March 29, 2024 - The Truth Central - Dr. Jerome Corsi
01:02:46
Woke Be Damned: Bring Back Science with John Droz, Jr
True science has been bastardized by the woke, who continue to claim to be the saviors of what they are really destroying. They shout down anyone who questions their unscientific climate change theories du jour, constantly ignore the scientific method and demonize any hypotheses challenging their narrow collective worldview. Then, the Woke Far Left prove how truly little they know or care about science by denying biology by ignoring gender differences, claiming men can get pregnant, insisting biological men can compete in women's sports evenly and making other politically-motivated outrageous claims. Their knowledge of environmental science stretches to only what is told to them by washed-up often-wrong Al Gore and what a child named Greta tells them to think. Still, these science deniers have infiltrated public schools, culture and national politics with their false teachings passed to the unwitting as undeniable facts. Those who challenge them are de-platformed, shouted down and "cancelled" by the Left's political anti-science misinformation machine.With Dr. Corsi today is John Droz, Jr. John received undergraduate degrees in Physics and Mathematics from Boston College, a graduate degree in Physics from Syracuse University, and has been a Mensa member. He worked as a physicist for GE Aerospace Electronics, Mohawk Data Sciences, and Monolithic Memories. After retiring at age 34, he has focused on educating citizens about technical issues ranging from Climate to COVID and Energy to Education. His underlying concern is that these policies should be based on genuine Science, but instead they are often about political science — which guarantees inferior results. Dr. Corsi and John discuss the effort to bring science -- real science -- back to the schools and mainstream. John is the founder of Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED), an international coalition promoting science-based climate and energy policies. His WiseEnergy.org website focuses on wind energy and solar — with the unusual emphasis of showing citizens how to defend their rightsGet Dr. Corsi's new book, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis: Forensic Analysis of the JFK Autopsy X-Rays Proves Two Headshots from the Right Front and One from the Rear, here: https://www.amazon.com/Assassination-President-John-Kennedy-Headshots/dp/B0CXLN1PX1/ref=sr_1_1?crid=20W8UDU55IGJJ&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ymVX8y9V--_ztRoswluApKEN-WlqxoqrowcQP34CE3HdXRudvQJnTLmYKMMfv0gMYwaTTk_Ne3ssid8YroEAFg.e8i1TLonh9QRzDTIJSmDqJHrmMTVKBhCL7iTARroSzQ&dib_tag=se&keywords=jerome+r.+corsi+%2B+jfk&qid=1710126183&sprefix=%2Caps%2C275&sr=8-1Join Dr. Jerome Corsi on Substack: https://jeromecorsiphd.substack.com/Visit The Truth Central website: https://www.thetruthcentral.comGet your FREE copy of Dr. Corsi's new book with Swiss America CEO Dean Heskin, How the Coming Global Crash Will Create a Historic Gold Rush by calling: 800-519-6268Follow Dr. Jerome Corsi on X: @corsijerome1Our link to where to get the Marco Polo 650-Page Book on the Hunter Biden laptop & Biden family crimes free online:https://www.thetruthcentral.com/marco-polo-publishes-650-page-book-on-hunter-biden-laptop-biden-family-crimes-available-free-online/Our Sponsors:MyVitalC https://www.thetruthcentral.com/myvitalc-ess60-in-organic-olive-oil/Swiss America: https://www.swissamerica.com/offer/CorsiRMP.phpThe MacMillan Agency: https://www.thetruthcentral.com/the-macmillan-agency/Pro Rapid Review: https://prorrt.com/thetruthcentralmembers/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-truth-central-with-dr-jerome-corsi--5810661/support.
This is Dr. Joel Korsi, and we have a special program today.
We're joined by a very prominent guest, John Droz, Jr.
This is Dr. Jerome Corse, and we have a special program today.
We're joined by a very prominent guest, John Droz, Jr.
John received his undergraduate degrees in physics and mathematics from Boston College.
He has a graduate degree in physics from Syracuse University, been a Mensa member, worked as
a physicist for GE Aerospace Electronics, Mohawk Data Sciences, and Monolithic Memories.
Now, one of the things I think is more remarkable, perhaps most remarkable, about John is he retired at the age of 34.
And he's focused on educating citizens about technical issues, a wide range of subjects, from climate to COVID to energy and education.
And his underlying concern is that these politics Should be based on genuine science, but said they've often been about political science, which guarantees inferior results.
John has been a guest speaker on dozens of radio and TV shows nationwide, as well as lectured numerous organizations on these issues, in addition to publishing more than 100 articles and reports.
Among other things, John is on the North Carolina Oil and Gas Commission, is a member of the CO2 Coalition and the National Association of Scholars, and was U.S.
Ambassador for the Global Climate Intelligence Group, which is CLINTEL, C-L-I-N-T-E-L.
John is a founder of the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions, an international coalition promoting science-based climate and energy policies.
Wiseenergy.org website focuses on wind and solar with the unusual emphasis of showing citizens how to defend their rights.
John publishes the free Media Balance newsletter twice a month.
It covers a wide range of topics not adequately addressed by the mainstream media.
It has a readership of over 10,000 worldwide.
In late 2020, John was asked if he would put together a team of independent experts to analyze election data.
He agreed to do that, and they have generated 10 major reports posted at election-integrity.info.
He's been very active in this space for two years now, and is actually involved as an expert witness in some of the court cases on election fraud.
Consistent with his focus on genuine science, John created a web page on COVID-19, which is c19science.info, c19science.info, the number 19, where his multiple COVID reports videos are posted.
John now posts weekly to his Substack space, where his commentaries discuss the importance of critical thinking about our societal issues Like the corruption of our K-12 education system, which is going on almost unchecked.
So, John, thank you for joining us today.
We're greatly pleased to have you with us.
My pleasure, Jim.
And I want to start out with the K-12 issue.
What is your analysis of what's going on in our school system, especially at these critical young ages?
Well, I think there's a few background things that I should lead up to that, and the first is, I'm going to say general terms as to who our opponents are here, and I'm just going to say the left.
So we'll not use that vague term if you don't mind.
One of the things that's different about what those people do and what people on the right do is the people on the left are playing the long game.
I can't overemphasize how important that is because People on the right just don't seem to get it.
They, if I say they have a plan here that's going to come to fruition in 10 years, they say, what a waste of time that is.
You know, we're going to do something that's going to fix something next year or something like that.
They just don't understand that this is an entirely different perspective and that's exactly what's happening to us.
And because it seems to be sort of slowly evolving, a lot of people aren't paying attention to it.
So back around, Prior to 2010, these progressives decided that the most significant way they could influence American citizens was to start in K-12 and propagandize them at that level.
And then they went through to decide what subject area that would be most effective for doing that, and they decided science was the topic.
Well, people again would say, how can that be?
Isn't science just about equations and stuff?
Well, no.
So they wrote up a document that's still posted today called the Framework for Science Education.
And this was a 450-or-so-page polemic about what they're doing.
So they had such confidence that people wouldn't read it.
That they were quite bold in the things they said.
So one other preliminary thing I would say is that, in my view, after being involved in this for decades, the education business, is that by far the most single important objective we should have as a society is the objective of when a student graduates from high school, that they have the ability to do critical thinking.
Nothing else.
I mean, obviously they have to know the basic three R's, but I mean saying, oh, they're over above that.
They need to be critical thinkers.
We have never been at such a time here where there's so many attacks on us, whether it's from artificial intelligence, computer programs, whatever.
Anyone who's not a critical thinker is going to be victimized.
So the question is how we teach critical thinking.
And the answer is that science is the area that we teach critical thinking.
Because scientists, by definition, are people who ask questions.
Who?
When?
Where?
How?
Why?
Well, that's a lot of what critical thinking is about.
Asking questions.
Don't just accept things at face value, what you're told.
Ask questions.
So, that's why I'm connecting back here to this framework, that these progressives knew very well that the way to get students to think critically was in science.
So, they said, we want to make sure that that does not happen.
We want to make sure, in fact, that the opposite is happening.
So, they are teaching students in science the opposite of critical thinking, which is to be effectively a lobotomized person who, let's say, defers to authority, who Accepts political science instead of real science, who goes along with something because it's the consensus view, things of that nature.
That is what's being programmed into our students, to do those type of things.
None of it, they are no time said, be an independent thinker, be a critical thinker, ask questions, nothing like that whatsoever, the opposite.
So, but this is explained in this document, 450 or so pages, I say, of this framework.
Another indication of its leanings is that in this document, if you do a search over it, you say, okay, what do they say about critical thinking?
It's not even hardly mentioned.
I think maybe mentioned in passing once or so.
But on the other hand, they have an entire chapter in this document about equity.
You might say, well, today that's maybe not so surprising, but this is back in 2010, and equity wasn't a hot topic back then.
And I can tell you, in my view, that's one of the reasons it is a hot topic today, because it was instilled in this science program.
So, I could go on about this, but so then the next thing was they did is they have a sister document they created called the NGSS.
Which is called the Next Generation Science Standards.
And the point of that was they took all the material in the framework and reformatted it into a way that states could adopt it.
So in other words, the NGSS is broken down by grade level.
So it says in grade eight, here's what a child is supposed to be taught about science, et cetera, every grade level.
So, these two documents, the framework and the NGSS.
So you might say, well, this is an academic matter.
Well, no.
What happened next was that these people got together a group of allies, And created a very professional dog and pony show, and they literally went to every single state board of education in the country and made a pitch for them to adopt this NGSS set of standards.
So, in this group of advocates, they had scientists from National Academy of Sciences, Lithuanian scientists.
They had union teachers from NSTA, National Science Teachers Association, they had business people arranged by Bill Gates and a group called Achieve.
They went around and the bottom line is, as of today, 49 states have adopted this progressive set of standards.
49!
So we're not talking about an economic matter here.
This has been sold, a bill of goods.
Well, let me just give you one example.
I wrote a report about this, and you send me an email, I send you the report.
But one example is, in this framework on the NGSS, they decided to scrap the scientific method.
Where have you heard that?
Have you heard, has anybody told you that?
The scientific method is taken out.
Because the reason, they don't say this is the reason, but the reason in my view is because a lot of the left's ideological things that they're trying to foist on us, let's say, and if they're wind energy for an energy matter, if you subject that to the scientific method, it fails.
So they had two choices.
One is to change their, the policies to make them more scientifically acceptable or to fight the scientific method.
Well, naturally they chose to fight the scientific method.
So, if you read through this polemic and see what they say about it, it's hidden in the notes, but they do have one sentence in there that says, we have decided to not include the scientific method because, quote, it promotes linear thinking.
That's their justification right there, that one little sentence, it promotes linear thinking.
Well, first of all, that's not true.
Scientific method does not promote linear thinking.
Second of all, linear thinking is not a bad thing anyways.
But this is the type of things we're being shenanigans with, that no one is paying attention to this.
I can't imagine if you took a poll of people on the street, say, what do you think about scientific method?
They'd all say, good.
And I'd say, you ask them, okay, you believe your kid is being taught the scientific method?
They say, well, of course.
Well, the answer is, no, they're not.
John, I want to drill down on this, because the left is also very good at language perversion, so I'm sure, as you know, critical thinking is adopted by the Frankfurt School, and it's a code word for Marxism.
It's an attempt to redefine Marx and to essentially establish a subjective reality Where in other words, if the left says, well, there's a scientific consensus that carbon dioxide is causing global warming produced by humans with the burning of hydrocarbon fuels.
Now, what they don't mean is that it's scientifically provable or true.
necessarily in a scientific method that carbon dioxide, a minor molecule, 0.04% of the atmosphere, is able to be the turning knob of the Earth's temperature.
What they mean is that scientists who see their vision of the future, who see this utopian idea of what they want to create, agree that we shouldn't be using hydrocarbon fuels because they're bad and they exude carbon dioxide, which we see as a greenhouse gas, And it can get stigmatized by appearing to be noxious, because it warms up the earth as a greenhouse gas, without looking at the fact that it is also plant food, that we exhale carbon dioxide.
It's almost self-defeating to object to carbon dioxide.
So when you're saying it's political science, Aren't you referring to the fact that it's really ideological science?
It's science that's based on an ideology of how the world ought to work rather than how the world does work.
I mean, that seems to me to be a fundamental difference.
Would you agree?
Yes.
When I say political, that means that's what politics is about, is promoting ideology.
Versus real science, real science is supposed to be neutral and Objective and driven by the facts.
So they're, they're not doing that.
They've decided they have a political agenda, ideology or whatever.
And so I use the term political science because it's, it's actually a very close understanding of what the differential is.
The average person, they've done money surveys about people's support of science and by and large, Americans, citizens are extremely supportive of science.
But the interesting thing is, if you ask them to then define science, almost none of them do know how to do that.
So we have a dichotomy there, where people are supportive of something they don't understand.
Well, that's an important distinction to appreciate, because that's exactly what the left knows.
They say, okay, if we present our policies as being science-based, Or if a person like Dr. Fauci stands up saying, I represent science, he knows that by definition he's going to get the support of the majority of American citizens because they support science, even though they don't realize that he's not science, and he's not speaking for science, and these people aren't either.
Well, it's what C.S.
Lewis called scientism.
It is a cloaking yourself in the authority of science to make an ideological statement.
I mean, when you talk about the scientific method, which of course I was taught, you know, and understand Completely to be testing your ideas against what in reality happens.
In other words, so you can say, okay, carbon dioxide is the turning knob of the earth's history.
And you say, well, wait a minute, 600 million years ago, there was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and we had ice ages.
Well, that should refute that idea because it's not true.
You know, if more carbon dioxide and the earth wasn't warmer, well then, The major variable causing warming is, if it was cooler, we had ice ages, then the major variable is not the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
It's just not true.
Well, you're right.
I think if you're looking for hypocritical, contradictory statements, there's many on the subject side of the fence here.
Right.
I mean, for instance, the fact that they claim that 97% of scientists, or 99, whatever the percentage is, are supporting.
If you look at the basis of those figures, they're completely bogus.
I know as a scientist, if you want to say you'd have a poll, there's never been a poll of scientists on anything.
Furthermore, even if there was a poll, what the consensus is, is irrelevant.
It's the facts that matter.
Another factor that's important, speaking of the energy part, is that the most successful reduction, source of reduction of CO2 ever in our history, total, is nuclear energy.
And yet the same people are objecting to nuclear energy.
How can you stand there and say, look, we've got to pull out all stops because the world's coming to an end in a very short time period and say, okay, let's switch to nuclear and say, oh, no, we can't do that.
Okay, what is it that I'm missing here of this foolishness?
Another part that's wrong is that they claim we need more wind energy.
Well, I can tell you as a matter of scientific fact, there's never been, I say this slowly, there's never been a scientific study anywhere in the world that has concluded that wind energy saves a consequential amount of CO2.
Zero.
It doesn't exist.
They are assuming that this average technical person who's technically challenged is saying, well, okay, wind doesn't use any fossil fuels, so ergo, it must be a net CO2 benefit.
Well, interestingly, there's been some interesting studies done, I don't want to get too technical here, but actually show that using gas saves more CO2 than using wind energy.
Think about that.
Right.
That's a reality.
That's a reality.
And also, when you're talking about the equity coming into the educational system, the word equity, equity does not mean equality, does it?
No, it's the opposite, or it's a different perspective.
It means that redistribution of income so that everybody basically comes out equal.
Yes, I think one good way of seeing it is that equality is about everybody starting equally, and equity is about everybody ending up equally.
That's a good point.
It's outcome-oriented.
In other words, the outcome has to be equal, whereas the original civil rights equal opportunity was we want an equal chance at starting, and how it ends may be dependent on our abilities, but this equity, insisting that regardless of our abilities, it has to end up equal.
The bigger picture, Jerome, in my opinion, is that they are also attacking our value standards.
Yes.
Our country was basically founded on Judeo-Christian standards, and no one that's familiar with history would deny that, and they are adamantly opposed to Judeo-Christian standards.
So there's a lot of really bad things, like relativism.
I mean, once you have the ideology of relativism, which means Everybody makes up their own standards, effectively.
What the hell?
I mean, if that is a definition of chaos, I don't know what is.
It becomes like post-modernism.
It's schizophrenic.
Whatever you decide you are, everybody has to celebrate.
Or go along with, yes.
Yes, and so therefore, I mean, you can have an infinite number of genders because the variations can be as creative as you want, as long as you're saying it's no longer sex, which is a duality.
We don't want this binary, we want infinite numbers of possibilities.
I think one of the reasons they're doing that is if you look at the Bible, because a lot of people do have a belief in the Bible, Americans, and say, what does the Bible say about equity versus equality?
Interestingly, the Bible is arguing for equality, not equity.
At no place in the Bible does it say we're all going to end up at the same place.
In fact, it says the opposite.
It says there's going to be radical differences where you end up and where I'm going to end up.
That is not equity.
That's equality.
In fact, there's radical differences where we begin, because we're each born in a different circumstance.
We're each born with different capabilities.
I mean, we're not born equal.
We don't end up equal.
From a religious point of view, I think the perspective of the Bible is everybody is given certain graces.
Opportunity, yes.
So that's the equalness at the beginning.
What you do with it, matter of free will or whatever, So, fundamentally, what you're saying is that this attack on science is an attack on the fundamental fixed values, natural right thinking, natural law, that there's a way things work.
And that is God determined, that this universe has a set of rules, how it works down to the subatomic level, down to energy and how it works.
And so you can't just make it work the way you want it to work or impose your set of values on how everybody has to behave.
And once you go down that path, you end up with this kind of totalitarian system where you have to be tolerant of all these bizarre ideas And if you're not, you're not allowed to speak if you want to defend traditional values.
I mean, it's really upside down.
Yes, they're effectively trying to establish a different set of values.
And this is a very complex matter.
So I ask these people, say, okay, we have the Bible for our values.
Show me the book or the Bible, your Bible, so we have a clear definition of what your values are.
Show me who has the authority to put together such a book.
Show me the authority of people who have the right to judge others based on your set of values.
Show me that!
Well, they just poo-poo all that type of thing here.
I'm sort of a big picture person, Jerry.
That's somewhat different than most people.
I like standing back to see how things are because I think that gives you a better perspective of seeing things when you back up lots of times.
And if you want the big picture view here, I think ultimately what's going on is we have two opposing forces that one side is pro-God, the other side is no-God.
Right.
I agree.
Pro-God versus no-God.
So that's really the big picture of what this fight is all about.
Pro-God, no-God.
I agree.
And it's a spiritual battle.
And it's a spiritual value for the hearts and souls, not just the hearts and minds, but the hearts and souls of human beings.
Well, that's why I'm concerned about this education.
If you go back to that here, effectively, on the one hand, these people are saying, you know, we don't want to have any religion here.
It's not allowed to be taught in public schools, for instance.
But fact number one is that atheism is a religion.
If you look at the definition of what a religion constitutes, atheism is a religion.
But second of all, if you look at what is being taught in the area of sciences, whether it's Let's just say the origins of the universe is an example.
The only perspective they discuss is the atheistic perspective.
I'm not saying they said promote a god, but they should say, hey, there's several possibilities here.
We don't know for 100% sure what these possibilities are.
I mean, people can say, okay, well, the Big Bang has the support of a lot of scientists.
Well, maybe it does, but the fact is there's dozens and dozens of things that they don't understand about the Big Bang.
They're just saying, well, let's Let's talk about that later, or, you know, this will all be figured out 50 years from now, or whatever.
But it's not like it's some scientifically proven hypothesis.
And I'm careful of using the word theory versus hypothesis, because the word theory is an abused word here by the left here.
It's a hypothesis.
That's really what the Big Bang... It's not a Big Bang theory.
It's a Big Bang hypothesis.
Okay, so I'm just saying that's an atheistic perspective.
I don't say it's not possible under some variation.
But I think it's equally sensible that there would be some other higher-level being that has a say in what's going on here.
I can't prove one way or another.
As a scientist, all I can tell you is the more I've learned about science and going into advanced physics and things of this nature, it's been mind-bendingly apparent to me that there's an amazing amount of things we don't know.
Well, we say all this computer power we got, all this years and decades and millennia of expert scientists, we've got to have a pretty good idea of everything.
Well, we don't know.
And either direction you go, if you go in the macroscopic view, Interplanetary thing, so forth, inter-solar system, or if you go in the microscopic view, the more you go in either direction, the more you find out that we don't know.
We don't know how many power sources, let's say, types of energy there are, let's say, on a molecular level, as an example.
We just keep finding out, oh, there's six different types of energy here?
Wow, forces, different forces?
Wow, where'd that come from?
Yeah, where'd they come from indeed?
How would that just be created?
How would you have six different molecular forces based on a Big Bang?
Give me a break!
Well, and one person can change, and science is fundamentally hypothesis-driven, because any one person can come up with an idea that is so revolutionary.
I mean, clearly, Einstein's theory of relativity, there's many examples of it going through history.
Fundamentally, this is what Thomas Kuhn called paradigm shifts.
Suddenly, everybody's agreed that this has to be true until somebody comes along and points out that it isn't true.
That there's something that wasn't considered, that something wasn't known.
That's right.
And I doubt that we, as human beings, will ever be able to know it all.
We're always going to be in this quandary of discovery.
I think so.
I think so too.
And the discovery, you know, if you don't take God into the equation, It's hard to explain how law-driven what we find out about is.
You know, in other words, you can't—I say, back even in graduate school, I remember arguing, you can't—the Gorgias, which is one of the Platonic dialogues, where the sophist is arguing, you know, beauty is what he thinks it is, and truth is what he thinks it is, and The argument is, well, how about if you cut a hole in the bottom of your boat because you want to see the fish?
It's a bad idea.
The boat's going to sink because there are laws as to how boats and water work.
It can't just decide, I'm going to see the fish and make it work the way you want it to work.
It's going to sink.
So I can't jump off a cliff and say, I'm going to fly.
There are in fact laws that govern this place.
And I think fundamentally you're insisting that we can't redefine those laws in an ideological way to meet some godless agenda.
The godless agenda always seems to be chaos, subjective, destructive.
It is not productive.
And there's a discussion even in, you know, the Republic where Plato was writing and saying, you know, Socrates has a discussion, you mean justice is what works?
It's utility?
Well, and Socrates says, well, yeah, I think that has a lot to do with what justice is.
It's got to work.
It's got to actually make sense.
It's got to function well.
It has to be a set of rules that dictates behavior in a way that's productive.
And so that's, you know, this is a fundamental discussion.
I want to shift in this because it's kind of interesting to me.
I want to shift to your work on election integrity.
Okay, because now we're applying, you know, your genius, your thinking to a fundamental question of now the left says, well, we'll just, you know, create machines, Dominion machines.
We'll have mail-in ballots.
We just want to win the elections.
We don't care how we win them.
We want to win them.
And so therefore, you're up against, again, an ideological argument trying to identify structures which allow illegitimate votes to be counted.
Tell us why that's hard to do today in this environment.
Election integrity is a bit of a complex topic, but if you want, I'll give you a little background as to how I got involved in it.
Yes, that's what I'm asking.
Okay.
About a week after the 2020 election, I received a phone call from an attorney who I did not know, and she said she was representing a group of attorneys who were investigating the election integrity issue.
And she asked me whether I was willing to put together a team of experts to help them diagnose data, I guess you could say.
So, I have no idea.
She didn't say why she called me.
I speculated after the fact that maybe she was given my name by somebody who read my newsletter, because that's been going on since 2009.
So, a lot of interesting people are reading that, but that's just a guess.
So anyways, I told her, I'm being short here, so I said, yes, and I said, I have to get some other experts here and see if they're interested.
So I went through the list of people who subscribed to the newsletter, because I have a description of them.
Out of the 10,000 plus, there's over 1,000 that have PhDs, so a very high percentage of Pretty smart people.
So, I went through, and I picked out five people who had PhDs in statistics.
So, I could sort it that way, and I came up with it.
So, I decided to write it, because she said this is sort of time-sensitive.
I phoned each one of them up, and I was able to get in touch with each one of them, and I outlined for each one of them, and I said, okay, here's what happened.
Are you interested in analyzing some election data?
And gratifyingly, even though these were all very busy people, every single one said yes, they were.
So the next day, this attorney called me back, which is what I asked her to, and I said, okay, fine, we have a team of six people here, me, the leader, and these other five statistical, one was an IT PhD, but they're all PhDs, And she said, okay, fine.
So I said, so what specifically?
She said, we have set up a website here that has Pennsylvania data on it, just for that.
And I'm going to give you the proprietor link for that.
And I'd like you and your team to look at the data we have accumulated there and tell us what you see.
So I was glad to see, at no point did she try to steer me in any direction.
She didn't say, look for problems with Biden or Trump.
She didn't mention Trump or Biden.
She said, look at the data and see what jumps out at you.
I said, okay.
So I said, how much time are you going to give us here?
And she said, well, how about two days?
I said, okay.
We're just starting from scratch here and I have to look through all this data and then find something and then write it up.
It's going to be more than two days.
So, but the bottom line is, I can tell you, we did it in four days.
So we wrote up a report that's 50 pages, and this is on this website.
And what I decided to do was to have each of these gentlemen that worked with me do, write their own chapter about an issue they found interesting, statistically, surprisingly, statistically, suspicious, statistically, whatever.
And then I put this together in a multi-chapter report.
I'd write an introduction, a summary, stuff like that.
So that's what we did.
And it's still there, posted on the website.
This was the first report done by anyone in the whole United States.
We published this, I don't know, we have the date on it.
I think it was 11-14 or something like that.
The first report published by anyone.
Then subsequently we did Nine more reports, so we have ten major reports all together, which is, to my knowledge, more than anybody else has done.
Heritage, you name it.
But these are fascinating reports, because we didn't have any agenda here.
We were looking at things from a statistical point of view and say, what are some statistical aberrations here that we wouldn't expect to have happen?
So, these are all written up, and it's too long to explain the end result, but the bottom line was there was an enormous amount of statistical anomalies.
Give us an example of one or two kinds of anomalies you found.
Well, each chapter in this particular report on Pennsylvania was done by a different guy, and they did different graphs.
To show the deviations from the norm.
I mean, for instance, one guy does what's called contrast analysis.
This is Dr. Stan Young here.
He likes that.
Sort of a traditional way of statistics people working.
So he said, we're going to look at the 2016 election, what happened there between the Democrat and the Republican, and then look at the 2020 election, see what happened there between the Democrat and Republican.
And he did that, not in a general way, he did that for every state and every county in every state.
Every county!
So we have an analysis of that, every county, every state, comparing those two.
This is a phenomenal amount of work, but he shows what a lot of the Democrats' response was to say, well, Trump lost because we had better Success at getting the vote out.
We had better messaging here.
Stuff like that.
Which, if you think about what those things are, those would generally apply across the board.
And the fact is that this particular report shows that that isn't what happened at all.
That there was, like, let's say in, I don't know, Let's say there's a hundred counties in the predatory state.
Out of those counties here, 90 of them would be almost identical to what happened in 2016.
So by and large, almost all of them were identical distribution, Republican versus Democrat.
Three maybe would be favoring Trump, More than happened in 2016, but 7 would be favoring buying it more than what happened in 2016.
So it's those 7, 6, 7, whatever, on that type of distribution here that made all the difference here.
And so somebody was obviously focusing on those particular counties, and so better messaging wouldn't account for why 7 counties were Significantly different where 93 weren't, and all this kind of stuff here.
So there's a fascinating amount here, and that's one of the reasons I've been asked to be a testifier for John Eastman, for Sidney Powell, for Rudy Giuliani.
All these people know me here now because of writing those reports.
Those are just some of them.
But we looked at this from a science point of view, and nobody else has really done that, and the facts are irrefutable.
But the bottom line is, let me give you one bottom takeaway, the biggest thing we have to do is say, well, okay, what did we learn from all this?
The biggest thing that's the problem that we need to fix is that as of today, we have zero, zero meaningful post-election audits.
Zero!
You just think about this.
Let's say the IRS operated that way.
You could send in your tax forms and you knew there'd be no meaningful audit.
All they would do is check your addition or other stupid things like that.
How many people do you think would be sticking to the rules here if they knew that was going to happen?
We have zero.
There's not a single precinct in the United States that does a meaningful post-election audit.
That is just mind-bendingly stupid.
So in other words, you're saying that these anomalies, statistical anomalies, are indicative that something different happened in these counties where the anomaly occurred, and then it's subject to what different happened.
And why did it happen in these, not the others?
And I'm sure you can find that the ones that were affected with anomalies were More critical to the ultimate outcome than the ones that were not anomalous.
They were the ones that were perfectly fine, were probably inconsequential as a whole.
And because the distribution of population is not equal across counties, city, county, counties, which are more densely populated, more densely democratic are again, If the anomalies are occurring there, you've got reason to be suspect of, okay, what were the rules that were followed?
And if there's no audit, then there's no way to go in and determine accountability as to whether the correct rules were followed or not.
So you've begun to build a case here of this just can't be so.
It's a logical case that there's something wrong here.
You haven't specified yet what's wrong, but something's wrong.
Well, there is other things.
I'm being brief here.
Actually, there were three major important audits done following a post-2020 election within 2020.
And the way we wrote up our, that's our report number 10 about audits, what they should be.
And the way we look at it is that the election process is really three different, has three integral components to it.
One is the voter.
The second is the, Mechanisms of handling the vote, machines or things of that nature.
And the third is the post-election handling of ballots.
Each one of those things is a separate thing and has different concerns about it.
In my view, the most important probably is not the machines, but actually the voter.
And I say that because we're unbelievably fortunate that there were only three meaningful audits done post-2020, none authorized.
These were technically separate audits that were court-generated or whatever.
Two of them were court-generated.
One was done in Nevada, of the voter part.
One was done in Michigan, of the machine part.
And one was done in New York State, about the processing part.
So, fantastic luck that three audits were done, and each was done in these particular areas.
And the interesting thing to me is that all three of those audits indicated a disastrous failure.
Every one of those three audits failed horrifically bad, every one of them. So say we did
three meaningful audits in the whole country and all three of them were a disaster. Hello, what
else do you need to know?
Right. So the voter anomalies, we don't require to have an ID.
Some states do, some states don't, but that's right, yes.
We don't require that you be a citizen, another variable that could be.
You can walk in and just vote.
It depends on the state.
In other words, the point is what is the scrutiny on the voter to determine the legitimacy that person has to vote and that it is the person who is voting as properly identified by the identification.
And they're only voting once, and so forth.
Only voting once and so forth, right.
And then the nature of how the ballots are collected, okay, do the machines work?
Do they tabulate correctly?
Do you vote for this candidate?
Does it record as that candidate?
Yes.
You've got a big box and you can dump ballots.
How many ballots are just dumped in boxes with mail-in?
How many were really legitimately scrutinized for signature and other characteristics?
And then afterwards, the handling.
How many ballots show up suddenly and counting is stopped and then candidate switches to the other guy suddenly as a winning after the voting resumes.
These kinds of incongruities and inconsistencies.
So you're finding patterns.
Yes.
Yes well that's these are and again you're doing it statistically so you're not beginning with the political bias in the analysis you're looking for what are the anomalies that the data shows up and how are they related to the mechanics of voting which is a precise process which is not biased to begin with it's an objective determination of what happened Which that gives it merit.
But again, it's because you're rooted in the understanding that there are things that are right and wrong.
There are procedures that are correct and incorrect.
And you know, men do not have babies.
Two plus two does not equal five.
We don't need to put tampons in men's bathrooms because they're not gonna menstruate.
These are fundamental ideas.
They're hard for the left to grasp.
I don't think they're hydrographs.
No, they're not hydrographs.
They understand the confusion they're creating and why they're creating it.
It's very, very well thought out.
And as you point out, over a long period of time, not expecting, you know, having a horizon of 50 years, a horizon of whatever period of time it takes to do this gradual change.
So at some point the change is irreversible.
Yes.
Let me pick on one point you made there, Jerome, and that is the recent meeting we were both in here where Jason Christman talked here.
Yes.
One of the points he made was they're purposely trying to create confusion.
So, you just said they're trying to create confusion about these sexual identities.
Well, he's saying this is a particular format they use because they know that that That weakens people's defenses and whatever, so it's not just accidental, it's on purpose from a psychological warfare perspective.
There's a lot of psychological techniques that are being used by the left that have been very carefully studied over a long period of time.
Yes.
And they are as fundamental as simple principles which tell a big lie and tell it often and repeat it.
You get an echo chamber to repeat it and pretty soon people believe it.
And these kinds of techniques are very, very powerful, and people rarely recognize that they're being used.
So you turn on the TV and, you know, Russian collusion, Russian collusion, Russian collusion, you've got an echo chamber.
It's repeating a big lie.
Well, it's one of the reasons that I say that the best defense we possibly can have against this type of strategies is to teach people to be critical thinkers.
That is something that if they start asking questions about what they're being told here properly, and they don't just accept any type of baloney answer, That's what critical thinking is all about, and I can tell you the number one fear the left has is to have citizens who are critical thinkers.
They don't want that at all.
They want people to be, you know, followers and just compliant.
So that's why they're doing all what they're doing in K-12 schools and this NGSS.
They are teaching them to be Not to be critical thinkers.
One last point about that as to why that's important.
Do you know how many high school kids graduate in the United States every year?
No, I have no idea.
Make a guess.
Oh, it'd be a wild guess.
I don't even know the basis to make a guess.
Make a wild guess.
Well, 40 million.
Okay, so it's like asking people, what's the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere?
The answer is 4 million.
Okay, 4 million students.
Now again, playing the long game, so what I'm saying to you is they have now infiltrated 49 states, Florida's the only holdout, 49 states with a science program that is teaching students to be compliant ...to defer to authority, to go along with consensus, to accept political science instead of real science, all this kind of stuff they're being taught.
And so what I'm concerned about is that these 4 million graduates, within a short period of time, become voting citizens.
So, you figure out 4 million a year new voting citizens that have been completely propagandized.
So, this started back in 2012, initially, so it took a while to get up to steam because it went through all the years here, but now they're at the point where every year it's 4 million new lobotomized voting citizens.
So, you tell me how many years we as a society can accept having an influx of 4 million new citizens who are completely propagandized.
It's not a good prospect when you think of the people who are dying and the horizon of length of life likely to be lived by this four million that are graduated propagandized.
So you've got an exponential increase in the population simply because the older people are dying and they were taught critical thinking.
Yes.
Now, I want to go one more thing, because you also are on COVID, and it seems to me that a lot of what you're doing ties into COVID, because if we have the proposition of a population that is accepting what they're told, and so Fauci comes out and says, you know, we've got to lock down, because if we don't, we're going to spread this disease, and we've got to have social distancing, we've got to wear masks, So, where is the basis in science for these innovations?
Because, you know, the human race has gotten to this point, there's never been a pandemic that's wiped out the whole human race, as evidenced by that we're still here.
And we got here by our immune systems being exposed to various illnesses and those capable of strong enough immune systems or somehow resistant are the ones who survive and it improves our immune system, which is our fundamental defense, which is improved by exposure, not by isolation.
So, how do you interpret the way the pandemic was orchestrated and managed, given what you've talked about with critical thinking and the propagandizing, etc.?
Well, I interpret it that what they're doing is that they're gradually giving us higher-level tests to see how some of their strategies are taking hold, to see what's going on here, how successful their There are efforts at infiltrating the population, how compliant the population can be.
So, there's several examples that preceded that.
That's one of the reasons I objected at the meeting the other day that Stephen Frost said something, in fact, how did this all happen in 2020?
Give me a break!
This is happening well before 2020, and one example I used was climate change.
But there's other examples here, just what they did with energy, since you relate to that.
The fact that they started doing Renewable energy portfolios, like, I don't know, 20 some years ago?
What that amounted to was that the government would say, okay, here's the preferred energy sources, and we're going to mandate, not Just get preferential.
We're going to mandate that you have to use, let's say, 20% wind energy in the state of New York's energy portfolio.
We're going to tell you this.
So, at the time, I remember I said, this is so absurd.
I said, what if the government stepped in and said, you have to have 20% of your cars be a certain way here?
Well, now all of a sudden you see this is, well, okay, yes, they are saying 20% of your cars have to be electric vehicles, for instance, or something of that nature.
But at that time, people understood and said, well, that'd be absurd.
They said, you know, I had to buy a certain type of car.
That would be unacceptable.
I said, well, the only reason you're accepting it in the energy field, you're not paying attention to the energy field, where a car is something you relate to.
But that's exactly what they kept trying, pushing this further and further.
And I think what they're looking for, they're like, the parallel I would make is it's like dealing with children.
Children are looking for limits.
And if they keep pushing against the parents, it's up to the parents to set the limit.
And as long as they have a flexible limit, the children are going to keep pushing further.
And then the parents can say, oh my goodness, what the hell happened here?
I don't know.
Well, it's because they didn't have proper limits and they didn't stick to them.
You go back to the 1970s, you've got Jimmy Carter talking about ethanol and biofuels, and so therefore these ideas have been germinating for a long time, and they did not require that they work.
Ethanol is not particularly good to put in an internal combustion engine for many reasons, but yet it was mandated that a certain percentage of gasoline had to be ethanol, And Jimmy Carter said we're running out of oil and natural gas, so we've got to use corn.
Then you disrupt the corn cycle, so corn's now being produced for ethanol instead of being consumed.
And again, as you point out, these ideas start small, or start with the suggestion of the idea, and then they build the mandates.
Well, they're based on the fact that the population isn't critical thinking.
The population is not technically competent to be able to understand some of these issues.
So, they've been trained to be deferral to authority.
So, they say, look, we're looking out for your best interest here, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And with people not being critical thinkers, they say, well, okay, fine.
I have a life otherwise.
What am I going to do about it?
So, fine.
And that's what I'm saying.
They just keep pushing to saying, you know, how much we can get away with.
So we're, we're in some dangerous territory here for sure, because the limits of how much they're going to get away with is, uh, is, has been horrifically bad here.
Horrifically bad.
Well, we've gone about an hour.
I want to ask a couple of concluding questions.
So, uh, John, what do you think, uh, two things, what, what are your prospects that this can be beaten?
Well, I'm going to have two answers to that.
have to be employed in order to reverse this trend, which has been going on for a long time
and has gained momentum and it looks to be the future of ways people have already been indoctrinated
to mature with their indoctrination intact.
Well, I'm gonna have two answers to that.
One, you may be surprised at, but I've already hinted at it,
and that is I think we need to have Americans get back to religion.
I agree.
There is security in God.
There's a lot of answers there in the Bible for us here.
And I'm not some fanatic, but I am a practicing Christian person.
But I think that helps make sense out of a lot of things.
And it may put some of these things in perspective as to the we're fighting evil, which I said, no God is really the thing, pro God versus no God.
So that's one thing.
So anybody can do that.
Second thing is people need to become critical thinkers.
It's a little harder for adults to do that, but they should get in the practice of asking questions as part of the idea.
But as a minimum, our children, we have absolutely unequivocally got to be teaching our children to be critical thinkers.
This is unequivocally, in my view, the top priority here.
We cannot let them be propagandized to be lobotomized lemmings.
Cannot.
Which sounds like taking them out of the public schools.
Not really.
I think the public schools are fixable.
For instance, there's a little aside.
You have a minute for another aside?
Yes, certainly.
Okay, there's a big fight in North Carolina about this issue.
North Carolina is a fairly major state, right?
So, the person that is the current superintendent of the Public Schools here, Department of Public Instructions, Carl, is a Republican, so I'm trying to be charitable here, but I've had multiple dealings with her, for instance, about this issue of critical thinking, and her sort of bureaucratic answer to me was, John, we're already doing a fine job on critical thinking, so there's no need to do anything different, was basically her answer.
That's totally false.
I know it's false because I've studied the standards and so forth, so I know that's just not happening.
So anyways, I was concerned that the primary, it was just a couple weeks ago, that there was not going to be any candidate who ran against her because she's the incumbent and, you know, moderately well-liked and whatever.
So a week or so before the primary deadline, a A person did say, I'm gonna, I'm gonna compete here.
So this was a housewife, a mother who had five kids.
All five kids had been homeschooled, so she had no experience of the public school system.
She had no prior political experience.
So this was sort of a joke that this This mom would say, OK, fine, I want to take over.
I can run this school system.
And, of course, she was opposed by everybody.
This is GOP primary now.
So, the GOP, state GOP, was in favor of the incumbent.
The leaders of the Senate were all in favor of it.
Other power players are all in favor of it.
She got a lot of money.
She outspent this housewife 20 to 1, something like that here, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So, I had spoken to her, too.
So, I called her up after the incumbent said she didn't want to do anything.
I called this woman up and said, what are your views about what we need to fix here?
And she said, well, you tell me, since you know more about it.
So, I told her about critical thinking.
And she was very receptive.
So she said, John, you know, I'll tell you what.
I get a lot of talks here now.
This is in January.
I'm going to introduce critical thinking into the talks.
I said, okay, you tell me what happens.
So she called back a few weeks later and said, John, I just want to tell you that every time I introduce critical thinking, which is almost all the time, the response was very, very positive.
I said, well, why not?
Who is against teaching critical thinking?
And she said, well, you're right.
Everybody should assume it's being done, but it's not.
So I'm going to continue to emphasize that.
So she did.
And she's a staunch conservative.
And she was against some of the other bad things that are happening in schools, like SEL.
So the story is that Primary Day in March happened And she won.
This was a national news story.
It was on Fox National Headline here for a couple of days.
They were stunned to say how this housewife could beat this incumbent who had the support of everybody and had all this money and everything.
How did this happen?
So, I'm telling you something positive.
That's why I'm saying what can be done.
If you get out there and support good candidates, and if you get these people the right type of ideas, I'm working with her now because she has continued to be receptive to some things.
So, I don't see any indication it's going to change.
I don't know what's going to happen here.
We're down to a two-person race here.
So, she has a pretty good chance of succeeding here.
But I'm just giving that as an example that one person or, you know, small numbers of people can make a difference.
I agree.
Now, John, how do people get in touch with you if they want to follow you?
What's the best way?
Well, I have a newsletter that's free every two weeks.
I have the Substack column that comes out every week.
How do they subscribe to the newsletter and what is the Substack?
What is the name of the sub stack?
Well, it's critical thinking about societal issues, but I think if you just type in critical thinking or my name, you'll find it.
As far as the newsletter, the best way is probably just to send me an email saying, John, I'd like the newsletter and I'll subscribe to you.
So if you want to post that on your site, my email, it's a AAPR.
That's Apple, Apple, Peter, Robert, AAPR, John, my name, J-O-H-N, so AAPR John, first part, at northnet, N-O-R-D-H-N-E-T, northnet.org.
So, AAPR John, northnet.org.
Send me an email, I'd be glad to subscribe to you.
I always end by saying, in the end, God always wins.
God will win here, too.
No doubt about it.
God did not create the human race to fail, and we go through these spiritual challenges, and we may have a judgment of God.
You can't, as they say, you can't fool with Mother Nature, it's not a good idea, but in the end God will set things right, and this is a spiritual battle.
So I always encourage people to, I implore people to go to 2 Chronicles 7.14, which says we should repent, We're letting things get to this point, killing millions of babies in the womb, all the things we've done.
And God will hear our prayer and heal our land, but it begins with us taking action, with us recognizing our role and responsibility in reversing the way things are.
I have a motto that applies there, Jerry, if you don't mind.
It's a one-sided thing.
What the motto that I've lived by for a long time, and that is that the proper perspective about God and you is pray as if everything depended on God, but work as if everything depended on you.
Well, that's a good one, because, in fact, God is not going to act until and unless we act.
God acts through human beings, and that's, I think, where people do have to pray, but at the same time have to take responsibility and have to get involved, have to understand their role in being responsible for living moral lives and supporting moral values.
Yes.
We have to have a moral society or else we've got chaos.
John, it's been a great pleasure to have you with us.
Thank you very much.
Any last comments you'd like to make?
Is there a website?
You've given out the email for the newsletter.
That's my email in general.
That's your email in general.
John at Northnet.org.
Yes.
Okay, great.
We'll find that on the internet, and thank you very much, John, for being with us.
We greatly appreciate your time.
God bless, and we'll be wanting to have you back from time to time.
I appreciate that, Jerry.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
God bless.
We'll be back with more programs like this.
Thank you all for listening.
Dr. Jerome Corsi, this is TheTruthCentral.com with a special program with John Drozd, D-R-O-Z.
We're greatly appreciative for his time and his insight.
