[Music]
Okay, we are live on YouTube. Ray Peat, Georgi Dinkov. Ray, I interrupted you. You were saying some really important, critical things and so I just want to get those on record.
I was asking you initially about China, Brzezinski, the Rockefeller Technocratic Society, you were mentioning Event 201, Fort Detrick, and kind of the culmination of a bunch of, I don't know, larger global plans and pushing society in a specific direction that has been talked about for a long time.
Yeah, and there was a commission on defense preparations using artificial intelligence that came out about two years ago that said that at the rate Chinese economy has been growing,
the world will be centered on Chinese production, development of artificial automation, automatic factories, and the U.S. for various reasons would not be able to keep up with that extrapolated progress.
And that the only way this commission could see to prevent China from taking over the world in 10 years would be to stop the world economy as a whole, turn off, ruin the whole world economy.
And then these other things, claiming that there was a virus released last November, doing the news releases of a leaky lab and Fort Detrick preparing pathogens,
all of that reinforced by China's cooperation in creating that huge quarantine that was acting out the plan to ruin the world economy as a way to save the ruling system,
to keep the U.S. empire intact by ruining everything, meaning ruining small business primarily so that there can be an immediate takeover by monopoly corporations and finance,
simplify the whole economy with basically everyone being a low wage employee but working to overtake China on the matter of artificial intelligence production.
I have a question here. So let's say China becomes the leader in artificial intelligence, what are those 1.4 billion people there going to do? What do you think China's idea of its own population would be? How would they participate if eventually everything becomes automated?
I'm not sure they've thought about that but they have basically a humane concept of how capitalism is working. They have actually almost succeeded in eliminating poverty.
China was one of the poorest countries when they started and they have actually seriously brought up the lowest economic category.
Okay. So basically this event is similar to that quote you gave once about the Vietnamese and the Americans saying we have to destroy this village to save it from the Vietnamese. So they're doing the same thing now with the world economy to save it from the Chinese, they have to destroy it?
Exactly.
Okay.
So I was a little bit wrong. They're not in solidarity with China. They're doing all these things to protect what they've built. Is that right?
Yeah. They were taking profits from the industry in China but reached a point where they saw that China as an economy was becoming the center of the world, making the world dependent on their production and that was structurally interfering with the US idea of empires.
In which military bases were the essence of organization and the Chinese were making the flow of goods the means of organization.
What does quarantine and lockdown, presuming that's towards a depopulation type of effort, what does that have to do with maintaining the empire? Are the citizenry getting out of control and that's why they have to put these ridiculous measures in place to clamp down on the people?
That's part of it to justify taking over the internet requiring vaccination and subordination of all sorts. But I think mostly it's part of destroying all of the middle class competition for the giant monopolies.
Do you think technocracy is a worthwhile concept? Is that useful for explaining what's going on? Was it coined by Brzezinski in Between Two Ages?
Oh no. Veblen was the first person who started talking about how you could eliminate labor and create abundance.
Then the people who called themselves the technocrats incorporated started, the founder of technocracy knew Veblen and adopted his view of the economy.
Did you know any of the old technocrats used to drive grey cars with the yellow and red yin yang symbol on the side?
I didn't know that.
People thought they were maybe fascist sympathizers or something but they were actually just very naive about how the world works.
They took these calculations from Veblen and subsequent economists like John Maynard Keynes in 1930.
He wrote an article saying that by 2030, 100 years from when he wrote it, he said that by discounting plagues and world wars, people won't be working any more than 15 hours a week.
When I was a kid, that was part of the environment. The work week was getting shorter and that was the predicted future.
It wasn't just the technocracy people by name but they were outstanding in how optimistic they were that the people who owned things were going to let the engineers run them intelligently and efficiently.
That constantly was running into interference with concentration of wealth and control.
The progress towards the 15-hour week was more or less continuous despite those interferences with the engineer category.
In 1980, it was the turning point. Reagan and the progress of the middle and working class took a sharp turn.
The GDP kept increasing. Productivity kept increasing but wages started decreasing. The upper 1% and 1/10 of 1% started getting all of the rewards of increasing production.
The economy started declining. The economy started declining. The economy started declining. The economy started declining and the economy started declining.
I was listening to a conversation between Patrick Wood and James Corbett. Patrick Wood has written a few books on technocracy. He was important to point out that originally it was more like a Bucky Fuller type of future.
I think what you said, you're only working a few hours in the future. Rockefeller and Brzezinski and that et al. co-opted the term for their dystopian, brave new world type of future.
Yes, definitely. It started with the CIA and Eisenhower and the Green Revolution.
It was being applied in agriculture, turning farming into agribusiness and agri-industry rather than producing mixed foods for consumption.
It was producing soybeans for profit. That started with Rockefeller and Eisenhower in 1952.
I have a question. If agriculture has been so industrialized to mostly focus on profit and not necessarily produce the foods that people need, then how come it needs such massive subsidies from the government?
I live in DC and I know some people that are involved in lobbying on behalf of agricultural organizations.
They're saying that if these farmers, no matter how massive they are in the Midwest, don't get their government subsidies even one season, they're going under.
The government has been financing the upward distribution of ownership in all sorts of ways.
The funds going to people owning only 10,000 acres and such was slowing the progress of the great technocrats.
They're going to let those so-called relatively small farms of 10,000 or 15,000 acres go under to be consumed by the ones controlling a million acres.
We can step back a little bit. Ray, in one of your newsletters, you quoted Gore Vidal and you said, "The people have no voice because they have no information."
That reminded me of – at first, I wasn't sure if it was accurate or not, but William Casey, the CIA director in 1981, he said, "Well, no, our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
Then there's some dispute on whether that quote is real or not. Then Barbara Honegger said she was the one that quoted him.
She, on Quora, a website of questioning and answers, basically says, "Seriously, this quote is real, and I was the one who said it."
I just say that because this is not something that's really – I mean, the concept of fake news is more prevalent than it ever has been, but what is your take having a wide perspective on how the news has changed over time?
William Casey, the CEO of Google, said, "The public news is getting more controlling, more false, and dumbed down so that they're just giving instructions every day on what you should believe today."
It's horrifyingly effective with this plague thing, how people fell for it. Without any data at all, the decisions were made that a new kind of coronavirus was very infectious and very deadly.
No data in support. My first thought was, "Do they have guilty insider information that it was designed in the lab and they know that to be the case?"
If they weren't the designers of it, otherwise, there's no sane reason for saying those things that it's very infectious or very dangerous, because they just weren't doing the tests to see what was making people sick
or measuring the changes of sickness in relation to previous years.
I was looking at the CDC's report, and all of their actual cases and infections and deaths were right on the typical flu season mortality, sickness, and hospitalization.
As the tests became available by the millions around the first of April, suddenly, flu mortality dropped as fast as the stock market had fallen earlier.
It was like a cliff falling off as the millions of tests became available, and the steep rise of the news talked about, a sudden gigantic speed of communication caused this vertical rise in the incidents and deaths from the coronavirus.
But the bigger curve of general respiratory mortality was right on previous year patterns.
It was just coronavirus replacing influenza and syncytial and other respiratory viruses.
When it became available, the official definition of polio was changed, and other conditions that had been causing paralysis suddenly disappeared.
As polio was epidemic, things like aseptic meningitis were either rising to replace the disappearing polio, in other words, the definition was the only thing that changed.
Paralysis stayed the same, and so if you eliminated polio by saying that it didn't fit the definition of what was causing paralysis, then the vaccine could get the credit for it.
The same thing was done in the opposite direction with cancer from the 1940s through the 1950s. They increased the definition of cancer of the breast and uterus, for example.
Things that had been non-cancer became cancer, and so if you cure all of these cases of non-cancer, it shows that your treatment is effective.
But if you look at the actual death from cancer, the deaths from cancer increased exactly at the speed that the treatment for cancer increased.
By definition, they were having a tremendous success in curing cancer by creating a strawman of disease and curing it, but meanwhile, the bystander patient was dying at a higher rate.
I think that accounts for why the coronavirus deaths are tending to displace flu virus deaths.
I have a question in regards to the coronavirus. If the Chinese are aware that this has been dropped at their doorstep as a warning, they must have done some testing internally and probably confirmed that this is not nearly as dangerous as what we hear on TV.
Do you think they took the bait, so to speak, and quarantined the entire country? Was it sort of an exercise in their own police state for future purposes, or were they really concerned that maybe this could have unforeseen lethality later down the road?
As far as I can tell, it could be either of those equally.
Okay. All right.
What do you make of the flip-flopping of the WHO saying, or another organization saying, "Oh, masks don't help. You don't need to wear them. Oh, you must wear a mask," and now it's basically illegal to not wear a mask?
How could that happen? Were they just not coordinated to the story, the narrative on the public?
Yeah. They didn't plan it all out with that meeting that came up with Event 201. They left some details that were sloppy.
Can you talk a little bit more about Event 201 and then also this lockstep scenario narratives from the Rockefeller Foundation? And then also, sorry to throw so much at you, but Harry Vox really predicting – once you know the plan, it's kind of easy to predict, but Harry Vox's scarily accurate prediction where he just – he kind of calls all of this in 2014.
But Event 201, lockstep, and these kind of "scenarios" that they run, what are they for? Why are they doing these things?
Why are they doing which things? I mean, why are they doing it right now?
Well, so the lockstep document I think came out in 2010, but I would imagine most of the public is not familiar with this Rockefeller Foundation document and things like 201.
But they seem to see these things out in the public, and then when you bring them up, that they're identical to what we're experiencing now, you're called a conspiracy theorist.
So I mean when you read something like this, what is your take on it?
Oh, that they really were planning this. I think Harry Vox is right. You can't imagine them as being more evil than they really are.
We're always short in our estimation of how bad they are.
I have a more sinister explanation why they're doing this, why they're seeding the public with these things.
I mean, now that everything is being monitored online, it's sort of – they probably have a list, and I'm sure they have a list of people who are kind of reading between the lines and realizing what's really going on.
It's very similar to the leaders of the Occupy Wall Street movement. If you remember, they had snipers that were ready to take them out.
I'm not saying there are snipers for all of us waiting on the roof, but I think I would guarantee you that we are all on some kind of a list if we fit the profile of people who are essentially reading these documents and realizing what's going on.
Because the vast majority of people that are around me that I've mentioned these things to, they're so out of it that basically you can't even talk about these topics without being considered a nut.
At the same time, I'm pretty sure that there's probably an agency somewhere keeping track of who is saying what online and who can become a potential leader of a resistance movement.
Yeah, I think doing everything possible on the internet and telephones and so on is important, but besides that, people have to start actually getting in touch personally and passing messages personally,
organizing on the ground level, literally, and establishing networks within the system and hoping to find contacts within the surveillance structure.
Like my experience in the past, just with trying to go abroad to teach, that involves surveillance to the extent that one of my old friends who turned out to be sort of my overseer for some government agency,
he said he would tell me when we retired, but he died before retiring.
But his wife confirmed that he was in surveillance.
But every time I would have an idea, like to go to teach in Nicaragua or Salvador or something, he would somehow locate my location, even though I hadn't kept in touch with him and didn't have a telephone.
But he would somehow find my address and get in touch and ask what I was doing and then say, "Don't do it."
You have direct experience with this?
Yeah. I was never aware of it happening, except when someone like that would intervene.
He was one of the other union people from the Northwest. We knew him as a fanatical anti-marijuana person because he knew that that would be used to damage the union workers if he was tainted by marijuana.
But the night before he was to fly to San Salvador with the other union guys, his apartment was arrested, marijuana was planted, and he was put in jail to miss his flight.
As far as I knew, he didn't know why it happened. He wasn't prosecuted. Charges were dropped.
But the guys that went there were sitting in a restaurant starting to get organized, and the army murdered them all.
So my view was that he had his friend somewhere in the government that protected him by having him framed.
Are you familiar with the writings and the interviews of this lady called Kay Griggs?
I didn't hear exactly what you said.
There is this lady, her name is Kay Griggs, and she has been posting interviews about the power structure within the government and all the conspiracies.
And she verbatim said pretty much what you just did was done to her.
She was married to a very high-level former NATO official. He was in charge of, I forgot what it was, some kind of a policy for NATO.
So he was the second or third in command at the NATO headquarters in Europe, and she was married to him for about 20 to 30 years.
And he was basically, his job, he was basically an assassin, and he was either killing people or helping kill people who were subverting the empire.
And apparently after she started speaking about these things, he promptly divorced her. He disappeared.
If you try to look for his name, he cannot be found online.
But more importantly, she said that people would randomly break into apartments or hotels where she would go out and stay there.
And basically this would be a message of saying, be mindful of what you're saying because we can frame you in any way we want.
And if we don't like what you're saying, maybe something much worse would happen.
Yeah, I'm being nearsighted and generally tending to be absent-minded and such.
I never would notice things, but whenever this guy who was my surveillance person was with me,
like I would come back to the school, put my key in the lock, and pull it out and find shreds of paraffin on it.
I said, "What was that?" And he said, "Oh, sometimes they do that to make a copy of your key so they can break in."
By the way, it was me. Don't worry about it.
Other times I wasn't noticing someone being like a clown surveillance person who was doing a show of being sneaky but looking ridiculous,
hiding behind a skinny light post, for example.
I wouldn't have noticed it except my friend pointed it out.
And then the guy wrote a number in the dust of my windshield and then it disappeared.
I said, "I wonder why he wrote that number."
And my friend said, "That looks like an immigration tourist card number."
So I pulled out my tourist card and it was my immigration number that this guy had written.
But I wouldn't have noticed it if the surveillance guy hadn't pointed it out to me.
So maybe that's what protected you. You were so absent-minded. Their signs weren't working.
I think part of his instruction at that point was to try to get me to leave the country.
Okay. So that was Nicaragua, you said? Or El Salvador?
What was that?
Was that in Nicaragua or El Salvador?
No, that was Mexico.
Mexico. Okay.
Can we talk a little bit about Bill Gates' role in this?
And this Politico article says, "Meet the world's most powerful doctor, Bill Gates."
And so I also – somebody called him a pandemic hobbyist, which I thought was funny.
But what is your take?
I don't imagine that very, very, very powerful people give as many interviews as Bill Gates.
So what do you think he's an extension of, Ray?
Oh, he likes to hobnob with the very top bankers, the Rockefellers and Rothschild type.
And I think he's in the network, CIA, IBM, creating his business and his billions.
And he's right from the start knowing somewhat what the scheme is.
But he's sort of a microcephalic type who follows orders but doesn't do much else.
It's funny because my dad worked for IBM, and he worked in for computers my entire life.
And all I heard when I was growing up was, "What a son of a bitch Bill Gates was."
And so it's kind of funny to me that he's reformed his image so much as being this Christ-like savior with the vaccines.
And it reminded me of John D. Rockefeller because apparently he was hated by everybody.
And then he had like a campaign to reform his image, I think.
Yeah, and public health. He got poor people to wear shoes in the South and did lots of good things.
I always thought that a powerful doctor is a contradiction of terms, but apparently I'm the only one who thinks that way.
I tried to bring it up to a few doctor friends of mine, and they said, "No, it's perfectly fine."
I said, "Well, a powerful doctor to me would mean somebody who cured cancer."
And they said, "No, no, no. You're living in a fantasy world.
A powerful doctor means who has the potential of one day being either the president or running global health."
Which seems exactly what Bill Gates seems to be aiming towards.
Yeah. And the world economy is part of world health.
You want to keep people just sick enough that they have to consume the drugs and be under the control of the doctors and the drug companies.
Do you think they've gotten the science down, you know, improved enough to the point where they can say,
"On average, we can control how long a person lives and exactly when they die, when their worth to the system essentially is exhausted."
Basically, they reach either a level of age or a level of sickness where they're no longer worth to the system to continue maintaining them.
So more or less on an average level, they can engineer the death of the average citizen.
Yeah. And when someone is in the hands of a healthcare system where the military or the insurance company or the healthcare corporation,
where they're responsible for their final sickness, it's well established that the final sickness is the most economical disposition.
Morphine is the standard treatment for cancer even though it's recognized for at least 100 years that it makes cancer grow faster.
But it's a very cheap way to finish them off and save money.
Going back to what you talked about Bill Gates kind of being born into this hobnobbing with the elites and in an old interview with Bill Moyers,
Bill Gates says his dad was head of Planned Parenthood.
And so I know people have a knee-jerk reaction to that, but I feel like it's fairly well talked about,
like Margaret Sanger and that being kind of a racist depopulation strategy.
And then Bill Gates' dad is head of that Planned Parenthood and Bill Gates' dad being associated with Rockefeller.
Oh yeah, they talk about that, the efficient population and the things that will not prolong poverty,
get rid of the people who are occupying the land that needs to be made efficient.
And then a picture surfaced with Anthony Fauci with William H. Gates, David Rockefeller, Soros and just the elite of the elite.
And so again I'm not sure how many people have seen these types of pictures, but they're just interesting, the connections between these people.
Yeah, Fauci is another person that follows orders and administers punishment and knows how to very efficiently, bluntly and crudely make things look right on the surface.
While stealing people's ideas and blocking their research.
And do you have any idea why, again, just the relationship of Trump and this clique of people, like why, like Trump seems semi-skeptical of what was happening.
Why do you think he was letting Fauci kind of run the show?
I think it was actual indecision, not being a complete insider.
I have a question about the general economy. Let's say things now reopen, because that's, Trump wants this to happen in order to get re-elected for lack of a better reason.
How do you foresee things continuing? I mean, do you think that, because it seems to me that the industry, the massive industry that generates profits for all the bankers and the elite, has gotten to the point where it cannot really produce profit on its own.
It needs government money. That's really where most of the profit comes from. They're literally being handed money out.
This cannot really be sustainable. I mean, at some point, even the dumbest member of the public will say, well, hold on a second.
We've already experienced two once in a generation recessions/depressions.
We have an entire generation calling them the millennials who have no concept of ever owning a house or retiring or having a vacation longer than a week.
Even the regular people in the street are probably going to start to question this mode of operating where a crisis is manufactured now every, less than every 10 years.
Do you think this will be like the last such event before it collapses?
If they can keep their attention on curing a mythical virus, I think they're keeping people under control.
But they have their different layers of control ready.
If one doesn't work, they have the other. The money went right into the big corporations that failed to put it to use employing people.
It created some temporary jobs, but most of the money didn't really get to the people.
As they realize that, maybe they'll send out another wave of money if it's needed. But if people start going into the streets demanding change, then they have their other levels of responding.
If we hit unemployment levels of 50 million people, you can't bail all of these people out.
They're not willing. They're sending $1,200 checks as a one-time thing.
At some point, these people will need to eat.
If you're not willing to create a system of universal basic income, which it seems they're not willing currently, these people have to do something.
If the economy is destroyed and all of these large corporations need money but not really employees, you have to do something with those 50 million people.
I think this epidemic has given them an acceleration of what they were planning.
They'll let up on it to relieve revolutionary pressure if needed, but will be ready with something else, terrorism or something different to get people's attention.
Right.
That process started in 1980 with the working and middle class failing to share in the increased productivity.
But in these 40 years, how many people have caught on to the fact that everything is getting worse steadily for a whole generation?
It's very slow to – the implications are being deflected by the daily news.
Public schools, colleges and the mass media are constantly telling people that they're still in the middle class.
Ray, have you been privy to any of the ProDoctor propaganda? Like, if I scroll through that
application Instagram, which is very popular, it's many different videos of doctors dancing
and status having signs put together saying stay home. And there seems to be a concentrated
effort to promote doctors. And then James Corbett put together that he said similar to the veterans
of 9/11, the new heroes doctors will be to push an agenda, presumably so you don't fight
back when you're given your many, many vaccines.
Yeah, it's all part of total subservience. 50 years ago, I was saying that it won't be
long until they keep people on the assembly line by installing a screw in their skull
and attaching it to a trolley. So they can only go from the bathroom to the lunchroom
to the assembly line and then home. But with the telephones, they don't need the trolley
wire.
I think the social distancing right now has a I mean, I suspect it has a more more sinister
role as well. They're preventing the you know, people from organizing right? If there's a
sufficient number of people who are willing to not take up in arms, but at least start
an organization like Occupy Wall Street, by telling them stay home and by mandating it
for them to stay home. It's an effective means of control because you can only achieve so
much over a phone or computer.
Yeah, and that way they don't waste their pepper spray.
Ray, did you anticipate this being the kind of I don't know what the right word is the
the like a medical problem or a pandemic health problem being the I mean, I can't think of
the word the initiation for the catalyst for the change like into the type of new world
or a new world order situation is this kind of part of why you do what you do, because
it all kind of makes sense now, given how this thing is playing out.
Yeah, the health thing has always been my sense of a point of reality, where you might
be able to if you can't show anyone what's happening politically, militarily, in the
outside world, you maybe can get their attention on the fact that it's affecting their health,
and you can get them to contact whatever reality they have the potential for and maybe work
from there. And I found that the progressive people were totally out of contact with that
sort of reality. But the far right, I found people coming to my lectures, it was only
the extreme right that was interested in health and survival. And the same people who were
saying that, that the communists were putting fluoride in the water. You can open that up
and get them to realize that the corporations and the doctors are doing the equivalent of
putting fluoride, polluting their vital bodily fluids.
Well, speaking of that, an article in 2014 said, "The WHO campaign is not about a mass
sterilization exercise. Kenyan doctors find anti-fertility agent in UN tetanus vaccine."
And I guess this vaccine was laced with HCG. So, you, given your understanding of endocrinology
is that the type of thing that's... I know there's aluminum and mercury and the adjuvants
are really harmful, but do you think the underlining idea behind vaccination is sterilization?
Well, they found HCG in some of the African vaccines. And it's known that that will sterilize
you at least for a few years. And that was designed, you know, the CIA doesn't announce
that they're doing it or going to do it, but they plan for its possibility. And then someone
always figures out how to sneak it out into the world.
But you might've answered it, but like, I guess, do you think the, like why Gates et
al is so kind of determined to give people vaccines, is that just to make them sicker?
Or do you think there's a specific like kind of nefarious purpose? Like they will add something
that will be anti-fertility?
Oh yeah. I think his background in population control is right there on the surface.
Well, it's hilarious that like the elite have several things in common, but one is we must
depopulate. And then at the same time, Bill Gates and others are saying to take this vaccine
so we can save your lives. It doesn't even register in just a basic way. It's very odd.
The idea of preventing epidemics by like the old 120 year ago Rockefeller idea of giving
people shoes and food and curing endemic disease that way, that's now too expensive. Vaccines
are a matter of economy. The known effects of vitamin A and vitamin D just making massive
improvements in disease resistance of all sorts. That's more expensive, as cheap as
those are, it's more expensive than a vaccine, not even counting the depopulation effects.
I don't know if you see that, that sort of article. I mean, I'm sure that's the one you're
referring to, the Kenyan one. It only talks about vaccinating the girls and HCG has a
known anti-fertility effect in girls, but apparently it works also in boys. And I found
about this in a little bit of a roundabout way. Apparently if a male buys a pregnancy
test in the pharmacy and pees on it and it comes back positive, that is a biomarker for
testicular cancer. Apparently the levels of HCG are elevated in males with testicular
cancer. Conversely, there's some serious research suggesting that if a male chronically uses
a specific amount of HCG, they may give themselves testicular cancer, sort of like a permanent
infertility agent, which goes way beyond what it can do in girls.
Yeah, it's dangerous stuff. I've been warning people not to use it as a diet weight loss
method because of that effect on estrogen and cancer.
Are its effects similar to the human growth hormone, the one that people also inject with?
No, not exactly, but yeah, that one has its age-promoting effect, thickening the basement
membranes and so imitating age changes. But the chorionic gonadotropin increases estrogen
production and estrogen is produced by any type of cell in the body. So you don't want
to have untimely stimulation of estrogen.
It's so ironic that most of the Hollywood elite are injecting with HGH specifically
for anti-aging purposes. I guess that's why they look so horrible when you see them on
TV.
Well, Ray, Georgi and I were talking yesterday about, I'm looking at a picture of John D.
Rockefeller and this Zbigniew Brzezinski, Soros. Why do you think these people personify or
they aesthetically look evil? Have you ever thought about that? John D. Rockefeller is
one of, I'm not saying this to be mean, but he's objectively really disturbing looking.
Why do you think that is?
Yeah, the old women in that picture with the Rockefellers and other giants of civilization,
they all look like, Hollywood couldn't design evil characters as well as that.
Well, I was looking up some of these people and who was it? Maybe it was Irene Diamond.
I think she might have been involved in AIDS research and things. Then somebody mentioned
on Twitter somewhere that this whole thing is really similar to AIDS. I was too young
to have gone through that, but do you recall similarities? I'm looking at a magazine cover
right now from life in July 1985 when I was born and it says, "Now no one is safe from
AIDS." It has a picture of a young boy, a family, and some evil military person.
No, I don't think there's much similarity except that they both damage your immunity
and make you sick. Did I ever tell you the story of the guy from Fort Detrick that told
me about the AIDS research 11, 12 years before AIDS broke out? In 1969, this guy came to
one of my free university classes and hung around afterwards and wanted to talk to me
as a biology graduate student, someone that might take him seriously. I didn't even take
him seriously enough to get his name and contact information, but he said he had quit his job
at Fort Detrick because the people were seriously designing a virus that would be racially selective
to kill black people specifically. At that time, nothing had been published on ethnic
magnetic tags that a virus could attach to, but two or three years later, the first papers
were published coming out of Fort Detrick, exactly what he had said but without the purpose
defined. My molecular biology professors honored those as great progress in science.
Do you think the plan changed at some point from creating a virus to kill black and gay
people to doing something different, like the dysgenics kind of thing of poisoning everybody
and just making everybody basically have brain damage?
Yeah, the plan is constantly developing. It wasn't perfected at an early date. It develops.
And you think like the Rand Corporation and Tavistock and all these think tanks, they
are making the plans for the elites and then they're being kind of put into place and
we're the recipients.
Yeah, the universities are working out the details often without knowing it. I think
my molecular biology professors were just jerks, but they were playing right into the
whole scheme.
Well, they depend on government money like almost every other academic these days, right?
Yeah.
So I have a question about these viruses that are being engineered to harm the world. You
will think that the people who create the poison would want to have the antidote for
themselves. Do you think there is something behind the scenes that the elite possesses
to protect itself? Or do you think the science is simply so pathological that they can create
the poison but they can't create the remedy?
They probably know about vitamin D.
Oh, GcMAF, right? That's what came up a few times in terms of treatment.
Which was that?
GCMAF. Apparently it's like a receptor that's activated by vitamin D.
GcMAF?
The idea of damaging the brain, the mass vaccination I think is objectively having that effect.
I looked at brain size in relation to body size trends over the decades. And right when
massive child vaccination expanded in the U.S., that was the first decade that the brain
didn't keep pace with the body growth. In several countries around the world, the brains
got either got smaller or didn't enlarge while the body did enlarge. So the brain-body
ratio has shrunk, but starting with the decade of the '80s.
And I'm sure you've seen the studies showing that the IQ, the average worldwide IQ, after
enjoying a century of rising, suddenly started dropping around the late '60s and at this
point is 30% lower than what it was in the '70s.
Yeah. But even the mass of the brain is now shrinking.
Wow.
I was perusing a PDF called like philanthropic influence and the global health agenda. And
it was like, who sets the agenda talking about the Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.
And they said, "The Gates Foundation prioritization of the vaccine solution for multiple health
problems reflects the foundation's preference for interventions with quick, measurable,
and visible solutions. One of GAVI's," and that's an acronym for something, "Senior
Representatives reported that Bill Gates often told him in private conversations that he
is vehemently against health systems. He basically said it was a complete waste of money and
that there was no evidence that it works. So I will not see a dollar or cent of my money
to go to strengthening of health systems." And so I'm not pro health, I mean, doctors
or anything, but doesn't that just speak volumes that they think vaccines and not cleaning
up, like not cleaning up poverty or like you said, giving supplements of basic things like
vitamin D and A, and they have to go with these experimental vaccines with massive conflicts
of interest. It just seems totally insane.
Yeah. I'm against medicine in general. So Medicare for everyone would be a sort of an
ideological thing, but it would make many things worse.
Well, Ivan Illich, "Preservation of the sick life of medically dependent people in an unhealthy
environment is the principal business of the medical profession." Pretty much nails it.
Yeah.
So indirectly and probably without knowing the far right are actually protecting the
population by being so heavily against any kind of a universal healthcare system.
Yeah. My experience, the people who attend my lectures over the last 50 years, the people
with the superficial ideology that's called far right, they very often have contact with
reality and life. They're actually more pro-life than the so-called left who say they are pro-life.
I think it might be a fairly easy thing to overcome that verbal identification of ideology
right and left and get people to pay attention to what it is to be an organism. Organisms
are naturally tending towards altruism and empathy. That's a biological thing that so-called
right-wingers are not impaired at as people, only as ideologues. So if there's a way that
they can reattach themselves to the world, they've already got sort of a body commitment
to not being fascist.
Wow. That's amazing. So how do you reconcile that with their idea? Because most far right
people are very heavily pro-death penalty, pro-gun rights, pro-somebody walks on you
alone, you're allowed to shoot them kind of thing. Or are you saying that the people that
you think are more in contact with reality are even further right towards the libertarian/anarchist
side, that they don't even believe in government and terror and whatnot. They just want to
be left alone.
Yeah, the people that identify as libertarian are among the most gullible. I've known lots
of them and the ones that have studied it and make an ideology of it, things like death
penalty combined with libertarianism. I think there's an old-fashioned kind of conservative.
You know who Ron Unz is? Or Unz, U-N-Z?
Is that the unz.com? Yeah, unz reports or something?
Yeah. He has identified himself, he was a publisher of American Conservative and has
been identified as a right-wing extremist. But some of his publications are much more
progressive than things you see in Counterpunch, for example.
I think Whitney Webb started writing for the Unz Review not long ago, and she's somebody
that went deep on Epstein and all his connections. Speaking of Epstein, Bill Gates is, according
to the New York Times, Bill Gates met with Jeffrey Epstein many times despite his past.
So Jeffrey Epstein is this convicted pedophile, child trafficker, and then Bill Gates continues
to meet with him. What do you make of that, Ray?
The worship of power. Epstein flaunted his connections with power. He knew everyone powerful,
and that attracted Bill Gates, wanting to associate himself with power wherever it was.
I think the CIA has tried to infiltrate itself into every conceivable cultish movement. Probably
the pedophiles are being manipulated by the CIA as much as the religious groups and political
groups.
I was listening to Whitney Webb calling Maria Farmer, who had worked for Epstein on his
island and she wasn't allowed to leave. She said some ridiculous stuff, like she would
see five young girls per day visiting Epstein. But if you try to find out what Epstein actually
did, it's actually difficult. I don't know what he was charged with, but it's not even
close in the realm of what Maria Farmer is talking about. She knew Ghislaine Maxwell
and Epstein pretty well. Then she was talking about what happened to all these people, and
it just getting very dark pretty quickly.
But anyways, Whitney Webb said that Epstein was into eugenics too. So again, just another
point for all these eugenics crazy elite people.
I think Ghislaine Maxwell is pretty obviously an Israeli intelligence asset. She's either
like her father, like father, like daughter, I guess. I mean, I think it's pretty obvious
her job was probably to collect compromising information on all of the pedophiles that
were visiting the ranch. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a video on most of the powerful
people in the world right now doing something nefarious, and that's how they get what they
want from them.
But after Epstein was arrested, there was a little bit of news about the nature of the
photographs they found in his house and safe. But after he was killed, nothing more has
come out.
Do you think they'll ever reopen the investigation? Do you think people have forgotten the social
memories is way too short? And now everybody's attention is now on to the virus and nobody
cares about Epstein anymore.
Yeah, yeah. Events like that erase the immediate past and let us move on.
What do you make of Trump's connections with Epstein?
He didn't seem to be as close as Bill Gates or Bill Clinton. Clinton and the lawyer, Harvard
lawyer professor.
Dershowitz?
Dershowitz, yeah. They had many more contacts than Trump.
Dershowitz, isn't this the Harvard lawyer who wrote a couple of op-eds saying that torture
should be legal? Or am I thinking of somebody else?
What should be legal?
There was a famous Harvard lawyer who wrote a couple of op-eds.
Yeah, he did.
Stepping back a bit, just because I like to talk about it, but the Trilateral Commission
and this being, I think the thing is that Brzezinski wrote Between Two Ages and then
Rockefeller saw that book and then he created the Trilateral Commission. Do you see that
as, if people are trying to trace back where we're at today, do you see the Trilateral
Commission as something important to investigate?
Not especially. I think the Birch Society was pretty well investigating it. The people
on the far right of press were giving a good picture of what his plans were.
I think the only thing I'd like to pose this question to you, Ray, which is worse, the
possibility of getting a virus that could kill you, especially if you have comorbidities,
or have your life savings wiped out, your home foreclosed, your car repossessed, your
kid's college dreams being crushed, maybe that's okay, and living on welfare? What do
you think is worse to you?
I always would prefer the disease.
Because it's usually less severe, especially if you're not visiting a doctor, right?
Yeah, I don't believe the disease is especially harmful, so not much conflict between.
I know you've talked about it in multiple interviews, but can we talk about transmission
of disease? Is the transmission of viruses between people just kind of an inherent property
of human communication? What do you make of that? The idea of social distancing in general,
like if I go outside and I have coronavirus, I'm going to kill grandma. What do you make
of that?
The mechanism by which it reproduces itself, it goes in and activates the enzymes that
copy the RNA and make the proteins that form the capsule, and then fast numbers pour out
through the endoplasmic reticulum and are secreted. That mechanism is already making
retrovirus particles that, under a microscope and by chemical analysis, are structural,
close analogs of the various virus particles. They only began to be really studied at the
beginning of this century, the exosomes, microvesicles, and various names for them. But the serum
and the lymph are really full. Under an ordinary microscope, they're basically invisible dust
in the background, but when you look at that dust under a microscope, they are these highly
organized vesicles with a structured cytoplasm-like cover and RNA, DNA, enzymes, lipids, and so
on. The fact that maybe half of our DNA collection consists of things that structurally look
like retroviral copied DNA and that when we're under stress, we pour out large quantities
of these exosomes that are thought to be a communication between different tissues, like
an injured lung will send exosomes that are absorbed by bone marrow cells, which then
make particular kind of white blood cells that have the capacity to repair the lung.
So they're known to have communication property in the organism. They are abundantly present
in maternal milk and are taken up through the intestine wall as immune support for the
baby and they are known to be able to enter the gonads in a way that would make them candidates
for what Darwin called gemmules. He thought they accounted for the inheritance of acquired
properties. The developing organ influenced by the environment would accumulate its properties
and send them to the gonads for reproductive copying.
In bacteria, starting with the simplest organism, bacteria can make particles like this, which
they transmit through a tube to other bacteria that lack the resistance factor, for example,
for antibiotics. But bacteria have been using this before antibiotics were thought of. It's
a communication, a genetic interchange between species and individuals of the same species
or across very different bacterial types to share acquired information. Since we can use
it within the organism, I think individuals probably habitually share stuff like this.
For example, you can find the DNA from a woman's previous partners in her tissues. All of her
tissues can be penetrated by the DNA she has been exposed to through semen. I think that
since the gonads are known to be able to take up these exosomes, the semen will probably
be found to contain lots of these exosomes, which look like and are structured like viruses.
If bacteria can do it, I think it's probably a routine thing for other organisms. Their
existence hadn't been suspected by Western science until just about the beginning of
this century. Even though people were writing about the apparent cross-phylum transmission
of genes 50 or 60 years ago, it wasn't acceptable to talk about it. But now I think the way
viruses came into being, when I talked to my professors about it, they just didn't want
to talk about it because they have to evolve in organisms and what that means they didn't
want to consider. But since we now know that exosomes are repair material and cross individual
communication, at least in bacteria, probably it's involved in that adoption of DNA from
semen. It's probably something happening all the time that we take up exosomes. I think
when an animal is very sick, it's known that the exosomes participate in amplifying the
sickness instead of correcting the sickness. The serum from an old animal accelerates aging
of a young animal and young serum retards aging of an old animal. It's probably the
presence or absence of harmful exosomes that accounts for that property of serum. I think
it's reasonable that sometimes these exosomes of stressed individuals become toxic enough
that that would account for where viruses came from.
I have a question and actually just a restatement and a question. Do you think it's fair to
say that viruses are basically a very efficient way of horizontal gene transfer that will
be one of their primary purposes?
Of doing what?
Of viruses being one of their primary purposes in nature would be to enable horizontal gene
transfer across organisms.
Right. Within organisms that's established, but I think organisms other than bacteria
are doing it.
Then I guess my question which is related to the first one is, if their purpose is also
as a communication mechanism across organisms, would it make sense to say that let's say
if an organism is very stressed and producing a lot of these viruses, that would be a signal
to the organisms surrounding it that the environment is suboptimal so that those organisms can
mount a defensive response, so to speak?
Right, just like bacteria. When you're healthy, like 80% of the people who contract coronavirus
don't even notice it. I think they're potentially constructive assistance improving our immune
system.
Okay. I've seen a few fascinating articles. Many of them are from the '60s and '70s before
really the medical authorities clamped down and controlled the information fully. There
are some older studies showing that nurses working in specific wards at the hospital
tend to come down and sometimes even die with the exact same diseases of the people that
they're taking care of. Do you think that may be explainable by this communication mechanism?
If a nurse is taking care of only cancer patients, they emit something, whether it's a virus
or some other chemical messenger, that eventually makes the organism of that healthy person
also succumb. It's known that being around sick people is not a good thing, and conversely,
being around healthy young people is beneficial for health.
Yeah, that's been known since ancient China times.
So do you think viruses could be one of those mechanisms? Like a very sick person would
emit these viruses, and initially the nurse taking care of the person, her organism or
his organism would be sort of warned, but if the environment is suboptimal, eventually
that becomes pathological, being around these people who emit warning signals all the time.
Yeah, that's basically my interpretation and why I don't worry about this particular type
of respiratory infection.
Do you surround yourselves with healthy young people, Ray?
I don't know. I would if I did.
Do you still teach at the University of Oregon?
Oh no, not for many, many years.
Because you mentioned you were giving some free courses, and I was wondering, how did
the university allow you to provide a free course? That's socialism.
In that 1968 revolution of the students, they temporarily got student-initiated courses.
If you could get a professor in the department to authorize it, you could find your own teacher
to teach the course, and students that I knew invited me to teach courses in biology, psychology,
anthropology, nutrition, and even one in philosophy. That was permitted for about 15 years, I think.
And then they shut it down.
Any particular reason why you don't teach anymore?
Well, I used to regularly lecture in places like health food stores, would sponsor my
lectures, and I would line up a row down the coast so I could drive between sites. On one
trip, I had contacted someone about publishing my books, who was a distributor to the health
food industry, and they saw what I was saying about unsaturated fats. And on that trip,
all of my scheduled lectures were canceled without explanation. At the health food store
in San Diego, which had a regular deal with a church auditorium for their weekly lectures,
the guy who was in charge of the lectures was fired and unavailable when I got there,
and the people in charge didn't know that I had been scheduled. But all along the way,
there were these mysterious cancellations. So that was the last time I went on my lecture
trips.
Do you think at this point, academia has become so authoritarian, there's basically no point
bothering trying to do anything with them?
When someone went to the dean of the graduate school and wanted me to teach a course on
cell water, the dean said, "But there's no literature on it. You would just be making
it up."
One of my old professors recently got fired for trying to invite Duesberg for speaking
at Georgetown University here in DC. As soon as the dean found out, basically, that person,
even though he was a tenured professor, got kicked out because it was considered that
Duesberg is a quack and no respectable university would want to associate themselves with inviting
that person to even speak.
Not so much related to academia, but Ray, one of my favorite things reading from you
was when you were having the back and forth with Mary Enig, but it might have been somebody
she was working with. They were like, "The only PhD Ray has is in disinformation."
You replied something like, "Where did she learn about my PhD in misinformation? I never
tell anyone."
It cracks me up every time.
I have some questions about the microbiome, if you want to switch more on a health-related
topic.
Remind me, 5G is something I do want to touch on, but go ahead.
I was recently reading an article. It was in a popular press magazine, but basically,
it looks like the story with the microbiome is very similar to the story with the essential
quote-unquote fatty acids. Now, this article came out, which said that whoever told people
that the microbiome in people is obligate, that we really need it, as it turns out, there
is no evidence for that.
When the journalists started digging and interviewing other scientists, the people who were really
studying the issue said, "I don't know why medicine claims that having bacteria in your
colon is a good thing. Having a microbiome in nature is by far the exception rather than
the rule."
Back when many people were healthy, the small intestine was known to be sterile all the
way from the mouth to the cecum, was germ-free. Now, something like 80% or 90% have bacterial
living way up to the duodenum.
You agree with the fact that there's basically no evidence right now showing that even the
colon really needs bacteria. Yes, it will probably get colonized, but in terms of its
effects on health, we're being fear-mongered here that you have to have this bacteria,
otherwise we'll die, our immune system will collapse, etc. There is no evidence for that.
If you look at the literature, nothing exists.
Yeah, did you read Bogomolets? I don't know how you pronounce his name, but he was a follower
of Metchnikoff, and he said that aging is caused by these bacteria, that the shorter
the colon and the quicker the food goes through, so fewer bacteria grow the longer you live.
He gave examples of parrots. Food goes in and comes right out quickly.
So that may be behind the reason why some of the Hollywood elite are experimenting with
total intravenous nutrition as a way of retarding aging. I don't know if you've seen the
articles on that, too. They're starting to transfuse blood from young people, too, which
is probably the more sinister version of it, but they're apparently also looking at not
eating but just injecting themselves with this complete diet that's supposed to be healthy
for them.
Yeah, there's a lot of information on germ-free animals, and they are very healthy for a much
longer time than germ-ridden animals.
Do you think this theory that we need our microbiome and we have to feed it with all
of these pro- and prebiotics, do you think that's more of an example of institutional
stupidity or do you think there's something more sinister here at play that's trying to
keep us sick?
No, I think that's a good case for stupidity. For years, I followed the work of several
well-known biologists, and for decades, I couldn't decide whether they were evil or
just stupid. But then when they died following their own advice, I decided that they were
just stupid.
What is that expression, "Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity"?
Right, right.
You want to talk about 5G?
What is your take on the... I mean, I don't know this for sure, but it seems like 5G towers
are going up during this time. So is 5G something needed for the technocratic slave grid, or
what is your take on it?
Yeah, I think it makes the control messages faster and more powerful and unavoidable,
but at least with that stuff, we can put a screen on the wall between us and the tower
or on the roof and attach it to ground so that we have sort of a Faraday cage around
us and defend ourselves if we stay indoors. Otherwise, we'll have to get tinfoil hats
with a dragging wire.
You told me this a long time ago, but chicken wire can defend against the cell phone towers,
but then you have to get a finer mesh for something like 5G. Is that right?
Right.
Just because I'm sure we'll be asked, what do you think of the idea that 5G is causing
the symptoms of coronavirus?
Every little thing hurts. Everything that is stressing you, using up vitamin A and tending
to lower your blood sugar is making you more susceptible and tending towards an inflammatory
state and it's just that the virus adds to all of the other things you've been exposed
to stressing you. The virus is one more trigger for the shift to inflammation, but endotoxin
from intestinal bacteria is producing exactly the symptoms the virus does and similar to
high altitude brain and lung edema, all of those stressors when you aren't adapting properly.
High altitude, people who are hyperventilating at sea level, hyperventilation becomes more
dangerous at high altitude and the symptoms of hypothyroid hyperventilation overlap with
endotoxin and that overlaps with coronavirus symptoms and so on. All of the diseases end
up with the same cascade of inflammatory reactions and all of the defensive pro-energy anti-inflammatory
things, thyroid, vitamin D, progesterone, calcium, aspirin and losartan for example,
all of these are beneficial against aging, all of the infections, cancer, heart disease,
they're all working to support the system, all of the bad things are working to inflame
and deflate the system.
One thing I think we've kind of covered it, but I just want to beat the point into the
ground, but I think I have trouble and I know other people have trouble understanding the
power elite or whatever you want to call them, how they think about things and something
I did pick up from Jay Dyer who's been going through each of the globalist books. They
write books and they tell you what they want to do and he's just going through them and
reading them and something he said that stood out to me is the scientific priest class,
they think of themselves as like engineers of evolution and they think that because they
have this privileged place and these privileged bloodlines and things that they think they
should steer evolution in a certain direction and so their kind of dysgenic plan to basically
kill everybody or to make everybody really stupid, they see it as a good thing because
they have the ability to do that so they should do that.
Yeah their image of the elite happens to overlap with stupidity. If you look at the most influential
people in our culture, the meritocracy is somewhat of an idiot, idiot-cracy.
Well I have some quotes from John D. Rockefeller from, Ray have you ever heard of the book
Rockefeller Medicine Men by E. Richard Brown?
I don't think so.
It talks about how the AMA and the whole modern medical system was established by the Rockefellers,
like their specialization and things like that. But it has some choice quotes by John
D. and like God gave me money and he thus felt called upon to explain I believe the
power to make money is a gift from God and to be developed and to the best of our ability
for good of mankind I believe it is my duty to make money and still more money and to
use the money I make for the good of my fellow man according to the dictates of my conscience.
And of course we know that to him I guess that meant eugenics and the science of his
day to make the world a better place.
Yeah.
I have a question, do you think Ray, do you think most of these people, the evil ones
that are driven to harm the world, do you think they're driven by sort of like an internal
disturbed psyche because of serotonin, estrogen, etc. Or do you think there's some religious
reason behind it?
A lot of them seem to espouse or worship or practice these weird religious cults, even
though some of them are atheists, but many of them seem to be really religious and dedicated
to their cult.
Do you think there's a religion that specifically enables that or like an offshoot, like a perversion
of a specific religion that does that or do you think it's mostly some people got in a
position of power and decided that they should do it because they can do it?
I think a lot of it is what Wilhelm Reich explained as the effects of childhood harm
coming into the culture and being educated by parents, like Hitler's father was a sadistic
authoritarian.
The mothers and fathers both instill a kind of authoritarian stupidity, elitism, especially
in the elite, the children of the elite get a horrible dose of that kind of destructive
authoritarian upbringing.
So maybe they got damaged in childhood and then they grew up and found a religion that
justifies their behavior.
Right, right, whether it's Satanism or child abuse, it fits a distorted personality.
I've always wondered that.
Do you think these really sick people are shown something that they cannot give up or
is it just like basic primal things like sex slaves and other things and power and they
don't want to give that up because it just seems so – again their psyche is so hard
to grapple with of how insane they are.
Yeah, I think if you think of the organism as having only a certain range of behaviors,
the authoritarian system has its preferred ways of being stupid, violent and cruel and
self-centered.
It goes with a patterning of the endocrine system that makes the brain tend towards verbalism,
rationalism, mechanistic thinking rather than an open, empirical, exploratory attitude towards
everything.
I have a question in regards to that.
In one of your interviews you said that we have to begin and end with being an animal
into this world, right?
I don't know of any animal that behaves in this twisted and capable and is behaving
in this twisted and perverted way as a human.
Do you think that's coming from the fact that humans have a wider range of possible
behaviors compared to animals?
No, I think it's the exploitive culture taking form through language, how language
shapes the way you look at the world and yourself.
It closes off things right from when people start thinking, they start losing their animal
intelligence to the extent that they identify with those authoritarian elements of how the
cultures are set up.
Do you think animals are capable of similar behaviors like humans, sort of like being
atrocious to others?
Not to that extent.
They show damage by being fearful or aggressive, but nothing very close to human authoritarianism.
Like a vicious dog or a fearful dog, their brain can be restored to a great extent along
with their hormones.
So what is the human capacity or human faculty that allows humans to behave in an intentionally
evil way and often even planning these evil things decades ahead?
Is it our higher intelligence?
Yeah, the big cortex that can be so taken over by language and culture.
So basically with capacity for good, there is also capacity for evil.
So it's just the capacity and how you use it depends on your upbringing and the environment.
Yeah, the choice between culture and life.
Culture can be an extension of life and a tool for improving life, but so far cultures
have been heavy in the direction of control and reduction rather than expansion.
Ray, in six months when you're forced to buy the new iPhone and show the grocery person
a QR code that you don't have coronavirus so you can buy milk, what are you going to
do?
Leave, I think.
Do you think?
Where would you go?
Yeah, that won't catch on for a long time in small towns in Latin America.
In one of the articles you said that civilization's best chance of escaping the fascism is somewhere
in Western Latin America.
You didn't specify a country, but do you have one in mind?
It varies with the type of indigenous people that have influenced that region.
There are areas in Mexico where people are just extremely open and humanistic because
of the nature of the original culture.
They're completely overwhelming the sadistic Spanish-imposed culture.
I think there are probably many areas through Latin America where the indigenous population
has won the mind effectively.
In Mexico, it's just a cultural thing that the government and police are totally corrupt.
I didn't meet anybody that didn't know that.
In America, you have to convince somebody that that is the case.
The realism is everywhere in Mexico that no matter where you are, you know that people
have some basic sanity.
You have to be careful in the United States who you're talking to.
You see that, given how quickly things have changed, you don't see ... Do you think you
could even leave in maybe a year or two?
Do you think it will get that draconian, or how do you see it playing out?
You have to know the back roads.
That's good to know.
I have a question about 5G.
I'm sure I already know about Einstein's photoelectric effect.
That's actually what's used to justify the "safety" of most of these technologies.
They're saying, "Well, look, this is non-ionizing radiation."
At this point, even the National Institute of Health has come out with papers of its
own studies saying non-ionizing radiation is clearly carcinogenic.
There's also an effect correlation with the higher frequency.
Even though higher frequency penetrates less deeply into the body, it discharges more of
its energy, similar to the way the cosmic rays affect you differently, depending on
what altitude you're at.
Do you think the higher frequency is worse?
A lot of it functions as an antenna, like vitamin A and carotene function as an antenna
for blue light.
Riboflavin reacts with blue light, so that's toxic and very harmful to the extent that
it gets in your tissue.
The whole idea that only ionization is damaging, that's part of why the membrane theory and
random activity of enzymes, communication, and the cytoplasm as being in ordinary water
dissolved molecules.
If the water is organized and an organizing principle for coherence throughout the cell
and tissue, then that becomes an antenna for sound frequencies, all of the various frequencies
of electromagnetic oscillations.
That's part of the power behind the furious denial of structured water in cells.
It opens up this whole range of interaction with the environment that industry furiously
refuses.
So, the higher the frequency, I'm guessing because it's the shorter the wavelength,
the more opportunity for molecules in the body to act as an antenna to those frequencies?
Yes.
The radio waves are the least likely to interact, but when they get down to the wavelength of
your brain or your gonad, for example, those wavelengths are especially toxic to those
encapsulated organs because the capsule itself captures like an antenna.
That's very interesting and it's actually sort of confirmed by the studies that NIH
published because they saw different cancers in different organs depending on the frequency.
It wasn't a universal cancer effect, it was organ specific.
There's a lot of information on that, but it goes against the dogma that says it's
all random stuff inside the cell.
I was surprised to actually see that study being published by NIH.
I thought that these scientists would probably get fired.
I haven't checked up on them.
They came out last year, but they seem to still be employed.
I don't know why they published it.
I don't know what the meaning is of what they observe until it gets published.
Too late.
It's already on the street.
Something you said in another interview was about how when this all started, who was it?
The Iran people that were running Iran were the first people to get the virus.
I thought that was interesting.
I've only heard one or two other people even talk about that.
Can you repeat it?
Oh, yeah.
The parliament in Iran, several of them died very quickly.
It was centered on the political people in power exactly as germ warfare ideally works.
Do you think a more virulent strain or something like that was released to them or is just
the ACE inhibiting properties enough to kill an unhealthy person?
No, I think they probably had a more effective strain for the Iran elite.
Is there anything to the idea that there isn't a central bank in Iran?
I think North Korea is the other place.
There has been a concentrated effort to invade these places to set up banks.
Yeah, the whole idea of an autonomous government just isn't acceptable.
It's a way out like college.
It was a way out for students to find a place where they could honestly talk to people and
learn.
If you have an autonomous country, they can do things and come up with new ways of living.
Just because I'm an economic idiot, but when a bank is in, they establish a central bank
somewhere and what are they, loaning money to the country and then they're in debt?
Is that how it works?
Yeah.
Everyone has to be in debt to be controllable and it has to be in dollars.
The countries that want to use gold or their own currency, like Libya, was getting away
from the dollar and creating their own currency and gold for exchange.
So they had to be murdered.
Speaking of currencies, not many people know, but even though this is already officially
admitted by the US government, but the reason Iraq was invaded, aside from the fact that
this whole thing with the weapon of mass destruction was a lie, is that Iraq was trying to set
up a separate oil exchange that would trade the oil, not in dollars, but in something
else.
The moment they announced that, within a week, they were invaded.
Similar to how MLK was killed the moment he made poverty the issue and not the race.
The empire is hoping that shaking down the world economy will delay the evasion of the
dollar by the China, Russia, Iran interactions.
That's the big threat to the dollar currently and it's the hope that that will be slowed
down enough that the empire can survive.
Okay.
Thank you so much for everybody in the chat.
Thank you, Georgi.
Thank you, Ray.
How are we doing on time, Ray?
Are you good?
I'm just about ready to...
Okay.
I'm going to let you go.
Let me read the super chats real quickly.
These are not questions.
They're just people that are grateful.
John Knight for $10, showing support.
Thanks, Danny.
Jean-Philippe Groulx-Kinzine for $20.99, Canadian, I think.
Helena, $20 Australian, thank you so much.
Primitive Initiative, $4.99.
I'm not reading these messages.
Jean says, "Thank you, Ray, for all of your knowledge."
Helena says, "I am internally grateful to Dr. Peat, Danny, and Georgi for the wealth
of information you share to keep us informed with what is really going on in the health
system.
Thank you."
Primitive Initiative for $4.99 says, "Thank you, Ray, Danny, and Georgi for putting all
of this crucial information out there.
Let's hope the corrupt fall by their own hands.
Amen."
Primitive Initiative for another $9.99, just because.
Thank you, Primitive Initiative.
Pure Therapy for $19.99.
I would love to meet you guys and shake your hands personally and express my gratitude.
You changed my life.
Thank you, Pure Therapy.
Kate Dearing for $50.
Thank you so much, Kate.
She says, "I am super excited to finally listen live.
Thank you, Ray, Georgi, and Danny for your time and efforts."
Thank you, Kate.
Matthew Riley for $10 says, "Thank you for everything.
It's been truly life-changing."
Marshall, I'm going to butcher your last name, Gukina, for $50.
Wow.
"I raise my bowl of ice cream to your health, guys."
Thank you so much, Marshall.
Jacob P. for $10.
Thank you, Ray, Georgi, and Roddy.
Been here since 2015.
Glad to find people who are inspired to share their findings.
Thank you, Jacob.
Lisa Biskup for $19.99.
Thank you all for your valuable discussion and continued efforts.
I am always happy to listen to what you three come up with.
Thank you, Lisa.
Janet Pack for $50.
Wow.
Thank you for making the time to host this chat.
Much gratitude and appreciation for sharing so much knowledge and helping us learn what
we can do in times like these.
My sister and I send huge amounts of thanks.
Thank you, Janet.
Harry Burgos for $25.
Very informative and enlightening discussion per usual.
Thank you for your contributions.
Thank you, Harry.
Maria Isabel for $9.99 says, "Thank you for having Dr. Peat on."
Thank you, Dr. Peat, for being on the show.
Thank you, Maria.
Belove for $15 says, "What an honor to learn from you.
Witnessing truly creative, anti-authoritarian, rational, and complex thinking has brought
freedom and healing to my life.
God bless."
Thank you, Belove, for that.
Okay.
So, in click, we have 176 people listening at the moment, and I'm sure a lot more later.
Kind of in closing, Ray, I mean, what are your thoughts on the future?
Like, I know this whole chat has been kind of how grim things are, but what are your
thoughts going forward?
I think people are reaching a point where they're going to decide they have to choose
life and changing the system.
What do you see that looking like?
Oh, basically, you can't tell, but if people start interacting and actually realizing that
it's a desperate choice that has to be made, intelligence is the nature of life, and I
think intelligence will come to the surface in the process, and everyone who has knowledge
of possibilities is just there to support the process of making decisions, but without
knowing what it's going to look like.
I'm optimistic without having any idea of what's to come.
And Georgi, closing words?
In one of his interviews, Dr. Peat said that he would like to see nutrition raised to the
respect level of astrophysics.
I think that's actually starting to happen right now, mostly by coercion, simply because
people will be forced to start taking matters nutritionally into their own hands, simply
because the food chain will collapse, if you can even call it providing food or whatnot,
but that's the positive side that I'm seeing.
People start worrying more about nutrition and its quality and less about exactly what
kind of car they drive and what company they work for, if that company even exists in the
next few months.
I'll call it there, guys.
Thank you so much.
Ray, stay on the line.
We'll just keep you for a minute or two.
Georgi, thank you so much.
Ray, again, thank you, thank you, thank you.
Sincerely appreciate it.
Being flexible with the timing and things, it was a true pleasure to have you on again.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, everybody in the chat.
Thank you, everybody who donated.
I will forward those to Ray.
Ray, you got the donation last time, correct?
Right.
Thank you.
I just want to confirm.
Thank you, guys, everybody.
Sincerely appreciate it.
I have an amazing audience.
Please like this episode because YouTube will do absolutely nothing to promote it and it
will probably actively hide it.
Guys, thank you so much.
Again, amazing.
Very happy.
Take care, everyone.
[MUSIC]