Hello, everybody, and welcome to another Wednesday webinar. Today is August 14, 2024. And last I just talked about recapping what I in particular, and maybe we have learned in these past four years. And I did, didn’t get all the way through. And so I thought it would be good to go back and explain a little bit more about a few other subjects. So that’s what we’re going to do today. And just a few notes here. I’m going to talk mostly about a few books. And that means that I found value in reading these books and that’s why I’m sharing them and I’m going to read some sections of them.

That doesn’t mean that I think that everything is correct in the book or that the person who wrote the book is a good person or a bad person or an evil person or a nice person. I don’t know these people. And I would actually submit that it doesn’t really matter. I’m taking the words that they’re writing on the face value for what are these words saying? What are they trying to communicate? Does this make sense? Does it help me understand the world? And whether they do good or bad things otherwise is not really my issue. So I just want to be clear about that.

So people say, well, this guy is a jerk or did such and such, or he doesn’t agree with this. That may be, but I’m just talking about the subject that they’re writing these particular books about. The other thing I wanted to say before is it seems like particularly today, and the things we talked about last week are absolutely perfect and classical examples of this quote that is alleged to be from Mark Twain that I’ve shown before, which is, it’s not what you don’t know that gets you, it’s what you know for sure, but just ain’t so.

And I think we should all pay very close attention to that because it mostly isn’t, it isn’t necessary to know the truth about a lot of things. It’s mostly important to know that what the story that we’re being given just cannot possibly be true. And so that’s really what I’ve been focused a lot of my attention on and what I’m going to be focusing my attention on today. Another example of this, I happen to get an email and a link to a subscribestar. And these are all very interesting examples. And it comes also in the rubric of can you build a healthy world, healthy culture, healthy society based on falsehoods? And so this person was going about on about the crisis of humanity these days.

Fair enough. But one of the examples he used for the crisis that’s facing us, that has to do with the way we look at the world, which is also fair enough, is that we’re running out of fossil fuels. And I’ve talked about this before, and so what we know is that there are people, particularly, I believe, the Russians, and again, I’m no expert on this subject, so people should look into it. But they have learned that they can drill below the so called abiotic line. That’s the line where allegedly nothing has ever lived below this depth, which I believe is either 20 or 30,000ft.

But they have learned that they can drill for oil and gas even lower at 50,000ft and hit rich supplies of oil and gas. Again, some people should check into that. But if that’s true, then that means, first of all, that at least not all of oil and gas in particular, actually comes from the degradation of dinosaurs or squirrels from 100 billion years ago, which I kind of doubt whether that’s true, because every squirrel that I’ve ever seen that doesn’t degenerate into oil or gas. And second of all, that this oil and gas is actually produced by some process which we may not know deep in the layers of the earth, whatever those are due to some sort of pressure phenomena which we may not understand, and that the oil that and gas that’s higher or closer to the surface than that comes up through cracks and seeps up.

And that in fact, it is a renewable resource and it has nothing to do with fossils or it was never living beings that have somehow decayed into oil or gas. That it’s a natural process inherent in these deep pressurized layers of the earth. It’s renewable, and that doesn’t mean it’s good to burn. It certainly doesn’t mean it’s good to burn wantonly. It doesn’t even necessarily mean it’s good to extract, but because there’s probably cleaner, healthier, less toxic energy sources that are freely available in just the electromagnetic field that we’re bathed in, which people have known about until recently, for many, many years.

So that looks like a much cleaner, safer, healthier, more abundant way to create power, I guess you would say. But it still doesn’t mean that we should perpetuate that myth of the scarcity and the running out of the fossil fuels if that’s not true. So we have to align ourselves with what’s true and what we know. And if it is in fact true, that the oil and gas comes from deeper layers. It can’t possibly be due to the billions of years of pressurized dinosaurs or whatever. And so we have to give that up and change the whole narrative, otherwise we’ll never get anywhere.

Okay, so the three things I wanted to talk about that I’ve mentioned over the years, which I think are huge subjects, probably each one of them deserves an entire hour or even probably weeks, are, number one, the existence of nuclear weapons number two, the issue of government, even the existence of government. And number three, the existence of diseases. And you can see there’s a kind of a theme here that is very much in line with what we’ve all learned about virology, which is somehow, particularly in the last 150 years. But I’m sure it’s not confined to that.

The world has accepted and introduced into common knowledge things that actually are turn out to be entirely make believe. And so you end up with institutions and funding and experimentation and scientists and engineers and officials and trillions of dollars spent and on and on and on, on fundamentally fictitious entities. Or as I like to say, it’s basically all make believe. And again, I want to say this. A thesis of mine or a theory that we cannot build a healthy culture based on lies, misconceptions, delusions and make believe. And so they all share this common feature, and then it’s basically up to us.

And that’s what I’m trying to do today, to give the evidence that these things, in this case, nuclear weapons, government and diseases, are actually fictitious entities. This is, I would say, hugely important, because when you look around, and again, this shares a lot with the virology issue, that when you look into the people who are supposedly criticizing the standard narrative around Covid or vaccines, and they all seem to, besides this sort of, quote, no virus crowd, they accept the reality of the virus. And you see the same thing in the freedom crowd. And you see this with activists, you see this with peace candidates, and you see it with critics of the government, that they go on and on about that we cannot go down this path in Ukraine and Russia and this confrontation with NATO and Russia, or with Israel and Palestine and Israel and Iran.

And the reason is because inevitably this is going to lead to nuclear war. And as we all know, or at least we all think we know, according to Mark Twain, we’re sure that it’s true that if there’s a nuclear war, that means curtains for all of us, and that will essentially be nuclear winter and wipe out all life on earth. And so this is a catastrophe in the making. And that becomes, in a sense, the primary reason. Not the only reason, certainly, to avoid these conflicts is because it will lead to nuclear weapons being used. And you hear that over and over again, especially from the so called freedom crowd.

And I just ask you to consider how different this would look if the reality of the situation is there’s no such thing as a nuclear weapon, meaning a process in which we split the nucleus of an atom. We’ve already talked about the fact that there is no nucleus of the atom. That’s based on Dewey Larsen’s explanation. We’ve been over that, so they can’t possibly split it. And so the whole thing is basically a psychological tactic to scare us, which is seemingly also what all of these things share in common. The virus, the engineered virus, the nuclear weapons, the government that’s going to kill us all, the running out of fossil fuels, the burning up of the atmos.

All these things are basically designed to keep people in fear and panic and then try to find the first group or person who can help them out. So with that introduction as to the reason this is so important, let’s just read a few things about nuclear weapons. And again, we’re not talking about nuclear power, which can be produced by putting radioactive decaying material in a big vat of water producing steam, which produces power. We’re specifically talking about this interesting phenomena that they claim, which is you take the smallest little thing like this nucleus of an atom, which is another interesting thing that they expect you to believe.

You take this thing that you can’t, that’s a millionth the size of a pinhead, and somehow contained in that is enough energy to decimate and end life on, on earth. And on the face of that, you would think people would say, I don’t know about that. It doesn’t sound right to me. But somehow we’ve all learned to believe that and we’re going to take a look at the evidence for that. So I’m going to base this. This, to me is the best book that anybody can read about. It’s called death object exploding, the nuclear weapons host by Accio Nakatani.

And again, I don’t know anything about this guy. He has a little bio the front here. So I’m going to just pick a few sections that I think will help us understand the issue. So bear with me. So they had a weapon, according to the COVID story, that was guaranteed. If you quibble with the strength of that assertion, you are undercutting the whole orthodox explanation repeated in every reference source of why the gun device was not tested. This was the original device, which was meant to initiate the explosion of the nuclear weapon that was to be used in world War two.

It’s called a gun device. So he’s saying that they had this gun device that was guaranteed. It had every imaginable military advantage and could even be readily converted to an artillery shell. With a full complement of these, the United States could have leveled Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union and become the last man standing, which the USA kind of became anyway. But remember, we’re talking about wartime here, the thick of combat, when outcomes were not at all certain. The only certainty was the gun bomb is guaranteed to work. This was the, I think, the original or first iteration of the weapon.

It will obliterate a city or any other target site, vaporize the enemy and all his works off the face of the earth. On that basis, the only logical, correct, and sane military choice would have been to put the implosion device aside for the duration and concentrate every dollar, every man hour, every ounce of material, every square foot of lab space to the gun bomb. Build a stockpile. Now, there would have been nothing else in the military mind, certainly not in Leslie Groves mind. That was the head of the Manhattan project. If you say uranium was scarce, I’ll agree, but so was plutonium at that point.

The same bulk load of genius that was devoted to getting symmetrical implosion. Symmetrical implosion is the other way of initiating this bomb device to work would have been entirely devoted to uranium enrichment. If those weren’t the right people for that new emphasis, Grove should have fired them and gotten hundreds of new scientists who were right for it. The gun design’s perfect utility left only one challenge, a known challenge, a problem with well understood dimensions, uranium or enrichment. Or if they really had such a mania for pure research, knowing the gun design was perfected in every other way, they could have also worked on separating out the Pu 240 isotope from the pile produced plutonium as required to keep thin man viable.

That’s the name of the weapon. That non chemical purification would have been challenging, but not necessarily, given the limited knowledge they had at the time of the implosion crisis. Much more so than getting implosion to work at all. In other words, what he’s saying at this point is they had a mechanism that they said was foolproof, hundred percent doable, to initiate the explosion. And then, for some reason, as you’ll hear, they abandoned this gun device initiative and started working on a different way of initiating the bomb called an implosion. Phenomena which they had no information that it would work, and, in fact, a lot of information that it wouldn’t work.

So, going on, the only logical conclusion is that the gun design was seen to be a failure, no matter how it was tweaked, no matter what fuel they used, they had to desperately double down, hoping against hope that the implosion would turn out to be their ace in the hole. Otherwise, rather than making the speculative implosion weapon the focus of everything, they would have treated it as they did the super a long term not for this war research possibility. Of course, by the fail hypothesis, the implosion method ended up failing, too. But they did commit to a sincere effort on it.

If the gun had been functional as advertised, they would have started frantically piling up a huge inventory of gun bombs to win the war and rule the world. From that time forward, the gun project carried on as a mixture of basic research and operational scam, but not as a working weapon program activity certainly continued, though. After all, a lot of the same elements would be needed for a fake show. Documentation, diagnostic equipment and experiments, dimensional analysis, support materials and tools, special laboratories and projects teams, etcetera, as for a real one. So, in other words, what he’s saying is, according to their own narrative, they had a device that would work perfectly well.

This gun device. They somehow junked it in the middle of a war when time was of the essence, for a totally different way of initiating the explosion called the implosion device, which they had every reason to believe wouldn’t work. And a lot of the scientists on their own team were saying it wouldn’t work. But somehow, instead of going with the thing that they claim was 100% effective and operational, they junked it in the middle of a war when time was of the essence to do something that they actually thought probably wouldn’t work. Why would they do that? And he gives a perfectly logical explanation.

It turns out they knew it wouldn’t work. They knew the whole thing was a scam, and so they just kept going with doing experiments with it to keep the scam going. It’s very similar to what we might hear later, which is. So they have this bomb that they made that worked perfectly well without any testing, no component testing, etcetera. They used. It worked perfectly well the first time in Hiroshima, and a different one worked in Nagasaki. And then, for some reason, they lost the plans and never made that bomb again, which is also one of those bizarre stories which you hear about and think, but if they made something and it worked perfectly well, exactly how they thought it didn’t burn up the atmosphere as they said it would, etcetera.

Then why wouldn’t they just keep going with that? Why wouldn’t they make that? And because that would become the way that they would make these type of weapons in the future, instead of junking the whole design, throwing it away so they don’t have it anymore. And that makes no sense. So now we get into the best description of. So we have already questions about whether this bomb actually could be produced and whether it was produced. But then we go to the best by, I think, everybody’s estimation analysis of what actually the cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki looked like in Japan.

And this is by this in the Reader’s Digest article 1946, Alexander Seversky. He was a Ydezenhen russian guy, I guess, who wrote about what he saw. He was a russian american aviation pioneer, inventor, influential advocate of strategic air power, and he made one of the most valuable inspection tours of Hiroshima and Nagasaki soon after the war’s end to chronicle what he saw. And so let’s hear what he saw. After visiting the major areas of the Pacific, I arrived in Japan. I began to study the study to which I had been assigned. By making an aerial tour of the islands of Honshu and Kyushu, which encompassed the main portion of industrial Japan.

I flew over Tokyo, Yokohama, Yokosuko, Nagoya, Osaka, Kobe, Akashi, and dozens of other towns and cities which had been subject to intensive air attack. Some of these towns are so close together that they seem almost continuous. Industrial sites. All these areas of annihilation presented approximately the same visual pattern. The smaller towns were totally burned out. Seen from above, the prevailing color was pinkish, the effect produced by the piles of ashes and rubble mixed with rusted metal. Similar pinkish carpets were spread out in larger cities, except that among them stood large and small, modern concrete buildings and factory structure, unscathed bridges and other objects that had withstand the impact.

Many of the buildings, of course, were gutted by fire, but this was not apparent from the air. I was keyed up for my first view of an atom bombed city prepared for the radically new site suggested by the exciting descriptions I had read and heard. But to my utter astonishment, Hiroshima from the air, looked exactly like all the other burned out cities I had observed. There was the familiar pink blot, about 2 miles in diameter. It was dotted with charred trees and telephone poles. Only one of the city’s 20 bridges was down. Hiroshima’s clusters of modern buildings in downtown sections stood upright.

It was obvious that the blast could not have been so powerful as we have been led to believe it was extensive rather than intensive. I had heard of buildings instantly consumed by an unprecedented heat. And here I saw the building, structurally intact, in what is more topped by undamaged flagpoles, lightning rod painted railings, air and precaution signs, and other comparatively fragile objects. At the t bridge, the aiming point for the atomic bomb, I looked for the bald spot where everything presumably had been vaporized in the twinkling of an eye. It wasn’t there or anywhere else. I could find no traces of unusual phenomena.

What I did see was, in substance, a replica of Yokohama or osaka or the Tokyo suburbs, the familiar residue of an area of wood and brick houses raised by uncontrollable fire. Everywhere I saw the trunks of charred and leafless trees, burned and unburned chunks of wooden. The fire had been intense enough to bend and twist steel girders and to melt glass until it ran like lava. Just as in other japanese cities, the concrete buildings nearest to the center of explosion, some only a few blocks from the heart of the atom blast, showed no structural damage. Even cornices, canopies, and delicate exterior decorations were intact.

Window glass was shattered, of course, but single pane frames held firm. Only window frames. Two or more panels were bent and buckled. The impact impact, therefore, could not have been unusual. And so flags and flagpoles and awnings, etcetera, intact from the blast that was unlike any other blast. And as far as I know, and as far as this guy knows, there is no eyewitness accounts that contradict this at all, making one come to the default conclusion that there was nothing unusual about these blasts, which then explains how the trees recovered and the city recovered, and it didn’t wipe the people off the face of the earth for 10,000 years, as we’re told.

And the whole thing starts to look pretty fishy. And let me just finish with this. Again, this comes under the rubric of all the fear tactics and fear stories about the end of the world that we heard of. And this, actually, this is a shorter piece, comes from the New York Times, of all places, March 5, 1997. And so this was a story about the, I think they’re called the Bikini atoll islands. And there was allegedly 23 to 36 nuclear weapon is tested on this, all on the same place, each one of which is alleged to be enough to wipe out all living things from the face of the earth for time immemorial.

And here’s what the New York Times said about the investigation of this place after the 23 nuclear explosions. They, I’ve heard 23 to 36 that the United States conducted on this remote coral atoll in the forties and fifties. One almost expects to visit today and find just a few charred inlets surrounded by brackish water emitting an eerie glow. So the amazing thing about bikini is how alive it is. A white sand island full of coconut palms swaying over a perfect turquoise sea. Fish and sea turtles swimming languorously by the beach. There’s also a few tourists, and many more are expected because bikini is now once more open to the public and in fact, has become a very popular tourist definite destination because of its beautiful beaches and abundant wildlife.

And I just ask you, how does this square with the story that we hear about nuclear weapons? So again, there’s always a challenge here, which is if you believe that these weapons are real, you’re going to have to come up with the proof that there is a nucleus, that it can be split and create an amount of power and energy and explosion that is totally unprecedented by any other kind of otherwise normal explosive. Nobody’s saying there’s not bombs, and nobody’s saying there’s not bombs that are scalable, and nobody’s saying there isn’t radioactivity. And that radioactivity seems to be not good for people and other living things.

We’re talking about a specific process which has a specific consequence, which is being used to hold hostage and terrorize much of the world, even until actually today. Okay? And so the question remains, is it just make believe? Are we talking viruses here? Okay, so now we get into the next subject, which something that I’ve been interested in for most of my adult life. And here I want to point out another book. And again, I don’t know this guy. I’ve heard all kinds of contradictory things about him, but that’s not my issue. My issue is what he says in this particular book, which is the most dangerous superstition.

The guy’s name is Larkin Rose. And I would highly suggest that people take a look at this book because he presents the case in a very similar way that we’re presenting the case about virology, which is look at the claim. And here the claim is that there is an entity called government, and especially in complex and large modern societies, there is no possibility of living without this entity called government to regulate human affairs. That I would say is a description of the claim, and that the government has the claim to do things based on certain principles that people, individual men and women, don’t have the right to do.

And in fact, I would argue that the real issue here which he so rightly points out is, can an individual proclaim they have a right to force others to do something? And if they do, where does this right come from? Let me say that again. So does an individual, a single person, you or I, do we proclaim that we have the right to force others against their will to do something. It could be anything. And if we do, then where does this right come from? So let’s give a few examples to bring this home. So you have a neighbor and he or she decides they want to build a deck on their house.

And you go over to the neighbor and say, I proclaim that you’re not allowed to build a deck on your house unless you give me $10,000 or $1,000 every year for the rest of the time that you live in this house. Now, if you do that as an individual, my guess is, first of all, nobody would do that because it’s obvious that you don’t have the right to do that and therefore nobody would do that. And in fact, if you tried it, my guess is the person would either laugh or throw you out or threaten to do something to you that you probably wouldn’t want.

You could use another example. So you go again to your neighbor’s house as an individual and say, you know, I’d like you because you live in a house next to mine, I’d like you to pay me $5,000 a year so that I can send my children to school. My guess is nobody would do that because everybody understands that they don’t have the right to do that. And they also understand that if they try to do it, nobody would listen, nobody would pay attention, and they might even get their ass kicked for trying to suggest it. Nobody would then say, if you don’t do that, if you don’t give me 2000, 5000 a year so that I can send my child to school, I’m going to commit violence against you or I’m going to literally come and confiscate your property.

And if you don’t like that, I’m going to throw you in a cage. Nobody would do that because we all understand that that’s not normal human behavior. And besides that, it wouldn’t work and it would open us to being, having serious retribution. Now, you can even take that example further and say, well, what about this? What if you go over to the person’s house and say, you know, I would let, I, I’m demanding you give me 10,000, 5000, $2,000 a year because you live here and I’m going to use that money at least partly to educate your children.

Now, the person might do it, but the person might also say, I don’t want to do that. And what right do you have to tell me that I have to give you the money so that my children would be educated? Now, you could say, well, to that person, but I know better than you that your children need to be educated in a certain way. So hand over the money. Or if you don’t hand over the money, I’m going to come and forcibly confiscate it. I’m going to get some of my buddies and we have these guns and we have clubs, and we’re going to come over and forcibly confiscate your money or your property.

And if you don’t like that, we’re going to put you in a cage. And if you think of it like that, nobody would do that. Nobody would think that’s correct. But if you think of it like that, that is exactly what the government does. And they do it all the time. They tell people that unless you hand over certain part of your property or your money or your labor wages or certain things that are your property, whether you like it or not, we’re going to take that money. If you don’t agree, we’re going to use force and violence.

And if that doesn’t work, we’re going to throw you in a cage, and that will make it easier for us to take away your money. And so ask yourself, where does that right come from? Who gave the people who are supposedly representing the government right? Because nobody would do that on their own. Nobody representing themselves would do such a thing. Just a, nobody would do that morally. Or if they do, they’re called thugs and criminals and organized crime syndicates. That’s the only people who do that. Everybody understands that. And also people would fear retribution. A, that it wouldn’t work and b, people would get back at them.

But somehow when it becomes I’m doing this in the name of government, again, it’s an individual doing it, but now in the name of this mythical supernatural entity which doesn’t actually exist in reality, but you’re doing it in not me. It’s not me who’s taking away your property so that we could send my child or your child to school. I’m doing it in the name of government. So the question is, who gave these people the right to do that? So let me read a section where he goes into that. So here’s quoting, even in theory, the concept of, quote, representative government is inherently flawed because, quote, government cannot possibly represent the people as a whole unless everyone wants exactly the same thing.

Because different people want government to do different things. Government will always be going against the will of at least some of the people. Even if a government did exactly what a majority of its subjects wanted, which never actually happens, it would not be serving the people as a whole. It would be forcibly victimizing smaller groups on behalf of larger groups. Furthermore, one who represents someone else cannot have more rights than the one he represents. For example, if one person has no right to break into his neighbor’s house and steal his valuables, then he also has no right to designate a representative.

To do that, for him, to represent somebody, is to act on his behalf. And a true representative can only do what the person he represents has the right to do. But in the case of government, the people whom the politicians claim to represent have no right to do anything that politicians do, impose taxes, enact laws, etcetera. Average citizens have no right to forcibly control the choices of their neighbors, tell them how to live, and punish them if they disobey. So when a government does such things, it is not representing anyone or anything but itself. And I think this is the key to the entire argument, and everybody should ask this of themselves and really check in.

If you don’t have the right to do something, in other words, forcibly confiscate somebody else’s property, even if it’s for their, quote, own good, then are you actually able to designate a representative? Or even if there’s 20 of you, or a million of you, or 10 million of you, if none of you as individuals, have this right to designate your representative to carry out these things, then it becomes obvious that the person representing the government also has no right to do any of these things. They have no right to forcibly. To force anybody to do something that they voluntarily don’t offer to do.

If somebody wants to give you $10,000 to educate your child, that’s fine, but that’s not how government ever operates. They operate under the threat of force. They have consequences of forcible, violent actions that they will do to you if you don’t comply. And these are under the rubric of edicts and laws, which they have, interestingly, convinced people that good people, by definition, follow these edicts and laws, even though they can’t tell you who actually had the right to force these laws upon people who don’t agree, which represent. How can you give something to somebody which you don’t have yourself? How can you give somebody the power to do something like force your way into somebody’s house, that you don’t actually have the power to do it yourself, that’s really the question at the bottom of this.

So let’s read one more thing. And by the way, if you think that that’s true, that that is the essence of representative government or democracy, then you need to explain how this group of people acquires the right to force edicts and measures and so called laws on people that they don’t agree with, don’t wish to do, don’t want to comply with. They do it by force. And violence, always. That’s always the threat. And the question is, where did they get this right? So, to quickly review, people cannot delegate rights that they do not have, which makes it impossible for anyone to acquire the right to rule.

Authority. Also, people cannot alter morality, which makes the laws of government devoid of any inherent authority, ergo, authority. The right to rule cannot logically exist. The concept itself is self contradictory, like the concept of a militant pacifist. A human being cannot have superhuman rights, and therefore no one can have the inherent right to rule. A person cannot be morally obligated to ignore his own moral judgment. Therefore, no one can have the inherent obligation to obey another. And these two ingredients, the ruler’s right to command and the subject’s obligation to obey, are the heart and soul of the concept of authority, without which it cannot exist.

Without authority, there is no government. If the control which the gain called government exerts over others is without legitimacy, it is not government, and its commands are not laws. Without the right to rule, and a simultaneous moral obligation to obey on the part of the masses, the organization called government is nothing more than a gang of thugs, thieves, and murderers. Government is an impossibility. It is simply not an option, any more than Santa Claus is an option. And insisting that it is necessary when it does not and cannot even exist, or predicting doom and gloom if we do not have the mythical entity, does not change that fact.

To argue that human beings need to have a rightful ruler, one with the moral right to forcibly control all others, and one whom all others are obligated to obey, does not change the fact there is no such thing, and can be no such thing. Even in the case of demanding people eat better food or exercise or do anything, the question is always, where does this authority, where does this right to rule come from? And if you don’t have the authority to designate it, to force somebody to do that, and in fact, most of us would never do such a thing, then how is it possible that you have the possibility or the right to designate your representatives to force people to not drink raw milk because it may be bad for their health? Because at the end of the day, it turns out that almost all these edicts, as we found out, and laws and regulations actually are not for the best interest of the people, but actually work against their best interest, and yet they still force people are forced to obey.

So I don’t say this as that. I’m speaking fact. I’m speaking about a certain perspective, which I think everybody deserves to look into. Orlando would be interesting to look into. And this is a very good place to start. And you will find a lot of challenging concepts and ideas, things that would challenge the very way that we’ve been taught to see our world from the earliest time. And again, it’s similar to virology. You have to go upstream with all these things and not talk about things like, or not get too bogged down in, does the government work? Are the edicts they do? Are they good edicts or bad edicts? Does it apply to me? Does it apply to everybody? What if the government stops the vaccine mandates? Isn’t that a good government? And shouldn’t we all support that? And by the way, it would take so many people to create a world like this, and how would it all work? Interestingly, in order to create a world where the government does what the majority of the people actually want, would take 51% of the people, allegedly.

Whereas if only five or 10% of the people stopped believing in the authority of government or that there actually could be such a thing, the government people could do nothing about it because that would be too many. So it actually is a easier road to go once we stop believing in our minds. That’s where the key is. We believe in the viruses, we believe in immunity, we believe that these things make us sick, we believe in nuclear weapons, and we live our life afraid. And then finally, we believe in diseases. Probably the biggest psyop of all in the health field is that we believe there’s such a thing as smallpox.

But if you think about it, in order for there to be an incidence of smallpox, there has to be something that’s absolutely true that defines the existence or the case of smallpox, like pregnancy. We have something that’s absolutely true, that you find a baby in the uterus of the mother, and that can become the gold standard. And so then we can measure any other blood test or anything because we know what’s true. But what is it with smallpox? What is it with polio? Is polio somebody who’s paralyzed for a week? I mean, what’s the difference between that and Guillain Barre or some cases of Ms? Since there’s no virus with smallpox or with polio or any other disease, how is it that those illnesses are defined? And then you go back into the medical literature, as I did, and found that if you put, you know, 100 cases of chicken pox and monkeypox and smallpox and measles up on a screen, no doctor can reliably tell the difference.

And anyways, how could they possibly tell the difference? What standard would you use to say, this is correct? You see a rash, and you say, this is measles. So how do you know that’s true? We know that the blood tests are not accurate. They’re looking for a piece of a virus that doesn’t exist. So what is the gold standard with which your clinical judgment is being checked against to tell you that it’s true or not? The answer is there is no gold standard with Ms, with smallpox, with chicken pox, with any so called disease, maybe there’s some exceptions, like a fractured femur.

We see a fracture on an x ray. That’s the definition. With smallpox, we don’t have that. With polio, we don’t have that. With cancer, we don’t have that. With MS, we don’t have that. So these are not actually real entities. They’re ways of their fictitious entities that are meant to have a certain etiology that helps doctors understand how to treat them. There may be some utility in categorizing things. That’s what people do. But the problem is they’re misinterpreted as diseases which exist and are fixed entities instead of processes that your body is doing to heal itself.

And so that becomes the central key in changing how you think about health and medicine. And I would say the central tenet of what we’re working on with the new biology clinic. We see people, we try to hear their story, understand what led their body to undertake this self particular, self healing maneuver, to clean their body through a rash, to create an inflammatory response, to help them detoxify, to go through some psychological or emotional situation so that they could better understand themselves and what’s happened to them and to clear up old traumas and old misconceptions and old delusions.

Once you see that and you see the empowering effect that it has on people, that something happened to me, I have the power and the agency to go about healing it. I know that I’m working with my magnificent body which has already started the ball rolling and is showing me the way to heal this poisoning that I got from the shot, and I’m throwing it out through this rash, and I can work with it and end up resolving this conflict. And that is a whole different way of doing medicine and doing healing, which I would also say is not shared hardly at all.

In the alternative world, they see the same paradigms, the same enemies that are basically these fictitious make believe entities which they use their different substances to war against. The same as people doing with stopping nuclear weapons and creating better government voting, or fundraising or campaigning for people who will make so called better laws or have better rulings, or going to the courts and asking the government people to give us a better ruling so they’re not doing us such grave harm. And as far as I can see, once you agree that they have the right to make these rulings and to force you to comply against your voluntary wishes, you’ve already acknowledged that you’re defeated.

And that’s the real problem. Okay, so I think I’ve gone over most of, or at least the main things for the past four years. And again, these are meant to stimulate people to look into things for themselves, try to figure this out as we’re all doing together, and hopefully we can move on next week and to start tackling some other interesting things. So, thanks for listening, and I will see you next week. Bye.
[tr:tra].

See more of DrTomCowan on their Public Channel and the MPN DrTomCowan channel.