Steven Young is a former PhD Theoretical Physicist who saw the light. He is the author of ‘A Fool’s Wisdom: Science Conspiracies & The Secret Art of Alchemy’, which describes his journey down the rabbit hole and his investigations of everything from the Bible to Flat Earth and the non-existence of nuclear weapons. James is a big fan of his electronic music too, which Steven records under the name Hedflux. His website is Stevenyoung.uk and you can check out his music at Hedflux.com↓ Monetary Metals is providing a true alternative to saving and earning in dollars by making it possible to save AND EARN in gold and silver.Monetary Metals has been paying interest on gold and silver for over 8 years.Right now, accredited investors can earn 12% annual interest on silver, paid in silver in their latest silver bond offering. For example, if you have 1,000 ounces of silver in the deal, you receive 120 ounces of silver interest paid to your account in the first year.Go to the link in the description or head to https://monetary-metals.com/delingpole/ to learn more about how to participate and start earning a return on honest money again with Monetary Metals.↓ ↓ How environmentalists are killing the planet, destroying the economy and stealing your children's future.In Watermelons, an updated edition of his ground-breaking 2011 book, James tells the shocking true story of how a handful of political activists, green campaigners, voodoo scientists and psychopathic billionaires teamed up to invent a fake crisis called ‘global warming’.This updated edition includes two new chapters which, like a geo-engineered flood, pour cold water on some of the original’s sunny optimism and provide new insights into the diabolical nature of the climate alarmists’ sinister master plan.Purchase Watermelons (2024) by James Delingpole here: https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Shop/Products/Watermelons-2024.html↓ ↓ ↓Buy James a Coffee at:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpoleThe official website of James Delingpole:https://jamesdelingpole.co.ukx
I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest, but before we meet him, let's have a word from one of our sponsors.
Monetary Metals is providing a true alternative to saving and earning in dollars by making it possible to save and earn in gold and silver.
Monetary Metals has been paying interest on gold and silver for over eight years.
Right now, accredited investors can earn 12% annual interest on silver, paid in silver, in their latest silver bond offering.
For example, if you have 1,000 ounces of silver in the deal, you receive 120 ounces of silver interest paid to your account in the first year.
Go to the link in the description.
Or head to monetary-metals.com forward slash Dellingpole forward slash to learn about how to participate and start earning a return on honest money again with monetary metals.
I'd definitely give the silver a go.
I've got gold, but I like silver because silver has the potential to go much, much higher.
If you're of a sort of more adventurous disposition, which I am.
Anyway, you should do both, gold and silver.
If you want interest on it, go to Monktree Metals.
Welcome to the Delling Pod, Stephen Young, a.k.a.
Headflux. I would imagine that at some time in my life, I've been off your face at some kind of rave event, listening.
To your music.
And I was reminding myself, I went to your website, and I want to say thank you.
I just pressed play on that sound thing that you provide.
And it's great.
I already feel better just having listened to some of your music.
That's great.
Yeah, I wasn't expecting that, actually.
I thought you might have hit me up because of my book.
But, yeah, you've heard that.
No, I don't even know about your book, so you can tell me about all that.
Oh, really?
Yeah, yeah.
Mmm.
That's very interesting and quite surprising, honestly.
Yeah, no one's invited me on a podcast because of my music.
No, well, somebody said to me, if you knew me, Stephen, you would realize that I'm really quite flaky.
And I often do things on whims.
People tip me off and people say, you've got to talk to Stephen Young, aka Head Flux.
And I go, right, yeah, well.
And I thought your essay that I just read now on sine waves was really interesting.
But tell me about your book.
I should have read it.
Oh, wow.
Yeah, well, I mean, firstly, just to talk about Head Flux then.
So, you know, that's been 20 years I've had that music alias.
I've been releasing music and DJing.
But, you know, it all kind of, you know, came to an end in 2020, right?
Because I didn't get on board with all the nonsense.
And, you know, my music career basically just kind of came to an end.
It was killed, basically.
Yeah, I mean, I had a few gigs in the last...
Five years, maybe like four gigs in the last five years, but none this year.
Only one last year.
That must have been a blow!
I mean, because it's quite lucrative, isn't it, being an international superstar DJ?
Well, it wasn't terribly lucrative.
I mean, I was able to sustain...
The dream, if you want.
I was completely independent, so I didn't sign my soul away.
I wasn't on a record label or anything.
I was pushing it myself.
I quit my job in 2010 and just started making music every day.
I sustained it all myself, but I must admit, by 2018, 2019, I was starting to wake up to a lot of things.
And I was starting to think, how am I going to get out of this?
You know, what is my exit strategy?
Like, what am I going to do after and beyond this?
And then, of course, in 2020, I really had to think about what the hell am I going to do because, you know, my music career is finished.
And I've still released, I've still made some music.
Like, I released some music last week.
Sorry, not last week, last month.
And, you know, I've done music still, but, yeah, I don't really get gigs anymore.
And I wrote a book.
Talking about conspiracies and my background, which is in physics.
That's it!
You're that guy.
Do you know what?
I knew that was the story, but unfortunately, one of my little helpers, I said, just can you just remind me, because I get people booked to go on my podcast, and I say to my team, can you just remind me, who is this guy, Steve Young?
And so somebody sends me this link to this...
I'm sure he's got something interesting to say.
And now I know that you're the guy who did the physics thing, and then, yeah, now it all makes sense.
So, go on.
Give me the...
I mean, I wrote this book, A Fool's Wisdom, Science Conspiracies and the Secret Art of Alchemy, because I had my background, I've got a PhD in theoretical physics.
I didn't realize it's all bollocks now.
Yes, basically.
I realized it was all bollocks.
But it was a gradual process.
It started many years ago when I started to realize it was all very anti-spiritual.
As I was awakening spiritually, I wanted to understand spiritual science.
But of course, science does not welcome any of that kind of talk.
It's like you can't be a spiritual person and a scientist.
There's a polarity there.
And so this is how I ended up getting into alchemy, because I was doing a lot of the shamanism stuff, so the ayahuasca retreats and this kind of thing, and having these amazing spiritual and healing experiences, which I could not explain with my physics, even with my fancy quantum physics PhD and stuff, I just could not explain these kind of...
And so I started looking for another science that could explain it.
And this led me to alchemy.
And I just fell in love because I just got so much understanding of nature from alchemy, like more than I ever got from my schooling.
And then, of course, the more I looked, I realized this was actually, this alchemical view of science was around for 2,000 years.
I mean, they say...
From Aristotle, you know, in like 400 BC right through to like the 17th century, everyone understood fire, earth, air and water.
Those were the fundamental building blocks of creation.
But then after the 17th century, they introduced the atomism and the heliocentrism and all this kind of stuff and then turned science completely upside down, got rid of all spiritual and religious stuff from science and just made it into this...
You know, materialistic, quantitative, like mathematical, analytical stuff that is what we get taught now, which actually most of it has no relation to reality at all.
And so, yeah, so I went through several sort of awakenings to, you know, science.
And so I wrote this book where the first half is all about the science conspiracies and the second half is about alchemy and why it's superior science.
Can I, can I, before we go on, can I apologize?
It sounds like a book I really want to read.
I'm going to read it.
But in a way, it doesn't matter, because what I find is that it's almost a handicap if you've read the book beforehand, because you've got a sort of you've got a preset load of questions that you want to ask and stuff.
And actually, I prefer that the conversation just meanders because you remember what you want to remember.
And I ask you about what I find most interesting.
As it arises.
So first of all, just going back, because I did physics, you're probably too young to remember O-levels, but I did get my physics O-level.
Not that I wanted to do physics any longer than I had to, but at the time I had this idea in my head that I wanted to become a fighter pilot, and I think you needed physics.
O-level.
So I sat through this grimness.
But what I'm telling you is that I'm not of a physics bent.
And I used to be, until recently, really quite impressed by people who did physics.
Because it's a hard science, isn't it?
Yeah, yeah.
It's hard, yeah, and complex.
And it just gets, you know, it gets increasingly abstract the further you get down the road with physics, you know, to where, I mean, I did a PhD, like, in Theoretical nuclear physics, which just involves making models with algebra, with the physics equations and stuff, and then programming them into the computer and running code and stuff like that.
Very laborious, very complicated, solving huge equations that would sometimes take several weeks for the...
When it spits out the number, how does that help anybody?
Well, it doesn't.
One of the things I say in the intro of my book was, there was quite a few times when I was a physicist, where people had said to me, so I hear you're a physician.
And I had to say, actually, no, I'm not a physician, I'm a physicist.
And, of course, it begs the question, what's the difference?
And, you know, the difference is physicists don't help anyone, right?
That is the difference.
You know, a physician, like the word physic, means a healing potion or, like, healing arts.
Of course, a physician is one who practices healing arts.
But a physicist does no healing at all.
in fact doesn't actually work with people or help people in any way.
And, you know, if a physicist does do something useful, they're probably an engineer.
But a physicist who isn't an engineer, what are they even doing?
You know, what are they doing?
You're probably the perfect person to tell me.
I've been on a journey down the rabbit hole in the last few years, probably not dissimilar to your journey.
What we've discovered on the way is that all these big names of science that one has been encouraged to revere, particularly the ones from around the 1660s, the sort of the people who were associated with the Royal Society.
So Newton, Hooke, Boyle, etc.
These geniuses that one has to look up to, and they kind of established modern science.
And now I'm starting to wonder whether these guys were just talking bollocks and were pursuing a particular agenda.
Yeah. Yeah.
You know, one of the things I started looking into quantum physics recently, and I haven't put this presentation out yet, but I'm working on a presentation debunking quantum physics.
And one of the things I noticed, I started looking through the names.
The names, these are all strange names like Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, Einstein, you know, all these things.
And I started looking into the meanings of the names and wow, I mean, it's unbelievable.
Oh, tell me, tell me!
Well, you know, Einstein means one stone and it actually refers to the foundation stone.
So like in Freemasonry, when you build something, you have the first stone and all of the rest of the structure is built on the foundation stone.
And so all of modern physics is built on Einstein.
That's why they all worship Einstein and everything he says.
Because Einstein is said to have proven the existence of the atom.
He's obviously developed the theory of gravity into relativity.
And, you know, E equals mc squared was the equation for the bomb and all that.
So all of modern physics is based on Einstein.
He's the first stone in the structure, as it were.
But then, you know, you have things like Schrodinger, right?
Schrodinger means one who tears things up into little pieces.
From the word Schroding, which means shredding.
And then, you know, you have like Dirac, Paul Dirac.
Dirac means tearing things up into small pieces.
You know, you have poly, which means small or very, very tiny, you know.
And it actually goes through all of them.
I mean, to think that because that's what quantum physics does is actually tearing up reality into little pieces called quanta or particles.
And, you know, this is actually in their names.
And, yeah, there's, like, a picture of all the quantum physicists from the Solvay Conference in, like, 1927.
And I went through, like, all the names and looked at the meaning of them.
And they're not common names, you know, like Niels Bohr, right?
Bohr. Well, Bohr actually means to drill a hole or to create monotony or lack of interest.
You have Max Planck.
You know, Planck is like a piece of wood.
That's, you know, for building.
You know, like, all these things, they all relate to, like, building or, you know, tearing things up into little pieces and all that kind of stuff.
So I almost think now that they were, you know, these were made-up names and possibly even made-up characters.
I mean, yeah, it's...
That is...
That is the most interesting thing anyone has said on...
Well, actually...
No, actually, somebody said something really interesting on a podcast the other day, but...
That is pretty good.
It's pretty good.
I've got a list of them all here if you want to hear more.
Oh, go on.
I mean, I used to like Schrodinger's Cat.
I used to think, well, until the second I used to like Schrodinger's Cat because I like the theory.
I could sort of almost grasp it.
Yeah, yeah.
Almost. Yeah, I mean, well, those are sort of the best ones, like Einstein, Planck, Bohr, Born.
So the actual, the word quantum mechanics.
It was first used in a paper by Born.
So, the quantum mechanics was Born from a guy called Born.
I mean, that's pretty strange.
You know, you have, like, Heisenberg, which means, like, hot mountain.
I'm not sure that, really, the significance of that.
Heisen means, like, hot or burnt, and Berg means mountain.
But you have Bohm, David Bohm, who was one of the famous quantum physicists.
He tried to...
Combine quantum physics with consciousness.
You know, you had this kind of, this sort of idea of, a spiritual idea of quantum physics.
But it turns out Bohm is short for Bohemian, which is like one who rejects rigid materialism and embraces a creative lifestyle or whatever.
And the Bohmian interpretation of quantum physics is the one that's popular among the Bohemian people, right?
There's also a guy called Bragg.
Which means to boast or talk with excessive pride.
There's another one called Brillouin, which means brilliant one or shining one.
And of course there's Marie Curie, which is Mercury.
And Feynman, which just means a fine man or a good man or something.
All these names are really strange and they're not at all common.
There isn't a whole family of Heisenbergs somewhere in Germany or a whole family of Schrodingers in Austria or anything like that.
Extremely uncommon names and they all have very weird meanings.
I mean, you know, and that's without even getting into the physics.
You know, already just looking at the names, it looks sus.
Right. Just to pause a moment.
I said that I almost understood Schrodinger's cat.
But at the same time, I'm thinking, talking to you now, I'm thinking it's...
Utter bollocks.
The idea that the cat can be simultaneously alive and not alive.
Yeah, yeah.
And it's all about the, I mean, it's like postmodernism.
It's like, it's postmodernism in literature.
It did the same thing.
It deconstructed everything that was sort of rational and logical about the world and just sort of did your head in.
Yeah. In a wanky way.
Yeah. I feel like that's all physicists really do, is they just sit around explaining things in a really pompous way, but they never create anything or heal anything or fix anything.
And with all this particle physics stuff, all the big accelerators and CERN and all this, we're always promised there's going to be some new physics discovery that's going to change the world, but nothing.
You know, nothing good has ever come out of any of those facilities, like no technological advancements, nothing.
So when you were a physicist, and you were, I mean, did you, how long were you, you went to, you did an undergraduate degree and then a postgraduate degree?
Yeah, I did a master's in theoretical physics from St Andrews University, and then a post PhD in theoretical physics at Surrey University in Guilford.
I mean, St Andrews is a very agreeable, Yeah, it's a great time.
I mean, that's where I live pretty much.
It's just, you know, I'm near where I live.
So, Miss Andrews is a lovely place.
And it is a good university.
It was like the first university in Scotland and stuff.
But, yeah, the curriculum.
This is the thing.
The curriculum was designed long ago for reasons of, like, have you heard of learning against learning?
Like the Jesuit.
Yes, I have.
Tell me more about it.
Well, I mean, I only learned about this recently, but it just made sense.
It's like you're constantly learning, but you're never learning the good stuff.
I would say alchemy and astrology are the real, true ancient sciences.
But you could go to university and spend 10 years learning.
You'll learn nothing about alchemy or astrology.
You're always learning, but you never get the good stuff.
And I think when people do PhDs, they go so deep down into these wormholes of learning that are totally unproductive, fruitless, you know, nothing is made, nothing is fixed, nothing is healed.
But it's all just done in the name of pure science, you know.
Okay, when you were pursuing, when you were wearing your physicist's hat and you were pursuing pure science...
And it doesn't get much purer than theory, does it?
Because it's untainted by the real world.
When you were doing this stuff, did you ever have a little voice in your head saying, you know, Steve, this could be just like absolute bollocks?
Maybe. You know, people have said this kind of thing before.
There isn't...
Time when you're at university to reflect on what you're learning because there's always the pressure to assimilate the information, pass the exam, and then get on to the next thing.
It's not really until you leave that you actually have the opportunity.
I mean, it's been 20 years since I left university now, so I've lived for 20 years.
I've studied all other sciences and ancient science and read the Bible and all that, all the stuff that I never had when I was young.
And I can see how nothing that I learned has achieved anything in the world.
I can see how the theories that I learned are not operating in the world except for the purposes of psychological operations or manipulations.
Manipulating people's beliefs.
But there's no actual fruits of the theories.
Nothing has actually been built from these theories.
And even with quantum physics, they'll tell you things like...
They'll tell you, like, the laser is an application of quantum physics.
It's not.
They'll tell you, obviously, the nuclear bomb, right, that'll be the big one.
That's the application.
If it's real.
It ain't, yeah.
Oh, we can go there.
Before we go there, though.
Yeah, I mean, if you want to hear a nuclear physicist tell you that nukes aren't real, then I'm happy to be that guy.
Excellent. Excellent.
I'm really enjoying this already.
We're just 20 minutes in, and I'm just in ecstasy.
So thank you for that.
Thank you for bringing me to ecstasy.
Well, thanks for having me on, yeah.
And our audience as well.
I'm sure they're loving you as much as I am.
It's just that...
Because I was a...
I was schooled in the arts.
I mean, you are at school.
Either you're of an artistic bent or a scientific bent, and you tend to get put in your box fairly early on.
So I was good at the artsy stuff.
And I remember being made to feel small to a degree by the fact that I was not...
A scientist and that science was kind of real and these people were doing proper stuff and all the arty people like myself were doing were just sort of floating around on clouds and sort of, you know, picking daisies and making daisy chains and just doing something that was worthless.
And it's only recently that I've come to realise that The sciences are at least as useless as the arts, if not more so, because they're more dangerous.
Well, at least with arts, though, you come out with a skill, presumably.
I mean, you know, that was, you know, so after I finished my PhD, I was unemployed for six months, applying for jobs in all kinds of different places.
And, you know, it was always the same response.
It was like, well, you know, sounds impressive.
But what skills have you got?
And I'll be like, oh, well, you know, I can solve triple integrals and all this shit.
It's like, nobody needs that.
Nobody needs that.
I actually had no skills.
I mean, just a small amount of computer programming skill.
But at the same time, the code that we were using to solve these equations was like Fortran 90 or something.
It's a really old programming language that no one uses anymore.
So I couldn't get a job as a programmer.
And then I ended up getting a job working for a consultancy, like an IT consultancy company, working mainly for banks.
And this is the thing, most PhD physicists end up working in the banking sector one way or another, which is disappointing, right?
When you're learning all this stuff about fundamental reality and stuff, you're like, oh, I'm going to do something scientific.
Something that makes a difference and then you end up just working for banks.
It's the way it goes.
When did you discover that nukes aren't real?
Tell me how you made this discovery.
Well, after the pandemic and all that kicked off, I went on this journey of first of all looking into viruses and then realizing that there's no proof of viruses.
And I met some of the other people in that sort of scene, you know, the people who were questioning the pandemic and everything.
And I learned a lot about logic and analysis and stuff.
And I thought, you know, I need to look at my education now, my background, really with a fine-tooth comb.
No, I'd actually, I'd already, I was already a flat earther by this point.
Oh, were you?
Yeah, yeah.
We can go there as well.
Yeah, that's fine.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, I'm the guy for that.
I mean, I wrote three chapters of my book.
I promise you, I'm going to get this book.
It just sounds great.
Yeah. So, yeah, that happened in 2016.
But I kept it secret, right?
Because I was just like, I can't tell anyone about this.
I'm going to get ridiculed.
It's worse than discovering you're gay.
It's far worse.
You're in the closet, right?
We talk to people about it in private, try to have discussions with people, but I kept it off the internet.
Anyway, so I'd been down that rabbit hole and understand the cosmology was not correct and that gravity didn't exist, which is a big one.
But then it was later, probably after the pandemic, I started looking into all the nukes and atomism.
So that's what I got the root of is actually atomism, which is a belief system that everything in the universe is reducible to atoms floating in a void.
And it's an ancient belief system.
It goes way back to BC, to ancient Greeks and so on.
But it was revived in...
The 17th century.
And, you know, this is how we...
So basically now physics is all about atoms, right?
It's just all about atoms.
Even chemistry as well.
It's like all atoms and molecules.
And so I started looking at that first.
And I started to realize that the theory of...
The theory and the practice were just existing in their own, you know, tracks, basically.
Like the theorists...
There's a department for theorists and a department for experimentalists.
And, you know, it doesn't...
It's like the theory is not leading to developments in technology, is what I figured out.
It's just a bunch of people sitting around trying to explain things, but the theories are not leading to fruits.
And I started looking at how do we know that atoms exist?
Everyone assumes atoms exist.
We've got all these models of atoms, all these theories, the electron, proton, neutron.
And I started looking into whether or not those had ever been isolated or really proven to exist in any satisfactory way.
And I concluded that, actually, they haven't.
And this was five years ago, and I'm even more sure of it now because I've spoken to academics and emeritus professors and all that who've been studying this stuff their whole life, and they can't give me a single proof that it exists either.
They've just assumed that these things were real their whole lives.
They've never seen one, never isolated an electron or anything like that.
So does that mean I'm excited by this?
Well, I came of the opinion that there's no subatomic particles.
There's no such thing as the atomic nucleus or electrons, protons and neutrons.
They're just made up shit?
Yeah, so it's a model of this thing called the atom.
Which is a hypothetical thing in and of itself.
So, you know, you're talking about, with atomism, you're talking about hypothetical particles in a hypothetical void.
Because there's no evidence of the particles and no evidence of the void either.
Like, nature always fills a vacuum, right?
We're told that our space is a void, but we can't prove it.
Not anyone who can prove that there's a vacuum in us.
Because it's not real.
Exactly. Anyway, so, you know, I'd heard that the nukes weren't real.
I'd heard this idea before, but for me, I needed to go to the real root of it and establish whether or not the atomic nucleus is even real, you know, because that's the issue.
I mean, they obviously have big bombs.
In fact, with the nuclear bombs in Japan, there was a study done on those where they claimed it was napalm and mustard gas.
So they used napalm to create the firebombing effect and then mustard gas to create the sort of poisoning or radiation poisoning effect.
And that was a guy called Michael Palmer.
And that seemed quite compelling.
And, you know, the fact that they just built back Hiroshima and Nagasaki just built right back after the bombings, whereas in physics they would say that there should be like thousands of years of nuclear fallout where...
Everything is decaying and, you know, it can't sustain life and all this kind of stuff.
But actually, there's not been any nuclear fallout from any of these supposed nuclear blasts.
So, yeah, there's a lot of things that just don't add up with the nukes.
But, yeah, when I actually went to the actual theory itself, I'm not even convinced that there is any such thing as an atomic nucleus.
But it's an ultimate power.
The thing with the nukes is it's an ultimate power, right?
The nuclear, it was called the Atomic Dilemma.
And this was the idea that anyone sometimes can just push a button and destroy the entire world.
You know, that was never something that people had to think about before 1945.
And after that, they created this thing called the Atomic Dilemma.
And then so then all these countries then are like, we've got to get nukes, you know, as a deterrent.
For other people who have nukes and stuff, and then there's this whole nuclear race.
But I think it's all just to scare people, honestly.
Yeah, so all those stories were told about Klaus Fuchs betraying the atom secrets of the West to the East, and when Israel got the nuclear bomb, and then India got the nuclear bomb.
And I'm thinking, oh, and the stuff about Bikini Atoll, that we know, we know the name, we know it gave a name to an item of clothing, and there's so much wrapped up, there's so much history and so many cultural references towards, to reinforce the narrative about atomic weaponry.
Yeah, I mean, the whole Russia threat, right?
For 60 years they've been saying Russia's just got nukes and is ready to fire them at us at any time.
They have one called Satan 2.0, which is quite funny.
Yeah, I think it's just a way of scaring people with this kind of ultimate power and keeping people in line.
Like the duck and cover drills in the 60s, you know, they got the kids to hide under the desks and stuff.
Threads. Yeah.
And, you know, it's always lingering.
It's almost like every week on the news now that people talk about nuclear threat of this or we could start nuclear war and, you know, all this.
But, yeah.
Can you give me an idiot's guide wearing your old physicist hat to the theory behind...
Making an atom bomb explode.
So they invent this thing called the atom, and they say that when you split it, it causes something huge to happen.
Yeah, so they say with uranium, they split one atom, and then that atom splits apart, and then the energy of that splits the other ones apart, and then there's this chain reaction where all the atoms...
Split apart and release this huge amount of energy.
But the thing is, bombs are scalable.
You can make a bomb as big as you want, right?
It's just a case of just mixing the fuels together and igniting it.
You don't actually have to be an atomist or a quantum physicist or anything like that to make a really big bomb.
So it's only through the nuclear fallout would be the only way to establish.
That it was actually a nuclear bomb.
But because there's never been any nuclear fallouts anywhere in history, and, you know, we're talking about Chernobyl and Fukushima and all that as well, but, you know, these things, when you look into them, there's no nuclear fallout, right?
It's like there's other explanations for what happened.
Well, yeah, I mean...
Chernobyl, the area around there, is just teeming with wildlife and stuff, isn't it?
Yeah, and there's people living there.
There's a documentary guy that lives there.
Teeming with wildlife as well.
The thing is, if they're exposed to radiation, there's a difference between radiation and radioactivity.
Radiation is just light itself.
It's light or fire or heat.
But radioactivity...
It's this idea that there's little particles being spat out and that these are powerful and dangerous little particles being spat out from certain materials like uranium.
And the more I looked into that, I realized there's no evidence for these little particles.
I mean, sure, radiation, yes, but radioactivity, just not buying it.
And again, I'm not saying that things can't be dangerous as well.
Radiation can be dangerous.
I'm just saying that I don't believe it's made from little particles, right?
That's the thing.
So which bits can I trust then?
Okay, because you've made the point about Marie Curie, Mercury, who mysteriously, I mean amazingly, go girl, didn't she win two Nobel Prizes?
Yeah, she's the only woman in the Solvay conference photo as well, that photo I was telling you about with all the quantum physicists, all these old men with beards and everything, and then there's this one woman.
And I noticed, actually, they've just released a movie about her on Amazon Prime.
I've not watched it yet, but it looks like a propaganda piece.
No. It's from the trailer.
Surely not.
Let me guess.
Is Taylor Swift playing?
Marie Curie.
Because she'd be good.
Or he would.
Yeah, I'm not sure.
I've not watched it, but just the trailer was enough to make me raise an eyebrow.
According to the myth, didn't Marie Curie die of radiation poisoning from all the...
Yeah, I believe so.
And there was also this other incident, the Radium Girls.
Did you hear about that?
Oh, the ones doing the watches?
Yeah, yeah.
Tell me about this.
I'm just going to hunch that that's a fake story as well.
Yes! So, what I'm asking you, really, let's cut to the chase here.
If somebody came around to my house, knocked on the door and said, we've got a chunk of plutonium for you, Mr. Dellingpong, I'd say, yeah, can you sign for it?
And I'll put it in my pocket.
Like on The Simpsons, where, you know...
It goes to the supermarket with bath and stuff, with Maggie and whatever.
Is plutonium...
does it hurt you?
Well, no.
So there's a guy called Galen Windsor.
Have you heard of him?
I saw this.
Yeah. I mean, it's a really interesting case.
I don't know whether to believe him or not.
Tell us what he said, first of all.
Well, because he was the head of nuclear fuel inventory for...
In the USA.
So he had a pretty major job working at these reactors and processing the fuel.
So, I mean, in short, his story was that they worked for years with these nuclear reactors.
They're basically using uranium, which I would say what uranium does is it's able to store energy and release it over a long period of time.
So it can be charged up and then you can put it in water.
And then the energy will release and boil off the water, and then the steam creates, you know, they have a turbine, which...
Oh, I can understand that.
That's how a nuclear power station works.
They put the uranium in the water, it creates steam, and it dries the turbines, which creates the electricity.
So, yeah, so I think the...
I've never worked with these materials myself, but anyway, so he was saying that they all, like, they handled all the stuff.
Originally, they were just handling it all by hand.
No gloves.
No face masks, no protection.
They were just carrying the uranium around and the plutonium, which is created in the reactor.
So plutonium is a man-made substance that's created in this process.
And they would just pick it all apart.
He was like drinking water out of the reactor and going swimming in the pool.
He was swimming in the pool, wasn't he, where all these bits of radioactive...
Yeah, and he used to eat uranium on stage as well to prove that it wasn't dangerous.
But yeah, so what he said was that, and I forget what year this was, but after a period of time, the government came down super heavy-handed with safety regulations, and they were like, you can only have 10 minutes of exposure per day to this material.
And he's like...
But we've been working with this stuff for years.
He's like, we're perfectly happy.
We handle it all the time.
Nobody's getting sick.
You know, everyone loves their jobs.
And you're now telling us we can only have 10 minutes of exposure to it a day and it has to be with this suit on behind this glass and all this kind of stuff.
He's like, you're going to just completely, you know, ruin our whole operation here.
And, you know, it basically, I think it did, you know.
And so he obviously left his career and then would go around touring telling people that...
Nuclear is not as dangerous as we've been told.
Presumably, a decision had been made at a very high level to nip nuclear energy in the bud by stymieing it with all these onerous regulations that it could never compete against other power forms if it did all this health and safety stuff.
Do you have any theories about why that decision was made?
Or who made it?
Well, yeah, so it seems like around before World War II, a lot of this stuff was way more available.
Things like uranium glass and radium.
There's evidence that radium was sold as a heat source or an energy source.
You could heat your house with a block of radium in the fireplace and things like that.
And this was from the turn of the last century through to about World War II.
And then shortly after World War II, they started banning it all.
And so the Radium Girls story was used to stop the sale of radium.
And then with the nuclear stuff, yeah, there's this huge Cold War essentially came out after World War II where it's just all about nuclear and the fear of nuclear.
But nowadays, I mean, they have...
There's companies in the States making these small modular nuclear reactors, you know, which you've seen those, they're like the size of a, you know, I don't know, sit on your desk or something, and they're saying, like, power your house for like 10 years off this one little thing.
You know, and even mainstream nuclear physicists, like, these days are admitting that, like, there was no fallout at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Although they say that it's because it blew away in the wind.
That's the official story.
All the nuclear particles blew away in the wind.
Right. I think it's just trying to cover up a powerful type of technology, which is these radiant materials, materials that can store energy and release them over a long period of time.
I was just thinking, Can you remember the title of the Raymond Briggs book?
No. You know Fungus the Bogeyman?
I'm not sure.
Raymond Briggs, the guy who wrote the Fungus the Bogeyman book, also wrote a picture book with his charming illustrations about this ordinary elderly English couple and their experiences when the bomb went off.
And the book was called When the wind blows.
And now, I've realised that they were preparing their excuse.
When the wind blows.
It's everywhere.
You look around at our culture and you think, Doctor Strange Love.
Just everywhere.
Yeah, well, I mean, one of the other things...
Long's his album title.
Which one?
Atomic. Didn't they have an album called Atomic?
Who? Blondie.
No, I'm not sure.
That's a little bit outside my scene.
You're what?
You're 40s?
47. Yeah, you're a child.
I don't remember Blondie.
Blondie might have been, she might have been a man.
I'm not sure about this.
We all fancied her.
But then we were encouraged to fancy a man who looked like.
Yeah, yeah.
That was part of the deal.
Yeah, I mean...
Sorry, go on.
Well, it's only that I'm aware that we've got so much science to debunk.
So have we dealt with nukes?
Is there anything more you want to say about nukes that we should know before we move on to...
Well, you know, again, just going back to the atom thing.
So with atomism, right, you have the nuclear theory and quantum theory.
Which has come out from the atomic theory.
What is quantum theory, just briefly?
Well, it's a new theory of the atom that came about at the beginning of the last century through Einstein and some others.
It's this idea that the atom is this fuzzy thing that's phasing in and out of reality.
Like the cat?
Yeah, like the cat kind of thing.
Yeah, yeah.
So it's a new theory because before that, before the 19th century, sorry, before the 20th century, atoms were considered to be just like indivisible, like little hard balls of solid stuff, you know, like 100% solid stuff that you cannot split.
And then in the 20th century, they're like, oh, you can split it.
You can split it.
It's made up of smaller particles, protons, neutrons, and electrons.
Some decades later, they say, oh, and those are made of smaller particles still and smaller.
So it's just like, and now there's like, God knows how many particles in the atom.
You know, I don't even know.
There's new ones all the time.
And of course, you assume that those are being discovered.
You think, oh, well, those must be, those particles must be discovered.
But when you actually look at the science of it, Again, it's like the discovery of a virus, right?
It's not actually being discovered, as in isolated and contained.
It's just a theory.
It's an explanation, essentially, of something.
I mean, what is the God particle?
What's that about?
I know, that's ridiculous.
I mean, they say it's a particle that...
It gives mass to other particles.
Well, what were the particles before they had mass then?
It's a bit of a strange one.
Essentially, by giving mass to something, it's like giving something a body.
In the same way that God would give us our body, like a spirit takes on a body, it's like the God particle gives particles a body.
That's why they call it the God particle.
I'm thinking, actually, I could have an alternative career as a theoretical physicist.
Because it seems to just sort of involve just making up impressive sounding bollocks.
Like, I could say, I think I've discovered the Avenger particle.
And I haven't worked out what the Avenger...
It's got to be pretty cool, right?
An Avenger particle.
It probably...
Cleans out the bad particles.
Yeah. Well, they had one just the other week.
There was a news story saying they've discovered a new particle that only has mass when it travels in one direction and has no mass when it travels in the other direction.
Of course.
I mean...
Why didn't we think of that?
Come on, you're the physicist.
You've failed.
But yeah, I mean, with a lot of this stuff, it's the...
You know, the fruits, you know, there's that quote, right?
You shall know them by their fruits.
The idea is, like, if you want to figure out whether something's good or not, then, you know, actually taste the fruits of the labor.
And so, you know, when I started looking at all these theories and what's actually been produced by them, I realized there's none.
You know, there is no fruits.
There's stuff that they claim is a fruit, but isn't like the laser, for example.
So, you know, they say a laser is an application of quantum theory, but it's actually just a flashlight with a...
Filter and lenses and mirrors inside of it.
I mean, it's pretty low tech, actually.
But I was taught that a laser was like this super genius application of quantum theory.
It's all about photons and electrons jumping out of their atoms and all this kind of thing.
It's just a torch with a red filter and some mirrors and lenses to focus it.
Literally smoke and mirrors.
When I was young, probably before you were born, in fact definitely before you were born, there was a song in the charts which went something like, you better watch out, you better beware, Einstein says E equals MC squared.
I think it was called Einstein's a go-go, maybe that was the name of the band.
Are you going to upset me by telling me that that song was a lie?
E equals MC squared is just more bollocks.
E equals MC squared is the most famous physics equation in the world, right?
Everyone knows it.
Everyone knows it.
Even if they don't know how to convert miles to kilometers, they know about E equals MC squared, right?
But have you heard the joke about it?
No, no, tell me.
So I heard this from the comedian Owen Benjamin, but apparently E equals MC squared stands for Einstein married his cousin twice.
Because he actually married his first and his second cousin.
So his second wife, Elsa Einstein, was his first cousin on his father's side and his second cousin on his mother's side.
So he married his first and second cousin in one go.
There's a joke that MC squared stands for married cousin twice.
I can believe, because they like implanting these clues.
I can add to that, Elsa...
Was the name of the lioness in Born Free, which again, you're too young to remember, but it was a documentary about white lions that we all saw in about 1973.
Interesting. Anyway, E equals MC squared.
Energy equals...
Einstein equals married cousin twice.
Married cousin twice.
Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, is what it allegedly means.
So it's an equation linking mass and energy.
And then they say in the nuclear bomb, all the mass is converted into energy.
So it's supposed to be the equation for that.
Is any of anything that we're taught true?
Like, for example, is there a speed of light?
And is it the speed they tell us it is?
Well, yeah, I mean, there's, you know, when it comes to vibration...
Energy and vibration.
You know, things work, you know, there are frequencies and, you know, the wave theory of physics works very well.
In fact, that is the part of physics that works, like classical physics, classical wave mechanics.
That stuff all works very well.
I mean, that's how we have, like, things like synthesizers and, you know, computers.
Classical physics, who invented that?
Well, I don't know who invented it, but it's just the old-style physics before it became all about atoms and quantums and general relativity and all this kind of stuff.
It's just classical physics.
It's like thermodynamics, the movement of bodies, like vibration, waves, all this kind of stuff.
It just works.
I mean, it's the basis of all engineering, all technology, all software.
That's all based on classical physics, and it just works.
It's just good, solid physics.
But we're told, when we go to learn physics, we're told that there was a paradigm shift at the beginning of the 20th century, or even before, actually, as far back as the 17th century, where the theoretical conception of the world changed completely.
So going back, for example, to Copernicus, we're talking about going from a stationary world...
To a world that's rotating and going around the sun.
I mean, that's a huge leap for people to make.
And it took hundreds of years.
And even then, there still hasn't been any consensus on it.
You know, we're taught about the Earth spinning around the sun as if it's a consensus and a proven fact and all that.
But there's never been a consensus on it.
Like, people have been arguing about cosmology and the Earth and the cosmos.
For hundreds of years.
But we go to school and we're taught like, oh, it's a consensus.
Everyone knows we're on a globe spinning around the sun, flying through space at this ridiculous speed and all that.
But it's not a consensus at all.
Yes. I mean, it's even more than that.
You're actually made to feel stupid even to question why.
You know, say you're a school kid and you're like, duh, everyone knows that.
That we revolve around the Sun.
It's so basic that you shouldn't even inquire.
Just like the scientists told us, didn't they?
Yeah, yeah.
The same with atoms.
Everyone knows atoms exist.
It's like, prove it.
Have you looked into...
Newton was dodgy as...
Yeah, Newton.
Yeah, what was it they said?
He was a...
An anti-Trinitarian alchemist, I've heard him described as.
So he was against the Trinity, the idea of the Trinity, and against a lot of biblical stuff.
But he was also interested in alchemy.
So he actually wrote over a million words on alchemy, which we never hear about in school.
He wrote more on alchemy than he did on physics.
But it turns out he was actually kind of a misguided alchemist as well, because he didn't...
You know, he wasn't rooted in scripture.
So, yeah, and he was into, like, magic and, you know, magical action at a distance.
So that was one of the things, like, the theory of gravity is actually a theory of magical action at a distance, right?
It's the idea that a body can influence another body, you know, miles away, hundreds of miles away, thousands of miles away, somehow, magically, right, that these bodies can affect each other.
And he was interested in that because he was a magician.
He wanted to be able to affect things with his will that were far away and stuff.
Can you give me the official version of gravity and how it works, and then tell me what you think is really going on.
Okay, so Newtonian gravity is the idea that just mass attracts mass.
So in the atom, most of the mass is said to be in the nucleus.
An idea that the nucleus of the atom creates this force which is able to attract other atoms to it.
And if you have a big thing like a planet or whatever, then that's got so much mass in it that it will attract other planets and things like that.
Like a magnet?
Like a magnet, yeah, but not magnetism.
It's a new force that Newton postulated.
He wrote down an equation, and that just made it real somehow.
A new force.
It's like the God particle, isn't it?
It's just...
Yeah. Yeah.
Okay, so the mouse attracts...
Yeah, so there's something in a logical fallacy called the reification fallacy, which is when you believe something abstract.
To be something concrete in the world.
And this is what we do with gravity, right?
So Newton actually just postulated the existence of a force.
He said, you know, things fall due to a force and the equation for the force is this.
And he wrote it down.
That's an abstract thing, right?
It's actually an abstract mathematical equation.
But we believe it to be a concrete agent acting in the world.
That's the fallacy of gravity, is that just because someone postulated a force doesn't mean that the force exists.
And there's actually, it's been 350 years, there's still no evidence that gravity even exists as a force.
So the theory of gravity was then rebranded, as it were, in the 20th century with Einstein and relativity.
If you like, it was generalized.
So he said, oh, it's not about...
Particles attracting other particles.
It's actually about this thing called space-time.
And it's like a giant trampoline that all the stars and planets sit on.
You've seen this kind of thing, right?
Like the space-time continuum?
You've seen any of that stuff?
I remember the phrase from...
Star Trek.
Yeah, but...
It was big on Star Trek.
So Einstein generalized the theory of gravity into relativity.
And relativity is actually much more sinister theory than Newton's original concept of gravity because relativity is all about moral relativism and this idea that there's no absolute anything.
So up is not up, right?
Because up is different for everybody.
If you're on a ball, Then the direction up is different for every person on the ball.
Yeah, if you're on a spinning ball.
If you're on a ball, yeah, yeah.
So now up is no longer up, down is no longer down.
It's all relative, right?
And he said the same about speed.
If you're traveling at high speed, he said that's indistinguishable from being at rest.
Traveling is indistinguishable from rest.
That's what Einstein said.
But this is not true.
I mean, you've probably done a lot of traveling as well, I'd imagine.
It's never indistinguishable from being at rest.
But anyway, so these sort of principles, and the idea that there's no right or wrong, so there's no moral compass in the universe, there's no preference like right or wrong is what you say it is.
It's all relative, right?
This all comes out from Einstein's theory.
So, yeah, relativity is actually pretty...
It affects how people see the world.
The reason why people believe they're flying through the universe on a giant ball, when you can't feel anything and you don't sense any movement, there's no measurable movement of the earth, no way to prove that any of that's happening, people believe it because of the theory of relativity.
Because the theory of relativity is considered the greatest intellectual achievement of mankind that explains the universe and everything.
But when you really get down to it, again, no fruits, nothing.
You're talking about a theory that has produced nothing.
And so you're like, well, if they can't build anything with it, they can't do anything with it, they can't heal anything, can't fix anything, then what even is it?
It's just an idea, a belief system, a philosophy, you could say.
Yeah, so, yeah.
So, I mean, that's how gravity's gone, basically.
So it was completely, the theory of gravity was completely changed in the 20th century by Einstein, and we now have relativity instead.
And so, the thing with the quantum stuff, I was going to say as well about quantum computers.
So this is another ultimate power that is kind of dangled in front of us like nuclear bombs or whatever.
So the quantum computer is allegedly going to be able to solve calculations at infinite speed.
So it'll basically be able to crack everyone's code, hack everyone's password, hack everyone's bank account, break all the encryptions in the world, literally with just the press of a return key, because it's that powerful.
The thing is, I was hearing about this stuff in 1996.
When I first went to uni, they were talking about quantum computers then, saying the exact same stuff that they say today, but they've still never proven anything.
They've never demonstrated a quantum computer.
They just bring out this black box, and they say, there it is!
We're getting somewhere with it.
It's just this ultimate power that's always on the horizon but never materializes.
And, you know, I find it's a lot of stuff like that.
Does that mean that, what's it called, the singularity?
When the machines can do all the things we can do, but better, and then it's all over.
Oh, is that Kurzweil?
Ray Kurzweil, the technological singularity, yeah.
I mean, I think that's, yeah, kind of a hypothetical thing as well, but...
The idea is that quantum computers, they say, are able to exist.
So you know how computers are based on ones and zeros, like switch on or switch off.
Well, they say that a quantum computer can be a one and a zero at the same time.
So it's just able to calculate everything instantaneously.
No matter how complicated the problem is, the quantum computer must be able to crack it like that.
But there's just no such thing.
I mean, it's just based on totally false theoretical principles that don't stand up to scrutiny.
But they're quite happy to just run with it and keep dangling in front of our face like it's just coming round the corner.
But as with all these things, there's an element of truth, isn't there?
Like it's high-frequency trading, for example.
The companies that make...
Unfeasible amounts of money from just tiny, tiny differences in the share price and doing this at great speed constantly.
Yeah, I mean...
There must be very...
I mean, computers I imagine are getting faster.
Yeah, oh yeah, fast computers.
Yeah, I mean, you know, powerful computers for sure.
It's like with the bomb, right?
It's like you can have powerful bombs, they're just not nuclear.
And the same way you can have powerful computers, they're just not...
Quantum. They're telling you this is based on a whole new kind of impossible physics that makes no logical sense.
And as I say, it's been 30 years since I first started learning about quantum computers.
So think about that.
Think about how much technology has progressed in the last 30 years.
But quantum computers?
No progress.
None whatsoever.
It's just like...
They ain't real.
When did you go down the Flat Earth rabbit hole?
Yeah, well, that started in like 2015, 2016.
And of course, I was skeptical about it like anyone and, you know, heard...
Oh, hang on.
I'm just getting rid of my annoying son.
Hello. I'm doing a podcast.
Bye. Yeah, so, you know, I'd heard about it a few times from people.
Actually, the first time I heard the actual term Flat Earth was in 1999, and I was playing this Illuminati card game.
Have you seen that, the Illuminati card game?
You had a copy of it?
Yeah, I didn't have a copy.
I was at university, and someone had it, like the original game.
And everyone played it one time.
And I got the Flat Earthers card.
There's a card for the Flat Earthers.
It says, people laugh, but Flat Earthers know something.
I thought it was a really interesting way.
And then I didn't hear about it again for another 15, 16 years.
And then it started coming up online.
And I thought, I've got to check this out.
What the hell is it that these people really believe?
Because I thought there must just be people who are stuck in the past.
Because I thought, we've known for hundreds of years that we live on a giant spinning ball.
How the hell could these people, what could they be thinking?
Idiots. I've got to look into it.
I also can't remember how long it took, maybe a few weeks.
I watched some Eric Dubé and some of the Santos Bonacci presentations that were going around at the time.
It just started to click.
You know, eventually I just remember one day just feeling like just coming down to the stationary plane after having been, you know, mentally on this ball spinning around the cosmos for my whole life.
And just this feeling of just coming down to just solid stationary Earth and being like, actually, God, yeah, the Earth is not moving, is it?
Clearly. It makes a lot more intuitive sense, doesn't it?
Yeah, yeah, totally.
It really brings you back down to Earth.
I mean, instead of your head out there in this imaginary cosmos.
So what were the clinches for you?
What really persuaded you?
Well, I have a...
Actually, I made a slide.
I don't know if I can...
Show you this, but...
Oh, I hope you can.
I hope you can master the technology.
What do I need to do?
Let's see.
Share. Here we go.
Presentation. Or screen.
There we go.
Window. Here we are.
Here we are.
Hey! All right.
Can you see that?
Oh, I'm about...
Yes, I can!
Do you know you're the first person to have done this?
All right.
Jolly good.
So, yeah, I tried to summarize the Flat Earth rabbit hole in a slide here.
A flat earther is one who tried to prove the globe and failed.
So that's what I was trying to do.
I realized that I was presented with an intellectual challenge to prove the existence of the globe.
And so you start trying to prove it.
And then you discover a bunch of things along the way.
But usually people will start at the moon landing.
They realize the moon landing is a hoax.
And I learned that when I was a teenager.
But I thought that...
Everything else NASA had done was legit, you know, like the Mars missions and the Hubble telescope and, you know, the ISS.
Yes, they haven't been to the moon, but they're definitely going to Mars.
Yeah, they faked the moon, but everything else is fine, yeah.
So then you soon learn that, you know, they're lying about everything else as well, and there's lots of fakery and mockery and stuff like that.
And then...
You know, there's the issue of the no photos of the globe Earth, right?
So, like, all the images that you've seen of the globe Earth are not actually photographs.
And the horizon's always flat.
There's, like, amateur rockets that have gone up to, like, 120,000 feet, and, you know, it's as flat as you can get.
And all the videos where it shows a curved horizon actually use a fisheye lens, right?
And you can see that the horizon's bending as the lens is moving.
Because that's how those lenses work.
And then there's things like the Antarctic Treaty.
So the way that 48 countries all signed a treaty to basically stop independent exploration of Antarctica.
And then things like Gleason's Map, which is this 1897 map of the world.
It's a flat world map with Antarctica around the outside.
And it's actually a really good map.
It's been used for navigation for over a century.
And then there's things like the flight paths and the flight mechanics.
So the most interesting flight path is this one here.
So South Africa to Chile, South America.
So if you look on a globe, it looks like Cape Town and Chile.
It looks like they're maybe about six or seven hours flight across the Atlantic.
But if you go...
And look up and try and get a flight from Cape Town to Chile.
It's 25 hours.
It's the quickest flight you can get, right?
It's because it goes from Cape Town to Senegal to Brazil to Chile.
So it basically goes in a straight line.
It takes like 25 hours.
But on a globe, it looks like it should only take about six or seven hours across the Atlantic.
There's actually actually about 16000 miles from Chile to Cape Town.
Whereas if you go on Google Earth, it will tell you that it's about seven thousand seven thousand kilometers.
Are there any journeys that are the corollary of that, where you think they're going to be really long, but they're actually amazingly short because of the shape of the world?
Good question.
I'm not sure.
There's the emergency landings.
I forget the author, but there's a book.
It's called 16 Emergency Landings, and it's about these emergency landings where they had to put the plane down as soon as they possibly could, and they end up landing in a place that you wouldn't have expected them to be near at all, because they weren't on a globe.
I'll just crack on with this then.
You've got the issue of sea level, where the water is always flat and level, like the surface of the sea, and that boats can be...
Boats that are said to have gone over the horizon can actually be brought back into view with powerful zoom lenses, which indicates that they're on the same level.
They haven't actually gone underneath.
And then there's just no proof that you're spinning.
So the world is supposed to be spinning at 1,000 miles an hour, but there's no proof of that.
And even Einstein himself said there's no way to prove that the Earth is moving, right?
It's a theory that we believe that the Earth is moving.
Then there's, like, no air pressure next to a vacuum.
So, again, we're told that we live in a pressurized atmosphere, and there's an infinite vacuum of space, and there's no barrier between them.
But, like, basic physics tells us that the air would just get sucked out into space, right?
Because it's a vacuum.
Gases get, you know, sucked by a vacuum, or the pressure will equalize.
But we have this constant pressure of, like, 14.7 pounds per square inch.
And so it suggests that the world is actually enclosed.
And then, of course, learning that gravity is just a theory, is, let's say, just a force that was made up.
It's not actually, there's no evidence that there's a force called gravity.
And then heliocentrism is actually Roman sun worship.
So this came from the Roman Catholic Church.
The idea that we all revolve around the sun, that the sun is the center of the universe.
And then, of course, in the first page of the Bible, it tells you that the world has a firmament over it.
And this makes total sense from an architectural point of view.
If you were going to create a world, you would create one with a roof or a ceiling to protect it and keep everything inside.
And then you realize it's not just the Bible.
Actually, all the ancient wisdom and all the ancient scriptures say that the world is enclosed and that the earth is actually immovable.
And so this often then leads people to conclude that a creation must exist or a creator must exist.
And if you go all the way, you might find that the Bible is actually a book of science.
It's not a book of religion.
It's a book of science, like soul science, the science of consciousness, the science of the realm, and so on.
Yeah, because usually you'd be an atheist when you're at the start here, a little atheist rabbit, because you've been fully indoctrinated with science.
So it's basically a scientific path to spiritual awakening.
That is the nature of the flat earth.
But not everyone believes in the Bible.
There's biblical flat earthers and non-biblical flat earthers, but the fact is...
It's in agreement with all the ancient cosmologies that we live in, a stationary, enclosed world.
Yes. Are you familiar with Psalm 19?
Remind me.
It's the one that Werner von Braun has got on his gravestone.
And the first line is, The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork.
Yeah, yeah.
I think he was giving us a clue.
Yeah, I think so.
Yeah, I mean, you know, so I think a lot of this stuff is actually mockery.
You know, they're not just lying and deceiving, they're actually mocking us.
And this all came clear when I started looking into Stephen Hawking.
Yeah. Tell me.
So, yeah, the whole Stephen Hawking thing is a massive, like, mockery.
And, yeah, like the...
I mean, the idea that he was diagnosed with ALS in 1963, you know, a debilitating condition that gives you two, three years to live tops.
And then he lived for another 55 years.
So he lived 55 years with this condition, unable to move, unable to speak.
During that time, he had three kids.
Three children while he was in this condition.
So his main story started in the 1980s.
I think it was 1985.
He went to a conference at CERN in Geneva and then he had some kind of health episode, got rushed to the hospital.
And they did a tracheotomy on him and basically damaged his throat, and he was now no longer able to make any sound.
So during the 70s, he was actually able to groan.
He wasn't able to speak, but, you know, he could groan.
And after that, he couldn't make any sound at all.
And so he disappeared for a year, and then he came back as this, you know, wheelchair robot-speaking...
Stavros. Yeah.
And then after that, he became...
You know, science idol number one.
He was everywhere, all the time.
He's touring around the world, he's on TV shows, yada yada.
On Radiohead albums, I think?
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, on albums and turned up in music concerts.
He went in zero G and everything like that.
But yeah, when you really start looking into it all, it all just falls apart and looks like a very sick...
I would say it's a mockery of idolatry.
Worshipping scientists as idols.
They're mocking people for worshipping scientists, essentially, because they're presenting you with a literal retard who's never said anything, and they're telling you he's the most genius.
The greatest genius the world has ever known.
And some people still believe he is the greatest genius the world has ever known.
He didn't even write his book.
It was written by ghost writers.
Brief History of Time and stuff like that.
And read by nobody.
I mean, that was an extraordinary thing.
That book was a huge bestseller, but famously it was the book that nobody read.
Yeah, even if you read it, you'd try to remember any of it.
I mean, I tried to read it, but it's just like, I mean, I say it's one of the most unmemorable, the most popular and least memorable science book.
Yeah, so, yeah, there's a chapter in my book called Hawking Isn't Talking.
It goes into all that in a bit more depth.
There's lots of shady stuff around Stephen Hawking.
He's the gravity guy after Einstein.
When you think gravity, it's Newton, it's Einstein, it's Hawking.
There's no one else.
You know, like they are the gatekeepers of gravity.
So we're told that Hawking took Einstein's theories to the next level, developed his own Hawking radiation.
And, you know, he was just super interested in black holes.
No, I think my phone got low on battery, because I was using my phone as the camera.
So I've switched now to my webcam.
You can see the quality is not as good.
If that works.
And it says it's uploading, so the recording should be okay.
Let's hope.
To continue.
Sorry, I got interrupted there.
Yeah, so Hawking is boxed.
Tell me about alchemy, because I sort of think of alchemy as a kind of thing that the bad guys did, you know, people like...
Francis Bacon, all the sort of people who invented the kind of the modern control system.
You know, the occultists, the Freemasons.
But is alchemy actually morally neutral?
Yeah, I mean, I think it ultimately aligns with Christianity and all that.
I mean, all the alchemists I was reading were Christians.
But, I mean, just to step back a bit.
So, with alchemy, it's a science of transformation.
You know, it's about how things transform one thing into another.
And it's based on the idea that everything is fire, earth, air and water.
As I say, that was actually, for me, that was a huge awakening because, you know, I'd been taught to think of everything as consisting of atoms.
Electrons, protons, and neutrons, which are these abstract things that nobody's ever seen.
So you're trying to understand the world in terms of these abstract things.
Take, for example, the human body.
If you try to understand the human body in terms of atoms, it's a hideously complicated problem, right?
You're talking about trillions and trillions of atoms all just hanging together magically.
In the body, it's impossibly complex.
But when you look at the body as fire, earth, air and water, it's actually very simple.
You know, the earth is our bones and our teeth and our tissues.
The water is our blood and our sweat and our tears and all this kind of stuff.
The air is what we breathe.
And the fire is our awareness, our soul, our heartbeat, this kind of thing.
So we have these elements within us and they all have a particular function that works very well at describing Everything.
And so I had this sort of awakening where I realized, wow, if I actually look at the world as fire, earth, air, and water, I can start to explain everything really well.
But when I look at it as being made of atoms, I can't explain shit.
I'm just totally lost.
And so that was kind of a big awakening for me.
But alchemy itself is not evil.
It's actually, we're doing it all the time.
One of the best examples of alchemy is like...
Like whiskey or spirits.
So you start with barley, which is your matter, and then it goes through seven stages of purification, and then you get the spirit at the end.
So it's like turning matter into spirit.
That is essentially what alchemy is about.
So distillation, all these things, these are all alchemical processes.
Alchemy is based around the human soul and the spirit.
Alchemy doesn't reject God.
Alchemy doesn't reject the human soul.
Alchemy doesn't reject the spirit.
That's only modern science that does that.
Alchemy is the science that gave us medicine.
Chemistry was a product of alchemy.
Making medicine is alchemy.
Making spirits or whiskey is alchemy.
And as I discovered, making music is alchemy.
And so I created something called Audio Alchemy, which was a way of making music using alchemical principles.
And I used to teach that some years ago.
But now there's a chapter in my book on audio alchemy as well.
Yes, just briefly.
Tell me about it.
There's so much we could talk about.
And I'm conscious that...
We could be here all day.
Yeah, I mean, I was so surprised that you contacted me as Headflux because, as I say, my music career has basically been over and I've never actually been on a podcast as Headflux.
I never get podcasts in the music business or whatever.
Well, the weird thing is I do know your name.
I mean, I used to be a music critic and I used to be into my dance music.
So you said you think you've been off your face at a festival once or twice.
Probably. It's quite possible.
But I was very interested to read what you wrote about sine waves.
Can you tell us about sine waves?
Yeah. Well, you know, the sine wave is sin, right?
It's on the calculator is sin.
And in mathematics it's represented as sin.
This idea of sin is related.
The sine wave and the sin wave are the same sort of thing.
When we sin, we're straying from the path.
There's a path of no sin, which is represented by Jesus Christ in the Bible.
There's a path of no sin, and when we sin, we deviate from that path.
It's like you can only go so far one way before you repent and turn the other way and go back.
The sin wave is actually fundamental.
The sin wave is how we describe all vibration, light, sound.
Everything is described by this sin wave.
And of course, in Christianity, they say we're all sinners.
We're all sinners.
Well, it's like, well, if we're made from light, then...
Surely enough, on a really fundamental level, we are all sinners, and that we're all made from this sin wave or sine wave.
And so, yeah, I sort of see sin as a...
Hang on, let's have a look.
I might have something I can show you here.
All right, here we go.
Let's try this again.
Share screen window.
Boom. From some presentations I did recently.
So, yeah, all waveforms, no matter how complex, can be constructed by adding sinwaves together.
And move to this one here.
So, to sin means to miss the mark.
That's from the Hebrew definition and the Greek definition, right?
So, we have here on the x-axis, x marks the spot, right?
So, x is the mark.
That's the...
The way, the path of no sin.
And then the function is, that's the sin, right?
So the sin of x measures the deviation from x.
So it starts by going to the left, and then turns around and comes back down, and then goes the same in the other way, and then comes back.
So when the sin function reaches maximum value, it turns and goes the other way, repeating the same pattern in the opposite direction, which is like...
You know, repentance or karma.
And, you know, this idea, there's also medicine, which is medicine or like the mediator of sin.
So, you know, the alchemists, well, a lot of the alchemists believe that we get sick because of sin, right?
It's like we basically, we get sickness and suffer because of, you know, essentially ways of which we've missed the mark.
And so medicine is supposed to like bring us back to the middle.
Bring us back from the consequences of our sins.
So anyway, is that the kind of thing?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I don't know.
I've had so many psalms crop up during our conversation.
The line that comes to mind is, leave me in a plain path because of mine enemies.
But when you were talking about the Freemasons and the building stone, their favourite psalm in the Freemasons is Psalm 118.
Which is that the same stone the builders refused has become the headstone in the corner, because they love, you know, it mentions their special cornerstone.
Their Einstein.
So, you're obviously biblically literate.
What conclusion have you reached?
Are you a Christian, or do you just find the Bible a kind of useful instruction manual?
Yeah, I like it.
I didn't start reading the Bible until I was nearly 40 years old.
I actually got into the hermetic stuff, the alchemy stuff first, and it was through reading that that it led me to the Bible.
I suppose I've found scientific paths to spiritual knowledge or scientific paths to Christ because I was full atheist scientist.
And then through looking into alchemy, it led me to the Bible and to Christ and all that.
When you read the Bible with an understanding of alchemy, a whole new understanding opens up.
It's all about fire, earth, air, and water.
You barely go one single passage in the Bible without some reference to fire, earth, air, and water.
It's fundamental.
So yeah, it opens up a whole new understanding.
We refer to Jesus as the master, as in the master alchemist, because, you know, of all the transformations, like turning death into life or turning water into wine, right?
That's fermentation.
That was his first miracle.
Yeah. The wedding in Cana.
So all the miracles of Jesus were alchemical processes.
And so alchemists called Jesus the master alchemist.
Interesting. Yeah.
So, I mean, I wasn't into Jesus at all, but I mean, I read the Bible.
I mean, I've not read it cover to cover, but I've read the New Testament and some of the Old Testament.
And yeah, I like it, and I feel it fits completely with Hermeticism.
And actually, there's a guy called Robert Flood.
I don't know if you've heard of him.
I have heard of him.
Robert Flood.
Yes. He lived 400 years ago.
He was a contemporary of Kepler, and he's a geocentrist, hermeticist, Christian, and he was arguing with Kepler over geocentrism and all that 400 years ago.
Yeah, I just found a lot in this guy.
I found my life and his life were really similar and almost kind of connected in lots of really weird ways.
But he was an absolute genius.
Hundreds of diagrams, inventions, you know, all this stuff.
And he was completely erased from history.
And instead we get taught about Kepler and Copernicus and stuff.
But he was a real genius of his time.
And yeah, it was the same thing.
He loved the hermetic work and he loved the Bible.
Is it readable, that book?
Yeah, it's brilliant.
Yeah, it's full of...
He's full of his drawings.
He's got all these different drawings of different things.
All kinds of different subjects.
Really great stuff.
I'm going to get that book along with your book.
The reason I brought him up is because he was the only person I found in history that was really into all this stuff in a really big way.
He was called a Christian Hermeticist.
And so I guess that's what I am, you know, because I like the Hermetic teachings and I like the Christian Bible, and I find that they're totally compatible.
There's no, you know, obviously some Christian people think Hermeticism is heathen or whatever, but, you know, the Church didn't like alchemy, right?
The Catholic Church didn't like alchemy or astrology, and so they put out a lot of propaganda to say that it's all devil worship and witchcraft and all that.
I've literally never read any alchemist that was a devil worshiper.
They were all pious.
They all loved Jesus.
That's really interesting.
How beneficial were your ventures into ayahuasca and stuff like that?
What did you see?
What did that do to your brain?
Well, yeah, I first started down that road in about 2006.
And the early experiences were the most profound and transformational, you know, because I was pretty much an atheist before that.
And, you know, it opens your mind to spiritual reality because, you know, you drink this medicine, turn the lights off, and then you just go into these extraordinary, like, visual inner worlds that are just...
Full of, like, meaning and beauty like you've never seen in your life.
And all just by ingesting a small amount of the plant material.
It's pretty amazing.
So, yeah, that kind of broke me out of the materialistic way of looking at things and definitely opened my mind to spiritual possibilities.
But then, you know, I found then your relationship to God and life sort of then evolved from there.
And, you know, alchemy was like...
Good because it was a spiritual science.
I'd only been indoctrinated with non-spiritual science.
So then finding a spiritual science, I was like, this is great.
But then realizing a lot of alchemy, they're referencing the Bible.
So I'm like, well, I'm going to understand where this comes from.
I need to look at the Bible as well.
So, yeah, it was like a scientific path to spirituality, I guess, is what I took.
Do you see any of the kind of alien entities that one sometimes sees on these trips?
Yeah, I did.
Yeah, I did see things like that.
At the time, I called them spirit doctors.
They're like these almost like little like sort of like pygmy things that were coming and like working on my body.
It seemed like they were, you know, they were doing some work in some other dimensions or whatever.
I mean, it sounds ridiculous to explain it, but...
That sounds cool, actually.
Yeah, it was just like...
Yeah, I went out of my body and I was in this sort of thing.
It seemed like a sort of circular room with all these patterns and stuff all over the walls.
And then all these little creatures came out and started with all these super advanced tools and everything and doing all this work on my energy body and stuff.
Yeah, I mean, just incredible.
I still can't explain it.
So yeah, I did about five or six sessions with ayahuasca in 2006, 2007, 2008.
What country?
Mexico? No, actually in London.
That's not as exotic as Mexico.
No, it wasn't exotic, but it was very effective.
I'll tell you, they were very well done, those circles, and it was extraordinary what people were experiencing.
And then I left.
I did go west and I lived in America for two and a half years in Hawaii and I went to Central America and stuff.
And I did a bunch more ayahuasca in those years, but I'll tell you none of them were as powerful as the original experiences I had in London, which those are the ones that really changed my life.
Because then after that, I quit my job and everything.
I was like, I'm just going to quit my job and have faith in my path, what I want to do, which is music.
So, yeah, those ones really, really changed my life and got me into alchemy and helped me quit my job and all that stuff.
And your reading of the Bible, has that given you any clues, do you think, to...
I mean, all the stuff you've been describing throughout the podcast, all the kind of the mocking us with characters like Stephen Hawking, the fake science that they teach us and the knowledge against knowledge and stuff.
Who do you think is behind all this stuff?
Yeah, I mean, that's a tough one.
But I mean, well, when you're talking about like atomism and...
Heliocentrism and these big theories.
Everything that they use to deceive us.
Who is they?
And why are they doing it?
Well, when I look at it, it seems to all go back to the Roman Catholic or Jesuits specifically.
Maybe not the whole of Roman Catholicism, but the Jesuits who were very keen on education and seem to have been instrumental in creating the education curriculum.
You know, specifically to keep people away from the knowledge that they don't want you to have, you know, let's say learning against learning.
But the Jesuits were only founded in the mid-16th century, so...
Well, yeah, but the people involved, like, what was the guy's name?
Ignatius Loyola.
Yeah, yeah, so it all goes back to this idea of, like, no soul, right?
There's no human soul.
Because the ancient sciences, astrology, and alchemy are all centered around the human soul.
So everything is about, you know, the human soul and, you know, the transformation and the healing of the human soul.
But then science was then, you know, the soul was ejected.
Like, no soul exists.
And then science was turned into this kind of quantitative analysis of nature type thing with no heed to the human soul.
And I think that all came out of the Jesuit.
You know, operation, it seems.
I mean, we know Copernicus and, you know, Kepler, a lot of these guys with ties to the Jesuits.
Galileo, you know, these names.
I mean, Charles Darwin, right?
A lot of the stuff.
So it goes through, I mean, there's five theories I go through in the book, which is atomism, gravity, heliocentrism, evolution, and the germ theory.
So those five theories are all built one on top of each other over a period of, you know, 400 years or so.
And they make up the whole modern conception of science.
And, yeah, I mean, but as to, like, who's actually running these operations now, like these psychological operations and these, like, mockery and everything, I mean, it's got to be intelligence agencies, right, as far as I know.
Well, definitely that.
I don't want to put you on the spot, Stephen.
I'm not expecting you to come up with a definitive answer.
I mean, it's the question I ask pretty much every podcast, and everyone comes up with a different one.
We're all on a kind of journey.
But just very briefly, before we go, and I've loved talking to you, by the way.
The problem is I need a cup of tea and I need to feed the dog, who's been really annoying me throughout the podcast.
My hands smell of dog now, because I was sort of trying to stroke it most of the time to make it...
Calm. The dinosaurs.
Where are you on dinosaurs?
Yeah, well, I didn't write about that in the book.
But yeah, I mean, I, you know, I believe things were bigger long ago, right?
So, you know, this idea that, you know, giant trees and stuff like that.
Yeah, it wasn't just the trees that were giant, right?
It's like...
Everything was bigger.
And I think this could possibly be explained by the oxygen level in the atmosphere.
So if there was more oxygen in the atmosphere, things would be bigger.
Just like how if you give more oxygen to a fire, it will burn brighter, right?
It will burn bigger.
Well, since everything breathes oxygen to grow, everything would be bigger if there was more oxygen in the air.
There's only 20% oxygen or 19% or something.
And there's a lot of evidence for larger creatures in the past.
So I don't believe in dinosaurs specifically, but I do think everything was bigger in the past, and that would be animals, reptiles, trees, humans, all of it.
That's the only answer you've given me to any of my questions today, which has left me mildly disappointed.
You've been absolutely brilliant throughout.
The correct answer is no!
Dinosaurs are complete bollocks.
Dragons existed, but not dinosaurs.
Yes, that's a good answer.
I think dragons must have existed.
I mean, I have no proof or anything, but it just seems like it's quite a persistent myth.
And yeah, there may have been big creatures long ago, but not specifically dinosaurs, I would say, just bigger things in general.
Because the evolution, we're taught that we came from the small, right?
We came from the very small, like from the slime and the atoms and the fish.
Maybe Darwin did.
I certainly didn't.
I was made by God.
Yeah, exactly.
But yeah, then you look at the Bible, it's like, well, it looks like they may have been bigger long ago, like before the flood, for example, living for 900 years or 1,000 years, things may have been bigger before the flood.
And then maybe we had less oxygen after the flood.
Yeah, who knows?
But yeah, I don't believe in dinosaurs anyway.
I feel like, you know...
After a sufficient amount of time is allowed, we should do another podcast where we address all the things that we haven't said in this one.
But it's been an absolute, absolute pleasure meeting you and talking to you.
Thanks so much.
That's great.
I've seen you've been coming up more and more.
I first saw one of your podcasts maybe about six months ago.
And then I watched another and another, and then your name just started popping up, and then you contacted me.
It was so weird.
It was almost like a synchronicity.
That's weird.
I'm feeling like I'm really being ignored at the moment.
I feel like I'm being really suppressed in the algorithms, and that people are making it really hard for people to sign up to.
People try and tell me.
They try and, oh, I tried to sign up as a paying subscriber.
And I just gave up after the fifth attempt.
I feel like they're really clamping down on me.
So it's good that, well, that you've seen the podcast and you're fairly new to it.
That's good.
That's a good sign.
Show us your book again and tell us where we can get it, which we're all going to do, because it's up all our street.
Okay, so A Fool's Wisdom, Science, Conspiracies and the Secret Art of Alchemy.
It's on Amazon.
It was actually the number one book in philosophy of science on Amazon in December.
Was it?
Well done!
So you've sold a few?
Yeah, I mean, I'm doing alright.
I can't quit working or anything.
It's selling every month.
December was the best month I've had.
It came out in April last year, so it's been out almost a year now.
But December was the best month of sales, and I got to number one in philosophy of science, beating Neil deGrasse Tyson and Roger Penrose and all these...
Yeah, I was just like...
But did you beat Stephen Hawking?
Well, he didn't have any books in the top ten at the moment, I'd say, because he's never said a damn thing.
So anyway, you can get it on Amazon, but if you want to get it from me with a handwritten note, you can get it on my website, stephenyoung.uk.
How did you get that one?
Just.uk.
But there must be loads.
Yeah, I suppose.
stephenyoung.uk.
Yeah, not.co.uk, just.uk.
Okay. That's brilliant.
And yeah, I'll be happy to send you a signed copy of the book if you send me your address afterwards.
I would love that.
And I'll send you a signed copy of my one and the next one that I've got coming up.
I haven't finished it yet.
It's called White Pilled.
And it's about my journey into Christianity.
But it basically deals with the nexus, the sweet spot between Christianity and conspiracy theory.
Everything aligns.
Everything connects.
All right.
Yeah. Well, anyway, listeners, viewers, those of you who have managed to have made it thus far, thanks for listening and watching this podcast.
I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.
If you want to kind of help me, I think the enemy are really trying to close me down.
I get this vibe in different ways.
Please do support me.
I really do.
I kind of need your help.
You can support me on Substack, on Patreon, Subscribestar or Locals if you want to go old school.
Support my sponsors who are good and buy me a coffee if you don't want to commit to the long-term ordeal of getting my stuff early every week.
And buy Stephen's book and...
You come to my events and support us in any way you can.
Thank you very much again, Stephen Young.
And I like your music as well.
It's good.
Check out Headfucks, everyone.
Good. Thanks very much.
All right.
Thank you.
Global warming.
It's a massive con.
There is no evidence whatsoever that man-made climate change is a problem, that it's going to kill us, that we need to amend our lifestyle in order to deal with it.
It's a non-existent problem.
But how do you explain this stuff to your normie friends?
Well, I've just brought out the revised edition to my 2012 classic book.
Watermelons, which captures the story of how some really nasty people decided to invent the global warming scare in order to fleece you, to take away your freedoms, to take away your land.
It's a shocking story.
I wrote it, as I say, in 2011 actually.
The first edition came out.
And it's a snapshot of a particular era.
The era when...
The people behind the climate change scan got caught red-handed, tinkering with the data, torturing till it screamed, in a scandal that I helped christen Climategate.
So I give you the background to the skullduggery that went on in these seats of learning where these supposed experts were informing us, we've got to act now.
I rumbled their scan.
I then asked the question, okay, if it is a scan...
Who's doing this and why?
It's a good story.
I've kept the original book pretty much as is, but I've written two new chapters, one at the beginning and one at the end, explaining how it's even worse than we thought.
I think it still stands up.
I think it's a good read.
Obviously, I'm biased, but I'd recommend it.
You can buy it from jamesdellingpole.co.uk forward slash shop.
You'll probably find that one.
Just go to my website and look for it.
jamesdellingpole.co.uk And I hope it helps keep you informed and gives you the material you need to bring round all those people who are still persuaded that it's a disaster, we must amend our ways and appease the gods, appease Mother God.
