella was a lot more graphic than what disney show because you's supposed to die in the furnace as opposed to you know she survives, she has a pretty happy ending.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Or even Alice in Wonderland she was drugged up all kinds of psychosis as opposed to her going to the weird land, if you want to call that, or dimension, whatever the heck you want to call it, but it's definitely not normal. That's the Disney version. It cleaned those up, while the original is a lot more dark and twisted.
Speaker 2:Yeah, the Grimm Brothers fairy tales were really not childhood reading today.
Speaker 1:What? That's the original one? No, I read on some of this because one of the boys to my attention, a very smart girl, she said oh no, you think that's the original. I also want us. I would say so. So no, she, she showed me proof, a book. I've read some of this.
Speaker 1:Oh crap, it's a lot darker than what disney shows. I mean, disney really sanitized the original material you know for, I think, to make it more kid fat friendly, family friendly and of course, to make a heck of a lot of money. Pretty sophisticated, if you ask me, because if you did the original version you would have to make that rated R. If you want to go real extreme, maybe even NC17, which I haven't seen that rating for a really really long time, which means it's really restricted at this point it makes rated R look pretty tight. But I'm not going to get to Movie Buff buff. I'm sure you ain't come.
Speaker 1:I'm sure probably some of you say the conversation oh, shut up and lie, shut up, shut up. All right, I'm gonna get to the questions. I could kind of read some of your minds. I'm a little intuitive like that. So let's put this into in a modern political context. I mean how? Let's just you know I'm gonna start. This is normally last question. We're gonna start as the first question. I think it's better that way. Just keep it flowing. Is there any myth or stories that most politicians misuse just to try to prove a point, or a little shitter point?
Speaker 2:Well, you know the one that I come to immediately a particular myth or narrative. Let's call it a narrative so that people who so that it won't immediately become a partisan, you know argument here, but the narrative that sticks out to me is the stolen 20. And I just I keep coming back to that. I just think that's fascinating and I know you were just talking about this on a recent episode with the fellow who is focused on election integrity. So the idea that that election was stolen has a lot to do and you see this, you see this in the people that you're talking to. That idea, whether you believe it or not, is really wrapped up in that person's sense of identity, and that's how myth and identity tend to work together and why I think it's such a fascinating topic on the religious level, because it's so unconscious to us when it has to do with religious faith. But this is an easier to understand example. So I'll tell you what did not happen with the 2020 election, and that was this was that there were a bunch of people after the election this did not happen that there were a bunch of people after the election who you know could have gone either way, thought both candidates were pretty good or pretty bad or something like that, but some came to the conclusion that that was really fishy and that they thought that the election was stolen. And out of that they said well, okay, so Biden is saying the election was not stolen, trump is saying that the election was stolen. So I'm going to side with Trump here. I'm going to become a Trump advocate.
Speaker 2:That did not happen. What did happen was that the election happened, some people were, you know, devastated and surprised, and other people were pleased and surprised and the narrative arose and we can get into you know how that arose, but the narrative was there that the election was stolen and the people whose identity were wrapped up in anti-Biden, pro-trump and whatever else Trump represented to them. But if their identity was wrapped up in that, that narrative appealed to them and became kind of an article of faith. And I think that you can find other examples, like from the Bible or Islamic traditions or something like that. Where that happens is that a narrative is developed that appeals to people's sense of justice, identity, belonging. You know who I am, who the other people, who the hated, or you know rivals are, et cetera, and so they adopt that narrative and I think that's what happened with the 2020 election, and I can give you an example of that in history. If you will allow me to tell a little story, Go ahead.
Speaker 2:In the early days of Christianity so we're talking, you know, second and third century. In the common era, you might say second or third century AD there were a lot of Christian communities and they were kind of in competition with each other. You know, they were after the hearts and minds of people who were looking for an alternative to paganism or just you know, the story of Jesus appealed to them on some level or something like that, and there were different kinds of faiths that you could ascribe to and they were in competition with each other and they had different beliefs associated with each of them. The ones who were kind of pulling ahead of the other ones were the urban bishops in the major cities in Rome and Antioch and Constantinople and Alexandria, et cetera, and their form of faith, the kind of Orthodox Christianity, was pulling ahead. But there was one group, kind of never-enders, that caused them the most pain and those were the so-called Christian Gnostics Gnostics with a silent G, elaine Pagels and I'll include this in the show notes, but Elaine Pagels has written extensively very interesting books about the early Gnostics. But the Gnostics positioned themselves as people who had a secret understanding that kind of trumped the understanding and the faith of these bishops. And the bishops claimed that they had gotten their legitimacy directly from the apostles, that the apostles had passed it down.
Speaker 2:And the Gnostics? If you asked a Gnostic, well how did the world begin? You know where did this all come from? You know what is God, etc. They would tend to tell a story that to us to you and me would seem very strange. And it went something like this was that there was this kind of free-floating goddess, sophia, and she wanted to have a child, but she wanted to have a child without a father. So she gave birth to this kind of monster that was called the Demiurge, and the Demiurge thought that he was God, but was kind of blind, you know, had no idea that he was a monster and not God, and he created the earth. And so the whole Genesis story about God creating the earth, that the bishops were telling her stuff, the bishops were telling the story of the Demiurge and didn't realize it.
Speaker 2:So the early Gnostics had this kind of positioning against the Orthodox Christians along the lines of okay, well, they say they're so smart, they say that they know all the scriptures and stuff like that. But they're actually idiots and you know, we are the ones who really know it, and the Gnostics, at the core of their belief, had something very similar to the stolen election. It wasn't that the election was stolen and the wrong person won, which is the 2020 narrative, but the creation was stolen. Essentially, it wasn't God who created heaven and earth, it was this demi-urge, and anybody who believes that has this false belief, and so we're the ones who really understand how things work. So if you were opposed to the urban bishops, this was a very appealing narrative to you.
Speaker 2:But to you and me, and probably to most people like that, it's like come on a demi-urge, a blind monster created the earth. Very implausible. How could anybody believe that? Well, they could believe it because their identity was wrapped up in that, their sense that they had the true path and the bishops had the false path. That narrative became part of their identity and so it became core to their beliefs and ultimately, that kind of died out. That had no political legs or anything like that. But I only bring that in and I know it's kind of a complicated story. I only bring it up because you see this happening over and over again Narratives that are implausible, but they work for political reasons and for people's need to identify with their group, and so they catch on. They catch on not because they're believable, but because they work. They work socially.
Speaker 1:Listeners and viewers. I hope you're paying attention to that. I know we sound a bit strange, but you get to the point why people wrapped up on certain narratives. So, should the identity attach to it, it makes sense, not just, I think, socially, even the psychological. Yeah, attached to it, because I'm against this person. I can't stand this person. This person is evil. I want this person to win.
Speaker 1:We all know the results of the election. That part is not up for debate. You know, I am. I don't mind debate, even here, at different points of view, what things are fact, unless you have substantial amount of evidence to counter it. And what then? I am, then I am really willing, um to listen, just like anybody else.
Speaker 1:I believe election integrity is important. You know it sounds like a right wing thing, so sure, some of the polls that you see, the Republicans, the independents, the Democrats believe in election integrity based on polling. This is not. I'm not just spewing out of my mouth here. People, republicans, the independents, the Democrats, those are the ones, and I'm listing that order because it's based on percentages. Republicans scored high on that, independents score moderately high and democrats like soar 50, 50 on that by election integrity, because they probably believe the election was really good and the republicans, they feel like they've been robbed in 2020. I think that's why it went high. It depends on on sort of. I kind of get that. I get the election was flawed, but you got to really prove to me that's a big stretch, even for me. Yeah, there was errors and irregularities I saw, but I think it was significant enough to change the election and then, when they did the recount again, biden actually had more votes.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so those, those are facts. Look, this is coming from me. I'm going to say this one more time I am not a fan of both Trump or Biden, but I have to respect facts. Ok, there you know, and you don't have to like them. We need to accept them at some point.
Speaker 1:If not, you're, I'm going to be, I want to it, you're, you're delusional, you cuckoo, and you definitely need help. Right? It's not just you know, it's not just right and it's certain. And I gotta attack certain left people on on social media. You know little social media influencers, not politicians, social media influencers from the left saying come onala won the election. The election was still because of one piece of article. Are you kidding me? I need substantial evidence rather than one piece of article. You know how many of those articles could lie and mislead you or gaslight you. That's not good enough. Again, kamala Harris should just sue, go to the Supreme Court, challenge it, you know, and let's see how fair they're going to be. Some of the things will be unfair, maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, but I think they should just give it a shot.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:But that's but. I'm not going to listen to those social media influencers pulling one article, because one article is not good enough for me. Articles can't lie, and they have lied.
Speaker 2:Well, do you remember? You know, to this point and about social media more like traditional media, but I think the principle is the same. So when the election was coming in and Fox, the Fox election desk, called Arizona for Biden and they got a lot of flack for that and Fox was, you know, it had a right wing slant to it, but Fox was kind of reporting the news and a lot of the people at the opinion desks were saying, guys, do you realize what we're doing? You know, our customers don't want to hear this and they weren't making that up. Their customers did not want to hear that. And remember when they were all going to Newsmax, you know where they could hear this and everything. And that just kind of points out. I think it remakes.
Speaker 2:The point about narrative and identity is that Fox and Rupert Murdoch may have been under the impression that they were steering people in their beliefs, that they were doing this or doing that, but what they ran into was that this had to do with people's identity, and I'm sure there are images of this on the left too, but this is the example that I know best and their ability to just kind of change that on a dime was very limited, because this was people's identity and they were shocked that Trump had lost the election. But Fox had to make a choice between I go where they're going to go or do I try to steer them in the direction that you know? My example of corporate media wants them to go. A difficult choice, but a revealing set of circumstances, I think.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and one of them that I like to listen to personally, I think chris starwell got fired for that. I think I think he's the one that made that call. He's on news nation, by the way. He's doing just fine, but that's a little. That's a little, I gotta say. But he's, I think he's the one that called out the arizona thing. That was controversial, controversy. I can't speak, I just say it anyways. Why it was so controversial? Because the base they want to hear that, even though it was factual and true. So you either stick to the truth you know it's the inconvenient truth or you just keep I don't know spinning in a way that keep the customers magnetized to this channel and maintain your high ratings. So it's ratings versus truth, yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah, you know. So I, you know I'm probably a little bit to the left of you on on on this particular point, but just let me here's, here's, here's. My little journey about this was that I'm I'm one of those people. I'm pretty sure I know what happened in the 2020 election and I think I know that you know why their stories, that Trump, you know, really won the election. I know who won the election, and so that's kind of where I am just kind of psychologically in terms of what I know and what I think I know and what I don't think I know.
Speaker 2:But then also, you know, for people like me, politics is just not going in my direction. You know, my favorite candidates just can't catch a break. It seems like, and I've been kind of confronted with what I can control and influence and what I can't control and influence, and so there's a question about being an activist or just kind of observing. And so there's a question about being an activist or just kind of observing, and because I have all these theories about narrative and identity, it becomes an interesting test case and, you know, I analyze the people on the other side of the aisle and I come up with these neat conclusions, but then and I think this is useful for everybody to do it's also okay they do. They have no idea that they're doing what I think they're doing.
Speaker 2:What is it that I don't have any idea that I'm doing, that I'm not aware of? And what were the narratives that felt very safe and unshakable to me, that have to do with my sense of identity and what I think is right and wrong? And how have I been deceived? Also and I don't like the idea that the other side or my side has been deceived I just think it's the way people work, it's the way societies work. There's a mechanism about storytelling and identity and groupthink that is just very persistent and because I see so many examples of it in the Bible, these old, you know written records and scriptures and stuff, it makes me think well, it's not just everybody everywhere today, it's like everybody everywhere for all time. That's just the way people are and it's interesting and it becomes a little bit more forgivable and it also seems like it's a good way to kind of bridge the gap and try to understand people who are not thinking the way that you're thinking.
Speaker 1:Does that make any sense? No, it does. We're like socially tribalistic in a sense. Yeah, the group think, yeah, I get. I understand that. Well, that's why I think I consider myself like a black sheep. I mean, I gotta form my own, I gotta be creative because I pride myself. I don't care where you are politically, as long as you're not like a ultra-left, ultra-right-wing nut that just wants to get this country destroyed just to shove your point of view. As long as you ain't any of that, I don't care what camp you come from, all right. So it's a purple show. It's no safe space.
Speaker 1:I invite left-wing, right-wing centrists, even libertarians. I think I haven't gotten a Green Party yet. I did get some progressives in here, which is good. I'm actually getting more progressives because I want to see what they are coming from and some of the issues make some sense. I was like you know, you might win me over. Something like like the whole universal I mean like the whole, you know, health care thing at the progressive side will actually win me over that one, because before I was more to the center, I don't know where it should be. The right wing got any idea with that, so I can't side with them. They got no idea, can't side with no idea. So I go out. I've been pushed that push.
Speaker 1:I've been, I've been convinced more to the left on that, because we should. I mean, we're supposed to be the wealthiest country and yet we're the most uninsured in a modern, developed society. So I was like, yeah, get that. We spend a lot of money on military. Again, I'm not for abolishing military, but we spend too much because of these middle people and these contractors. I'm sure the military does show confidence in hearing that, but it's the truth. If Doge would have done more cuts on that, I actually would have said, okay, doge is kind of a good thing. They didn't do that, they just cut more of the social program stuff. This is definitely right-wing kind of cuts.
Speaker 1:I believe, more like a holistic kind of cuts. You're going to cut that, cut the military as well, because is bloated, and then we can reduce the national debt. And I'm more fiscally conservative than to the right on that one I said no, no, I cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut. You can do cuts, do cuts across the board, or at least do a good chunk of cuts on military. Am I saying voluntary military? We need military. We got strong military with a reduced budget.
Speaker 1:That's what I believe, unless someone in a military-industrial complex wants to debate me thinking I'm a pacifist, wants America to die. You debate all right in the comment section that I'm an idiot. I'll just ignore you anyways. But if you have a good counterpoint, especially with a source, I will look into what you're saying. But when it comes to me being the right, I'm definitely, because of fiscal, fiscal stuff, I'm definitely leaning to the right on that one.
Speaker 1:Culturally, I definitely lean left generally speaking, because I just think multicultural is pretty good thing. Um, overall it's net. It's not positive, not against that I will not be able to meet half the friends I got immigration, so just clear about that. So but I do, like I said, there's at one point I do agree, republicans, if they only target violent criminals and violent migrants that are, you know, that are doing harm to this country, then yeah, I would go with the right wing raft. But we just deported people who's been here long, established their roots off them, the path to citizenship. That's what I would have done differently. So just deporting them because they're illegal, leave the children there, or a family split because of some of the families are illegal, the other ones are not. I'll offer a family member path to citizenship, especially if they've been here long enough. If I've been here long enough I will even speed up. They say five, I go with three. So that's just my view take. But I do agree with some verification on the border. So I'm kind of more into the center.
Speaker 1:The ones already here. Help them out first. I've been here for a long time. That's how I would have done it. I'd expect to talk this much about immigration and all that, but I think that needs to be very pointed out because some people are not clear. My position is on immigration Kind of essentially. I'd agree with some Republican, raff and all on some instances. But I think the ones already here I will have more left-wing perspective the ones already here paying taxes, doing the work I've been here definitely three years or more off the path and make it easier for them to become citizens. They're already contributing, they're already doing a lot of the hard work. They may not be integrated like the way we like it, but look, people don't do things the way we like all the time. We need to restore some sense of good process and, I would say, a decent humanity to a degree as well, because it's just round them up. Of that I mean.
Speaker 1:Very critical was mass deportation. I agree with selective deportation, targeted deportation, not this rampant mass deportation. And it's very costly too. By the way, that's why I passed that big beautiful bill. So you get more funding for ICE. A lot of funding, yeah, a heck of a lot of funding. So that part I'm more of against. So I don't know, viewers, I think your host is leaning. If you push me too, if the right goes too far, I'm to the left. If the left goes too far, I'll be pushing a little to the right. This will balance things out. Yeah, I'm that complicated to deal with it. I'll probably never be satisfied at this point. All right, enough about me, ameren, I want to see.
Speaker 2:Well, you got anything in the response to that before I ask the next question. No, no, I mean on the immigration thing that seemed from its origins to be really performative. You know that the whole thing is, you know, the wall that's going to be built or the people that we're going to round up and the rapists and the murderers and the stuff, et cetera. I you just get the sense now that nobody really put pencil to paper on you know. You know how many of these people are paying their taxes, what they're doing, how they're contributing to housing construction, to how vital they are to farm work, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. You know who's cleaning things. You know cleaning buildings and cleaning houses and stuff like that. So, but you know what are you going to do? You know I write to my elected representative. I think you know he's basically in agreement to me.
Speaker 2:I grew up in South Texas but I live in California now, two areas that get a lot of immigration from south of the border, and I did become aware, I think, from keeping in touch with friends and family back home in south Texas, that maybe the volume and the social impact of immigration in some of these border areas was not apparent to the rest of the country, and I think that's one of those examples where where it didn't change my opinion, but it did make me cross-examine myself about. Okay. Well, you know why am I ignoring this point of view? You know what narratives again am I, you know, married to, in having difficulty escape from, et cetera. Married to and having difficulty escaping from, etc. But no, I don't have any silver bullet for the immigration question.
Speaker 1:Nobody does. I mean, it's been a mess for decades. Even before I was born, it was becoming an issue. That's how long it's been, and I'm in my 30s, so this problem has existed before I was even born and yet no one definitely got the silver spoon. But I think it's something that if bipartisanship would have been really helpful, it would be something on immigration.
Speaker 1:Like I said, there are certain things I agree with the right. There are some things I agree with the left on. We're rounding them up and caging them and all that just because, look, we caused some of that destruction of their countries and all that. We have a history of doing that. So that's why some of that destruction of their countries and all that we have a history of doing that. So that's why some of them come here, because we destabilize, um, some of their nations. So you know, that's, that's our fault and I will I will agree with that wholeheartedly. I said, yeah, we topple governments, we make things worse. Of course we're gonna have some of them coming here for looking for a better life because they are forced to well, they feel compelled or they're just forced to do it that way, and I think that's just something that it definitely needs fixing. It keeps delaying and it's just going to get much, much better, and it actually already has gotten pretty damn ugly.
Speaker 2:If I'm going to be, honest, I think you touched on the magic word. There is bipartisanship, and I think the reason why that was a missed opportunity is that bipartisanship would, just by the nature of it, be pragmatic. What I said about not putting pencil to paper, a bipartisan effort would do that. How much money are these people paying in taxes? Where are the real costs? What's the real way to prevent some of the social impacts that are negatively affecting people in the country? Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and of course, there was a bipartisan solution that was blown up, but I think there's that pragmatic versus performative aspect to it, and what bipartisanship doesn't give you is that it doesn't give you the opportunity to performatively slam and frustrate and demonize your opponent, and I think that's what. I think that's what we got and that's the kind of solution that we're going to end up.
Speaker 1:I mean I could. I mean I blame traditional and social media alike, because they do blow up these people who are performative. Extreme rhetoric that's more attractive than real solutions. Yeah, and that's what it's going to be for a while, until I don't know. It should change social media, but I don't know, that's such a slippery slope that's going to lead me to be pretty authoritarian or, of course, pushing violence and things like that. Of course that's that's also okay, okay, no, no, no.
Speaker 1:Freedom of speech, not freedom of action and all the crap. Freedom of speech it's just words, words, words, words. She are you sure you say ugly words? No, but I believe you should be documented so you get the backlash you deserve. I believe people should say ugly and stupid opinions so you can be exposed. For you know well, you and me, if I say something stupid, expose me, maybe I'll learn something. Don't block me, because I'm going to be seen as a hero to some people and that's why I'm kind of against censorship. But that one I I would side with the right if they were more truthful. Free speech, but they use anti-semitism as their cancel. Culture to the ancient biblical stuff, just for a second. But how it shapes modern political debates. I'm interested in how they shape that and I think we talked about this before, like who are the popular biblical figures like king david moses, even joshua, I'm not sure daniel is, I will say he's kind of popular, he's kind of towards the end of the Old Testament. How do they shape political?
Speaker 2:debates in general. Well, that's an important question, and so what's behind that? To me? I don't know if this is something that you were curious about. Was you know? Were they historical figures, number one, number two? Even if they were historical figures, how did the stories develop around them that we have today and why did they develop that way? What's the point of those stories?
Speaker 2:Stories, and my own reading on this and I've been researching this for years is just every time you delve into this, there is kind of a political aspect to the development of these stories and to the larger question about which of these guys were actual historical figures or not. That has gone through a very complicated sequence of back and forth between people who said, oh, they're just, you know, legends, they're legendary figures, they never existed, and people who were of a more religious bent but actually did the work, doing excavation in the Holy Land and coming up with evidence, and the pendulum really kind of swung back and forth on the historicity of these guys. It's a long and complicated story, but it's an interesting story, and it's an interesting story back in the realm of what I was talking about, about narrative and identity. It made a difference if you were digging in the Holy Land, if you were a Christian archaeologist or if you were a Jewish archaeologist, or if you were an Christian archaeologist or if you were a Jewish archaeologist or if you were an atheist archaeologist. It just made a difference in how you interpreted what you saw. That was part of your identity, or a atheistic narrative that was equally part of your identity. And you can see, if you delve into it and I've written about this mistakes being made interpreting the data on exactly that score, some, I believe, also by atheists.
Speaker 2:But so you mentioned David and Solomon and Joshua, and those are three very interesting cases. So Joshua is associated first and foremost with the conquest of Canaan. So when the Israelites, according to the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible, when the Israelites became enslaved for generations in Egypt and were working on the great Pharaoh's works in Egypt and rebelled and took back to the land that they had come from, back to the land of Canaan, and when they got there, moses was kind of pushed aside because he had sinned. So Moses didn't get to return to Canaan, but Joshua became the commander of the Israelite army and so Joshua's exploits had to do with the conquest of Canaan, which the Bible describes as the return of a very large population of people, well over a million people, even in ancient times. If you include the women and children, they tend to only count the men, so you have to kind of add in the women and children. Well, over a million people are migrating back into the Holy Land and taking it back from the Canaanites.
Speaker 2:So in Israeli politics today, if a politician refers to the Palestinians as Canaanites, that's a very loaded phrase, because in the Bible the Canaanites are explicitly described as evil. When Yahweh God tells the Israelites to take back Canaan, he doesn't tell them that they should take back Canaan because it was their homeland and they deserved it. They were righteous and they deserved it. As a matter of fact, he said that's not why I'm saying that. I'm saying that because the Canaanites are evil and you have to drive them out. So that sense, if it ever emerges in politics which might be kind of wrapped in a conservative religious sense, is a very potent political statement Because by that line of reasoning the Palestinians are Canaanites and they're evil and they need to be driven from the land of Israel. So it touches on all sorts of hot points.
Speaker 2:Now the interesting thing about this is that if you walk the halls of the archaeology department at Tel Aviv University or Hebrew University which I have done, by the way and you buttonhole some of these guys who have studied this all their life, they will generally say you know what? The Canaanite conquest did not happen. You know, a million people were not enslaved in Egypt. They did not go across the desert and the Hebrews kind of emerged and evolved in the lands of Canaan, kind of like everybody else did, and their religions overlap in interesting ways with the other people there. So if you put all this together and of course belief has a lot to do with it A lot of people will just not accept this statement that it wasn't historical. But it seems to be pointing that way that there was no Canaanite conquest.
Speaker 2:But it's a politically powerful story for the kings of Judah to have declared their legitimacy. You know why am I the king? You know why do my priests get to talk to God, etc, etc. It's a very powerful story that we came to live here because we drove out the incumbent people, etc, etc, et cetera. So this, you know, could be the stolen election of Iron Age.
Speaker 2:You know, judah, that becomes a narrative that people continue to identify with Christians, you know, have their own take on the same narrative. So it's kind of in my view, from my reading and research, it's kind of old political spin. It was not intended to be for the world. It was intended to be for, you know, the 100,000 people who lived in Judah. But what it has become is become an article of faith for millions of people, billions of people, if you throw the Christians in.
Speaker 2:And so, getting back to your original question, that's how I view a biblical narrative and the way that it plays a role in politics today. It's interesting to remove that from your head and see where that leaves you. You know and I won't do too much of that thinking for your listeners, but try it. You know, if that really did not happen doesn't mean that there aren't Christians in the world, or Jews in the world or Muslims in the world. They're still there. You know they still have their identities and beliefs. But if that did not happen, where does that put you? How does that affect your sense of history in the holy land?
Speaker 1:that that's what I find so interesting you know I'm really fulfilling the promise of no safe space. This is challenging established point of view in the bible and I'm sure I'm going to get flack at one point. Look, Look, I believe Bible was written by men. Men tend to exaggerate, even put some misleading details in the Bible. I'd say it's not a good book. That tends to happen. You have translation after translation after translation. They remove some things, exaggerate some things or to water down some things. This has happened. This is not conspiracy theory or anything like that. It has happened with many translations. English waters down some of the things, maybe Hebrew, Greek versions of it. Even some biblical books were removed that I found that they're very rare, Like what's one I found very interesting. A woman has been removed the book of Mary Magdalene.
Speaker 2:I was that one removed.
Speaker 1:That was more for an agnostic Christian camp. I think some of their books have been removed because what obviously prevailed the bishop point of view, okay, and that's what prevailed, how God and the formation of the life on earth and all that good stuff. Read Genesis. I'm not going to preach you Genesis, okay, just read Genesis. Genesis will tell you that that's the bishop's point of view, that she had a divine. You know she was very connected with God. I believe she had her own book but it was taken out. Especially, you know, the sexism at that time was so rampant.
Speaker 2:There's a fascinating story in there and I don't know if we have time to get into it, but I don't mind if we have time to get into it, but I got some time OK.
Speaker 2:So you know, one of the things that's a little discomforting about what I went into about the Canaanite conquest is that it focuses on in a modern political context. It focuses on Judaism, on the Jewish legacy. The most interesting thing is that that kind of narrative evolution happens with everybody. It has to do with Islamic narratives about Jerusalem and it certainly has to do with Christian narratives and the Gospels that are situated with events in Jerusalem. So Mary Magdalene is a very interesting case because she was a hero to these very same Gnostics that I was talking about before, the ones who believed in the Demiurge and the weird kind of creation story and everything. Her Gospels, and then other Gospels that are called Gnostic Gospels that describe her, tended to be a little bit later than the canonical gospels in terms of when they were written. One of them, particularly the ones associated with Thomas, may have been written roughly in the same period as the canonical gospels of Matthew, mark, luke and John, but they each, and even the ones that we've come to accept as canonical gospels there is the sense that there is a favored apostle and one way or the other Jesus is really kind of leveling with that favored apostle. And there was even a gospel of Judas where Judas was his favorite and they had this kind of scheme going about how he was working with Judas to make it look like he had been betrayed and crucified when he really wasn't. A very strange narrative to our ears, but appealing to somebody.
Speaker 2:The narratives about Mary Magdalene consistently described her as Jesus's most trusted apostle I'm not going to say favorite, but most trusted. One of the gospels describes Mary as the apostle that Jesus used to frequently kiss on the mouth. So there's a little you know detail about it. But Mary, because she had. Because what Mary seemed to be reflecting from Jesus was the sense of a personal experience, a personal spirituality, a personal connection to God. And this had to do with the Gnostics' antithesis to the Orthodox priest is that it's a personal thing. The power and your spiritual leader should be a Gnostic too. I mean there was kind of a political aspect to it. So as the Orthodox Church grew, they had their heroes, which were Peter, who held the keys to heaven, and Paul, who was a very well-known evangelist.
Speaker 2:Even at the time the Gnostics really gravitated toward Mary Magdalene and women. In women's day, you know, new Age Gnostic feminism is closely associated with Mary Magdalene. So as the Roman Catholic Church became more powerful and of course, their hero was Peter they're, you know, situated in St Peter you start to see stories where Peter and Mary Magdalene are having arguments. And what's going on behind those arguments? Well, they're kind of political platform arguments between one way of looking at it and another way of looking at it. And so as the Pope became more powerful, mary Magdalene, it was more necessary for Mary Magdalene to be kind of put in her place and in you know in what year was this? Let me look this up. So in 591, there was a pope named Gregory and he wrote a homily on the Mary of the Bible, and Gregory had a lot of other stuff going on and Mary Magdalene, you know, needed to be put down a step.
Speaker 2:But what he wrote in this homily he said, you know, there's a lot of confusion about three Marys that are mentioned in the Bible, and that was Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene. And another Mary who is just a prostitute, or a woman who is a prostitute and encounters Jesus and asks for his blessing and washes his hair with her tears, and she's a pathetic character in the true sense of the word. And so Gregory said, you know, in order to clear up any confusion about this and there didn't seem to be any confusion I'm here to explain to you that these are all actually the same women. So you go from the Gospels, the Gnostic Gospels, who described Mary Magdalene as being Jesus's most trusted apostle, to her being with a later-day prostitute who didn't even know Jesus. Jesus didn't even know who she was. But this is elating and spinning the narrative in order to kind of tamp down on Mary Magdalene a little bit and to kind of promote, you know, the institutional interest of the church.
Speaker 2:And even today I ask people when I give talks, you know, what do you when you hear Mary Magdalene, what do you think about Mary Magdalene? And a lot of people say well, I, you know, I think she was like a fallen woman who was in love with Jesus or something like. That's how she's described in Jesus Christ Superstar. But these early adherents, who really revered Mary Magdalene, would not have recognized that at all. So it's and of course we don't even know if she's a historical figure or not.
Speaker 2:Kind of seems like if Jesus was a historical figure and I think he was that, she probably was too. But it's just interesting what narratives have done with her up and down down the centuries. And of course she's a star in Jesus Christ Superstar, right, you know, she says, even though she's Jesus's most trusted apostle, according to some gospels she belts out the line about I don't know how to love him, I don't know what this guy is or what his effect is on me, where, according to the gospel, she was the one person who knew the most about him and knew the most about how to love him. So I hope that wasn't too long-winded, but I just find that an interesting story.
Speaker 1:No, it is interesting and this is what I try to push for. Sometimes I push for the intended and hopefully we get the unattended. But some good references. Look at that, a little bit of Broadway in there. Unintentional reference you know, and there. That's very unexpected right there and I haven't seen that particular. But now, um, I'm not sure it's still on broadway. If it is, now, I want to see it.
Speaker 2:Now I want to see it I I always thought that was a great musical.
Speaker 1:I still, I still enjoy that yeah, I, I'm pro, I'm pro broadway.
Speaker 2:So and that was a complicated story. I'll make sure I put something together for the, for the show notes, to to uh, to tell that story a little bit more completely and that, yeah, that, oh, yeah, that, yeah, I could do that.
Speaker 1:I'll do like additional show notes. But yeah, you know, whatever look, it's gonna be a pretty packed show notes, resources and all that. I'm just gonna to warn you. So it's going to be more packed than usual, but that's fine with me.
Speaker 1:Look the guests that's willing to share. All I'm going to do is just spread the word. Okay, I'm just a simple messenger here. Okay, that's just my role. I'm not going to be, you know, the gatekeeper. I don't want to talk about that. You know that, Jesus Superstar, because it's too raunchy and all of that, it's too conservative. Now, if you want to get a better understanding, I believe in transparency and whatever the guests would share. That's how. That's just how I am. I'm more transparent than both parties combined. That part I'm on that. So good, good for me. A little little soft pat on my shoulder there.
Speaker 1:Or you know, or you can ran in the comment section. You know, or you can rant in the comment section. You know that's your little risky therapy. I'll call it because you'll be exposed to your own hate or nonsense, especially if you articulate it well. But you know, let's not say you're fine. You know, feel free to comment. If you get censored, is it because YouTube does that? I don't do that Rumble, go haywire. It's very hard to get censored there, unless I don't know, unless it changes, or you did something that's ultra screwed up. This is about AI, how it influenced public perceptions and all that Especially like the new Nazi, which is and I'm not being dramatic.
Speaker 1:I'm not being dramatic, it's factual. Grok is the digital spiritual successor of a certain man that is anti-semitic to a nymph power and he actually did very horrible things. He killed millions of them. Okay, nothing gets more anti-semitic than that, okay, so grok had that, hmm, very problematic. I want to use that, ai, that's for sure. If other people want to use it, just know that you are talking to adolf hitler spirit, okay. So if you get crazy stuff, you know why that's from grok, ai, I cannot say. I cannot say the same by gemini or chachi bt or the rest. Grok stands out.
Speaker 2:Well, it's kind of interesting that maybe we're in the consumer's dilemma with AI platforms that we are with our cable news. You know it's like who is your favorite AI? And I wrote about Brock. I wrote an article about him that's on my blog a few months ago, but this was when he was in an early version. It was giving incorrect answers in terms of registration deadlines for for candidates and it seemed like that and I don't know if this is, you know it's fair in terms of a comparison, I don't elections targeting, you know, black residents of the South and telling them that you seemed to be a little bit apparent in this grok if you went for election information and I have the details in the article.
Speaker 2:So I've focused and talked a lot today about religious narratives and, indirectly, about Jerusalem and the history of Jerusalem. My first book was about AI and about the kind of social dynamics behind just. You know, computer technology in general, and I think one of the most interesting tests to apply to Musk and Grok is the truth that when you have technology systems like this, they represent a form of rationalization, and let me explain what I mean by that. So the engineers working on Grok right now, including probably Grok itself have goals in mind and they are constantly improving the system. Here's version two, version three, version four. It has to do with, you know, all software and all technologies that. So rationalization in an economic sense is how are you? You know, what do you need? What modifications do you need to make to achieve your goals? And the thing to remember about AI, particularly since we have you know Mark Zuckerberg's got his stack and you know Elon Musk has his and OpenAI has theirs and Altman has his. You know Mark Zuckerberg's got his stack and you know Elon Musk has his and OpenAI has theirs and Altman has his, et cetera is what do those entities, what are their goals?
Speaker 2:And I think the best that you can hope for in a case like Elon Musk is that his goal is to make money, which would be to, you know, please, people like like you know you and me like, like, if people are going to complain, he's not going to make money, he's not going to get subscription revenue or whatever. But the more disturbing thing is well, what if his goals are not? I mean, he's got lots of money, right. You know what if his goals are, are, are something else, and and I think you saw that with with that with Twitter already was. You know those were not the actions of somebody who wanted to maximize the revenue off of the Twitter platform and rebranded as X or whatever. So I think you have to kind of accept the fact that Elon Musk's goals are going to be reflected in Grok, and I don't think that he's the current instantiation of evil.
Speaker 2:But he's a quirky character and disagreeable to me in a lot of ways. And when Grok is seen to go in a certain direction you have to wonder about the intentionality behind that. And this whole Hitler thing. I don't know that personally, I didn't try it. I've just read some articles about people who were getting into dialogue. I'm not sure how bad that really was, but one thing AI does offer is that it is a place that people will go for explanations of the way that the world is.
Speaker 2:You know I have fun doing that too. You know asking me questions about. You know this and that and all that sort of stuff, and you know how do I do this in Microsoft Word. You know all sorts of stuff. I mean it is kind of shaping my sense of reality and the people who are, who are rationalizing those toward their own ends are, do have an opportunity to shape reality on on a real industrial kind of scale. And I think that's the I don't know where you go with that insight, but I think that's kind of the critical insight that you have to keep in mind when you, when you think about where all of this has gone.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, I mean I was going by what some of the headlines have said, especially some of the prompts gave such very disturbing I would even say racist, even hateful responses. Look, this is things I would agree with. I'm very critical of Elon Musk. I'm not a fan of Elon Musk. I'm just going to be blatant about that. But I'm not even sure if he was even aware of that. Maybe he is. That's up for a good debate. That's up for a good debate for me. I just, I do perfectly agree he's quirky, very socially awkward, there's no doubt about that. But he also has his strengths as well, and I mean, if he wants to keep Grock running, he's definitely going to need to make some modifications with that, because that just can't keep going. It's good for attention, it's good for clout the cool kids would call it but even long-term that's pretty harmful. Let's just be honest Twitter I refuse to call it X have some radical people would not mind using that AI software just to further fuel the echo chambers. So maybe it's a mixed bag. I don't know what's going to be, but he almost really cares about the economics and not lose subscribers. I think at some point he's going to have to just tamper with that.
Speaker 1:And another thing you pointed out earlier was accurate information be very inaccurate, especially with elections. I did read your parts at all. That's a very good point. I was critical, chat, gbt, how they explained certain things. I kept prompting and prompting till I got a more clear response. I said your first point. Your fourth point looked sound very contradicting. He explained that got no politics for me, muddled and confusing and at times contradictory. I was like you can explain that and I finally got my answer. I wish I saved the transcript, but I I didn't get to do that. It was a shame on me. I probably got it somewhere, but you got to be critical that the fare only costs $2.50 for Long Island. I said no, that's factually incorrect. It goes by distance and the cheapest you're probably going to pay is probably the low double digits maybe $10 or $11, depending where you're traveling to, but you're not paying $290 for Long Island Road.
Speaker 1:This is a very New York-specific example, but this will prove the point that AI can be inaccurate and you need to verify it. That's my point. That's my general point. So I will not worship any AI. I do encourage AI use. Use it for fun, but if you use it for information, just don't take it at face value. That's my point. That's my only point.
Speaker 1:That's the only thing I gotta say about that, because I even say it again uh, even I'm pro ai camp, but we need to make sure that we are in a driver's seat, not in the passenger seat. Ai cannot be the driver. We have to be the driver, we have to guide ai, especially what we want, and if our prompts suck, we need to improve on our prompts. But other than that, that, don't make the AI just be. Oh, give me this.
Speaker 1:Okay, the sky is orange. The sky is actually orange and I can tell you why. It's scientific, mythical, I'm going to make it up Orange, nifed, whatever. And the reason why you're seeing this blue because it's really far away. I mean, if you believe that nonsense, then God help you. God or whatever high power you believe in, or earth save you. If you're atheist, earth save you. But if you believe the sky is orange and if you believe the AI, tell you that you definitely need to brush up your media literacy and just basic critical thinking skills. Should not let AI be the driver. You be the driver. That's just my point and that's it. I could ramble on, but that's my main point.
Speaker 2:Well, I think the key question is who is driving AI, and it's not the government by a long shot. And what you've got is that you've got dueling stacks and they're being led by different people for and I get back to this what are their goals? Elon Musk has been very consistent in describing a kind of soft-headed, left-leaning kind of conventional wisdom that he has taken it as his mission to resist. I don't subscribe to that at all. I think he's really kind of naive in a lot of his kind of social theories and stuff like that. But he does have his own AI platform.
Speaker 2:What do you think a Chinese AI stack would have to tell you about Tiananmen Square? You know probably not the same thing that ChatGPT would be telling you. What would Mark Zuckerberg's stack tell you? I mean, there are limits to how much you can just steer this to tell it what you want it to say. But you can't be very selective in your training data and you can emphasize some training data over others, Like what I was talking about before about the Canaanite conquest.
Speaker 2:If you poll ChatGPT about this, it'll describe it pretty much the way that I described it, and if you ask it, it'll give you sources who you know, believe that it's historical, and sources who don't and why, and all that sort of stuff, but the Canaanite conquest is not particularly important to the owners of ChatGPT. Is there a wealthy religious institution that would like to provide for its members, its own chat GPT, and what would you feed into that? How would you describe sin and justice and how would you describe the history of the Holy Land as training data for that? I think there's very much the potential that these things will come in flavors and they don't need to win.
Speaker 2:I don't know that Elon Musk's goal is to defeat all the other AIs and corner the market on something. I don't know what his goal is, but there are other goals that serve his purposes SpaceX contracts or something like that that are not the same as just winning the AI race. It's, you know, winning the people that you want, that you feel like you need on your side. It's going to be interesting. It's going to be interesting to watch.
Speaker 1:Oh, yeah, for sure you do drive. A good point that. How much can we drive it? Yeah, and sometimes you can. Maybe you could try another AI, I guess. But you know, we'll see.
Speaker 1:I think it's good to compare what AI is going to give you the answer Grok versus Copilot versus Gemini versus ChatGPT. You know all these other AI tools See what they give you. I think that should be. I mean, they did it as a you know consumer test kind of thing. But I want to see more like meta-analysis to see if they test them on certain.
Speaker 1:There's a political science, whatever it is, literature, religion, whatever it is. Make a comparison, which one did better or what, and they capture, you know, tone and context and all that. There's a kind of rubric that would you know. I said, okay, maybe chat gbt is better at science and grok is better at being a provocateur. I don't know. You could go with some kind of metric. That's fair. I know that's a huge ask and but I think that should. That should be done, especially after years of using these ai tools to have a comparison, because there's a lot more of them out there. Before, when I was doing this, research used to be just what art, which I think is bing's version of ai, um or chat, gpt and gemini, and of course there's more sprung up. I think it'd be good to have a comparison, you know. But um, look, if the ai is not giving what you want, go to another one.
Speaker 2:That's what this is a customer you know, use your consumer.
Speaker 1:You use whatever consumer leverage you have. That's all I'm gonna say. But that's a good point. So you challenged me a little bit. I like this challenge. Say safe space, don't do that. Safe space gets you to kind of either double down, find another way around it, or, um, I'll just say you sure that's a good idea? I've questioned some on the left, some on the right. You sure that's a good idea? You sure Okay? And I've been proven right so far on a lot of them. Not on everything, I'll correct if I'm wrong. I would say I think that's important. I guess I'm right all the time I'm going to say, um, okay, what's a silly example. Say I'm right, oh no, as a woman. No, no, no, no as a woman. Shut up, shut up as a woman. He's just disguised like a man. He's using ai just to alter that you know go on deep denial like that.
Speaker 1:Oh, that's crazy talk. No, I will not do that, unless I'm trolling, messing with you, then yeah, that's different. But you will know how I'm messing around because I believe I try to be. I try to pursue truth as much as I can, even though it's getting more complicated with all this stuff that's going on. Because AI is a source of misinformation. Let me just be very clear about that. You already proved it well with election dates. That's a clear example of misinformation. I won't snag the left here, but that's a clear example of misinformation, very clear. If you want to debate that at the right, you go ahead. There's a comment section for you right there. Anything else you want to add before I wrap this up? This has been a great conversation.
Speaker 2:Oh well, yeah, I've really enjoyed it too, elias, I you know.
Speaker 2:Just to come back to that last point that you've made about you know the goal with this not with misinformation or spin or just a particular point of view it's we shouldn't be thinking that the point of this is to win, is to win everybody.
Speaker 2:I think that if you look at it more dispassionately, you see that the point of it is to win a targeted group of people, even if you look ridiculous to people outside of that and I think a lot of these debates that you've referred to about left versus right they're not trying to win that argument, they're trying to reinforce the passion of the people who are already tending to be on their side. So they're not trying to expand the fence, they're trying to close the gate as much as anything else. And misinformation is a very strong version of it. Spin is a weaker version of it, but whenever you see that happening, I think it's useful to keep in mind Is that really intended to trick me or persuade me, or is it intended to keep somebody else at home from wandering away? And I think if you look at it closely, you'll see that it's frequently the latter.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and this is why tribalism is going to continue to grow and persist in this country, unfortunately. I'm against that. But you're right, especially those who want to. I think a lot of it is silly. I'm sure they have enough rationale, no silly. But they're going to keep their base, their tribe, loyal to them. They're willing to do whatever. Both the left and the right got their line of examples.
Speaker 1:This is why I push Ground News 1440, new Paper, things like that, to combat that and the Ground News. What I love about it is that luck in the ground news. What I love about it is that they give you the sources. Oh, this is coming. This is the left wing spin of it, right wing spin of it in the center. This is the center spin of it. They give you all these links, it's all that, so you can look at how the left is reported, the right is reported. Now the center is on reporting it. So that's a very good source. And you want the premium version. Of course that costs you money, but I'm not sponsored with them yet, so don't think I'm pushing sponsorship, I'm not. I just really think it should be promoted At $14.42,. I think it's another good source and check all sides so you can know what kind of buys you know that you're being exposed to.
Speaker 1:On these things, think they're very important. Me, that's more my mission. Try to be as fair as I could be, but even that, sometimes very, very hard, I'm not gonna lie to. So I have these sources right here. Just keep me grounded, because sometimes I'm gonna gravitate towards the right and sometimes I'm gonna gravitate towards the left, depending what issue, and sometimes just kind of go to the center, depending on on certain issue.
Speaker 1:I think I think in immigration, I think I immigration, I think I'm kind of considered a centrist to some degree, or maybe moderate left, I don't know. These labels are getting outdated and people are, I don't know. Things are changing. Look, I just think we need a human, humane immigration, but with some strict enforcements. We should reward them. So they're making things difficult for them. That's how I would have done it Reward the good, punish the bad. You know something like that. It's going to take a while, it's going to take a long time and it's not going to be fixed anytime soon. And blowing up. I do blame Trump for that one personally, because he told us don't do that and James Langford was working with the Democrats on that one personally, because he told I don't do that and james langford was working with the democrats on that one and I'll say pretty strong conservative but strong work with democrats. How to fix the immigration arm issue. So that one I I was very critical of trump on that.
Speaker 1:I'm not a big trump fan either. I'm not a big biden fan, I'll repeat that and I just I believe in america. America, that's where we should be, not mag Maga kind. Trust me not that, it's crazy stuff. America, I want America to survive and do well. That's that's just my point. Hopefully we could just debate but also stay united because we want ideas to win.
Speaker 1:Not this personal tribalistic dances at all. No, it's a far left socialist and all that. I don't know why he's reading the bible, trying to trick us religious folk. I'm going to say that you know you can say oh, no, he's just a conservative pretending to be a moderate, whatever. He's a charlatan and all that. I mean that's good for entertainment, don't get me wrong. It's good entertainment that.
Speaker 1:But the long run it. I mean this country is very divided, for for trillions of reasons. I believe it went through the 2000s, but who knows, it probably went long before that, because I definitely was not around during the Reagan era. So I would say that much it probably happened even beforehand. Some people say Reagan did it, some people say Bush 43 did it, who knows? But the vision was happening, or you know, or except 1960s. You know that's a big split. Or you know, or except 1960s. You know that's a big split, but you know it's up for debate, and I think that would be a good debate about what really, or the division just comes and goes.
Speaker 1:I think it came and goes, but we're at the peak of one of the divisive times right now, because people just see things with different realities. And we got to. I think at some point we have to have some basic reality and then debate what is the best solution and see what comes on top. Maybe it's a combination of the two, who knows? Until we get that, this country is going to tear apart and we might have a second civil war if this keeps up. And this is not going to be based on slaves, it's going to be based on ideology.
Speaker 1:That's just me. Probably a little hyperbolic, probably a little hyperbolic, probably a little crazy, but who knows, I want to be wrong. I really want to be wrong here. I just hope this is just hyperbolic fear-mongering. I'm pushing here. I really hope so. You call me fear-monger and they'll be fear-monger 10 years later. That's okay. Yes, I was wrong, and but the way we keep going, it is going to cause such a major major conflict and it's not good. I mean it. We look at the other political orientation as an enemy. So that's very bad. That's very bad. So that's all I'm going to say from there. All right, let's get to your shameless plug, and you already referred to one. I think I'm going to butcher the title. Was it industrial? Yep.
Speaker 2:Go ahead. The Industrialization of Intelligence. The subtitle is Mind and Machine in the Modern Age and of intelligence. The subtitles is mind and machine in the modern age and um. That was reprinted in 2019 by routledge, but you can find that on amazon and um also. If anybody wants to follow up on any of the the stories that I was talking about today, they can look at my blog, post essays on my blog and links to articles that I publish elsewhere at noahkennedynetcom, and I'll try to pull together some notes on some of the things I referred to today and I'll share those with you so you can share that with your listeners too.
Speaker 1:I will definitely do that. It could be just even like a plain text, whatever, and if it has a link, I'll know it's a link and I'll just easily figure that out, yeah, yeah. So, yep, I mean I want to be as transparent as I could be and then if I somehow forget, feel free to let me know. Am I perfect? I'm going to get things wrong? So feel free, I'm a grownup. I could fat kind of crit as well. That's an insult right there. That's an insult right there. You gotta say oh, you forgot to do this. How can you forget? But the one saying about you know, about the, about grok messing up like that, or it's okay, good point. I won't argue, I'll just comply. Thank you for reminding me of something like oh, you're so stupid, or all that, or you know, or all these stupid insults. I'm probably aging myself here because your mama jokes were popular when I was a teenager. I am aging myself there. But I'm sure if I talk to Gen Z they're like what are you talking about?
Speaker 1:Now for my shameless plugin. Like comment, subscribe on YouTube. This will eventually be uploaded to Rumble. Share this with someone who needs to hear this. Also. Go to Amaple Podcast for Please leave a review there.
Speaker 1:Okay, it will be wonderful and give a constructive review. I just I don't want to hear I'm great. That doesn't help me. Why is this great? It would be better it's great because of ABC, or why this is not so great because of ABC. Constructive feedback, regardless of positive and negative, should be something that I will take more seriously. So I'm just saying you're great or you're stupid, with nothing else to back that up. Okay, that's not important. I am. I am going to do that. I am going to do that for sure, right, and if you want, donate three dollars a month, especially if you want to unlock the old content and you could definitely make fun of me there, because I didn't know what the heck I was doing.
Speaker 1:It was experimental those days as opposed to now. Now I have a much better focus. I could say that it's definitely better quality too. To a lot of, to a great extent. You know all yours, someone want to make fun of me there. You know you got to pay for. At least pay me money if you're gonna make fun of me. I hurt your wallet, you hurt my feelings. How about that? There you go. Nice little trick. That's all that. That's all I'm gonna say. And um pop, match. I'll give you a greater priority. You make my life a lot easier.
Speaker 1:I don't have to go through email threads and look at 20 different spots. I just know who the heck you are. I got to verify who the heck you are. At least I'll know you're a real person If you do email threads. I've learned how to work with this.
Speaker 1:Stop being spoiled, but it's going to take a bit longer. I've learned how to work with this. Stop being spoiled, but it's going to take a bit longer and I will have to follow up with some things. And some people forget basic things like web address. If I can't verify if you're a real person, I'm going to cancel it. I don't care, I don't care. I'm just that kind of person. I want to bring what's great for the audience. That's where my tough side comes right in. If you're going to be with you while she, I'll be more than happy to pass you right away. Don't come to me interested in those so you're not interested.
Speaker 1:I hate that.
Speaker 1:I hate that, and all I can say is both people, both left and right wingers, have done that to me. So it's not a partisan thing, it's human character thing. There's good people on both sides of the aisle and there's stupid people both sides of the aisle. There are bad people both sides of the aisle, okay, I mean happy people. So that's not okay. I mean I don't go by pal, I don't go by partisan politics, I go by the character at the end of the day. So I could be friends with both the left, the right, center, whatever, because I look at a human being for who they are. You know, that's it not. Not that the the politics stuff. I just find it interesting and I don't, and I'm I pride myself on having friends of people for both mutual camps. I don't believe in echo chambers, tribalism. I think it, think it's stupid. We humans should be social animals. You should know better than this, but we don't. Alrighty then. Finally, when you complete this audio or visual journey, you have a blessed day, afternoon or night. Thank you.
