Joe Rogan Experience #2198 - Bret Weinstein

Joe Rogan podcast, check it out. The Joe Rogan experience. TRAIN BY DAY, JOE ROGAN PODCAST BY. NIGHT. ALL DAY. GOOD TO SEE YOU, my friend. Oh, good to see you, man. Strange times we're living in. Uh the strangest and getting stranger. Didn't some [ __ ] go down today? Didn't. we steal the president of Venezuela's. plane? Oh, I didn't hear about that. Yeah, I think we just stole his plane. I didn't. No, not us. Okay, good. The United States.

So, someone stole his plane. All right. Which is. kind of an act of war? What is that? Was he in it? I don't think so. No. I think we just stole his plane. Correct. Just like for a joyride? What's the story? US seizes Venezuela President Nicolas. Maduro's airplane in the Dominican. Republic. So, we said, "Nope, we're stealing. that.". How does that work? Even if you don't get along with like a. president of a country, how. disrespectful is it to steal their. plane?

This You're right, it's an act of war. Like imagine if Xi Jinping landed. somewhere. We're like, "We're going to. steal your [ __ ] plane.". Yeah. No chance. That's a bully move. That's a. move you can only do to a country like. Venezuela. Yes. Well, I I'm trying to remember. exactly what the story was, but there. was a point where Ecuador was acting. very courageously with respect to Julian. Assange. And there was a question that about. whether the president of Ecuador could. fly Assange out so that he could be. outside of the embassy and inside of.

Ecuador proper. And I believe the. reasoning was they couldn't do it. because they expected the plane to be. forced down. Same same issue. Mm. So, this says uh Merrick Garland. said that the Justice Department seizes. an aircraft we allege was illegally. purchased for $13 million. through a shell company and smuggled out. of the United States. for use by Nicolas Maduro and his. cronies. What What business is that of. ours, though? This is what I don't understand. Like, if it was purchased through a shell.

company, then it was purchased. Right. And was there Was there a trial. that established that this was. ill-gotten gain? It says smuggled out of the United. States. The plane was purchased from. company in Florida, the Justice. Department said, and was illegally. exported in April 2023 from the United. States to Venezuela through the. Caribbean. So, are we not allowed to sell them. planes? Is that what it is? Like, cuz we have a. problem with them? Would they say how. much it cost? 13 million bucks?

Yeah. Okay. So, he's got this $13 million. plane. A Dassault Falcon 900EX, since been used to fly almost. exclusively to and from military base in. Venezuela. Justice Department says CNN reached out. to Venezuelan government, US Hmm. It seems like, though, that's like. that's there's more to it than that. plane was illegal. You shouldn't have. that plane. For years, officials have sought to. disrupt the flow of billions of dollars. to the regime. Homeland Security.

Investigations, the second largest. investigative agency in the federal. government, has seized dozens of luxury. vehicles, among other assets, headed to. Venezuela. So, there's a US sanction. So, there's a. sanction. This is it. The plane was. seized in violation of US sanctions with. Venezuela and other criminal matters. that we're looking in at regarding this. aircraft. They're going to find a reason to keep. it. Like, they stole all those boats. from all those Russian cats. Yeah. Sorry, you're too rich and you know.

Putin, so give me your boat. Well, that's the thing is there's. there's a hidden story for everything, and this is about, you know, incentivizing the world, and we in the. public don't get to know the real story. Don't you think now, though, um most. people I feel like gen- genuinely most. people are aware there's more to the. story. Every story. Everything in the. the. Every time something comes up, people. are like, "What's the whole story here?". Well, you know, I I coined this term, the Cartesian crisis. And the Cartesian.

crisis basically means the point at. which you can't really be certain of. anything. And the problem is, yes, I do. think people are. catching on to the fact that they never. know the real story, but the response to. that is either that you start believing. the [ __ ] that they tell you, or that. you just become cynical and stop. believing anything, and neither of those. are functional ways to exist. And both those ways are good for the. people that are running scams. Exactly. They're good for the people who. want to maintain power, because it just.

keeps us back on our heels. Yeah, because if you don't know what's. true and what's not true, you're like, "Oh, jeez.". You know? And then you get cynical, "Oh, it's all [ __ ] This whole system's. rigged." Then you just go fishing. Right. And that And that's the thing. people don't understand. Is it At the. point that you think you're striking a. blow by checking out of their system, you're actually doing them a favor. Right. It's actually beneficial to them, because then you have a smaller number. of people that are voting. So, essentially, in the 2020 elections, it was a lot the largest ever. uh win, right? The The Democrats got 80.

something million votes, which is uh So, let's say let's say even if it was. 50/50. So, somewhere in the neighborhood. of 160 million people. How many people. are women and children I mean, how many. people are children? Women can vote. What am I saying? How many people are. are children, rather? Oh, jeez, I have no idea on the. percentage. 18. It's probably in the 30%. So, that's. a pretty high turnout. Yes, if that was even the case. If it was real. Yeah. That's the problem. We have no. idea. Therein lies the problem with the whole. cynical game, cuz I'm not convinced. Do.

I You know why I'm not convinced? Cuz. everybody wants me to be convinced. When when they like yell at you if you. ask a question, like, "Hey, what One of. the things that I've always said." And. everyone sort of agrees with this. I. mean, literally everyone. Even people. that think that the the election was. 100% legitimate. The percentage of voter fraud is never. zero, correct? And they're always like, yes. No one can say it's zero. Right. zero. There's a bunch of slippery people. that get arrested on both sides of the. aisle. Republicans and Democrats get.

arrest arrested for election fraud. It's. a real crime. The idea that they commit. all these other acts of fraud and. deception, but when it comes to. elections, Brett, that's a sacred. institution that we don't violate at any. cost. Yep. Well, and and the way they maintain. that story is by ruthlessly punishing. anybody who questions it, even though. questioning it is the obvious thing to. do. Right. Because for one thing, elections used to. be different, as you remember, Yeah. First of all, you used to vote in. person, and voting by mail was something.

you were very reluctant to do, because. you knew that if your vote got counted, it was going to be very late in the. process. It wasn't really going to. matter. It was mostly for soldiers serving. overseas. Right, exactly. It was for people who. just simply couldn't vote in person, and. it never really mattered, except in very. rare cases. The disappearance of that and the. normalization of voting by mail, the. normalization of voting across a period. of time, so that you're not all voting. on the same day, and the absence of exit.

polls, right? When everybody's voting from home. or wherever, you can't detect fraud by virtue of the. fact that the count that came in from. that precinct didn't match what the exit. pollers registered. Right. And so, you know, I don't think we are wrong to. imagine that we have lost the ability to. check whether an election is fair, and. that that's not an accident. That that. that leaves the possibility open to. cheat, and as you point out, they cheat. in every other way. Are we supposed to.

believe that they won't do that because. their patriotism is so deep? I don't see. any patriotism to them at all. Well, not only that, they've established. this narrative that it's imperative that. the Democrats win to save democracy. Right. So, the Verity made all of these. statements that would. it's more important for them to win than. anything. More important than anything. More important than having primaries. More important than letting the people. decide who the representative is. More.

important than having. like live actual conversations, interviews that aren't edited on CNN. Instead, they have a 40-plus minute one. that's edited down to 18 minutes. Like, what? Well, and we just went through this with. them over COVID. Yeah. We know that when they think they're in. the right, they feel entitled to lie. about everything. They feel entitled to. coerce. And so, the idea that we're.

supposed to imagine that our elections. are somehow different to them, I can't. imagine how that would even work. It doesn't make any sense, and it's. it's one of those things again that. you're you're forced into agreeing with. just out of fear because people get very. aggressive with it. Just like people. were super aggressive about the vaccine. You know, I I hate. seeing people. die because they made a poor choice. But, there's something. insane about how many people were like.

pro-vaccine advocates that were shaming. people and angry at people. And now they're dead. And they're not. dead because they ran their time, and. they got old, and they died, and you. know, it's unfortunate, but it happens. to all of us. Uh-uh. No, they're dead. young. Like, a lot a lot of people. Not. one, not 20. We don't even know what the. real numbers are because it's not. something the mainstream media covers. because they've all been vaccinated, too, and they're probably freaking the. [ __ ] out, too. Yeah, it's a huge number of people. We. can detect that statistically. It The.

trouble is that it's hard in any. individual case to know whether or not. you're looking at something that would. have happened anyway. Right. Um so. You remember John Ritter? Yes. From Three's Company. Sure. Died of a. with him. rupture Oh, you did? Yeah, did an episode of NewsRadio with. him. Super nice guy. Good guy? Yeah, I got that impression. Um anyway, he died of a ruptured aorta, if I remember correctly. Long before there was COVID vaccines. So, the point is if that had happened.

last year. Right. we'd all be saying, "Come on. Of course. Hollywood, he got vaxed, and now look at. him.". Yep. So, it happens. 100%. Right? But, the rate at which it's. happening has changed radically. And the. very people who say, "Oh, that's not the. vaccine." are very uninterested in. figuring out what it is. So, you know, let's put two and two together. Well, they don't even want to consider. the vaccine, which is so crazy. If you. called it anything else, if it wasn't. called the vaccine, if it wasn't for. COVID, okay? Let's because COVID became.

so. it became so politicized, and it became. it was like culturally so polarizing. Let's pretend it was for something else, and there was some medication, and the. people that were taking that medication. were dropping like flies. They would. 100%. make a correlation, and they would make. it publicly, and it'd be in the news. Of. course, it might not actually be in the. news today because this is part of the. problem with what we're dealing with. with advertising and the media is that. there's so much revenue that comes from. pharmaceutical drug companies that.

there's just a reality about them. reluctant to print or. or. put any stories on television that are. negative. There's too much money involved. Right. There's too much money involved, and it becomes impossible to override. this narrative. The narrative takes on a. reality of its own, even though it is. contradicted by the facts, and we, you. know, our our scientific tools are. they're. tremendously powerful at discovering. patterns like this. It's not difficult. to do. And yet, we deliberately avoid.

using them in the ways that they were. uh intended. Do you think in the future we'll we'll. look back on this and there'll be some. sort of a. some sort of a shift in the way we. discuss it? You know, there's a lot of. things in history that during the time. where they were happening, I'm sure. people were all like the McCarthy era. You know, I'm sure people thought it was. very important to root out these. communists, but they didn't exactly. understand like, "Hey, you're calling a. lot of people communists who aren't even. communists. You're going after people. that just went to meetings to find out. what's going on." The world didn't.

exactly understand what that even meant. back then. There was. you know, we look back at it now, the. Red Scare is like a. negative thing. It's a a dangerous sort. of negative aspect of our history. Yeah, although, you know, I'm sure. you're having the same experience where. lots of stuff. that you learned as a clear narrative. like, you know, the Red Scare took over. people and it was like a witch hunt. And. the answer is actually more nuanced than.

that. There was more truth to it than I. was taught. Right? The Rosenbergs really. were. guilty of passing secrets to the. Russians. Oh, yeah, there definitely was a lot of. that. So, you know, it's a mixed story. Right. You asked the question though if in the. future we're going to have a different. conversation about what's taking place. and I just want to put a little. placeholder there. The answer kind of depends. if there is a future. And. I worry a lot that not only are we.

headed into chaos, but that we are. going to be denied the ability to have a. proper historical account of the. present, that we're never going to. understand what these stories were. doing, why they played out the way they. did, you know, why people disappeared. when they did. And that that's not healthy. You need to. be able to create a record. It's never. going to be perfect, but need to be able. to create a record of what took place.

that has been exposed to some kind of. analytical standard, so that you can. correct your course. If you don't know. what happened, you can't improve on your. thought process going forward, and. that's extremely dangerous. It's like. you know, flying with a blindfold. Yeah, that's a great way to put it. And. I'm glad you did point out the fact that. there were really things The Red Scare. is a weird example, because. people would like to kind of dismiss the. impact that the communists, especially. Russia, was having on our our.

government. And there was a pretty big. impact. I mean, they did steal the plans. for the nuclear bomb. There's a lot of. [ __ ] that happened because of actual. communist interference. But the the. narrative when I was in high school was. that the Red Scare was bad. Right. It. was like everybody went crazy and they. were all looking for which was true, too. But that's part of the problem when. you don't know. Like back then, no. internet. very little paper trail. It's really. hard to find out who's talking to who. unless you like get get an actual.

listening device in the room and capture. them talking. Yeah, we we can't know. And I you know, it's. it's important to get your comeuppance. on these stories. You you grow up. comfortable that you understand what. happened during the Red Scare. And then. one day, you're doing a little reading. and you discover the story just isn't. the one you were taught, and. um. the more stories you dig into, the more. frequently that happens. Well, if you just get one good one, you're hooked. For me, it was the.

Kennedy assassination. Mhm. One good book on the Kennedy. assassination, I was like, "God damn it, they killed the [ __ ] president." It. freaked me out forever. That was like the I literally had a a. giant shift in how I viewed the world. after reading that book. Cuz before. that, I was never a questioner of. whatever was in the news or whatever the. narrative was that we were being told. about anything. Well, but. I mean, I I have exactly the same. reaction to that story and I I've been. down that rabbit hole. And.

I think you're just ultimately left with. the question. Something happened in 1963. That's before either of us were born. Right? Right. That thing was either an anomaly that. robbed the nation of a president and. the nation continued to be a democratic. republic in the aftermath of it. Or. that was interference with democracy and. we don't know how to look at all of the. seemingly democratic things that have.

happened since. How much of what has. happened since are the people who took. control with that. assassination. How much is them. continuing to maintain control with a. certain amount of democracy and how much. was that a an aberration that then. returned us to our normal course? And. That's a good point. A certain amount of. democracy. A certain amount It's There's clearly a. certain amount. Yeah. Well, which is one of the reasons why. they're so terrified of Trump.

Yeah. there's a certain amount of the stealing. they can do. If If Let's imagine if. there are if it is dirty and you really. can manipulate elections, how much can. you manipulate by? Can you manipulate it. by 30%? You know? Cuz. we don't know. And as long as they can. have you believing in the polls, this. what's really important, polls. Kamala Harris is up by 3%. Oh, she's up. She's winning. Like Who the [ __ ] are you. talking to? Who are you talking to? Right. And and.

I'm You're not talking to me. What narrative is it in which Kamala has. done something that might have caused a. surge in her popularity? Like I didn't. see it. Well, some magic. It's like um. you know, there's that theory, that. concept about multiple dimensions. And multiple universes that we all live. yeah. This this possibility that. there's infinite numbers of universes. all around us all the time and we enter. into a different timeline. We entered. into a different timeline. Well,

Clearly. I mean. Something happened. I I think I think the multiverse thing. is nonsense. I think it's an accounting. scheme for figuring out how to deal with. the fact that actually the universe is. not deterministic which people wrestle. with because we don't exactly know why. it isn't. But um but to your point about. how much can they cheat? I call that factor which none of us can. put a number on. Maybe they can. Right. I call it the cheat factor. Right? The cheat margin. And. one of the things that I'm trying to.

convince people of is that it's not. hopeless because they can cheat, but it. means that you have to succeed at a. level that exceeds their capacity to. erase it. Right. So, that's what we're talking. about. So, we're talking about like. Maybe they can cheat by 10%. Right. And what we know and I I think. actually we owe Trump a huge debt of. gratitude for proving something that I. couldn't have told you if it was true. before he won the presidency which is.

is there still enough democracy left in. the system for something to upend the. plan? Oh. Right? Cuz he was clearly off narrative. Right. And he did become president. So, he you. know. he did something for us that I don't. know anybody else who could have done. it. Yeah, it would take a person with that. kind of personality that could withstand. that kind of abuse. Cuz he didn't freak out at all when they. went after him. He was like. Right. Just brushed it off like it was nothing. And no one's done that. Oh, he's also.

the only guy that's ever gone through 4. years and didn't age like he went. through 30 years. That's true. He aged normal. Yeah. He's used to it. He's used to pressure. You know, and Bush. he aged a ton, Obama aged a ton, everybody aged a ton. Biden was already. cooked before he got in, but. he's but he aged a ton. I mean, Biden. from 2019 to today is a different. person. Yeah, and he was already visibly. degraded, but wow, was it a precipitous. decline? Big jump now.

Yeah. Trump was fine. Yeah, Trump physically. And actually, I. think he sounds better. I think, you know, he drives me crazy. sometimes when he talks, but I think. he's getting better at it. I think he's trying to be a little bit. more reasonable, you know, and try to. appeal to more people because of that, you know, that effort to be more. reasonable. Like he's. he's changed his mind about a lot of. things. He's talking about legalizing. marijuana, he's talking about all these. different things that are like where you. know, you're going to get a lot of.

different responses from like the. hardcore Republicans are not going to be. for that. You know, any. any idea of abortion, the hardcore. right-wing are not interested at all. And any restrictions on abortion at all, you get your hardcore left-wing. So, it's the mostly it's the people in the. middle. Abortion's a good one, right? Because. most people are like no one should be. able to tell you what you could do with. your body, but also. aborting an 8-month-old fetus is kind of.

[ __ ] insane. Yeah, I mean, I the funny thing, and. I've been saying this forever, is that. almost everybody agrees on the basics on. abortion. We're supposed to not be able. to even talk about it. But most people. believe that abortion is negative, that. if you've got a blastula, right, a clump. of cells, doesn't yet have a nervous. system, that you have the right to. terminate that pregnancy. And that the farther you go through that. pregnancy, the less right you have, and.

most people are incredibly queasy about. it. I think as they should be in the. third trimester, and you know, that's. what we agree on. And so, it's really. the extremists on both sides. um that. we are up against. But, to the question of what Trump is doing. with an issue like this. I want to make a couple points. One, I. think there two issues that are getting. tangled. One, I think he's politically. going to some places that are not.

traditionally Republican. Because I. don't even think I think he's destroyed. the Republican Party. I I just don't see the same Republican. Party I remember at all. I see a. different thing and it's. It's a MAGA Party. Yeah, it's a MAGA Party. Right, exactly. And that's a very different thing. because I see MAGA as mostly the. labor faction that was cut loose by the. Democrats in the Clinton administration. And so, they've now found a home. under MAGA. Interesting. Right? Like cuz blue-collar. people were generally um union people,

which were generally Democrats. Totally. And then. Yeah. Clinton turned the Democratic Party into. a second corporate party, so that those. people were homeless and then Trump. picked them up as MAGA and they're now. under the Republican banner, but it. doesn't read like the Republican Party. at all to me. And now it's picked up a. you know, a a. I don't want to say technocratic. That's. dismissive, but it's got this this. Silicon Valley component to it. Yes, that's recent. Yep. That's recent over the last year.

Yep. Yeah. It is interesting, right? Because we. did, growing up, always associate unions. and blue-collar people with voting. Democrat because Democrats were looking. out for the middle class, looking out. for people's best interests, supporting. unions and fair wages, and funding. schools, and all that kind of stuff. Keeping neighborhoods safe. And. Republicans were more like small. government, [ __ ] you, figure it out, I. don't want to pay taxes. Yes, stingy. And they were the ones that are. encouraging war.

Yep. Which is crazy today that you have this. massive 180° shift and the Democrats are. talking about how important it is that. we keep funding Ukraine and that, you. know, we have some sort of an whether. you're pro-Hamas or pro-Palestine, I. should say, or whether you're. pro-Israel, there's involvement in that. No one is saying neither. No Democrats are saying we need to get. the [ __ ] out of there. Right. They're saying we need to free. Palestine. Oh, okay, how are you going. to do that? How are you going to do.

that? What do you what how much is. involved in that? Are you going to bring. in people? You're going to send people. there? Like what are you going to do? Are you going to kill people for this? What are we doing? The Democrats are. they're you guys are looking for war, you're not looking for peaceful. solutions. Like. this is kind of weird. This is. interesting, you know, that you that we. need to beat Russia. Are you out of your. [ __ ] mind? Are you serious? Do you. know how big that place is? Do you know. how much military force is behind Putin? Are you What are you talking about? What. are you talking about? Like. Right.

to go nuclear at any point in time. If he gets pressured, you keep advancing. further and further into Russia and he's. like, "I'll just end this right now. I'll just turn Kiev into a [ __ ]. sandbox. Boom.". And then what do we do? No, it's it's insane and the hardest. part, I'm sure you have these people in. your life, too, but um let's just take. my parents for a second. Okay. My parents are good people, lifelong Democrats. They live in LA, surrounded by Hollywood.

types. They cannot seem to grasp the fact that. the party that they believed in is now. doing the inverse of everything they. signed up for. Exactly. Because the New York Times. rephrases everything so it seems like. the values are still there. Right. Which is wild. It's crazy and if you're not a New York. Times reader, it's you can barely figure. out what these people are talking about. see the article that I posted on my. Instagram that's a title of a New York.

Times article for today? Which one? Jamie, pull this up. I want I want Brett. to see this so you know this is real. This isn't The Babylon Bee. This is an. actual New York Times. article. You see it? Yeah, I had it in a weird spot in the. graphic on your Instagram. This is so crazy. It's really hard to. believe that someone would print this in. The New York Times and say, "Yeah, we. like it. Put it out there.". I'm not quite sure what to expect. Oh,

yeah, of course. The Constitution is sacred. Is it also. dangerous? Right. the biggest threats to American politics. might be the country's founding. document. What the [ __ ] are you talking. about? Yeah. One of the biggest threats to America's. politics. might be one of the greatest documents. that any country was ever founded on, if. not the greatest ever. Mhm. That could be a threat to America's. politics. What politics are we talking.

about? Like what How could you possibly. gaslight me enough to go along with you. on this? Yeah, it. it's incredible. I mean, it's. on the one hand completely predictable, right? Because there's obviously an. authoritarian force there that just. grinds its teeth at night over the. Constitution and the fact that it. prevents it from doing things that it. just wants to do. Yeah. last week, you know? And so of course they're like scratching. their heads like can we come up with an.

argument for why it might be time to get. rid of that thing? And of course, if. you're a normal thinking person, this is. complete insanity. But. if you're a New York Times reader, I'm. sure that fits with the kind of ethos. that's been cultivated. is why a person like Trump is so. important to them. Because if you don't have someone that. is an imminent threat on the horizon in. 3 months, it's very difficult to justify. all this [ __ ] So, if you have Kamala.

Harris, and she's competing against. Ron DeSantis. If it's just Kamala Harris. and Ron DeSantis, and Trump doesn't. exist, maybe he died. Maybe he died in the last few years, you. know. Mhm. What How could you You You wouldn't be. able to make that argument. You wouldn't. There's no imminent threat. Right. Right? Let's say Mitt Romney. Let's say. someone even more moderate as a. Republican, even more palatable. You. can't make that You can't make that. argument that we don't need We can't. have a First Amendment. Because the.

First Amendment is getting in the way. The First Amendment is allowing people. to say things that aren't true, misinformation and disinformation. And We know we're Right here, we're. September 2nd. Um I think yesterday was the first day. where Brazil banned Twitter. I know. So, X is illegal to have in Brazil as of. today, as of yesterday. And not only is. it illegal, but you go through it. through a VPN, and they will charge you. $8,000 a day.

I know. It's It's incredible that we are. watching this. Insane. But I would remind you. they did pull this stuff when it was. Mitt Romney, when it was George W. Bush, right? The rhetoric was still. existential threat. Right? And they. always have particular versions of this, right? Not Not as ramped up as this. Right. Oh, wait. This is like Hitler. Hitler talk. This isn't They never. talked about Mitt Romney like he was. Hitler. I agree. And as I've been saying since. the beginning of this electoral cycle,

they fear Bobby Kennedy far more than. they fear Trump, because actually Trump. gives them the only argument for their. existence that is functional, right? They don't have an affirmative argument. for why they should be in power. But. being the alternative to Trump is, you. know, that's a. that's a pitch. Right. Um. So, we are now somewhere pretty. interesting in the sense that I think. you know, to the faithful. that argument still works.

But to a larger and larger group of. people, they're seeing right through it. Yeah. They're understanding we first of all we. lived through four years of Trump, right? Right. There. you know, it it was not distinguished as some. moment of, you know, total failure of our system or. something, Right. there were a lot of elements of it that. were very positive. Right. That's that's a and. that's where a a fun meme is. There's a. fun meme that someone made about how uh.

you're telling me that he's going to do. these things that he didn't when he was. in office, and you're telling me that. you're going to do these things that you. didn't do and you're in office now. Right. Like what? And add to that, you're doing the things. that you're accusing him of intending to. do, right? All this lawfare stuff, that's frightening. They're weaponizing. the courts. Yeah. And they're weaponizing the courts. over what was a misdemeanor with uh. that's already.

if you look at the like Bill Ackman had. a post that he made on Twitter laying. out the legality of this 34 count um. thing that they convicted him of. That. this is essentially an accounting error. or deception that's a misdemeanor that. is past the statute of limitations. Not only that, but. I don't think you have to really even. squint at it to see. that it's just simply unconstitutional.

to point the courts at particular people. and not other people. Right. Right. We have a constitutional right to. equal protection under the law, and. obviously. they are setting a different standard. for Trump because they want to keep him. tied up in court. Maybe they want to. lock him up and put him in prison. But. whatever they're doing. is. un-American. It is anti-American. very dangerous because you've set a. precedent now. Now, let's imagine like. we've gone through shifts in this. country where we leaned heavily left.

like during the Carter administration. was run by serious lefty, you know, and. then what if now it is run by a hardcore. right-winger? What if there's some sort. of an attack on American soil and it. ramps up patriotism and people get real. angry and and right the you know, just. like the left has moved so far left that. if you're not in favor of hormone. blockers for kids, somehow you're. transphobic and you're a bigot. Like. somehow or another, if you're not in.

favor of that, you're a bigot. What if. it gets so right that if you're not in. favor of, you know, stops and frisks all over the country to. for everyone, then somehow or another. you're anti-safety of the nation. And if. you're not in favor of no-knock raids on. people's homes with no warrants, that. somehow or another you're a danger to. our democracy. Like it can go really. creepy far right just like it's really. creepy far left. And then they're.

utilizing the courts. If they fill the. courts up with a bunch of hardcore. Republicans, now you're utilizing the. courts against people in a way that you. would find very offensive. Because. you've made it you've set a precedent. Right. And and I think actually we are. already living this nightmare in one way. because. what they did was loaded powers into the. executive branch that were never. supposed to be there. They created. emperor-like discretion and they gave. those powers to the president, I think.

believing that they would never be in. the hands of anybody that wasn't on. their team, right? And I'm not talking. red or blue. Right. I'm talking about. inside versus outside. And one of the. reasons that I think the reaction to. Trump is what it was is that he was. taking over an office that had been. given all of these exotic tools that he. could in principle use against anybody. These are tools that are absolutely a. violation of our Constitution, and yet. they exist there. And so, the need to.

prevent him from having access to those. things was existential in their mind. And. so, anyway, the point is they created. tools they never expected to be in the. hands of someone else, and that is the. situation, that's the scenario you're. describing here as well. Why do you think the multiverse is. [ __ ]. I just don't think it makes any sense. because. um. if you take the multiverse. literally. So, let let let me back up a second. We. have a principle that tells us.

more or less what is true called. parsimony, right? Mhm. We. take the simplest explanation that. accounts for what we observe, and we. imagine it's true. And there's a little. imperfection in there, but if you had. all the information, it would it would. work, I think, perfectly. And then there's a flaw. in how we apply. the multiverse is analytically. very simple. Right? It's just one move. Oh, there are.

an infinite number of universes in every. moment there are an infinite number of. things that could happen, and a universe. is created for each one. That's very. simple. I just said it in one sentence. On the other hand, at the practical. level, it couldn't possibly be more. wasteful and absurd. Right? And the idea that. uh you know, there's going to be a. different there's going to be two. universes, you're going to double the. universe because I just move my glasses, and we need one universe in which I.

didn't, and one universe in which I did. and then each of those universes is. going to proliferate out from each. moment. This does not make any sense. So, I think what it is. is. this is just part of the process of. discovery. If you imagine an infinite number of. proliferating universes from each. branching point, right? That. accounts that allows us to understand we. could describe it that way and it allows. us to understand the universe as we. observe it. Now, the question is what's.

really going on that allows that to take. place without the proliferation of. universes? That's why I think it's wrong. It's It's. It's the intermediate It's the immature. analytical point at which we have. noticed that something is going on. We. know we need to explain it and we. haven't yet stood in the right place to. explain it in a way that's actually. efficient. So, what we're doing is we're. explaining it in a way that if you typed. it out, it's a it's one tweet. But isn't existence itself.

insane? The universe itself is insane. The. subatomic particles are insane going all. the way out to solar nurseries. They're. all It's all insane. The whole thing's. insane. It's insane in scope. It's. insane in size. It's insane in its. complexity. It's almost incomprehensible. Almost incomprehensible. So, why would. it be more incomprehensible if it was. there was infinite variety. and infinite numbers of them? It would just be. a different level of crazy that we.

weren't aware of. Well, no. It No? I mean, I don't think so because it's. not a different level. If Let's just. agree that the universe the size of it. is. impossible to actually comprehend. I. think it's It's literally impossible. just look at it as a number. It's a. small number, actually. You look at it. Oh, like what's the most recent the. James Webb Telescope the most recent. advanced versions of it they're talking. about 22 billion plus years for the Big. Bang. They're looking at that now.

because of the. because of the structure of some. galaxies that shouldn't exist. Shouldn't exist in the time period of. which they would have to be formed in a. certain amount of years. And so they're. There's It's It's very contentious, but. there's some of these people studying. the results that. seem to believe it's very quite possible. that you you might want to push that. date back. Whatever the Big Bang is. Right. Okay. And then there's Sir Roger Penrose who. thinks it's like a constant cycle.

Right. I'm I'm open to all these ideas except. ones like the multiverse because. let's put it this way. You haven't. solved a problem. by invoking the multiverse. What you've. done is you've caused a problem that is. like the original problem that you had. raised to the infinity. Right. And so my feeling is anytime you've made. the problem the philosophical problem. you had that we all admit is really. really difficult infinitely worse.

you probably made a wrong move. I don't know about that. I don't I don't. think that's necessarily true. Because just because we haven't solved. the problem of this immense thing that's. impossible to grasp, it doesn't mean it. can't be way bigger than we even imagine. in a concept that's impossible to grasp. And there's got to be some reason why so. many people are entertaining this. multiverse theory.

It's not. Well, that's just because. we're not very we're cuz we're. descendants of chimp-like ancestors and. we have limited tools to bring to bear. to this. exciting. Right, it's exciting. It's a good way to. think of it. As if you think of it as a. temporary stand-in for whatever the. answer is that's going to dawn on us on. us at some point it's fine. It's It's a. good It's a good thought problem, but. imagining that it's real. you know, you said, you know, maybe the problem is. infinitely bigger. than we thought. It's not infinitely.

bigger. It's the rate of growth of the. problem is. every instant needs multiple universes. for the most trivial of modifications. I'm sorry, that just does not sound like. nature to me. I think it sounds like the universe. though. I don't think the universe. necessarily sounds like nature. Nature. is what we see here, but what we see. everywhere is so bizarre. Like black. holes are so bizarre. Supernovas, they're so [ __ ] bizarre. The fact that there's a. a giant black hole in the center of.

every galaxy that's 1/2 of 1% of the. mass of the galaxy and it might be. another universe inside of that thing. But see, I actually think that one, I. mean, I was waiting for that discovery. for my whole life. And when I finally. heard it was like, "Okay, now I. understand why you've got this huge. swirling thing. You've got this giant. gravitational mass in the center that. you can't see. Now it makes sense." So, that was like a simplifying. discovery. Well, the existence of the black hole, but the concept of a black hole being. essentially a portal into another.

universe where there's hundreds of. billions of galaxies, each one with a. black hole in the center of them. You go. through each one of those, you have. hundreds of billions of galaxies, each. one with a black hole in the center of. it. And you just keep doing that forever. and ever and ever. Isn't that kind of. the multiverse? Well, let's put it this way. I I mean, A, we're a little bit safe here because. by definition there's no way of peering. into those depths. Right. For now. I think forever. But. You think AI can't like get a grasp on. this in a better way? Well, it might be able to.

Quantum computing a thousand years from. now might have a. The problem is that there's a physical. reason you can't. For the same reason. that light can't get out, there's no way. to peer in. Right. So, am I. cool with the idea that maybe there's an. equilibrium that, you know, a black hole. where things once they're pulled in over. that threshold, they never emerge again. and that maybe they emerge somewhere. else. Yeah, I could imagine parallel. things that are entangled in this way. That does not sound inherently like an.

insane cheat to me because what we have. is a mystery staring us in the face in. every one of those. uh ultra massive black holes. Mhm. What the hell is it? Right. Um. what about a future in which we. develop some sort of propulsion system. and attach it to a drone that's not. it's not. based on fuel, it's based on some sort. of gravity thing and allows you to. traverse immense distances very quickly.

And then we could actually get that. [ __ ] way out there, take some video, and bring it back. Well, you're going to void the warranty, I'm pretty sure. Well, it's okay. It's all funded by the. government. We have infinite money. We. just print checks. Oh, we just tax people and. blame the UFOs. Yeah. Um. Which is what I think they're doing, by. the way. Using the UFO story? Yeah. Oh, yeah. I think so, too. Yeah, I think I think both things are. true. I think we have been visited. And. I think it only makes sense. I think there is life out there because. it doesn't make sense there isn't.

And I think I would visit if I got a. thousand years more advanced than we are. and we found out about it some planet. that's 2,000 light years away that. actually is making nuclear bombs. [ __ ]. yeah, I'd visit. Of course I'd visit. 100%. So, of course they would visit and. of course they would want to protect us. from the overwhelming. shock to our culture that would. undoubtedly. be thrust upon us if we were. if we were confronted with a city-size.

spaceship that's hovering over Detroit. Just just hovering over there. It would. send the world into a massive panic. No. No would know what to do. I'm not I'm not sure about this. So I I want to I want to just adjust a. couple things you said. Okay, please do. So my perspective, you're absolutely. right. It would be. there's every reason to think there's. lots of life in the universe. Right. And that life that attains a certain. level of cognition will inevitably. create technologies that break.

boundaries that it can't biologically. break. So it'll, you know, traverse some. uh distance across space. But the real. question is. how many islands of life. what's the closest one. how traversable is the cosmos, right? It. may not be traversable at all at those. scales. Or it may be much more. traversable than we know. And then it. doesn't take very many islands of life. to have somebody visit us. But as to your last point.

I actually will first of all. everybody every thinking person I know. is. pretty troubled by the present. And you know, a hostile alien force. would freak everybody out. But I. A, I can't see a reason why aliens would. be hostile. Doesn't make sense to me. They don't have to be hostile. Just just. being there.

Right. But then if they were just there, first of all, we've been training for. this. Right? We all spend a lot of time on. sci-fi stories of aliens and. all that stuff. Right. So I think actually. we wouldn't be impressed enough because. we've seen really impressive stuff on. screens again and again and again. If. you actually heard that this stuff was. going on, if the ship showed up in the. sky and you could see it with your. binoculars. I think the question is.

well. are they friendly? And what do they have. to say? Right? I I honestly don't think you. know, I don't it'd be if I heard about. it. I would think. that's got to be good news because we're. to anyone in power, this would be a. gigantic threat. To anyone trying to. pass off some sort of narrative that. this is the the the we're in the lead in. terms of like the moral high ground of. the world and that we're you know, we're. the wisest, we're the best, we're going.

to make decisions for everybody. That. would throw a monkey wrench completely. into the gears of that. There would be. Totally. So they would lose all control. They. would lose all authority, they would. lose all respect. But why are the aliens abiding by their. plan? Cuz I don't think they are. I don't I. don't that's not what I'm saying. I. think that would freak them out and. they're not doing that. Right? I think. if they are real and they do observe us, they probably observe us in a in a way. where. there's a limited amount of detection. And I think there's probably if I was.

going to acclimate a culture to the idea. that they're not alone, I would do it. slowly. That way you could have the same. ultimate effect eventually and maybe. maybe help them along their evolution as. well, along their cultural evolution to. like slowly introduce this concept that. they're not alone. And then do it over decades, which is. exactly what's been happening. Yeah. And the acceptance of it has changed.

from when I was a kid, you talk about. UFOs, you're a [ __ ] cook. 100%. Yeah. Straight up cook. And then the Bob Lazar. story came around and everybody was. like, "Hey, wait a minute. Is that guy. telling the truth?" And that was like. '89, but still seemed like [ __ ] And. then there was a bunch of questions. about his education background, [ __ ] artist. But then over time more. people have seen enough things like. Commander David Fravor and more people. have seen things that like have no. explanation whatsoever and you start. hearing stories from high-level people.

about retrieved vehicles and this and. that. It's more and more and more and. more and more and normal people talking. about it and more and more professors at. Stanford and the New York Times in 2017. prints a story and respected. Air Force pilots are coming out and. talking about it. It's a different. world. And it's a different world just over a. few decades. Yeah, it's a different world, but I. still haven't seen anything that isn't. best explained as sci-op [ __ ]. Right, I haven't either. But but also I. haven't seen anything. Right?

These are unique experiences and the. problem with unique experiences is. everyone has to just sort of trust you. Unless you have some kind of evidence, everyone has to trust you. Even if it's. a whole town. It's a unique experience. in the town. Mass hypnosis, a bunch of. [ __ ] artists, they're taking. advantage of it for tourism. Like. Varginha, Brazil. The entire town saw. this thing. So, how you know, I'm not sure if it's. all [ __ ] I think there's some. [ __ ] mixed in with some real stuff.

That's what I think. This is my. conclusion over time. Because if you go. back to like the Kenneth Arnold. sightings in the 1950s, we didn't have. anything that moved like that. Nobody. did. There's no way anybody had anything. in the 1950s that could. shoot across the sky soundless, make no. noise, skip like flying saucers is what. the way they described it. There was a. I think there was nine of them together. Like there was no we didn't have. anything like that. So, maybe.

occasionally we're visited. Maybe. occasionally they show themselves. And maybe they have been here. Tucker. thinks they've been here all along. He. thinks they're a part of this world that. we live in. They just they they hide. from us and maybe they live in the. ocean. Yeah, I mean, you know, you know what my. stock and trade is and my feeling is I'm. perfectly open to the possibility that. there are alien intelligences in the. universe. I'm perfectly open to the. possibility that they would stop by. Um.

but I'm going to need something like. evidence that isn't better explained by. terrestrial [ __ ] because frankly, the terrestrial [ __ ] is guaranteed. Right. If they had some sort of a drone. that used gravity and could zip across. the sky like. you know, 10x light speed, they wouldn't. tell you about it. Yeah, but I don't even think it's I. don't Look, I think the fact and I think. we may have talked about this before, but the fact that these things are doing.

stuff that's beyond any terrestrial. craft that we know of and they're. silent. That's because they're not craft. They're projections of some kind and so. they're visually very compelling, but. they do not disturb the atoms that. they're passing through because they're. not they don't displace anything. So you think the radar. when they use radar and they find these. things, what do you think that is? Oh, man, I think that's people putting. blips on other people's radar and it's.

not the only place in history that that. shows up, right? So you could force a blip on a someone's. radar? Sure. Hack the radar? And heck, if you had a. How would you do that? Uh well, these radars are all. computerized. But let's talk about the David Fravor. one, right? Because the this is 2004, so. it kind of limits our ability in terms. of. you know, you have high technology, you. have extremely powerful computers, you. you have a lot of stuff going on, but we. we certainly don't have what we have 20.

years later, right? Yep. We all agree to that. Now, they have. multiple. different uh mediums, multiple different. types of evidence. They have visual. eyewitness testimony. in more than one jet sees this thing, more than one pilot sees this thing. They all have the same story. This thing. zips across the sky. They have the radar. that shows that this thing went from. 50,000 ft above sea level to 50 in a. second. Mhm. They have this thing moving at speeds on.

video where you see it move on video. that would turn anybody inside it into. Jell-O. Yep. So, it's whatever the [ __ ] this is, it's. doing something that we didn't think. human beings could do. Yeah. Right. So, you have three different ways. of verifying that there is something. there. You have the radar, you have. video, you have eyewitness testimony, you have this thing flying to the CAP. point where they were initially supposed. to when they were doing their training. mission, they were supposed to meet. Yep. There's a lot of weird [ __ ] with that. Yep. But. So, you think that they could fake that?

Yeah, I mean, I I do think you could. fake it because you just have multiple. attack vectors. So, how would you fake. um a visual. sighting from trained fighter jet pilots. over the ocean? A projection. A projection. And where would the. projector be? I don't know. Could could be could be. coming from space. Could be from an. aircraft that's flying too high to see. I don't know.

And how would you do that? What. technology would enable you to make. something look I mean, they even had a. disturbance of the ocean floor. Or of the ocean surface, rather. So, I'm not an expert in these technologies. I'm not claiming that I could do it. But. what I'm saying is A, you have. a huge amount of classified technology. Just imagine for a second how useful it. would be to be able to convince your. enemy that you had aircraft in its.

airspace that they were able to exceed. limits, whatever. So, do you think we've worked on the ability. to fool an enemy into believing that we. have capacities that we don't have? Yeah, of course. So, given that those programs are. essentially certain to exist, Do you. think anybody's ever going to have the. idea that actually in this case it would. be useful if some, you know, unassailable authorities were to have. undeniable experiences that suggest X,

Y, or Z. Mhm. Somebody's going to come up with that. idea. So, this would explain why these things. are able to stay stationary in 120 knot. winds because they're not affected by. physical reality. Yeah. They're just images. Have you I mean, I know you have. There are incredibly good magicians, right? Who will do stuff in front of you. that, you know, you don't walk out of there. thinking the laws of physics have been. broken because you understand that magic.

magic is a genre where you walk in and. you agree to suspend your disbelief. enough to look through your eyes and. register something as if it's violated a. law of physics, but we all know it's. magic, right? David Blaine. Right. Exactly. An illusion. Yeah. Now, imagine that you had. teams. working on illusions. who. were going to do so in a context that. you would have no concept that that's. what had happened because you're so used. to trusting.

what your eyes perceive, what your ears. hear, all of those things. So, all I'm saying is. the evidence that these things exist. always hovers in the realm where a. ruthless whatever. could have faked it. Right? Whether that has to do with. an MK Ultra. intervention where somebody's been given. drugs they don't know they've been given. and they've been shown things that they.

are more open to because they were in a. state in which they were in induced. openness. That's a possibility or a. mixture of things. You see something, you've been brought into a state of. openness. You accept it more than you. think you have because you don't know. that anybody tinkered with your wiring. I just am waiting to see a piece of. evidence that really makes me go, "Huh, I don't think we could have done that.". Have you seen any of Gary Nolan's stuff. on the metallurgy, on the different.

samples that they've collected from. these supposed down crafts that defy our. understanding of how to create alloys. and how expensive it would be to craft. these things? ask you a question. You've got. alloys that are beyond known human. technology and you've got discussion of. alloys that are beyond human technology. Which is it? Well, it's certainly discussions. That's the problem. Right. I mean, I don't know.

who. See if you can find anything on Gary. Nolan's samples. So, Diana Pasulka, who'd been on the podcast before, she. she'd done some excavating of these. areas where they. purport that these things had crashed. and they could still find pieces. Which. made me a little skeptical. As soon as I. see you can still find You didn't pick. them all up? Like, why wouldn't they. send someone out there to pick. everything up? Why would you sift. You would take truckloads and you would. 100%. You would get every single scrap.

of that stuff. But, if I wanted someone. to believe that a craft was there, I'd. leave a bunch of [ __ ] out in the. field. I'd blindfold them like they did. I'd take them out to the spot. This is. the spot. Walk around. Oh, look, you. found a piece. Like, how do you not know. where all the [ __ ] pieces are? If. this thing crashed 30 years ago, why. didn't you go over this place with a. fine-tooth comb? People do that for. arrowheads. Yeah. Why would you not do that for alien. craft metal? Of course you would. Yeah, also, there's the other problem. It's like, why are these things. crashing?

Right, exactly. [ __ ] good they can get here from. another dimension. they're partying, they got here, and. they just. they don't know they're. They get a hold of some [ __ ] Jack. Daniels next thing you know they're. they're crashed in the sand. They're. having a good time in America. It's also that's a big problem, too. A. lot of these sightings are in America. They're like the if you look at the look. at the chart there's sightings overseas. for sure. They they happen all over the. world undoubtedly, but they happen a lot. more here. We have an alien problem across many. different dimensions.

Yeah, we do. We go we have multiple. alien problems. HAVE MULTIPLE. THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT THEY'RE. GASLIGHTING PEOPLE ON. The idea that. they would let people come over here so. they would vote. Of course they would. That's a great way to like get vote. voters. So these are these pieces that. Gary Nolan claims to have had. And what. does it say about these pieces? I mean this is I Well, I could only find. it in a video. I was trying to find. pictures of it. UFO explosion. Okay, so this is from.

how do you say that? Ubatuba? Ubatuba, Brazil? So this is a different it might be a. different pronunciation in Portuguese, but this is a different crash than the. Varginha one. So there's been multiple. sightings and things happen in Brazil. apparently. Brazil also has a little bit. of an alien problem. Oh, yeah. A little little one. But the Varginha one is wild. That's the. most wild one. Yeah, but those. those um fragments there. Mhm. appeared from where I'm sitting to look. like they were made of pixels.

Let me see that again. That could just be a low resolution. photograph. No, no. It I'm kidding with you. I'm. just saying we're looking at that thing. as if we know that it's a fragment of. metal and we're being told that it has. properties that are unfamiliar, but what. we have, the evidence you and I have is. pixels. Right. Sure. We're not there. We don't. get to see these things. Also, even if. you gave it to me, what how's that going. to help me? I I have no idea what you're. Yeah, I don't know what that is. Yeah. I don't even even if you gave me the. microscopes to look at it. I'm like,

what am I seeing? Right. I'm seeing. layers? Is that what this is? Like how. do they do this? Right. So that's why look, you know, I. want a. team of honest biologists to look at. some space biology. That would settle. this immediately. Yeah. Immediately. Immediately. Yeah. Like if there really is a body. Just one. What everyone says there's frozen body. somewhere. Just one. That's all it take. We can settle this. tomorrow. Let some people in. Okay, here it is. Alleged extraterrestrial metal from the.

bottom of a wedge-shaped craft in the. late 1940s made of 26 alternating. layers, 1 to 4 microns dark bismuth and. 100 to 200 microns silver magnesium zinc. alloy. Each of six pieces received from. US Army source were formed with a. curvature that tapered. Wow. That is incredibly compelling. metallurgical narrative. If it's true. Transmitted by pixels.

Right. That's the problem. And. it's also the late 1940s. How many of. these [ __ ] things crashed? Oh, it's happening all the time. That's the weird thing, right? Like. Think of how many Corvettes there are. Yeah. You don't find a whole lot of them like. on the side of the road crashed. Yeah, it's not a common thing. No one's finding Corvettes in the in the. in the the desert. Look, I found a. Corvette. There's so many Corvettes. There's millions of them. Right. And yet and yet most of them make. it from A to B.

But these [ __ ] UFOs. They're they're so smart they can come. here from other planets and they just. Yeah. Boom. Well, maybe we're not on their map and. so they're like. Or maybe the only people that are the. only intelligent life outside of this. planet that's willing to do it. They're. like Australian outback people. They're. like those those wild dudes who go. overlanding in the You know, Australia. has a a big overlanding culture where. they build up these vehicles and they. they take them off into the bush and. they they live off of them. My friend.

Adam Greentree does that. These people. are wild. Australians are wild folk. So, maybe they're like the Australians of. space. And they just overlanding and it. doesn't always work out. Overlanding. They're these nuts that like they you. know, there's people that go out in the. desert for 30 days and they have enough. food and water and they have a solar. thing on the top of their their rig and. that's it charges their cell phone and. they have, you know, jerrycans of petrol. so they could keep going and. Well, I I kind of dig this. Look, if if.

if it were possible to. Right. traverse vast. empty spaces and go to places that were. known to have life, I'd be all about. that. But it would only be the real hardcore. adventurers that would take that chance. And maybe those people are nuts. Maybe. those alien people are nuts just like. the human people are nuts that do that. kind of stuff. Right. They like to get into trouble, winch themselves out and. Wild people. They got winches on their. spaceships. Exactly. Well, you got to also think Here's. Here's another problem with the idea of. them being biological. Um we it's far.

more effective to send things that are. non-biological into space like what. we're doing on Mars. We We don't have a. base on Mars allegedly, but there's a. lot of nutty people that believe we do. But um they do certainly have some. robots that are on Mars and it's. gathering data and they're doing it. right now. And so you don't have to. worry about radiation and all the things. that kill people, make people sad. If we. lose one of those rovers, who gives a. [ __ ] Make another rover, ship it out. there, fly it. Nobody cares. If you lose. 50 people, if you take 50 people and.

they die on your Mars trip, you're going. to have Congress is going to be meeting. about it. What are we doing? Why are we. killing people? Let's not do that. And. so as time goes on and as technology. improves and as. sentient artificial intelligence becomes. a better option for sending some. intelligent robot to gather data, why. would why would anybody go through space. as a a living creature? It seems stupid. Yeah, I mean, I agree. On the other. hand, I probably.

you know, why why do I want to go to the. Amazon, right? I can I can see. Yeah, but you can go to the Amazon. That's the thing. Humans live in the. Amazon. Humans don't live on Mars. It's. way simpler to send a robot to Mars. Why would we go to Mars? Yeah, there is. a good reason to go to Mars. And the. good reason to go to Mars is. we're in jeopardy here, and. I don't think Mars is in any way a. long-term plan for survival of people,

but there are. processes unfolding here in our solar. system that put us in jeopardy. potentially here on Earth, and having. just at least an outpost of people. uh somewhere else would not be a bad. hedge against that. So, I think I think. we're I think we're not close enough, but. Right. Um. But. But it's it's definitely a potential. reality, and if it was possible, it. would be a good move if you wanted to.

hedge your bets. Yep. And we should hedge our bets. because. position on this. Yeah. You know, that we're in danger of the. human race going extinct from a variety. of different things. Not even our own. fault. It could be a lot of a bunch of. different things. Asteroid impacts, supervolcanoes. A lot of a lot of stuff. can happen right here that kills us all. Space weather. Oh, yeah. [ __ ] some supernova too. close. Sorry, everything's cooked. Micronova, which is actually a viable. hypothesis. Apparently, this is. something that can happen. It doesn't.

necessarily destroy the star. You can. have a burst of radiation that radically. alters things down here. Oh, fun. Yeah. And maybe that's what happened to Mars, which is also part of the problem, cuz. Mars at one time had an atmosphere, Mars. at one time had liquid water. We don't. really know what happened. Yeah. No, agreed. It. Mars is probably a little closer to the. sun at one point in time in the past. It turns out that our solar system is. dynamic and dangerous in a way that we. don't really know because our study is.

too has has happened in a period of. calm. Mhm. And we're really looking at a very brief. amount of time that we can measure in. terms of a human experience. It's so. brief in terms of what we know about. what human beings have experienced and. then we have to go back to like core. samples, you have to go back to oh, it. appears that there was Earth 1 and Earth. 1 was hit by another planet. That's how. we get the moon and then the moon. the moon's crazy. Yeah. It What a crazy thing that this thing.

stabilizes us. It's in the exact same. right position, exact right size. to make sure that we can exist as we. exist right now. It seems like somebody. put it there. It's a beautiful thing. It's a beautiful thing, but it's. it's kind of kooky. It's almost like someone put it there. It's very convenient. Yeah. Yeah. I mean and of course there's an. anthropic principle in play here as well. because the question is are we here. because we do have a moon to play the. exact right role. You know, this this.

planet has a lot a lot going for it and. one way to think about that is wow, that. can't be that's no accident or no, we're. here to talk about it because those. accidents happen to line up here. Right. Or yeah, it's odd, but that's also why. there's not life everywhere. Right. And this does happen and when it does. happen then you get some life. Yeah. But until it happens and the the variety. of temperature changes over the course. of the seasons is just too vast for what. we understand as biological life to. survive. But then or at least. intelligent. See, it's not just.

biological. It has to be intelligent. It. has to be able to manipulate its. environment. It has to be able to record. the previous thoughts and history, develop language. And it's really hard. stuff to do tough to do that if you're. in an environment and you've adapted to. an environment that can vary by 300°. Right. No, you're exactly right that the. number of things that have to stack up. before you get to the point that you're. pondering why you're here is is many. to have food. You have to have food and you have to. have your feet up and go, "Why are we.

here?". Yeah, and you have to not be going. routinely extinct because things. suddenly go haywire. Exactly. This is why this kind of. thought emerges once people sort of. settle down. Yep. And get some food, start herding some. cattle, and go, "Hey, stars are kind of. crazy.". Yeah, you ever looked up? Instead, everybody's just looking in the. bushes for what's going to kill them. What's going to eat me? You know, it's funny. I've spent a lot. of time watching animals. They don't look at the sky. Oh, that's interesting. It is interesting. That is very interesting. It's very.

interesting. Yeah, I mean, you know, I get it. It's. not productive until you. get pretty deep into thinking about, you. know, abstract things as a way of. finding what you're not doing right. Well, we look outward and we look. inward, which is really like next level, right? Like we look look at microscopes, go, "What is it going on here?" Like. Right. We're all filled with bacteria. This is. This whole thing's nuts. Like we're not. even an individual. Right. We're an ecosystem. We're individual. ecosystems. And the healthier your. ecosystem is, the healthier you are as.

an individual because you're not really. an individual. Wow, if we learn So, this this is. something Heather and I talk about. frequently is that we have more or less. an epidemic of people who are. maybe smart, but they don't know the. difference between a complex system and. a complicated one. And so, they take. their complicated system thinking into. complex systems. the difference? Whether it's predictable. Mhm. So, for example, your computer.

or your phone, you know, it's beyond. your comprehension or my comprehension, but it is well understood how it works. There's nothing mysterious about the. outputs, right? It's a It's a It's a. system that all of the the functionality. of is is well understood. Um but a. biological creature isn't anything like. this. And so when you intervene, you. know, when they give you a drug. and they think they know what it's going. to do, they're intervening in a system in which. things are connected in ways that. they've not yet discovered and they.

can't anticipate the cascading effects. So, you know, we keep getting upended by. the sense of like you know, oh, this. thing is wrong with you. Here's a. biochemical intervention that will. adjust one parameter and put you back. into health. No, almost never true. Right? It is occasionally true if. somebody is quite sick that you can push. them back in the direction of. homeostasis. You can rescue them. But. the idea of improving health with an.

intervention is almost always the wrong. approach. Right? You should be restoring. the environment in which the body knows. how to take care of itself because it is. a complex system. Given the right. inputs, given the right parameters, it. has all of the processes necessary to. keep it functioning. But if you think. you're going to improve it by. intervening, you're almost certain to do. harm. Hm. But what about medication for people. that have like type 1 diabetes? Right, but the question is why do you. have type 1 diabetes?

But it's a genetic thing. Yeah, but it Is it a a. You think our ancestors were walking. around with type 1 diabetes? They might have and just died off. Well, but then you would have a very low. rate of that gene. So, our ancestors So, the question is. So, you think there's an environmental. reason for type 1 diabetes? I think there is a. massive disruption in all of the. environments that we passed through in. life that is causing a mismatch between. what we are We're basically perpetual.

fishes out of water. And that process is making us unhealthy. in every single regard. Heather and I. call this hyper novelty. And in fact, it's not even that we're just out of our. environment in which we can be healthy, but the rate of change is so high that. even to the extent that we are highly. adaptable, we can't adapt fast enough to. to keep up. Mhm. It's it's a it's a pathology. And. the flip side of this is if you did. recognize exactly where you started that.

you are actually a system that is. complex beyond even the sense that. you're an organism. I mean, you're. you're you're multiple organisms at. multiple different levels. Every single. cell in your body is being fueled by. mitochondria that started out at a. different place on the evolutionary tree. and got taken inside of cells to become. powerhouses. That's a symbiosis. So, you. are a symbiosis. you know, in each of what of your cells. And even crazier, your psychology, your.

mentality affects your physical health. Profoundly. Profoundly. So, the way you think about. things, the joy you have in your life, the happiness that you encounter has an. enormous effect on your biology. 100% Yes, if. Which is just madness. If you are. So, the reductionist view of just giving. a shot of this and a pill of that, like. well, there's a lot more going on here. Right. Now, our whole medical uh.

standpoint is. fundamentally flawed. And. I I'm really hoping that we will take. the lesson of COVID seriously and we. will recognize, in my opinion, allopathic medicine, standard Western. medicine. is. living on. a the gains of a tiny number of. subfields. Right? The fact that a surgeon can put.

you back together after a car accident, that's something that we all know we. want. there for us if we need it, right? That surgeon's capacity to do that is a. predicated on the ability the ability of. the body to repair itself, right? A. surgeon can cut you open and go, you. know, take out your spleen, but. that surgeon is depending on the fact. that your body knows how to heal the. damage, right? You can't go up to a car.

and, you know, slice it open and pull. out the alternator and put in another. one and have the car work. back together again. Right, doesn't work like that. So, anyway, there are a few things in. medicine. that are. transcendentally awesome, like the. ability of a surgeon to fix you and the. ability of an emergency room physician. to stabilize you where your body is, you. know, spiraling out of control. But, those things result in a sense of.

the god-like powers of medicine. And. most of the time medicine is in danger. of hurting you. If it's not of the. mindset that we should be minimizing. intervention, we should be figuring out. what the root cause of the pathology is, if we have to intervene which it should. be a temporary intervention that pushes. you back to the place where your body. knows what to do, and then we should. take our hands off, which is of course. not profitable. Right. The problem is we want you to be. hooked on a medication because then we. can prescribe that to everybody, and. then you have the Sackler family.

Right. The fact is this process, health, is far too important to be managed by. market forces left to their own devices. Mhm. That's a good point. And the problem is. right now it is, and so we have to. figure out how to regain control of. that. 100% and so I'm hoping that. medicine having just gotten its. comeuppance during COVID where, you. know, almost every doctor ended up.

poisoning their patients with advice. that turned out to be, uh, you know, And themselves. And themselves. Yeah, which is more important cuz those. doctors believed it. They they thought. that it was true. I I was just talking. to a doctor recently that regretted. taking it. And they they really believed. Yeah. They believed they believed they were. telling people what to do and now. they're injured and, you know, Yeah. And then they have this. practice where they told people, "This. is what you should do." and then a bunch. of people did it and got all [ __ ] up.

and now they're in the situation where. it's not just that they got [ __ ] up, but like how much time they have left? Like how many of these people are going. to drop dead over the next 5 10 years? Yeah. Cuz it's not just one, it's not just. two, it's probably going to be a bunch. There's a bunch of people out there with. like real myocarditis. There's a bunch. of people out there that have blood. clots. The the D-dimer test There was. this doctor on Twitter the other day who. was talking about how it's very rare. that he uses an D-dimer test on. unvaccinated patients and finds blood.

clots, but he finds a ton of them on. vaccinated patients. And some of them. are micro blood clots, some of them are. some of them are significant, but that. they find quite a few. Yeah, there was a paper recently. I. haven't delved deeply into it, but that. just says, you know, that the spike. protein, which is obviously produced by. the shots, is interacting with fibrin, which is a clot-producing protein. Um, so it's not surprising that it's. having these cascading effects, but. Okay, so you had all these doctors who. gave terrible advice to patients. They.

assured them not only that this was the. right thing to do, but that it was safe, which they should have known better. because it couldn't possibly have been. And there's no. there's no course taught in medical. school about, you know, repentance. How do these people repent for what they. did so that they learn the lesson and it. can't happen again? And the fact is the. whole system is rigged around Pharma. and they can't. There's so many people out there that.

are still all in. I found I found some lady in my. timeline. I don't follow her, but she was talking. about how disturbing it is to her that. children are not being vaccinated and. that COVID is killing kids and the. reports that she has of child death. And she was talking about how she wears. a mask everywhere. And then there's all. these people in the comments that are. commenting on then I only go to places. where I know there's going to be minimal. amounts of people. I always wear a mask.

And they were all like. it was some weird echo chamber where. they were all terrified still of what is. now like a cold. Well, I don't I will resist portraying. it as a cold cuz I do think that ain't. where we are. It's not a cold to you, right? When you. got it it was rough. I got something that was pretty rough. But let's put that aside for a second. Let's say that this is not a very severe. disease. And by the way, I will just. tell you. at the risk of.

uh. opening old controversies. It took me a long time to understand. that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. they have broad applicability across RNA. viruses. And many of the things that. make us sick are RNA viruses, right? So, there is a strong argument to be made. that in a world where we are now being. exposed to all of these RNA viruses. that acting quickly and taking those.

things is a reasonable thing to do. Now, hydroxychloroquine may have more. toxicity than ivermectin. In fact, it. does. But ivermectin has such a low. toxicity that from the point of view of. not doing the damage to the body that. comes from being sick with these. pathological agents. simply being reflexive about taking the. stuff quickly. is sensible. And of course. if what I just said is correct, you. would expect Pharma to look anywhere but. there cuz they can't patent the stuff.

Right. Did you see um Chris Cuomo. on Patrick Bet David's show admit that. he's taking Ivermectin now? Uh I heard about it. I didn't see it. He admitted it. He admitted it. His. doctor has him on Ivermectin for long. COVID and he kept distinguishing the. difference between long COVID and. vaccine injuries. Like he said he had. some sort of a vaccine injury. Then he. was talking about how Ivermectin's not. good for COVID but it's good for long. COVID. And I'm like what is long COVID? Long COVID's not even a thing. Like stop. saying that. Like you're [ __ ] up.

because either of COVID or you're [ __ ]. up because of the vaccine. One of those. two things happened where you got. damaged. Calling it long COVID is weird. because it's like saying you're still. sick from COVID. That's not really what. happened. Okay, if you get pneumonia and. you get lung damage, you don't don't. have long long pneumonia. You you just. have you had damage to your lungs. It's. not long COVID. So you're either taking. Ivermectin because your doctor said like. what benefit would Ivermectin have on.

long COVID? Like what is. what does that mean? Well, I mean. Or vaccine injuries. It has a benefit for vaccine injuries. We can just say that empirically. The. people who have become successful at. treating these things tell us this. Which vaccine injuries? COVID. But which ones? Which specific vaccine. injuries? You mean what are the symptoms? what things? Things like brain fog, fatigue, neuropathy, these things. And I actually. have several friends who report that.

they were suffering badly. I sent them. to Pierre. He treated them. Ivermectin. was core to the treatment, and uh they. report. I don't want to say miraculous, but. spectacular recoveries. Pierre by Pierre, you're talking about. Dr. Pierre Kory. Yep. Um. who Did he lose his license or. something? Yeah, I believe so, or it's in process, but they are punishing him for uh. for talking about a beneficial medicine. that happens to not be patentable. Punishing him for doing his job.

Wild. Yeah. That's wild. It's crazy. That's crazy. Yeah. It's diabolical, really. It is diabolical. Um so, what would be. the mechanism as to which Ivermectin. would help these people? I don't know. It has a number of. different mechanisms. It's certainly an. anti-inflammatory. You know, there's only so far that. explanation will take you, but uh but it. I don't know. I can't answer that question. What I can. say, it really doesn't much matter. If. you're sick and it makes you better,

that's what you want. And, you know, what our understanding of how many. medicines work is. Isn't it bizarre when people that have. been vaccinated not once, but multiple. times, and had side effects from the. vaccine that they'll report openly, will. talk about it and say it's long COVID. while they're still suffering. It's. almost like they alleviate themselves. from any of the responsibility of making. a terrible choice. I think they're also being fed this. story. Right. Um and we've seen that in multiple. places. So, for example, you remember.

these long debates about, well, okay, yes, the mRNA shots do cause a certain. amount of myocarditis, but not nearly as. much as COVID. And it goes away quick. That was the. other thing they kept saying. It's. temporary. Yeah, which is nonsense. And it turns. out now that the myocarditis appears to. have been vaccine-induced myocarditis. that was being just like everything else. happened with COVID. They It was a. uh. I don't want to say an accounting error. It was cynical. They shoved things into.

the wrong category. Right. And they also pushed out a. narrative that you get more myocarditis. from the vax from the virus rather than. you do from the vaccine. Right. And apparently you don't get it. from the virus. Yeah, well, what you do is get you get. high troponin levels, right? And I see. Malhotra, he explained all this, is that. when you test for that, you can assume. if a person is suffering from a viral. infection that they will have high. troponin levels, but it doesn't mean. they have myocarditis. Right. So, you're calling it myocarditis. without actually doing an MRI on the.

heart. Right. And as I've pointed out in many. different places, myocarditis is kind of. a red herring anyway, because what it. means is inflammation. And inflammation. is there for a reason. There's a. underlying pathology. And so, the fact. that we can detect that you have. myocarditis means, well, okay, something's up with your heart. What is. it? And the vaccines create damage in. the heart. They create damage because. they get taken up by heart cells. Those. heart cells produce. Explain the whole thing with the lipid.

nanoparticles so people understand why. they cause damage. So, the way these shots were supposed to. work. is you have an mRNA transcript that is. loaded into lipid nanoparticle. The. lipid nanoparticles are injected. We. were told that they stayed in the. deltoid where they are injected. They do. not. They circulate in the blood and. lymph. Lipid nanoparticle lipid. When this is proven? Yeah. Lipid nanoparticle lipid means fat. You may remember from.

high school chemistry that like. dissolves like, so fats dissolve other. fats. So, you've got this thing encased. in fat. Any cell it encounters is. covered in fat. So, it gets taken up by. cells haphazardly around the body. Those cells take the message, the mRNA. transcript, into the cytoplasm. They translate it into protein. And that. protein gets exported to the surface of. the cell. This is how the manufacturer. wants it to work. Now, if it happened in. your arm, okay.

But if it happens in your heart, well, anywhere it happens, it will. trigger your immune system to spot this. antigen that it doesn't recognize. And. T cells will come in and kill the cells. that are making this foreign protein. because on in natural circumstances, anytime a cell makes a foreign protein, it has the signature of a virally. infected cell. A cell is producing self. antigens and foreign antigens. That's a. virally infected cell. No matter what.

place in the body it exists, the right. thing to do is to destroy it. So, the. immune system comes in, T cells destroy. that cell, and that leaves you with a. wound, right? You've lost cells that. were doing something. Most of the tissues of the body can. tolerate a certain amount of that. But. in your heart, you can't tolerate very. much because the heart has an extremely. low capacity to repair itself. It scars. instead, and it takes time to scar. You. have a wound until it scars over. So, those wounds are vulnerabilities.

If you're an athlete and you've got a. wound in your heart that you don't know. about, you could easily die because you have a. weakened wall in the chambers of your. heart and something breaches at the. point that your blood pressure is high. in the middle of some activity. So, my point is, when we say. myocarditis, we are. effectively accepting a placeholder for. there's an underlying pathology that we. haven't found. And that pathology can be.

damage to the heart, which is very. serious inherently. It compromises your. lifetime capacity for your heart to. function. And in the short term, it. creates a substantial vulnerability to. uh. cardiac incidents. And so, these injections, which were. supposed to stay local, is it because. that they didn't aspirate that they get. into blood vessels? Like, what is what. is the reason why it gets through the.

entire system? Well, the aspiration issue, I believe, is a contributor, but I don't think it. is the determinant. So, in the case that. just to explain what people what what. you're getting at. When you inject. somebody, pulling back on the plunger in. the syringe allows you to see whether or. not you have accidentally landed inside. a vein. If you pull back and you see. blood, the tip of the needle is at least. partially in a vein. And if you inject.

there, it doesn't go into the spaces. between the cells in your muscle, it. goes into your circulation. So, that's a bad thing. Plunge the needle in, you pull back on. the syringe, and or on the plunger, and. you see blood, then you should plunge in. further so that you're no longer in that. blood vessel. But we never saw that. In fact, people were specifically told. not to do it, and the rationale was. they did not want to create vaccine. hesitancy by leaving the needle in the. arm any longer. uh than necessary. So,

they did end up doing a certain. percentage of intravenous accidental. intravenous injections. And that means. that a globule of this stuff went. immediately into the circulation, which. meant that if it went to your heart and. got picked up there, it might not just. be a small number of cells, it might be. a large number of cells. So, that was a. completely. unnecessary level of harm. Aspirating the needle was the right. thing to do, and they should have done. it, and they didn't, and who knows how.

many people have died because they got a. big dose intravenously where it was. supposed to be intramuscular. And that seems so straightforward that I. can't imagine that they were showing. people doing it any other way on. television. Yeah. Even when they did the president, remember when they injected him on. television? They just. stuck it right in there. Well, there's a question about what they. injected him with, but. um yes, they whatever happened on. television. Are you suggesting that that was. deception? They didn't give him this. life-saving vaccine?

Well, here's the problem. I don't know how dumb these people are. It seems to me, let's just. let's just play this out. uh with. uh sort of standard parameters. Inoculations cause. a certain number of acute. adverse reactions. These people wanted everyone injected. They didn't want us talking about.

injuries that were real, right? They. They They went out of their way to make. sure that nothing caused anybody to have. the sense that there was some problem. with them. Do we really think they rolled the dice. injecting an old man. with an active shot on TV? Like. I don't think so. I suggested it back then and I got. called a kook. But I was talking about. there was a lot of people that were.

talking about um being injured and they. were getting attacked. Like remember. when they were going after um. Eric Clapton? Yeah. Remember that one? Oh, yeah. That was horrific. Vicious. I mean full-bore attacks on Eric. Clapton. They were calling him the the most. hurtful words, an anti-vaxxer, terri-. He's always been a terrible person and. like. the [ __ ] are you talking about? Yeah, the the gaslighting of the injured. is insane. Insane. It's. especially you've asked people to do.

something. There's always adverse events. How is it that somebody who suffers an. adverse event is not entitled to our. compassion? I don't understand. Yeah. How how you would turn vicious in that. case. And how can you rationalize. Excuse me, how can you rationalize. continuing to have these companies. exempt? Oh, you can't. It doesn't make any sense. Yeah. Especially if they're that profitable. Cuz we know that if they're profitable, they're going to keep selling stuff.

Yeah. Well, let me put it to you this. way. Um. I think it makes sense. to establish a policy that I will not. accept any medical product for which the. manufacturer is not liable if it goes. wrong. And that's not medical advice. That's. legal advice. Yeah. Yeah, cuz there's just too much room for. [ __ ] and profit. When when they know.

that something is profitable and they. know they can get away with it because. they don't have any liability at all, they're going to [ __ ] with you. They're. going to gaslight you. They always have. because you have two different types of. people, right? That are involved in any kind of. medication. You have the scientists and. the clinicians that develop these things. and create these things. And then you've. got the money people. And the money people, they're not even. scientists. What What those people are. interested in is making the most amount. of money for their company. They In. fact, they have.

a They have. a responsibility to their shareholders. Right. To make a ton of money. Absolutely. more money every year. So, if they know. that they can get away It's their Their. job as CEO to push that [ __ ] through. Use a What Why do you have all those. connections and all those relationships. if you don't utilize them to help our. company? Isn't that why you get a. [ __ ] gigantic salary every year as a. CEO of a pharmaceutical drug company? And don't you understand the. relationship that we have with the FDA. and the CDC has been We have cultivated. this this relationship forever. So, we.

have a revolving door to make it nice. and easy. So, the people that who in. charge of regulation, they get a nice. sweet job. A nice sweet golden We got it. locked in. We got it locked up. Let's. sell this [ __ ] Sell it. Well, the fact is. if you understand how the market is. supposed to do its magic, this doesn't work even in principle. Just simple evolutionary dynamics. guarantee that corporations that are not. responsible for the harm that they do.

will start making a profit by doing. harm. Right? Yeah. They will be out-competed by other. corporations who do if they don't. So, it is guaranteed that they will move in. that direction, which is why I say you. shouldn't take any product produced by. an entity that is not liable for the. harm that it does to you. It just. doesn't make any any sense. Yeah, anything. Anything. Across the. board. Yeah. Yeah, it's just. bizarre that we let that slip through. because they had decided at one point in.

time that vaccines create so many. problems that there's no way they could. sell these and be profitable and have. legal responsibility. And our government. was like, all right. All right. No responsibility. think most people know that little fact. that you just mentioned. That in fact. they were granted immunity from. liability because they said it was. impossible to make safe vaccines. Yeah, explain when this happened and how. it happened to people so they understand. that this is This is an issue that came. up because of problems from vaccines. Yeah, I believe it happened in the.

Reagan administration that they. approached they. they were reluctant to make vaccines. The Reagan administration wanted them to. ratchet up production and they said we. can't. It can't be done safely and they were. granted this immunity and the system, the VARS system, was set up and a. special court was set up to adjudicate. cases and um. tremendous amount of evil has flown from. that fateful decision, including the. proliferation of the childhood vaccine.

schedule. Yes, which is right now pretty [ __ ]. insane. It's there's so many of them. they giving to them so quickly. Like from the moment they're born. They. want they want to bang them up with. vaccines. And it's incredibly. profitable. And. people who are kind people who are. intelligent people would never imagine. there are human beings that are willing. to profit off of injecting babies with. things that may very well [ __ ] them up. for the rest of their life. They're like. there's no way. No one's that evil. Right. It's hard to imagine. And then.

when you start looking into the evidence. it's like, "Oh my goodness.". Oh, well, you look into just the history. of vaccines themselves. Would you read. Turtles All the Way Down or Dissolving. Illusions? You're just like, "Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.". Right. What? What happened? Because all our lives. vaccines are the most important. invention. Vaccines saved countless. millions of lives. Vaccines are the way. we can be safe today. Vaccines are the. So, that was one of the dirtiest tricks. about this mRNA technology. It that they.

piggybacked on an old word that already. had pass. It already had a hall pass. Yep. Yeah, it's crazy. I mean, you know, Heather and I wrote into our book in. 2020 that um. vaccines were one of the three greatest. medical inventions in history. You know, the other two being surgery and. antibiotics. And. I still I still believe that in. principle there is something potentially. very medically valuable there. But in.

practice. the way we produce these things, the way. we manufacture them, the way the. technology on which they are based has. been modified. Right? The the idea that we're going to. produce. a vaccine that is adjuvant based and. we're not going to tell you that we're. going to hyper-activate your immune. system to get a weak shot to function. and that that means that you're going to. be uh in danger of creating a. sensitivity to anything you encounter or. eat during that period. Like how are we.

not discussing that? Right. I mean. Again, in 19 I mean 19 in 2020. I was an enthusiast. for this technology. Now I'm an. enthusiast for what it says in the. textbook about what this might be able. to do, but I'm terrified of how it's. actually being deployed. And I also now. recognize. I believe I have a vaccine injury. My. allergy to wheat.

the only way it adds up is probably a. flu shot caused me to become. hypersensitive to something that was. exposed to my immune system. Of course. wheat's in everything, so you know, it's. ever-present. My children, my my older son has an. allergy to dairy. a profound one. I think that's a vaccine. injury. Frankly, I don't know what. percentage, you know, I have a friend. who has an allergy. a profound allergy to mold that's driven. her. from two homes. Right?

But wait wait wait a minute because. isn't. But allergies have always existed and. they existed before even vaccines. Um no. I mean I'm not going to say there. weren't any. There's nothing in the literature about. vaccine or about allergies before. vaccines? The proliferation of allergy I'm again, I don't want to say there wasn't any. But in many of these cases, things like. Alzheimer's disease. we of course think oh these things are. long-standing, they've been there, maybe. there's been an increase in the amount.

But the degree to which many of these. pathologies, including autism frankly. turns out to be something that erupts. out of nowhere suggesting a novel. environmental cause of some kind. Right? Is profound and mostly we don't. know that because we don't. do the leg work to go back and look at. well, where does this first show up? Right? We think polio has always been. with us. No, that's not true, right? So, we have a pattern that we in the public.

are not aware of. Pathologies that are widespread that. showed up out of nowhere, you know, like. obesity. And that suggests an environmental. cause. We should become fascinated by. what that cause might be because people. are being every new generation has. people being maimed by these. pathologies. And if you can discover. what the pathology is and you can. eliminate the factor, you know, how much. misery do you erase? How much economic. growth do you create, right? These are.

powerful ways in which we could improve. our well-being. And we just simply don't. do it because all of us carry the vague. notion that these things are. long-standing. But if you think about. it, do you see animals in the wild being. allergic in their environment? No. Sometimes dogs are But dogs get. vaccinated the high heaven too. Yes, they do, right? And so, anytime you. see that pattern where it's like, yes, wild animals don't have that pathology, but domestic animals and people do,

that's telling you something. Right. Right? Cuz we share an environment. Have you seen that they're going to. they're calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. so that they can vaccinate for polio? Yes, I have seen that. And uh it's. What? Yeah. to you're going to not blow people up. temporarily so they can keep them from a. disease which Do you know the statistics. of um. it like when people get polio, how much. of polio is asymptomatic? Do you know. the statistics? Uh I don't know the statistics. I will.

tell you I read a. jaw-dropping book. I mean, and this is I. keep I keep having this experience where. there are various stories that we all. carry around that tell us something. about. uh the world we're living in what and. what to be afraid of. So, for example, Spanish flu, right? Much of our fear of. pandemics is based on the idea that. Spanish Spanish flu erupted out of. nowhere, it killed young, healthy. people, and, you know what? It's not. that long ago, it could happen again,

blah, blah, blah. Turns out that story. isn't what we all think it is. There are. two things about that story which are. not commonly known. One is. there was a. um enthusiasm for prescribing aspirin. for people who came in with flu. symptoms, and they were prescribed. aspirin in doses that are now known to. be deadly. Okay? So, a lot of people drowned. Basically, their lungs filled with. liquid because they were overdosed on.

aspirin. That's one thing. The other thing is bacterial pneumonia, which followed on the viral infection. Bacterial pneumonia that we can now. easily treat. With antibiotics. Yes, exactly. And so, the question is, you know, would Spanish flu if it. emerged tomorrow cause a pandemic that. mattered? No, it wouldn't. But, we all. think, "Oh, goodness, it can happen. because Spanish flu proves it.". Right. Same thing happened uh with my. understanding of polio. I was going to give you the number. 95.

to 99%. Asymptomatic. Is asymptomatic. Asymptomatic. of polio. Yeah. But, do you know that. Do you know why? Why? Cuz I actually know I think I know why. based on. uh the the book The Moth in the Iron. Lung. Um. there is a virus involved in polio. That virus is. not normally serious. It's a gut virus. Right? It causes slight gut pathology,

goes away of its own accord. What appears to have happened that. caused polio to be a terrifying, debilitating disease. is metal toxicity. Right? So, polio turns out has some weird quirks, right? It uh affects the nerves in the. front of the spinal cord, but not the. back of the spinal cord. And it affects. children and not adults. And.

the argument that is made in The Moth in. the Iron Lung, I think quite. compellingly, is that what's happening is the metals. are causing that. that bacterium to or the virus to leak. out of the gut. And it can grow in neurological tissue. And in a child, the gut is sitting right. in front of the spinal cord. And so it. is affecting the motor neurons, but not. the sensory neurons, which are on the. back because of the physical proximity. of the gut to the spinal cord.

Mhm. And that as you grow, those things. separate, and so the susceptibility. disappears. Mhm. the metal toxicity that is taking a. non-serious pathogen and causing it to. be serious, which makes for a very. confusing story because you actually do. have a pathogen, and you can actually. prevent the pathogen with a vaccine, but. the root cause is the metal toxicity. that is causing things to leak out of. the gut and touch the spinal cord. I had read this thing that was.

connecting DDT as well. Yep, DDT is connected as well. Uh and. Lots of cases of it in rural areas where. people sprayed. Well, actually, that's what uh the the. book, The Moth in the Iron Lung, amazingly tracks the history of this, where in fact you had a. you had a problem. um where. the moths, the silk moths, uh were not robust to predation. And so.

entomologists were looking for something. to hybridize the silk moths with that. would be resistant to things like jays. eating them. as caterpillars. And this one entomologist had gypsy. moths from. Europe in his possession that he was. trying to breed with silk moths, a. experiment that was doomed to failure. But nonetheless, one day he had them. sitting on his kitchen window and a wind.

blew and blew them into his garden and. he knew. he tried to recover them and he couldn't. find them all and so he knew that he had. a problem. He tried to alert people. locally, "Hey, we've we've got a local. gypsy moth problem." Which is bad. because gypsy moths devastate. vegetation. Um and in any any case, they were unable. to control the infestation and of course. it spread throughout the East. god, why didn't that guy torch his. field? Well, right. If you had If you had. understood what was going to follow from. this, that would have been a It would.

not have been an overreaction, right? Right. Um but nonetheless, what you have is. something like an epidemic of polio. that's not really an epidemic of polio. You have an epidemic of gypsy moths that. are being sprayed for with these toxic. pesticides. Ah. Right. It's a crazy crazy story. But the. the upshot is. we all carry around stories like polio. is a terrifying disease, it debilitated. people, we have a vaccine that ended.

that horror, therefore blah blah blah. blah blah. That's not the story. The story is we. actually have an epidemic of stupidity. about industrial toxins. And in this. case they interface with a story about a. vaccine and a pathogen, but the story. isn't the one we think. Ah. Right. It's a It's a very strange set of. interactions, but once you start digging. into these stories and you realize that. all of them are, you know, we've been. told some fairy tale that leads us to a.

conclusion that just isn't right, then. you have to start rethinking things, but. of course, as you discover these things, people decide you're a crank. But have you seen in New York City, they're spraying pesticide in the sky to. kill the mosquitoes that might be. carrying the West Nile virus? Is there. They're They're going after West Nile. virus in New York? Mosquitoes. They're spraying pesticide. They're letting people know, "We will be. spraying at 8:00 p.m. Stay inside. Limit.

your exposure to the pesticide." And. they're driving trucks down the street. that are just spraying pesticide. So, we. don't learn. Right. Um and isn't that disease, West. Nile virus, isn't that like. 80% of the people it's almost nothing? Right. And then at the same time, we're. dealing with a set of restrictions in. the northeast over Eastern Equine. Encephalitis. Right. Right. And so, I I've been looking. See if we can find the videos of them. spraying that [ __ ] in New York City cuz.

it's it's very Orwellian. It's very. like, how do we not How do we not know. to not do this anymore? Like this seems like a a great Look, they're driving down the street. spraying. Well, there's mosquitoes, we. got to kill them. So, they're spraying. out the back of this [ __ ] truck. By. the way, you not killing anything. You killing. what's on that street. What about what's. in between this the houses? What's in. the fields? What's in the park? What's. in the lake? Where they all breed? Well, okay. So, let's let's do this at. full screen.

Six confirmed cases. We need to start. spraying. One of them was Dr. Fauci. Right. Well, look. He was hospitalized, Brett. I know. Yes. Um so, let's let's look at all the. components here. One, I've seen spraying. like that in person before. I've seen it. in Panama in the Canal Zone. Now, the Canal Zone is malaria-free. I don't know what the cost I mean, people live in the Canal zone. Americans. lived there. while the canal was in our possession in.

large numbers. Um. I do think that the spraying. kept the Anopheles mosquitoes. to a low enough number that malaria did. not exist in the canal zone. What the cost of that was, I also can't. say. My guess is the cost of that was. very high, but not well measured. The. idea that we are now A, why is it we are. dealing with a simultaneous panic over.

uh. Eastern Equine Encephalitis and West. Nile virus? Well, that. is a very odd coincidence. One thing that's true is. the last. the last panic was over COVID. And. the response to COVID was massive. vaccination with the mRNA shots, as you. know. The mRNA shots, for anybody who got two.

or more, triggered the production of something. called IgG4, which I don't know if we've. talked about it before, but IgG4 is the. immune system's own message to itself to. turn itself down. Okay? Why two or more? That's just empiric. I I don't know. whether anybody expected this result, but when it was pursued, that was just. the number at which we could detect the. presence of IgG4. So, not with one. Not with one. I'm not saying there. wasn't any with one, but we don't detect.

it with one shot. And then two produces. some effect, and the more shots you get, the bigger the effect. Does that explain why. disease itself appears to have changed. in the last year or two, right? Why are. people so sick during the summer? Right? Do you remember even. 5 years ago? Right. There were summer colds. People remarked. on them because it was weird when you. got sick during the summer, right? Ah, I. got a summer cold. But it people weren't.

sick with lots of different things. during the summer. In general, you were. you know, fine during the summer. And. then when you you got sick when. when it was, you know, cold out and you. were driven indoors and that was just. the pattern. Right. So, something's going on that people are. much more susceptible. And it just so. happens that we've watched a pattern. where people have been multiply injected. with something that we know turns their. immune system down. Why are we not asking the question if. the reason that we.

may have a problem with West Nile virus. and Eastern Equine Encephalitis is the. result of a self-inflicted wound? Right? We should at least be asking that. question. Instead, we are still. recommending that goddamn COVID shot. Well, and then look at a guy like Fauci. who was one of the rare few that was. hospitalized, and he's had six shots. According to him. Yeah, I got to say, as soon as we get to. Fauci, I just don't believe anything. I. don't know. I'm agnostic as to whether.

or not the dude took any shots, whether. he's I don't know what's going on. because there's so much garbage. surrounding that guy and. what he thinks and what he did that I. just can't accept any of it at face. value. But here's what I don't understand. Let's Let's look at the the the Eastern. Equine Encephalitis issue. They are now. considering curfews, right? They're going to start. eroding civil liberties. over.

the presence of this disease. One person. has died. It's only one person? Yeah. If you read up on it, it turns out. the average year there are seven. diagnosed cases of this. So, it's not like this is a disease that. never shows up and suddenly there's one. case and people are freaking out. There's apparently an annual rate of. this. We have an annual rate that even. if it's more. this does not suggest the possibility of.

a massive disease spread and if it did. we're still giving people a shot that. causes their immune systems to turn. down. So, can we at least stop doing. that before we start panicking over new. diseases? Because it sure looks like we. are creating vulnerability to new. diseases over here recommending mRNA. shots that people don't need and then. we are. you know. having lockdowns. Like what is that? recommending it to people that already. have natural immunity which is the most.

bizarre thing. Of course. The most bizarre because there's no. science that backs it up. Doesn't make. any sense and yet we're still saying to. these people you got to get your. boosters. This I IG4. IGG4. IGG4, what does that stand for? IG means immunoglobulin. That's synonym. for antibody. IGG. IGG is a major class of antibody. There. are something like five major classes. and then IGG4 is a subclass that turns.

the immune system down. And why does this what what is it what. is it about the mRNA shots that causes. to happen? We don't know. We just know measurably people who have. more of them have this. Yes. And it's it's alarming. I mean it's. alarming for multiple reasons. Um. I wasn't. I was really unsure what to think about. this when it first occurred to me. But. the more I think about it the more. alarmed I am.

COVID. SARS-CoV-2. virus that causes COVID appears to have. emerged from. laboratory work. that was dual use. Dual use work means bioweapons research. The excuse, so it's called dual use. because you're only allowed to do. bioweapons research if it's also. research that might contribute to to. public health.

So, the excuse is, "Oh, we're we're. working, you know, what what do they. tell us?" They said, "Well, the. gain-of-function research is so that we. can create pathogens and learn what to. do about them before. they. find themselves out of nature and we. don't know what to do, right?" This is a. nonsense story. It's not. it is. it is not coherent to think that by. creating some pathogen in a laboratory. that you're going to learn something. about pathogens that might leap out of.

nature. For one thing, pathogens leaping. out of nature is a difficult thing for. them to do. They have to do two tricks. and it's not easy. They have to infect a. person. Okay? Some pathogens will do that. But. then, before that person dies or gets. better, they have to jump from one. person to the next. Very, very few are. ever going to jump that gap. So, it's. not a big. risk. And then, if you've created a pathogen. of your own, you're going to learn about. what to do about that pathogen,

but it's not broadly applicable. And you. can see, we had research on. coronaviruses being done in the Wuhan. Institute, being done in North Carolina. How much help did it give us? What did. we learn from that research that. protected us from COVID? And the answer. is nothing. Nothing. Because it's inconceivable that you. would. So, they're using the excuse of. public health to do this weapons. research. But here's the punchline of. the story. The vaccines are also the product of.

bioweapons research because they include. the spike protein, which was the. innovation that made the ancestor of. SARS CoV-2 into an infectious human. human pathogen, right? The addition of a furin cleavage site to. spike protein made this thing capable of. infecting and spreading between humans. That spike protein was the core of the. mRNA shots. Get two or more of those shots, now you. create IgG4,

and the more of the shots you have, the more you you produce. But. Was there any literature that indicated. that this was going to have this effect. before they rolled out the vaccines, or. was this just an unfortunate byproduct? I am not aware of that literature, but. notice the following problem. That IgG4. signal to turn down the immune system is. now connected. to the presence of spike protein.

At a bioengineering level, it is trivial. to add spike protein to something else. Bioweapons researchers have a problem. If you create First of all, they have. two problems. One of them is there. aren't that many weaponizable human. pathogens, right? So, they're sort of. bored with the fact that they've got a. small number of these things and they've. played around with them and, you know, they're not happy. They They need. something else. So, there's also a vast number in nature.

that you could in principle weaponize, but most of them can't infect a human. So, they engage in this, you know, hocus pocus stuff where they. take stuff that doesn't infect a human. and they turn it into something that. infects a human, and of course the risk. that will it will escape is very, very. large, and the risk that we will learn. anything useful is very, very small. But, nonetheless, they play this game, and. if they create something that is a. frightening weapon that could in. principle, in their warped minds, be.

used for something useful. The question is, how can you deliver a. biological weapon that harms your. enemies without harming. your population? You have to separate those two. populations in some way. The obvious way to do it is to inoculate. your population so that they have an. immunity. the enemy population doesn't have an. immunity, right? Mind you, this is all. wildly immoral, but if you think like a. weapons maker, this makes some kind of. sense. But this is not the only way.

That's where the IgG4 thing really. throws me. Because what they seem to have. in the best case accidentally done. is created a vulnerability in the. populations that took the mRNA shots. that does not exist in populations that. didn't. And anytime a pathogen shows up. with spike, it is likely to trigger the. immune system to stand down. Right? That's something that a weapons maker. might dream of doing to its enemy.

The Chinese did not inoculate their. population with mRNA based shots, and. they did not inoculate them with spike. based shots. So. What did they use? Other stuff, more standard vaccine. stuff, antigens delivered I mean, not. effective, but doesn't create this. effect as far as we know. Is that like what the Novavax is? Nove- Novavax is another uh new. technology. I don't know very much about.

it, but um. the Sinovac is what the Chinese used, and it was a much more standard, apparently not very effective shot. Um. but nonetheless. the creation of a vulnerability in one. population that the other population. doesn't have, we can imagine that that. was an accident. Let's hope it was an. accident, but it does appear to be. something that they have created, and. the fact that weapons makers seem to. have created this with their.

diabolical research ought to give us. pause. So, if weapons manufacturers. were involved in the creation of a. virus, what if especially a virus like a. respiratory virus that could go across. the entire population of the planet and. did, what would be the use of something that. only kills old people and overweight. people? Well, I'm not saying that it was a. bioweapon. I don't think it was a. You're saying it's bioweapons research.

that created this virus, Yep. but not that the virus was actually a. bioweapon. Well, look, I do not know. how crazy these people are and I don't. really know who they work for, right? It. is obvious that something beyond what. most of us would imagine is true because. somehow our dual-use researchers were. collaborating with Chinese. military-associated researchers. That's surprising, isn't it? Right. So, the Wuhan lab was a. Chinese-based.

weapons lab, bioweapons lab? Certainly military-affiliated, but the head of the Wuhan Institute uh. laboratory in question, Shi Zhengli, was. trained by Ralph Baric, right? So, this is a partnership on. dual-use research. that doesn't seem to make any sense. given what we all think we understand. about where the tensions are, who are. the allies and who are the antagonists. on the world stage. And also, the fact that this was this.

funding was stopped in 2014 by the Obama. administration, but then. Fauci restarted it under the Trump. administration. And there's no. there's no no nor is there there's no. specified goal in terms of like what's. the positive benefit for society if this. research is done. There's a huge. possibility that it leaks and it's. incredibly detrimental which it which it. did. But there's also, even though they.

were working on this stuff for so long, there was no cure. For for COVID? For the thing that they created. So like if you're going to create. something that could potentially. what you know, damage the human race so. you're worried about like what would. happen if this what would happen if. there really was a natural spillover and. this thing really did come through a. pangolin or whatever the [ __ ] it did and. then got into people, we need to figure. out a way to save people. But there's no solution. They were.

working on this stuff forever and they. didn't have a solution. Ah. They didn't have a solution. and they didn't allow the one process. that would quickly generate a solution. to function. Doctors treating patients based on what. walks through their office door, right? But. to my way of thinking, they already knew what worked. Ivermectin worked on SARS 1.

SARS 1 is an RNA virus. This stuff works. generally across RNA viruses. It would. have rendered COVID, you know, tragic in the sense that we. don't need another human pathogen. circulating but totally manageable in. almost everybody's case. And the way you would use ivermectin is. upon initial infection. That's it's very. quickly. You you give it to people. So. it is there's a certain point in time. where after the infection it's not going. to be effective anymore. Absolutely.

And how much time is that generally? Well, the amazing thing is even in the. studies that claimed that it that they. proved it didn't work, it does work. If you look at the data. they collected, it reflects that it. works even though these experiments were. set up to fail. They dosed late, they. underdosed, they were done in places. where the control group was likely to. have Ivermectin circulating at a fairly. high rate. So, there's all sorts of tricks that. were used, but even in those cases it. still worked. But, the answer I would. say is.

at least in the case of Ivermectin, it's. a little different with. hydroxychloroquine. But, with Ivermectin the stuff is. um. so low harm. that treating immediately is the way to. go because, you know, the difference in. its efficacy between day one and day two. and day two and day three, those. jumps are substantial. So, there's no reason not to give it. immediately. And. um.

I guess the question is why. We saw all of the skullduggery around. portraying Ivermectin as dangerous, portraying it as ineffective. So, we know that they just lied through. their teeth. We also know that they knew. that it was essentially certain to work. So, why did they do that? And. you know, there's a. a a s-. I don't know how bad the answer is, but. the answer is at least.

that they wanted. the. pandemic. the so-called pandemic, right? They. redefined pandemic in order that this. would qualify. But, the so-called. pandemic would be. significant enough. to. get everybody to engage in the same. kinds of behaviors, to accept them, right? So,

I don't know. The problem we're we're. stuck in the same place we always are, which is if we just simply navigate this. logically, we end up in some pretty dark. places with respect to what they might. have been up to. Why were the weapons makers lying about. the utility of drugs that rendered this. novel pathogen. uh. minor? Well, don't you think the the most. obvious answer would be there was a. pathway to extreme wealth? Um. If you're going to have a vaccine that.

is paid for by the government that not. only that the government profits off of, right? So, they own patent. Right? They. own a piece of Moderna, right? Yes. So, they sold these vaccines to. themselves, essentially. They they made. incredible. uh amounts of them. They distributed. them all over the world. Insane amount. of profit, and then forced people to. take them, and then ignored all evidence.

that there was other medications. In. fact, demonized those medications. publicly. Like what they did on CNN. That's the That's the demon showing its. eyes. When what they did on CNN and all. those networks when they were talking. and calling it horse dewormer, despite. the fact that it had won the Nobel Prize. for use in humans. Yep. All that stuff The most obvious answer. would be profit. Because you look at the. amount of money that was generated, it's. How much money did they make? How much. money was generated by. Pfizer? Let's Let's ask.

Let's take a guess. Um how much money do you think was. generated by Pfizer and Moderna between. 2021. and 2023, which is like the peak years. where people are taking it. It's kind of. tough to talk people into taking it now, but there's a bunch of believers, and I. follow a few of them on Twitter that are. all in. What Take a guess. How much. money do you think they made? Between what years? 2021 and 2023. I think 2023 was the first year it. really dropped off.

Yeah, I'm I'm not going to guess. I'm going to guess between the two of. them, I want to say 90 billion dollars. That's what I want to say. That's my guess. So, Is it up? We're going to find out. up? Okay, let me try again. Uh 200 billion. Well, I guess not. I'm actually going to. announce it. It's It's a little over 100 billion. I think Pfizer's is called Comirnaty. Comirnaty says generated 75 billion. between '21 and '22. Doesn't include. '23.

And then 36 billion for Spikevax, which. I think is. Is that Moderna? Yeah. So, over 100 billion. Yeah, but. that ain't nothing. That's a lot of money. It's not. It's not? But you don't think that's. enough money for them First of all, you. have this wonderful thing called the. emergency use exemption, right? And the. only way to allow people to get away. with the emergency use exemption. is you have to have some sort of proof.

that nothing else works. Yeah, I know. If you have another effective. medication, you don't get emergency use. authorization, right? First place I heard that hypothesis was. Heather. I believed it. I've come to believe that it's actually. not that. That the their ability to. cheat in the. American system at least is so great. that that obstacle would not have.

prevented them. from deploying their shots. Let's pause pause real quick cuz I have. to pee. And we'll come back right into. that cuz I want to know the whole thing. and I can't be thinking while I have to. All right, totally get it. All right, we'll be right back. All right. And we're back. So, we were at the emergency use. authorization. Yeah. And you think that that wasn't necessary. and they could have gotten it through. anyway. it's Yeah, it's logical enough. There's truth in it. They, you know, having a. uh. viable.

preventative for for SARS-CoV-2. in theory should have prevented an EUA, but I don't think that that was an. obstacle they couldn't have overcome. I. think the problem was their real goal. was to normalize the use. of. a gene therapy on a population that had. never. had that idea placed in its mind. Mhm. And so they called it a vaccine, that. was one thing. But they also needed disease to be.

frightening enough that people would. accept something radical in order to get. through it. And. had. doctors been enabled to just simply do. what doctors are supposed to do, they would have discovered that there. were. treatments, inexpensive ones, one of. them extremely safe, the other one. comparatively safe, that were highly. efficacious, they would have discovered. uh the connection to vitamin D, all of. these things.

And. that would have that would have meant. two things. One, it would have meant. that the degree to which the mRNA. platform got normalized would have been. much reduced, and it also would have. created a massive control group, people. who didn't take the shots, which would. make the harms that much less obvious. Right. So, I suspect the reason I say that a. hundred billion dollars isn't a lot of. money when it obviously is a lot of. money. is that it's not a lot of money compared.

to what was at stake in their minds, which is. the mRNA platform, which can be used to. reformulate every vaccine they've got, to create a bunch of new vaccines. This we're talking about a. trillion-dollar invention that could not. be brought to market normally because. it's way too dangerous. And the emergency made it possible not. only to bring it to market, but to get. everybody or nearly everybody on board. with it. And I don't know how deep this.

rabbit hole goes. I do think there is something remarkable. about the early days of the so-called. pandemic where. doctors were primed. for the horror of this disease so that. they were. already in the mindset of radical. interventions. which meant that they did a lot of harm. with things like ventilators. that didn't need to be done. They killed. a lot of people because they thought.

they were rescuing them. So. the EUA story. is good enough. It more or less explains. it but I don't think it it obscures the. bigger picture which is that the mRNA. platform itself is the ultimate cash cow. that couldn't be brought to market under. anything but the most extraordinary. emergency circumstances and so they took. a virus that shouldn't have existed in. humans at all and wasn't that terrifying. uh when it was really released into the.

population. um and they turned it into something. frightening enough that people would. contemplate things that they ordinarily. would have rejected. But doesn't that also make sense that. the emergency use authorization would. have to be in place in order for them to. implement this? Because you're always. going to like you said, the lack of a. control, right? If everybody gets. vaccinated, you don't know what the hell. happened. Right. Blame it on COVID. Yeah. Which is why people who have been. hit with the shots say they have long. COVID.

Mhm. But if you have no emergency use. authorization and then people are. allowed to make their own decisions and. doctors are allowed to make their own. decisions, there's a lot of it's way. easier to do it with this emergency use. authorization. It's way easier to slip. it through. Oh. And the only way you could stop that is. if all of a sudden if so emergency use. authorization is supposed to only exist. if there's not. some sort of a medication that currently. exists that treats it, right? Otherwise, you're going to have to go through all. the trials. If there's another a. medication that exists, so you demonize.

the medications, you sneak it through, you make everybody take it, therefore. you lose the control, and now you've got. this platform rolled out. Do you think. that they didn't know to the extent of. the damage that it was going to cause? I think they knew. You think they knew it was going to. harm that many people? Yeah. I because. so much of I mean. I'm not arguing that the EUA wasn't. important. I think it was important. I. just don't think it was necessary for.

them to. they they could have overcome that. obstacle the way they overcame. what you're saying. So. but the most important thing was rolling. out this platform. And normalizing it. Getting people to. accept the idea that they were going to. take an mRNA shot, right? That was a big. leap. And so the EUA was important, and. we know that because of the shenanigans. around they ultimately did get a shot. that they said was the same. uh not emergency use authorized, but I'm.

now forgetting the term when the FDA. actually uh. there's another term, it's not. authorized, but it's a synonym. But. anyway, they did get one approved. They. did get one approved. And you couldn't. get it. They kept giving the one that. had the EUA. They did that for legal reasons. It gave. them a layer of immunity, right? They. had been given the license to deliver an. experimental drug, and then they got approval for a. non-experimental drug, and they kept. giving the experimental one even though.

they said they were the same thing. There's something very deep there around. the legal status of that emergency use. authorized pharmaceutical. Hm. And so. do you think that the blowback from all. of this and the amount of people that. are reporting vaccine. injuries, and the amount of discussion. that's happening, especially online, about these things, makes it more. difficult for them to roll out that. platform for other things. Yes, I think we got in their way. I.

think we outed them. But, to your. earlier question about did they know how. much harm? If they didn't, they'd be behaving differently now. Notice how it's not slowing them down. Right. Right? They're still recommending these. things for 6-month-old? What? On what planet would you do that? We now. have. And pregnant women. And pregnant women. Right. We now have a. novel pathogen that presumably. these kids are going to be faced with.

encounters repeatedly for the rest of. their lives, and you want to mess with. their immunity 6 months into life? You. have no idea whether you are making it. impossible for them to develop some. proper immunity, so they can fend this. thing off for all of the encounters for. the rest of their life. Right? You're. like creating a consumer at the expense. of a child. And it's insane. And I will tell you I've I've just found. out that there is sort of a next chapter.

on this this mRNA stuff, which I don't know if you've paid any. attention. Have you noticed what's going. on in Japan with the self-replicating. mRNA? No. So, there's a new version. Apparently, when the mRNA platform that we got was. settled upon, there were some competing. platforms that didn't make it. And those. competing platforms are beginning to. make their debut. And in Japan, there. are currently protests over what's.

called a self-replicating mRNA vaccine. I think they call it a replicon. And. so, notice that. the whole mRNA platform was really about. doing away with the vaccine factory by. turning you into a vaccine factory, right? Your cells became the vaccine. factory. And there are reasons that a. pharmaceutical company, especially an. amoral one, would prefer that. The self-rep So, remember one of the.

things that was done to make the. mRNA vaccines that we got work. was the mRNA transcript was stabilized. with pseudouridine. All of the uracils. that would ordinarily have been in that. message were replaced by something. chemically similar. that is sometimes seen in nature, but the more of them you have, the more. stable the molecule is. So, when they. told us the mRNA molecules were. short-lived, we didn't have to worry.

about the shot because the mRNAs weren't. going to last very long in our bodies, right? They would disappear. That was a lie. They had. hyper-stabilized these things. They've. now given a. a Nobel Prize for the. hyper-stabilization process. They wanted. to give a prize for the vaccines, and so. they gave it for this narrow thing. I would argue maybe it's the worst. design flaw in the entire thing, and. that's saying something cuz there's a. substantial number of design flaws, but. these self-replicating mRNAs, the. competing platform,

borrows some. machinery from something called an alpha. virus. And that alpha virus, basically they. take the genome of an alpha virus, and. they include. the um. gene for the antigen that they want your. body to develop an immunity to, but they. include it along with some genes for. proteins that allow the the RNA to.

basically copy itself, right? So, now, instead of taking a. molecule of mRNA and putting it in lipid. nanoparticle and making it hyper stable. so it keeps making new messages, what they're going to do is they're. going to allow the mRNA. to duplicate itself biologically inside. of you. Right? Now, this is. madness. Right? They are running a radical. experiment, a new one. The mRNA platform.

was a radical experiment to begin with. Self-replicating. that's a whole new level of radical. And. they are considering, I think they have. gotten permission to deliver this stuff. in Japan this fall. Right? So, this is. if these people did not understand the. damage that they were going to do, it would have given them pause. They would They would have looked at all. of the harm, all of the people who died.

who didn't need to, all of the people. suffering from. you know, compromised immunity. And they would have thought, holy [ __ ]. what did we miss? But that's not what they think. This is. business as usual for them. It's clearly business as usual. The only way you're going to develop new. novel medications that are effective is. commerce. You're going to have to have. people profiting off of them, which is.

why they fund them. Costs a lot of money. under current climate. If you have FDA. approval, costs billions of dollars to. achieve that. So, you need people to be able to make. money. But isn't people making money off. these medications the real reason why. stuff like this happens in the first. place? Um, I think it's a bad paradigm. You know, I definitely want those rare. pharmaceuticals that actually do more. good than harm. When you say rare, how what percentage. you think it is?

1%. Jesus Christ. Yeah, now. Let me. That's going to sound crazy to people, but let me defend it for a second. Okay. When you have a pathology that's. widespread enough for a company to make. a medication to do something about it. You are dealing with a failure of the. environment. in which the creature lives.

Our focus should be on that. It should. be on. what's in our food that we're not. expecting, right? Seed oils, for. example, right? A lot of us spent our. lives not noticing that seed oils. weren't what they appeared to be and. that they actually have a role to play. in the creation of disease, right? It's. not vegetable oil. Right? Vegetable oil, avocado oil is. vegetable oil. Seed oil is fruit oil. Exactly. It's a fatty fruit oil. Perfect. So, the point is that one makes.

sense because. a plant does not want you eating its. seed, right? So, it puts toxins in the seed. The oil from avocados comes from the. flesh, which is there to induce birds to. take the seed various places. So, the. point is it's designed as a food. So, anyway, there's something wrong with the. environment. The profitable thing to do is not to fix. the environment, it's to create a remedy. or something that masquerades as a. remedy, and the number of harms that are.

being done to people is just. compounding. So, my feeling is the. paradigm is wrong. I want the antibiotic. to prevent. the gangrene, right? We've cured. gangrene. People don't lose their arms. anymore because they. got a wound. That's good. That's a pharmaceutical. that's worth having. We should treat it. with respect. We should not deliver the. stuff where it doesn't belong. But, by and large, the pharmaceuticals we have.

are creating their own demand. Sometimes, they're being given. because somebody has engineered a. parameter that causes a doctor, you. know, statins are being delivered. because of, you know, a metric that. suggests to somebody that you have ill. health in some way that can be remedied. by these things. It was nonsense to. begin with. Um so, yeah, I think the cost we pay is. huge and that the market. is going to find. plausible stories that cause people to.

be willing to take. drugs and that mostly, you know, health. it starts in the kitchen. That's. something that doctors I respect have. have pointed out that this is about what. you're consuming. It's about the. environment that you live in. It's about. understanding that sunlight is an. important contributor to health and that. the way we live means that you're. probably deficient in vitamin D. It's. about all of those things. And the. amount of good that could be done just. by simply recognizing the environmental.

component is huge. Well, that seems reasonable. I must be a crank. Yeah, I know. Isn't that funny? That was. what was hilarious to me during the. pandemic was people that were clearly. not physically healthy saying that the. only way that you could be healthy was. to take this medication. That to me was bizarre. It was so. bizarre because they weren't even. considering taking care of their body. They were only considering taking this. medication as if taking care of your.

body was foolish, right? Which is so. weird. Like when I had Hotez on, he was. talking about his diet. I remember that. "What do you eat? What do you Do you. ever work out?" Like. He eats junk food. He eats junk food and. blasts himself with vaccines. Yeah. It's nuts. It's nuts. Yeah, I don't know I don't know what's. up with him, but it's it's uh. Something not good. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, just the contradictory. statements over the years and and his. stance on vaccines when when Trump was. president.

his his stance on the mRNA platform when. Trump was president versus the immediate. 180 he took. Yeah. I mean. when Biden took in office. I I hate to say this, but. he's either. a cold-hearted liar. or. the most. profoundly unself-aware person that has. ever existed. I mean, it it's stunning. I think it's two. It's number two. It's. the latter.

But with a little bit of number one that. is necessary in order to be number two. Mhm. You know, I think you. If you're a part of a system and. it's really important that you support. all of the people above you in the. system and that you all work together. and you're a good company man, you'll. find profound ways to justify the things. that you're saying. And especially if you can use some. science-y kind of talk. and talk about diseases and inflate. people dying and inflate numbers and.

inflate this and that. Yeah. Yeah. Well. Which is why they attacked me so hard. They don't want someone. healthy. get over it real quick and say, "Hey, you know me. I work out all the time. By. the way, got over it real quick. This is. how I did it.". Well, that I mean, that that goes back. to what I was getting at is that it. everything I saw suggested they wanted. it to be as terrifying as possible. Absolutely. Yeah, there was no comforting people, no. telling people, "Listen, it's not nearly.

as bad as we thought it was going to be. You're going to be fine." They they. didn't want to contribute to vaccine. hesitancy right cuz they wanted that. money to keep rolling in. And that the. number, I mean, just the shift in that. Imagine if they did. Imagine if right. away they said, "You know what? This is. not nearly as bad as we thought it was. going to be. The way Bill Gates talks. about it now, right? Um it actually mostly affected older. people and people who are very. vulnerable. That's the those are the. people that really affected. The amount of profit they would have. made would have been significantly less.

and the enthusiasm for the platform. would have been significantly less. Yes, the I really believe you're talking. in the end about. I think. many hundreds of billions is. unrealistically low. We're talking about. an industry that has been playing this. game without our knowledge, right? How. do you demonize competing drugs? How do. you make your pharmaceutical look safe. when it isn't? How do you make it look effective when.

it isn't, right? That's the game every. day of the week for these people and. they found the ultimate version of that. game in the mRNA platform which they. wanted to normalize and they needed an. emergency to do it. That's that's the. most parsimonious explanation for. everything we experienced and. you know, it's a. it's it's. playing God with people's lives. But it's also the weird thing was. especially now because of Zuckerberg's.

recent statement. we now know for sure that. what he was saying was that they were. pressuring them to remove COVID-19. information that turned out to be true. So the government was involved in this. whole thing because the government was. probably being pressured by the. pharmaceutical drug companies. Yes, and you know, even those. distinctions I think are quaint.

We are now watching. the fusion of. corporate power and governmental power. That is the definition of fascism. We're seeing. the breakdown of individual and national. sovereignty. Right? What the hell is the Five Eyes? Why are the intelligence apparatus of. these countries conspiring against the. citizens of these countries? All of the.

categories that we grew up with. are. an obstacle to seeing what's actually. uh functioning as our antagonist. here. It doesn't have a name. It doesn't. have a national boundary. It's clearly. targeting the civil liberties that make. the West possible. And. we're going to have to level up quickly. if we are actually going to survive. this. So, what's worst-case scenario in your.

mind? What's with with all the competing. factors that are happening right now? What's worst-case scenario? Well, let's leave this terrestrial. Okay, there are some space weather stuff. I'm pretty concerned about that we. really need to have our governmental. [ __ ] in order in order to deal with. But. I'm concerned that we are facing. the last opportunity. to. wield the power that remains in our.

Constitution. in order. to preserve the West. I really believe the West is at stake in. this election. And I know that everybody. will laugh and they will say, "Ah, everybody always says this is the last. opportunity. This time it's really. dire." But. I truly believe the Republic is in. serious jeopardy. I believe that however it happened. the. blue team has become.

hostile to all of the fundamental values. that allow the Republic to function. and that undergird the West. And when I. say the West, I'm not talking about. a set of countries. I'm not talking. about a geographic description. I'm. talking about an agreement. not to rig the world in favor of your. people. An agreement. on a level playing field in which people. are rewarded for creating wealth from. which we all benefit.

That system is incredibly. dynamic and powerful. It. increases human well-being at a rate. that no other competing system has ever. come close to. And it is. very strong in one way. Its capacity to generate wealth is. incredible, but it is vulnerable. The reason that. our founding documents. have the strange form that they do. The.

reason that the founders of the US. carved out all of these counterintuitive. rights are that in order to stabilize. that system, you needed to have an. industrial strength document that. prevented all sorts of threats from. getting anywhere near the core of that. system. So, I think the worst case scenario is. the next election, November, we don't beat the cheat margin.

The blue team. remains in power. and it. dismantles the remaining protections of. our civil liberties and the basis of our. freedom. And what would be the way they would go. about doing that? Well, you know, you saw it, right? That thing you put up. from the New York Times. Mhm. The idea is, look, at some level, we've got.

the first amendment, which is already in. tremendous peril. Right? We've got Brazil turning off X, as you pointed out, uh threatening to. ruin anybody who uses a VPN VPN to. circumvent their block. Um you've got uh Pavel Durov, who has been effectively taken hostage. in France. You have. The owner of Telegram.

Yeah. Yeah. You have people in Britain being. arrested for. speaking freely. And the US is actually. in some ways the last holdout. Why are we the last holdout? Because our First Amendment is spelled. out in very clear terms, and it's. difficult to get around it. And. you know, you and I lived through.

an era of terrible censorship, but it. had to be cryptic. Here you showed the. New York Times, was it, experimenting. with how to phrase the argument for. unhooking the Constitution, so that. people would get used to the idea that. that was being done for them. Right? It's dangerous. The First Amendment's dangerous. Constitution's dangerous. Didn't you see. what Is it dangerous? They pose the. question. But here's here's the I mean, let's flip.

the topic on its head, right? Yeah. The founders of the US. enshrined counterintuitive rights. Right? These were brilliant men, and they enshrined counterintuitive. rights because they understood a thing. or two about tyranny, because they had. faced it. They knew. that. there was no way. to eliminate bad speech without. eliminating necessary speech.

So, they said, "You know what? You can't. do it.". There is lots of bad speech. Live with. it. You know why? Because there's really. uncomfortable stuff that needs to be. said that you don't want anyone to have. the power to eliminate. Right? That's. counterintuitive. Everybody every child. understands. people shouldn't be allowed to say bad. stuff. Right? Maybe that's appropriate in a. kindergarten classroom, but it's not. appropriate in a civilization where we. have to figure out. what's good and what's bad. Right. And it has to be debated. Nobody has the position from which to.

say which speech has no value. So, that's off-limits. But, here's the frightening part. It's even frightening to raise this. point. That First Amendment is where it is for. a reason. It's the fundamental right to all of. these. They placed the Second Amendment. in the backup position. So, what I'm telling you is. I am concerned that we are.

you know, you can hear our civil. liberties creaking. You can hear that. document threatening to give way. You. can hear the enemies of it experimenting. with explaining what they're doing and. why. they're really the ones who are looking. out for your best interests. All of these maniacs are going to make. violence inevitable. We have to avoid that. We absolutely have to avoid that.

So, I don't know if this is the moment to. talk about what's brewing over the. course of the next month. Sure. All right. So, several of us are organizing a. an event. I don't really want to call it an event. cuz although it's technically an event, I think it's much more important than. that. But, we're going to hold an event on the. capital mall on September 29th. It's going to be between the Washington.

Monument and the World War II Memorial. That event is called Rescue the. Republic. And it is really about rescuing the. Republic in order to save the West. This is. a an attempt to gather. the unity movement that is forming. at this moment. Here you can see some of the characters. who will be joining us on the.

the mall. And. here is the pitch I would make. There are. transcendent moments in culture. There. are moments at which. something shifts. Woodstock was a music festival, but it. was obviously more than a music. festival. It was a defining moment for a. generation. I think there's a lot that's unfortunate. about what that generation has done. And.

in fact, I believe they've put us in the. jeopardy that we're in now. And that in. some ways what we're struggling to do is. get past their. vision. The event that we are holding on the. capital mall on September 29th is really. an attempt to bookend that era, to end. it, and to start a new era in which, as. Bobby Kennedy said, we love our children more than we hate. each other. All right? And that allows us to come. together and recognize each other as.

allies, defend off this force that is. obviously targeting our civil liberties, our freedom, the very foundations of our. system. So, what we've done is we've outlined. eight pillars. They're things which. I think almost every member of your. audience, really any patriot, anybody. who understands the value of the West. would resonate with. These are just. fundamentals. And we can go through them in a second.

if you want. But the idea is we're going. to get as many people as we can together. on the Capitol Mall. And my point would. be. it could be. 50,000 people. That's not enough. If you want to prevent the other side. from being able to cheat its way to. victory, there needs to be a massive. showing of support for this unity. coalition that is emerging.

This unity coalition is not MAGA. It contains MAGA. MAGA is part of that. coalition. We saw that begin to happen. where President Trump brought on Bobby. Kennedy when Bobby Kennedy stepped out. of the race, right? That was the the. moment at which the idea of unity began. to catalyze. And the question is, all. right, well, how many of us are there? So, gathering on the Capitol Mall is. going to allow us to show just how how.

many of us there are and how serious we. are about restoring the Republic and. returning to the foundational. principles. How many FBI agents think are going to. show up? Well, you should be able to recognize. them by the swastikas that they're. carrying, the fact that they're inciting. violence, or. You think that's going to happen? Well, let's put it this way. Um. the first of the pillars of. the Rescue the Republic event.

is war is always the last resort. And I. would broaden that a little bit just so. that it's very clear to people who are. listening to this. And I realize you're an MMA guy, so I. got to be careful here. Non-consensual. violence. is always the last resort. If you want to gather with somebody else. and fight with them under some. agreement, that's. Yeah, I don't Violence is very different. than sport. Yeah, good. Sport violent combat sports it's just. violence is just a part of it.

But it's uh agreed There's some of the. nicest guys you ever want to meet. Oh, yeah. I. Believe me, I want to leave plenty of. room for that. I just want to say If I. say violence is the last resort, I don't. want. you don't. anybody to be confused about what that. means. But the point is, look, violence. is the last resort, and this gathering. is the attempt to avoid that happening. The people who are eroding our rights. are making it inevitable. We want to. head them off at the pass, and we want to. proclaim what it is that we stand for. And the first thing that we stand for is. that war is always the last resort.

resort. This is not a pacifist movement, right? In fact, I've been. All right. Do you remember learning in school. that this. country, this bastion of freedom, was forged by. patriots. who fought off tyrants, who beat the. odds, and. created this country? Right. Do you remember learning.

that Thomas Jefferson said that the tree. of liberty must periodically be. refreshed with the blood of patriots and. tyrants? Mhm. So, this idea that tyranny. is a profound problem is written in our. DNA as a nation. And. those who are cynically dismantling the. nation. are. putting us in that jeopardy.

And. what I'm afraid that people will do is. they will. with some justification say to. themselves, "You know what? I'm not sure how much my vote counts. I'm not sure what we can do. I'm. expecting them to cheat. And then. they're going to cross their fingers and. we're going to end up with an a result. that people are going to have a hard. time accepting. This is the alternative. If you don't know if your vote counts, you know what does count? If you show up. in a large group that makes it very.

clear that there are lots who are. intent on keeping our rights. So, the first of our Oh, go ahead. No. First of our pillars war is always the. last resort. Second is that we have to recodify. informed consent. So, the medical freedom movement is. part and parcel. of what we are. And.

I know that that's a an issue that is um. profoundly important. I'm concerned that. um. the. the medical freedom movement was taking. shape and then events happened that. caused it to get swamped. The fact the. uh Trump campaign was. uninterested in talking about the. problems of Project Warp Speed. uh.

dropped that issue. uh to a low priority. And we are going. to. re-prioritize. it. The third of our pillars is. that we have to repel censorship, propaganda, and information control. We have a right. to have a public square, to have a. discussion. You have a. a right to be incorrect. Hopefully, you're honorable about it and you.

discover you're incorrect and you fix. your error, but we have to be able to. talk freely. There's nobody who knows. what the facts are so that they can tell. us. you know, which things we're allowed to. talk about any more than there's. somebody in a position to tell us which. speech is tolerable, right? This is. sacrosanct. And so we have to have. um an end to censorship. The fourth pillar is that we have to. return. to. a modality of truth-seeking.

You can't have a system of universities. or institutes or. arms of the government that believe they. have the right to lie to us. for our own good. That leads. to a very dark place and so we have to. replace. that. paternalistic anti-truth bent with a. return to. to open truth-seeking.

So that's uh that's the fourth one. Fifth one. is an end to lawfare. We've seen the radical abuse of the. courts. Much of it amounts to election. interference. So it is. breaking down another one of the. fundamental elements of a democratic. society. It is making it impossible to. elect the people we would choose to. elect. We're We're being steered. uh in a way that is intolerable. And I.

would say the second component of. uh our focus on lawfare is that we have. to have elections that we can trust. Free and fair elections are obviously. central to. a democratic republic and so that has to. be enshrined in a way. in my personal opinion, this is not the. opinion of the organizers of the event. necessarily, but in my personal opinion, um this is a place where the various the. the states all coming up with their own.

mechanisms for voting is a problem and I. think actually we have to have a. national conversation about how to hold. elections that are. um transparent and verifiable. That seems like a minimum requirement. I. think I'm on the. That was six. That was six. So, the seventh pillar is. um financial. uh freedom. So, this is essentially about the danger. of a central bank digital currency that.

we need to we retain the capacity to be. autonomous and we can't have tyranny. inflicted on us through uh some sort of. a social credit system that would be. mediated through a central bank digital. currency. Um the. There are two more and these are out of. order on the screen. Um. Immigration industrial complex. Border policy. We need a rational border. policy. Um obviously open borders don't make any.

sense. Immigration is something that we. need to decide what the right level is. We need to decide um how to bring in. people who actually want to be Americans. and only at the rate that the. civilization in question can absorb them. and um they can be. part of this great experiment. And then the last one. Injustice. is. uh No, that's lawfare. The last one is. going to be.

Where is it? I'm going to Oh, development. Right, of course. The um. sovereignty of the family. We can't have. a civilization in which the government. is telling you that because your child. said something that they think means uh. that uh they are gender queer that they. are you know, that they need to have. medications and surgeries inflicted on. them and that it's not your right as a. parent to say no. So, those are the eight pillars. I think if people think about those.

eight pillars and realize actually. there's nothing to disagree with there. that reasonable people would all agree. to these things because they're not in. any way radical and that a unity. movement built around these things is. exactly where they want to be in an era. where there's so much insanity being. presented to us as the only way forward. Hopefully they will gather with us on. the Capitol Mall on September 29th and. show themselves and really I think.

if you had, you know, half a million people show up, that will make a pretty unambiguous. statement. I think it's important to point out that. you had this idea a while ago and that. it was actually removed from Twitter. Uh in 2020, Yeah. I um. initiated what I called the Unity 2020. movement, which I actually announced on. your show under a different name. It was. called Darkhorse Duo before it became. Unity 2020.

And I still think it was the right idea. Um it was. elegant. in its construction so that it. neutralized. uh things by virtue of the balance of. the plan. That's not what we're faced. with now, but I do think, yeah, if I'm. if I'm perfectly frank about it, I think. unity was the right answer. It was the. wrong moment for it to catch fire. But what's important is that it was. removed from Twitter. Yeah, it was removed from Twitter. What was the rationalization? What did.

they say? Uh it was under false pretenses. What. they said was that we had engaged in, what was their phrase? Something like. inorganic behavior or inauthentic. behavior, which was code for. Bots? Yeah, bots that they argued that we had. used. We did an internal investigation. to see if somebody had used them under. our banner. It turned out there was no. truth in it. Well, here's the thing you could do very. easily. You. put bots. onto this program. So, you have these.

people that are tweeting under this. banner. And then you send the bots to that page. to agree with them. They say, "Oh my. god, we found bots.". Right. We'll shut it down. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it's you know, it's the same trick as uh sending. people with a swastika flag to the. trucker march so that you can claim that. they're Nazis. Exactly the same stuff. It's just um. organized. Yeah, it's organized. So, um. I don't know I do think unity is the.

right message. I think this is exactly. the moment at which people do come. together because many people feel the. jeopardy. I sincerely hope that what President. Trump discovered when he brought Bobby. Kennedy on board. um continues to grow in his mind because. I think actually he has the potential to. lead a. um. a massive movement to restore the.

republic and make it function and. that would be I think it would be. wonderful for him. I think he would go. down in history as um. not the polarizing figure that people. seem intent on turning him into, but uh. he would go down in history as a. galvanizing figure, as really a. refounder of the country. I know that will be hard for many people. who have thought ill of him to swallow,

but. um. the I don't know what you think, but the. the joining of the Trump campaign and. and Bobby Kennedy. And Tulsi. And Tulsi. Tulsi who is in fact coming. to our event. I will say Tulsi's coming. Uh Kim I. Dor. Russell Brand will be there. Um. Oh, you know who's going to be there? Who? Bobby Kennedy.

Uh he's not on the website yet. Um. but he. Matt Taibbi? Robert Malone? will be there. Zuby will be there. Pierre Kory, Robert Malone. Uh Colonel Douglas McGregor. Um. And this is uh September 29th. And what. is the website? jointheResistance.org. jointheResistance.org is where you find. it. Um and. uh oh the. Lara Logan will be present. Um and there. are some folks So, by the way, Bobby.

says hello. Um. There are some other folks that we are. um negotiating with to see if we can get. them there. Some very big names. I wish. I could. tell you, but. No worries. That's enough big names. Yeah. Um but in any case, I. I can't emphasize enough how important. it is that we make a strong showing. And. the reason that it is important is. because.

it will make it very difficult to sell. the story that the enthusiasm simply. drove Kamala Harris who has yet to. articulate anything like a vision into. the White House. We need to make it. clear, right? If you worry that your. vote doesn't count, your physical. presence on the mall, the. picture of Americans coming together. across ideological divides and joining. together in order to rescue the Republic.

I believe is the antidote. to. uh the cheating that we all fear. All right. Here, here. Bret Weinstein, appreciate you very. much. Right back at you. Thank you. Thanks for being you. All right. Thank. Goodbye, everybody. All right. We were. going to end. Ladies and gentlemen, a. bonus. A bonus. Uh we had forgot to talk. about this one thing. So, when Tucker. was on, he was saying that there was no. evidence for evolution. Yeah. And. you had a real problem with that. Well, I didn't have a real problem with.

that. I. A small small problem with that? Let's put it this way, I don't think I. think it's nonsense, but I understand. That's a problem. I understand how he. ends up there. So, let me just say I I. saw that segment, of course, as you. would imagine, and. um. I immediately reached out to him. And I said, "Tucker, you you've got it wrong. The evidence for. Darwinian evolution, for adaptation, is overwhelming. And I would love to sit.

down with you and talk to you about why. that is." And he said, "I would love. that." And we haven't had a chance yet, but I do think it's important in. um. saying something about why that. perspective where that perspective is. coming from and why it's incorrect, it. is important to say. I really appreciate Tucker and his. openness to hearing the counter argument. uh says a lot about him. He was not the. slightest bit defensive and in fact was. eager to hear about uh about Darwinism.

and. Well, he's absolutely willing to change. his. mind. Yeah. Yeah. About everything. Yeah. I agree. It is it is uh it's a very. important that he's got such a big voice. because of that. I agree. And I I must just say. um. you know, it's funny I. went on his show. He was the first. person to reach out when things melted. down. uh in 2017 at Evergreen. And I thought him a a.

at the time. But because nobody else had. reached out from any mainstream. platform, I felt like I had no choice. but. Yeah, Mary, you took a lot of heat for. that for being on his show. of heat, but I also. it was a wake-up call because. you know, I was expecting him to treat. me. badly. I was expecting him to treat me. as a liberal who got what he deserved. And instead, he was. absolutely compassionate. And he didn't.

there was no part of him that was taking. a victory lap over some. some liberal who was faced with a an. angry. mob. So, anyway, uh. He's oddly misinterpreted. Yes. Like. the way people pretend he is versus how. he actually is. I mean, he doesn't do himself any favors. like when he had that guy on that said. he blew Obama. Like, what are you doing? What the [ __ ] are you doing? He's just wild, but I mean, he's willing. to have on anybody, I guess. But. but who he is as a person, he's a lovely.

guy. Yeah, he's a great guy. And and, you. know, uh. he's just like. obsessively in love with nature. Oh, yeah. Right? Yeah, which is really interesting about. him. Um passionate fly fisherman. Oh, yeah. Passionate. Yeah. passionate outdoorsman. And anyway, I I I have a lot of affection for the. guy. Yeah, I do, too. It's an and it is. interesting of you tell there's a. certain group of people. that are just on team blue. You say. anything positive about Tucker and. you're some sort of a terrible villain.

and he represents white supremacy and. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. What? Yeah, it was it was a weird a strange. discovery. But it's a it's it's being connected to. Fox News. You know, you get attached to. Fox News, you get attached especially. him, the most popular voice on Fox News. Yeah, I spent a lot of time, uh you. know, he's always being demonized as a. white supremacist or something. And I. got into the habit every time somebody. said oh you know.

Tucker's finally revealed himself I. would click through and see what the. evidence was. Yeah. I just like okay the guy just said he. wasn't for open borders right there's. just. Yeah it's just. it's just empty. Yeah well it's just. the rational voice is so discouraged in. today's world the rational objective. voice where you look at both sides you. look at I see why someone would say this. I see what you're saying I see this you. know everybody immediately gets. polarized everybody immediately connects.

to their ideology and and changes. the words of someone to be the least. charitable version of what it is and the. the most heinous interpretation of who. that human being is and if you support. them you support this and if you. platform them you platform this and it's. just nonsense it's nonsense peddled by. morons it's a moronic way to look at the. world it really is. Yeah it's almost beyond that because I. mean look I remember. I remember thinking.

Bobby Kennedy. was. 100% I said it to him when he came on. the podcast I said I have to be honest. that my version of you was connected. entirely to you being an anti-vaxxer. conspiracy theorist cook the dark cloud. of the Kennedy family this one guy who's. just nuts unfortunately too bad then I. read the real Anthony Fauci and I was. like hang on. Yeah oh it's it's. talked to some brilliant people that I. know that recommended certain things and.

told me to read some other things that. he had written I'm like oh okay this is. another one of those another one of well. there's people that meet me and they. think I'm some right-wing cook you know. conspiracy theorist [ __ ] mean person. it's like okay. how do you get there like what you're. you're getting there because someone's. led you there you're not getting there. from a normal objective analysis of a. person and who they are and what they. stand for. That that's exactly it. And with him, he's connected to that.

business. That business of first. environment, right? So, he's an. environmental attorney, cleaned up the. the East River, and you know, did a lot of great work. Yeah, he he is our he is our champion, and we were led to believe that he was. a bad guy. Yeah. Yeah, and he's so well measured when he. even dealing with these attacks. The way. he handles things is so admirable. It is admirable. is. Yeah, and and you know, It's good for all of us. Yeah. Well, the discovery. I want.

everybody to have the experience of. having thought ill of somebody like. Tucker or like Bobby Kennedy, and then. to discover in person that that. the rap is just wrong. Right, and you're being led. You're. being led by a what's essentially. propaganda, and it's to polarize us. It's to keep us separated, and to keep. us thinking that you don't have anything. in common with people on the right, and. they're they're demons. You don't have. anything common with people on the left, they're loons.

Like you and I are both very socially. liberal. Yeah. You know, and the idea that you'd be. sitting here saying Trump's got to win. I know, who would have thought, right? It is crazy. but the world's crazy. And when the. world's crazy, you have to have crazy. solutions. I've started when people don't know who. I am, and they start their they ask. Just say I'm a biologist. Just keep. moving. Well, the problem is, you know, eventually they're going to run into it. So, I've started saying, "Look, I'm.

happy to tell you. what I do, but I should warn you, I'm a. terrible person who's come to believe. unforgivable things.". It kind of works, because you hear. somebody say that about themselves, it's. like, "Well, okay, what doesn't add up. here, right? Right. Um. but anyway, back to Tucker. Um. here's the problem. I think. there's a lot of concern, especially on.

the right, about the story of Darwinism. being incorrect. And to me, this is a slow-motion train. wreck. And I. I don't fault people for thinking. that Darwin had it wrong, because I. think modern Darwinists. have screwed up their job. And in fact, they became. advocates for Darwin.

in a way that prevented them from seeing. that there was a major error in the. version that they were presenting. is the error? The error is that the story. Let's Let's put it this way. Darwin. existed. at a moment where his ability to. access what was taking place inside of. biological creatures was just limited. technologically. Okay? So, there's a lot that he didn't know.

And it actually worked to his benefit. Because what he outlined was. an extremely elegant. idea. In fact, Richard Dawkins. said it was the most powerful theory. that anyone had ever come up with. And. his defense for that I find very. compelling. His defense was the power of a theory. is that which it explains divided by.

that which it assumes. And the thing about Darwinism is it. assumes almost nothing, right? Essentially, descent with. modification. And it explains. essentially all of biology. So, by that. rubric, it is just far and away the most. powerful theory we've got. Now, what he presented was a an outline of. how what I would call selection, right?

Just the non-random sorting of things, when it was coupled with heredity, produced adaptation. Okay? Creatures being adapted to their. environments by the process of selection. where some things outdo other things, and heredity allows the characteristics. that make some things outdo other things. to accumulate. When DNA, so. order of events is Darwin outlines his.

hypothesis. Mendel at the same time is. playing games with pea plants. And Mendel discovers. the particulate inheritance. He. discovers that if he. is careful about how he breeds the peas. that he can actually identify traits as. they move from parent to offspring in a. way that suggests that it wasn't like. swirling up a bunch of ice cream. It was. like things that stayed independent that. flowed through these breedings, right?

Darwin didn't know about it. Mendel was. working at the same time, but Darwin. apparently did not know about what. Mendel was doing. And so, Darwin worked. purely at the level of critters. and their characteristics, and he knew that there had to be a way. for hereditary information to be housed. inside of them, but he knew nothing. about how that worked. Mendel had the first piece of how it. worked. It's particulate. These things. exist. We now know they exist on. chromosomes in DNA form, but that took a.

long time to figure out. But, at the point. that we finally found out Watson and. Crick. elucidate the structure of DNA. They say. it hasn't escaped our notice that this. provides a place for the information. that Mendel had. pointed to, that Darwin had implied, that that fits in the DNA, right? At. that moment. our vision of heredity narrowed.

radically. Okay? Because we had this description of. how it is that information can live. inside of a biological organism, be. passed parent to offspring, and be. selected in a way that causes. adaptation. Right? That story is. absolutely true. We know it to be true. And it's so powerful and elegant that it. caused biology. to focus on it as if it was. Darwin's mechanism, period, the end.

The error is that it's not Darwin's. mechanism. It is a Darwinian mechanism. And the problem is. as powerful as it is, right? The story. that they teach us. random mutations in protein-coding genes. are almost always bad. Every so often, there's a good one. Selection tends to accumulate the good. ones, and the creatures and their. special characteristics are all the.

results of all the collected good. adaptations with all of the bad. adaptations or. mutations. All of the good mutations. collected and all of the bad mutations. lost. That story is not, in my opinion, powerful enough to explain the amazing. characteristics of creatures. All right? It explains some of them. It can explain, for example, how you get. a pigment molecule, right? You know, so a plant has a plant is. green because it can't use green light.

It's collecting other wavelengths of. light. How can you get a molecule that. happens to collect certain wavelengths. of light? That story that I just told. you about mutations in protein-coding. genes can get you to a pigment. Right? But, can it get you to where an octopus. can change its texture and completely. camouflage itself to look like a coral. reef? No, and I don't think it can get you. from a shrew to a bat. Right? Right, or to a human. Right. Shrew to a human. Right. So, you now have a problem, which is A,

you've got Darwinists and other. biologists who have been backed into a. corner, and they've sworn up and down. that mutations in protein-coding genes, if you give it enough time and enough. selected force, can do everything we see. And because they know that the story. they're telling is true in some regards, they just keep stretching it so it. covers everything. I don't think it does cover everything. In fact, I've thought since I was in.

college. that there was a missing layer. Right? That there is a layer that. explains how. the amazing alterations in form that we. see is produced by Darwinian processes. Right? Selection interacting with. heredity. And. I think we've just missed it. So, just to take an analogy so this will. be clearer to people. A computer,

a modern computer, functions. based on binary. The flipping of switches that have. exactly two states. If you were to sit down with. I don't know, an AI or a sophisticated. computer game, and I say, "Yep, that thing is programmed in binary. to do these amazing things that you're. seeing. Right?

There's a technical truth there, but that's not. you couldn't program a game like that in. binary. Nobody did. It's not how it happened. There's a layer that's missing. There's. a layer called compilers and computer. languages that allows a human being. through a very regimented process to. specify things such that the binary. layer can do its job. All right, the. computer is binary, but there's a whole. layer between binary and Halo 3 or. whatever. Right. Right.

kids are playing. So, I'm arguing there's another there's. another layer. And it. I believe it does live in the DNA, but. it is not protein coding genes, right? It is not limited in the same way. So, what this does to a guy like Tucker. is it leaves him. debating. between two camps. And it happen You had Stephen Meyer on? Mhm. Yeah. So, I know Stephen Meyer. Really like him, too. Um.

Stephen Meyer is obviously a believer in. intelligent design. True believer. True believer. Believes in resurrection. Yep. And here's the other thing I know about. Stephen Meyer because I've. uh had the good fortune to spend some. time with him, to break bread, to. talk to him about biology. He really loves biology. And he's good at thinking about it.

He's passionate about it. In fact, where. I overlapped with him. was at a little conference and he. brought um. swim goggles for anybody who wanted them. because he wanted to go into the. Mediterranean and go look at animals. because it's cool, right? This guy's. passionate. He's not a faker. Right. So, here's here's what I would say. He will not be surprised to hear me say, because I've said it directly to him, I.

don't think he's got it right. He's. looking for flaws in Darwinism because. he thinks. what will be revealed is a divine. creator. I think there are flaws in Darwinism. I think they reveal the fact that we've. missed a bunch of Darwinism. Right? This is no obstacle to us being. friends and sharing an appreciation for. biology. Okay? But it does mean that in. the end we're betting on different. outcomes of the experiment. But we're. both committed to finding those errors.

and figuring out what's there. Right? Should I be troubled by the fact that he. believes in. uh a divine creator? Not really any more than I should be. troubled by a biologist who's motivated. by a desire to win a big prize. So, do you think there's a process that. it's yet to be discovered? There's. something else going on? Yeah, and I think we've we've glimpsed. it. But. How have we glimpsed it? Um. I think there's another way that. information is stored in DNA that is not.

in triplet codons. And it allows it's the equivalent of a. either, you know, we have different. kinds of computer languages. Not all of. them are compiled. Some of them you can. just write directly and tell the. computer to. operate. But it's the equivalent of a. computer language that turbocharges the. process of adaptation. And so, the point about Stephen Meyer is. he makes a number of different arguments. about problems he spots with Darwinism.

I don't think some of them really are. problems, but there is one that strikes. me as real. Right? They call it the waiting time. problem. And the basic point is, look, we can do the math on. how much adaptation we see. And there isn't enough time. for you to get. the adaptations that you're seeing given. how much. availability of time there was for those. things to occur. So, the point is.

that process that you're claiming made. these creatures. couldn't have done it in the amount of. time you're claiming they they were. created. Now, my point is that is actually I. think likely true. Because there's this. other process. Like, if you had to if. you had. write Halo 3. I don't even know if there is a Halo 3. I don't know. How many Halos are. Okay. Good. Thumbs up. If you had to write Halo 3 in binary, how long would it take you? It would. take you a zillion years because. Yeah. you know, it's binary. If you had to.

write it in I don't know, C++, it might. be doable on human timescales. So, it's that kind of an error. So, I. think. you've got. um. you've got Darwinists. claiming that the story is more complete. than it is. My bet is the thing that's missing is. every bit as Darwinian as the part of. the story that we already know. So, I. think. you know, to the extent that there's an. error, the error is on biologists who.

thought too narrowly. It's not on. Darwin. Right? This is not a threat to what. Darwin gave us. It's just. a belief that um. that Darwin was righter than we have yet. recognized. Um and in the end, I think that that's. what people like Stephen Meyer will. discover. And I would also point out. from the perspective, you know, so if a. guy like Tucker is listening to this and. he's thinking, you know, the story in. which we've got a creator makes more. sense to me than the story in which some.

Darwinian process produces all of this. biological diversity, I would argue that. ultimately, you still don't escape. Darwinism. Right? Like, imagine. Imagine that this universe was created. by somebody who had a plan. My claim. would be. they used Darwinian evolution to make. all the creatures. In fact, I would.

argue if this universe is one that has a. creator. that it is an evolution simulator. That's the most useful thing it does. Is. it figures out how creatures could be by. using this process of selection, right? continue to get better. Right. Yeah, somebody was interested, you know, I don't think there was a. creator, but if there was a creator, I. believe not only A, did they use. selection. and adaptation in order to make the. creatures, but that's probably the. reason they did the whole experiment, right? That that's the most interesting.

thing it produces. Um. and B. let's say, you know, let's just. give the hypothesis it's due. Let's say that this was. a environment created by some. intentional being with the purpose of. making critters using Darwinian. evolution. Okay? So then, you know, you've heard. Elon say, "Well, if it's possible to. simulate universes then there are bound. to be vastly more simulated universes.

than there are real universes." Um so. we're probably in one. Now, I don't. really buy that analysis, but let's say. that it's true. Okay? So you get outside. of your simulated universe into what he. calls base reality. Okay? Now what? Right? Was that one created, too? By whom? Right? At some level, you're. going to get far enough out that you. have to invoke a natural process. And.

that natural process is going to involve. something without a creator. Right? There's no philosophical place, even if. we're inside something that was. intentionally created, that something is. inside something that wasn't. It has to. be. You eventually get out to that. layer. And at that point, you know, if there was a creator, you know, there. was a creator, an intelligent designer. of this cup, right? What designed that creator? Right. Darwinian selection. Right? Let's suppose that's not true.

Let's suppose that the creator of that. cup is inside a simulator made by. another creator. What made that creator? Darwinian evolution. Well, let's suppose. that's not true. You go one layer out. Eventually, you're going to get to the. place where you're going to have to. surrender to the only thing anyone's. ever come up with that could in. principle create intelligent creatures. And it doesn't have a creator. It's a. Darwinian process. All right. All right. Tucker.

Uh there's a lot There's a lot more to. say to Tucker. I would say the the. number of places, you know, the genomes of the creatures that we. have. did not have to tell an elegant story of. how they're related to each other, right? If a creator had designed them, he'd have no reason to make the. phylogeny fit an evolutionary story that. fit the paleobiology, right? So, the number of confirmations. that we have gotten is extraordinary, and they're just not familiar. But. anyway, there's there's a lot of power.

in the in the theory, and don't fault. the. myopia of any generation of scientists. The overall story is elegant and. fascinating. All right. That's it. Bye, everybody. Okay.