Hey everybody, today we are debating whether or not the Illuminati is real and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. This is going to be a lot of fun, folks, as today we have two debaters debating a controversial and interesting issue, kind of spooky a little bit. It's going to be a lot of fun and want to let you know with today, what I am going to be, basically giving a brief overview of our format for what we will be doing today, which is a roughly 15 minute opening statement from each side, followed by open conversation, and then immediately after that, what we will do is question and answer. So if you have a question, feel free to fire it into the old live chat. If you tag me with that modern debate, it makes it easier for me to be sure I get every single question in the list that we will try to work through for the Q&A. Super chats also an option, in which case you can not only ask a question during the question and answer, but you can make a comment toward one of the speakers that they'd of course get a chance to respond to. Not only that, but a super chat will push your question to the top of the list during the question and answer. With that, want to mention, if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we have a lot more debates coming up. We are very excited, for example, for a debate this Sunday, Evolution on Trial, between Standing for Truth and John Maddox, and Team Skeptic and Fight the Flat Earth. So that should be an epic tag team debate. Hopefully we'll see you for that one. And with that, we are pumped as we are going to get rolling here.  Well, don't worry, I have put the links of the speakers down in the description. So if you want to hear more, there's plenty more where that came from. So with that, I'm going to kick it over to Dwayne for his opening statement. But thanks so much, first gentleman, just for being here. We appreciate both of you spending your time with us, both Tom and Dwayne. Thanks for being here. Oh, thanks. Thanks for having us. Absolutely. So we'll get started with Dwayne, who is coming from, if Dwayne understand right, you're in England right now. Dwayne, right? Yeah, that's correct. Absolutely. So really interesting. Glad to have you here. And the floor is all yours. Thank you. Two seconds, guys. No problemo. Well, let everybody know, if you have not heard yet, we have a Patreon account. Basically Patreon, one of the perks that we just started doing is we have all of our debates. Now we always keep our debates public. So we never have our debates behind a paywall. They're always available on YouTube to anybody who jumps on YouTube. But if you want them in MP3 format, if you'd like to listen to them on your commute or on trips to the grocery store, no matter what it is, we are actually putting the MP3s on our Patreon account as well. So hopefully, you know, feel free if you want to support the channel. That's one way to do it. And then like I said, there are different perks over there as well. So kicking it back over to Dwayne. Thank you. Firstly, I would like to thank James for giving me the platform to debate. And I'd also like to thank Tom for accepting to debate this topic. And also a big thank you to my mate, Nathan Foster, for putting together the PowerPoint. I feel this topic is of great importance to all mankind. The topic of debate is does the Illuminati exist? Yes, the Illuminati exists. Look up the Illuminati official.org.  So is that the end of the debate? Do I win? But I'm not here to be dishonest. And I don't see any winners or losers in a debate. There's just two people searching for the truth. So let's seek the truth together, because ultimately only the truth wins. So how do we determine the Illuminati's existence? One, scholars and historians, two, publications relating to the Illuminati, three, former members' writings, four, the startup museum in Ingolstadt, five government documentation, six whistleblowers, seven known victims. The historians and scholars who have extensively researched the Illuminati and published works relating to their existence are Dr Olaf Simons, who was a historian of German history. He was part of the Gopher Research Center in Germany, who worked on a project called the Illuminati Essayers, where a vast amount of historical records on the Illuminati were gathered to put together a database of all the relevant data related to the Illuminati and its history. This project was conducted by Markus Mühmann and Dr Olaf Simons, under the supervision of Martin Muslow. They amassed around 9,000 data sets, included in those data sets are 9,000 documents and 2,000 publications. If you would like to access this material, search the Gopher Illuminati research base. Next up we have Dr Hermann Schutler, a scholar who wrote about the Illuminati's history and who was instrumental in collecting the Illuminati's correspondences and integrating them with the research done by the Gopher Research Center. Hermann Schutler's collecting of the Illuminati correspondences resulted in the book titled The Correspondence des Illuminati Nordens. Dr Hermann Schutler also has another book on the Illuminati titled The Mikleider des Illuminati Nordens. Below him is Reinhard Markner, who was a German historian and an expert on early modern secret societies and who was also instrumental in the making of the book, The Correspondence des Illuminati Nordens. Reinhard Markner's other works include The Secret School of Wisdom, The Authentic Rituals and Doctrines of the Illuminati, and The Archendition of Ben Willemsbarlet, which translates to the file edition about the Willemsbad Free Masonic Convention. Publications to the right is the image of the correspondence between President George Washington and G.W. Snyder discussing the Illuminati did at September 1798. The image to the left, we have the document of the sermon delivered by Timothy Dwight, then president of Yale University in July 1798, titled The Duty of Americans at the Present Crisis, which discusses the Illuminati and their goals. Next up, we have a 128 page pamphlet titled Meher Norden als Text. It was dated 1789. It was an exposure named numerous German intelligentsia as being initiates of a secret society known as the German Union, which was a subgroup of the Illuminati. Their purpose was to push back against the anti-enlightenment policies under the pushing King Frederick William II. Further publications can be found in the Gopher Illuminati research base. Former members' writings. I'm not going to attempt to read these out. I'll just leave them all for 10 seconds so that you can pause the video later and write them down if you would like to research in them further. The Startup Museum in Ingolstadt, Germany. This museum gives a brief history of the Illuminati. Below that, we have an image of Michael Klaner, a local journalist who takes tourists to prominent locations in Ingolstadt that are related to the Illuminati. And next to him is a plaque on one of the buildings where the Illuminati used to convene their meetings. Government documentation. This is a list of the documents published by the Bavarian government. These documents were discovered in raids carried out by the Bavarian government on the houses of the Illuminati members. After an edict was handed down to disband the Illuminati by then-prince elector of Bavaria, Charles Fedor. These edicts can be accessed at the Gopher Illuminati research base. Whistleblowers. These people are former members of the Illuminati and free misery who have spoken out about what is done in these secret societies. We have Mark Clemenson, John Todd, Leo Zagami, Doc Marguess, William Schnoblin, Svali, Cisco Wheeler, Roger Moneo, and John Selzer, known victims. On the left is a list of known victims selected from a list much greater. These victims have suffered ritualistic and satanic abuse at the hands of these societies and the members within them. On the right is a list of easily obtainable documentaries found on YouTube. Bloor is a video also on YouTube, but is slightly more difficult to find. So I've included the channel's name and URL to make it easier for you to source. All of which relate to ritual abuse. I would urge you to watch these videos while you continue your journey for truth. The Illuminati were disbanded in Germany, but did they cease to exist? Prior to the disbandment in 1786, another secret society that was gone through an existential crisis, Freemasonry. Freemasonry had been having issues since the 1760s, and many Illuminati members were aware of this. Freemasonry was lacking guidance and infighting was prevalent over the higher degrees. So a meeting was set up in Willemsbad, Germany, which became known as the 1782 Convention of Willemsbad. In the meeting, they debated the higher degrees and whether the strict observance, which is an umbrella organization of high grade Freemasonry, was a fraudulent degree that was merged with the Knights Templar and extorting money from its members. At this time, a person known as Adolf Nege, who played an integral role in Freemasonry and who had already became an Illuminati member, used the Convention of Willemsbad as an opportunity to persuade high rank and masons to become Illuminati members. In 1783, an electric union was formed in Freemasonry, which would allow the degrees of the Illuminati to become the higher degrees of Freemasonry, which would in turn enable Freemasonry to become a stronger, more cohesive secret society. During the period between 1782 and 1786, many lodges were set up throughout Europe. One of these lodges in France, known as Amrunes, became one of many lodges known as nurseries or preparation schools, where Freemasons could become initiated into the rites and ideals of the Illuminati. One such lodge was Lodg-Pheodor in Germany. This lodge became a part of a judicial enquiry after documents were discovered in members of the Illuminati's houses by the Bavarian government. As part of this enquiry in 1783, four professors of the Meridian Academy, named Eucneida, Cousindere, Reema and Grunberger, were summoned to the Court of Inquiry and questioned on their allegiance to the order of the Illuminati. There they stated that they did belong to the order and they gave information on its charters and ideals. After these enquiries, another edict was handed down to put further measures in place to disband the Illuminati and to close all Masonic lodges and mystery assemblies. By the time of the gradual disbandment of the Illuminati in 1786, the Illuminati had already achieved its goal of infiltrating free Masonic throughout Europe. Research. Here is a list of books and their authors that I would strongly recommend you take the time to read to help you on your journey for the truth. We must look to see what each of these secret societies' common goals are and by researching all the available material, we can conclude their goals are to create a one-world government, to abolish Christianity and to bring in their leader as the head of this new-world order, a cultic symbolism. Secret societies use many different techniques to communicate through such techniques as ciphercodes, numerology, subliminal messages, reverse symbolism, alchemical symbols and sigils. These techniques are taught through the secret mysteries of occultism and are divulged to the members that reach the highest degrees. Here we have the $1 bill, which also incorporates these aspects of occultic symbolism. Now the media and other exoteric bodies will tell you the symbolism on the $1 bill is in reference to the Declaration of Independence and the 13 colonies. But they don't give explanations for the pyramid with the all-seeing eye, nor do they state why it is in any way related to the Declaration of Independence. That's because the $1 bill symbols have two-folded meanings. If you look at the pyramid, you will notice it has 13 steps. Those 13 steps signify the 13 hierarchical steps of Freemasonry, with the all-seeing eye at the top. The all-seeing eye is usually referred to as the eye of Providence or eye of Horus, but in occultism it is the eye of Lucifer, the bearer of light. Here you will also see how the Freemasons replicate their regalia on the Pharaoh's attire. The apron of the Mason is a replication of the spendet worn by Pharaoh's around the waist, which was adorned in gold. And they also wear a neck collar adorned in gold, which replicates the usic, or the wessec, worn by Pharaoh's. On the great seal on the $1 bill, you will see writing above and below the pyramid. This reads out on the Sueptus Novus Odyssey Chlorum. In Google Translate, it will translate to undertakings the new world order. Now we all know who wants a new world order, and we know pyramids and the all-seeing eye are connected to Freemasonry. But let's look a little deeper. Take a look at the bottom step of the pyramid. It has Roman numerals on. When you translate those numerals, you will get the number 1776. Now people will say that is when the Declaration of Independence was signed. Yes, that is correct. But what does that have to do with a new world order? It doesn't. The Declaration of Independence was only in relation to the independence of America from British rule. It has nothing to do with a new world order. However, there was an event in 1776 that is related to a new world order. That would be the formation of the Illuminati on the 1st of May, 1776. We know the Illuminati certainly want a new world order. But is there any other way to connect it to the Illuminati? Well, if you look at the image on the $1 bill, you will see what is an owl. That is the symbolic owl used by the Illuminati. It is known as the owl of Minerva. Below that is an image of an Illuminati document with the owl of Minerva on. So we can correlate all the symbolism from the $1 bill to Freemasonry, the Illuminati, and a new world order. But let's continue. Many prominent people who hold high positions in government, banking, corporations, and society who are members of secret societies regularly attend a place in America called the Bohemia Grove, where they all meet up together. But what do they get up to? Is that an owl you might ask? Yes, you are correct.  Now, the questions you must ask yourself are, one, what secrets are they keeping? Two, how does this affect me? Three, why are they keeping secrets? Four, what broader implications does this have? Five, could this lead me to the answers I've been searching for all my life? Six, is this constitutional? Does the Illuminati exist? That is for you to decide. Where is your evidence for this? Thank you very much. We really appreciate it, Dwayne. We will be changing gears, kicking it over to Tom, who takes a more skeptical position about the Illuminati. And so with that, I want to say thanks for being here once again, gentlemen. Both of these guys are linked in the description. So if you're listening and you want to hear more, it's waiting for you in the description box. I'm in the basement right now. So I want to let you know as well, though, this is always fun, folks. We really do appreciate you being here, as always. So thanks for hanging out with us on this Thursday afternoon, Thursday evening for you, maybe, maybe even early Friday. Tom, the floor is all yours, and thanks again for being here. Yeah, thanks for having me. Well, that was an interesting, not-evidence presentation of lots of nothing, very interesting nothing. So he said that the evidence was historians, some people with PhDs who believe weird stuff, and a museum. He also has all that stuff, creationism nonsense. Oh, God. Wow. If that's evidence, then I guess creationism is true. Oh, what are we going to do? You don't know that was evidence. There's nothing on there. It's strange that he's looking for symbols on the $1 bill. Like, there's a secret society who exists who's trying to take over the world, and they're going to put hints on the $1 bill, because that makes sense. Genius. And somehow they just happen to be disbanded in almost 1800 and now rule the world. Like, that also makes perfect sense, disbanded by one little group in Bolveria from the government and completely destroyed them. But oh, no, they're going to take over the world now. Genius. So either Christianity has people, a world-dominating secret society is trying to destroy it, which is why Christianity is falling.  Leave that one up to you. Like, eh, it's got to be secret societies defeating the rib woman story. Like, ah, that's got to be it. Yeah, there wasn't any evidence in there of Ilumati existing. Just like, it did exist in the past. Sure, I grant that. So does everyone in history. But yeah, it doesn't exist today. And there was no evidence that did exist today. Just a bunch of stories. I actually googled his list of victims, the first victim, if you Google her name, Kerry O'Brien or whatever.  And she didn't actually say anything about the Ilumati. She said something about being the victim of the government experiments. There is no mention of the Ilumati. So it's a bunch of made up things, more stuff that doesn't seem to be not evidence. OK. He mentioned the museum. That was pretty funny, the museum of the Ilumati. Because there's the Creation Museum where they made a big arc. So clearly anything you make in the museum for definitely evidence of it being real, 100%. And books, lots of books, too. I mean, no books of creationism or UFOs or Harry Potter. Clearly, clearly evidence. He mentioned people talking about the Ilumati. Yeah, people would blame the Ilumati. Back around the time it did exist, people would blame it for things, like he mentioned the infighted and the Freemasons. That's a real thing. It did happen. And people in the Freemasons blaming it on the Ilumati, also a real thing. Thomas Jefferson being blamed or being accused of being a member of the Ilumati, real thing. No evidence to support any of that. It's all just made up.  We're gonna go with the simpler one, Akam's razor, what is the simpler explanation? There was a global conspiracy in secret society that has secretly taken over the world, no one noticed. Or you're delusional. We're gonna go with delusional. Yeah, that's about it. There wasn't really any evidence there. Got my mic. I pulled the cord out of my mic again. Okay, so if we will kick into open conversation mode, this is gonna be a lot of fun, folks, as these gentlemen are going to clash in dialogue. And wanna remind you, if you have a question fired into the old live chat, stoked to have you here gentlemen, the floor is all yours. So Tom, firstly, I would say to you, you accept that the alumni exists. In the past, they did exist. They do not exist today. So you disagree with the historical documentation that emerged in the free ministry? There is none. I'll just give you that. No, you just gave a whole bunch of names and asserted that it said that, which I mean, there are books of creationism that also say that it's not evidence, creationism is true. I'll give you free historians that you could go check. I can give you scientists who say the world is 6,000 years old, but isn't evidence. So what's your standard for evidence? Of history. In history, you'd have to actually convince the consensus in history that it occurred, some of it occurred. What's the consensus? Who's the consensus? The academics in the field who can actually evaluate the evidence and tell you if it's reliable. Historian, like academics? Yes. Wouldn't the people are shown, like Dr. Ola, Simon, Ryan, Mark, now they would be in that position as well, yeah? No, those are individuals. The consensus is like a majority of the people in the field. Yeah, part of the field. That's like, add populum fallacy, where you're appealing to majority. Nope, it's not. No. So is that populum appealing to the majority? The consensus, yeah? Of just individuals. It's not appealing to authorities. That's a different one. Appeal to authority is different from the appeal to a consensus. And appeal to authority is only a fallacy when they're not actual authorities. Well, I think I would say Dr. Ola, Simon, Ryan, Ryan, Mark, and then shut that. Is authority, it's to be honest. Okay, and again, I can appeal to authorities who believe the world is 6,000 years old in biology, maybe a handful. And people who authorities who are in climate science who deny climate change is real and there are people who are geologists who think the world is 6,000 years old, the fact that you can cherry pick a few of them isn't evidence. So how would you determine it existed then? By the historical consensus, I'd look at the evidence they would present, which is like historical documents, testimony, the bodies, the geological evidence, archeological evidence, the historical narrative, the World War II. So we can do exact the same thing with the Illuminati. Okay, how so? Exact the same thing, right? So where is the archeological evidence of the Illuminati existing today? Well, you just have the buildings that they would go to to meet in. So... No, no, so I agree that the Illuminati existed just like Hitler existed. They both, it's true, they both existed in the past. They don't exist today, they're both dead. Yeah, so you're basically saying that the historians are wrong that Illuminati merged into Freemasonry. So that's what you disagree with. You presented no evidence that actually occurred. I sort of provided the documentation that for people to look into. And to be honest with you, there's... I can provide a bunch of random books. Like, like... It's not just books though, it's historical documents. Okay. Historical documents. Genesis is a historical document. So I can listen to books in historical documents and say, Genesis says I am king of the world. You just have to go check it out. Go check it out. I'll say it. To be honest with you, I think you've got an irrational mindset to look back to try and confirm how someone exists. So like, you're using a set basis to determine that Hitler exists and I'm using that same set process to determine the Illuminati infiltrate Freemasonry and you deny it. We're nothing, you said, shows the Illuminati invaded Freemasonry. Like, what are you talking about? I said, like, the documentation is there. Historical documentation. Confirmed by three historians and scholars. You did know documentation where it showed that the Illuminati invaded the Freemasons. I couldn't put it all in the presentation.  Like, there's none of that actually provided in the evidence that the Illuminati... So, such as the publications as well, the publications from the president, the president line is the president of Yale University line. Yeah, actually that was well attested in by historians that the accusations that the infighting of the Freemasons was caused by Illuminati is unsupported. You could just Google that. That is accepted by the consensus of historians that no, they were disbanded and they didn't continue after that. So what I would do, I would say to people, go and have a look at the documentation. Go have a look at it. Don't deny it offhand. Go have a look. In regards to the New World Order, you said that the Illuminati would come to eradicate Christianity, which is true, but the thing is in the Bible, it clearly states that there'd be a New World Order. So they're pretty much following what the Bible said, written over 2,000 years ago. Pretty good evidence it's made up story by Christians who are conspiracy theorists. Like there isn't a New World Order kind of thing. Nope, there isn't an Illuminati. It's just a made up story by Christians to try and justify the failures of their religion. You just said there's no Illuminati, but you already said there was. So again, there's this thing called past tense and there's this thing called present tense. And past tense means they did exist. And the present tense means they do exist. So when I say there is no New World Order, that's present tense means today. Did, was there an Illuminati in the past? Yes, yes there was. Is there one today? No, no there isn't. So what makes you think that there was one in the past and not one a day? What defines them in evidence? The historical evidence that they existed and had documents and had organizations and meetings and things and they were an actual organization and then they got killed and shut down by the government at the time and then. So you accept that historical evidence but you don't accept the historical evidence to show that the infiltrated Freight Mystery. You didn't present it. You just asserted it. No, I said you could look it up. That's the whole thing. I can't look it up, I can't look it up. Yeah, you're quite easy to say that you looked up the Illuminati. No, no, no, like so in your presentation you would be the one who needs to look it up and actually present it in the presentation and say here is evidence. You didn't do that. You just listed some titles and said look it up. That's not evidence. That's an assertion of evidence. Right, okay. So you deny scholars, historians. You deny publications. You deny former members' writings. No, no, no, no, wait, wait, so again, again. You deny the museum. You deny government documentation. You deny whistleblowers. You deny victims. So you deny all of them. Are you done? No, so again, none of that is evidence.  I can list titles. Is that not a consensus? No, it's not. The consensus is against you. The consensus said it did not occur. And again, none of that's evidence. So again, evidence. Show me, show me where it says it did not occur. Wikipedia, Illuminati, Freemasons, Google. Bring it up then. I did. So, but again, going back. Bring it up. Tom, bring it up. Nope. We're just going to stick on this one point until you get it.  You would actually have to go through those titles, find the quotes, find the historical documents themselves, and indicate they did actually infiltrate the Freemasons. So if I bring up one document, you're going to accept it, yeah? The document, yeah, sure. So you'd accept the documents, but what about the publications that I brought up? They're historical documents. You haven't brought up anything yet. You've just said they exist. So basically, you deny all them. No, no, no, no. I haven't denied anything. Stop saying I deny. I haven't denied anything. I said, you have said nothing. Listing a title and saying the title supports your conclusion is unsupported. That was, don't work. I can just list the Bible. The Bible says I'm right. That is not necessarily true. Just saying the title isn't evidence. You'd have to actually show where in this document it actually supports your conclusion, then present this evidence to the consensus to evaluate whether or not it's true. Well, to be honest with you, I think I provided sufficient warranty for collecting the evidence. Okay, where in the... And I think it shows it's in favor of Freemasonry, to be honest. Where in anything did you present that the Illuminati was infiltrated or the Freemasons were infiltrated by the Illuminati? Historians, scholars, publications. Where? Like pull it up. Show me where exactly you supported this. Hmm. Did I not read it out? I have no idea. Where? Show me where. Well, do you think if you want to get to the truth, you should research it and... Yes. Find the truth. Yeah, so why don't you do that then? Because my mind does not work at lightspeed. This is your presentation. You need... Lightspeed. You don't need to work at lightspeed, man. All you need to do is research. So don't deny it off hand. You deny it off hand, Tom, rather than looking at it. So how debate works is that you research the position. You make the arguments. You provide the evidence and you put them into an introduction. And then the other person has to look at that evidence and evaluate it. But you didn't do that. You didn't present the evidence. You just said, there is evidence you can go research. Like... It's not for me to convince you, Tom. The race, I can put these things to you and say, look, this is where you should look, but it is not for me to convince you. If you look at evidence, it will resonate with you as truth. So... What do you think the purpose of a debate is, exactly? To discuss either sides. Yeah, and so if... Different views. It's not to... A debate is not to purposely convince you. It's to show you where I'm coming from. Right, right. So to show you where you're coming from, you would need to actually present the evidence. Not just say there is evidence in these locations that you can go find it. That's not very good. Yeah, but why would... I would ask... Imagine a flat earther said, there is evidence you could find it and it's hidden in this box. You have to go look at it and then that's their introduction. Like this, it's not very good introduction, is it? I would ask you why you want me to prove it by a document rather than you actually go and look at it for yourself.  Because that's the point of the debate is that you're supposed to do more... The point of the debate, Tom, is to understand each other's positions and why you've denied it. The whole point of research and evidence is so that you can get the truth yourself and it resonates with yourself as truth. That's the point to it. That's what references are for. References are so that you can go do the research yourself. But normally, when you make a presentation, you do the work and present the evidence in the presentation and then you give a reference to say, well, you can go verify what I said yourself. That's what I did. You can go verify it. Again, in your presentation, you have to present the evidence and then say you can verify yourself. You can't just say, here is a paper that you can go look at that could show evidence and you can verify yourself. That doesn't work. You need to actually find the evidence and present it and then put a reference, not just put a reference. You skipped the first part. Yeah, but that's like a teacher saying to you, here you go, this is the evidence in class, right? And then you just accept it. So would you just accept what he says is true? Or would you go out and research to see if it's true? You're right. I would not accept it just based off of presenting it, but you need to present it. There you go then. If I present it, you wouldn't believe it. So you've got to go research it. Yes, but there you go then. You still have to present it. That's kind of how evidence works in a debate. You have to present it. I presented the capability for you to type it in and go research it. That is good enough. No, no, it's not. It is. What you should do is you should go on your computer, type it in and look and see if it's true. So again, how debate works is that you need to present your evidence and then the other person gets to critique your evidence and you get to debate them. Debate means. But just presenting a bunch of references and saying, go look doesn't really work in a debate. Because then I can just say, you haven't presented anything yet. Well, to be honest, you've just contradicted yourself because you said you wouldn't accept what a teacher said. So imagine if I was your teacher and I put a document in there, why should you accept that? Again, I wouldn't accept that, which is. Well, there you go then. So why are you asking Fred? Why are you asking Fred? Because that's how debate works. You need to. But this one mean you're not going to be convinced by that term. So why don't I just give you all the information of where you can access it, right? And then you can go research it and see if it convinces you. I think that is the best way to do it. Because in the debates, the point of the debate is for you to do the work and then we get to assess it. Like you're making a presentation. But you didn't. You just gave us a bunch of places to look. We're not going to look. We don't care. We have no reason to trust or believe anything you said.  Well, that's dishonest then and that's dishonest. I don't think so. You can ask the chat. What chat? What do you think? Are you going to go research anything he typed in there to find out if it's true?  Well, to be honest with you, I think it's a grave mistake if they don't because its implications are far reaching like and you need to seriously ask is why is the people of power going to Bohemian Grove and worshiping in secret? Ask yourself that, Tom. They're probably not. They probably not. There's pictures, Tom. There's pictures. Do you deny pictures now? No, no. People travel. Travel is real. Yeah, that's trouble. I said pictures and deny pictures. Evidence, historical documents. Do you deny them now? Yes. So so I'm granting that people travel. So people do go to islands. That is a thing that occurs. I think travel is a bit different. Are we on about air for those positions? Not traveling in a car. No, no. So so people traveling to an island like like world leaders do travel to islands and they do go to things. And then there are rich people. Do they normally dress up in robes, though? Yes, they normally dress up in robes and chant and that and do sacrifices. Is that normal? I've never seen any of that occur, but they do dress up in robes. Robes are pretty common. That's a that's the thing you can see. Justin Trudeau. Yeah, I think I think you seriously want to question why all these people are governed in a secret place, doing it in secret mind, rituals, dressing up in robes and sacrificing. Yeah, I've seen no sacrificing. So if you think this has, if you think this is enough importance to you, then I'm shocked like because to me, it's the most important thing ever. Why is powerful important people meeting up to commit sacrifices? Because I see it as just nothing more than something you've made up in your head. Like there's no evidence of any sacrifice. If you could actually show people meeting together and doing sacrifices, that would be really interesting. You could just. There's videos of it. There's videos of it. Anyone, anyone wants to get in touch with me, email me and I can send you all of it. Tom, I only have a separate period of time for the presentation. I couldn't fit everything in. You didn't fit anything in. You didn't give me anything. Like if you just put the videos of the sacrifices in today, that would have been better than like just everything you said. Yeah, well, I'm not really gonna put that on there. You know what I mean? I'm not. Obviously. That would have been great evidence. It would have been superb evidence. But you said. Tom, instead of denying it off hand, right? Why don't you just email me? I'll send you all the resources, everything over to you. And then you can. Because the point is the debates. The point is for you to present it here and now. Also, you will have to be convinced now. No, no, no. Convincing doesn't matter. Convincing isn't relevant. The point of a debate, the point of going on the modern day debate and having a conversation is it is an opportunity for you to present the evidence to get people interested enough to actually go look. Because right now. That's what I did. That's what I did. That's what I did. Tom, it's you that's denying it. It's you that is denying it. No, remember, remember, you gotta. The evidence part, just giving references that other people can look up isn't evidence. It's the part, the stuff in those things. Tom, you're contradicting yourself because at the end of the day, you said if I provided the document here, you wouldn't believe it. So you just contradicting what you're saying. No, no. You said I would be convinced, convinced. That's not the point. Again, the point of the debate is to present the information to get people interested to look at it, not to convince them, convincing them is irrelevant. It is to get them interested into looking into the idea. That's what I did. That's what I did in the presentation, Tom. I got them interested in the idea. I give them the sources ready for them to check. If anything, he say interest you enough to look into what he said. Still getting lots of no's. That's why I said look and search for the truth. That's the part you're supposed to do. You're supposed to do all the boring work to get people interested to be able to go do that.  That's the point of the debate is for you to do the work. You find something interesting and to get other people interested in your idea. No, the point of debate is you discuss either side. That's what it is. And now at the end of the day, if you want to find out the truth, you would look into them sources and to see if you can confirm it. Just as you looked into evolution or in any theory of life, you would research it and look into it to see if you can confirm it. You've done that before, haven't you, Tom? Yes. So what's wrong with doing it now? There's no reason to, because you presented no reason to support, to think that anything you've said... Well, to be honest with you, I think the seven things are listed is quite enough to go off. Except you didn't give any of those. You just gave references for other people to look up. So hold on a minute, right? Dr. Olaf Simons has collected over 9,000 documents and 2,000 publications, historical. And that's not enough, is it, No? That's not enough to confirm. Is this any of them? You just said he has papers. Because I want people to go search for the truth themselves so it resonates with them. I'm not here to convince you. I'm here to show you where the evidence lies. You've already said you wouldn't even be convinced if I put the document on anywhere. So you're contradicting yourself. No, I'm not contradicting myself because the point isn't to convince me. The point is to get me interested into looking at it. You mentioned like, have I researched into evolution? Yes, I've researched into evolution. And the reason... Of course you were interested. Yes. Because the people who believe in evolution presented evidence. They said, here is how the cell works. Here is how DNA works. Here is how evolution works. They just... Yes, Tommy, you had to research that though it didn't yet to get to that point. You had to research first. Yes, you did because you've got to research your book to get to that point. You don't just come upon information in your brain and then get to that point. No, no. You've got to research. This was people presenting the information debates. I did no research. I just watched the debate. Research is reading. Yes, reading is the kind of research. So I was watching a debate with Richard Dawkins and Richard Dawkins was saying, here is how evolution works. He wrote a book about it. I forget was it the whichever one is first one. And he then illustrated how DNA works and how evolution works and how natural selection works. Now I did no research here. I just listened to what he said and what he said. Oh, so you trust him though? No, I didn't trust him either. I listened to what he said. He presented the evidence and then he said, here is where you can go check to see the evidence. But you trust him enough to go research it further. Yes, because he made it interesting. He said, here's the evidence. I made it interesting, to be honest. I thought that presentation was interesting.  That's not, that's not, that doesn't help. Just saying a guy has 9,000 documents isn't interesting. You need to like present one of the documents and say, here's one of the documents that shows something going on at this time period. Like that would be good or... So you literally want me to bring up one document, one German document and show you that one German document and that would entice you to go research. Really? If somewhere in the document it says something that is evidently... Can you speak German? You would have to translate it for me. You normally... Well, there you go. Why should I have to translate it for you? If you want to find out the truth of reality, why do you not want to do the legwork? Because I have no reason to believe you. Like I'm not going to research everything that every... I'm not asking you to believe me. Tom, I'm asking you to keep an open mind and go look at the evidence. Right, I'm not going to go look at the evidence or every crackpot theory. I'm going to just look at... It's not a crackpot theory though, because you've already said the Illuminati existed. So it's not too much of a crackpot theory, is it? The Egyptians existed. Does that mean there are Egyptians today? Like, no. No, it's not how it works. Like the Egyptians as in the pharaohs. Like pharaohs existed. Does that mean pharaohs exist today? No, you can't just say they exist. Dinosaurs exist. Does that mean dinosaurs exist today? Well, actually, yes, because birds, but... That's not a good argument. Your argument is so bad. Like, oh my God. So in a debate, just do some debate skills 101 training here. It's your job to present the evidence and make it interesting to get other people to look into it. Like if I make a really good argument in creationism, I'm not going to convince the creationists. The goal is not to convince the creationists. The goal is to make them look at the evidence to try and find a way to counter it so that to try and support their conclusion. So again, in a debate, I'm not trying to convince the creationists to give up creationism. I'm just presenting arguments that they don't know how to counter, that sound better for me than to them. And then they're going to go and research those things to try and find a better way to counter my argument. And in the process, they may actually get converted. So in a debate, your goal is to present the evidence in an interesting way to get people interested to look at it. Well, I think I did that, you know? So I think I did that in the presentation. So obviously it's your subjective opinion as to you're not being interested. Hey, hey, Chet, are you interested in anything he said? Have any of you Google-searched any of the German papers he listed? Getting a lot of no's. Getting a lot of no's. That was a quick reply, wasn't it, Tom? Yeah, I'm psychic. Yeah, so you believe in psychics, but you don't believe in God. Lovely. Yes, I totally believe in psychics. Yeah, you keep... Tom, at the end of the day, you denied the evidence because at the end of the day, yeah, it's your government that's in power and they're going in secret to behemion growth, committing rituals, and you think it's off no importance. I think that all of that's in your imagination and no reason to believe it. Like, yeah, rituals are bad. You can easily Google it.  Go on Wikipedia. I can Google lizard people, too, but I don't do it because I imagined there's no reason to believe in real. Yeah, I think that's a bit far, though. Farther? Lizard people. Yeah, I think that's about the same. No, I don't think it is. I don't think lizard people is the same as a secret society of humans. A little bit different, Tom. I don't think so. I mean, I mean, you'll say like, oh, conspiracies, it's a conspiracy theory, but the thing is, what you do not realize is how many conspiracy theories have been proven true. Many, many... Have been proven true versus what percent have been proven false? I haven't done the mathematics of it, but I know at least 23 conspiracies that were proven true. 23, from just the American government. If you had to guess, if you had to guess, how many conspiracies have been proven true versus how many have been proven false? Probably more being proven true, to be honest. Oh, God, all right. I mean, what you seem to do is you seem to think that exoteric science is giving you all the information. Exo what? Exoteric science is giving you all the information. Exoteric? Yeah, public. Public science? Yeah, the public body of science, exoteric. Intended or likely to be understood by the general public? Yeah. I don't say that at all. Most of the science is not understood by the general public at all. No, it's divulged to the general public. So, so you have two sides to science. You have one that's exoteric, that is published to the public, and then you have esoteric, which is kept secret. That is how these... What science is kept secret? The ones, so for example, the ones kept by the government, the CIA. Do you not think that I do see, do you not think that I do science in secret to be able to use it? No. They fund scientists at colleges to do the science. They build technology in secret. They're secret technology. So you don't think that, do you not think the government keeps secrets? Secret science? No, there's no secret science. Are you sure about that? Yep. I think I could maybe prove your own, that one. Go for it. Present some evidence, please. Well, I'll just provide you with the CIA documents as I could now. Sure, let's bring them up, show me secret science. So what about the CIA doing astral travel? Didn't occur. So you deny the documents if I brought them up, yeah? If they say astral travel, I'm gonna deny them for sure. See, exactly. You just deny offhand what you wanna deny, Tom. That's you all over. I deny things that have been shown to not exist. But how have they been shown to not exist? I've actually got a document that anyone can have access to. And it's clearly there on the CIA website to show that the astral travel was successful and that it was all cleared up and hushed up and some of the evidence was burned. So if anyone thinks that they're getting all the scientific information in publicly, then I suggest you go on the CIA freedom of information website and look up the science that they're doing in secret. Well, one, that wouldn't be science. Two, I can give you a million documents showing that's false. Three, open to a document that shows the world was created 6,000 years ago by a rib woman who ate an apple. I mean, I can give you lots of documents that doesn't show that they're true. The issue is though, Tom, you're using double standards. So basically you're saying that scientists that you listen to or you follow are correct. But the scientists or scholars and historians that are follow and have a different view incorrect. No, no, science is a testable, repeatable process. So if there actually did astral projections and you could repeat it, like if anyone could. That's what they did. The repeatable part. If anyone could repeat that, then it would be good evidence. Like if you could demonstrate that's what it is. No, like if you could demonstrate astral protection right now, that would be good evidence. So showing a document where people claimed to do it is not good evidence. You need to demonstrate the methodology. Anyone can do it. You just get the. It's been, it's been proven for demonstrate. Well, I'm going to say it. Yeah. Look, right. In history, dating back to the Egyptian times, right? Occultism, right? Do you know what occultism is? Worshiping the occult. But boy, you said anyone can do it. So if anyone can do it. Yes. No, you have to. Yeah. Go do it. Where do you want me to go, Tom? Get the evidence for you. No, no, I want you to do the astral protection thing. You said anyone can do it. Yeah. I'll astral project to get you some evidence and bring it to yours. Just do the astral projection thing. Just get the evidence. Just do the astral protection. All you need to do for astral projection. That information is widely available. It's been practiced by Buddhas. Do it. All that. Demonstrate. Why would I do it, Tom? What do you want me to do? That would be great evidence. You want me to disappear right now? Yes. I'll just turn the camera off and then that's it. Are you convinced? Yes. That one convinced me for sure. Definitely. Like. If it can be done by anyone, I mean, I think that would, that would be like, if someone came on to the screen. It's repeatable. I mean, if anyone wants to go on the CIA website, you can have a look at all the research and it was done through the CIA and Stanford research center. So if you want to go have a look at the documentation, it's all on how they repeat the test date and everything. So, so a great thing to do in a debate is if when you're on camera, you could like do an astral projection right in front of all of us and we would find that very interesting. We would be like, Oh, we should probably check this out to see if we can do it because we found a reason to think, Oh, it's really interesting. Like if someone did it on screen, someone saying they could do it in the paper, the CIA did it, isn't, isn't good evidence. What did you do? Scientific documentation, you mean. Scientific documentation just gives us a way to verify the evidence. It isn't the evidence. So, yeah, obviously that's, that's what I'm saying. It gives you a way to verify it. Yes. So, it's really good for you to verify it on camera for all of us right now. But I wasn't doing that. I wasn't doing the test though, Tom. I wasn't doing the study. You said anyone can do it. Anyone can verify it. I said yes. Anyone can do it. If the study. Wait. That would be great evidence. Really? Yes. Yes, really. It's the same thing with the supernatural. Like you denied the supernatural and to be honest with you, you wouldn't be convinced of it until Casper showed up in the house. If you could like start lifting stuff off with your imagination, that would be good evidence. If I could repeat that, I would then believe it. I strongly recommend people research the occult and find out what your government's up to. I strongly recommend. Don't listen to Tom. Don't deny it offhand. Don't listen to Tom. Don't deny it offhand. Look into the secret societies. Look into everything else. Yes, I know. I'm sorry. I was on mute. That's embarrassing. I'll say everything I just said. So sorry to the debaters. That's very embarrassing. I just said first we'll jump into the Q and A with that. Thanks everybody. And also want to say as well, if you see the light flashing in the studio here, that's just red means it's a new super chat. And then you'll see that in the bottom middle of your screen. And then green flashing means it's a new subscriber. And so do want to say I missed these new subs as they popped up on the screen yesterday during our stream. So want to say thanks JB and TI James for subscribing. We are a nonpartisan channel. We hope you feel welcome no matter what side of the fence that you're on. We have never and we never will make any sort of after show videos where we take a side or anything like that. That's fully up to you folks as this channel itself is just a fully neutral platform. So jumping into it. Really appreciate your super chats folks and give me one second loading these up. There was one other announcement I was going to make. I forgot what it was. But we'll jump into these. So thanks so much. We have, I think I might even read all of these despite how trollish and kind of gross some of them are. Thanks for your super chat.  Well, thanks for that converse contender. We basically, we, you know, we're learning how the patreon thing goes. We're trying to make it better for you. And so we appreciate your support through patreon as that helps us do things like get new debaters on. And then when we go back to in person debates, hopefully we can have some of those big time debates in person as that makes it kind of extra fun. And also if you go, let's see, there's different rewards. We have our new mp3 audio library of debates. So you can listen to it on your commutes. And one of them, one of the tiers.  It's terrific. Next up. Thanks for your super chat. Oh, flamie. Oh, I don't know. What does hail eris mean? Aries, the God. No, like E R I S. Is that it's not one of those. You're not one of those. Neo N A Z eyes. Are you? I know who you guys are. I see you guys always show up with your current Kermit the frog profile pictures. I know who you are. What? The Greek goddess. Eris is a Greek goddess. Okay. Gotcha. All right. Fair enough. Eric Nelson. Thanks for your super chat said who's feeling Illuminati. Well, I can tell you some of these super chats get pretty Illuminati. You'll see a second. Kent Hovins. Thanks. Kent Hovins CPA. I doubt that's really his accountant. Thanks for your super chat said I sell tin foil hats that will stop the Illuminati. Appreciate that public service. All right. Let's appreciate. Let's see. Hold on one second. We've got. Appreciate your super chat from Tiffany bear says yes, the Illuminati is real and maybe if people spent more time reading rather than trolling, they'd know that. Good job. Dwayne Dwayne, you've got a fan out there. Thank you. Gotcha. And let's see. Let's see. I just want to make sure I don't miss anything. Appreciate it. And here we go. Thanks for your super chat from Kent Hovins CPA strikes again says I went for pizza but got my arse abused by Hillary. Nasty. So sorry to hear that crooked Hillary. Oh, oh, thank you. Thanks for your super chat says T jump. The Illuminati has an official website. Illuminati official dot org. Go ahead and debunk its existence. Illuminati denier. I think you missed the point of the whole secret society thing. There's also a website for creationism and angels and demons and doodism from the dude from TV shows and the matrix. There's Nio has a website. Nio is clearly real. He has a website to leave his website. You betcha. And thanks so much for your super chat from Timo. By the way, Timo, is that finish? I think I asked you in the chat. I didn't see if I might have missed it. You said here's my modern day debate lodge membership fee for June. Thanks for that. We appreciate it Timo. And did I miss one? Sean Robinson. Thanks for your super chat said here's five pounds. Please put a stop to this for real though. Dwayne's claims are verifiable and you are in denial. I think that's for you, Tom. Tom, are you in denial? They may be verifiable. I think there's a lot of evidence that you had to make claims. I was just showing that they actually made claims. You have to do the leg work to give references. Point with the introduction of the debate is that you did the leg work. I'm sure with those documents that you listed do exist. That was verifiable. Those are the only things you made? Read them. No, they're just documents. She's oftentimes in the live chat very sassy. She self identifies as a Pog on Twitter, but we love Tioga. She's terrific. And she's a very gifted artist. I want to point out just in case you haven't seen this. So we have our Teespring store. I'm sorry. I'm like getting new. This is all new for me. So Teespring, basically T-shirts, mugs, stuff like that. And we used to have just like the basic logo. But now if you look just below this video YouTube and Teespring are like partnered so you can see like the Teespring lineup of products that we have. And so Sweet Merch, if you guys dig those, I want to let you know you'd be supporting a local artist as you can see these epic pictures such as Tioga as you could say rendition of our logo as well as my face on a T-shirt. I don't know why you'd want that. But nonetheless, you know, she does a good job and so you want to support a local artist. We appreciate everything she does. By the way, I have to give I just can't help but give street cred to the peeps that help Taylor Taylor also known as Snake is right does a great job helping us with thumbnails. So I just want to say if you love the thumbnails, it's probably Taylor that did it. Martin C. Thanks for your super chat said my subjective objective opinion in parentheses S.W.O.B.O.P. Rates this is an eight point five on the ironic stupidity scale. I.S.S. This isn't as funny in print as it was in my head. Stop pinching G. Munn's words.  She is in the house.  Yeah, Dwayne, I mean, what's the problem with that? Well, the issue is you see them doing rituals. You want to have a look into it and see what a cultism is and what it ties to. Then you'll understand that the worship in Lucifer. Gotcha. And that's how important it is. You got it. And thank you very much. Brother John, appreciate your super chat says, Dwayne, what are the implications for not believing in the Illuminati? What can you actually do about it if it does exist? To be honest with you, I think you should ask Tom that question. He's a designer of and they asked, what could you do about it if it does exist? That the issue is the Illuminati, the secret society in the Bible. It states that a new world order would come about with a one world religion and a one world currency. And that was written over 2000 years ago. And we see that coming to fruition over the last 200 years. And you don't see that as important. There's nothing I can do about that. The only person that can put a stop to it is God. That's it. It's in the Bible. He will stop it and Lucifer will not prevail. Gotcha. And thanks so much. Appreciate the news subscriber just seeing it pop up on the screen right now. Let me just really quick and one, two, three, four, five are one, two, three, four, five. Thanks for subscribing. Stoked to have you with us. Welcome to the community and also next up, Super Chat. Appreciate you, Brother John, who says, no, we just got that one. Steven Steen, a nasty guy. Thanks for your Super Chat says Dwayne is not in capital letters. My son Dwayne. Is this true that you're not his son?  That's Maori. God, that's right. You are not the father or son in this case.  That was a quote of Bill Clinton. So. Yep. Clearly was true because Bill Clinton does not make fun of Republicans. Doesn't occur. Got it. Please look under it. You got it. Appreciate that. And. If I anything, I would have guessed that you're libertarians. Speaking of libertarians, Adam Kokesh just agreed to come back on the channel. I'm just teasing with the libertarian remark. You're cool if you're libertarian. In fact, Adam Kokesh, huge libertarian YouTube leader, is going to be back on this channel. I think it's next Friday, hopefully we're shooting for that to debate whether or not capitalism is the root cause of the current race riots. So should be really interesting. And let's see. Movie theory. Why do I have to read this? You can tell we read everything. Movie theory says. Dwayne success, successfully humping Tom into submission. Tom, is this true? I do like his hair. He's got very nice hair. I'm shocked by it as well. Nathan Foster, thanks for your super chat, says Tom denies so much. He denies his own existence. Tom, is this true? Yeah, it's magic. I can I can exist without existing. Fair enough. Next up, Michael Dresden takes it to the next level, says our regular troll says. Tom seems nice and gets along well with his wife's boyfriend. Is this true, Tom? That was like a kind of a meme. It's become so I've seen that one before. But thanks to your other super chat from Michael Dresden, who says this is jail in all capital letters and Tom just dropped the soap. Nice. So well, thank you. The evidence like we are. Thanks for helping us be professional. Next, let's go to our standard questions. Appreciate your question from Brian Stevens. Says if I was from last night, so sorry I missed that, Brian, if you're listening. Beast Militia says, isn't it more likely the Illuminati exists, but doesn't control the world like the conspiracies say? I would say it's in favor of them controlling the world. I mean, if you if you literally go and research the material I put forth, it will lead to so many other doors for you to go through. And the evidence is in favor of it. Gotcha. And thanks for your super chat from Adam Elbilia says for Dwayne, please save us and Astral project yourself inside their meetings, thus revealing their secret plans and game over for the Illuminati. Actually, if you if you've researched the material on the CIA website, part of the test was actually for someone to astral travel into Russian military business, so maybe have a look at it. It's interesting. Gotcha. And let's see. Adam Elbilia, thanks for your super chat. I've converse contender. Nice. I'm close to my 29th birthday and I'm excited for James to call on insulting me on my birthday. It's definitely going to happen. Uh, let's see. Let me just quick make sure I haven't missed anything.   Knock it off. Next up, thanks for your, oh wait, that standard question. Jasmine Jacob, appreciate it. Jasmine asks, what is the strongest piece of evidence presented today? The single, so the single strongest piece of evidence. Why is not? And then just says, why is not good evidence? Was the strongest evidence for the Illuminati's existence or? Yes. What was the strongest piece of evidence you presented today? For the existence. I would say you've got a, just as you would go up is if you go in a court, you don't base it on one piece of evidence. You just don't do that. You gather all your evidence together and then you base it on the majority of evidence that you've collected. You never based on one piece of evidence. Otherwise you believe in it irrationally. You've got to base it on the evidences. And I gave seven, seven that would be accepted in a court of law. So if that's not enough, then I don't know what it is. Gotcha. And progress pictures. Thanks for your question said for both debaters. How do we know you guys are not part of the Illuminati? And this debate isn't some sort of conspiracy to distract us. I'm not a shield. Gotcha. What is, baby? Thanks for your, let's see, got your question from Pepper Talks, who asks, for Dwayne, what's your take on Epstein and who do you think, well, who do you think Epstein him? No, yourself. And well, with Epstein, all you have to do is look into the known victims that are brought up in the presentation. And if you look at that and you see how widespread child abuse is and ritualistic child abuse, it leads to so many prominent people. I mean, for example, the conspiracy of silence, the Franklin cover-up in America. If you look at that and we've got the same over here in the UK, the cover-up. I mean, if you want anything, just I'll give James my email and I can provide you with all sorts to research. Gotcha. And thank you. Stephen Steen, older brother of Tom Jump, for your question. So his question for Tom, does he have any testable and verifiable evidence that the Illuminati does not exist? I have no idea. He just gave a bunch of references. Maybe there's some in those references, but he didn't present to me. He admitted the Illuminati exists. He just didn't admit they exist today. Next, Alex Gordon. Thanks for your question says, does Dwayne or question does Dwayne? CIA investigation into astral projection was Cold War propaganda. It's verified nonsense. If you believe it, are you claiming that you can astral project just so you know that the information that you will get or access, right, if you go on to Wikipedia or something like that and you take that information from Wikipedia and you say it was debunked or came out on the news media and said debunked, then I tell you what to do. Go on the CIA and see that it was wasn't debunked. They had actually worked. I've got all the documentation to prove it, all the scientific documentation, got evidence speaks for itself. Thank you.  This is two knots, even for me beta. OK, thanks for that. Next up, thanks for your super chat. Dictor Kent Hobbit. Thanks for your super chat saying DB, the strong apophenia. What is his name? Dictor Kent Hobbit. That's right. Dictor Kent Hobbit. That's a what? German version of Kent Oven. Next up, Iron charioteer. Thanks for your question says asked. Dwayne is your dear Prince Andrew part of the Illuminati. Well, his family actually. I don't think it is. One is family members of the Grand Master of Freemasonry. Gotcha. And with that, thanks for your super chat or question. The stolen earth says for Dwayne, how come not just why don't you just send Tom an email with your sources beforehand and just avoid the debate altogether? To be honest with you, I did it more so so that this information would get out. Gotcha. And do want to say thanks so much. We're near 100 likes. We really appreciate that support, guys. It really does help us on YouTube. I sometimes think in a small way, we're not. I don't think we're that bad. Sometimes I worry that because we get a lot of videos demonetized that were maybe a small bit like a black sheep on YouTube or among certain communities, which I will not name. And so your likes really do help us a lot. And so we really appreciate that that helps the stream. And let me see if there are any last questions. If I've missed any, forgive me, folks. I'm going to try to be sure I've gotten every single one and want to give you a reminder, though. Our guests are linked in the description.  Well, you can have plenty more of that in your life. Adam, oh, we get slick with Nick. Thanks for your question said, Tom, I'm leaning to your side, but you can't deny that someone put that tiny owl on those one dollar bills. Look at it. Don't you see it's there? It's not actually an owl. If you actually take the image, you can it's the same symbol that's at the bottom of the one dollar bill. And at the other side, it's just it's the same repeated pattern. It's not actually an owl. It's just if you look at like the very bottom of the middle of the one dollar bill, it's the exact same image. Get a microscope and look at it. Gotcha. Adam Elbilia, thanks for your question says. For Dwayne, where do you did you get the info that we only have controlled access to information? Can I repeat that? They asked, where did you get the information that we only have controlled access to information? I deeply researched, I spent every day of research and reading. And to be honest, it's accessible. This material is accessible. The only issue that you have is waiting through a lot of disinformation to actually access the good evidence. So you've got to do a lot of waiting through that disinformation first. And then come upon the evidence. Gotcha.  Somebody mentioned that only Tom has a link in the description. That's true. Currently, Dwayne is considering putting together a YouTube channel. So we look forward to hopefully having him on again. And in that case, if he has a channel, then we will, of course. Yeah, that's it's my first debate. So like first live debate, first ever debate. Um, but he's too many more. You should only get better. We would be very excited to have you any time. So I appreciate that. And with that, folks, we are pumped. One last announcement. Want to say thanks for your subscribing from Dave, who just subscribed. Just saw you pop up on the screen and the green light flash. So I want to wish you all a great rest of your day. Thanks so much all for your love and support, you guys. Honestly, you guys make this so fun out there. You guys, you guys ask so many great questions. You guys give so many great ideas. Vikram, so sorry, I missed your question. They said question for Dwayne. What evidence if shown to you would convince you that you're wrong? I don't think you can really show evidence to convince you're wrong.  And to be honest, that's irrational. I think that you could take away the positive and positive evidence. The only way you could do that is rewrite history. This is just irrational. Gotcha. Thanks for your encouragement, folks. Always love having you here. I'm honestly so pumped right now. We are like, I've honestly, so I'm supposed to do class prep right now. And I'm it's a fun summer class I'm teaching. I've been barely able to do it, though, because we've got such an influx of debate requests and especially got to mention if you are or know someone who is conservative, politically conservative, and they don't have to be like super conservative, just maybe like more traditional or conservative, you might say, on issues such as the trans issue, the gender issue, the race issues, any of those topics. We that we kind of have a somewhat of a shortage. And so we welcome them. Just send me an email if you'd like to debate and represent a more conservative or traditional side for those topics, as we are definitely looking to kind of have maybe a third of our content be religious debates, a third be kind of a mix of, you could say, political and then another third being kind of a miscellaneous like the Illuminati, Flat Earth, you name it, anything else, science and stuff like that. Thanks for your super chat.  Pretty heavy. It's pretty heavy. Gosh, it's not going to be easy. Thanks for your hanging out with us, though, folks. And like I said, if you know or are more politically conservative and want to debate any of those social issues, economics is interesting. But frankly, like I think social issues, people have been enjoying more. And so like those ones I just mentioned, we're hoping to have more of those. You at some point are probably going to debate Tom because he's definitely a he's like he's liberal. So I'm just kidding. He's kind of like, are you Tom, moderate liberal? Yeah. Classical liberal, I think, and being closest. Gotcha. Yeah, that's right. Adam friended. We haven't had on in a while and he would fit. So let's see. One quick clarification to Adam's question. He says clarification. So if they control the accessible information, Duane, and you got access to the information of them being in control of it, meaning they want you to know it? I think to be honest with you, if you if you if you look at the evidence that I put out, you'll see how throughout history, it's come out through whistleblowers, through other means. So I don't think they necessarily wanted people to have this information. Otherwise, it wouldn't be classed, obviously, as a sacred society and keeping that information. What you seriously need to ask is why have sacred societies and don't let the Freemasons trickier into thinking that it's a society for the betterment of mankind? Because then you need to ask is why is it only a select few that gets to achieve the betterment for mankind? Why is it not everyone? Gotcha. And very excited folks, let me just kind of name a few of these because I'm just honestly blown away with how many epic debates we have coming up. So for example, we have race. I think it's on whether or not there's systematic racism. That's tomorrow afternoon. Later today, we actually have another debate. It's going to be on, by the way, Erica is going to be a guest moderator tonight. Erica will be on with me. Erica Matthews. She is YouTube's favorite daughter and she will be on tonight. We will be co-moderating and it'll be a creation evolution type of debate. So we have a doubleheader today. We have a doubleheader tomorrow as we also have David and John. One gentleman, John, who's Jewish, will be debating David, who's formerly Jewish, but now an atheist on whether or not the Old Testament God is evil. That should be, or if you're Jewish, you know, the Old Testament instead would be the Tanakh, and that should be an interesting one. Then systematic racism. We'll have a similar debate on Saturday, Sunday. We're going to have Fight the Flat Earth and Team Skeptic, which is on the bottom right of your screen. They'll be debating evolution with Standing for Truth and Maddox. So this is just the tip of the iceberg, folks. I'm serious. We have like a huge lineup for this month. I'm pumped. So including many with your own Tom Jump. Look at him there. Handsome little devil. Look, look at him in the, in his picture. Okay. Next, thanks for your last super chat. So sorry, folks. You can tell I don't want to leave. I just love this. Bruce Wayne thinks of your super chat says, Dwayne calls he jump lazy, yet he won't show evidence. Dwayne, what do you think about that? How do you like them apples? Well, to be honest with you, you've got to seriously question why someone else has to bring you the evidence. You should really be going to search for yourself through the information that I provide us. I've give you the step. I've provided you the step to that evidence. Now go look for it and then you make your decision whether it's real or not. Don't just deny it off hand. Last, last two things really quick. We are trying to set up. Let's see. We'll have Adam Kokesh. I mentioned he'll be on next week. We are arranging or trying to I'm currently in talks about a debate on veganism with one of the kings himself, vegan gains. So that's something I've got to reach out to vegan gains about yet, but that's something we're trying to work out. Yeah, James. Yes. I wanted to be at G cut on veganism. Set up G cat, G cat, like G man's cat. Yeah, I appreciate that. We will set that up. You'll see that here, folks, and only here. So thanks to do little right. It should be epic. So thanks so much. It's honestly been a blast, folks. We'll see you later today, hopefully. So that, like I said, I think it's maybe tonight around 9 p.m. Erica and I will be back co-modding. So I hope you have a great night and keep keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable, folks. And thanks again to Tom and Dwayne for being here. Thank you, everyone. Thanks, Tom. James, you betcha. Take care, folks. See you soon.


trading at the end of 2008. I actually did mortgages for 17 years. I was a broker, I worked for several banks, and then the mortgage industry started changing in 2007, and I really wanted to find another career. I had absolutely no idea what I wanted to do, but I always loved numbers. It's really interesting because I actually graduated college as a philosophy major, which has absolutely nothing to do with finance, although I will tell you the analytical nature in the way that I describe and analyze stocks is very similar to all the things that I learned in philosophy. So here's the thing with this new chart. See, it's not fixed. KMX, I don't even have time to read this. And the funny thing was when I started trading or found out about trading, I realized that you could actually trade from your house by yourself with a computer and the internet. And I never knew that.  You can actually trade from your home as long as you have an internet connection and you can read live charts and with a broker platform you can trade. So I was really excited about this. Here, I'll call Staples. I'm gonna call Staples as a short tube it sets up in here as well. I'm gonna call Staples if it sets up too, people.  It was nothing like I thought it was gonna be. 72 by 81, IOTC is valid. Time of the day is good in here, 940. 940, reversal time, 72, put it 82. Make it 72 by 82, IOTC this is it. Not one trade here has triggered in this yet, but 72 by 82 is valid, IOTC. Here, there it is, there it is if you want it. There's nothing else. I may not call anything else today. Staples is the only one I might call. The first week that I ever traded, I traded a gap and I made $5,000 in the trade. That was the beginning of the end for me because I said I saw all the money you can make in the market. So then I had 100% conviction in the market that I could replace my mortgage job as the income and I could do it from home and it didn't even take that long to make that money. 57 by 75, 57 by 75, IOTC this is gonna hit. All my land's up. This really sent people 57 by 75, IOTC and the least level of resistance that I wrote was 2871. I would work for months, sometimes for more than a year on loans and you didn't get paid.  You didn't get paid. I mean, I didn't get paid until the loan closed and if the bank declined the loan, I didn't get paid. It's not that way with the market. You know right away as a day trader, you're flat by four o'clock, you know how much money you get paid from the market immediately if the trade works. So it was a beautiful thing because it was like I was doing less work and making more money in a shorter amount of time. And then I realized that this is what I wanted to do. Stock is gonna be 80, here you go. 68 by 80, I'm giving it to you now, this hits. Every number I'm gonna give it to you if it hits. 68 by 80 IOTC, 71 by 80 IOTC. You need to really know what you're doing with the market to just go into it and willy-nilly is not the right thing to do. You have to have a specific strategy that you're looking for and the trade set up every day in order to consistently make money. Otherwise, some days you're having big days up and big days down and in the end you end up losing and most people can't weather the storm. Cloud shifting is asking, start away from my desk and you're gonna take anything today. No, I'm not gonna take anything today, cloud shifting. I'm not going to because the market's gapping down and I'm not crazy about any of the gaps but I will tell you that IOTC is lower. I think if anything today that is lower but I'm telling you it's a snail. If you have to go some place and you have things to do then that you wouldn't wanna do that trade and then be in it all day. Well, as it turns out, I did weather the storm.  It was the most challenging time of my life and the fact that I now trade successfully and teach people and live in this beautiful apartment in this town is proof that you can do anything if you really wanna make it happen and I will tell you that if I didn't believe in myself I wouldn't be here because there was a point that even my parents said Melissa do you wanna think about quitting? And I didn't say that they gave up on me but they actually said Melissa maybe it's time for you to stop because they saw what the losses were doing to me. I was still doing mortgages. So my mortgage job was actually paying for my losses and I was going through my money and I just didn't wanna quit. And it got to the point that I realized that if I quit, I'd never be able to come back to New York. I wouldn't have been able to afford to come back to New York. Now Peter, you actually had a business where you made shoes, right? I did. And that's where you came up with the name The Boots. No, no, no, no, we made molded, one piece molded footwork called jellies which we invented. Okay, wonderful. And we made a lot of them. Terrific. We never made anything as beautiful as these shoes that you wear. These are absolutely gorgeous. One of the greatest things that I think that I have to offer people being on live television is to help inspire them to get up every morning and make their lives better, whether it's trading the market or proceeding through the difficult times of their life to actually accomplish their dream. How did you actually find me? I found you by consistently looking at different webinars that were offered online. Okay. And one day I popped into a webinar that you were one of three of. Okay. And I said, that is the woman I want to trade with and that's how I want to trade. Really? Absolutely. So from when, how long ago was that? It was before I could trade with you. So it might have been sometime around April, May of this year. I never expected to be teaching people my method. I never expected to be on live TV. However, all of these things are manifesting themselves now. I've been able to make it happen and it's because I persevered through this challenging time. So people need that extra oomph in the morning when they're getting up and their day, whether it's a positive thing by being in the room with me or whether it's a good trade or whether it's just anything that they need in their lives. Everybody has a lot going on in any little bit. We have to kind of grab at the happiness of life even if it's just for a minute, a moment of our day because it can really make a big difference in the long haul and it's something that I'm looking to share with people in my television show.


Hello everyone. I am Parul Singh and I work as a senior software engineer at Red Hat. Today I'm going to talk about how you can power the efficiency of your cluster and make sure that you're consuming less energy and if possible control your carbon footprints running your workloads on the cloud. So who we are, we are a group of people who are taking a community-based approach on environment sustainability. We are also part of the environment sustainability and if you want to check out a proposal the QR code will take you over there but in general our mission is to advocate for develop support and help evaluate environment sustainability initiatives in cloud native technologies and we also aim to identify values and possibly provide incentives to service providers so that they could reduce the energy consumption and control their carbon footprint through cloud native tooling. The great thing is as of June Kepler is part of the CNC of Sandbox project so that's a great step for us and what brought us so what was the thing that initiated to bring the sustainability in computing in 2021 an ACM technology briefs estimated that the ICT sector or the information or technology communication technology sector attributed to 1.8 percent to 3.9 percent of total global carbon emission and to give you a context that is more than the carbon emission of Italy and Germany as a country combined so we do emit a lot of carbon and so this brought us to ask questions how you can measure energy consumption indirectly when you don't have access to the racks in the data center you cannot install specialized hardware and how do you measure energy consumption of workloads if you're using any cloud you it is possible that you do get the total energy consumption as a tenant so does the other tenant but how can you pinpoint what was the energy consumption of particular workloads and again when you're running in a private cloud or when you're running in a hybrid cloud or in a public cloud where you are not the only one but there are many other people who are resources how do you attribute power to specific process containers and pods so with all these thoughts in mind we designed our cloud native sustainability stack and it has many projects but today I'm just going to talk about Kepler and the Kepler model server but before that I want to give you an idea what are the principles that we follow to attribute energy consumption so we we did a bunch of experiments read a lot of paper and come to the conclusion that power consumption is attributed to resource usage by process containers pods etc that's running and this is one example let's say that you are only in this picture we only talk about the CPU usage or the CPU power consumption so let's say that you have a pot that has a one container and it is consuming 10 percent of the CPU then you can say that it contributed to 10 percent of total CPU consumption so if it is consuming 50 you can say it attributed to 50 percent of CPU power consumption so the first project obviously Kepler which is called Kubernetes based efficient power level exporter and it uses software counters to measure power consumption by hardware resources and exports them as Prometheus metrics down the line we are thinking of moving from Prometheus and adopting OLTP so that anyone any monitoring stack that is compatible with OTLP protocol they can they can consume our metrics so Kepler employs three prompt approach which is per pod level it first reports per pod level energy consumption including the CPU GPU RAM and it works both for bare metal as well as virtual machines and it exports the energy metrics as Prometheus metrics obviously the goal of Kepler is to measure power consumption you don't want Kepler to measure these power consumption and itself contributing to 20 percent of the power usage so to minimize that we made Kepler very lightweight so that we so that's why we're using EVPF to attribute power consumption to a particular process and this I'll talk later but not all the time you have access to hardware power consumption using Rappel or ACPI for example in case of VM you cannot have access to the power meter so in that case we use machine learning models to estimate energy so this is the bottom up approach and for data collection and data aggregation Kepler uses as I said software counters and power meters to to calculate the power consumption by the hardware and then for data modeling and presentation what Kepler does is converts these power consumption into energy estimation using machine learning so how is this machine learning model formed they are formed by Kepler model server when the when the node energy is not provided to you by when or in the absence of power meter what Kepler relies on is pre-trained models that can estimate energy consumption and right now the the stack that we're using is tensor flow keras flask and Prometheus so we use two kind of models the cpu core energy consumption model which is trained on features like cpu architecture current cpu cycle current cpu instruction and cpu time and you have the DRAM energy consumption model that uses cpu architecture current cache misses and memory working set sorry so there are two phases the training phase and the uh exploding phase so for training the Kepler model server have no has agents sitting on each of the nodes and these agents scrapes the node metrics and exports them to Prometheus and then the Kepler model server scrapes the Prometheus and forms the data set both for training as well as testing and it trains the model evaluates the model and if it's of acceptable accuracy you can use the model for using the model or exporting the model uh uh use flask endpoints down the line again as I said we are going to go with open telemetry but you can also load the model in memory to do the estimates so how do you decide what models you're going to use and uh and when you have to use so it depends on generally the available measurements if you have access to the total power then you use a power ratio modeling where the usage is a ratio of the power consumed by the processes by the total summation of power but as I mentioned when power metrics cannot be measured for example in case of a virtual machine you can estimate power by usage metrics as input features of the train model and you can do three level of estimation you can measure node total power which includes fan power supply and the internal components such as CPU and memory and then you can do the pod power so this is uh the various scenarios on when you use what model supposedly the first row when you have a bare metal with x86 with power meter you measure total power using ACPI you measure node component power using raffle and pot power is just a ratio and the last row if you see which is a pure VM scenario when you don't have access to node power or node component power then the pot power is just power estimation uh the link will you will have these slides and the link will give you more information on the various metrics that we use and as I said Kepler works not only on bare metal as well as VM but now Kepler goes beyond Kubernetes because we have created an RPM that you can run on the Linux server that can estimate power consumption of indual process outside the Kubernetes ecosystem so I have few screenshots that I want to share that shows you very interesting Grafana dashboard at least it's interesting to me so for this cluster we have uh six nodes and Kepler runs as a demon set so it is the instances of it on each of the nodes and we have a Grafana route and this is the first dashboard so we use a third party api to compute the carbon intensity by region and this is for united states and uh you can see over here the various colored graph is the carbon intensity by the region and you can see that uh the first is uh highest and the down is the lowest so BPA which is like a stepcraft it's the lowest while the highest is uh the also the so-called purple MISO MISO is the highest the second dashboard now that you have the carbon intensity by region you can use Kepler to translate that carbon intensity to particular process you know what is the energy consumption or energy estimates and you know what was the kilo ton per hour carbon emission and using these two values you can correlate what was the carbon footprint of each of the space or each of the parts so for example over here we are using the BPA region and the carbon intensity on the left hand side you can see is ranging between point anything between point six to one but power consumption of all namespace is a straight line now we have the MISO region so the carbon footprint is ranging between four to five but the power consumption is constant so you can see that you can control your carbon emission if you can schedule your workloads in a region that have less carbon intensity so we have applied to Kepler in the open source we have worked with IBM to design something which is called clever which is a container level energy efficient BPA recommender we also worked with Microsoft and the Keita team and we have made carbon aware scaling with Keita and something that I worked on is carbon aware scheduling so if you can have the access of the details of what is the source of your power can you control the current intensity of your workload relying more on renewable energy and less on fossil fuel so that is all this QR code will take you to a sustainability stack this is the link to Kepler and the model server but you can check out other projects as well and now I guess we have time for a few questions if you don't mention you can also have suggestions Your role is very interesting it basically would capture also a case when for example one workload triggers machining to be scheduled in a region so that basically that changes your total consumption to be one more machining because one one workload particularly needs to scale up so that one more machining schedule and if I am setting the right it would capture that because you are in the consumption on the whole cluster and then if you basically could relate it to so region how do so we get the first thing oh sorry okay so you are saying that if I got it right what you were asking is if I control the machines that are in a region I can somehow control the carbon intensity of the workloads is that your question one more machine you mean to say machine or you mean to say workloads virtual machines virtual machines okay got it yeah yeah got it so I said Kepler will not that you have to get a third party and if you have access to that then definitely you can if you're adding a machine you would have the you can do the estimate of the total like all the nodes that are present in the cluster and definitely you get the workload estimate from Kepler now tying these together definitely you can do it but that we are finding is getting a reliable carbon intensity data because everybody have carbon intensity but they don't talk about how they are exporting it there's no transparency and we just have to accept what they are giving us so we are working to a more specialized open source and transparent way to get this carbon intensity data but if we have access to reliable carbon intensity data definitely that can be done anybody has used Kepler or heard about it before like I know we have one person who use a project but anybody else heard about Kepler before okay I'm sure you will now okay nice okay how much time we have so you asked how how do we get the carbon in how do we use carbon intensity information to do the scheduling I have some slides in case somebody was interested so okay so as I said we used rely on third party API to get the carbon intensity so what we did was we developed a carbon intensity forecaster that scrapes these third party API to give you what is going to be the carbon intensity in some step in the future and for this experiment we were calculating carbon intensity for a day ahead so the first thing what you get these carbon intensity data from the forecaster and the forecaster is kind of there's a cron job that would be querying the forecaster to get the carbon intensity data for each of the node and depending if the carbon intensity is super high we label them as red if the carbon intensity is somewhere in the middle we label them as yellow and if it's like the lowest we label them as green now there's something which is called labels and taint in Kubernetes ecosystem and using those features we control that so when the node has a really high carbon intensity build it as red and we also apply a taint to it if the node is some has a lowest it gets as you can see is yellow and not so tainting a node means if a pod and this is the pod spec so over here in the pod spec you can this pod is explicitly declaring its prefers a node that has a label the intensity is green but it does not has tolerations for any node that has been tainted as red and a toleration second for the sake of this experiment we made it as five that means if a pod is scheduled on a node that is tainted red it would just stay there for five seconds and then will be evicted just to be clear that the workloads are moving so as the node turning from red to green the scheduler which is the Kubernetes inherent scheduler will see the pod spec will see what is the taint and labels on the node it would evict the pod from node one that is going from green to red and schedule it to node two which is going from red to green so tainting nodes will ensure that pods are evicted by the nodes if pods do not have tolerations for that somebody asked me this question yesterday in the workshop what if my idea about carbon intensity and I don't care that my pod should be evicted so in that case you don't need to provide these additional information in your pod spec just don't provide a node selector and don't provide a tolerations and then it would be considered general yeah thank you so much