Jim Fetzer - ‘Resilience’ Decoded: NATO's Buzzword for Total Control and Captive Societies

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 23, 2025 - Jim Fetzer

02:43:26

‘Resilience’ Decoded: NATO's Buzzword for Total Control and Captive Societies | Lerman & Latypova

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is our third interview about the COVID dossier.
	And I'm really grateful that Debbie and Sasha are taking all this time to do these interviews.
	We are going to talk about first a little bit more about the COVID dossier itself.
	I want to delve into a particular document from the Netherlands and also talk about Germany a little bit.
	But then we are going to do some speculation about why did all this happen?
	What the heck was going on?
	What does it say about the future?
	So that's going to be, that part is going to be a little bit different because, you know, we are just trying to figure out what's going on.
	Now, because in our first interviews, we discussed at length the regulatory and the legal framework that made this takeover of the U.S. national security apparatus, you know, during COVID possible.
	We talked about that at length.
	And because of that, we talked about the PrEP Act in detail.
	So before we go back into the COVID dossier, I would just briefly talk about the news about the PrEP Act from last week.
	What happened with the PrEP Act?
	And Sasha, I saw that you wrote an article about it on your web, on your sub-stack.
	So maybe you can talk a little bit about what's going on.
	Yes, so I wrote an article last week, Thomas Macy, who is Congressman, U.S. Congressman, introduced a bill to repeal PrEP Act.
	However, it's not a complete repeal of the PrEP Act.
	It's basically largely deals with the compensation.
	So PrEP Act, as we've discussed before, is very, very much unconstitutional piece of legislation, which was passed in 2005 by Republicans, introduced by Republicans in Congress, opposed by Democrats, but there was no real debate and discussion.
	The passage of it was tied to Katrina hurricane relief, so nobody could actually say no.
	Basically, Katrina victims were held as hostages to force Congress to pass this highly unconstitutional piece of law.
	It's unconstitutional because it violates several constitutional provisions for citizens' rights, to seek proper recourse through courts for injury and deaths caused by manufacturers of substandard products, for example, here with respect to all these COVID vaccines and COVID products.
	And then also denies compensation, sends everyone to administrative court that pays nothing and set up by the perpetrators themselves and controlled by the perpetrators themselves.
	So all of this, in net effect, PrEP Act is a license to kill as long as providers and manufacturers follow precisely HHS orders and don't deviate from them.
	And so Thomas Massey introduced this repeal PrEP Act bill.
	It doesn't, in my opinion, doesn't really bring justice, except it deals with getting proper compensation to the victims.
	So it addresses some aspects of it.
	So people, he's basically trying to design a way for people to get actually monetary compensation for injuries and deaths.
	But it doesn't really change anything with respect to the government's ability to issue these licenses to kill from time to time and to continue doing the same thing.
	And as you know, it's not okay to continue committing crimes by just compensating victims of the crimes.
	But that's exactly what the situation that we're having right now.
	I have a question for you about that.
	So in his announcement, it says that he, and you did the reading, I haven't done the reading.
	He says that he is calling for repeal of the whole thing.
	So is that not true?
	No, it's repeal of the sections that deal with compensation.
	Okay, so it has nothing to do with the no recourse in court, no court oversight, you know, no court, no state rights.
	It doesn't have anything to do with all the unconstitutional parts of the bill.
	Is that what you're saying?
	It does, yeah, because it doesn't actually explicitly state that.
	He just says, you know, these sections are repealed.
	Doesn't I mean, I will have to go back and to look for the specific language.
	I don't want to misinterpret it right now.
	But what the positive thing of it is that it can help signal to the public that this is wrong and to pay attention to this.
	And these products under the PrEP Act are definitely problematic and have danger.
	So that's the positive side.
	Also, he's using very strong language, calling it medical martial law that needs to end.
	Also, I applaud him for saying this.
	This is correct.
	It should happen.
	The thing is, well, first of all, I don't think this has a snowball's chance in hell to proceed anywhere.
	So it's probably not going to result in anything actionable.
	But it's a good start to start debating this in Congress, hopefully, to start even talking about this in Congress.
	But as I said, it doesn't fundamentally change the ability of the government to do the same thing again, to issue EUA countermeasures and to do it another time.
	Perhaps at that time, it will limit somehow this kind of free-for-all killing spree, because now you actually have to provide proper compensation as a net result of this effort.
	So maybe that's a, you know, we should celebrate it as a positive step.
	But as I said, it doesn't deal with the wholesale repeal of the act.
	It's just the compensation part.
	But it does, Sasha, does it take the liability shield away from the manufacturers?
	That's the way I understood it, that the PrEP Repeal Act that Massey proposed or introduced does remove the entire liability shield, which would be a huge retrospectively, though.
	That's correct.
	Yeah, it will be only from the moment that this hopefully gets enacted somehow.
	So and forward.
	Right, so it would remove their...
	And also pending lawsuits.
	Yeah, maybe pending lawsuits will be able to benefit from this.
	But again, it's not clear how.
	So because this is all just the starting point, so you don't know what it's going to end up like after all these dates and processes in Congress.
	Correct.
	And also I have a question for you too, Sasha, namely, even if, so let's say this PrEP Repeal Act does pass, I read in some articles, oh, well, that's great news because then all sorts of people can sue the manufacturers for injury and death.
	But I'm wondering if that is true, because even if it passes, wouldn't the fallback position have to contend with the 1986 childhood vaccine liability shield and is caught in that thing?
	Yeah, it's an interesting question.
	It would if those COVID shots would be added to the national vaccine injury compensation scheme.
	Right now, they are not.
	They have never been added to that.
	In fact, that's how I first learned about their legal status as countermeasures, because the first thing I did in 2022 was to look up whether they, when FDA started claiming they're fully approved, I went on the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program webpage to see if they're added to that list, and they were not, and they're still not on that list.
	So somehow they would need to, they probably, if this proceeds, if this goes the way Massey is proposing, then if this shield is revoked, this countermeasure, countermeasure status and shield is revoked, then hope, then FDA will probably add them to the, or CDC will add them to the national vaccine injury list, and then they will be subject to that protest.
	So then you're like, oh, okay, now you can get compensation by going to this kangaroo court, you know, that we all have to.
	Yeah, so that's that's how they play these games.
	And you already said that you don't think there's there's a chance that this repeal act will pass.
	Yeah, because right now I think he he tweeted that he has something like 16 members of Congress supporting it.
	So I don't know.
	I don't know where this will go.
	Well, you know, at least it's going to be hopefully discussed, and people should observe very carefully who is going to oppose the PrEP Act repeal and on which grounds.
	Yes.
	And hopefully there will be a vigorous, I'm sure there will be on Substack from you and James Rogowski and all sorts of other people and Debbie and etc.
	So for sure.
	And hopefully this will also be taken up by all sorts of other media so that people actually find out what it is and why Massey wants to overturn it.
	Interestingly, and I'm not on X and you guys can correct me if I'm wrong.
	I'm not seeing this as a huge Maha cause and not like Twinkies, no, no.
	Right, I'm not saying Maha screaming about this, and this should be the number one thing that they're screaming about, if anything.
	Also, what I hope we achieve with this, if anything is achieved, and I agree with Sasha, that there's no way in hell that it's ever going to pass.
	But not only will people be made aware of it, maybe hopefully more people and more Congress people can be made aware of it, but maybe they can also be made aware of the fact that actually we don't need any of this effort at all if the HHS Secretary just would repeal the declaration of emergency for COVID for the PrEP Act, which has been extended to 2029.
	So if that becomes clear to more people, which also Maha would not like to happen at all, which is why I suspect this is happening, that would be a good thing.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yes, that's a good point.
	That's a very good point.
	Because that's a direct challenge to Robert Kennedy, because he can declare an end to the COVID declaration of the PrEP Act and all to all of the other declarations, the other 809 of what it is as well.
	Yes, well, it's going to be a good point, by the way, Debbie, that PrEP Act is nowhere to be found in Maha.
	I don't think I've ever seen it mentioned anywhere.
	No, you can go on Maha PAC, Political Action Committee website, and you will see what they call wins, which is all these food dye diversions and, oh, you know, Coca-Cola is going to put now real sugar in Coca-Cola, where it still is still a junk drink with sugar.
	And also when they say that the companies are going to do stuff, most of the time the companies just said they were willing to think about maybe doing these things.
	There's absolutely no legal or regulatory aspect to any of these things.
	No.
	These are all just marketing statements.
	We will think, we will consider where we have a task force to think about sugar now, and they call it a win.
	So that the lazy, you know, TV, skilled TV viewers are, you know, thinking that this is something meaningful.
	It's not.
	So they throw away or throw out all these slogans.
	They mean absolutely nothing.
	And they are very silent about PrEP Act, which is the license to kill that the FDA currently using to murder people, essentially.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Sasha, can I also ask, do you mind, is this okay, Cornelia?
	You can cut it out if you want.
	But I thought a really important thing that happened that nobody was talking about last week was that, and it's actually going to, part of it is going to happen tomorrow, is that they slipped the same exact kind of liability shield in the middle of an appropriations bill that had nothing to do with it for the, now it's for the pesticide companies.
	And that's something that we need to all, I think, the reason that I latched on to that or that I paid particular attention to that is because the mechanism of getting that thing passed is identical to the mechanism that they used for the PrEP Act.
	And so they did the exact same thing where they put it into a bill that nobody's going to object to.
	They put it in right at the last minute so that nobody could discuss it.
	I mean, now there are committees where hopefully they will be discussing it.
	But, you know, trying to slip it in and also the language that they used made it very convoluted and unclear.
	Meryl Nass provided some legal analysis from a legal expert who explained what it actually means, this language about they can't change the labels, but it actually means that they aren't going to be held responsible anymore in the future for anything that develops as far as harms caused by pesticides.
	Sasha, you said to me, and I'm interested in this because I haven't researched it, that there are PrEP Act emergency declarations for pesticides.
	Yes, there is one in, and it's been outstanding for like a long time, longer than COVID even.
	So there was one issued, I will have to find the exact date, but it's multiple things in one declaration, including use of pesticides and nerve aid.
	So they're saying pesticides and nerve agents, because pesticides are nerve agents.
	And they are used as a chemical weapon too.
	In fact, Stephen Hatfield specifically used it himself on Africans in Rhodesia by lacing the clothes with pesticides and DMSO.
	That's how they kill people with pesticides.
	So, okay, so they're under a PrEP Act because of for chemical weapon status.
	So chemical PREP Acts.
	And are those PrEP Acts also the purview of the HHS secretary in terms of the declarations of emergency?
	Who declares those emergencies?
	Those also came out of HHS.
	So again, can we add that to the list of things that could be remedied by the HHS secretary just telling we could.
	Okay, so that's important.
	So I think when we discuss the PrEP Act, it's important to say, and also when we discuss COVID and in this discussion that we're going to have, I think we're going to get to this.
	But that COVID isn't, COVID isn't over.
	It's not a discrete occurrence.
	It is just an instance.
	It is just an example of how the legal framework has shifted so that there's no liability for the perpetrators who are unleashing these unregulated and harmful substances, whether it's mRNA injections, whether it's pesticides.
	The same legal framework keeps being invoked over and over again.
	And we're in a state of emergency and we have no legal recourse and the states have no recourse.
	They're doing the same thing with AI.
	So it's really, I think, right now important to emphasize that COVID just teaches us how things work now in terms of how much we can be harmed and how little recourse we have.
	That's right.
	And they love these liability shields, apparently.
	Good that you brought that up with the pesticides because that is absolutely outrageous.
	You know, also the way it is presented and introduced, it's strikingly similar to what happened with the PrEP with the PrEP Acts back in 2005.
	And Meryl Ness has written extensively about it.
	So go to her, for our listeners, go to her substack.
	She has written several articles about it that are very good with also added all the lists of Congress, Congressman, Congresswoman to write to, to talk to about this.
	But that is very worrisome, very, very worrisome.
	Okay, so let's move on to the COVID-19.
	COVID-19.
	By the way, do you still get updates?
	I noticed you released it in February 2025, four years after all hell broke loose.
	And five years.
	Oh my God, yes, five years.
	What am I saying?
	Five years.
	Five-year anniversary.
	So you released it five years afterwards.
	And a couple of months after you released it, you released a second kind of 2.0 because you got so much feedback from people all over the world.
	Has this continued as far as feedback?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I added also Switzerland.
	Somebody sent me an update.
	But Turkey, right?
	Not a lot.
	Not a lot since the second update.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	And just on your sub stack, maybe just once in a while, say, hey, guys, this is a living document.
	If you know something, you know, there must be so much information out there.
	Send it to us so that we can update it.
	I was thinking about possibly actually doing a calculation, Sasha.
	Tell me what you think about this of the number of military, the amount of military that was deployed during COVID to see if perhaps this was the biggest military operation in the world.
	Yes.
	I'm not pretty sure, even without doing calculations.
	Yes, it is.
	Don't you think it would?
	That would be an interesting calculation.
	So we have lots of wars going on now that are absolutely horrific and absolutely driven by global elite interests that are not our interests.
	And everybody's focused on those and nobody thinks of COVID as a military operation, which is why we published the dossier.
	But one way might be a quantitative analysis, which shows, and I don't know if it would show this, but if we'd count the troops, I mean, there are in our records, Sasha, that we put in here that we put in the dossier for many countries.
	There are records that say in the UK, 20,000 troops were deployed and then another 100,000 troops were deployed.
	And in France, and we got a lot of information about how in South America it was a massive deployment of military.
	If we can show numbers, like just numbers, like how many troops were deployed, NATO and country, individual country troops, versus how many troops are deployed in Ukraine.
	I think that would be really interesting.
	And Cornelia, that might be a way to get people re-engaged with this topic.
	So that's a thought that I've been having: let's count the troops.
	That's an interesting idea.
	It's going to be a huge number of troops for sure.
	But let's go to the Netherlands.
	So there's a really interesting document that is now part of the COVID dossier from the Netherlands.
	And I'm going to share my screen so that we can all have a look at it.
	Can you see it?
	Yeah, looks good.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	So this is from a website called Global Research, Global Research Center for Center for Research on Globalization.
	And this was March 27, 2025.
	The original, I think, this article first appeared in November 2024.
	So the Dutch Minister of Health acknowledged that the pandemic policy is a military operation.
	The Ministry of Health, and this is a quote, the Ministry of Health obeys NATO and NCTV.
	And this NCTV thing is a military intelligence agency that they created for COVID that was in charge of the propaganda, it was in charge of the policy, and it was, of course, secret, just like in every other country.
	They created that for COVID?
	I believe they did.
	If not, then it was used.
	Oh, it says, okay, it's a coordinator for counterterrorism and security.
	So they used the existing one for COVID.
	Yeah.
	Like our National Security Council, like our National Security Council.
	Yes, yes, exactly.
	Exactly.
	And so, Debbie, why don't you tell us, or either one of you, Sasha or Debbie, tell us what became known from this health minister.
	Her name is Fleur Agema back in November 2024.
	So what was sensational about it, first of all, she was an opponent of COVID policies before she went into her role in the government.
	Once she went into her role in the government, according to our conversations that we've had with Dutch researchers, she did not speak out against the COVID policies anymore.
	And so when she made this statement, she basically said we were, you know, that the Dutch COVID response was following NATO NATO orders or NATO guidelines.
	And that was one of the first times that the public had heard that NATO was some, that NATO was making guidelines for COVID.
	I mean, NATO is supposed to be in a military defense alliance.
	It's not really supposed to have anything to do with public health.
	So why the Dutch government would be following NATO guidelines or NATO obligations is quite mysterious and frightening.
	And so people responded very strongly to that revelation.
	She didn't say anything else.
	So she kind of slipped it in to something that she was saying in parliament.
	She wasn't saying, she wasn't standing up and saying, oh my God, you know, NATO was in charge of COVID and it was a military operation.
	She slipped it in there.
	And it's, according to the Dutch researchers that I've spoken to, they don't know if she was sending a signal, you know, if she was doing it in order for all of us to pick up the signal and run with it, or if she is convinced that that was actually a good thing to do and that that's what should have happened.
	So we don't know.
	It's not that she came out and said there was a coup and this is terrible and the Dutch government was following NATO obligations.
	She just slipped it into a statement that she was making in Congress.
	Right, right.
	And you know, it's she she said, or she told the parliament or the chamber that pandemic preparedness is related to NATO treaty obligations and that this Dutch intelligence service, NCTV, is in charge.
	And when you look at this down here, under the direction of the NCTV and the Ministry of Defense, we will come up with a plan of action in the spring, which would have been the spring of 2025.
	Have you followed that?
	What kind of plan of action they came up with?
	No.
	So there was another article in the Dutch alternative press, but this is quoting their current cabinet.
	So all the ministers of defense and health currently.
	I think Agima Flora Gemma resigned, but the current government is admitting that they have signed up to NATO resilience goals or resilience objectives under NATO.
	And those objectives generally described as making the society resilient and prepared for things like pandemics, but then the specifics are secret.
	So in effect, they're saying we, the government, signed up to secret resilience objectives under NATO.
	We can't tell you what they are, but we're acting under these obligations.
	This should be a bombshell.
	This should be everywhere in all press.
	This should be questioned.
	How can the government sign up to secret objectives under a military alliance?
	And how does this represent a representative democracy?
	How are they serving people's interests if those interests are secret?
	Yes.
	I'm glad you bring that up because I want to show you this.
	When I went to this, when I went to this website from the NCTV, this National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security in the Netherlands, when you scroll down, you come to this map here, and it's very hard to read.
	So that's why I brought it up as a PDF file, which is, I hope you can, can you see that right now?
	Okay, perfect.
	Because this is really interesting.
	It's called Comprehensive Approach to National Security.
	And they mentioned resilience in there.
	And we talked about resilience in our second interview, I believe, quite extensively.
	So, Sasha, when you have a look at this down here, there's this triangle, right?
	Interests, so they have interest, threats, resilience, and these three somehow compose what they call their national security strategy.
	So, Sasha, can you talk about this?
	This resilience concept is so important, in my opinion.
	And I think in you and Debbie's opinions as well.
	Talk about that again.
	What does it actually mean?
	It's such a nice word.
	It has such a positive meaning, or it used to have.
	And then also explain how does this work?
	How do these three things, interests, whatever that is, interest, resilience, and threats form the core of this national security strategy?
	Yeah, I've written about resilience.
	So everyone should mark this word as a dog whistle of the criminal cartel that runs this whole enterprise.
	And it is an enterprise.
	It's a profiteering enterprise of death and enslavement of humanity, generally speaking.
	Now, this triangle that they have here is basically rebranding of the classical problem reaction solution approach that the aspiring tyrants use always, aspiring tyrants and government always use to capture more power, more money, more of everything assets at every opportunity.
	And because those opportunities are typically scarce, they create those opportunities themselves.
	So now we create the threat, a fake threat, like a pandemic, like any other climate emergency or systemic racism emergency or immigration emergency, anything, sexism, diversity emergencies, anything that they can think of, they will grab that as a fake threat.
	And then they will create a bunch of bureaucracy, appropriate a lot of money to themselves, and then further their goals of subverting constitutional governance, any representative democracy processes into this, we're in emergency and now we have unlimited power to do as we please kind of scenario.
	So this is what this triangle is about and they call it national security strategy.
	And that's resilience itself is interesting because it can be used as a proper noun or as a general noun.
	And as a proper noun, it's a name of the CIA and US government and military-backed company that manufactures all the biologics, all these biological poisons, which are these mRNA shots, but they also produce what they call strains of rescued viruses.
	But basically it's poisons designed based on various toxins that they collect in nature or typically from poisoned people in Africa and then collect those samples and design those strains on the computer.
	They patent them.
	So they, I mean, the government agencies, government officials individually, military officials individually hold those patents.
	And then they produce various poisons and products based on those patents.
	And then they launch them as these EUA countermeasures in these operations.
	And that's what resilience manufacturing.
	There's a company called National Resilience.
	It owns subsidiaries in many places.
	It established numerous international alliances where they have manufacturing facilities in various countries like South Korea, for example, with Siemens.
	In Europe, they have a lot of facilities in partnership with European governments and so forth.
	And so that's the proper name, resilience.
	Now, they also use resilience as a common word throughout their documentation.
	And that's signaling that this is working under this framework, under this framework of countermeasures and poisoning of the public.
	So that's what it means.
	So whenever you read that word, you should understand that this is talking about this framework.
	Yes, and also interesting here is when you look at this little table or this little graph here above, this is the comprehensive approach to national security.
	And what kind of securities, it's extremely wide.
	I mean, this national security encompasses things like ecological security, social and political stability, territorial security.
	Okay, well, that makes sense for national security.
	Physical security.
	So everybody's physical security and economic security.
	So is there anything that does not fall under this comprehensive approach to national security?
	No, no, they're very clear about we're coming after everything, all assets, all physical assets, and they treat people as their own physical property.
	That's why there's physical security here.
	Physical security means you will be tagged, electronically tagged, and traced continuously, and you will have no privacy, and all your data belongs to us, and you belong to us.
	You're our slave.
	That's what physical security means.
	And I want to also, oh, sorry, Debbie, go ahead.
	Sorry, two things to what Sasha said.
	So resilience, first of all, in the pandemic planning document for the United States government, where the national security is in charge of policy for COVID, one of the three subcategories of the policy-making body, which is the National Security Council, is resilience.
	So resilience is also given, is the name given to all of these agencies and sub-agencies that deal with biosecurity and bioterrorism, like Sasha said.
	And it's always a public-private partnership.
	So it's the companies that Sasha was talking about, and it's the government agencies and people who are benefiting from the patents, from the products, from the programs.
	It's always a public-private partnership, and it's always these government military intelligence agencies and then these big global corporations.
	And so it's always also on a global level.
	So everything that you see here from the Dutch government is exactly the same.
	And it's the same as the NATO.
	Is this the NATO one or the Dutch government one?
	Because it's the same thing.
	The same thing.
	I would think it's exactly the same thing.
	Yeah, although this is everything.
	The other buzzwords, so there are the buzzwords that need to make you scared.
	One is not scared, but raise your attention, get your attention.
	Resilience, public-private partnership, and stakeholder capitalism, which is the same thing.
	So these charts really remind me of the WEF and all the other, it started with the World Economic Forum, but the whole idea of stakeholder capitalism, which is there's all these problems, and the way that we're going to solve them is the corporations are going to be so benevolent that they're going to care about all of these things that are listed here about national health and the environment and like Sasha said,
	our bodies and everything that we consume and everything that the air that we breathe and the water that we drink.
	And they're so, so benevolent that they're just going to help us a lot in being resilient.
	And the way to do that is to let these global corporations, you know, in partnership with global governing bodies and national governments be in charge.
	So that's what resilience is.
	Resilience is these global public-private partnerships that are actually manifesting stakeholder capitalism.
	And that's what's happening.
	So that's what these charts represent.
	So this you just talked about the public-private partnerships and how important they are, kind of this kind of disappearing of the boundary between what is public and what is not public.
	The interests here, you know, I mean, the interest in these threats by not just the government, but by all sorts of third-party big, big conglomerates and NGOs and all sorts of people who feed off, who feed at the trough of global threats is enormous.
	And I think that is what is captured here quite nicely, actually.
	The other thing, the other thing up here, the international legal order, I didn't mention that earlier, but it's interesting, right, that they have it tucked right in here into their national security approach.
	The international legal order, which they are very closely aligned with, you would think, well, what is it doing right in there in the center of the national security thing?
	Because this is something outside.
	I mean, it's international legal order, fine, but should it really sit in there?
	Why is it sitting in there, you think?
	Well, it's very, this is a very important point.
	So international agencies or bodies like WHOF, UN, they are extrajudicial, actually.
	So they don't have jurisdiction over any specific land or territory or country or people in that territory.
	I think we have to add European Commission.
	That's a really big one, too.
	Yeah, the European Commission.
	So these kinds of, but most of these, the international legal bodies are rather, they have very limited authority, practically no jurisdiction.
	And they are basically coordination and advisory mechanisms.
	That's how they were set up originally.
	Now, that's very convenient because that's vacuum for vacuum space for inserting a whole bunch of private corporate interests and giving them veneer of legal authority over countries, over the actual jurisdiction bodies that have actual authority delegated by the people to the government.
	So they're saying, well, you people are now dissatisfied with the behavior of your governments.
	We're going to provide you a better mechanism of enforcing the behavior that you want over your governments if you give us this authority through these international legal mechanisms.
	But guess what?
	The international legal mechanisms are now controlled by stakeholders, by huge corporations that are mergers between various governments and corporations coming in.
	And now they're going to be saying, no, no, give us a sort of delegate that authority to us.
	We will resolve your problems.
	Well, that's just a recipe of establishing the new world order, global communism, removing the shreds, any remaining shreds of any democratic process anywhere, and now running the entire world through this unelected corporate slash government criminal essentially interests and controlling the entire world, its population and assets.
	That's their game plan.
	I prefer to call it global totalitarianism than communism.
	I think communism is an outdated concept that we should.
	It makes people think about it in political right-left terms, which I don't think are appropriate.
	I think it's more totalitarian.
	It could be viewed as fascist too.
	Fascism, yeah, it's more accurately described as fascism.
	Yeah.
	So what's also interesting on this chart is I read through all this small print here on the right, and there's a ton of very interesting information in it.
	In fact, I don't think anybody actually ever looks at this stuff, but they put together a very, very revealing chart here.
	So can't go through everything, but look so, for look, for example, at this one here, modernize surveillance and protection system okay, interesting.
	Establish a central essential, government-wide security strategy.
	All hazard approach, all this everything, every.
	They're putting everything in there, linking national and international security.
	Again, like you said, it's all linking everything together on the global level so that there's actually literally this is not about national security at all no, something that Sasha and I often talk about is whenever it's all of government.
	So all of government is another one of these sort of stakeholder capitalism buzz phrases so everybody's everything.
	It's like when there's a state of emergency and it's a military operation and everybody has to be all in on this one thing, which has nothing to do, you know, instead of it just being like a little public health thing.
	Now, every single agency, every single related um, private interest, every single related ngo, now all of us are just going to deal with this one thing yeah, and this thing is all hazard, all hazard, all of government yeah, so.
	So another interesting point in that first bullet point, the central government-wide security strategy.
	So democratic governments in the west, or traditional models of democratic governments in the in the west they're, they're all based on the idea of checks and balances.
	They're based on the idea of uh distributed government, so both local, state and state uh traditionally have the majority of governance given to them, and those are multiple governments, local and state, and then even within the federal governments there are numerous agencies, there are branches of the government all designed to be checks and balances against each other.
	So if somebody says oh, we have this pandemic and we need to deal with it, then there are various mechanisms that can check their their, the power that they want to uh exert versus this exercise and say well no, but constitutionally you can't take the business away from from the owner and you have to have a process for the owner to to uh appeal this and and and fight against this and so forth.
	Or you can't force people against their will to take medical treatments.
	You need to have courts procedures blah blah, blah.
	So all of that is being subverted by that first bullet point that says no no no no, we will just declare this extra special state for us that will last in perpetuity, like pandemic, for 10 years, for example, where we have unlimited authority and we can subvert all that because we've declared an emergency.
	This is what it's all about.
	And look at the second one, Sasha and and Cornelia, future proof.
	What does that mean?
	Future proof you're proofing ourselves against the future.
	What does that mean?
	It's crazy talk.
	It's just crazy language.
	I just wanted to mention that because I think that is so asinine.
	It's like it's funny.
	I mean it shows you what idiots these people are.
	Um, I mean, they're probably very intelligent, but they're idiots nonetheless.
	So it says, future proof, critical infrastructure.
	I guess what they mean is, it's our infrastructure is going to be, our critical infrastructure is going to be so awesome, no matter what, what happens in the future, it's going to be, it's going to be resilient.
	You know it's future proof, whatever the future might bring.
	But of course, that is impossible and to call the future proof it's just so dumb, it's just so stupid, it's just so, so full of hubris.
	Um yeah, it's like, it's like a parody or something.
	Um, if you, if you go further down here, there's some very interesting stuff here called combating state threats and they have here.
	So look what they want to combat, combat undesirable influence, you know, just like that wholesale undesirable influence, whatever that is.
	I'm sure Sasha would be an in undesirable influence and among members of.
	What does it mean?
	Yeah, that's a very interesting question.
	So they have that as the one example.
	So apparently the diaspora are a real problem for the Netherlands.
	They must have some really pesky Dutch people who couldn't stand it anymore to live in Holland and they emigrated to some other country and are raising hell there.
	I don't know.
	Combat disinformation, for example, on social media.
	Combat undesirable foreign financing.
	Which is very strange considering that everything is, they want everything to be international and they're worried about international financial stuff.
	They're not worried about their national anything, really.
	And so now they're combating undesirable foreign financing.
	That's interesting.
	Combat undesirable influence, just like that.
	What the heck is that?
	Combat undesirable influence.
	And here we have again, as we were just discussing, government-wide response framework.
	Again, they insert that everywhere in every one of their bullets, you know, in every one of their categories.
	It's always that.
	Yes, government-wide.
	And also, if you, for example, I mean, here they talk about strengthening cybersecurity, share threat information more widely with the private sector, government, and institutions.
	You ask yourself, who is writing this if they say share it with the government?
	So who is going to do the sharing here with the private sector's government?
	But it's all coming closer together, all of them, you know, all of them together.
	One approach.
	Yeah, so you can look through all this.
	What else was interesting here?
	Yes, protect and promote the international legal order, which, as you already, which, as you already said, yeah, because they want to further remove all the legal frameworks that are operational and actionable from the people who they're supposed to serve.
	Really, in the in the design of a of, you know, constitutional democratic governance process, it's the people who, like the representatives, the representatives write the law, ostensibly representing the interests of the people, and then the judicial branch in, you know, upholds the law and and interprets the law again according to the wishes of the public that elected their officials.
	Now in this structure now especially, think about the European States.
	European States, member states, already delegated a whole bunch of their sorry, practically all of their governance to EU unelected bureaucrats, and now they're saying no no, there's this yet another layer of removal that's going to happen now.
	International legal order, now that you have no impact on whatsoever the EU, I think, is just a good example.
	It's a good mic, it's a good micro.
	I mean, it's not micro, but it's one instance of how um national sovereignty gets completely erased when you give it up, like Sasha said, To a governing governance body.
	And this isn't global, but it encompasses a lot of countries.
	And they basically, you know, the European Commission, which is a completely undemocratic body, the member states have abrogated their governance rights and responsibilities to the European Commission.
	So they really don't have a lot of national sovereignty anymore in Europe.
	And I think that's part of it.
	This document is saying we need to do that more.
	This document.
	We need to give up more of our national sovereignty if we haven't already.
	Yes.
	And then you have these international legal bodies like the WHO, which is now financed mostly by private entities like the Gates Foundation.
	It's no longer in its majority finance by sovereign states.
	That time is long over.
	So this international legal order, what is that?
	Actually, it sounds so proper and legitimate, but it's actually not.
	It's dominated by private interests or by these public-private entities.
	And one last part that I thought was really interesting about resilience, because they use another expression for resilience in this document, and that is, here, look up here.
	It's a shock-resistant society.
	So that is pretty much resilience, right?
	Shock-resistant society.
	And I thought when I saw that expression, I thought that gave me a real clue to what resilience actually means.
	Well, that's my thinking.
	I would like to know what you think about this.
	So shock-resistant means that if something is being hit or if there is some sort of shock, a real shock to something, to somebody, the body will not really exhibit any strong reaction to it.
	That's what it means.
	It can deal with that onslaught, whatever it is.
	That's shock-resistant.
	So that's the same as resilient.
	And it's actually a positive word.
	But no, when you think about a society, a shock-resistant society, that is, in my opinion, nothing desirable.
	A society is a living organism.
	It's all sorts, it has all sorts of bad and good and terrible things in it, and all sorts of conflicts and various interests and groups.
	It's very, very varied.
	And when there is a shock to a society, a normal society should react to a shock.
	It has to react to a shock, like a body.
	If the body is exposed to a shock, then the body has to react to the shock.
	And the society is the same thing.
	It has to react to a shock.
	It's a living, living thing.
	Well, it's more than that, Cornelia.
	It has to be flexible.
	It has to be flexible somehow, right?
	It has to react.
	It has to deal with a shock.
	But to say a society is kind of rigid, it's this rigid thing, and we can throw a shock against it.
	There can be a terrible onslaught, and the society is just rigid, and everything is under control.
	That is a really creepy concept.
	Well, it's more creepy than that because what is shock?
	First of all, who says what the shocks are?
	It's the same as future-proof.
	Shock-resistant, shock-proof, shock-resistant is a shame as future-proof.
	If you as a person were going to be shock-resistant and future-proof, you would be sitting there saying, what are all the shocks that can happen to me?
	And then you would create a cage and a bubble that you would be living in, and you wouldn't actually be able to have a life.
	There's no such thing as shock resistant.
	Shock resistant actually means, like you said, Cornelia, it means being just supple and flexible and living your life and being as healthy as you can in your life and not spending all your time thinking about hypothetical potential invented possible shocks that you need to prepare yourself against because then you're using all your energy.
	And in this case, all your resources are going to the public-private partnerships that are supposedly protecting you from hypothetical, non-existent future shocks instead of dealing with what's happening to you now and every day and on an ongoing basis as a living organism or as you said, Cornelia, as a society.
	So it's another, first of all, nonsensical thing.
	And the purpose of the nonsense is actually real, both in the future-proof and in the shock-resistant, in that it wants to take hypothetical and invented potential dangers and get all of our money and resources that we would be spending on having a good and prosperous and healthy life now.
	And it wants to just take those and suck them into this system that is supposedly protecting us from these hypothetical, invented, future shocks.
	So, yes.
	So, I think that resilience really is resilience, is like a code word, and it means a resilient society is a controlled society, a society where there are no escape hatches, where you cannot,
	where you can no longer escape the surveillance, the control, all everything that is put that is that like this cast that is put on you with technical with technical devices and critical infrastructure, whatever it is.
	I think that's all it is.
	Yeah, and it's also one of those nice-sounding words that mean nothing.
	Some people have characterized it as Barnum language, so clown language or circus language.
	So, they use these words that are not specific, not defined at all, but they kind of sound emotionally appealing, like this shock-resistant resilience, you know, all this, you know, we will protect everyone, protection, protection, protection.
	Sounds nice, safety, and all those nice-sounding things.
	But in reality, they explain that they're going to enslave you.
	Because when you're in a cage, you're shocked in a cage and you have no property, no rights, no nothing.
	You're shock-resistant and safe, very safe.
	So, that's what they really mean.
	But they convey it to the public, again, lazy public that doesn't think, that has been stupefied into consuming entertainment, sports, and distractions to march along saying, Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, shock resistance sounds nice.
	Yeah, let me go watch the football game again.
	And that's how they're marching everyone into this global cage.
	And also, it's interesting, Sasha, what you're saying brings up a thought for me, which is shock-proof for whom.
	So, what they are the most concerned about is the shock of a populist uprising.
	So, if the people get discontented, that's the thing they fear the most.
	And that's why the surveillance and control are so important.
	And so, actually, what they're talking about is a future-proof and shock-resistant way for them to establish a control grid so that there aren't any future shocks or surprises coming from us.
	So, we are the danger.
	We are the potential shock.
	So, it's not like they're not protecting us from shocks that can hurt us.
	They are protecting themselves from the shock that we represent because if enough people wake up and decide to resist, that would be a shock, and that would be a future hazard that they need to protect themselves from.
	So, they're actually talking about protecting the international order, which is their global public-private partnerships, from us.
	Yeah, that's what it is.
	Yep, yes, and the same way we should interpret slogans like make America healthy again, they're not talking about us as individuals being healthy.
	No, they're talking about, first of all, their power, their mechanisms, their balance sheet being healthy, and secondarily, treating us as cattle and workforce.
	And so, making it healthy includes killing off the unhealthy ones, which is their prominent policy today.
	And so, that's how we should interpret everything that comes from these groups.
	Yeah, yes.
	And you mentioned the word, Debbie, fear.
	That is so true.
	The fear of their own citizens, fear of their own population.
	Because, you know, when you shock, when you shock a society, then, of course, or when you do something to the society, people will lash out.
	They will not just let themselves be killed or done something terrible to them.
	So, they will fight back, usually, you know, they will lash out, they will do something, they will react.
	And that is what they don't want.
	That is what they don't want.
	That's what they want to preclude.
	And given what they have done over the last five years, what they have done to their populations in the Netherlands and so many other countries, of course, they now fear the population.
	There must be an extremely deep-rooted fear.
	And it's way too late to, I don't know, it's way too late for anything.
	What can you do?
	Apologize or come clear?
	Or no, it's nothing.
	There should be, of course, there should be, of course, people being held accountable and trials and all that.
	None of that has happened, which means that the fear for what they have done, and they know what they have done, they know it very well.
	The fear of their own people is extremely, extremely great.
	It's the only threat that they have.
	They're not afraid of climate.
	They're not afraid of bioweapons or any of that.
	They're afraid of us.
	Yes.
	And it drives their behavior.
	It drives it.
	Absolutely.
	Notice that, you know, Bill Gates cannot show up in public anywhere.
	He needs an army of security.
	Same thing.
	All of these, the leadership of all these organizations and governments, they show up with security versus us, we don't have any security because they're afraid of us.
	In the Grace Shara court case, all the experts for the defense showed up in court with bodyguards.
	Wow.
	Yes.
	Extensive security.
	That's how afraid these people are.
	I mean, Peter Thiel, for example, I've heard that if you try to go to his house, you actually have to go through like an FBI as secure.
	I mean, like, that's how scared they are.
	It's like literally bodyguards, military protection, body search, cavity search.
	I mean, it's insane to even get close to these people.
	That's how scared they are.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	So that was the Netherlands.
	Let's just.
	Let me.
	Can I just add, Cornelia, about the Netherlands a few things?
	So, interestingly, I think that the NATO, the chief of NATO, is now from the Netherlands.
	Am I right about that?
	Yeah.
	So that's interesting because I do think that some of the reason why all of this stuff came out in the Netherlands is because there's a very close Netherlands-NATO connection.
	Like the Netherlands seems to be, I didn't know this before, but because of all of these revelations and because I was just reading about who's the head of NATO and who's being, you know, who the nominees are to head NATO.
	So there's a lot, even though Holland is not a big country, it has very close ties to NATO.
	And also a very frightening thing is that one of the lawyers in the case that was challenging NATO was, I don't know, was he arrested?
	And Arnold von Kessel, he was leading this case.
	The case is still ongoing.
	His colleagues are prosecuting it.
	But Arnold himself was arrested, his house was raided.
	He was handcuffed, blindfolded, arrested without any charges.
	There are no charges against him.
	And he's now in maximum security prison.
	And they're going to hold him for, I think the maximum that they can hold somebody is 90 days.
	Again, no charges.
	And they're trying to figure out some sort of charges against him.
	Well, obviously, it will, they already started the disbarment, equivalent of disbarment process there against him.
	So all of this is lawfare against Arnold because he was a lead counsel on this case.
	Which is the case.
	What was the case against NATO?
	So the case, it's the case against several Dutch officials, I believe like 10 Dutch officials or so, including Mark Ruta himself.
	Yeah, and Bill Gates and Albert Birla.
	And they are alleging genocide and crimes against humanity.
	And this is the case where the judge ruled that Bill Gates cannot appear.
	So he has to appear or through the lawyers.
	So he has to be respondent or defendant in this case.
	Yeah, so basically it's very dangerous right now to try to bring anyone related to NATO, especially in the Netherlands, to account.
	And so this is a warning to anyone who would like to bring that kind of case ever again, right?
	I mean, this case is going forward without him, with his colleagues.
	But now who's going to want to do that if they're going to get raided, disbarred, lose everything, and go to jail?
	You know, NATO is extremely dangerous.
	Yeah.
	Very dangerous.
	And we, again, the reason they're doing this to him is because they're afraid.
	The legal system in many countries is the only place that we can actually at least get the issues out to the public, right?
	Because we can't get them out to the public in the media.
	We can't get them out to the public through the democratic so-called representatives who are not serving our interests.
	So it's very hard to get the information out.
	The legal system is one of the ways that we've been able to get information out through discovery and through the reports about the cases.
	So just people knowing that these cases are being brought gets attention to the issues.
	And they really, really, really don't want that.
	And Kirkmore's lawsuit was just dropped, right?
	And you made a very good point, I thought, Sasha, saying that, oh, they dropped that because they didn't want this to go through discovery and draw attention to what discovery would have brought to light.
	And that was the reason.
	And I think you made it, I think that makes sense because if it had been for any other reason, then why wouldn't they have dropped that case on January 20, 20, 20, 25, right, when Trump became president?
	It didn't make any sense to draw it out until July.
	Why would they have done that?
	But you know, Debbie, what you just said about law cases, that's one of the venues, one of the only venues that is left to bring things out into the open.
	You know what that shows us?
	What?
	It shows us how resilient our societies have become already.
	We are so resilient.
	We are so shock resistant that the information can't even creep out anymore.
	That's resilience.
	That's resilience and action.
	Exactly.
	That's exactly what they want to accomplish.
	They want to, and they want through these kinds of cases like Kirk Moore and Arno in the Netherlands, they want to send the message, don't even try.
	So if you try, your best outcome, you will be in jail and out of your profession, and you will spend, like Kirk Morris, you'll spend close to a million dollars defending yourself.
	And that's basically what they are trying to convey to the people.
	So don't even try.
	And we need to do the opposite.
	We need to do exactly the opposite of what they're trying to make us.
	So let's just go very quickly to Germany, really quickly, because then we want to, so we have enough time for our speculation exercise.
	Just really quickly, a few words about the Robert Koch Institute leaks and the discovery that there was this NATO general, Hulthelm, is his name, Hans Ulrich Holtelm, that he was in command of the so-called pandemic or the Corona Kriesenstadt, which is like the COVID crisis task force or something like that.
	Yes, exactly.
	So I'm just going to quickly, and you can start talking about that case.
	Debbie, you are probably the best one to talk about the Robert Koch, Robert Koch is the German pronunciation.
	So it's like the CDC, or it's the equivalent of the CDC in Germany.
	And there were vast leaks from this institute.
	And there was a lot of discovery in there.
	And then you're going to talk about that a little bit.
	And then about this Hans Ulrich, this NATO, he's a real NATO general, Hans-Ulrich Kultelm.
	Yeah, I mean, I don't want to take credit for being an expert on this.
	And Sasha, you can add and correct me.
	Because Sasha, so what happened was it got published in Germany.
	And then Sasha also published something about it.
	And then we added it to the dossier.
	And I also published stuff about that and about the Dutch response.
	So we've all been looking for this kind of revelation, meaning just like in Holland, where it creeps up or it pops up that NATO was somehow in charge of the response and that there were NATO obligations that the countries were supposed to be fulfilling.
	This is interesting, especially because in the COVID dossier, what Sasha and I try to do is talk about who was really in charge.
	So as Catherine Austin Fitz likes to say, if you know their names, they're not in charge.
	So people, so we have lists of people in each country, including these people who nobody has ever heard of, but who actually seem to have wielded all the power behind the scenes on these committees that were holding secret meetings.
	So why do we have to FOIA the Robert Koch Institute to get the information?
	It's supposed to be the CDC.
	It's supposed to be open to the public.
	You know, what is it doing?
	What are the policies?
	Who's in charge of the policies?
	And what came out of the leaks from the Robert Koch Institute was that actually they were not in charge.
	So that was the same parallel revelation that we had everywhere in all the countries in the COVID dossier.
	It was the same thing.
	It was revealed that it was not the public health authorities that were in charge of the COVID response.
	The public health authorities had, and it was not local.
	It was not based on the conditions in that country or in the provinces or in the cities or in the areas that were governed by the public health officials.
	They weren't in charge at all.
	People like the NATO generals, who nobody ever heard of, were in charge.
	And they were giving orders that were according to military and intelligence response to weapons of mass destruction attacks.
	It had nothing to do with public health response.
	And not only that, they also were giving orders that had to do with whether they wanted Donald Trump to be elected.
	So a lot of people think that the American response to COVID had to do with trying to get Donald Trump out.
	And that was part of the plan, but it wasn't the U.S. plan.
	It was actually the global plan.
	And the Koch Institute leaks actually reveal that they were talking about how they didn't want the vaccine to come out, not just in the United States, but also in Europe before the election in the United States.
	So basically, this is the global cartel.
	The global cartel didn't want Trump for whatever reason, or they wanted to make sure that the COVID response did not help Trump.
	And so they were talking about that, not on the U.S. level, but on the global level.
	Again, that's really interesting and scary that the national politics, again, are completely subject to whatever these global public-private partnerships that are, you know, whose direction comes from NATO and these international military alliances are telling the national governments and determining actually political outcomes in various countries.
	So I think those were the important revelations.
	Sasha, what else was important there?
	Yeah, so exactly right.
	So those RKI leaks from Robert Koch Institute show exactly that.
	This confusion.
	They didn't know who was in charge.
	The communications were always kind of contradictory.
	They said one thing one week, the opposite thing next week, showing that they have no idea what they're doing.
	And a lot of it is just meaningless kind of administrivia.
	So they also clearly show that masking was, for example, not necessary at all.
	They were contradictory, again, contradictory messaging about it.
	So again, everything in parallel what we've said before.
	Also, let me add to that.
	They also show that, for instance, they said, oh, next week we're going to raise the risk assessment.
	It's not like we're going to wait to see if there's a risk and increase risk.
	Actually, we're going to determine, predetermine which week we're going to raise the risk.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Because, well, obviously the people are not afraid enough, so we need to raise the hysteria in media.
	And for this, we will raise the risk ratings.
	That's basically what we found, that these public health agencies were not in charge all over the world.
	And it's a very common pattern amongst all of them.
	Yeah, but how monstrous that is, right?
	I mean, that's just next week, let's increase the risk.
	Scare them more.
	I mean, it's like they are treating us like a bunch of fleas or something, and like in a controlled experiment to see, because oh, we didn't react the right way.
	So, you know, we have to, we have to, it's like these, these, but, what are these psychological experiments that were done where volunteers shocked the exactly right, right?
	Well, they didn't react to that to that amount of electricity.
	Let's give them some more and see what happens.
	It's so monstrous.
	And it's also so, who are these people?
	And we are in the hands of whom, of completely ruthless and, I don't know, clown-like psychopaths.
	It's just horrific, really horrific.
	I just wanted to point out.
	That's a really good point, Cornelia, about the psychological operations, because what we also show in the COVID dossier and what's really important to understand is because they're afraid of us and because it's the populace that has to be controlled, a major aspect of that is psychological control.
	And a major aspect of that is the propaganda, the censorship, and the psychological operations.
	So, and that's on a global level, and they are really, really focused on that.
	Yeah, exactly.
	In fact, actually, I do have an update, which I'm kind of like late pulling together for the COVID dossier.
	I received a bunch of documentation from the Netherlands, but it deals with the psychological operations of NATO.
	And the center of it is set up in Riga, Latvia, where they use internet trolls, internet accounts to drive media to swarm.
	I've experienced this myself.
	I've been under numerous attacks by these operatives.
	They swarm any message that you have, an interview with sometimes they use porn and scams and things like that to attach to your message so that the platform itself will delete it or deprioritize it because it has so much garbage attached to it now.
	That's one of the tactics.
	Yeah, the taxes, they just run operations, and it's clear.
	There was this mutton operation, this guy who was presenting himself as a sheep farmer, but he was a 77th Brigade in the UK.
	And a whole bunch of these mutton accounts on Twitter were swarming, labeling, starting fights, smearing, and all sorts of things like that.
	And that's all driven by NATO.
	fund this and they have um military members sitting there behind their computers doing this so i thought i found um something interesting about this guy here He says, I'm not able to translate.
	So, well, it doesn't German, doesn't matter.
	So, that's his curriculum vita of this whole term, the general who was in charge.
	And if you could go down here, it says here, so on the 1st of April 2020, he became the head of this Koruna Krisenstab, so this crisis panel of the this is a federal BMG, that's the federal ministry for health in Germany.
	So on exactly that day, so they chose him for that position.
	And it's also interesting that this new title here, this new department, it's called Gesundheitschutz.
	So that's protection of health.
	Gesundheitsige is health security, security of your health, and then Nachaldichkeit, which is, oh God, it's not resilience, it's sustainability, sustainability, another one of these code words, sustainability.
	This department was founded then.
	So that was created, that was created at that moment for the pandemic.
	And also, so I dug a little bit into him, see what I could find out about him.
	And so he's a doctor and he has been working in epidemiological kind of stuff for decades.
	Even going back all the way to 2002, I found something about an epidemiological surveillance system in 2002 that they were developing.
	This article here is a little bit later.
	It's 2012.
	And they were building back then something that they call in NATO deployment health surveillance capability, DHSC, some sort of computer system.
	Now it would be done by AI.
	So that must have been very primitive back then.
	And when you scroll down here, I thought that was just hilarious what they say here.
	They talk about, yes, look at this down here.
	NATO is building a single, and this whole town, this guy who was in charge of the pandemic in Germany, of this Griezenstadt, he was building this stuff.
	He had something to do with it.
	So it says, NATO is building a single system that will offer a complete overview of the health situation of deployed troops, of all of the deployed troops, of all the deployed NATO troops, a complete overview of the health situation.
	So let that sink in.
	What does that mean?
	I mean, today it would probably mean that you all have to wear a wearable that transmits your, I don't know, blood pressure and your heart rate and whatever else to some central system and gives and it actually really gives you an up-to-date, an up-to-date overview of the health situation of deployed troops.
	That's a really good point because also a lot of times everything is tried out on the military first.
	So, you know, they deployed bioweapons and countermeasures on the military first.
	So with the anthrax vaccines and other types of experimentation that they've done over in the history.
	Unfortunately, the people who actually answer the call of to really protect the country and to really be patriotic and serve the country are the ones who actually get you first as a first line experiment on, for instance, gathering all of their health data and stuff like that.
	So that's something that we have to recognize is that the military is the first place that all of these things get tested.
	Yes, exactly.
	And they've used this for years.
	The U.S. military, U.S. military has used service members as guinea pigs, as unsuspecting trial subjects, experimental subjects for decades.
	And they continue doing so.
	And I've been writing a series of articles.
	I have another one coming out next week talking about this, talking about these illegal experiments.
	For example, the US military, as late as the 90s, was injecting troops with the plague without them suspecting it.
	They were telling them it's a licensed vaccine.
	It wasn't licensed until 94, and it was withdrawn shortly after because it's hugely poisonous.
	But they have injected the troops with it in 91 and 92, cause deaths, cause injuries, and they also use it on prisoners in the US for illegal experiments.
	And those are just some examples.
	Anthrax vaccine, again.
	So today, frankly, I don't believe in, oh, PTSD in veterans, and then they become homeless, and it's such a big problem.
	No.
	Those are results of those illegal experiments.
	And they throw them out so that throw them out on the street so that no liability comes back to them.
	It really makes, I mean, a lot of people rely on the military because that's where they get money for, first of all, to live and education and career.
	And if I could, I would say, I think the way to solve this is like you say all the time, Sasha, just non-compliance.
	If people just didn't go to the military, like enough.
	Enough.
	So the U.S. Army, called DOD, employs something like four and a half million people, both military and civilian jobs.
	And the ones that are military, active duty, those are the ones in danger of these experiments.
	And yeah, the answer is not comply, don't serve them.
	The problem is a lot of people, you know, that's the only choice for them.
	That's why I say I can't, you can't say that.
	We can't say don't go to the military.
	It's your livelihood.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	So I originally also wanted to talk about Germany's Project Sarima, but I think we'll skip that because it's just too long and we have talked about, we have amassed a lot of evidence, I think.
	But to close up this section about the fact that it was really the defense and the intelligence services that were in charge of the COVID response across NATO, I would like to quote this from Dr. Chetty.
	So Dr. Chetty is a practicing doctor and he saved a lot of people.
	I think he lives in South Africa, if I'm not mistaken.
	And he had a very interesting encounter with the CIA guy who really wanted to get in touch with him.
	And that was, I think, in 2021.
	I think in the spring of 2021.
	And he talked, Dr. Chetty talked about this in a recent interview with Dr. Philip Macmillan.
	So what Dr. Chetty said was that he had this, I got the guy from the CIA trying to get in touch with me on LinkedIn, and I ignored him.
	And he ignored him for a long time.
	This guy was really persistent, he wanted to get in touch with Dr. Chetty.
	And then he finally gave in and said, okay, fine, call me.
	And then he called him and he said, during this telephone call, he said to him, he said, and this is a quote, Dr. Chetty, the vaccination program has nothing to do with health.
	It is the second part of a global military strategy.
	And he said, you watch and see.
	They will insist that every patient on this planet takes it, whether they like it or not.
	They will take away your freedoms.
	They will take away your job.
	And women and children won't be spared.
	Yeah, correct.
	Who said that?
	The CIA guy?
	The CIA?
	Yeah.
	I don't think he knows his name.
	I don't know if he knows his name or not.
	Not everyone in CIA is a bad person, obviously.
	Just as any organization.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	So now, why?
	Why did all this happen?
	Why was this?
	Why we discuss what happened at great length.
	So why did it happen?
	I'm going to, let me start, Sasha, because then you can end with a big bang.
	I'm going to start with the more systemic explanation.
	So I don't like to guess about the human motivations because I think some of the people involved are evil.
	I think some of the people involved are brainwashed.
	I think some of the people involved are sheep.
	I think some of the people involved are reluctant participants.
	I think there's a whole range of motivations.
	I think we are living in a global public-private partnership system where the control and it's financed by the global financial system.
	So the banking system, the global banking system, and the corporations and the governments that have been bought and controlled by the banking, the international banking system, and the corporations through debt obligations and through other economic manipulations.
	They are an enormous system that encompasses global corporations and governments and agencies and non-governmental NGOs and nonprofits and academic institutions.
	It's a huge, huge conglomerate that we can, I call it the public-private partnerships.
	We can just call it a cartel because it is a crime cartel in the sense that no laws apply.
	And the way that it operates is outside of the legal system of any country.
	And there aren't any checks and balances like Sasha was talking about in terms of local versus national, in terms of judicial versus legislative.
	There aren't any checks and balances.
	And what a crime cartel wants to do is maintain its power, get more dominance over more area and over more people, and get more resources.
	That's what it wants to do, and that's what it's doing.
	And so the way I like to describe it is the system is there.
	It's in place.
	We have, it's, you know, C.J. Hopkins, who is somebody who I think is probably the best that I know at describing the systemic structures that are in place.
	It calls it global capitalism.
	You can call it global corporatism.
	You can call it global fascism.
	You can call it global totalitarianism.
	I like to call it the techno-feudalist crime cartel.
	So it's techno-feudalist because they rely, it's a technocratic.
	They want to use technology in order to control the population that they fear.
	Feudalist because it's about the elite and everybody else is the feudal, they're the feudal lords and we're the serfs or the slaves or however you want to describe it.
	And it's a crime cartel because it operates outside of any legal system.
	And when you don't have a legal system controlling you, you can do whatever you want.
	So I like to describe it on that systemic level.
	So why did they do COVID?
	The same reason that they're doing everything else, the same reason that they're doing AI and they're passing laws so that nobody can oppose their AI, the same reason that they're declaring states of emergency for energy, for immigration, for any so-called, you know, whatever, like we said, future shock that they want to protect us against.
	They're doing all of that so that they can get more control, so that they can have more of an excuse to have, for instance, they can they're bringing in both um Peter Thiel and um Elon Musk, two of the richest, uh, most in charge of the biggest military intelligence um uh um techno tech companies in the world, right?
	So, they provide most of the tech for the United States military, but those two people, their companies, and the tech that they provide is communications, surveillance, um, and data AI, you know, analysis.
	So, for things like drone strikes, for things like, um, you know, like you said, uh, Cornelia, like getting the data on everyone into one place, which is what um Palatir is doing right now.
	Um, so those are just examples.
	So, it's not like, yeah, Peter Thiel is, I think he's a crazy person, and I also think Elon Musk is a crazy person, and all these people they are they don't operate on a human level because they are they have too much money and power, and so they're in a different realm and they regard us as complete uh dispensable and probably uh we're just getting in the way we're useless eaters.
	Um, and so if we're useless eaters to the people who have the most money and resources in the world who control the governments, they control the governments, they're not working, you know, that's what a public partner-private partnership is: it's you take the public money and the public goodwill and you shove it into the corporate interests.
	And so, of course, they're going to do that.
	Of course, they're going to do COVID, and of course, they're going to do AI and of course they're going to do global surveillance, and there's nothing stopping them right now.
	And what global capitalism means, according to CJ Hopkins, is that whereas in the past there were ideological systems like communism/slash socialism or Nazism, you know, that were opposed to the free flow, you know, the freedom of capitalists or let's say corporatists to do whatever they want.
	There aren't anymore.
	There are no other systems, there are no other value systems that are opposed to everything being a commodity.
	The entire world is a commodity, and the cartel wants as much of the commodities for itself.
	We are a commodity, our health is a commodity, the air is a commodity, the natural resources are commodities.
	There's nothing that prevents any of that from being monetized, which is what they're trying to do with the CBDCs, which is the central bank's digital currencies.
	It doesn't have to come from central banks, it can also come from private corporations.
	But our use of resources needs to be controlled.
	And to me, it's more instructive and important to understand what the structures are and how they operate, as opposed to pointing the fingers at particular people or particular organizations and saying they're doing it because they are evil and they are part of a child sex trafficking, devil-worshipping cult, which they probably are.
	And I'm not saying that they're not.
	And I'm not denying that that can be part of it and that there is a lot of craziness in their beliefs.
	And when I talk about this, I'm talking about the leaders of the crime cartel, the corporatists and the technologists, and the people behind them, and the bankers and the people who provide the ideological framework for what they're doing.
	There's a lot of craziness.
	And if you listen to them talk, you know, they're in a different universe.
	But I think that the main important thing is to understand what the big structures are and that the elections aren't going to save us.
	National elections aren't going to save us.
	Politicians aren't going to save us.
	You know, we need to be operating outside the system and resisting the system.
	Because as Sasha says, and as I completely agree, if we just don't comply, if more people during COVID understood what was happening, understood what the system was that was trying to gather the resources and manipulate us into doing into complying.
	If more people understood that and just didn't come, if more people just said, no, I'm not wearing a mask.
	I'm not social.
	I did that, but most people didn't.
	But if everybody in my community had not worn a mask and not social distanced and not taken the vaccines, then they would have failed.
	That's it.
	Now, what structures do we need to put in place?
	What do we need to do to replace this global corporatist crime cartel?
	That's a huge, huge problem.
	But the only way we're going to get there, when people say, like, what should we do?
	What should we do?
	You know, we need to vote for this person or we need to have this political party instead of that political party.
	Stop.
	Stop using your energy the way they want, the way the cartel wants you to use your energy.
	The cartel wants you, your attention, and your energy to be directed at fighting each other instead of being directed at opposing them.
	That's what we said.
	They're the most scared of us.
	And one way that they can control us is by pitting us against each other.
	And they do that politically and they do that with all the social issues.
	And so we have to stop, take a breath, and just understand what's happening.
	It's extremely powerful if everybody, if 50% instead of, I don't know what percent you think are awake now, let's say 5% or 10% or 20%, if we're optimistic of the world's population, understands what's going on.
	What if that was 50%?
	Problem solved in terms of compliance with the cartel, in terms of creating something else, then we can create something else.
	But you're putting the cart before the horse, I think.
	If you say, yeah, we need parallel systems and we need to create these parallel things.
	Let's think about that.
	Let's think about what parallel systems we can put in place.
	Let's create resilient, and I don't mean resilient in the way they do.
	Let's let's strong, strong, independent local communities that can resist because the strong, independent local communities can only replace the global cartel first if we resist.
	And so I think what I'm trying to do, and I think what we're all trying to do here is first, let's get people aware of what's going on.
	And when people ask me, what can I do?
	Stop trying to think about, you know, creating a parallel, you know, a huge parallel political structure that will evolve when people understand what's happening.
	If people don't understand what's happening and they spend all their time and energy getting Maha elected or, you know, getting the AFD in Germany or, you know, worrying about the local politics or about the local, you know, woke versus non-woke, you know, yeah, we can argue about that and we can be against it, but that's not where we need to be spending our energy.
	So that's my tirade.
	And now, Sasha, I'm going to pass it to you because my tirade is very general and kind of more philosophical.
	Yeah, well, so yeah, I completely agree that this is the motives.
	I also tend to ascribe the material motives before the ideological motives because the ideologies are typically designed to retroactively justify the actions that were done driven by the economic motives or material motives.
	Material motif is very clear.
	They want to maintain their power, solidify their power, keep it in place, and control all the assets of the world, which includes all people in the world.
	This actually stems from Plato.
	So, if you understand Plato's writings, that's the blueprint that all the dictatorial totalitarian regimes of any kind have been using, whether they knew it or not.
	It all has to do with the elite, the elite that controls the resources getting into power, and then them constantly worrying about preserving that power.
	They don't worry about getting more anymore because they're already at the top.
	But what they are concerned about is uprising from the bottom.
	That's why they're deathly afraid of us continuously.
	And they always need to devise ways of keeping their small group together.
	That's why they have all these like sex cults and orgies and things like that.
	It's actually also making sure that they stay together all the time, that they're all aligned.
	All the abuse in the families, the psychological abuse of the children, it's the same principle.
	Also, you don't want uprising from the bottom as a parent, you don't want uprising from your child, taking a big chunk of assets and using them in ways that you disagree with.
	Fundamentally, it all boils down to that.
	All these abusive relationships, cults, strange behaviors, including sex cults and all that.
	But again, it's all secondary to the material interest.
	Material interest remains we need to preserve the structure.
	That's what Plato wrote about.
	He was upset.
	He was using Sparta as a model against Athens.
	He hated Athens.
	He was from Athens, but he hated Athens because there was always this strife and fight, political fight primarily, because there was a democratic process.
	And he hated that.
	He said, well, no, Spartans are always much better because they have this autocratic, technocratic, expert-driven system where they're all together.
	They actually don't have any private property, which is like communism.
	They don't have any private property, but they all hold property together and they have all these mechanisms, including sex cults, to preserve it all.
	So anyway, so that's like how far that goes.
	But the elites that control the material resources have enough money to create whatever reality they want and then believe it.
	So that's why they're all crazy from the perspective of a normal person who is tied to real reality.
	The teal is crazy, Mosque is crazy, this whole interplanetary species bullshit, it's bullshit.
	But they all believe it because they have enough money to insulate themselves into this world that they created for themselves and then believe it.
	Now, but again, like coming back to, so they want to control the resources.
	Actually, today, this morning, there was an excellent substack, which I'm probably going to quote and write in my writing that I'm also doing right now.
	So this is Altisla, I'm not sure how to pronounce his name, Substack.
	He wrote about Robert Koch, interestingly, how Robert Koch ran concentration camps in Africa to perform medical experiments.
	So Nazis were not the first ones, apparently.
	And so he operated these camps where he injected people for this was for river blindness or some other epidemic diseases in Africa.
	He would use military force to round people up into these concentration camps and then experiment with different treatments on them.
	And so I'm quoting from this substack.
	He viewed the endogenous patients in Africa like economic commodities or livestock.
	As Koch spelled it out, the value of the campaign would not be in healing of individuals.
	So Make America Healthy Again, as I told you, is not about healing of individuals, but the maintenance of the population's workforce as a whole.
	And that's why this is how they view people.
	They view people as their own commodity and resource.
	They view practically everything as their own commodity and resource.
	And they appoint themselves as the deciders of who is going to live and who's going to die and who is going to be an experimental subject and whose organs we're going to harvest for what and who's going to abort babies so we can have facial creams.
	And, you know, all that stuff comes from this attitude that they have.
	And we need to understand this attitude.
	People, normal people have a very, sometimes very traumatic reaction to realization that this is how their elites or even the political leaders that they love and voted for actually view them.
	But from that recognition comes a deep desire to resist it.
	If you don't recognize it, and that's what I'm asking you to do, is to overcome your revolt, some people may need to vomit this news.
	Do that, then come back and start facing it as a reality that we're living in.
	And from that reality stems your personal desire, your personal very, very strong will to resist it to the end.
	This is how we defeat them.
	Otherwise, there is no way.
	Otherwise, you will end up in CAGE, I guarantee you.
	And Sasha, I want to add to that.
	It's interesting.
	I was listening to a podcast where a journalist was talking to one of these tech guys who is a friend of Elon Musk and everybody, whatever.
	And he says the following.
	He says, he says, I believe in the neoliberal worldview, which is a code for what they believe in, which is that the elites and the technocrats need to control everything.
	And this is the neoliberal viewpoint that he says.
	He says, a community, because they were talking about farming and how he doesn't think it's important to support farming communities because we've solved the food problem with the technology of big agriculture or whatever.
	So we shouldn't be supporting them.
	And why?
	Because the community is just a means.
	It's just an agglomeration of human beings, he says.
	So community isn't about individuals.
	It isn't serving our spiritual, you know, our social, our emotional needs.
	It's none of that.
	Because they don't have community, these people, right?
	They have sex cults or whatever it is that you say.
	I think you're right, Sasha, that keeps them together.
	And so he says, I'm a big believer in agglomeration effects, which is taking individuals together and creating synergistic economic input.
	Yeah.
	So that's what people are.
	It's not individuals.
	It's an agglomeration effect.
	And we take them together and create synergistic economic output.
	That's what people are.
	People are just a group of things, items, commodities that you can put in different agglomerations in order to create different economic output.
	He literally said that.
	I mean, I was just shocked that this was an acceptable thing.
	In fact, he was proud of it and thought that this was a perfectly acceptable thing to say.
	Yeah, it's interesting.
	And he probably imagines himself to be the one who does this synergistic putting together.
	He's not the one to whom this is being done, I would imagine.
	Although that doesn't sound very important.
	So both of you, what you said is very interesting because both of you explain what happened by saying that we have left the realm of a traditional humanistic,
	traditional humanistic worldview, where an individual human being has intrinsic value, where every life is precious, where we want to strive to make sure that everybody to the maximum extent possible can lead a meaningful and fulfilling life as free as possible without disturbing the freedom of others.
	All these concepts that are rooted in Judeo-Christian thinking and other philosophical frameworks that we have been relying on for thousands of years, that we have been leaving all of this behind, and that we have been moving, I don't know since when, maybe over the last 150 years or so into the realm of what Friedrich Nietzsche described as the Übermensch,
	where you have a godless world and man becomes either God as the Übermensch, more like a transhuman, an improved version of a human that does no longer need a God.
	And then you also have the equivalent to the Übermensch, you have the Untermensch, which is below human, which is, you know, like all of us, almost all of us.
	And the Undermensch has no intrinsic value.
	The Untermensch, the life of the Undermensch, is not worth living and can be and probably should be extinguished by the Übermensch, who are the real heroes.
	And I think, yeah, I think there's a lot of, I mean, how else can you explain that people would that there are power players across the world in many, many countries that would have done, that would have condemned people to be killed in this alleged pandemic, and that would withhold, that would be so cruel,
	withholding factor therapeutics from people, killing people in hospitals.
	I mean, doing, really killing people with Ramdesavir and intubating them, et cetera, et cetera.
	We don't even know how big the crimes are.
	We don't even know how many people have been killed and how many people are going to die over the next years or decades.
	So this is, I think that all makes a lot of sense.
	It's also very, it's a very, it's a very scary thought.
	So the fact that many people don't really want to think about what happened, right?
	I mean, I can totally understand that because there are a lot of people who cannot deal with it or cannot psychologically cannot deal with it because it's so scary if you really take it in its full meaning.
	And especially, I mean, when you have small kids or grandkids, I mean, you're not going to talk to them about it.
	What are you going to tell them?
	Certainly cannot.
	Yeah, it's a good, it's a good point that people want to protect their children from this and they don't want to, they want to protect themselves, they want to protect their children from this knowledge, right?
	But are they really protecting them or they're making them a more an easier target by doing this?
	And I think they're making themselves and their children an easier target.
	So each one of us has to think about how what the appropriate way and appropriate amount of information you want to communicate with your children.
	But I would strongly encourage you to communicate.
	I have communicated with my children throughout the years and about the whole COVID situation.
	And I can tell you it's possible.
	And we're now, as a result, we're on the same page about all of this.
	And I know many, many families where the children don't talk to parents, the parents don't talk to each other, the parents don't talk to grandparents because they won't face the truth.
	Like one of or the other, or many of them won't face the truth.
	They don't want to accept or accept the reality that they're living in this deeply evil situation.
	And that's what we're going to add, Nasha.
	And Cornelia, I'm not a religious person, but I think actually, Cornelia, as opposed to describing it as a deviation from some kind of history where people were respected and, you know, human rights were supreme, like that almost never happened in human history.
	And so actually, it's actually less scary.
	And this is something that helps me a lot.
	My husband, in fact, just is finishing reading the entire Old Testament, even though we're not religious.
	We come from a Jewish background and are able to read in Hebrew.
	So it's nice to read it in Hebrew.
	But what the Old Testament tells us is this is how it's always been.
	So when I say a techno-feudalist crime cartel, it didn't used to be techno, but it was always feudalist.
	And it was always a crime cartel in the sense that the elites were always in every society throughout human history, and the Bible just tells it over and over and over and over again.
	The elites were going to wars against each other, using their people to fight each other and to get more wealth for themselves.
	And the people had to scramble and find ways to, you know, either hide from that or escape from that or oppose it.
	And the prophets were always railing against all the evil and the evil and then the people were destroyed and then it happened again.
	And it happened again and it happened again and it happened again.
	So it sounds like a scary thing, but actually it's to me, and it can be a way of talking to children or family members or just in general to explain it.
	This is not actually an anomaly.
	This is actually the way human society has always been run.
	We had a little pocket for some of us who were, you know, fairly who were educated and wealthy white people in the West in the last, you know, since World War II, we had a nice little pocket of what I call coercion-free or very close to coercion-free.
	Not a lot of people in the history of humanity have lived as coercion-free a life as I had before COVID.
	I did not have any coercion that I felt I could do whatever I want.
	I didn't have to fight for my survival.
	I didn't have to fight for my livelihood.
	I didn't have to fight for my family.
	We had leisure.
	We had, like you said, self-actualization was our goal.
	Our goal was not survival.
	You know what I mean?
	In most of human history, the goal of most people is just survival.
	And so we had it really, really, really good.
	And now we realize that, you know, we can be targeted.
	I'll talk about myself.
	I realized that I can be a target too of coercion because I always felt myself to be pretty protected and pretty safe.
	And I thought that the systems were there to protect me and I thought that they were benevolent or at least neutral.
	And I know they're not now.
	And I know that.
	And now, in order to comfort myself and my family, what I do is I look at history and I say, oh, wait a minute, this isn't an abnormal shift towards tyranny.
	It's actually a shift towards what has always been the case in human history.
	And people might say it's scarier because of the technology.
	And I agree that the technology gives the elites more power and it's more global.
	And so it's not as easy to say, well, I'm going to go someplace else.
	So, you know, it used to be that you could say, well, the Soviet Union, I'm going to try to escape and go to the West.
	Or if something bad is happening in Germany, I'm going to try to go to the United States.
	You know, so there were places to go.
	I don't see, there's not a lot of places to go now, except to create your own strong, you know, family and community in order to resist the same.
	Well, Debbie, we are going to Debbie, we're going to go to Mars.
	We're going to go to Mars.
	They already control Mars.
	But the other good news, the other good news is that the technology is not as powerful and all-encompassing as people think it is and as these crazy, insane technocrats think that it is.
	There are no nanobots.
	There is no human-computer interface.
	There's no such thing.
	A computer and a human have nothing to do with each other.
	There is literally zero overlap between human consciousness and AI.
	There's none.
	AI will never be conscious.
	AI is just a computational program of probabilities that makes humans think that the computer is saying things that mean something.
	The computer has no it there.
	There's no it there.
	There's no consciousness there.
	It's not going to take over.
	It can be used by humans for pernicious purposes like surveillance, like control, like data.
	I mean, they can do a lot of crazy, horrible things, like elites have always done and like tyrants have always done.
	And the compute and the technology does give them power to do a lot of bad things, but not what we think.
	It's not the internet of people, the internet of bodies.
	So my big hope, aside from getting more people aware and making more people resist, my other hope is that I believe the technology is going to fail.
	They need so much power and so much water.
	Just those two resources, which they claim we, the useless eaters, they think they claim that we're the ones who are using it all up.
	They're the ones who are using it all up for their control grid, right?
	So now they're consuming all of the energy and all of the water.
	I heard the other day that there are cities where you can't even build new houses anymore because there's no more electricity or water in the system for new houses.
	So basically, it's not ever going to be, they're going to use up the resources.
	The technology is not going to do what they think it's going to do, which is, you know, chips and brain.
	They believe that.
	They believe they're going to be able to upload their brain, their consciousness to the cloud or something like that.
	So if they have such hubris and such crazy beliefs, that's good for us.
	That's really good for us.
	Yeah, interesting.
	So Debbie, I want to come back to the Old Testament because you said your husband read the entire Old Testament in Hebrew.
	And I happened to just a couple of months ago, I finished listening to the entire Old Testament in English.
	And the Old Testament, I never really understood it before.
	You know, I never read it before.
	I knew a little bit of Genesis, but didn't really understand what the whole thing was.
	And I'm so glad I did read it because it's such an amazing monument, really, of what human beings are and also the relationship to God.
	Whether you believe in God or not, I think everybody, even whatever they say, believe in transcendency, you know, that it's not just material, material.
	I mean, you have to explain somehow why things exist and why the world exists and why we are here.
	But anyway, so I read the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible, and it's so fascinating because God, whatever that is, you know, just call it God.
	God is so upset with his own creation.
	So he creates people and he is constantly aghast and disgusted with the evil of what he created.
	And over and over again, he actually does it.
	He smashes, he says, this is so awful what I did here.
	I'm going to smash it.
	And that is true even for his chosen people.
	I mean, can you imagine?
	I find it absolutely fascinating that there's a religion where the people, the Israelites, are constantly displeased, displeasing to God.
	God is never satisfied with them.
	Not even with the best of them, not even with Moses.
	Not even Moses is allowed to enter Israel because of some transgression.
	And God is always tempted to, he's always tempted to smash his chosen people, to smash them all, smash them all up, kill everybody because they are so bad and they are so capable of terrible evil.
	And that's what we are.
	Not just the Israelites.
	I mean, it doesn't really matter that so he chose the Israelites, but it's true for everyone.
	Everyone is bad.
	And that is what God created.
	He created creatures that are capable of the greatest evil and also of good things.
	God says that too.
	There is hope.
	It's not everything is completely hopeless.
	No, no, there is hope.
	And he made some promises.
	So he refrains from smashing after some initial smashings.
	And he doesn't do that anymore, although he would really like to.
	But he says, okay, fine.
	I'm going to disperse you.
	And maybe, but you have to be punished because you are so, everybody is so bad.
	And now you think, oh my God, and that was successful?
	That was a successful message.
	I wouldn't have thought so.
	I would have thought, well, I don't want to hear that, how bad I am all the time.
	And oh, yeah, he's absolutely right.
	You know, everybody, and starting with oneself, we know ourselves best.
	We know what we are capable of.
	And if we are honest with ourselves and have a little bit of imagination, we can definitely see that we would all be able to create evil.
	So that this was successful.
	That is just astonishing.
	It was successful.
	It was amazingly successful.
	People accepted that message and they propagated the message and it then developed into the New Testament, et cetera, et cetera.
	But the Old Testament, it doesn't need the New Testament, in my opinion.
	It stands on its own completely.
	And it's such a sobering reality check to what we really are, that we are very dangerous, very resourceful, intelligent, creative people, but extremely dangerous because we can be so evil, because We are so split in our, you know, we have great capability to be good and evil, and it's it can go in any which way and in any which moment.
	Um, and God tells us that God tells us, be careful, you are not good.
	And if you remember that all the time, if you remember all the time how bad you are, you're going to be more careful.
	You're going to be not quite as bad as you would be otherwise, and maybe you are even going to be capable of doing something good.
	And I think that is that is what the value of the Old Testament really is, because that's the only thing I think that can keep people on check of the knowledge, how bad we are, how evil we are, how great our capability is to do really evil stuff.
	If that is taken away from us, then we are completely unbound, completely unchecked, and we will do the most horrific things.
	I think also that it makes the I think there's two things: there's the personal and there's the social, the societal.
	And so, I think what I was, you're talking about more of the personal.
	And I think for me, what's comforting in the Bible is actually the societal.
	It's really a picture of human society.
	So, God created humans and humans created society.
	And so, what God is saying is, even if the individual has both the evil and the good in them, what happens when you get groups of people, groups of people together end up.
	So, the evil that I'm interested in in the Bible, and I agree there's a lot of individual stuff, but it's also a lot of it is on a societal level.
	And it says that the individual, once you get a bunch of humans together who have both good and evil in them, as they get together in societies, it becomes more and more evil, right?
	And I wouldn't even say evil, I would just say corrupt.
	You know, and so it's almost inevitable that the bigger the groups and the more power, smaller groups have more power, the more evil or corrupt that is going to be.
	And God is going to destroy it and try again.
	And again, it's going to start and it's going to evolve and it's going to become evil and corrupt because that's how human societies are.
	So, you can talk about it on an individual level.
	That's a little bit more of a Christian approach in terms of we're all bad and we are all sinners.
	As a Jew, that's not a message that we really got from our religion.
	Our religion was more about us as a people and blah, blah, blah, and the chosen people.
	I don't believe in that.
	But that is the message that made it an extremely powerful religion because the Bible proves that there is a God who thinks that we, the Jews, are the chosen people.
	So, of course, you're going to want to belong to that religion, right?
	I mean, who wouldn't?
	And then we're very exclusive, too.
	So, we don't just let you in.
	You got to either be born to a Jewish mother, you know, or go through a crazy conversion thing.
	You can't just be baptized or something like that.
	So, it's very exclusive.
	It's very elitist.
	And it represents exactly that kind of social evolution, which eventually leads to where we are today.
	So, I think that's the comfort in the Bible is that actually this is not an anomaly.
	The comfort is that when humans get together and form societies, there's always going to be these issues of power, of the people in power being evil and wanting more power, and the rest of us having to figure out how we're going to deal with that.
	Well, for me, the message in the Christian Bible is A lot of people take away that, oh, oh, you know, humans are evil and God is, you know, always displeased with them.
	And then the, you know, the atheists often say, well, what kind of God would allow all this evil to exist?
	That's bad God.
	We can't believe that.
	In fact, it's used in a lot of the satanic cults and inversions of Christianity, of which there are multiple sects of Christianity that are basically satanic inversions.
	They all kind of fall into the category of church light or Bible light or doctrine light, but their doctrine is everything is acceptable, you know, transgender and all that, and gay priests and things like that.
	Everybody's welcome.
	We're so open arms because they accept abortion.
	There are Catholic schools and churches that insist on COVID vaccines and other vaccines, even though they're developed unaborted babies.
	So all of those categories are stemming from the fact that a lot of people find the Bible upsetting.
	All this evil stuff that happened, or just the reality of evil that they see every day upsetting, and they're saying, what kind of God would allow this?
	And then they fall into these inversionist cults.
	And so my message is: I believe, personally, I believe God telling us that everything, you know, people are corrupt, people are capable of great evil, and I'm constantly displeased with them.
	Because without this possibility to do the greatest evil, you have no possibility to do the greatest good.
	I think his purpose was to achieve the greatest good.
	The real purpose that Christianity, real Christianity, teaches, is that you are unique and chosen by God because you have ability to do the greatest good.
	Nothing else on earth can do that.
	Only if you recognize that you're also capable of the greatest evil.
	And you fight against your own personal greatest evil every day.
	That's how you become good.
	That's my message that I get from Christianity: this.
	And we have an opportunity.
	That's why we have to face the reality.
	We have to strive to understand the reality as accurately as we can every day because it changes every day.
	Try to understand your environment, your reality every day as accurately as you can.
	Don't create, if you have a lot of money or have some money, don't try to isolate, don't try to create your own version of it.
	Try to understand reality as it is every day and then figure out how to be good.
	Yes, because we have, yeah, right, because we have free will.
	I mean, God gave us free will to be good or to be evil.
	And that is the whole crux of it.
	We are free people, you know.
	We are not these resilient people.
	We are free people.
	We are free people.
	Don't become resilient people.
	Become free people.
	Exactly.
	And Debbie, what you said about societies, you know, I mean, where does society start?
	It starts with just two people, you know, like Adam and Eve and all the conflicts they had.
	And then that kill started.
	I mean, it started right away.
	Right away when you have Cain killing his brother Abel, you know, there you go.
	There's your society.
	It's good, good, good, good from the get-go.
	But when you look at the really great atrocities, let's say, like just from the 20th century, but I mean, even all the way back to like 3,000, 4,000 years ago, it's usually one of these superhumans, one of these, I don't know, whoever it is, that are greatly evil.
	You know, people like Napoleon, who killed so millions of people.
	I mean, the French love him, but he was, he was, he was one of these people who, who really was such a powerful individual that he was able to wage these wars that lost many, many, many people lost their lives.
	Or if you go to the 20th century, of course, like Stalin or Mao Zetong or Paul Pot or Adolf Hitler, they were all, they are guilty as individuals.
	It wasn't society.
	It wasn't, I mean, of course, it was, they rose up in a context, obviously, but still it took their own evilness, their own personalities to achieve the extent of the killing and the carnage that happened.
	There's a philosophical debate about that.
	Like Tolstoy, for instance, in War and Peace, spends an inordinate amount of time talking about how it's not Napoleon as a person and it's not individual leaders who make wars.
	In fact, it's the structure.
	It's the system.
	By the time, at the time, when there were communications where you had to have horses bring messages to generals and generals send messages to the headquarters and you had to have these supply lines that were going through the horrible winters and stuff, the system was what happened.
	And whether it was Napoleon or some other general who led the armies and decided, said that he wanted to do this or that, what Napoleon wanted and what happened were absolutely, completely separate things.
	And the system is what is in charge.
	So the individuals harness the system or direct it in various ways.
	It's the same with Elon.
	It's the same with Peter Thiel.
	It's the same with these crazy technocrats.
	If it wasn't those particular ones, it would be other ones.
	So it's not that history is made by particularly evil individuals.
	And if those individuals weren't there, it wouldn't have happened.
	Some other evil individual would have come along and harnessed whatever things were going on in society at the time in order to achieve the similar results.
	And the system would have operated in the same way.
	So we can point at these individuals and say how evil they are, but ultimately it's actually the way humans organize themselves in society and the way the systems operate, where control and resources are always going to start getting concentrated more and more.
	So if you have two people, Adam and Eve, already we see that it's not perfect and that there's going to be corruption and there's going to be lies and there's going to be deception.
	And one of those two people is going to be more powerful in that relationship.
	And then they're going to have kids.
	And whoever is more powerful in that relationship is probably going to have the kids allied with them.
	And then there's going to be more people.
	And those people are probably going to want to be allied with the stronger person.
	So it ends up that even when you start with two, or if you start with a little tiny community, and you can see how it happens, the power and the wealth get accumulated because that's where it flows.
	That's just how the energy works in the system.
	And so it's going to flow more and more towards a smaller and smaller group.
	That's going to create sociopaths because sociopaths, like we've been discussing, are not living in our reality.
	Some of them are sociopaths because they have psychological issues.
	Some of them are sociopaths because they have grown up and they have created for themselves an alternate reality because they have so much wealth and power.
	And that's always going to happen.
	So, Yeah, you can talk about the individuals and how evil they are, and they are representative of how evil humans can be.
	They definitely are.
	But they're not unique or not special.
	And even you can see, you can see, we just have a recent example of, you know, all this Maha leadership, right?
	So you see the example of people who you thought were good, and maybe they are good.
	get into the position of power in a deeply corrupt system and they immediately switch on the evil side.
	And they switch off the good side.
	They switch off the good side, they switch on the evil side, and they continue propagating the same thing.
	So even people who are fundamentally not evil become evil once they reach certain position in this organization.
	So that should teach everyone the lesson that it's not actually.
	I mean, there's some interaction between obviously individual factors and system factors.
	So the system, for example, will not accept anyone which the system thinks is not corruptible or has some principles or is going to go against, not agreeable to the system.
	So it's not going to accept them in the first place.
	But even people who are sort of, you know, okay and seem to be fine immediately become part of the system once they absorb.
	Yeah, well, I don't agree with Tolstoy.
	And yeah, that is the system that is to blame.
	Because what's the system?
	I mean, we make the system.
	And I actually do believe that individuals play a huge role in history.
	You can just look at it.
	Tolstoy also wrote in War and Peace that what defeated Napoleon was individual non-compliance by the peasants, not the armies, but the civilians actually who organized into, he even has a very famous quote that says that it was the club of the peasant, club meaning like a baseball club, not like a group of people,
	but they literally took sticks and stones and they just went after the French army in the winter.
	The starving French soldiers who were wandering around the countryside, they just went after them.
	And that's how the whole army disappeared.
	Yeah.
	Because, you know, Tolstoy is a big promoter of the working class, as we would call it, and the power of the people versus the tyrants.
	But that's because the tyrants, individual tyrants are not the drivers of history.
	So there will be individual tyrants.
	It doesn't have to be Napoleon.
	The system is the system where there are elites, there are people who serve the elites, and the elites are going to use their power in order to suppress the people.
	And the only solution that Tolstoy saw, which is what we're talking about, I think, is that the people resist.
	Yeah, he also wrote a lot about stop trying to improve the society, improve yourself.
	I absolutely believe that.
	Don't, you know, all these slogans for, oh, you have to work for the greater good.
	And, you know, we're working to protect the society.
	We're working to make the world a better place.
	All of that is garbage, garbage thinking.
	Stop thinking that.
	Your only purpose is yourself improving yourself, making yourself a better person.
	Because if we, each of us individually, that's Tolstoy's philosophy.
	If each one of us individually becomes good, thinks about how to become a better person yourself, then the whole society becomes better.
	If you start thinking, oh no, I will make society better.
	Well, now you become a tyrant immediately.
	You're a tyrant.
	You're telling other people how to be.
	Yes.
	Which is why the peasants are the source of good in Tolstoy, because they're the ones who don't have that power.
	So by default, they can only resort to what is good in them.
	That's why the good, the good resides, the good resides in them.
	Yeah, well, I disagree fundamentally with that.
	I mean, so the peasants have no power, but that doesn't mean that all these peasants, if they became powerful, there would be all sorts of psychopaths among them who would be willing to kill all sorts of people.
	Yeah, it doesn't matter.
	They're what people do, yeah.
	But right.
	But I think, I mean, if you look at people, even someone like Trump, he's such a force of nature, you know.
	If someone like Donald Trump, I don't know.
	I don't know anybody else who's quite like him, how he bursts on the scene.
	And for all his, I mean, he has good characteristics, he has bad characteristics.
	But what I think is without any doubt is that he has made a huge difference.
	If he hadn't been there, if you'd imagine the world without him, if he hadn't been on the political scene, then things would have developed in a different way.
	So that alone shows you that an individual makes a big difference.
	The whole point of the system, he's just a puppet of the system.
	He did not create the system.
	Yeah, he's an actor.
	he's a narcissist that's easily easily controlled by this he's one of the he has certainly changed things No matter what.
	He's one of the easiest people to control.
	He hasn't changed anything.
	He's just the front for the cartel.
	And he's the front that actually is used to pit us against each other.
	And he's so obnoxious that you're going to get people who love him and people who hate him.
	And then they're going to fight each other over Trump.
	Like, who cares about Trump?
	He's absolutely nothing.
	He's not within the system.
	He's nothing.
	And so instead of fighting about Trump, which we should absolutely not be doing, you know, he's the destruction.
	And the only thing that he's a genius at is self-promotion.
	That's it.
	He's a genius at self-promotion.
	Well, he has, well, okay, we shouldn't really talk about Trump.
	I just want to say that he has done things that other, that, let's say, Kamala Harris wouldn't have done.
	He has pulled the United States out of the WHO.
	The United States has now rejected the international health, the amendments to the international health agreements.
	So these are just things that happened that would not have happened without him.
	So that, I think, is just proof of the fact that individuals do, in fact, matter.
	But I think, I mean, we're not, I'm not particularly interested in discussing Trump right now because that will bring us off track.
	I'm more interested in a little bit more in the psychology of these power players.
	There was a really interesting incident recently with Peter Thiel when he was interviewed on this New York Times podcast, Interesting Times.
	And how do you pronounce the name of the moderator, Debbie Doh?
	I don't remember who the moderator is.
	So listen to some of it.
	So the show host asked him.
	He asked him the question to do that, right?
	Dude Thart, do that.
	Yes, how do you pronounce that name?
	Yeah.
	Yes, that's the name.
	So he said to him, I think you would, he said to Peter Thiel, I think you would prefer the human race to endure, right?
	And there was just silence.
	No human beings for several seconds.
	And then Duhat repeated the question and said, Well, you make me a little bit nervous.
	Do you want the human race to enjoy or not?
	And there was silence.
	And then he said again, well, wait a minute, what's going on here?
	And then Peter Thiel finally said, Yes, but and the but in the body said yes, but not in its current shape, not the way these humans, these hoi polloi, are right now.
	They need an upgrade, they need a transhuman upgrade because it's not how they are right now is not good.
	He wants them to be changed.
	Yeah, so he plays, he plays, he puts himself in the position of God, obviously, right?
	So in his own mind, he's God, he's displeased with humans, he's going to give them an upgrade.
	He's also displeased with himself, he wants immortality.
	So the transhuman thing, that's what I was talking about in terms of their hubris and their ignorance.
	So they think that they can create a transhuman race.
	They think that they can create some kind of technologically enhanced human.
	There is no such thing and will never be a cyborg or a technologically enhanced human being.
	That doesn't exist.
	You can use technology gadgets to help if you're to help you see or help you hear or help you move if you have some kinds of restrictions or some kinds of issues.
	And you can live in an enhanced, you know, fake reality, virtual reality, but in real reality, there is no such thing.
	So yes, he wants to improve himself.
	He looks terrible, by the way.
	So I think whatever he's doing to improve himself, whatever, it's not serving him well.
	So that's why I'm saying we actually have a lot of hope in the fact that these people are so full of hubris and they are so ignorant about their own limitations that that is going to serve us well because they're going to go way way overboard with what they think they can do.
	It's the same with this Mars thing.
	I mean, what, I mean, it's just Mars might be just a ruse to get all the resources and stuff.
	I don't even know if they believe in the whole Mars thing, but the transplanetary enhanced human, you know, it's all bullshit.
	It's complete bullshit.
	I think the idea with Mars is great.
	I think that they should all get into the next rocket and go there.
	Yes, I'll even crowdfund that next rocket.
	But back to the transhuman thing.
	I mean, look, they have these chips.
	You can put these chips under people's brains, and they already do that.
	And some of it is actually, yes, for example, if you have, if you use a limb, right, and you get a prosthesis for your arm, let's say, and you can then manipulate, if you have a chip in your brain, you can manipulate it with your via this chip interface somehow.
	So it does seem to work.
	You can put a chip in your brain and get a human being.
	But you muscular.
	Go ahead, Sasha.
	Yeah, work for what?
	So, first of all, this is just a stimulation, direct electrical stimulation of the muscles for which there are numerous different devices.
	So, like the hearing aids, they used to be on, you know, like behind your ear.
	You can get it implanted.
	But it's the same device.
	You used to have external defibrillators.
	You can put an internal one.
	But it's the same.
	It's this device that's under your skin.
	It's more convenient, maybe.
	But there's no integration.
	There is no interface between a human and machine.
	There's no such thing.
	It's not possible.
	It's only the only interface, as Sasha said, is a direct electrical stimulation.
	There are certain parts of our bodies, like our heart, that have electrical pulses.
	You can take that electric pulse and translate it into an electrical pulse.
	So you can use a machine to help that is an electrical pulse-making machine to help with electrical pulses.
	It's the same with our muscles and are controlling our movements with electrical stimulation.
	That's it.
	It's the one-to-one correspondence of electricity to electricity.
	It is not a translation of something biological, like a thought or language, into something that is digital, which is a plus-minus binary mechanical system.
	There's nothing that can translate anything about me, my thoughts, the way my every thought that I have right now in every nanosecond, there are more systems working in every cell of my body and more inputs into this system that is my biological being than any computer can possibly ever encompass.
	And we don't even know what any of them are.
	We know nothing.
	And so that's the other thing that has to be admitted by that these people, their hubris makes them think that because they know how binary systems that are electrical and mechanical work, that that somehow has anything to do with humans.
	Biological systems.
	Biology is the result of, you could call it God or you could call it evolution.
	I call it evolution.
	Millions of years of a system evolving into something so complex and so unknown to us.
	Our human consciousness does not comprehend itself.
	That's the irony and that's the contradiction of human, and that's the problem, you know, that's what we struggle with every day: we don't understand our own consciousness.
	And so the hubris of thinking that you can take this mechanical, binary, electrical thing, it's very simple.
	A computer is an extremely simple system.
	The complexity of it's not complex, it's complicated in the sense that you can build more and more and more and more plus minuses, plus minus, plus minus, plus minus on top of each other, and you can get really amazing results in the sense that humans can see and interpret it as being conscious or having thoughts or whatever.
	That's an amazing thing.
	I think AI that it can fool you into thinking that it's actually speaking or that it actually has some kind of intent or some kind of thought.
	That's an amazing thing that this machine can do.
	But it is a machine.
	It is extremely simple.
	Extremely simple.
	The algorithms all work the same way.
	It's just that they get piled on top of each other, you know, so they get more and more complicated.
	The difference is complicated versus complex.
	So complicated is just you're piling on top of each other the same thing, the same mechanism on top of each other, the same algorithms with the same binary system, and you're making them more and more complicated.
	Complex is where the inputs and the outputs are from so many different sources and so many different types of interactions that you cannot possibly explain them all.
	So every time I, yeah, I've written about this extensively because also their beliefs about integrating humans and computers and transhumanism beliefs, they're all based on science that's fundamentally wrong.
	Well, science is always wrong.
	Science is an evolving, it's an evolving thing, and you have to question every time your assumptions, redo your experiments, confirm everything experimentally.
	Over time, because of the power structures that evolved in academia and the funding and the corruption of the whole system, over time it converts from science into religion.
	So today we're in a religious dogma period of science as we are in an ossified collapsing state.
	I mean they always come together, these cycles.
	So we're in a cycle where the science has been corrupted just as society and government has been corrupted to the point that fundamental areas of science are completely false, such as virology, vaccinology, genetics is a false science.
	They have no idea what they're doing.
	It's full of hoobris.
	It's based on assumptions that are wrong.
	They have no idea how genes translate into proteins.
	They can't demonstrate it.
	They have no idea how this gene codes for this protein because the folding of the proteins, for example, has never been solved.
	It's been dogmatized long ago, about, I don't know, 50, 60 years ago.
	It's been turned into a dogma, which is completely incorrect.
	And it was awarded Nobel Prize so that nobody can question it.
	And since then, they have been using that dogmatic, absolutely wrong from the start, but Nobel Prize solidified belief, building all the things on which these mRNA, genetic therapies, upgrades to humans, correcting your genes and all that is based.
	So all of this is a colossus on the clay legs.
	It will collapse.
	It is collapsing now.
	But Teal doesn't know this.
	He thinks it's all true.
	And that's why he looks like that, because he's probably taking a bunch of drugs.
	He might have a chip in his brain already, because one of his temples is kind of kidding.
	He looks really weird.
	And I just have a stroke any minute now.
	And I'm going to add to what Sasha said.
	So we might disagree on details.
	Like, I don't know if all of virology and all of everything is corrupt, but certainly everything that has to do with our assumption that we understand human biology or even just biology.
	The assumption that we understand that is just so crazy because it is so complex.
	And what happened was, because digital technology was advancing so much, anything that seemed to correspond to that kind of a system became the focus.
	So the genetic code, which they have simplified to say, like, well, this is the code, and this is how it makes proteins.
	And it's a one-to-one digital kind of thing.
	And Elon Musk has said on multiple occasions that it's the code, it's the software for the hardware.
	So the DNA and the mRNA are the software.
	And we can just update it and change it.
	And that will make changes to our hardware.
	That is like the absolute most insane translation of a biological process that we don't understand at all into a digital analogy that is completely invalid and doesn't even make any sense.
	And so, but they do think that they really do think that.
	So they think that like a computer, which is digital and binary, they can take the human genome, which is it lives in a three-dimensional, biological, continually evolving system.
	Like we are evolving every nanosecond.
	Yeah, that we're getting.
	Humans are not things.
	So all of this is based on the idea that we're things and we're composed of little like smaller and smaller things.
	We're a bucket of genes.
	So genes which nobody has ever seen physically, it's always postulated as a computer model and it's only on the exists on the computer model.
	It's impossible to verify in physical reality, but they're postulating this invisible thing fundamentally is what you are.
	In fact, some of the authors and some of the commentators in the freedom space, in fact, assert that you are your genes.
	Right?
	Your genes, meaning you are just a thing composed of smaller, smaller, smaller, until invisible things.
	That's not true.
	Absolutely not true.
	Humans are electromagnetic phenomena.
	It's material reality organized by electromagnetic phenomena.
	It's an event in space and time.
	It's an event.
	It's an ongoing event.
	It has nothing to do with things.
	Also, nobody knows what memories are.
	So they're saying we're going to mind control you through these devices implanted in your brain or injected in vaccines or whatever.
	Nobody knows what memories are.
	There is no evidence that memories are even in your brain.
	Or thoughts.
	Also thoughts.
	They've conducted numerous physical experiments in animals and some humans that have brain anomalies, like some people get born with almost no brain.
	And so they're missing like 90% of their brain, but they're functioning pretty normally.
	Even working.
	It's in the hemispheres.
	Like it can go from one side to the other.
	It can function on this side, on that side, and this area and that area.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I agree that there are many, many things that we don't know or where we think that we know something that we don't really understand.
	But we are certainly very good at destroying what we don't know.
	You know, like these mRNA shots, these toxins that got into the bloodstreams of hundreds of billions of people have wrought real carnage to humanity and have killed people.
	Yeah, the carnage.
	But I also want to caution people, like a lot of commentators in our space saying, oh, it's forever changing human genome.
	It's new species of humans are now because they were injected with these mRNA shots and there's like danger to humanity.
	So we're basically, they've created GMO humans and new species.
	No, there's no new species of humans.
	We have the same humans that we've always had, except a bunch of them are now injured.
	And there's a lot of garbage that got injected.
	There's a lot of garbage that got injected into them.
	And it's going to kill some of them.
	And some of them will have to deal with injuries forever.
	But there's no new species of humans, I guarantee you.
	And there's no transhuman humans either.
	And so that's a good thing, Cornelia.
	That's an encouraging thing.
	That's what I'm trying.
	Sasha and I, I think, are very much on the same page in terms of trying to, part of being aware of what's happening is being aware of not what's not happening.
	So what's happening is, yes, they're trying to control us with surveillance, with censorship, with propaganda, with emergencies, with global criminal activities.
	And they think they can control us with all of this technology and this transhuman stuff.
	But we need to be very aware of what they can't do so that we can stop being scared of that.
	Like stop being scared of that stuff.
	That's not the stuff that we need to worry about, you know, we need to worry about not complying with their actual things that they're doing now, not the things that they're, and I think part of it, Sasha, and I don't know how you feel about that.
	I can't tell how much of it they believe and how much of it they're just using to scare us in the sense that telling people that they can create an internet of bodies, you know, can make people really scared and can make people feel powerless, you know, and make people feel like they need to come up with some kind of resistance to this internet of bodies and they need to be afraid of nanobots invading their something.
	And I don't know how much they're doing it because they believe it.
	And I think some of them do, but maybe some of it is fear porn.
	Maybe.
	Yeah, some of them do.
	Some of them maybe don't and intentionally creating these narratives to control people.
	Yeah, well, even without that fear, reality is scary enough because they are powerful enough to, you know, just, especially now with AI that will drive the control systems in a really big way.
	They are powerful enough to cut off access to bank accounts or access to anything.
	So if things go according to their plans, we will be in a state of complete resilience where we are completely controlled and can be forced or whatever they want to call it to react the way they want us to react or where they can just cut us off from any sustenance or just condemn anyone to death that they are interested in.
	in doing.
	So that in itself is extremely scary.
	And who knows?
	They might be smart people, but of course they are incompetent as anybody else.
	And they are often very, very, very, very stupid and very, very limited.
	And they are going to make all sorts of terrible mistakes.
	Terrible, terrible mistakes that might, who knows?
	That might not be intentional, but it doesn't even really matter anymore at some point when you are inside this rigid control system that they are building up and where they're using a new technology that they do not understand because what is happening inside AI in these large language models, they do not understand it themselves.
	It's like a black box.
	They don't know what is going on inside there.
	They don't understand why it starts hallucinating more or less or why it's doing that at all.
	So that's why I think it's very difficult to even know if some, you know, if they don't understand what's happening, how can they know what that thing is, what that thing actually is and what it's capable of.
	But that's a different discussion about AI.
	Anyway, there are lots of things to be worried about.
	And it's very important to discuss it all and also to tell people more about this transhumanism thing.
	It was very interesting for me to hear what you have to say about that because I find it hard to really gauge how that can change people, what the potential is.
	And what you said was actually quite comforting, that it is not as powerful or that it cannot make us into some sort of Frankenstein monsters.
	No, no, it can't physically change people in a sustainable way.
	As I said, you can injure people.
	Yes.
	You can put a chip like a dog.
	I mean, you could put a chip like a dog.
	To surveil them.
	Yeah, you could electronic, absolutely.
	Drag and surveil.
	That's possible.
	Just like microchips and dogs.
	Yeah, that doesn't make a trans dog.
	No.
	And it's not controllable by that microchip.
	I can only, you know, you can only read it.
	Exactly.
	But yeah, so but so, but I've also written articles, a series of articles.
	My personal favorite is about mind control.
	So the only real mind control device is words.
	People are controlled by words alone.
	And that's the most powerful mind control by the words that they hear and repeat.
	If you repeat the words of others, you're controlled by those words.
	So you have to be very aware of the language that you use and the language that you repeat.
	So my advice to people was before you decide to repeat anything, understand why you're repeating it.
	Because it sounds good.
	You're taking on board somebody's message.
	You have to make it your own.
	Make it your own.
	And the best way to do is, if you agree with something, find a way to say it in your own words.
	Then it becomes your own message, not somebody's you repeating.
	And if you disagree, also understand why you're disagreeing and find a way to express it in your own language.
	You have to have a pause.
	You have to have a distance between anything that you accept into your system and your reaction to it.
	And what they're, these control mechanisms are designed and these narratives are designed in such a way that that distance is eliminated.
	So people become kind of automatons and repeating the mockingbird repeating of what's coming in.
	That's how they control you.
	If you create that distance, and it could be like few millisecond distance, but it still has to be a physical distance between something coming in and you repeating it.
	Yeah.
	You know, interesting because with AI and like systems like Grog or Cloud or ChatGPT, that's the exact, what we're doing there is the exact opposite.
	We are starting to deprive ourselves of the ability to think ourselves because we are lazy.
	Lazy, yeah, you just copy the output that it produces.
	Throw it in there.
	Exactly.
	A lot of substacks are just outputs from ChatGPT.
	And they're not even trying to, because ChatGPT produces this ridiculous, like they put some little logos of things, right?
	And people just copy and put it in a substack as if it's their article.
	I'm like, you're not even, you're not even like, you're so lazy, you can't even remove those little pictures.
	It's obvious too.
	Even if you remove the chat GPT, it's so obvious when it's AI.
	Just the language, like, and I agree with you, Cornelia.
	I think that the danger of large language models is not, there's no consciousness.
	It's not going to take over.
	We can't upload our brains, blah, blah, blah.
	The danger is dumb, is dumbing us down.
	What happens is, and I think that might also be intentional, or at least partly intentional, because I don't use it at all.
	And I know there are some ways that you can use it that are useful.
	You have to know the answer before you ask a question.
	You're going to use an LLM.
	If you don't know the answer, don't use LLM.
	And if you know the answer, then you can get it to organize the information.
	You can get it to search for information and you can check.
	You can actually fact check the LLM.
	The LLM doesn't have any facts.
	It doesn't have any truth value to the information that it gives you.
	The only value that it has is how likely is a human to interpret this symbol that I'm putting after this symbol as being an appropriate answer to other symbols.
	So it's just creating probabilities for what humans are going to think might be an appropriate response to a series of symbols.
	And so it's useless as far as getting to truth, as far as to getting any kind of analysis, any kind of contextual understanding.
	And so people who use it, and the more people use it, especially for writing and for understanding, you know, for things that require analysis and things that require thought, you know, the more, the dumber we're going to get.
	Yeah.
	A lot of propagandists and be careful with that, especially on the health freedom side, a bunch of them, Tend to take LLM output like Grok or Chat GPT and present it as if it's, oh, look, Grok says Grok said.
	Yeah, I never understood that.
	Like, I got Grok that vaccines are bad.
	You can get Grok to say anything.
	Yeah, you can let it, or, you know, but they use it as if it's, no, this is the objective.
	It's objective.
	It's not biased.
	It's not political.
	This is the objective reality and objective truth.
	And you guys know who I'm talking about, who likes to do that.
	And this is the objectivity.
	No, you're just using, first of all, a propaganda tool.
	And second of all, it's a computer algorithm.
	It has no relationship with the truth.
	As if it's, you know, you have to follow me because this is what Grok is agreeing with me.
	Right, right.
	Well, as you know, as we can see, we have lots of problems to solve.
	Right.
	It seems like the more humanity advances, the more problems we have, the greater our problems become.
	And, oh, God, who knows what's going to happen?
	Nobody knows.
	Luckily, we are not future-proof.
	And I hope we all do our best to become as little resilient as possible.
	Because that's the only thing that's going to save us.
	So there's so much more to talk about.
	But that was fun.
	I was just fun doing some philosophizing and speculating.
	And it's also, of course, all very deadly serious too.
	But, you know, to not lose your sense, your good humor and your cheerfulness, I think that is so important for everyone because I think otherwise everything is lost.
	You know, you have to be able to enjoy life in order to solve problems.
	Transhumanism.
	Totally humorless, by the way.
	So, you know, that's one of its big weaknesses.
	Yes, that's such a good point.
	You're right.
	When I saw Peter Thiel, it was like, oh my God, the man was so tortured.
	And he was super serious.
	Also, Seth Altman, he is like, he hasn't slept.
	He said himself in one of the recent podcasts, oh, he doesn't sleep anymore because he is obsessed with building this thing, with building this AI monster that he's dreaming about.
	He's absolutely obsessed with it.
	These are not happy people.
	These are not people who can allow humor into their lives because it's all deadly serious in this way.
	It's subversive.
	Real humor is always subversive because what's funny is that it's going against something.
	It's going against an expectation or it's going against a norm or it's going against something that society has decided.
	That's what real humor is.
	So yeah, they are completely devoid of that.
	That's right.
	It's like pulling pants down.
	It's like, you know, they're all just idiots.
	They're really dangerous idiots, but they're still just idiots.
	So thank you.
	Thank you very much, Debbie.
	Thank you, Cornelia.

▲