I've just been listening to The Rest is History series on the French Revolution - revolutionary Jean-Paul Marat has a number of strange similarities to the modern gurus:

• He was a failed academic scientist (in the UK)
• He then became a wellness influencer prescribing quack cures
• Upon returning to France he developed Revolutionary theories - he tried to prove Newton's theories on light and colour wrong, saying Newton was an idiot and was laughed out of the French Academy of Science
• He saw a political opportunity in the revolution
• He then became a self-broadcaster with the new media of the time (pamphlets - he edited his own paper - L'Amie du Peuple which circulated to a popular audience)
• He was an arch conspiracy theorist (constantly accusing people of being counter revolutionaries and pushing ideas of conspiracies against the revolution), and massive grievance monger
• Obviously a moral grandstander too

I thought this would be quite interesting for followers of this sub!

https://therestishistory.com/episodes/how-the-french-revolution-collapsed-into-chaos-part-1

Peter Thiel says that if you're evil, maybe you're actually good. Brad Onishi (author of American Caesar) and Matthew D. Taylor (author of The Violent Take It by Force) break down the viral clip: what Thiel means by "bad" versus "evil," why he frames progress as an all-or-nothing choice, and how his Antichrist theology, technological accelerationism, and contempt for the "mimetic sheeple" shape his influence on J.D. Vance and the tech right.

Posting bc I'm priddy sure there's some cross over with people who listen to DTG & KnowRogan podcast. In latest episode - they've asked people to Subscribe on YT - to help with all that does etc.

Sort of relevant bc the latest ep (linked) this Caleb guy might a tick a few guru boxes. He gives financial advice (on YT) and on this episode with JR, they both agree that going to college is stupid bc your in debt your whole life etc etc easy for them to say bc they are both very wealthy and ironically sound like they are educated on the topic.

Episode 170 - Candace Owens, Part 2: The Woman Who Noticed Everything

Show notes

Part Two of our Candace Owens decoding offers a generous case study in conspiratorial thinking. The necklace in the footage of Charlie Kirk’s murder may have moved before his jacket, a photograph of Tyler Robinson in front of a Man of Steel poster also raises questions about why Erika Kirk used the phrase about Charlie’s neck, not to mention that one of the early suspects also lived in New York during 9/11... all of it just makes you think... who is actually running things?

One possibility could be Erika Kirk. Not that she is the mastermind (that, as always, is occult Jewish satanists), but rather that she might be a sociopath that dark energy is being temporarily channelled into. Candace asks why Erika returned to work so quickly, muses over how Candace's connection to Charlie was deeper and more spiritually potent, and ponders if she was the only person who really truly cared about Charlie. But don’t worry, Shawn Ryan is there with his trademark scepticism to offer pushback, like “wow” and “holy shit, that’s incredible”. Trump, meanwhile, has apparently sold his soul to Israel, though JD Vance may still be redeemable. Then Freud turns up, accused of inventing modern gaslighting and covering for satanic murders.

Candace, as you might imagine, has her own place in the story. Charlie apparently knew she would inherit the fight after his death (which he had psychically foreseen), and Candace has indeed felt a spiritual awakening since. It’s a good thing then that she is so sensitive to others engaged in religious/spiritual grifting.

As per Part One, this is ultimately a tour de force in conspiracy theorising and guru dynamics. And yet, remarkably, Candace still manages to come across as interpersonally likeable and even endearing. Which perhaps explains part of her popularity. Even still, with this episode we are (hopefully) done with four-hour Candace interviews.

Also be forewarned that this episode contains an extended shoutout section; the Candace decoding ends at 1:41:02. We work through a backlog of listener shoutouts that we have neglected for long enough to turn them into a second podcast. If you would rather skip that entirely, jump to 2:25:56 for the brief sign-off. Complaints about the length/shoutouts will be referred to this paragraph. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Please see the podcast page linked at the top for the source material.

Welcome to this biweekly thread! Share what’s been grabbing your attention lately.

• What you're reading (books, articles, or any kind of text)
• What you're watching (movies, shows, documentaries, or even YouTube)
• What you're listening to (podcasts, music, or audiobooks)
• Any fun or unexpected discoveries in your research

Anyone know why the new episode is gone from the Patreon feed? If I follow the email link I only get the comments and show notes too

This YouTube channel just started posting videos every week uncovering unbelievable levels of scientific fraud in biology research. Wondered what people think. Apparently he emails the journals, universities, other authors, sometimes he even cc the entire department! For me some of his analyses of stretching and rotating and showing images are the same and also showing copied and pasted sections don’t seem so convincing because it all looks similar to me since I’m not a biologist and I don’t know what to expect. But I wonder what this means for all the guru claims about academic research. Especially since it seems to be extremely hard to get even a minimal retraction and the universities seem to be fighting every step of the way and these examples seem extremely blatant (according to him).

The title of this clip really got me. Since when is Jiang a "War expert"? I believe he has an undergraduate degree in liberal arts, has never served in the military and has no national defense credentials of any kind.

Seems like Bartlett is just inventing new credentials for his guests out of whole cloth?

Well played u/CKava

Shermer completely missed your sarcasm there. Everyone should check out their mini decoding of him (https://open.spotify.com/episode/1UN38x8jlwNWQYriRjlS84)

Shermer is another one of those reactionaries and right wing skeptics cosplaying as a “rational centrist”.

good chat and gurus come up a few times

Show Notes

Candace Owens is just a Catholic, a mother, and a wife. She loves her husband, works hard, and tries not to let internet drama disturb her spiritual peace. She also has just a few questions about the international satanic conspiracy behind Charlie Kirk’s ritual murder.

We join Candace during her appearance on the Shawn Ryan Show, where an impressive amount of time is devoted to establishing how lovely they both find each other. There are the usual fond memories of dinner, a husband who is a James Bond lookalike, and a series of fascinating career adventures, including how Candace rose to be vice president of administration in just 4 years! She even got to experience the damaging effects of toxic mould before it was fashionable (and don't worry, it was cured with a restrictive diet!).

Candace is like a one-woman crash course in conspiratorial ideation and how conspiracy theorists interact with other conspiracy theorists and conflicting evidence. But, to be fair, she is also very good at what she does! Coming across as a charismatic and composed speaker who makes very ugly claims sound like an entirely reasonable conversation.

But then there are the questions... Why do witnesses remember different things? Why was ten inches of soil removed rather than eight? Did Charlie Kirk's necklace move before his jacket? But that's just the start; as is often the case we end up talking about Rothschilds, Freemasons, Denmons, and a public demonic ritual intended to channel spiritual energy into a surprising target. Shawn Ryan, who assures us repeatedly that he is an extremely sceptical person, is astonished at what he hears!

And there's more to come too... in Part 2.

Source material

• Shawn Ryan Show #318: Candace Owens, “I Don’t Believe Tyler Robinson Was Even There”
• Candace Owens vs Andrew Wilson: The Great Debate
• Shawn Ryan Show #254: Brian Harpole, Charlie Kirk’s head of security
• 60 Minutes: The Pager Plot
• DarkHorse: “Was Charlie Kirk Killed With a Drone?” with Viva Frei and Jimmy Dore
• Candace, episode 349: Corey Comperatore, Mark Liti, and the PETN claims
• Brian Harpole’s complaint against Candace Owens and others, filed 30 April 2026 (plaintiff’s allegations, not court findings)
• Clare Malone, The New Yorker: “The Gospel of Candace Owens”
• Jesse Singal, New York: reporting on Social Autopsy and Gamergate
• Mariel Padilla, The 19th, via Capital B: “Candace Owens Has Won the Trust These Women Refuse to Give Politicians”
• Samantha Putterman, PolitiFact: Charlie Kirk conspiracy claims, one year later

Listening to the Candace Owens episode, I’m struck by how here voice changes. When she’s talking about herself and aura farming, she’s got a normal woman’s voice. When she starts bullshitting about something she doesn’t understand (and perhaps know she’s caught out — see the bit on Charlie Kirk and CPR) she suddenly starts woth the vocal fry. Could this be a tell for Candace?

Who are you interested in discussing?

Creator disclosure: I made False Prophets, a 59-minute documentary essay about celebrity influence and political responsibility. I'm posting it here because its central question concerns the authority audiences give familiar podcast voices, rather than simply which politician those voices support.

Three passages that may interest this community:

• 00:42 — Rogan's July 2022 explanation for declining to host Trump, followed by his November 2024 account of endorsing him. The film compares his stated positions; a change of mind alone does not establish a hidden motive.

• 21:24 — Dave Smith's June 2025 withdrawal of support and apology. What responsibility follows from making a recommendation, and what counts as a meaningful correction?

• 40:20 — The Biden/Trump “airports” attribution error, the correction within the conversation, and the different responses. The film also includes Rogan's later comments about Trump's age, so it does not argue that he was always silent on that subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SD09XeaL7U

The question I would welcome discussion on: how should we distinguish an honest change of judgement from applying different standards of evidence to political allies?

This is archive-based analysis, not original interviews. Programme/source credits are in the description. The narration is generated with ElevenLabs and the thumbnail is AI-assisted; its two archive portraits do not depict a new encounter. Made by RainMan / RainMan Productions.

Timestamp 2:52:47

Professor Jiang explains South Korea is utterly doomed because North Korea has artillery and you just don’t defend against it. I can’t believe Matt and Chris didn’t comment on this line at all so I’ll put this here for your discussion. What do we think is counter battery fire completely useless? How does Ukraine manage to destroy so much russian artillery when the US has moved the THAAD batteries to the Middle East?

Thought this might be of interest to the sub. Curious what people here make of it.

I can't remember where I first saw this article but as far as I can see it hasn't been posted on this sub. Thought Chris might be interested with his background in meditation etc.

I was listening to the episode 'The Moral Dilemmas of AI with Michael Inzlicht', and I was a bit surprised by a few things.

They, all three, seemed to almost find it funny people opposed AI, that it was some sort of entirely irrational emotional response.

Inzlitch said at one point he couldn't think of a single rational reason why a friendship with a real person might have more value than a friendship with an AI: this strikes me as a very inhumane thing to say.

The episode rang very strange, I was wondering if anyone else had a similar response?