All Episodes
Previous Next
April 4, 2021 - Clif High
01:15:01
Woo Man Chew - 2021.4.4 ***BE ADVISED - The Whatsapp spammer is back. Do not respond to comments.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good stuff.
Okay.
Still cold around here, so I've still got the heat running.
So this is Wu Man Chu.
So Wu Man has been chewing on some things, gnawing on universe, twisting out information.
Got to reveal a method, reveal some names, or disclose a method, reveal some names, and abuse some personalities and come to some conclusions and decisions here.
So I had a talk.
Okay, so I made the video about the end of Wu and the previous two, and Bix Weir apparently watched one of them.
And Bix had said in an interview, I think it was with Jean-Claude, that he was of the opinion that it's like, eh, UFOs, eh, you know, we've known about them, we don't care about them, it's not going to be a big deal when the U.S. government comes out and does this reveal of stuff in June.
And, you know, I was sort of shocked because I thought my view here of it being a rather disconcerting event would have been pretty generally accepted.
In spite of the fact that the powers that be and the media have been playing down UFOs and all that kind of stuff and ridiculing them for 80 years here, nonetheless, there is still a certain level of emotional tension.
And around that emotional tension, I thought was so key, or that it was so key to so many areas within our social order, that if that emotional tension were to be disturbed, then it would disturb the social order in a much greater area, a much greater range, and a much greater depth, much greater magnitude than Bix did, obviously.
And so it's like, okay, I wanted to validate this.
I was thinking, all right, maybe I'm wrong.
You know, maybe, because I'm old, I'm disconnected.
You know, I'm not connected to these younger generations.
So I'm not aware, other than through sampling, software sampling and language analysis and so on, I don't have a lot of personal contact in order to get a broad enough view of younger generations' general opinions, right?
So I thought, okay, maybe I'm wrong on this.
Maybe these millennials and other generations are not going to be impacted the way that I personally would, and I think people from my generation will.
As we finally get through this barrier that's been in front of our lives all of our lives, right?
And that we've had to live with this barrier of this knowledge we weren't supposed to have.
And it's only been recently, like in the last 20 plus years, that there's been a general discussion in the mainstream or in the main body of society, not the mainstream media per se, but within the movies certainly, but within society where we've been discussing the idea that there was a barrier to knowledge.
Before, the barrier to knowledge had simply been denied.
Oh, no, no, you're full of it.
No such thing as UFOs, you're crazy.
Now we get to the point where we realize that, well, that whole thing, that whole 40 plus, 50 plus years of concerted effort was concerted effort to delude the population.
And so this brings up certain resentments and issues with people that lived through it.
But I was thinking maybe not for those people that didn't live through it as long as I have.
And so I decided to do some testing and stuff.
So here's the disclosure of method.
And now, as I discussed in Wu Mind, it's appropriate.
There's a method in the madness.
There's a methodology, an ability to study the method and then apply corrections to the method in order to come to correct conclusions within WuMind in terms of how you think, right?
You see the first few outlying bits of data, a tentative conclusion forms, and you let it percolate towards a hypothesis, which is a more structured view of the whole thing you saw placed into the whole matrix of our reality.
And you let it work towards that hypothesis on its own, but you start making tentative conclusions that it's going to be there, that it will make it to a hypothesis, and you start reacting to it.
Although you keep a mind, keep open mind, keep not open mind, but beginner's mind, right?
And so that you're prepared to throw it away as soon as you find something that disqualifies the conclusion at a base enough level, at a fundamental enough level, that you're sure it's not some ancillary misunderstanding of it, right?
Because some of these conclusions get very complex, very deep.
And so you can think yourself wrong many times in this process and then ultimately be proved that your original conclusion was correct.
So I saw the Chinese government people reacting.
I saw one report.
And this is the outlier way of making conclusions, right?
So I saw this was in October of 19.
I saw one report on this is on the Chinese deep web.
Terrible place.
It doesn't exist for Westerners.
You can't get there anymore.
They shut it off in the last day of March in 2020 and put it through two mainframes.
And you have to, all of our IPs are scrubbed.
You can't get through it unless you're within their social order.
Anyway, so I see one outlier on the Chinese deep web and I think this is really odd.
Let's pay attention to that.
That's a check mark there.
Then I see two or three or four.
It's like, okay, something's going on.
And so over here in my decision columns column, I start thinking, all right, there's something to pay attention here.
And then I sort of started forming a tentative conclusion just seeing the mass at that level.
That A, whatever it was, was freaking out the CCP, that it was causing blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Ultimately, we get massive amount of evidence that we now know to be this particular problem.
And I was accurate back then and was prepared many times to think I was wrong and was repeatedly wrong in the information coming out from China because it was very much more deadly for the Chinese than for us.
I wouldn't have freaked out so much if so many Chinese had not died so early because the Chinese died because they're vitamin D deficient to a huge level and sun avoiders culturally.
And so I did not have this information to the extent that I needed it at the time that I first got these indications.
And so I was understandably alarmed that this bioweapon that had leaked out of the you know and had affected this, us, the species, would be a real issue, right, for me.
I didn't realize it was weak against vitamin D. But it's appropriate in Wu like that to make a conclusion in a small number of things.
If your mind jumps to that conclusion, there's sometimes, because our minds become really good at making patterns out of specific things the more we focus on them, that in fact that's what we call training or college, right?
They teach you to focus your mind, theoretically.
They used to, anyway, and you could sharpen your analytical skills and your pattern making skills and your pattern matching skills, and you would focus them in on a particular discipline or area of interest.
I don't have a particular discipline or area of interest.
I like lots of stuff.
So anyway, so I was looking at this stuff and I formed a conclusion and then I was prepared to dump it, discovered I was wrong in many aspects of it, but correct about the initial conclusions.
And then we arrive at this end result where I'm not been affected by it.
No one that has understood the protocol and stuff I put out has been affected by it.
My relatives are safe.
Some of them are idiots and they're taking the response because they've been socially sold into it, even though they're 100% safe and immune because they're gulping the vitamin D. But nonetheless, so this was a validation of this method of Wu mind, if you will.
Now, one of the things I apply this Wu mind to is indications like Bix's response to my suggestion that we're going to go through some terrible overwooing.
He doesn't think it's going to be that bad.
And so I wanted to validate, was I correct or was I missing something that Bix has picked up on?
And probably both could be true.
I could be correct in the main and still miss lots of stuff that Bix has picked up on.
That shit happens all the time.
Anyway, though, so I decided to, and this is where I do my disclosure of method, I decided to do some sampling, okay, to do some tests.
And my contention is that the fracturing, the first big visible sign of overwoo will be seen within what we think of as our academic institutions and not so much into government, okay?
So in other words, we're talking about a situation here where in June the government's going to release UFO information.
They're already doing it.
DNI Radcliffe is releasing information saying, boy, we've got some spiffy stuff.
We've got stuff coming from the U.S. Navy about these drones, which may or may not be tic-tac-shaped or controlled that way, but it's all classified and so on.
And then there's the ones before that, the big tic-tac drones, the 40-footers, what I think of as the floating RVs, because that's just about the size of a 40-foot diesel pusher.
So maybe that's what it is, is somebody from someplace coming here in their RV saying, okay, hey guys, I need to dump this waste tank.
Where do I hook up?
Anyway, so I'm curious about this.
What's going to happen when the government officially announces that there are UFOs and that we can't do anything about them.
They're superior to us and we don't know where they're coming from.
And they're not natural phenomena on the order of, you know, lightning bugs or butterflies or something, right?
They're not a life form that we deal with that way, that they're actually hard, material, you know, and they cause our energetic systems, radar, et cetera, to pick them up.
And so we've got a real issue here is basically what the government's going to say.
Okay, now government's going to get a big relief out of this, a huge relief, and it's going to save us tons of money the minute that they do this, all right?
So the tons of money comes because they're not going to have to support the secrecy to the level that they used to anymore.
And that's expensive stuff.
So a lot of that will go away, just as an aside.
But I was worried about the impact.
I'm still concerned about the impact on the social order because of many different reasons.
But I was under the impression that, or I had come to the conclusion that our academic institutions, the colleges, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, that are being the focal or are being the ultimate source for mainstream media and are being promoted,
pimped, and promulgated as ultimate sources would be the ones that are going to cause or not cause a large-scale or widespread reaction to UFO information.
Okay, so follow along on this.
The media has been for years having to validate all of their wild ass shit that they poke out there, like CNN saying, you know, you can't determine the sex of a child at birth.
Anyway, so they, you know, and how do they back it up?
They back it up with wild ass people that are academics that later on go into government, like our new Secretary of Health, whatever his name is, right?
Man, and that is a guy who's got to clean up his act because he's looking really terrible.
Anyway, though, so all these people are academics.
The media tries to sell us some line of bullshit, and they point back to the academics and say, okay, the academics, they find someone, they've got a big cadre of them, they pay them money, there's this symbiotic relationship with them.
The academics like getting the publicity, they like the whole fame aspect of it, and they spew off stuff that supports whatever weird ass narrative that the agenda needs to sell at that moment through the media.
And that's basically the way our system works.
Only I say our system's going to break down because here's what's going to happen in my supposition, that the UFO information is going to be released and academia is going to just fracture.
They're just going to freak out on all these different levels.
And that freaking out itself will be the reaction that the mainstream media is going to bounce back and put back to us.
They will not be able to disguise the freak out aspects of it in the language of the academics that will be reacting to something that is going to destroy their whole paradigm.
Okay, their whole structural paradigm of their reality is going to be gone.
And so mainstream media is going to reflect back to us academia's discord, discordant, disruptive thinking, okay?
Their reactive mind.
So when this occurs, we're going to get conflicting messages all the hell on.
That's conflicting messages and the reactive mind mindset coming out of the academia is going to promulgate through society causing the effects that I had said that would occur.
Okay, so that's the premise.
So in order to test this, I set about and over the course of many days, worked out a This is disclosure of the method.
I worked out a linguistic test.
I chose to use a linguistic test in a particular way after talking with David Morgan.
I had asked him about his impression of, you know, was Bix right or was I right?
And he's my age, so he's in my generation, so he sees it my way.
And we share that same generational concept as to what may or probably will occur as a result of the space alien reveal.
Anyway, so I write out this linguistic test, and I'm going to test academics to see how they're going to respond, right?
Because I know that we're not going to get a situation of – we will at some point get the media, the mainstream media, going to government and wanting some kind of validation from government about all of this, right?
And I think they'll probably go to military to try and reassure us all, and the military will want to put out a reassuring message as they put this thing forward.
So we'll be faced with probably military and then academics long before you get politicals up there, because the politicals won't want to say anything to piss off anybody.
They'll be starting to react on their own.
They're going to have their own visceral responses, visceral responses, and they're going to come in and say, and so many of them won't want to say anything.
There'll be the grandstanders, right?
The guys that are going to jump up and down and want to make a big splash right off.
And we can dismiss them because they'll go away in a few days.
And so as this media plays out, as the media circus plays out here, we'll be left with a running tale, a running narrative formation, crafting, that we'll be able to watch through the language that they'll be putting out through the mainstream media about the information that the government has released or has leaked out, et cetera, et cetera, right?
And within that information, the vast majority of the structure of the narrative will come from academia.
Military will be over here saying, be reassured, we're going to do every fucking thing we can, but there's nothing we can do.
You know, there's much they can do about it, right?
But they're going to do what they can, and they're there for us.
And that's good.
I mean, this is the good reassuring message we need to get out.
But the academics are going to be the ones that will be putting out the structure and trying to build the whole mind matrix in which we can insert this information and not go batshit crazy.
And so I wanted to know how are the academics going to react?
And so I figured out a way to test my premise.
Now, it is admittedly testing on a very, very, very small scale.
And I'm testing here, but I'm also testing in Russia.
This comes into it because I know a lot of people.
And we'll go into the Russian aspect if I've got enough time.
Let me just run through how I did this one.
So I structured it this way.
My targets were Heather Haying and Brett Weinstein, or Weinstein.
I'm not sure how he pronounces.
Who are academics.
Now they're very unique academics, so they're way outliers.
But that's what I wanted.
I wanted the outlier academics.
Those academics that were solidly academics, which these two were, tenured, college professors, that got into a big kerfuffle in Evergreen State College fighting Antifa, going batshit with wokeyism, running around trying to kill them with baseball bats and shit.
About the same time Antifa was trying to kill my dogs with baseball bats when I was walking them on campus there.
And anyway, Brett and Heather ended up with that result of relocating and ripping themselves out of the tenured part of academia.
So this is really good because it's difficult for people on the outside to get access at an honest level to tenured academics.
But that's what I wanted, right?
I didn't want any woo-woo guys.
We know how they're going to react.
They're going to be jumping up and down, you know, hooray, hooray, let's get it or whatever, right?
Or, you know, anyway, they're going to react in their own ways.
But anyway, so I wanted some tenured academics, even though they're not tenured anymore.
And they're very accessible because they've got this podcast where they discuss evolution, right?
So these are two evolutionary biologists.
And so you can play this sample game, which is what I was doing.
I was sampling their reaction.
Now, so in this sense, this is like unauthorized live human testing, right?
And now I paid them because it was done through a super chat.
And you can see this.
It was done yesterday on Saturday.
Go to the one, the Q ⁇ A where they answer all the questions.
It's about maybe 15 minutes or so into it.
It was a question from that day.
It's the very first one.
And the question starts off with the U.S. Navy is releasing UFO info.
And then it goes on to say, you'll hear it if you wanted to go and look at it.
But I go on to say that the mere presence of UFOs opens up the possibility or opens up evolution as it's applied to humans to question.
And I didn't go into anything.
This is like four lines.
It's expensive to do a super chat and put a lot of words in there.
But so I said that, and then I said that there's recent climate studies have stated that there's never been a time in Earth's history of long enough duration that was clement enough for proto-humans to have lived without technology of clothing, fire, and shelter.
Okay, that's my conclusion.
I've looked at the climate studies.
I can go into those.
This is where the Russian aspect comes in.
And there's this, but in any event, so I put that up there.
And then I said, are we escapees from the lab or are we abandoned?
And so instantly, I mean, instantly, I wasn't prepared for that kind of a reaction.
And this is why I later sent email to people saying, you know, the results were not as favorable as I might have thought.
Because the instant reaction was that, A, that was bullshit, there was climate, that climate studies showed there was never a place in time long enough on Earth for humans to have evolved.
And I don't know that Heather really thinks about this, right, in terms of I didn't, I don't know if she thought about it or if she was reacting from some inculcated knowledge base.
And so, but it doesn't matter.
The instant visceral response was bullshit, and then she goes on to tear down the arguments, and we're not engineered by space aliens.
I presume.
I had to rush out of the house because of the issues with the bear and the stuff here while that was going on.
But I did hear her say about the bullshit and so on.
And that's all I wanted, was that instant visceral response.
I wanted to know, and I invalidated it, okay, because she's not in my generation, right?
They're not in my generation.
They're down there with Bix and probably most of you guys.
And they're your instructors for most of you guys, right?
In terms of they would be your college professors.
And the reaction was instant.
It was visceral.
That is to say it came from her gut.
That means it's extremely powerful and it's deeply inculcated.
And it was not merely dismissive.
It was extremely antagonistic.
You could see this in her face and how the muscles moved and so on.
As a martial artist, I've spent a lot of time looking at people's faces very closely in contention.
So many people wouldn't recognize this, but if you do 30 or 40 or 50 years of martial arts, as I have, I started when I was 11.
I'm 67 now.
You have much contact with many, many, many people at a level that a non-martial artist will never achieve.
All right, this is because martial arts are very intimate because you're fighting someone.
You're face to face.
You're in their face, right?
So you get to the point where you learn to read people at levels that non-martial artists will never, ever, ever achieve.
You can have a good detective and a good detective can see all kinds of things, but a martial artist will catch much more stuff because they are intimately involved in what is a very intimate, in fact it's probably as primal an intimacy as you can get next to sex.
That is contention, that is fighting at the level that martial artists do.
And so my reading of her face was, okay, boy, we got problems.
I love her.
You know, she's just great.
I love Heather, right?
I piss her off all the time.
It's just my annoying personality.
All right, so I annoy people, and I know it as a schizophrenic.
I have a tendency to approach life in a specific way that most people, even the more advanced normies like Heather and Brett, won't appreciate.
They just don't grasp.
And so there's a point of not, there's sort of a collision.
It can easily turn into collision, but when I interact with such people, there's usually a non-understanding barrier that causes miscommunications and so on.
So this method of sampling was just perfect because I was not involved.
Yeah, they know my name and stuff, but that's not really an issue.
She reacted.
She had to react because of the super chat aspect of it, and that's all I wanted.
So my thinking was that this indeed will be a big deal as this information is going to come on out because it's going to corrode the mental constructs of all of the academics and will alter all of academia forever.
And the first generation that will have to deal with this is not going to do well with it.
They're going to have their own body level reactions continuously and it's just going to be very ugly.
Here's the issue.
Okay, so academics support the mainstream paradigm.
The academics have a tendency all through history, it's sort of a racket.
Academia gets to the point where they tenure a professor, which theoretically gives them the freedom to pursue things that are outside the bounds of normal thinking and gives us, and supposedly the idea is that tenure causes a situation that incentivizes innovation.
Problem is, by the time most professors get tenure, their minds are no longer in flexible mind state.
They're more into crystallized knowledge.
So they're good at teaching, but they're not really necessarily good at original thinking at that level.
Most inventions are made by young people, where the mind is capable of leaps that the older people just don't do.
So anyway, so tenure produces, in my opinion, a loss of innate inherent curiosity at this deep level that drives you to become an achiever continuously, right?
And so you're older and you're not doing the kind of things you used to do in your youth where you made the great breakthroughs and so on.
And we see this, and then you just become, as a tenured professor, you just spend the rest of your life, in my opinion, rest of your academic career, fighting to defend your insights that got you that tenure to begin with.
You don't do anything that's going to risk your own insights, right?
And that's usually the area where you would find yourself to have been wrong in the past.
So you're not going to apply woo mind to your own career in the process of being an academic.
So this presents us with an issue.
Because mainstream media relies on people with a rigid mindset, we get a very, and this is what mainstream media wants.
We, populace, get a rigid structure for the matrix of our social order.
And this is what government wants.
This is what the leaders, the controllers, the managers all want, powers that be, and so on.
It doesn't do them any good for us to be in chaos all the time.
Anyway, so here's the thing.
I've known lots of academics.
Okay, I've gone to a lot of colleges, never consistently, never for more than a little bit of time.
So I'd go and take programming courses at colleges in Europe when I was there, or colleges in Seattle.
Take a programming course in prologue and artificial intelligence or go take this other course.
So I was sort of a drop-in pain-in-the-ass guy because I'd want to go and see what these people knew.
I stopped that and then learned fairly rapidly that it's easier to just get the books and read them than to mess with the personalities themselves because you're not going to get the straight stuff from the personalities under those circumstances.
You might if you got them out and had a few beers with them and so on, but I didn't have the chance nor the time to develop that kind of a relationship with them.
Anyway, so I know how academic mind works because I've read a lot of their stuff.
And I also read Wu, so I know how Wu works and the understanding there.
But it's my contention that future archaeologists, if they came here to Earth after all of us guys are dead and our civilizations are all destroyed and there's nothing here the way it is on Mars, and there's just remnants, you know, just debris and then junk and piles and ruins and skeletons and statues and that sort of thing.
If future archaeologists come back here and sample Earth, they're going to find a really interesting thing, which goes right to these two academics, Brett and Heather, because they're biologists and they deal in this subject.
And this, let's just say that we've got, this is phyology.
This is a method of thinking about what they call clades, okay?
This is just a way of diagramming it.
And so if this is going to be really crude, but this is a truism in a pattern matching, as I was saying earlier, relative to Wu mind.
If you go through and you look at the clade diagrams, they will show that, you know, there's a branching point, right?
Where, let's say, this was going to be dogs.
Okay, so this is the tree of dogs.
And we start with the ancestor way the hell up there, right?
And so this is something that maybe looks like a little shrimpy coyote or something.
I don't know.
It doesn't matter.
That's not to the point of it.
But as we go through time, the way that evolutionary biologists think about this is that we advance the clades, okay?
That clades, that's C-L-A-D-E-S, I think.
Clades.
Anyway, that's a grouping of related trees here, right?
So each one of these can go and branch off and become its own tree and have a split there and a split there.
I'm drawing it very badly, and they're going to get pissed at me for drawing it badly.
But I don't deal in this chart very much.
But here's the point of it.
We see in nature, in fact, with this perfect example, because we see in nature all of these other branches of that particular root right there, and then all of a sudden, nothing, and then we get this right here.
Only this guy right here has variants like that.
Okay, it's got so many variants, we can't keep track of it.
This thing right here, all of a sudden, from one branch to another, learned to get into every species on the planet.
That does not happen outside of a controlled environment like I've got here in my office.
It doesn't happen unless you're talking about an escapee.
So all of a sudden, the branching becomes wild when you intrude.
So humans have intruded on dogs.
Whatever the hell the dog lineage was, up until the point that humans got involved, it was a regular step-by-step-by-step progression, right?
The tails grow longer or the snout grows longer or whatever, right?
All of a sudden, you get humans capturing dogs as puppies and breeding from that point on.
And you get chihuahuas, you get great Danes, you get a branching that throws that whole chart out of whack.
And what was it?
It was the introduction of humans into the evolution of dogs.
And they say, well, you can't talk about that that way because humans bred the dogs.
It was designed.
It was not selection of the fittest.
It was not rise of the most advantageous species attributes.
It wasn't any of these other things in this language that they talk about that says that what they say is the cause of this progress down towards bigger and better dogs that ultimately end up with both the chihuahua and a great dane and everything in between, right?
But the aberration occurs at a specific point and a future archaeologist would see that point in the bone record of dogs and say, basically, what the fuck?
If they were of a mind of evolution, then they would have to, at that point, if they were smart, they would say, aha, intrusion happened here in this part of the phyology of this lineage of this animal, right?
And then they go through and they check other animals.
Wow, look, it happened to horses.
It happened to cows.
It happened to pigs.
It happened to chickens.
Hmm.
It also happened to humans.
My God, look at that.
So what was it that did that to all of these different species?
Because humans also show this, right?
Yeah, we do.
And there's the thing.
We show something that occurs like this in the lineage of humans, where all of a sudden we branch out into the clade becomes massive relative to the previous step on the clade, and there's no definitive explanation.
And it looks a whole lot like the massive expansion of a clade as a result of monkeying about in sterile conditions with glassware, right?
So I've always contended that at some point you cannot apply evolution to the human species.
And that point comes down to where the clades expand into all of us guys with all of our diversity.
And we're talking about a great deal of diversity, right?
And I won't go into the details.
I've argued that repeatedly with the biologists, and most of them don't get it.
But also, Heather reacted in such a way that I see that where she is on this idea of evolution being can it or can it not be applied to humans and that is and this is where we get down this is where the metal meets the um or the pedal meets the the metal here in our particular talk right at the moment because this is going to have to be brought up relative to humans and we're going to have to put this
in there.
Aliens.
Okay, and the reason we're going to have to do this is because the government is going to bring up the UFOs and admit to them.
That alone, the mere fact that they are admitting to the UFOs breaks open this academic understanding.
And it allows someone to legitimately say you cannot exclude aliens as a cause of the expansion of the clades of humans at this particular point.
There's other stuff there, right?
She was reacting to the Russian, I think.
She said it was bullshit that there were no such studies.
Well, she may not understand Perusky and may not read it.
I didn't even read it in Russian.
I happen to know a Russian who's a climatologist that's been involved in this little brouhaha, okay?
And so there are, I've got salt crystals.
I was down on the beach and it crystallizes on your face.
Okay, so there are some, this woman I know, I went to school with way back when.
She's an old woman like I'm old.
And she's a climatologist in Russia.
And she was asked by a friend of a relative or a grandson or something.
And she got involved in this project because some kid somewhere wanted to know when was it that humans evolved from proto-humans to humans.
Even though there's no missing link, just like we don't have, you know, there's, we can't find the missing link for this right here, jumping from one species to being able to go into all the species on Earth, right?
Without any understanding of how to do that.
He was trained to do that.
So anyway, so they were, they were asking, these kids were asking these academics in Russia, when was the period on Earth when humans evolved to modern hominids?
And they give a particular date.
And they say, okay, fine.
And they run off and they do some research and stuff.
And then that was when the problem started, is my understanding.
Now bear in mind, they're telling me this in broken English and broken Russian, and my Russian is very bad, especially with verbs of motion.
And so my understanding is not complete, right?
But I got the gist of it.
And the gist of it is that the kids went off and did some research and came back and said, well, that doesn't work.
That date you gave us doesn't work when you match it up with climate studies.
These kids are into the pollution of mind pollution that global warming is, I don't know if they were investigating it, I don't know if they believed it, but they were discussing it from that viewpoint, right?
And so they're saying, if you go back to the point where biologists say humans evolved.
Now bear in mind, here's what it takes for a clade to evolve naturally.
It takes all of this, right?
And you don't have anybody monkeying about with you.
And so we're taking the UFOs out of the picture, going back to this kid's question.
And this right here was supposedly millions of years, alright, in order for evolution.
you know, the advancement of genetics and all that kind of stuff to happen to humans.
And then they started thinking about it, and out of that came a formula.
And I agree with the formula, I've experimented with it myself for human evolution would require millions of years for generations.
And I say the generations would have to be 26 years in length, right?
Because that allows a 13-year-old woman, you know, proto-human, to give birth and then raise another generation to that same level.
So a total generational length is 26 years for our proto-human.
And as far as nature is concerned, the mother could die off at age 26, which we found is frequent all the way into even most recently into ancient Egypt.
You know, some 80, well, 90% of the people had massive mineral deficiencies and all kinds of nutritional deficiencies, and they all died young.
And it was thought that 80% of the males died between 26 and 28 years old in what we think of as pharaoh Egyptian society.
There were, of course, long-lived Egyptians, but the plebes or the great unwashed, the masses, the workers, did not live very long.
Now, proto-humans would have a generational period of 26 years.
And if you do the sort of do the math, you still come up with, even in my way of thinking, you would need hundreds of thousands of years to do this, to do the multiple clade expansion into our modern humans, even if you were doing it under sterile conditions with lab stuff.
Maybe they can do it, you know, huge jumps in only one or two generations.
But nonetheless, the standard model doesn't exist, okay, or can't exist.
No matter what point in time you pick for the origin of modern humans, and that's us originating here.
That period right there, there is no period of time in all of human history or all of Earth's history, all the way back.
There's no point in time that climatologists can point to where we would find a world in which humans could live without clothing or shelter, even as proto-humans.
Okay, so yes, there's chimpanzees that don't need clothing.
They've got a different body entirely, but they're not us.
There's no proto-human that's ever been shown as a proto-human.
We've never found any human that lived without clothing or shelter or fire.
It is not possible now on Earth to find any climate in which you can do so for a human life of 26 years in order to be able to breed, reproduce, and get this clade expansion effect over time of genetics, okay, because you need the time involved, which may be millions of years, of multiple generations of 26 years in order for the genes to sort it all out and advance you, even if you're doing it on a rapid cycle 26 years.
You start talking about long-lived modern humans.
If that were the case, 72 to 80 years, right, they finish us off, and we'd still be potentially able to procreate and so on at that age.
But nonetheless, so you would have to have a period of time where this would have to occur, where you would have to have basically conditions where it never got less than 60, let's just say 63 degrees Fahrenheit, okay?
Because the human body, and presumably a proto-human that was in development, but the human body goes into hypothermia at 35 degrees centigrade.
It's like 95 degrees Fahrenheit.
Okay, so if your body drops down consistently below 95 degrees Fahrenheit in its core, you will die of hypothermia, even if that hypothermic exposure is not consistent.
So in other words, if you go into a hypothermic shock for just a little bit of time, each and every night for a week, you will die at the end of that week.
Your body will not be able to recover after that seventh day.
This would happen to anybody that was running around without clothes, without shelter, without the ability to provide exothermic support, heat from the outside.
So you have to have technology for humans.
We have to have clothing, shelter, and fire.
Not just for our modern cold world, but even in the ancient past, even in the ancient, very warm periods here on Earth, much warmer than we've experienced here in modern times.
Even in the way in the past, there has never been a time when you would go 26 years without encountering conditions that would have killed you from hypothermia in that 26 years.
Then there's other issues, okay?
Humans need fire to eat.
So, oh, also, also, let me contribute to this.
So we need exothermic support, so we need fire for that.
But another thing here is, and that's fire is technology, that if you get wet here, the temperature is 63, you can go into hypothermia five or six degrees warmer than that in 68 or so, because you're wet and the evaporation causes the hypothermic reaction, right?
So you need shelter.
So we need the technology of fire and shelter just to get through the night, let alone get through millions of years to evolve into who we are.
And are we as proto-humans going to invent shelter?
Are we going to invent fire?
Are we going to invent clothing, which is, you know, portable shelter?
Well, in nature, we don't see chimpanzees monkeying about with fire, right?
They're not messing about with it.
They avoid it usually because usually one or more of them will become burned at some point and they don't want to mess with it because fire occurs in nature.
So there's an unlikely set of circumstances that would provide a period of time where there's millions of years without us going into hypothermia over a course of a single week and killing off the whole tribe of proto-humans who are just lying there on the beach all naked and stuff, right?
Even if you sun your balls all day long, you're still going to fucking freeze at night if that temperature drops down 63 degrees or lower.
And even today in equatorial regions, around the equator, you will get conditions with rain that can produce hypothermia.
And we see this in that TV show, Naked and Afraid, where they send these people to far distant equatorial bug-ridden places and they try and survive and they have a miserable time of it.
And these guys are prepared.
They got tools.
They know fire.
They know how to make clothes.
They don't have to invent it.
And look how difficult it is for them.
So to have this occur is not, I mean, that kind of happenstance is very unlikely to produce us in this particular planet.
Now, I've got other issues with evolutionary biology because there's a point within the clades of all beings where vertebrates show up.
And 85% of the life mass on this planet are not vertebrates.
And vertebrates are themselves sliced into three distinct groups based around the vagus nervous system in my particular taxonomy.
And those seem to exactly show monkeying about in a sterile environment with glassware and petri dishes and shit in order for these things to be achieved.
But that's an aside.
Continuing on this about the issue of fire.
Humans need fire to eat.
Most plants on Earth are not digestible by us.
In that sense, we're not native.
We can't live in this environment without our technology.
And our technology at the bare minimum includes warm clothing, enough sufficient clothing to keep you warm in the coldest nights you're going to encounter.
And it's going to require shelter to keep you dry.
And then you're going to require fire.
Not for the exothermic, because you can get that.
You could get that warm in the sun.
You could get calories from food and not need fire to sustain your body temperature.
But you would need clothing in all of Earth now, and even in the past in very warm periods where you didn't, where the daytime temperature was clement enough that you wouldn't need clothing.
You could walk around as a nudist.
The nighttime temperatures are entirely different.
And even daytime temperatures when wet and stormy conditions exist would be different.
Plus, there's other reasons for clothing.
We're not UV hardened.
We get burned by the sun.
This causes all kinds of diseases in conditions that are not good.
It can destroy our eyes.
So we're not UV hardened the way animals are.
We don't have the reflective retina parts like dogs.
We don't have built-in night vision.
So we don't have a lot of the stuff that we find in the other vertebrates that are here.
And so this, again, points to my contention that our clade expansion was due to the UFOs, right?
and that they monkeyinged about with us and created this form for their purposes.
Fire.
Okay, so fire is necessary for eating as well because in order to digest those few plants that we can eat, we must do something to them.
We must cook them, whether it's by fire or by chemicals.
So like you could not digest beans raw.
you know, a raw kidney bean or, you know, lima bean.
Try making a diet out of those.
Those have to be processed.
They have to be extensively processed to the various different ways to do it, but ultimately heat will be involved just to make them palatable.
But this is the way it is with almost all of the plants.
So we're not native plant munchers.
And you're in a vegetarian diet is absurd on this planet for us people because we were engineered and placed here.
We didn't evolve here, in my opinion.
Now, animal flesh we can eat, right?
But we cannot eat and digest raw animal flesh consistently long.
All right?
So I could shoot a deer as a, or I could kill a deer as a hunter, right?
There's also another technology.
We have to have technology to get our food.
So other predators on this planet, all the other animals on this planet, all the other vertebrates on this planet that are predators don't need technology to go get their food.
We do.
We can't outrun our food.
We have to learn to throw stuff.
We have to shoot arrows.
We have to invent the bow.
We have to invent guns, traps, all of this kind of stuff because we don't have, we're not equipped with nails.
We can't run real fast and catch them and jump on them and kill them with our big fangs, that kind of thing, right?
So we need technology there.
Yet again, pointing to our friendly space buddies.
Anyway, though, so fire is required for digesting meat as well because of parasites, because of the bacterial problems, and just to cause the proteins to be altered enough for us to digest them.
We are so not of this planet that our foods throughout history caused half of us to die of stomach cancer prior to the 1940s and the electrification movement that started around the planet.
Until we had refrigeration, where you had to plug it into refrigerator, plug the refrigerator into the wall so it was consistent because ice boxes weren't as good.
Until we had refrigeration that was electrified, half of us died from stomach cancer.
That shut down stomach cancer in the United States was cut in half in the first 10 years of electrification and cut further in half in the next 10 years.
So it went that rapidly just with that technology.
We respond to technology.
We are technical beings in that sense.
I don't think biologists and academics study us in that appropriate understanding because they have this block about the alien issue at the point that humanity springs into existence with all of these,
with this massively diverse clade, which does not occur in evolutionary reality in any other beings around us, except for those we monkey about with, monkey about, those that we alter, like dogs, horses, pigs, chickens, and critters, right?
And so, so, I was curious to see if Bix was right.
I talked to David Morgan and sort of confirmed that we both shared a common understanding.
So maybe it was generational.
And so I had to ascertain for my own thinking.
So I devised a test and I chose some victims, paid them a super chat in order to ask them a question in order to observe the reaction.
And then I made my conclusions.
And so my conclusions are that the overwooing is going to be really a problem.
It's going to be a huge issue.
Now, you have to understand, Brett and Heather are like, they're cool, all right?
They're cool people.
They understand, they've thought about space aliens and this kind of thing, right?
They're not woo people.
They're normies, right?
But they're advanced normies.
They're about as advanced normies as you can get, in my opinion.
I like them both.
As I say, I annoy them both.
I don't know them personally.
They don't know me other than as an annoyance.
But I'm of the opinion from Heather's reaction that my conclusion is quite correct.
Now, I've also gotten my conclusion validated by my Russian friend, because she was one of the people that was, as a climatologist, retired, you know, like academic and all of that.
But she lived through the, as I did, through the period of time of the last of the displaced people in Germany.
And that was a hell of a time to be a kid and see all of that, learn all of those kind of things.
And so we share this little kind of weird bond in an understanding of things.
And so she's very much woo, you know.
And she's an academic, but she's like a Russian.
And, you know, you've got to understand the Russian soul.
They are steeped in Wu, right?
Russian tea is made with Wu.
So anyway, but she validated as well that even in Russia, the younger academics are more brittle.
And that's what we've got going on here.
So the older academics are not going to, they're rigid.
And so they're not going to accept this, as I was saying, that, you know, maybe some of them are going to suicide because they built a whole career on a particular understanding of physics that is blown out of the water just by the mere thought of UFOs.
Or academics that are evolutionists, that are Darwinist to the point that it's almost the same as the Wokians.
It's an ideology, right?
They support Darwin and will defend him at all costs in spite of the fact that we will find evidence that humans were engineered.
And the issue for me was that instantly you could see Heather's mind shut down to even the potential that we were engineered.
That it does not fit within this structure, even though there's that gigantic clade expansion that only occurs, in my opinion, and replicates every time we've done it to other species, right?
And so it's an anomaly that you can't gloss over.
You can apply various different metrics and try and make it not be there, but it is there.
And it's with all hominids, not just Homo sapiens, sapiens.
Neanderthal, all of them.
Look at it.
There's clade expansion like mad whenever the aliens were monkeying about with us.
And so I don't know.
My ultimate question, I was hoping, I was actually hoping that it wouldn't, that Bix was correct, because that would make my life a lot easier in this coming future.
But I've determined to my satisfaction that he's probably not, just using this one outlier in a Wu-mind fashion, right?
So I'm going to check as we go through time, and we'll have a big experiment with it here rapidly in June.
And then we'll have to deal with that.
But I've determined that the reaction is going to be, as hers was, probably inculcated by time and training and all of this, you know, in an excellent trained mind and stuff, to discard the Wu.
Now, how are they going to deal with an officialdom release because academia trusts officialdom and supports officialdom and is in bed with officialdom and they all bond together around certain subjects.
And this is one of those that they're going to have to reconcile because part of the officialdom is going to come on out and say everything we knew about physics was wrong.
Probably everything we knew about evolution or everything we knew about evolution is certainly now open to re-discussion, re-examination, new PhD papers, all of this kind of stuff, just because aliens are now officially admitted as a potential, a possibility, a probability, because we've got physical evidence of UFOs that we can't explain that are intelligently made, obviously crafted, and also driven, you know, driving around.
And so there we go.
The social order will, that social order that is dependent upon the academics, the officialdom, and so on, is going to go into this overwoo.
It will be as bad as I thought, if not worse, because I expected something different, and I was kind of taken aback.
But even though the results of the test were not good, it's going to bring up the issue of what they call the MRCA, most recent common ancestor.
And that's the way in which they build these points on the clade that branch off, right?
You know, this being is thought to be the most recent common ancestor for these two types of coyotes.
One of those coyotes is thought to be the most recent common ancestor for this kind of a dog, you know, a proto-dog, right?
And that proto-dog is thought to be the most common ancestor for all dogs.
It doesn't work that way.
So anyway, but we're going to have to examine that relative to ourselves.
We're going to have to actually open up the idea that Darwin was correct about evolution on this planet for those beings that are of this planet.
And although we are born on this planet, we are not beings of this planet.
We are beings engineered for this planet with our technology.
Take our technology away, we all die.
Fairly rapidly, even.
So that's why we've got to get really good at this technology and get even better at it because we've got advanced conditions that we need to deal with.
And the ice age is coming on us pretty quick.
And that's going to be really a strain on all of our thinking and resources unless we become adults, throw away our inculcated and trained in paradigm supporting objections and simply open up to the idea that with UFOs we are now in sci-fi world and it is necessary that we understand that in sci-fi world it's woo,
it's observation, it's conclusions, but observations and conclusions only last as long as they last.
There's no rigid paradigm because we're discovering.
We're in the process of discovering what is reality because so much of it has been hidden from us with all of officialdom hiding all of these things, many of which branch off from the idea of UFOs.
Real human history, what happened in Antarctica, what they're finding in Antarctica, the giants here on Earth that, you know, where are the clades of all of the giant people that the Smithsonian threw into the ocean off of Catalina Island for over 10 years in the early 1900s?
They paid, the Freemasons were paying people a dollar a sack.
That was huge money because they were talking giant fucking sacks of bones, bones weighing 300 and 400 pounds because the femurs were so big and so on.
And they threw these off the shores off boats off the shore of Catalina Island just so that it wouldn't be shown in history anywhere.
So anyway, that kind of stuff, right?
All these kind of things will now be open and being discussed and they'll have to be addressed by academia because now academia can't come in and say yada yada yada you're full of shit about UFOs.
Now we can come on into academia and say, hey, sit on it and spin.
You know, UFOs are flying around, we see them.
Our lying eyes are telling us that you're full of shit for denying the potential that UFOs caused us and that you're not going to advance in a career.
You're not going forward with the rest of the species if you maintain the idea that humans are a naturally evolving creature here on this planet, of this planet, absent their technology.
And so if you take our technology away, how do we survive?
How could we have evolved?
And ergo, did we evolve?
I say not.
Anyway, so the lateral branching of the clades and all of that stuff, the signs of genetic experimentation in ourselves, in our genes and so on now, and the speed with which we're able to do the same kind of clade expansion into those animals, all tell me that we're going to have a real problem with academia relative to the idea of UFOs.
Now, one last thing.
I've got to shut it off.
It's been too long.
One last thing here is that, so I got my answer, by the way, and we're basically going to be in a deep point of disconcerting upending overwu here starting in, I think, before June.
But the real impact will start in on June.
It'll take us a while, right?
So they'll announce it, and then it'll take a few days for it to start sinking in.
And then people will start thinking about it, and then they'll start getting that wide-eyed look and start freaking out.
Paranoids are going to really get really interesting.
Anyway, so new subject here relating to how tired I am hiking up those alpine hills on the new property and getting that place set up, right?
Bear in mind, I've got to do it through this process during this time of overwoo, so it might take me five or ten years to get this thing structured out there.
The magnet motors, we've come into some interesting patents that were British, and we've got some patents that were, or patents in the British system produced by a Mexican guy, but also patents that are in the British system that were produced by a guy out of, I think, Croatia.
Because as I understand it, the original Or the original notes and descriptions of the patent are an old form of what looks to be a Russian non-standard Russian alphabet.
So it might be Ukrainian or something like that, right?
Anyway, though, these are just some notes on it.
But we are making advancements on these.
It's going to be really a choice of which of several different ways we want to pursue, but there are many that are actually showing success.
And it's going to sound funny to say it this way, right?
But I'm of the opinion that Jared Moran is correct, and that Tesla put a pulled a con job on Westinghouse.
Now, back in the time that, okay, so these patents we've got from the British through these other individuals are about 1918, okay, 1914, and so on.
Before that period of time, slightly before that period of time, there was a big deal between Westinghouse and Tesla.
Westinghouse had brought in direct current.
And Tesla was saying direct current was dangerous.
This is a big publicity battle between the two of them.
And that the direct current would kill people and so on, which it does.
It electrocutes you really damn quick.
And Tesla was saying that his new stuff called alternating current or AC current wouldn't electrocute you and it was safe.
And Westinghouse set about trying to kill dogs and stuff, electrocute dogs with AC current and things.
And they were able to manage it at some point, but it was difficult for them.
It wasn't like with DC current.
The reason that this is an issue here at the moment is to point people some point of understanding.
I think that Jared is correct.
And I think that in those transformers on your poles on your house or out supplying power to your house, those transformers transform direct current, which pumps through the big power lines from the dams and so on, and then spreads out through all of the transformers and so on, getting amplified and pumped up and all of this kind of stuff.
They come to the transformers and then it's converted into AC current to get into your house.
I think Jared's correct.
I think AC current shouldn't be thought of as electricity.
It actually should be thought of as radio frequency because the radio frequency is just simply megacycles or gigacycles of the same stuff that is what we call AC current, which is at 60 cycles a second here, 50 cycles a second in Europe, and mostly 60 and 50 in Asia.
But we don't have to have it at 50 cycles.
We have to have it at 50 cycles or 60 cycles.
We have to have it for specific cycles, specific shapes of the wave to run these devices.
But we can power the computer with direct current.
You can power these computers with direct current.
And there's even a switch inside them to do that.
But the computer itself, the power, has to be transformed into these radio frequencies in order to run all the devices within it.
This 60 cycle stuff.
So, I mean, a stuff because I don't really want to call it electricity, because for me, it's important to understand the fundamentals.
And so, direct current is direct electricity.
Direct electricity is an impulse.
It's not a wave, right?
It's not in any way shaped.
So, direct current comes out of the point of production.
Let me do it another way.
Okay, so direct current is an impulse.
And so, we have something, Some kind of a spinning generator here that puts direct current onto our two lines.
And it's an impulse, and the current just simply flows.
And it flows like the same way a tsunami flows, because it's force.
So a tsunami flows through the water, and when it gets to the beach, it has to rise up because it can't go into the sand, just because the force can't go into the sand.
So as the force rises up, it pushes up the water.
And so that's why a tsunami will rise up on the beach, come to a certain height, and keep going.
That's what makes them so deadly, is they keep going.
They're not like a regular wave that breaks and crests.
They're just a force that's going through.
And so more water is picked up and put onto the beach, and more water is picked up and put onto the beach until all of the force that is driving that tsunami from that earthquake or volcano or whatever it was until that's all dissipated, it keeps pushing water up there and it'll just pile up on the beach if it runs into a cliff or something like this, right?
And so direct current is that way.
It's just an impulse.
It just keeps going.
And it's not like my hand here having to come back and reset.
Once it starts going, it just keeps going.
There's no break in it at all.
And so it is not in the same category at all like alternating current.
So we call, we really should call this DE for direct electricity as opposed to DC for direct current.
All right?
Because it's easy therefore to think that alternating current is just this stuff that's alternating back and forth.
And that's the way that they try and describe it in engineering schools and electronic schools and so on, or electricity and so on, is that you can't shove a direct current into all of our house wire because the resistant build up and the wire would melt, which is true enough.
And so they say what they do is that they allow a brief burst of direct current and then they reverse it.
And so this is alternating current forward and back, forward and back.
So it goes forward and back through the line in your that leads to your computer or your light or whatever.
And then it doesn't heat the light line up and doesn't melt it because of that alternating aspect of coming back.
So that doesn't make sense in pipes either when you're trying to move water.
It does not work in that regard.
So this understanding is a little flaky at best.
But I think Jared is correct that alternating current is simply very low cycle radio frequency.
And this understanding creates a huge breakthrough in both dealing with DC current and with alternating current with AC and supplying the current for the house.
Bear in mind that's my whole goal, is I just want to be able to sit there and not have to lug fuel down these damn mountains to fuel a generator.
Even though there is technically power there, I prefer not to have to pay the huge amount of money to get the power line strung over all these hills and stuff to get it down to this particular property.
We're talking extreme alpine environment.
The Olympic Mountains in Washington State are a true alpine environment, like the Alps in Europe.
And there's a canal on one side of them because the land ripped.
And so the foothills on one side of them ripped and are now in this place that we call the Kitsap Peninsula.
And that's where I got my property.
So I've got property that's on the torn half of some foothills.
So the gentle part is getting up to the foothills that would have been attached to the Olympic Mountains.
Only now they're not.
They got torn away, you know, millions of years ago kind of thing.
And so that's what I've got.
It's really steep.
That one area we were walking up that caused so much pain in the back and the hip and stuff was we were going up a foot of altitude for every step forward.
So it's like stairs.
Seriously, seriously steep.
Anyway, so I wanted to have a fuelless magnetic motor, plop it down there, and if I need another one and put it in a boat.
Got electric boat, right?
No problem.
No fuel required.
Put it in an RV, you know, maybe even an RV for the engine.
But I was thinking, you know, for all the electrical needs.
But yeah, you could do electrical engine RV.
So it's going to be really cool to have these particular approaches.
So anyway, so we're investigating some, I say we because I'm working now with a couple of different firms in a very loose cooperative fashion towards commercialization, but not exclusive commercialization because we'll all develop different ideas about all of these things as we go forward.
And so we're keeping it open enough that we can branch out at some point and go off in an amicable fashion, having promoted the art in an open source fashion, right?
But the point is commercialization, because people are not going to build their own magnetic motors.
They're going to want to purchase it just for the surety of the engineering and so on.
Even if we've got 3D printing diagrams and all of that, nobody's going to want to build their own.
Or only a very small number of people, one, two percent maybe.
So, but we're getting close.
We now have research and development groups forming all over, self-organizing collectives.
And everybody's sort of reporting back.
I get a lot of information thrown my way and I pass it along as it comes in.
And as I say, we are making progress.
Hopefully, we'll have something to demonstrate fairly quick.
By fairly quick, though, we're talking a couple of months.
Because we have to redo some of these patents.
We have to rebuild in modern materials and with modern controllers and this kind of thing.
Stuff that was engineered in 1918 or 1914 or 1898.
So that's it for our Wu Man Chu.
I've been chewing on reality about this evolution thing and what's going to happen with humans when that comes out.
I'm expecting it's going to be interesting starting on the 14th of this month with the media.
And the language changes will begin then.
But the data would seem to suggest that it's going to be about the response to the other clade-changing disease issue thing.
Anyway, yeah, so, you know, so I guess I'm apologizing to Heather and Brett for using them as experimental hominids.
But hey, psychologists do this shit to us all the time.
And in an homage to them and in the same vein, advertisers do it to us as well.
So hey guys, live long and prosper.
And watch out for the reaction.
▲
Export Selection