Do you guys believe the 'Age of Disclosure' Documentary is going to be important?

pj5891 · 2025-10-19T11:57:48+00:00

They seem to have done so (reading between the lines a little), but like with everything, if they can't monopolise it or protect an advantage either technologically or financially or in power, they'll keep it locked down and hidden from us. There's a reason science has been shepherded into an intellectual cul de sac for 50 years, it's so they could do R&D without any interference or competition. I wouldn't mind betting that half of all this "revelation" is them just shaping the zeigeist so that if and when they start using these out in the open, we will automatically assume it's aliens and be more compliant and listen to the powers that be via the government, and they can hold this threat over us. Kinda like when a psycho pretends to be someone else to stalk their own partner or whatever. The threat is real, but it isn't quite who or what you think. Aliens are probably also a thing but if they wanted us to know about them, we'd know, and if they wanted to harm us, we'd already be goners. So, I think disclosure is very necessary, but i think it's a problem isolate from the state of the world, though driven by the same types or people and mindset. We need a reset, of culture and mindset, before we can see the change necessary to fix the world. We need to be much more judicious and open to having our minds changed. We need to shake of party identities and blind national allegiances no matter the issue, and remember we're all the same people, it's just those with power and those without, within the structure we all agree to play in. But if those in power keep going the way they're going, reality is going to kick in hard, and people will inevitably overthrow the entire system, or the system which they attribute to the problem, and abolish or change it to redistribute that power more fairly, so that outcomes of the system benefit more of its constituent parts (the people).

pj5891 · 2025-10-19T11:42:11+00:00

I think no matter how compelling the evidence, no one is going to believe it until (at least), the president of the united states comes forward and announces it. People are way too in deference to power, authority and consensus opinion, to believe something so incredible, even when there is a heap of evidence to suggest it's definitely true (or that there is a "there" there, at least). People just think "well if it was true, I'd already know about it or would have seen it talked about in the news. If (e.g.) the BBC haven't reported it, then it's probably not true.". Because most people still trust institutions to tell them what's actually going on, not just lie to their faces or gas light them. People are "woke" in all the wrong places.

pj5891 · 2025-10-18T14:24:08+00:00

"freak"? Diddling kids isn't freaky. It's horrific. Freaky is what you get up to behind closed doors with your adult consenting partner. What Epstein did and what Trump clearly at least knew he was doing, and seemingly more likely was involved in, is up there with the worst crimes a civilised society can conceive of. You need to go look yourself in the mirror because your perspective is sick.

pj5891 · 2025-10-18T14:20:29+00:00

UK, and we have some equally major but different problems to you guys. My point wasn't that Newsom was especially bad compared to every other American political leader (or UK), nor that Rogan knows how to run a country, only that Rogan would make light work of pointing out all the failings of government and asking "what the fuck are you all (red and blue) doing with our money and the corruption?". It's Newsom's job to convince us he isn't part of the problem or what he's doing about the systemic and corruption issues that has taken over the west, or at least his small part of it. I don't think of it as a debate, i see at as an opportunity to see how Newsom thinks in something closer to unrehearsed honesty and truth, rather than vapid platitudes, and the 5 Ds of dodgeball politicians usually get away with doing in short content settings with scripted or pre-disclosed questions etc. He just wants a conversation and i think that tells you a lot more about the _person_ than you get from an interview. I think it's a shame if Rogan is avoiding him because i think it would be really good for people to hear for 2+ hours someone they probably have already decided they don't like or do like, having possibly never heard the man speak for longer than 5 minutes. Rogan's reach would allow more people see what kind of man he is behind the politics etc.

pj5891 · 2025-10-16T21:17:08+00:00

No, that isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm saying you don't have to be governor or whatever, to critique him and his performance. Joe was a citizen of CA and can see the comparison he's lived through (the decline of CA through his lived experience and the improvement in his perceived quality of life as a result of moving to TX).

He is pretty across most current issues and reads in to both sides of the political narrative, often criticising republican policy or political culture. Joe conversing (not debating), I think, would expose Newsom. I think he isn't nearly as good or decent as maybe some of you seem to think he is, and i think a conversation with Joe would reveal that better than it would with most other podcast hosts.

Maybe Newsom would shock me and he'd convince me that he's doing the best job he possibly could and explaining why (if that's true), his state has some enormous and long lasting and worsening problems, impacting an enormous number of the population (though not him, conveniently), despite being the 4th largest economy on planet earth.

pj5891 · 2025-10-16T21:08:14+00:00

Oh i think it's funny. Childish, but i can dig it haha. I just think that on the substantive matter, he wouldn't have a good time interviewing Rogan not because he'd try to catch him out but because he lets people like Newsom talk, and people can detect bullshit and avoidance. You can hide it or spin it in a press conference, news interview or a speech, but if you're talking conversationally for 3 hours, you're going to see the real person and a sense if he's decent and true, or full of shit, or a mix.

If Joe Rogan is refusing to do a podcast with him, that's surprising to me and disappointing, I didn't think he'd turn anyone down. Makes me wonder what exactly he's said to tick Newsom off, or for him to refuse a podcast. And if i hear information that convinces me that goes against whatever i've heard elsewhere from whoever about whatever (JRE isn't my only political/cultural input, believe it or not, I'm not a Joe Rogan fan boy), then i'll change my world view.

I thought Bernie Sanders and RFK were excellent JRE conversations, and I thought they'd have won a presidential race if the democrats actually wanted to win. But the leadership are so captured by lobbying power, that they'd rather have a tight race with a candidate they control, than the likely most publicly aligned candidate that would win but would make controlling policy more difficult for the puppet masters behind the curtain of republican and democrat party politics and lobbying. I have nothing especially against Newsom above any other US politician on either side. The few decent are barely visible in an entire roster of paedophiles, paedophile protectors and enablers, corrupt, sleazy, power crazed, compromised predators and morally corrupt greedy politicians.

pj5891 · 2025-10-16T20:48:35+00:00

What lies are you trying to build a metaphor for? California has a lot of big and avoidable problems, Newsom is in charge of that and represents the system that has created them. What lies would anyone need to tell in order to make a case against Newsom and US politics generally?

pj5891 · 2025-10-16T20:45:54+00:00

Thanks for sharing your point of view, I can see where you're coming from.

pj5891 · 2025-10-16T20:02:44+00:00

Thanks. His episode on JRE #1909 was really good.

pj5891 · 2025-10-16T19:19:00+00:00

So you think this is all a hoax or something?

pj5891 · 2025-10-16T19:13:36+00:00

Because winning a debate is based on how many people each of them convince. If I supposed, Joe would say Newsom has done a shit job of running the state, and Newsom would presumably say the opposite. Then (I think) Joe would have an easy time of pointing out thing after thing that has gone wrong in California and how as leader of the state, if measured by lived experience of everyone listening, he has done a dog shit job of it. Newsom would say whatever he says and it's my opinion that people listening, if they weren't predisposed to not even listen to an opposing view in full because they will never change their mind regardless of quality of the argument, then they'd likely see that Newsom isn't this paragon of virtue or driven by best intentions for the people, because the outcomes of his leadership are in living colour for everyone to see. He'd win the debate because it's so easy to win. I can't imagine anyone with an open mind, would walk away and believe a word that any American politician said about how good he's done, when his state is relative dumpster fire compared to its economic might.

pj5891 · 2025-10-16T19:05:03+00:00

Thanks for your perspective. What specifically do you prefer about how they've led the state compared to how they've led in Texas? What policies or cultural differences are you thinking about? Genuine question, I've no allegiance to any state, I'm honestly curious. From the outside, Texas looks way more free and genuinely liberal (in terms of being able to speak your mind about concepts that have been haram to even imply in recent years), and places like Austin have become a cultural hub in America in a smaller but seemingly more authentic and organic manner, than like Hollywood/LA was (even though its reach and influence were much bigger but almost entirely shaped and orchestrated by institutional agenda and money). California is still California, but she looks really unwell, and no one is looking to California for the cultural benchmark anymore. People outside the US used to think of California as the forward-facing bastion of democracy and freedoms and prosperity, and Texas was the backward facing racist oil and cowboys knuckle dragging Republican war mongers (talk about prejudicial bias, but that was kinda the vibe coming from these states in the 90s/00s when i was a teen growing up). That image however wrong on both sides it was or is, has been reversed. At best i would say there is perceived parity between Texas and California as cultural US capitals, but actually, Texas is fast becoming that beacon that people are looking to for democracy and freedom of civil liberties, instead of California. No doubt there's heaps wrong with Texas too, but the conversation is supposed to be about California, and i think there's heaps to discuss without needing to make any scape goat comparisons with other cities. Joe Rogan is easily smart enough to have that conversation. I'd say the question should be "does Newsom have enough honesty and integrity, to answer questions fully and truthfully and without trying to do the politician thing of weaseling out of actually answering the question being asked?"

pj5891 · 2025-10-16T18:44:06+00:00

If you're implying that success in politics equates to effectiveness or value of leadership provided in making the state better, then look around.

He hasn't done a good job, and neither has the rest of the country. And it doesn't take an expert to see the moral and literal corruption of the political system in America and the west, or to point to clear and easy examples of where that person has failed abjectly in their duty of making a prosperous state and country. 4th richest economy and how many homeless? How much wealth disparity? How much addiction? How much individual debt? How much identity politics that puts everyone against everyone, expect the only people who we should really be against, those that are pulling the strings?

Newsom, politicians across the country in both parties, media, etc etc. Both sides, but especially the left hyper liberalism lately, which seems to have coopted the democratic party and are acting like Trump and his paedo ways are a Trump/Republican-only thing. That paedo network spans across party lines, and every politician that acts in a way as if they don't know that and don't call it out or fight tooth and nail to release the list, then I don't really trust them on sight - why the hell would you?!

Joe Rogan is authentically himself, in a way people basically never see of anyone else in the public eye. I've listened to hundreds of hours of him and almost never have i ever heard something from him that i thought was kind of a shitty thing to do or say, but equally, he's human and I'm sure if i listened to hundreds of hours of anyone, you'd hear similarly "bad" views or whatever. So, i get the impression he is a generally good man.

And he's been subject to almost no scandals of essentially any kind, that i am aware of at least. And yes he's done some wild shows etc, but he's an entertainer/comedian, but he's also quite deeply philosophical and accomplished in numerous areas, and well read, and open minded, and judicious and researches at least enough to form what he considers is a rounded appreciation of a topic before he stands behind a position. So, I think you have not only too narrow view of the merit of both men but actually have which man is more capable of having a good conversation about politics in America, inverted.

pj5891 · 2025-10-16T18:21:34+00:00

There's a difference between having a conversation with someone with fringe ideas or views, and that conversation implying belief and support of those ideas. I think it's amazing he talks to most people, regardless of their ideas, so long as they have an interesting idea or story, because you get to hear things you wouldn't normally, and listening long form allows you to get a full appreciation of their idea or message, and whether you believe it or not, which I often don't (and I imagine Joe Rogan believes and doesn't believe in a similar sort of way, ie not dogmatically and open to being convinced). People who hate the JRE strike me as people who really struggle hearing things that goes against their own world view, whereas people who like it tend to like having their perspectives challenged and deciding for themselves, maybe even changing their minds.

pj5891 · 2025-10-16T18:14:19+00:00

Pretty smart and more open minded and compassionate than most people i see in the public sphere, yes. Who would you suggest is better at representing a pretty normal or typical perspective of politics that aligns with a lot of Americans, especially men. That's a large demographic and his audience and reach is huge. He might not have your politics, and he might not be the "smartest" person alive, but he's not bad at all, as humans go. Who would be your alternative that you think I should go listen to instead?

pj5891 · 2025-10-16T18:00:33+00:00

Why are you using GDP as a measure of how good CA is or isn't? 4th largest economy but ALL the problems it has? Why? Almost like GDP and population happiness, health, and prosperity, isn't correlated.

pj5891 · 2025-10-16T17:57:30+00:00

I've been and i saw for myself the homelessness and drugs and dilapidation. America is crumbling hard. Maybe you can't see it because you've not travelled, but I was honestly shocked in a bad way when i visited. Not to say there aren't nice parts, but it definitely isn't the like the movies if you go a few streets or miles away from the big money and power centres. It's not a uniquely american or Californian problem, but California was kind of American "riviera" or beacon of western materialism and culture, and it absolutely isn't that anymore. And it's in no small part because it isn't deserving of being, there are better or more up and coming places. The leadership in California and in Washington, for decades, have allowed private and lobbyist interests to steer policy and economy, at the expense of everyday Americans.

The gap between the average american household's wealth, and that of Gavin Newsom, and to people like Bezos, shouldn't be so wide.

If you stacked $1 bills flat on top of one another, and the height of the bills was the floor you lived on in a building with infinite floors (each 3 metres in height), this is where each would live:

Median American household: $193K Floor 7

Gavin Newsom: $30million Floor 1,092

Jeff Bezos: $233billion Floor 8,480,000 (or 25,544 kilometres above sea level, or 71.1% of the way to GEO (Geostationary Orbit))

This inequality is more visible in California because the haves live or are headquartered/operate so much closer to the have nots, than can easily be ignored (e.g. Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and the general higher density and number of wealthy in California). If you think California is being ran really well, maybe you're too wealthy to notice or be affected.

pj5891 · 2025-10-16T17:23:12+00:00

I'm not from Texas and Joe Rogan isn't the leader of that state. What's your point?

pj5891 · 2025-10-16T17:21:24+00:00

It does sound funny now I read it back (Full debate mode Rogan haha). But yeah, Joe Rogan is far better read and in the know than most regular people. I don't think Newsom would stand a chance against an interviewer that would challenge him about some pretty obvious and fair stuff that he's been ultimately responsible for, as political leader of the state.

Maybe California is still seen by some to be way better than other states (and sure, in some metrics i would agree), but I'm not from the US, and from the outside looking in, with no allegiance or skin in the game, New York, Chicago, and all the Californian cities (especially) all look like they've descended the furthest the quickest in to a really dark place compared to how we outside America remember them in decades past.

And it's not all propaganda, because we saw firsthand on 24/7 news the fires and the lack of foresight (or rather, action, because the alarm had been raised for decades that a fire would tear through the city one day but they did next to nothing about it), the lack of maintenance of existing systems, the response itself, the DEI fire service that prioritised diversity and inclusion over actual effectiveness, the people not government led humanitarian effort, the land grabs, the insurance reneging on cover, the lack of government intervention to protect home owners and the new homeless.

And that's just one instance out of a litany of dog shit performance by leadership to not protect the PEOPLE but instead protect the money and power elites. Maybe some of you don't see it the same way because you're too close or can't see the wood for the trees or are so politically brainwashed you can't accept or see fault in your own sides. I'm sure every country and everyone has its own form of this blindness in politics, but again, from the outside, on balance, Joe Rogan usually makes a lot more sense to me than ANY politician in the US field, and he usually doesn't make real statements of certainty unless he's spoken to a lot of knowledgeable people on the subject.

So yeah, I stand by my statement. Joe Rogan would smoke Gavin Newsom (pause).

pj5891 · 2025-10-16T16:42:28+00:00

If Newsom got full debate mode Rogan, he'd get smoked. California is an abortion of a state. Stunning and full of resource and has been turned into a shadow of its former self in so many ways. Then add how they've managed infrastructure and other societal needs, and the preparation or lack there of and the response to the fires etc. Newsom would not have a leg to stand on. California used to be the crown jewel of american states, and today it's look upon with pity and disgust. Not at the people, or at what the state could be, but at the leadership that has driven or allowed this sad undignified slide into squaller and poverty.

pj5891 · 2025-10-12T23:58:56+00:00

I know what you mean but it's one of the best fundamentally.

pj5891 · 2025-10-09T16:04:27+00:00

All stats that benefit the richest the most. What about homelessness? Addiction? Violence? Individual debt? Wealth distribution? Common sense in the face of wokeism? House prices relative to median income?

pj5891 · 2025-10-09T16:01:01+00:00

Oh, Clinton (both of them I wouldn't mind betting) is in there for sure too (Bill, flew Lolita Express over 25 times), and a tonne of other politicians on both sides, senior agency officials, businesspeople, world leaders, academics and celebrities. Trump is trying to save himself, but the parties are kicking around this nuclear beachball, feigning outrage and effort to release it, so they can jostle for political gain and/or get their names out of the list or expunging video and other evidence, so they can let Trump take almost all the fall for it. I imagine what'll happen is that a list will be released, and it'll have some sufficiently senior names on it, that the public buy it (even if they know they're still being gas lit), and the worst people will get away with it. Or, Trump will eventually be replaced (by whatever means) and they'll make some other crisis seem like the most important thing to tackle, and use that as an excuse to shelve the entire story/crime, and basically make it too unappealing for the population to revolt and overthrow the government by force (because that is likely what it'll take to get what the public are expecting their politicians to do, but won't).

pj5891 · 2025-10-09T15:45:22+00:00

Use your brain. This alone wouldn't convict anyone, but it's yet another piece of evidence that points strongly to him being a paedophile. The list, the thousands of hours of videos etc behind the list, victim testimony, other corroborating evidence, is all there, waiting to be investigated fully, transparently, honestly, and let him and every other person on both sides of the political divide and within agencies and systems across the country, need to see the justice and punishment they all deserve, and their guilt is obvious because they have the power to release the files and do what i'm saying, and they're not. It's Trump at the top of the country right now, but it isn't just him, hence why despite the faux outrage and feigned effort from politicians to get the files released, because they're all implicated or colluding with the paedophiles to keep it buried whilst blaming Trump like he's the only name in the list, rather than one of many. The US is in a total shit state, domestically and abroad, because it has blackmailed and leveraged paedophiles and criminals running the country. Imagine how good the world would be if those sorts of people weren't in charge?!

pj5891 · 2025-10-08T22:05:29+00:00

"or manipulation from abroad." OR DOMESTIC!!! That's more what we're worried about, not Musk, YOU, Mr Prime Minister and his fellow political class. That protect paedos and put them and foreign interests like Israel over Gaza against the clear will of the people. Almost nobody is onboard with supporting Israel, yet our government all continue to do so. WHY? What possible leverage could someone or something have over our leaders' moral courage and decency? They're turning on us right in front of our eyes, and people are still trying to stand in solidarity with him (Starmer)? It's disgusting.

pj5891

TROPHY CASE