Bye.
Heartbeats with a silent courage Hitting the test by you if I should leave
I can see that destiny is slow
Clasp around your finger Double under deep blue sea
you can tell if someone's lying, you can sort of feel it in people.
And I have lied.
I'm sure I'll lie again.
I don't want to lie.
I don't think I'm a liar.
I try not to be a liar.
I don't want to be a liar.
I think it's really important not to be a liar.
When he introduced
Jonathan, who's going to talk about his latest distillation of what the pandemic means to society, to biology, to science, and to democracy, and to the whole kind of idea of empiricism and integrity.
And then each of us, this incredible preeminent panel that we have, each one of you is going to get a chance to comment
It doesn't matter much at all what you believe about vaccines until we invent really important ones, until we have a pandemic that's killing everyone.
It's measles plus.
Okay, I can tolerate what you think about measles because not that many people die from it.
It's just a big hassle in the end.
No, when we have this new pandemic that is, you know, got 75% mortality.
There'll be no pretense of being polite in the face of this flu.
It'll be a moral emergency, because it has to be.
I'm afraid that the latest data tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worst-case scenario.
I'm afraid that the latest data... Now, Dr. Gallo and Dr. Fauci talked a lot about isolation and purification.
Can you tell me what the difference is between the two?
Isolation, what was it?
Isolation and purification.
Of the virus?
Yes.
Well, you isolate a virus by
finding the virus which causes a disease.
You purify a virus by making a lot of, I mean, just by purifying it so you get a pure virus.
I don't understand what the issue.
Well, they interchanged the two and I wasn't sure if it was the same thing or if it was two totally different.
No, it depends on how they used it.
Okay.
Can you explain the process of HIV isolation?
Well, didn't Dr. Gallo do that?
I mean, he actually isolated it, so.
I mean, why should I do all of this?
This is all textbook stuff you're asking me.
The End
Good morning, everybody.
It's 11.05 on the 11th of July, 2024.
We're here again with GigaOM Biological.
I agree, kids need some more Mr. Rogers.
They need that this time.
That little cat cartoon that they've substituted for Mr. Rogers is not a good substitute.
Yeah, we're trying to break the enchantment one day at a time here, and I had the opportunity to finally hook up with a guest that I've been
I've been trying to follow, but he puts out a lot of stuff.
He's written books.
And I'm just now sort of waking up to how lost I've really been my whole adult life.
And so no matter what you think you've seen through before COVID, chances are you haven't seen through all of it.
And that goes for everybody.
I mean, really just insane, really, how that holds for everybody.
know there's they've been competing for our consciousness for a long time and it's not just this stuff about COVID and even to a certain extent you could see our continued focus exclusively on the biology of the pandemic is somewhat limiting our ability to really reject
all of the changes that they are planning and have planned and are executing and are going forward with.
And that's one of the reasons why the guest yesterday that we had on was so interesting to talk to.
I'm not sure if we were able to follow everything, but I know that there's a lot more material out there, including his book to read.
So that was David Webb.
And then, you know,
Today, I think I'm going to at least be able to ask a few questions that I've wanted to ask ever since the red pill and ever since meeting G. Edward Griffin.
And so I'm really curious as to how this interview is going to go.
I just want to kind of get through the introduction, make sure that anybody who hasn't been here before understands what we're all about, what we're trying to achieve.
It's a kind of, it's a kind of scramble for the exits and trying to grab as many books as possible on the way out so that we can maybe raise our kids outside of this mythology that all of these charlatans
um all of all of these charlatans have have foisted upon us and and and are are sort of more or less coercing us into teaching our children and so in order to take this power back we're gonna have to teach our children something else and as we do that hopefully we can make gentle the life of this world rather than have it you know go wherever they probably plan to have it go
One of the key things that I think is to do here is to teach our children to see how this illusion of consensus on social media about everything.
I'm sure there are people like Dan Cohen and maybe even the guest for today can tell us how
how many different or name a long list of things, concepts, stories in history that are essentially an illusion of consensus about what the right questions are to ask.
I'm sure you could characterize World War I and World War II this way.
And it goes on and on.
And so that's why I'm really excited today.
We're not necessarily going to stay focused on the biology, but we are still going to try not to take their bait on social media.
We still are going to love our neighbor.
This is a message from an American to America, but also in solidarity with the rest of the world.
to whom these lies were told.
And if you can't do anything else but share, please do it.
That's the best way to support the stream because that's how this biology gets to more people every week.
Share the stream via stream.gigaohm.bio because that's the website that we pay for.
You can download a lower resolution version of the videos very quick and easy there, which should make it pretty easy for anyone with a little tech knowledge to turn it into an audio only file that you could
Listen to and I know that's a little bit of work.
I'm still trying to get that that sort of whole thing working I'm trying to get notifications somehow.
I just got notified that Soapbox can do that.
So maybe we're gonna take that into consideration I do see that my guest has joined the meeting behind me and so we're we're looking at this paradigm shift that's happening all around the world and the question is
What are we going to shift into?
How are we going to shift?
And my goal with the biology is to try to get people to drop their hands so that they can, you know, stop this active participation in the illusion and to engage in informed non-compliance.
And I think as far as the history goes, staying informed is really important or you're going to repeat it, right?
do
Okay, I'm just gonna flash through these slides really quick to make sure that all of this is working.
It is the 11th of July.
I'm a human just like you.
You know what we say every time we start.
You know that there's another way to say it, that weaponized piles of money have convinced us to argue about this stuff.
And I think one of the things that kind of transitions well into my current guest is the idea that weaponized piles of money have been getting us to argue about the wrong things for a lot longer than most of us have realized.
And that is, of course, evident in the words of Noam Chomsky and the guy who comes before him, Edward Bernays.
They've been manipulating our conscious and intelligent opinions, you know, for a very long time.
And so yesterday we had David Webb and The Great Taking, the author of The Great Taking on, and it was a sort of crash course into how some of the
cardinal ideas of the of the financial system have been corrupted so that essentially we already don't own the things we think we own and today
Sorry, Matt, I hope you don't mind.
I really like this old game show theme, so I always play it before my guests come on.
Today we have a gentleman by the name of Matt, and can you, I presume your last name is spelled, or pronounced E-red, but I've never actually heard it said before.
I always miss the beginning of a podcast.
Let me just get out of here, and this should allow me to do, put this up there, and then hello.
I'm gonna slide you over here.
And now you should see me.
And then I'm going to shift myself down to the corner, if you don't mind.
And this is how we'll do the interview.
Hello.
Welcome to the show.
Nice to meet you.
Hey, JJ.
Nice to meet you, too.
It's been a long time coming.
We've had, I think, a few mutual friends who have been really trying to poke us to have a conversation.
So I'm glad it finally panned out.
And yeah, Erit is fine.
Erit is fine.
It's typically Erit.
Erit, OK, sorry.
Erit with a K, but except the K, it's a T at the end.
I got you.
Okay.
Very good.
So you are an author of more than one book.
I know you have a very active substack.
When you asked me what we should talk about, I told you that I was a pretty naive guy when it comes to the idea of collectivism and individualism.
And that I had just recently heard this summary of G. Edward Griffin, and I thought it was a really some way of looking at it that I'd never looked at before.
And then very quickly I had other people tell me, well, it's not that simple either, though.
That's how this really started to fuel in the background.
You need to talk to Matt.
And so without further ado, maybe that's the only way that I'll cue it off.
And then after this, I'll just ask for help or a lifeline when I need it.
I yeah, sure.
I'm looking forward to chatting about that.
And that was actually sort of the germ seed of the.
how I was thinking about framing the first volume of my book series, The Clash of the Two Americas, called The Unfinished Symphony.
was this idea that, okay, I'm a Canadian.
I'm a Canadian trying to figure out America.
I'm trying to figure out Canada.
And I felt at a certain point about a decade ago that I had a much better handle on what the United States was and I didn't know what Canada was.
So at the time I was working with the Schiller Institute.
It's an organization that had been created by Lyndon LaRouche, an American economist who passed away in 2019.
He was around,
fighting the good fight for well over 50 years, quite an exceptional guy.
And I started volunteering in around 2006.
Wow.
He had a lot of people on the ground, like passing out papers.
It was very impressive.
I knew of him well, let's say it like that.
Yeah, you know, like I there was a small grouping in Canada, maybe 11 or 12 people at the time.
And I felt at the time that I had for a couple of years on my own pulled together what I figured was a pretty decent picture of what this new world order was.
You know, I had my own little shakeup and trauma.
looking into 9-11 on my own terms and trying to piece together what would be a more viable explanation for our history if the current standard model of history was garbage, because obviously whoever did 9-11 couldn't have just taken power overnight.
It must have been something that took time and an immense amount of planning that there would be a force that malevolent with such influence within what I thought was a democracy in some level.
I knew there was corruption, but you're like, well, this is more than corruption.
This is, and this is also tied to something that involves the cover up of john F Kennedy, you know you start looking into Northwoods into the bigger picture of the, the narratives within narratives and it's like why would most people who are no longer even alive were involved with Operation Northwoods.
You know, Kennedy shot it down when General Lemnitzer, who became the head of NATO after he was fired by Kennedy, he was the head of the Joint Chiefs, after he proposed killing American civilians in a plane and blaming it on the communists to invade Cuba, JFK rejected it.
But all of the people involved with that, with the murder of JFK, they're mostly dead.
in whose interest is it today to keep that real story, which goes far beyond a lone gunman, secret.
So there is a connection, you know, and it takes you a little bit of time, but it's not too difficult to realize that there's a connection to pretty much everything, 9-11, JFK, then you're like, okay, well, what about Lincoln's murder?
Like, okay, okay, so there's a whole other higher story, a higher, more,
explanation that is more proximate to the reality of how things actually transpired, transpired, most importantly, why.
And I found that there was, I was very satisfied with the approach and the methodology of analysis that I found with Lyndon LaRouche.
So I began in 2006, volunteering in this small Canadian grouping.
And that was a learning curve for me, just organizing strangers, as you pointed out, handing out pamphlets with political signage, which is very provocative, getting spat at, getting in fights.
So I found myself sort of growing in some interesting ways just by virtue of fighting with strangers around big ideas that most people are not equipped to talk about, systemic.
You know what, how should they know back in 2007 that there's a systemic meltdown built into the system that there's a death cult that's taking control of major functions of their government that it's not even American per se but the pedigree of this is actually tied to an international
financier oligarchy, which actually has as its base of operations, a location on the other side of the ocean.
That's not even American per se.
And all this stuff for a Canadian especially, where we are already trained in our British education system to kind of despise Americans.
That's the way I'll look.
We're told we're the
We sound a little like the Americans, you know, we're made up of a lot of white people and, you know, similar composition and culture.
But we watched The Simpsons together and stuff.
So we're very American like.
However, we're kind of better because we never had to fight for anything.
We knew that if we just stayed loyal to the British crown, that we would eventually be granted freedoms if we just waited patiently, unlike our
impatient Southern cousins, shame on them who caused such a mess.
And now look at the mess they're causing in the world today, Vietnam and all of it.
And it's true, like America behaved really damn badly to the natives, to the world.
I mean, they kind of made it easy to accept this narrative that the British fed us.
But there was a bit of a trick because why were all of these American presidents murdered while in office?
You know, it's a young country.
And yet, despite it being so young, eight American presidents
died while in office, some by bullets, some by poisoning, but eight, that's a huge number.
And for the first time, that was a paradox that I was wrestling with before I really encountered LaRouche's analysis.
And then I found a satisfying explanation when I was challenged by some of the members within that organization who did a lot of history work to go and look at was there anything common
amongst all of the policies of those murdered presidents, that they were fighting to do something against a certain power structure, despite the fact that JFK and Harrison were separated by 200 or 120 years when they died.
President Harrison being the first official president who died while in office after three months.
Were there common denominators that united Lincoln and Garfield and McKinley?
Zachary Taylor and Warren Harding and FDR and JFK.
And it's like, yeah, yeah, there's actually very concise, concrete, unifying themes of what their policy initiatives were that they did, that they were trying to do.
Some of what these people did was successful at subverting certain initiatives that forces amongst another class of Americans
that had typically made their fortunes working with the British East India Company, working with the City of London, working with the opium trading houses of the Sassoons, of the Montefiores, who were managing the opium wars, managing the slave trade.
A lot of those families, like the Cabots, the Lodges, the Lowells, the Morgans, the Rockefellers later on, they were
American in blood.
A lot of these people were born in America, but they were completely loyal to that system of global Anglo hegemony, which was the British Empire was the only one world government with a very tightly managed governing class, a very closed oligarchy of a certain limited array of families.
And auxiliaries that were devoted to maintaining the structures of that master-slave structure of control that had been going on.
Really, if you go down to it, it's continuous back to the days of ancient Babylon.
Similar small family cluster with certain mystery cult religions that initiate and groom their managerial class.
Maybe the form changes over time, but it's the same essence.
And so, you know, when you look at the American Revolution from that new framing, you like revisit what the American Revolution was with that new appreciation for that tapestry, that nature of the battle of history, it means something different.
It's not just, we didn't want to pay, Americans didn't want to pay taxes.
They didn't like British tea and so revolution.
It's like, that's not the reason why.
There was another reason.
That's a much better reason why you would do that.
And then why were all of these American presidents eliminated?
What were they doing?
Well, they were all reviving and acting upon a certain idea of constitutional, both banking and internal policy domestically within America.
to bring forth something that had been created in the fires of that war, and especially with certain reports and policies in the 1790s to create for the first time a unified republic with a national bank capable of emitting productive credit for specifically a program that would be anti-Malthusian, which means, which would overcome limits to growth so that the banking and monetary system would service the needs of
you know, making discoveries, applying them to new technologies, whether canal building, railroads, steam engines, anything that would allow us to overcome limits that were creating boundary conditions, constraints, which, you know, the British Empire is really good at managing constraints, managing scarcity.
That's why they, that's why Malthus
was sort of the first scientific social engineer for the Empire.
He was a teacher at the British East India Company's Haleybury College.
He was a very high level high priest within the British Empire trying to create or advance an idea that
Managing population and managing depopulation was the responsibility of the governing class, utilizing mathematical formulas that tied into certain very primitive notions of arithmetic and geometric growth functions embedded within human systems.
You know, human beings, when left to grow, he said, grow geometrically.
Food
can only reproduce arithmetically.
So one could extrapolate trends into some hypothesized future state, whereby a carrying capacity would be struck, where people supersede the ability to feed them.
And thus, we as a governing class who use this special math called the dismal science that was economics.
He called it the dismal science, because it's the science of killing people.
We can act preventatively on those future crises before they should happen, utilizing controlled famines, constant wars that the British Empire can manage, utilizing fools in their domain who they can get to just fight each other forever, promote plagues whenever possible to help regulate population.
And he's explicit.
He actually in his 1799 book on new essay or essays on population.
He's in the first edition he's explicit where he outlines those gifts that God gave us he was a man of the church after all.
meaning wars, famine, survey, plagues, and I forget another one.
He actually said that that's what should be used to regulate population, and they did so in Ireland.
They depopulated it by two million people in the, they call it the potato famine, but it was actually a genocide, a controlled genocide.
They produced many things other than potatoes in Ireland, but that's sort of, even the Irish don't learn it that way.
They learn it was about a potato blight, not true.
They did it to India 25 times.
Nobody knows how many Indians died, probably well in the hundreds of millions over the course of the two centuries Britain was in control.
They did it everywhere they touched.
They used the science of population management.
And if you look at the original, the best people within the founding fathers,
especially Benjamin Franklin, they were directly taking aim at this view of what human nature was, this disgusting, sick view of human nature that Malthus promoted.
And they were trying to create a system of banking that would counteract the city of London structure of Malthusian banking, based upon the idea that the sovereign nation state, being a pretty new institution,
could control and manage its own national bank to emit credit for the development needs of the people, that it was a participatory government for the first time in history, where everybody was a sovereign, not just one sovereign.
But of course, the battle there to make this work, and this gets at the main question that you were leading into.
So I'll just sort of wrap up my little composition in my head here.
The only way for this to work, as John Adams said, is that the republic can only work if you have a moral and religious people.
It's a cultural fight because the only way that people could see themselves could qualify for citizen hood instead of subject hood citizens being different from subjects subjects, you know, our feudal art have a feudal mentality they want.
The government to just take care of them, they don't see, they don't look in the mirror and see the government looking back at them whereas a citizen recognizes your rights are something that were fought for that come with duties and responsibilities you look in the gut in the mirror and you see somebody who's responsible for.
Morally, for my kids, my grandkids, the nation as a whole, humanity as a whole, these are more elevated, matured identities where you see that you and the government are tied together because the government itself grew out of the fires of a battle for the concept of freedom, which without finalizing the battle, it was never finalized.
So it's a cultural fight primarily to unify the personal sense of self-interest of the individual
with the wellbeing, the general welfare of the whole, which is why in this book, The Unfinished Symphony, I tried to get across that the American Revolution is in many ways a really beautiful thing that involved a battle that most even Americans don't understand and guaranteed most Canadians, I would say no Canadian understands what that was all about.
Because we had Benjamin Franklin here who was trying to negotiate in 1776 in April
He was in Montreal, where I live, and he was trying to get Canada to send a delegation to the Continental Congress in 1776 to sign a Declaration of Independence to say, OK, us 14 colonies together will say we're going to create a new type of structure of governance that rejects hereditary institution.
And he couldn't get any traction.
He was up here for like four or five weeks.
And he couldn't find the culture within the Quebec population or the leadership, which was mostly Jesuit and Anglican managed at the time.
Anglicanism being a weird form of the church with the king, the hereditary monarch as the Pope.
And unfortunately, he said, you know, they're good people in Quebec, they just they're French Canadian, they just gotten defeated by the British Empire in the Seven Years War, but they don't have a culture of literacy that because of French seniorism, the French feudal systems, they're not able to read Thomas Paine's Common Sense, they're not able to read the pamphlets.
So because of that,
that feudal mentality, they didn't understand the meaning of why they should go and fight in Washington's army for these abstract ideas.
It wasn't there.
So whereas in the United States, there was more in the English-speaking 13 colonies,
there was more of a culture of the Latin farmer.
Almost everybody was literate, could read Latin, could read Greek, could read the Bible.
So you had a greater cultural soil in which these very high ideas could find root, in which you would be willing to go out and risk your life and your family even to fight the world's biggest empire.
So it was great that it happened, but a lot was left undealt with, including this big function of oligarchs.
So some of the oligarchs that were loyal to the empire were kicked out, obviously, of the 13 colonies, and they were given sanctuary in Canada.
And that's why we have English-speaking Canada, is because the United Empire loyalists who wanted to stay loyal to king and empire
We're granted territory here in Toronto and Montreal and so we have English speaking Canadians.
And certain bribes were given to the Quebec, to the Canadians at the time to just stay loyal to the crown, certain limited freedoms, of course.
But then you, and then some of them stayed behind.
So some of the traders remained behind in the 13 colonies, acting like they were patriots, but were always loyal in their heart of hearts to the empire.
And if you wanna look at the origins of the deep state of America, the thing that's recently been called deep state, but the thing that oversaw the murder of Kennedy, the thing that oversaw the murder of Lincoln, that created the KKK, that created the Scottish right, that created the FBI, the CIA,
It's all unifying.
There's a unifying theme that goes back to this failure to deal with this thing that then created Wall Street in the late 1790s by Aaron Burr.
It created this whole machinery, this shadow government, this fifth column that was incubating and growing and subverting the better ideals and the people who stood for those better ideals.
throughout the next 250 years.
And again, the fight was always cultural because the qualifications for a citizen who could both look at the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution.
So the Declaration of 1776 is very unambiguous over the sacredness of the liberty of the individual, the inalienable rights of each person, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, very clear and unambiguous.
But then you have the Constitution of 1787, both of which were presided over by Ben Franklin, mind you.
So one mind, the guy who discovers the nature of electricity, he's the guy who creates the first newspapers in Canada, the first postal services, Benjamin Franklin.
This guy's just everything.
He's everywhere.
He's a grand strategist.
He's really good.
And he's the guy who's overseeing these two founding documents.
But one of the Constitution, its emphasis is on the general welfare.
And today, there's a big I think our education and culture has caused a bit of a scrambling of the mind where it's very you get these debates amongst constitutional scholars and Americans who call themselves patriots saying,
Well, you can't have both, you know, either it's the general welfare, which matters or it's the inalienable rights of the individual, because we can obviously obviously the term, the greater good or the general welfare can obviously be abused by tyrants.
We've seen that so many times, especially the last few years.
However,
However, that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad.
It just means that when we allow for certain corruptions to happen, and when we tolerate certain mediocrity within our culture and within ourselves, it will happen that our government will be taken over by something that might want to enslave us and use the technology of government as a tool to enslave and hurt us.
That's true.
And it will utilize certain language of sophistry, like we got to make sacrifices for the greater good.
Sure.
But it doesn't mean that the greater good should be thrown in the garbage either.
And the whole idea of unifying the individual liberty with the greater good requires a very high quality of education, it requires certain access to information, that's where the media
in a democracy is a very important tool for control.
If you can corrupt the minds of the people and turn media into tabloid gossip or whatever else, you definitely scramble the ability to formulate citizens who can pass judgments, utilize discernment, withhold judgment before they look at all of the facts.
That's something that people need to do in every field that we look at.
But instead, people want to jump the gun.
So then we get demagoguery.
We get people acquiescing in mob rule to supporting figures who actually are going to hurt us.
And we're not thinking it through because we're not thinking about the policies.
We're not thinking about what's behind the surface flowery words that people are utilizing to get our emotional support for things.
And that's the story of America.
That's the story, I think, of even the collapse of Rome, when you looked at how
people quickly turned on Pompeii and then supported Caesar according to Shakespeare.
You know, the mob was was just coaxed left and right by flowery rhetoricians to endorse policies that were ultimately turning Rome from what little viable republicanism it still had within it into a full blown empire with a god man, you know.
Emperor God at the helm with a set of Gnostic mystery cults and hedonistic self-human sacrifice and orgies, you know, keeping the people and the Praetorian Guard entertained in between wars.
So, yeah.
So when you say
When you say like a crown loyalist, can I, would the modern better way or not better way, but what an alternative way to think about that be something like the city of London?
Is that what we're talking about?
Or, and again, because my, my understanding of this is very, very,
Well, I knew just enough that they lied in order to function as a citizen, but I didn't understand that the entire theater was orchestrated on all sides and this kind of thing that I now understand.
And even as I moved through the biology of it and biology woke me up to how they do it, now looking back on the history that I know as an adult, I shake my head because I understand that I don't really know what happened.
It is a very interesting take that I think also Ed Griffin has.
So should I think of America as never having actually won the revolution?
Or, I mean, where are we at at this stage in your model?
Or is it still a balance between people who are patriotic to the American ideal and people who are loyal to whatever globalist thing is happening here?
Or is it already over?
Hmm.
No, I don't think it's over, but we wasted a lot of time and we allowed a lot of a very high degree of mediocrity and corruption to become normalized for an astounding period of time.
And it's always it's always been a fight.
Right.
The decadence and socio
psycho decay of a people has always been a threat and a problem in it.
Whenever we go into these like dark agey downturns, whenever we slide into periods of forgetting what made us good in the past and we don't give appreciation, we take for granted those things.
Yeah, we slide and we this sort of thing happens.
But the extent in the time frame in which this has been drawn out, I would say really
Since the especially since the murder and cover up of JFK and then his brother and Martin Luther King Jr.
and Malcolm X, like that was a high density.
Fred Hampton as well, killed by the FBI.
Very high density array of assassinations in that period.
Similar in some ways to the density of assassinations in the early 20s when there was a fight against the one world government agenda around the League of Nations and the eugenicists behind the League of Nations and tied very much to the city of London and the crown for sure.
But there was an international wave of murders of statesmen in the 20s, just like there was in the 60s and early 70s.
And just like there was after Lincoln was murdered.
And there was a vast array of assassinations
from, again, Garfield, Czar Alexander II, Czar Alexander III, Nicholas II, Sidi Carmel, the president of France, and something like 40 German high-level politicians.
I mean, there was a lot of, it was the age of assassination.
But again, the common thread behind these things is that there's an accompanying insanity
of the mob, which tends to if you don't have like if you if you don't have.
And this is the thing like some people might take offense of what I'm about to say but I'm going to say it because the human beings, we organize whether it's in the family unit or around classrooms or in cities where there's a mayor or whatever we
have a leader, like we organize ourselves within some form of somebody taking voluntary leadership to get something done.
And you can see that in a lot of primitive societies too, it's something which is just the way we organically organize to do things and get challenges solved, you know, if you're trying to build some
Some engineering structure and there's things that need to get figured out.
Some people will take more initiative than others and will help people along the way.
The question is what qualifies somebody as a good qualified leader with what the Chinese might call the mandate of heaven versus somebody who is abusive of that authority.
That's part of the whole challenge, right?
Hence, what is, how do we judge a good president who usually gets assassinated or at least, versus somebody who's abusive.
And I don't wanna say that you can only trust people when they die.
I don't wanna say that either, but that's just been the theme.
And when you don't have the wisdom of somebody who is doing it for the right reasons, right?
Who's,
Usually when you look at a Martin Luther King Jr.
and you read his writings, you get to know his personality more.
You look at the sacrifices that he was making, willing to make.
You listen to the From the Mountaintop speech and you look at his strategy.
He wasn't doing it for the power, for the money.
And I know there's been a lot of gossipy books by his enemies that have been published to slander.
his to do character assassinations on him over the years.
And I've done the work.
I can tell you most of what people think of when they're like, oh, he was the orgy, abusive orgiastic, abusive woman beater that he was a hypocrite.
I could tell you when you actually scratch the surface of those narratives.
You'll find Cambridge and Rhodes Scholar officiate official hack historians who are creating false models to destroy our ability to actually recognize and appreciate the sublime character of what he was doing, and they create gossip and turn it into a repeat gossip.
make it into fact by repetition, and then all of a sudden, give a few Pulitzer Prizes to a book or two, which gives it the grounding of, like, truth, that then all of a sudden becomes associated with the identity of a JFK who obviously oversaw the murder of Marilyn Monroe.
and obviously tried to kill Castro and invade Cuba and obviously wanted Northwoods.
And JFK was, you can't learn anything from JFK.
And Lincoln was a tyrant and he was abusive to his wife.
Anyway, so there's all of these things that they do in a gossipy tabloid type of style.
But if you look at the source and you do some honest digging over these claims, you'll usually find self-referential gossip without any evidence that would
It's make believe.
Anyway, I'm saying this just to get across your your to your question was, is the Republic salvageable?
There's been now 50, 60 years of consumer society decay where we we allowed a lot of time to be wasted.
And I do think that it is viable, but people need to really speed up their bell curve discovery process fast and put into question a lot of their fundamental axioms.
As you just pointed out very well, you're saying your gateway
was through your path in science.
Everybody has their own gateway.
COVID was a big wake-up call.
Mine was 9-11.
That was my gateway, but everyone's got their own thing.
But at a certain point, you have to presume that not, you don't wanna throw the baby out with the bathwater, because you definitely, we know certain things.
Not everything was a lie.
Like, society still has to function.
However, the coloring,
explaining why a lot of the things we take for granted are the way they are, we have to put into question and maybe revisit a lot of our core assumptions within this new process.
So people need to do that if they're gonna be able to, I think, reevaluate why the oligarchy has been obsessed with destroying America for the past 250 years.
And yeah, when I say the crown, the United Empire loyalists, that does refer to the British Empire, but the British Empire, the crown itself is kind of,
There was a certain point not that long ago when England wasn't yet an empire.
It had a different destiny pulling on it, which was a more noble destiny before this parasite took control of England.
And I've got a book, actually.
Volume four of my book series is on the Anglo-Venetian roots of the deep state.
And that's the St.
Mark's Lion here.
St.
Mark's line, which is the line of Venice, which one can actually trace that the transformation of England from being a viable nation into an empire was overseen by a Venetian operation.
So Venice was a little, it was called the Serene Republic, but it was never Republic ever.
And it was sort of one of the core central headquarters which many of the ruling patrician families that were in the Western Roman Empire when the as the Western Roman Empire was melting down.
due largely to its own overbloated desire to spread itself into a global one-world empire, uniting East and West under a world man-god and an associated priesthood.
As that thing melted down under its own corruption, a lot of the, not surviving, but a lot of the patrician families that overplayed their card had to move their assets and families into more secure geographical zones of which Venice was a key place
and Venice became sort of the reconstructed empire.
And for some centuries, it was known as the principal, and this is commonly known back in the 13th century, 14th century, Dante understood this, Dante Alighieri, Petrarch, Thomas More, they write about this, was the center of evil.
And it was the center of global bullion trade, maritime banking, especially when they took control of the,
did a bit of a coup on Constantinople, which was sort of the mother empire of the Byzantine Empire.
After the Fourth Crusade, a coup was carried out and Venice took control of Constantinople's trade routes over land all the way to Asia, all the way through the Maritime and even into Africa.
And then they became sort of that thing with deep penetration into the courts of all of Europe.
You had Venetian advisors advising Genghis Khan and his grandsons over managing the growth of the Mongol Empire for centuries as sort of the marcher lords or proxies for the Venetians, just the same way ISIS has been utilized by American intelligence.
as a nominally Islamic, but not really.
The whole thing is funded by the CIA, provided logistical support by the CIA, by British intelligence to overthrow governments, whether Qaddafi, whether Iraq, whoever that you want to overthrow.
That's what ISIS is, and that's what Genghis Khan, the evidence I've seen,
is what he largely was.
And again, advised by Venetians, provided intelligence by Venetians with their network of espionage through their embassies and all the courts of Europe, of Russia, of Northern Africa, of India.
So this is something that is serious and it took over Britain.
It took over England, especially that culminated with the 1688 Glorious Revolution that saw the creation of the Bank of England in 1694 inside of England.
as sort of a new type of financier empire.
And along the way, a lot of the great English humanist patriots who were against empire got their heads cut off, like Thomas More, got expelled, like Jonathan Swift, who was also fighting against the Malthusians with his satire.
um like like a modest proposal which which gave like a hilarious is a pamphlet that gave a hilarious bit of advice on how to cook and eat babies since we have too many babies and we're overpopulated so why don't we just eat a bit but he's doing it to like shame and and and expose the actual practices of killing children by the empire um and jonathan swift is the guy who's advising
the government of England who's fighting against this Venetian takeover of Robert Harley, the prime minister back in the 1690s, early 1700s.
But they're not successful.
England is transformed.
This whole Hellfire Club operation of this Gnostic Satanism is infused into the governing class at that time.
This is brought in by Venice.
So this is what America eventually has to battle.
As some British colonies, they have to, with a different kind of culture far removed across the ocean, they have to battle this thing.
And again, it's not finalized.
So it's a great thing that it happened.
The oligarchy has been trying to put the genie back in the bottle for the next 250 years.
The oligarchy wasn't happy that that thing happened in 1776.
They've been very unhappy, to say the least.
But it wasn't a one war.
It was a one battle.
but the war wasn't won.
There were periods which helped advance the ideals within the constitution, but you know, you still had slavery.
Like slaves were still three fifths of a human.
So that took time to start.
So then bring it up, bring it up closer to modern day then.
How much of this in modern history and modern America is now, you know,
Are you suggesting, for example, that we need to, and I've been saying it for a while, that if there were weaponized piles of money back in these 1700s, and those weaponized piles of money are continuous with a pile of money that exists now, then those piles of money must be inordinately large.
Anything that we're talking about is probably dwarfed in terms of whatever large piles if it was a large pile of money in 1600 and these people used a a cult or whatever to continually
sort of sit on top of this weaponized piles of pile of money, then for me, what I want to understand is, is why do you have Trudeau as a premier?
Why do we have Biden as a premier?
Why, how can we understand the trap that we're currently in, given the fact that history says, this is a continuous line of liars that has been sitting on weaponized piles of money and using them against us?
Well, we've been lied to, I think.
There's this common belief that money makes the world go round, which we were told and it became sort of a governing trope.
And it's not true.
So like I was mentioning here, this takeover of England by the Venetians, and this will touch at your heart of the answer to the question, I think part of the way that worked because this happened by
The glorious revolution I refer to, overseen by the Venetians, was actually done both with Venice and Venice first having to take control of Amsterdam first, because Amsterdam was also an anti-imperial culture with a high degree of scientific and artistic excellence that had to be subverted.
So the way the empire works, it sort of subverts by corrupting the places where there is the greatest good and thus the greatest danger to the existence of the oligarchy.
The way they did that largely was through turning Amsterdam into a stock, a gambling house.
So they created the Dutch Stock Exchange, the privatized central bank of Amsterdam.
But the stock exchange basically took what was the idea of viable investments and into things that were entrepreneurial, into nation building exercises like the canals and things, and transformed it into gambling
on whatever increasingly people were gambling making money off of tulip bulbs.
So yeah, that's what's called the Dutch tulip bubble.
And I would say this was not an organically emerging sociological phenomenon.
This was an economic warfare to transform a viable
nation state into a time bomb that could be detonated to then create a wealth transfer on the one hand for the people stupid enough to play into this money-making machinery.
Because everybody was making money on the stock exchange gambling first with tulip bulbs from like, you know, the Ottoman Empire in India, you know, the rarer the more valuable.
And then at a certain point, they were just gambling on paper representing tulip bulbs.
So they weren't even producing tulip bulbs.
And castles were being exchanged for papers representing tulip bulbs.
And you can see the rates.
There's books written on the madness of crowds, which just shows the rate of exponential, even maybe hyperbolic value growth out of fictitious capital.
But now the people who organized the propaganda for that at the top,
always knew it was a time bomb that they played into it and were the ones to sell, sell their their their stocks for high profit.
And before they triggered the meltdown and then using the assets, using the money that they got by selling their tulip stocks, they were able to buy up hard assets of agricultural land, castles, everything else.
So huge wealth transfer.
And it was done by design.
And then you could see
just the level of consolidation of power of this, you know, the Dutch deep state that was always allied and coordinated by Venice.
Again, Venice is key in this whole thing.
But that's interesting because we're told a story in history books that the Rothschild guy did that with Napoleon, right?
So he knew that the war was won and that he
He had some kind of whisper in his ear and then everybody reacted one way and he reacted another and blah, blah, blah.
So it sounds like a very, very similar trick.
And so I have two questions.
One is this Venetian, whatever you're talking about, they're separate from him and also separate from the Vatican.
So how should we, how should I figure that into this a little bit?
I mean, in the sense of, are they competing factions then, this Venice group and the Rothschild or whatever that is, and then also the Vatican, are they all competing interests then, working against each other?
Okay, these are good questions.
They're somewhat complex, like they require some development.
Okay.
Not really.
There is a common understanding amongst oligarchs.
So there are a limited array of families.
And some of the families at different times are at the apex of the pyramid of, let's say, the French empire.
You know, you got the Bourbons, the House of Orléans, certain governing houses of France.
And then you have certain governing houses, the Cavendishes, the Bulwers, the Littons of the higher families of England.
You got certain you know that came in a lot of them came in during the Norman takeover of the 11th century that oversaw then the the mercenary cults that would be created like the Templars to usher in the age of the Crusades.
Thurman, Texas and Sachse-Kuberg and others.
So yes, that's a limited array of governing houses.
A lot of them are Italian.
A lot of the Italian ones, I think, tend to go back a little bit deeper into the past.
Some of them believe that they're they got stories that they cook up for themselves as well to animate to animate them.
So what one popular story that that's outlined in this book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail,
is something that the oligarchy believes.
I don't believe it, but they created the story that some of these families are directly connected through the bloodline of the children of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
Jesus didn't actually die, lived out his days in France with Mary Magdalene.
created a secret gospel with secret teachings for Mary Magdalene and one other, John, you know, who have a secret, it's kind of like a Kabbalistic secret doctrine, which only the spoken, only the high priest can know.
And then you've got the public doctrine that's there and written down in public ways for the stupid people.
And they do the same thing in various, they have similar tricks.
in the secret doctrines of Muhammad for the Gnostic sects of mystery cults embedded within the Islamic world that were working with the Templars.
You got the similar types of things with the Kabbalists, with the secret doctrine of Moses, the spoken word versus what was written down for the special elect in the Jewish world.
And you got certain things within Zoroastrianism and in Buddhism, with esoteric Buddhism.
there's a common thread there too, over many, many, many centuries.
So I'm just saying this because there are certain families, sometimes there is rivalry.
I'm noticing that in my research in history, that certain times when there, when something needs to get done, that is in the interest of the oligarchical system, which is a system premised on master-slave
dichotomization of how to organize the world, they will work together pretty well.
When they achieve what they want, and you know that those are the periods that they tend to achieve what they want when there's like as much destruction to the potential that is goodness in opposition to what they represent.
Whenever they actually get pretty close to that, you tend to get a dark age.
Certain types of
like collapses in population levels tend to happen.
And then you tend to get backstabbing.
So some of these families will tend to backstab each other to try to get bigger pieces of the pie.
So there's like this weird shark parasitical self-sabotage where the parasite can only exploit the host to the point that the host dies.
Then the parasites realize that there's only so much hope dead host to go around and they start fighting the parasites fight amongst each other.
That's, that's kind of like some weird mafia gang warfare crap but in a more sophisticated domain.
Okay, so you brought up Rothschild's technique that reflects something similar to what I brought up with the tulip bubble.
It's true, but I would say the Rothschilds, because they came in in the 1750s as players in the thing, like Amschel Rothschild was a coin dealer.
recruited to carry out certain tasks by this higher, I hate calling them elite, but I'll just say it for the language, this wannabe elite crowd.
But I think that from my gathering,
of information, the Rothschilds don't have the type of causal influence in processes as they are perceived to have.
They are relatively disposable at the end of the day.
They're highly useful because Amschel Rothschild, and then he did such a good job.
And his sons who carried on certain tasks did such a good job for their masters at economic warfare.
that they were granted at a certain point a limited, what you might call a mercenary dynasty.
So certain guarantees, certain rights and orders were given to the family that would then be granted certain hereditary privileges as there are in other
Many of them are Jewish families that are granted these limited dynasties.
The Bronfmans are a more recent one based in Canada that oversaw the creation of the Mafia.
But also you got like older ones, like even older than the Rothschilds, like the Montefiore's and the Sassoon's that were employed to manage the Chinese Angola or
jurisdiction of the world for the on behalf of the British Empire.
But it's still not there's still a glass ceiling above which they are not allowed to trespass and contaminate the higher.
So because they take bloodlines very seriously in this whole thing.
And they don't like Jewish blood at the end of the day, even though they get people to be Satanists.
even though they were born as a Christian or Jewish or Muslim families.
And for those who sell their soul in the Faustian bargain, their devotion, they might still be religious, but it's religious devoted to a much darker idea of what God is, that they might call themselves Jewish on the surface, but they're more than happy to kill their own Jewish
you know, people as they are Africans or anybody.
So it's not really they're not really Rothschilds are not really Jews in that sense, nor are just like George Bush or Dick Cheney isn't really a Christian in my mind.
But this higher thing.
is tied to these older families and these higher mystery cults that don't do things for money.
They get stupid people to do things for money, but they're willing to wipe out 95% of their so-called monetary assets in favor of power.
So that's why they blew up the Tula bubble, that's why they blew up the South Sea bubble, that's why they blew up the bubbles that they built up in the Great Depression or throughout the 19th century America.
Every single economic bubble was built up in a similar kind of way, capitalizing on a similar kind of stupidity, a desire by plebeians, dumb people, to get money without working for it or earning it.
which is gambling.
So they get people in that state of mind, thinking very myopically, not about the consequence of their decisions into the future or their grandkids.
They're very self-centered as a culture.
And when we do that, we create these bubbles that could then be organized to blow, which involve wealth transfers, an impoverishment of the people, a greater power to the oligarchy to exercise their will over the system that they wanna manage.
And Napoleon, I'll just say this, he was kind of another martial lord in my analysis.
He did oversee, so, okay, so Napoleon, so my wife's writing a book on this.
She's actually, we're talking about this a lot.
He was assigned to fill a vacuum amidst the failure of France to carry out an American-style revolution in 1789.
So what could have been, and it could have been, because the American Revolution was made possible by the intervention of many French Republicans, many of those people were organized by Ben Franklin.
And the plan was after America would be able to stand on its own two feet, that a similar rejection of hereditary power structures could also liberate humanity, starting with France, because France was the most viable nation state of Europe.
And if it could work there, then you had networks in Poland, in Prussia, in Spain, in Germany, around Friedrich Schiller, in Vienna, around Mozart, who were also ready in the wings to carry on that momentum of establishing
self represent representative forms of republican government in various countries, rejecting the hereditary idea of might makes right as a as a justification of power, but it didn't work, it was sabotage in France, it turned into a Jacobin terror a lot of us had a lot to do.
with Freemasonic British-directed operations run by Jeremy Bentham, who was the head of British intelligence, who turned what could have been a viable revolutionary movement into a blood frenzy mob of just head cutting, where the good and the bad alike, all of the allies who made the American Revolution possible, all got their heads cut off, as well as bad guys.
So good and bad alike got their heads cut off.
Then there was a vacuum of leadership after a couple of years of civil war.
you know, the left and the right, the people who thought with their hearts versus thought with their brains, the Girondins, the brain party versus the Jacobin heart party, which is, again, like the feelers versus the thinkers.
They dichotomize that, which is at the heart of today's left-right concepts of party politics.
They took turns killing each other.
And then there was such a vacuum that it could only be filled by Napoleon, who at first sold himself as this Republican Roman consul,
But it didn't take him long to declare himself a world empire or emperor.
And there was an entire, you know, the French Grand Orient Lodge was was purged of any of its Republicans who were all murdered.
And it became essentially a conduit with the Scottish right at the time that we're both forming around reviving a God-man system of global, like crusader empire around the God-man Napoleon who was trying to create, as my wife Cynthia Chung has brought to my attention, his own French version of an Anglican church that had been created a little bit earlier under Henry VIII.
And there was this solar deity, Sol Invectus revivalism that had been formally attempted under Louis XIV, who was the Sun King.
He would like march around acting like he was the Sun God, Louis XIV, that was being revived as a cult around Napoleon.
So, it could have gone Napoleon's way and if it had I mean Napoleon was a proto fascist, I mean, the idea of purgative violence redemptive violence the purging of mass sacrifice of people in order to create a greater good because these these crusader.
Christian fascists of that type who pushed things like the Crusades or the Inquisition, which, by the way, the Jacobins were.
Again, my wife is doing this mind-blowing research.
She proved that the Jacobins who killed 40,000 people had their heads cut off under the Jacobin terror in France.
The Jacobins were created as an outgrowth of the Dominican order.
The Dominicans were the were a cult set up in by certain networks in.
I won't go into too much detail, but they were set up in in the after the Fourth Crusade, right when Venice took over control, you had the Dominicans and the French and Franciscans as two complementary orders utilizing a right hand, left hand path.
The Dominicans oversaw the creation and management of the Inquisition.
which was a hugely destructive operation.
And the Dominicans also oversaw the creation of the Jacobins.
So again, this is above nation state, this is above which empire was responsible for this or that.
It's like you're dealing with something above any geographical domain.
There's a higher realm of collusion based on certain ideas of what God, the nature of law, governance, man's nature is.
which they agree upon and act upon systemically over time to get certain effects and utilizing certain factors of the human dichotomy around the individual and the whole.
The one and the many, as they say, right?
That every part is a part within a system, but every system is a part within a broader system.
So how do we think of the coexistence of the one and the many?
And how do we resolve it?
People like Benjamin Franklin, like Thomas More, like the greatest Renaissance scientists, resolve it in a very organic, natural way.
And these guys, these more esoteric, pseudo, like neoplatonic, hermetic, kabbalistic freaks, they resolve it in another way, which is a lot less organic and a lot more destructive.
So yeah, that's the thing.
I don't know if that's too convoluted of a response on Napoleon and the Rothschilds.
No, it's not.
I think it's a good way to transition to so maybe you can expand a little bit on that idea of what
to compare and contrast the idea of an organic way of lifting up mankind versus a less organic way of governing mankind.
So I guess Ben Franklin wasn't interested in using war and famine for population control, whereas these other people are.
Primarily then is that, would you, would you say that that's the, I see a lot of, of, uh, anti Ben Franklin things that try to tell stories about how he was a member of a death cult here, a death cult there.
And actually he's a real bad guy.
Um, what you're seeming to tell me is that number one, he was interested in, in using money in a public good way.
Um, which up until this point, I think a lot of the people that were, um,
that are considered founding fathers understood something about how money could be weaponized against people.
So, I mean, I'm still trying to get to the stage now where this kind of history informs our current plan or our current, you know, what should we do next?
What should we teach our kids?
Yeah, I guess that's kind of where I'm at.
I mean, you, in a lot of ways, if you're in Canada, I feel like you're in a far darker place than I am, and maybe I'm just kidding myself.
I've got to convince people that this might not be really good American history, right?
That's what I have to do.
That's my idea, or at least, I don't know why this book is free on Amazon right now.
I don't really get it, other than I have to assume that
there isn't as much truth in it as it was as it was as it was wrapped up to be i don't know i mean
I'm trying to get my head around what's going on here.
OK, all right.
OK, OK.
So so I hear you.
I feel I feel for you, man.
And I, I, I have Whitney Webb's books and I've read them.
I've done reports on the reviews.
I interviewed Whitney on her books and I overall like the books.
OK, I would still say that I, I, I encourage people to read those books.
However, I could see as well how they might be useful.
for the oligarchy in some way, because they're quite good at creating a mapping of the evolution of organized crime.
but they're really not, they're very weak on identifying anything higher than the organized crime.
Like the things I've been alluding to, there is a discoverable higher process that oversaw the management of the Bronfmans, of the Mayor Lansky operation.
Like there's a very identifiable, discoverable organizational structure with an associated set of ideas that are wrong about these big questions of metaphysics.
which are again, anybody who puts their mind to that research will make those discoveries.
It's not just like, right, right.
And also, there's something that because when you go there, you start seeing that there is an identifiable discoverable process and set of ideas and idea content represented by individuals who make institutional changes sometimes if they think really good on a very high level, which
that that oligarchy is afraid of.
They're deathly afraid of the existentially afraid of something human that is done by human beings acting on natural law, which I think Whitney didn't do a great job at identifying that opposing structure that is anti oligarchical, which has pulled the rug from under its feet.
Every so often, there are these inspired lessons that we could learn from on how creative flanking maneuvers were able to occur such that things like the League of Nations attempted a one-world government that I alluded to earlier didn't succeed when the intention was not for it to fail in 1922.
It's not like the oligarchy wanted to fail at their agenda for a one-world government managed by an oligarchical eugenics-based death cult, which they almost got in 1922.
It took a lot of sacrifice.
A lot of people had to get murdered to prevent or to stop their example and strategic capabilities from continuing to sabotage new world order plans.
And from that I include Warren Harding, the president in the United States, who also was a key figure sabotaging it.
A lot of Americans who I outline in volume two of my book series on the clash of the two Americas were fighters.
Figures like Walter Rathenau, the foreign minister of Germany, you could look at him, read his writings, look at how he maneuvered against the League of Nations with collaborators who thought on a very similar level within Russia, within China around Sun Yat-sen, the first Republican president who was a major political player and leader within the nationalist cause within China, who was all negotiating.
They were all like working to a certain degree together.
There's good conspiracies.
How does that, can I stop you for a second?
How does that, for me, as an American, I have a hard time now, you use the word Republican to refer to somebody in China.
How should I hear you using the word Republican?
Oh, it's because the 1911 revolution against the dynastic system in China, the Qing dynasty was overthrown by a Republican.
It was called the People's Republic of China.
So the Republic of China was set up by Sun Yat-sen, who was a Christian who studied in Hawaii in the 1880s.
He had allies of Abraham Lincoln who were training a lot of young men.
around the ideals of what constitutional banking, what the nature of geopolitics was.
And he was a star student who became a leader of the Republican cause inside of China.
And he oversaw a big chunk of that fight.
And again, there's good and bad people alike.
Some people were trying to turn China into a color revolution to just weaken China as a viable nation state and create some form of
You know, local control fascist structure.
Some people wanted that were tied to the city of London.
Other people actually had a noble cause that all revolutions are sort of mixed their mixtures of people who are doing things for the right reasons versus the wrong reasons.
And there's a battle over like this world, these different opposing worldviews.
And it's not Manichaean.
It's not like this.
Oh, you believe in this universal good versus evil as two opposing but equal forces.
And a lot of people have accused this type of analysis that I'm giving as being Manichaean.
And it's not that it's like there's there's right and wrong and certain ideas are right and others wrong.
But Sun Yat-sen
I believe was a very right.
He had very right ideas in alignment with natural law.
And he was the first president of Republican China in 1911.
It what it didn't last long because there were a lot of warlords and and other things with a lot of fingers in the pie and a lot of foreign powers that were trying to take control of a week in China after the revolution that had formally gotten a lot of control during the what you know, it was still a century of humiliation after all.
They had the concessions from the 1899 Boxer Rebellion, whereby like, you know, seven different European powers got control of different areas of China after the rebellion of the boxers, which was, again, another sort of inside job.
So you had a lot of things that a lot of complexity and that Sun Yat-sen was contending with corruption within his own governing class, as well as foreign powers manipulating it.
But he was good.
He was solid.
And he modeled his three principles of the people.
He wrote several books which are really worth studying, highly readable books from 1918 to 1924 when he died.
His Three Principles of the People was based upon Lincoln's principles of governance for, by, and of the people, his international development of China,
book, which is a wonderful book on how to actually end poverty and create a culture of citizenry based upon large scale thinking of big projects.
China had a lot of potential but a ton of poverty.
They were a third world country abused by foreign powers for generations.
So that requires new technologies, new training centers, new educational corridors, solving big problems.
You have to give people a mission that is both viable and possible and necessary.
So his book... Can I ask?
I'm not a China scholar at all.
And sometimes I hear it like this and sometimes I don't.
I noticed that you said it.
that China was abused by other places for centuries.
I have a hard time understanding what that means, because in order to get to China, you have to have a navy and something that they want, because the
The culture remained impenetrable to anyone from the West.
I mean, in theory.
So what do you mean by abused, like just not treated with respect?
It's not like they could go enslave them or something like that.
What do you mean when you say they abused for centuries?
OK, well, starting in the 17.
Actually, in the late 1690s, the British East India Company and the Dutch East India Company, but especially the British, made their presence in India known.
They started taking control of big chunks of India.
It took them about a century to fully infest, control a new Brahmin class,
You know, they had to corrupt a local overlord class of elitists that would then organize organized crime systems on behalf of a ruling power far removed from India.
OK, so that's what they do in every country they want.
That's how only the 10000 British were able to control whatever 300, 400 million Indians was by getting the Indians to self-control, utilizing their caste system.
Right.
Now, a big chunk of that was India and China in the 1780s, 1790s still had GDPs that were far more advanced than Europe or the American colonies as far as powers of productivity, luxury quality of education.
It was quite astoundingly advanced.
That had to be destroyed economically.
So the way that they did that, after they got control from a certain political corruptive level, building up a deep state structure, you know, inside of India, they went to war with Indian textile manufacturing.
You know, like the stories, horrific stories of the British overseeing the cutting off of the hands of all the Indian textile workers.
They couldn't do their basic training.
They couldn't work.
They systematically destroyed the factories that would produce textiles so that Britain could get control of the manufacturing.
It wasn't like honest free trade competition here.
It's just like smoldering, you know.
So they did that and then they said, well, look, you got to make money, don't you, India?
You got to pay your overhead costs of a nation.
Well, you got a lot of, you got a great climate here for opium.
You can make opium, you know, you make tea and opium and, you know, we'll sell you, we'll buy your tea, we'll buy your opium, but we won't use your we'll use some of your opium.
But most of your opium, we'll find a new market for that.
And that new market.
The main the main market was China.
So in the case of China, there was a certain arrogance because of this closed culture that that was kind of afraid of going outside of itself.
There was, I think, a certain self-delusion by the imperial culture of 18th century China that was like, we're the middle kingdom.
Nobody's better than us.
And they couldn't even conceive of the level of military technology, how much more it had advanced.
The British tried to use their tricks to get into China the way they did successfully to India.
Didn't work.
They couldn't like seduce their way in easily through economic incentives.
They're like, OK, we'll be back.
We'll be back.
And they slowly built up an economy of opium.
So like, well, free trade here.
Let's let's start a little free trade deal.
We'll have some little ports that you will manage, but they're little ports.
Shanghai, Hong Kong, Macau, negligible.
Don't worry about it.
Cigars, whiskey, nothing big, right?
Nothing big, yeah.
Some alcohol, some drugs.
We've seen this used before in a variety of ways.
And that slowly created a culture of addiction.
And most importantly, where there's addiction and vice, you have organized crime built up.
And the British, with their Freemasonic outfits, like Lord Bowering was a big one who oversaw the growth of
oriental Freemasonry, things like the Green Gang were groomed by the way that the Brofman's were later groomed in Canada and the United States.
Keep in mind Samuel Bronfman was inducted into the, he was made a Knight of the Order of Bath, a very, very high level knighthood overseen by the British monarchy.
They did similar things with wannabe local house slaves inside of China that then penetrated the bureaucracy, that penetrated the imperial class.
that were always working on behalf, not of their own people, but of the British.
And it got so bad by the 1830s that you had an advisor to an emperor who finally convinced the emperor to burn all the opium.
So he passed a law saying, okay, we're gonna use national sovereignty here to pass a decision over free trade rules that we've signed with the British empire on opium.
And he basically commanded all of the opium to be burned.
There's a big war for a couple of years within China.
A lot of people had their whole fortunes invested in this relationship.
They didn't go easily.
And Britain came and basically said with warships, well, if you don't want to honor the free trade policy honorably, then it'll be war.
And they carried out the first opium war.
And that destroyed a devastated China.
That's when you had certain concessions where Britain got control officially now of Hong Kong, of certain areas of China and certain rights to have full unilateral say over economic policies of China.
Full 100% drugs at that point from the 1850s, 1860s.
And on top of that,
building up to the second opium war, because this happened a second time where China was completely wrecked at this point.
Their economy was in shambles, corruption endemic.
You had a foreign directed fifth column managing the drug trade inside of China.
They said, you know, we don't want they tried to stop it in 1860, right when the US Civil War was about to kick off.
And they had a problem because they were even weaker.
So but at the same time, they had a civil war inside of China that was going on for 15 years, which is a civil war called the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, which was a pseudo Christian cult of militarists that were created by
a dude who got some sort of proto MK ultra brainwashing by some Jesuit missionaries in Southern China.
He was like a failed school teacher who was all of a sudden convinced after a couple of years of training by these missionaries, British and American missionaries, that he was the Messiah's brother and would oversee a new, what's called a new kingdom that he was mandated called the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, which required the overthrow of the Qing dynasty in 17, it is 1857.
Um, so this was a brutal, they had 30 million people supporting his army.
Um, it nearly won in Britain.
That was one of the ways they, they were able to win the second opium wars.
They told the, the, the Chinese, Hey, if you don't submit to all of our demands and just give up and allow unbounded, uh, opium again, and, and, oh, oh, by the way, give us, give us Hong Kong for, uh, whatever, uh,
a century.
If you don't do that, we will recognize the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom as the only legitimate government, which the same thing that they were saying to Lincoln at the time, they were prepared, the British and the French were prepared to recognize the Confederates as the only legitimate government of the United States.
So they're using the same technique at the exact same time on both sides of the world to destroy two rivals.
which worked.
The Chinese government said, OK, we give up.
You win the Opium War again.
And it took them another few years to get rid of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom.
But they were totally wet.
Like this is where they became one of the poorest countries in the world for a sustained period.
And there were small little efforts to to get out of it.
But it was it was, again, the level of poverty cannibalism under the control of the British Empire.
The British had full control of the Board of Control, the Board of Trade.
So the Chinese couldn't even manage their own income from taxation on tariffs on other things.
They couldn't, it was all British.
All the way up until 1950.
One of the things that I hear as I'm listening to you that I realize now is a big problem with my model of history is I don't understand how many people were involved.
You think now of the world covered in people and whatever, but back then,
It's harder for me to conceptualize how decentralized China was as a nation.
It's hard for me to imagine how organized Britain might have been as a colonizing nation and a navy.
All of these things are very hard to imagine, I think, and put in perspective.
So that's why I asked the question.
I hope I didn't sound too naive.
I just wanted to make sure you explained it.
And you really nailed it.
That really helped a lot for me to understand that.
And what really clicked is when I realized that, wait, remember, we're going back a long ways when, of course, even communicating between parts of China would have taken a very long time.
It's a whole different world, of course.
Gee whiz.
But we still are stuck in 1857.
Now, how does this history inform you as a citizen of China?
How should this history inform me as a citizen of the United States?
How can we work together to overthrow the oligarchy?
I mean, the Chinese are the Chinese.
We're on our part in from our culture.
But I mean, yeah, we have common denominators and all these things, right?
It's always like,
What's the same and what's different?
And which is sort of what you're asking.
Look, I think that the best thing about Sun Yat-sen is that he understood that there was a higher complementarity between a certain philosophy of Confucianism and a certain philosophy of Christianity based upon certain ideas like
Tianming, you know, the idea that you could judge human laws by virtue of some idea of the laws of heaven and laws that are human made that are in harmony with the laws of heaven are just and good and should be thus followed and acted upon and improved upon and laws that are out of whack.
You see this in St.
Augustine's writings, you know, laws that are out of whack with said natural law.
should not be followed, are forms of violence, if the intention behind the law being created is to hurt, enslave, to infringe upon all of our inalienable rights.
And Sun Yat-sen, the first president of China, who's again celebrated today, both in Taiwan, but also in mainland China, he's celebrated as a great hero and a great founding father on both sides of the divide.
which is interesting as an irony, though most Americans don't even know of this of this of this incredible human being.
They haven't read his writings.
They don't know.
But there's this unifying quality that that he lived for and I think was murdered for.
I think he was poisoned.
But Lincoln also, who he studied, was also murdered for.
And when you look at it like the Green Gang, that whole Freemasonic drug
infrastructure that had been built up by the British and the Anglo-American, because also a lot of these American families were working with the British at the opium trade in the 19th century.
The British created the HSBC Bank.
To this very day, it's the world's major drug running bank.
It was found guilty in 2012.
by Senator Carl Levin, who did a year's worth of hearings on HSBC's money laundering of of international narcotics and funding of terrorism.
And he found them guilty.
And they had an auditor situated.
I mean, one guy overseeing their headquarters, their headquarters in London.
They were created in 1865 to oversee the opium wars with the facilitators within the Green Gang, British Oriental Freemasonry, Freemasonic outfits inside of China.
Now, these things
After the Chinese civil war between Chiang Kai-shek and what's called the Comin Tang Party and versus Mao and the New Communist Party, which is full, it was a mixed bag.
Both of them at different times had good people and different times had really bad people, often at the same time within both.
There's a mixture of things in everything.
And this reminds me that I do need to get back to the the observation you had on Franklin and the slanders
on Franklin as part of a death cult.
I do want to say something about that because it's really important that ties into what I'm saying.
They ended up getting their base of operations after the Civil War was Taiwan.
So the Kuomintang became the center of global narcotic operations on behalf of MI6 and the CIA throughout the entirety of the Cold War.
So Taiwan, Hong Kong, which was still controlled by the British, still has
British nationals controlling the Supreme Court of Hong Kong even today.
HSBC still runs and prints one third of Hong Kong's money today.
So there's still this foreign directed fifth column that manages global drugs.
The Kuomintang also had heavy operations after the Chinese Civil War.
When they lost that, they went to Laos, Cambodia,
big chunks of East Asia, Southeast Asia, and that became part of the Silver Triangle.
So Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau as well, which is Portuguese colony, became another center of drugs.
Shanghai was a center of foreign directed billionaires that were still built up, trying to work to sabotage China on behalf of people like David Rockefeller, later on Kissinger.
And then, you know, and then you had this other grouping within that was always working with the CIA, which is, again, CIA was a foreign directed outfit created in 1947 after the first U.S.
intelligence organization, the OSS, was purged of their patriots and reconstituted under British British control and British direction under Truman.
So this thing directed and controlled.
drugs, and the entire black market operation.
So what they did as an opium war to the Chinese in the 19th century, they did everywhere.
in the Cold War, they created a drug culture, top-down control.
They had outfits, obviously, into South America.
A lot of them worked with Nazis that were never punished, but that were given new jobs by Allen Dulles and the CIA to oversee these IMF-directed right-wing governments all over Latin America, like Pinochet, but there's many others along Latin America, Ibero-American governments.
that would also then oversee.
On the other hand, the reaction to some of these right-wing governments were also controlled by the same Nazis and same intelligence agencies.
So they would create this hard right and then this hard left reaction.
And the things like in the Colombian FARC guerrillas, which were seen as like anti-imperial fighters against right-wing, were also being bankrolled by the same London and Wall Street bankers.
and producing the narcotics, the cocaine, that would then be processed through the Wall Street and City of London banks that were part of managing and keeping this global crime apparatus alive.
So it's a fake gang counter gang operation, a fake dichotomy that they always played since the French Revolution, right?
Get people on an emotional,
raw revolutionary vibe, right, without thinking, and then you get a reaction of total barbarian logic of thinking and imposing order onto chaos through the reaction of the right with no heart.
Heart and emotions contaminate thinking and logic.
So
heart is bad.
And then the people are like, the other, the masses are typically, you know, peasant type people who think and feel, they feel, they think with their feelings, and they're thus manipulated in their own way.
And they did, it's how they always do this.
So all that to say, China, I think, have done better than we have in recent decades in dealing with this foreign directed parasite, with its deep penetrations
into their society.
It doesn't mean that they don't have a deep state, they have a deep state, but they've done a better, their nationalist traditions and those representing the authentic, the better China, I think have done a much better job at extracting those foreign directed deep state traders than we have, who have really allowed this thing to take over JFK's murdered body.
Um, that could just be, uh, the, the luxury of having their own, um, language and writing and makes it much harder for, for the kind of subversion that is very easy to do.
If you all share the same languages and same media and this kind of thing.
Yeah.
Um, yeah, possibly.
I mean, most, most Americans speak English though, and they still get subverted pretty easily.
No, that's what I'm arguing.
I think that the Chinese have this extra layer of bullshit detector that even if you don't speak Chinese well enough, you can't bullshit them, right?
I mean, so it's kind of like how it worked in Holland for a little while for me was, it works now here because of us living in Holland.
My family and I can walk around and start speaking Dutch in front of people and suddenly have a secret conversation and it's handy sometimes.
if my kids are being bad, or if I wanna say something not polite about a person that's standing right next to me, I'll just start speaking Dutch and throw it in the middle.
And so I'm just saying that from the perspective of subversion, having a second or third language, nevermind an impenetrable one.
And that's what I think some of these languages qualify as impenetrable.
A Westerner is never going to
as an adult or a young adult learn Chinese to the extent to which they could completely fool someone.
That's really hard.
I'm not saying it hasn't been done.
I'm sure it's been done.
Don't get me wrong.
Yeah, but it's a lot more difficult.
It's a lot more difficult.
Yeah, that's a good, it's a good, good observation.
Good observation.
Yeah.
And even I agree, but so let me I have this thing underlined.
I said I underlined it a couple of times.
And the reason why I underlined it, I want to preface it is because there's this interesting video that's been circulating over the last few months.
And it is a video of Senator Joe Biden trying to interrogate a then Justice Thomas, who's
nominated for the Supreme Court, and he's talking about natural law, and he says, you and I both know what we're talking about when I say natural law, but none of these people around here probably know what we're talking about.
And you've mentioned natural law a couple times in the context of how to think about how some of these people or these ideas should be thought of in the context of, can you give us a brief
idea of what you mean by natural law in terms of history and what these people in history have thought of as natural law or referred to as natural law?
Yeah, for sure.
There's laws humans make, and then there's laws that are already there in nature even before there was humans, and that exert influence over human life, but all life, again, before there was humans.
So we've got certain
cycles of nature, certain processes, you know, there's photosynthesis in plants, chlorophyll, does it stay, and the planets find certain orbits that are on ellipses around a foci, and the galaxy is organized by many of these suns that have certain rhythms to it, there's certain structure to it.
molecules of water.
If you believe in occult mysteries and things like that though, then natural law means something completely different then, right?
So what are we referring to then?
Is that already a sort of semantic trick when we say natural law because it all depends on the context in which that and who's using the words?
Yeah, always everything is context really like that's that's I guess the problem with nominalism is a lot of people have been trained in this.
I think it's a it's a it's a destructive way of thinking that's just endemic in our school system around the idea that the definition of something to know something is to read the definition of it.
and memorize it, whether it's in an encyclopedia or or in a dictionary, just get the definition, then you know the thing.
And it's like, well, last time I looked at Wikipedia, there was like 38 different definitions of truth.
So it's like, well, whoa, you know, kind of arbitrary, you know, if it so in.
But I guess part of what I'm fighting against is the very imprecise use of the English language to distort biological truth.
So the entire academic scientific field is broken because people don't use language in a way that is intent on accuracy.
It's designed to imply potential or imply achievement that wasn't achieved.
And so for me, one of the battles I feel like I'm fighting is to try and restore this kind of mutual understanding about what we use hammers for and what we use wrenches for.
And the fact of the matter is, is that if you have metric and you have
English wrenches, then you shouldn't use the metric on English bolts.
And we can all agree that that would be the way to do it.
And I think when we use language, one of the reasons why we're so inept right now of getting ourselves out of the cave we're in is because we don't have a language to pull each other out with.
Because when you throw down the ladder of Republican and natural law and a couple other terms, and they don't mean what I think they mean, then we're not having a conversation.
And that's really tough at this stage.
I know, dude.
No, I've heard you speak about, you know, just the terminology like like inoculation.
I've heard you speak really give some interesting presentations about how the idea of what inoculation means today when people use the word is very different from what it meant a century ago.
And I mean, it's the same word.
And yet the meaning is different.
And I think that context is everything, right?
Like it's only when you like the human language will always be finite and have these problems because language is still
It's a finite system that's rooted in certain, it's kind of like math.
It's a set of symbols that we created that we attribute to processes that are out of ourselves subjectively that we're trying to map as we go through life.
you know, depending on what phase of human history or what part of the world we were born into, the symbols might be different, more enriched, more simple, but we have the same impulses.
Have you followed this new guy?
What is his name?
Terrence something or other, this guy who's been on Rogan and all these shows that starts with the premise that one times one is actually two.
And that's what's broken with our math.
And then he can't really, of course,
like play that forward into how that fixes all of mathematics and makes it better.
But it's just the idea that it's not sufficient for us to say that 4 plus 1 is now 5.
Sorry, what did we say?
2 plus 2 is 5 is what they were saying like a year and a half ago or something like this.
Again, mathematics is one of these places where the universality of these ideas is more bound by a mutual understanding, whereas in language,
which is, I guess, more or less completely subjective, if they take away shades out of our crayon box, we can't make the same kinds of pictures we used to be able to make when we had 64 crayons, and now we only have eight.
And so for me, I really think as a historian, it would be,
I mean, I just, I want to learn so much about how these concepts have changed over the years and how they have been weaponized against us, so much so that we now have a Republican Party and a Democratic Party, and those two words don't mean anything relative to those two people groups.
Yeah.
I think that, like people,
I think they really need to train themselves to be context oriented.
I encourage people to read, to just practice and exercise what I'm talking about.
Whenever people write to me about my research methods, I say read some platonic dialogues.
Plato's dialogues are really nice exercises because they don't give you crystallized answers to anything, but they're setting out to do at the beginning of the dialogue.
And whether it's the Gorgias or the Philibus dialogue on how do you judge good and evil, the Gorgias on how do you live a good life, the Republic on what is justice, or whether it's piety and from the euthyphro or whatever.
There's always a subject of, okay, there's this big idea that's tied to an idea of natural law.
Like a law that is created by God that's built into the fabric of physical space-time that we need to understand, but it's not so simple.
So what is it?
And then it's like testing out different hypotheses about what it is, and then gaming them out to see, well, based upon evidence,
Let's see where your hypothesis, your model, when pressed onto reality, breaks.
Where are the cracks?
And those cracks are the paradoxes.
And the paradoxes are what we, as researchers, always want to look for.
It's not where our model fits with reality, it's where does our model break.
Where are the singularities that will attract our attention that need a higher hypothesis to be generated as a solution concept, which involves also realizing that that paradox, the break, the crack, is located not in the details of the branches, but it's in the roots of the tree, is in the core axioms.
So if we want a really solid, better hypothesis, we need to reevaluate our core axioms.
And then from there, like this is what I pulled out as you were talking from my bookshelf.
One of the there's this book by Johannes Kepler called The Harmony of the Worlds.
And it's a really, really, really good it was published in 1619 and only translated into English in 1992.
If you didn't read an old German or Latin, you couldn't read this book for 400 years.
but it's so important.
Did Bill Barr's brother translate that by chance?
Who translated it?
but this was some guy named Duncan Field in Aiton.
It was actually, it's a Cambridge translation, which already puts into some question, I don't know.
I'm thinking that they just presume that people are too dumb to actually want to read source writings of scientists.
And so they won't, people won't actually read this, but you know, it's a wonderful read.
It's sometimes challenging, but what's great about Kepler
is that he's demonstrating how his third law of planetary motion was made.
And at the very end of the book, he tells you, OK, well, by the way, you can use this formula of like, you know, so you discovered three planetary laws, elliptical functions, the equal area, equal time law, the ellipse function, but also the third one, which is the one he was building his entire life towards, was on the harmonic musicality of the solar system.
And he devoted his life and originally this hypothesis, he picked it up when he was reading Plato's Timaeus, laying out a hypothesis, but without having the data available to prove said hypothesis, that there is a rational yet beautiful musicality organizing the spacings of the planetary orbits around the sun.
And, and it was only in Kepler's lifetime that enough data was accumulated, and he was able to perfect some of that utilizing the anomaly of the retrograde motion of Mars, right, and and and utilizing enough of just the retrogrades where Mars starts moving back every like 687 days, like Mars goes backwards a little bit, he was able to take enough of these data points and
discover his first two laws.
But the third one, he did the same thing for all of the planets, thinking about their fastest and slowest moments.
So of all the infinite possible choices of speed and distance of each planet around the sun, he picked only the fastest, the furthest, the Apohelion perihelial, the fastest and the slowest motions, and then found through
Again, this beautiful book, how the question, why are they where they are instead of some other possible arrangement?
I could imagine.
Why are they found the way they are?
And he builds up the the the he basically develops
The best hypothesis, which is utilized by Johann Sebastian Bach a few decades later to build up the well-tempered clavier of the reasons why the hard and soft scales, the major and minor musical scales are where they are and why the divisions are located on a string where they are.
It's not arbitrary.
It's not mathematical, but there is a geometrical base to like listening to the sound of a square versus a triangle versus a pentagon or a hexagon.
And you could get divisions.
within those relations that then have certain resonance to each other and to the whole that also elevate or de-amplify the music that one is listening to.
That could be then, you know, that will have an effect on the soul of humans who want to make music.
And so those relationships he finds to be organizing the behavior of the planets
The known planets, he only knew of six planets, but it's still the harmonics work perfectly well to the point that and this is the kicker.
He was able to foresee a space between Mars and Jupiter where there would be something discovered, as he says, because there should have been a planet there.
And it took 200 more years for Carl Friedrich Gauss to take Kepler's message and his forecast and discover the orbital belt of Ceres, which wasn't seen by the human eye for another 200 years.
And Carl Gauss in 1790 or 1799 discovered this orbital belt.
And this kid was like 21 years old, but he studied Kepler.
So it proves that Kepler, there's a quality,
of substance to Kepler's idea set that had a resonance with the entirety of the universe when acted upon voluntarily that gave us greater freedoms when we were obedient to that idea of what gravity was not that not the later perversions of the term gravity that were perverted by a lot of British
um Royal Society empiricists around the Newtonian cult that came in later around the Bank of England because Newton was that's another whole other can of worms here but but there was a whole other subversion of the the school of of western science that Kepler represented going back from Plato to Kepler Leibniz was a follower of Kepler who discovered his infinite infinitesimal calculus based on a challenge Kepler put out to future mathematicians
to solve nonlinear equations that one encounters when dealing with physical curvature in the physical universe that's not Euclidean.
Like the curvature of a hanging chain might look like a parabola, but it's not a parabola.
Parabolic functions don't work for a hanging chain in the physical universe.
It requires something more, which that was the inspiration for Leibniz and Jean Bernoulli, who discovered this new language.
that had similarities to the old language prior to the discovery, but it had totally new axioms.
The axioms were changed, the language was expanded, enriched, our power, our resonance within the universe was enriched, and our ability to sustain more people at a higher quality of life by overcoming the Malthusian traps was also enriched.
So we could have more people when we acted according to these discoveries, an obedience, a willful obedience to law, right, that gave us a greater freedom to,
break through the limitations that were holding us back so we could fly by being obedient to the laws of aerodynamics.
We were free.
We were free to fly by being obedient to a law of.
So I heard I heard I heard a Catholic guy who is the brother of Bill Barr make the argument that actually are all of our technical progress is based on our
respect of natural law as it pertains to God and nature and what we can ascertain from working with it.
It's weird because he actually made the argument that Galileo wasn't as bad or treated as badly as this made out to be and that he was excommunicated for something else or something like that.
It's a really interesting take.
And I love the fact that you hooked into Kepler because I had a really good university professor teach a very good history of Western science class that I took as an undergraduate.
And I'm still inspired by that.
time period in human history when I think, if I can say it so clumsily, they kind of lost control of us for a little while.
And, and we made a lot of progress, despite them.
And so I'm really excited about this.
I think there's a contemporary in there by the name of Spinoza in the Netherlands who thought of God as a natural thing, evidence in the things that Kepler and other people were learning was this was evidence of God.
Would you agree with that, at least in the historical context that most of these people saw this as evidence of God?
Yeah, I mean, back then it was the split between
The split between the mind of human subjective beings exploring and the thing explored objectively was not so set into stone as it's become in our more modern age.
So I think, yeah, you didn't have the word scientist, you had natural philosophers.
And yeah, I think there was a greater, even though there was disputes around what do they mean, just like we're talking here, like there wasn't an agreement that,
common words meant the same thing.
There was a common, a healthier baseline upon which everybody could agree with.
That there's not an absolute divide between the subjective and the objective, the whole and the part.
Purposefulness was presumed to have some existence.
The question of what that purpose might be, that could get pretty heavy as a fight.
The economy of nature.
I think there was generally an agreement that everyone agreed that there was a form of economy that God
was not a bad word that was unscientific, though some people used it overly lazily, obviously.
But there was an idea that, OK, if there's laws, there must be some form of reason for the laws, meaning some form of lawmaker idea of some sort that we could postulate is embedded, giving purposefulness to the laws being what they are instead of some other laws.
And that God is probably, that lawmaker couldn't be stupid enough to make too many, make mistakes.
So, but then why is there evil, right?
Why is there stupid, stupidity?
Did God screw up by allowing evil?
Did he make evil?
Maybe evil, since the cause must flow into the effect, maybe evil is caused because God is evil.
Maybe he's just flowing through and exhibiting his own essence in allowing evil.
Maybe evil is more powerful than God.
Or maybe evil is the absence of good.
Maybe evil is tied to ignorance.
Maybe evil is tied to this thing called free will that was given to us.
So you got these very important debates and discussions, which we're not allowed to have anymore, in a serious way at least.
Which goes back to this note that I think is one of the best I made, is that you made the point of saying that in order for us to get to my imagined goal, we need high-level citizenship.
We need people that are educated enough to have these discussions and capable of processing the nuance of them, and at the same time,
I think the other word you use to describe what cannot be tolerated for too long is mediocrity and I think that's a beautiful way to say how what probably was at one point a really good idea has been distorted and
run into the ground.
Western civilization has been kind of run into the ground through mediocrity and it's a really awesome, I think, high level way of saying it or a high altitude way of saying it.
Is there a, and I'm also really curious about this Venetian thing and the Marx Lion because my favorite
Scooby-Doo character right now is a guy by the name of Robert Malone.
And he always has what now when you say it, he actually has a lion mask, which is probably Venetian behind him, which now puts it in an extraordinary context.
With glowing yellow eyes.
Yeah, it's a little bit over the top.
Anyway, I've put your sub stack up a couple of times.
Is there anything you want to say?
I know you have visitors coming and I've already taken two full hours of your time.
If you want to, I don't know, give a wrap-up statement or a find-new-where or whatever.
This has been way too much information.
I have four pages of notes.
I'm gonna have to check some things and maybe I'll have an idea of what I want you to come back to.
It's really, it was really cool.
You're obviously more well-read than I am, because even if I read it, I wouldn't remember it like you did.
So anyway, thanks very much for coming on the show.
Let people know what you're up to and where you're going and how many volumes of books you have to buy, that kind of thing.
Well, no, JJ, thank you very much for for having me on and this is soul food for me like I this I it's very edifying and just talking about these kinds of ideas and Plato Plato had once said like any day.
that passes without talking about the purpose of life is a day wasted.
So I think that this is not a day wasted.
Very good at all.
And yeah, I've been very impressed by your presentations and compositions and ability to just put context into things that we take for granted in the scientific realm is just really wonderful.
So thank you.
Thank you very much for doing what you're doing.
A lot of courage and a lot of sacrifice that you've made.
And yeah, I guess for my, so yeah, the books, people could buy books.
I did four volumes going into this of the Untold History of Canada to sort of prep my mind a little bit to go into the bigger thing.
But those books are available on canadianpatriot.org.
And then my Clash of the Two Americas books, volume one, two, three, and four are available on also canadianpatriot.org.
And I just put out a new book called Science Unshackled
uh, restoring causality in a world of chaos.
Oh, interesting.
Um, cool.
Okay.
Yeah, do it, do it.
Then we can talk about that one.
That sounds good.
Our mutual friend asked me actually to send you a bunch of books, so I'm going to do that.
But yeah, let's do that.
And yeah, so that's CanadianPatriot.org.
And then RisingTideFoundation.net is a nonprofit, more cultural, educational site.
I created it with my wife, Cynthia Chung, who's another
She's done some amazing research and has published a couple of a big book and she's about to do number two on the origins, the deep origins of fascism going back into Templar, Templar territory, which is maybe that would be a fun conversation for you guys to have at some point.
And that's risingtidefoundation.net.
And the last thing is Substack has been sort of my lifeline.
So if people wanna subscribe, I do free stuff and paid occasional things too.
That's matthewarrett.substack.com.
Yeah.
I'm going to put that up there.
There that is.
And yeah, I don't know what to say other than, again, thank you very much for coming in.
And I can get that back off again.
And I'm sorry it took me so long to finally arrange it.
Things have been busy as I transitioned from being paid to not paid, but I'm starting to get out of the gravel road and onto the pavement, I hope.
And so hopefully in the future we can connect again.
Good luck in the coming, the battles to come, I guess is the best thing I can say.
I don't know.
Same, likewise, man.
I mean, it's one of those times in history where it's like, have a great battle ahead.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Okay, thank you very much.
Enjoy your guests.
Have a good one.
Bye.
So that was an interesting conversation, to say the very least.
Thank you very much for joining and for being here in the chat.
It was quite a fight.
He's definitely not in my field, or I'm not in his field, or whatever the heck you call that.
Ladies and gentlemen, please, please remember the
The main message of the show is that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Sure, there might be exceptions to it.
You might be able to, for example, immunize against rabies with an intramuscular injection, and that might actually work because rabies is a systemic infection of some kind of virus or something like that.
But again, you need to have a lot more evidence and understanding of what's going on if you're going to immunize children against respiratory diseases and give them 12 or 20 shots before six months of age.
Transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent in that.
It remains absolutely and 100% true, even if the top one has some exceptions.
They are very limited.
And finally, RNA cannot pandemic.
And that is, again, one of these things where until somebody comes up with a substantially better explanation for how the hell that can happen, I'm just going to assume that people are ignoring me because they know it can't.
And instead, these weaponized piles of money are continuing to convince us to argue about
the origins of the novel virus, and by arguing about it, we're accepting its existence, and we are being governed by this theater, and we have been for much longer than we thought.
That's why we all got excited about being free on Twitter, because we weren't free.
We were being manipulated by these people.
Ladies and gentlemen, if they can, as Matt described, if they can put out a couple books and give a couple Pulitzer Prizes to convince people that certain things in history happened, then I assure you,
Right now what's happening on the internet with podcasts is nothing short of malevolent Please ladies and gentlemen Stop all transfections in humans because they are trying to eliminate the control group by any means necessary We got a lot of stuff to do That interview is something I really needed to get done and I'm very happy that I did that's probably a
a guy we'll have on again.
If you like what you saw, please share the stream at stream.gigaohm.bio.
You can contact me and communicate with us at gigaohm.bio.
And you can, of course, support the stream at gigaohmbiological.com.
Thank you very much for all the work you do trying to share my work.
Thank you very much for being here.
I really, really appreciate it.
Haha!
Three sentences, that's pretty funny.
Hahaha!
St.
Mark's Lion is the lion that Robert Malone has on the wall behind him.
How's that?
And Johannes Kepler is dope.
That's another good message.
See you guys.
Yeah, Ruby, I see you.
I see you there, Ruby.
I see you, Rubus Bon Bubus.
I see you.
I see you, big baby.
We're gonna go outside right now.
See you later.
Yes, yes.
See you.
I see you.
Yes, I'm done.