Gregg Braden, geologist and author, argues human origins defy natural evolution—chromosome 2’s fusion (~200,000 years ago) and chromosome 7’s sudden speech-enabling leap suggest intentional intervention. He cites suppressed ancient texts like the Gospel of Thomas and Cold War astronaut claims of lunar structures, while linking modern AI-driven culture (e.g., Grammy submissions) to a denial of humanity’s sovereign "divine" potential—an innate force, now backed by 2022 neuron experiments and Higgs field research, that allows self-regulation through imagination. Braden critiques climate narratives, dismissing CO₂ panic as cyclical and natural, while warning that policies like thorium suppression and forced cooling reflect systemic control agendas. Ultimately, he urges resisting transhumanist conditioning by embracing human creativity, empathy, and spiritual sovereignty over technological dependency. [Automatically generated summary]
I was on a cruise with, we had the same publisher, Hay House, as our publisher, and we were on a cruise just off Australia.
Of course, the sun's out there, and Wayne came out, and he's got a very shiny head.
He said, Greg Braden, I said, yeah.
He says, you see this?
And I said, yeah.
He said, this is a solar panel for a sex machine.
Okay.
And I couldn't match that, you know?
So I said, well, you see this?
I said, these are every one of these, every one of these hairs is a highly advanced, finely tuned antenna to higher dimensional state spaces and information.
Oh, yeah, if you have minoxidal, like if you got really good at it today, and there's a bunch of different DHT inhibitors that are topical that they could use.
My friend Derek from Derek Moore played more dates.
It's a website.
He's got a bunch of protocols on how to save your hair.
So people want to save their hair.
But we were talking about Art Bell when we came in here because there's a photograph of art on the wall that was one of the most important things for me to put up.
We talked about it and Jamie and I were like, oh, you got to get it.
We got to get a metal picture of Art Bell because that was the guy, man.
When I was driving home from the comedy store at like one o'clock in the morning and I was listening to AM radio coast to coast with Art Bell from the Kingdom of Nye.
It was my favorite.
This is like all, for me, was kind of pre-internet too.
Like me, you know, the internet existed, but it wasn't the thing that it is now.
Because one of the things that happened with the face on Mars is the initial images were very grainy, but fascinating.
Because it did kind of look like a face, but maybe even more remarkable because sometimes there's faces like in the side of a rock, it looks like a face.
More remarkable was the geometric pattern of the base of it.
And so I kind of dismissed that when the second images came out.
So this is the original image.
This is the original image that freaked everybody out.
They were like, oh my God, there's a face on Mars.
And then they came up with these upgraded images, and I was like, well, that's not a face.
It's just weird shadows, and it's probably just a mountain.
We're sending the Viking probes, Viking 1, Viking 2 in the 70s, went to Mars.
19,000 images were captured from the orbiting part of the mission.
The other craft landed on the surface, and I can just imagine being on the surface seeing this.
It's like this thing is like a spider comes down the cloud of dust, and this little tube pops up, and some sticky dental floss stuff shoots out, and then they reel it in to collect dirt and microbes, and they reel it into broth because they're looking for evidence of life on Mars, and it's happening next to massive monuments and geometric structures that are now dated about 50,000 years BP before present.
So they're looking for microbes and signs of life next to the most massive signs of life that you could imagine.
You know, there was a time only two nations on Earth had the money and the technology to go to the moon.
It was a former Soviet Union and former United States, because neither one's the same country anymore.
And both those countries have been so broke, they haven't been able to do it.
India and China are now sending the probes to the moon.
We were going to the moon during the Cold War, and it was a crazy time.
It was actually a very civilized war.
I mean, the governments were at war, but the scientists were still cooperating.
And there was an agreement that we would not share publicly what was found on the lunar surface.
And Russia did the same thing.
China was never part of that agreement.
So China has said when they land, they're going to televise live what they find on the lunar surface to the people of the Earth.
My sense, Joe, and this will lead into a whole conversation we're going to have here.
I think they'll find the archaeological structures that we know are there that we've seen in the photographs, the inscriptions on those structures, we're going to be able to read because there's a thinking that those structures are from ETs from another time,
But the evidence suggests they're from us, from a time in our past, a cycle of civilization where we did great and beautiful things by working together until we destroyed one another through war and that we're repeating that cycle again.
unidentified
So when they send – Isn't that like drawing a lot of conclusions?
Because this is what the researchers who are working on these projects right now, and they're combining this with so many of what the ancient texts have always told us.
And this is where it gets into a really kind of a sticky conversation because it depends on how people interpret these things.
I'm excited for it for this reason.
This is obviously no ordinary time in the history of our world, and they're pushing for war.
We're on the verge of global war.
What would it mean if we found on the surface, on the lunar surface, evidence of us, humans from another time, leaving a message in our own languages, cuneiform, Sanskrit, those kinds of things?
It could be one of the most unifying factors right when we're on the precipice of war.
Well, when our space program, I think you've had guests on, I've talked about this in the past, I think.
When our space program was active, there were broadcasts from the lunar surface that were cut off, and astronauts had seen things that they were not allowed to see and not allowed to share.
Kind of, a little bit, a little bit, because if there's no evidence at all, that is not even an interview with a guy who talks about when I was on the moon, I saw writing.
Well, then this is where you start going into the ancient texts and the traditions that are relating our relationship to intelligences from beyond this world.
And if you're early on, they're going to ask you questions to support that arc and that storyline.
Five interviews down, somebody's going to come on and they're going to introduce something and the producer is going to say, oh, there's a new arc and a new storyline.
And now everything that you interviewed for may not be relevant in that conversation anymore.
But I mean, to the rational people, most people hear that and they go, what?
There were people on Mars.
But as time goes on and more and more discoveries, we find out just about the structures that are on Earth and how old they might be and the actual age of Homo sapiens, like how old we might actually be.
Like they found that skull in China the other day that was they just have you seen this?
It's a million-year-old Homo sapiens skull, but apparently there's some debate about it.
They're going back and forth, but at the very least, it's in the conversation of human beings possibly have existed, at least in this form for a million years, which is kind of nuts.
Anyway, I'm skeptical about those because they find one fragment and there's a lot of interpretation that's going on there.
The consensus has been for a long time that we appeared.
I'm just going to preface this by saying I'm a degree geologist.
I believe in evolution.
Evolution is a fact.
I've seen it in a fossil record for plants, animals, insects.
Darwin's theory of evolution breaks down when it comes to humans.
And it breaks down for this reason.
We now can do what used to sound like science fiction.
If you ever saw the first Jurassic Park, where they pulled the DNA out of the fossilized remains of ancient forms of life, in the movie, they brought them back to life.
To the best of my knowledge, we haven't done that.
What we have done is we can extract that DNA from the bone marrow of fossilized remains of beings that we used to believe were our ancestors.
And what's happening is, and this is a mind-blower, we know that we didn't descend from Neanderthal.
We shared the earth with them, certainly, and some people have some Neanderthal DNA because of that, but we did not descend from them.
And we didn't descend from many of the other forms that you see on those traditional trees.
You know, you've got modern humans here and all these lines connecting.
But if you look close at the lines, most of them are broken lines, Joe, because there's no solid evidence.
It's called inferred or speculative relationships.
I've got a picture of it here if we want to see that.
But what they're showing is that we showed up about 200,000 years ago.
Now there's a little evidence that may have been back as far as 300,000.
But the kicker is that we can now look at the DNA and reverse engineer it and say, what did it take to get where we are?
And what scientists are now calling the smoking gun, and there's still a lot of controversy around this, is human chromosome number two.
Human chromosome number two is the second largest chromosome in every cell of the body.
It's got about 1,200 or so genes in that chromosome.
And just one of them, gene TBR number one, is responsible for most of the brain that we have for our neocortex.
So our humanness, our empathy, sympathy, compassion, love, our cognitive abilities, the mirror neurons, all these kinds of things are because that one gene.
Well, where this gets really interesting is where did chromosome 2 come from?
And scientists have the answer, but they don't like the answer.
Because chromosome 2 is the product of a fusion.
Proceedings from National Academy of Sciences, the volume Genetics, says this very clearly.
We conclude that the origin of human chromosome 2 is the product of an ancestral fusion of telomere to telomere fusion of two pre-existing chromosomes.
That does not happen in nature.
It can't happen in nature.
So here's what they're saying.
You've got two fully formed, fully functional chromosomes, and on the end are the telomeres that protect those chromosomes when the cells divide.
And that's why they're on the end.
They take the hit.
It's a trauma in a cell when those chromosomes are pulled apart and some of the DNA doesn't make it.
So nature puts telomeres on the end to take the hit so the good DNA remains intact.
And that's why it's on the ends.
Human chromosome 2, those telomeres are right in the middle of the chromosome where they shouldn't be because those chromosomes were fused together about 200,000 years ago when we appeared.
And if that was the only one, you could say, well, maybe it's a fluke.
Chromosome number 7.
I'm a musician when I'm not doing what I'm doing now, long before I was a researcher.
And one of the things I always used to wonder about, you know, we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, but you don't hear chimpanzees sing.
You know, you're never going to hear a chimpanzee sing Leds Up One Stairway to Heaven.
And you ask, well, why not?
I mean, 98% of the DNA we share with them, but it's because of chromosome 7.
And for about 175 million years, this chromosome was stable, and all primates, all of them, orangutan, gorilla, chimps, all the primates, all of a sudden, there was this little switch of a couple of genes that connected our tongue and our brain and our jaw, and we can sing and we can have complex speech like no other form of life.
It happened 200,000 years ago.
What are the odds of that happening when chromosome 2 is fusing?
So I've worked with scientists my whole life, both in academia and in the corporations.
I was a problem solver for Fortune 500 companies through the late 70s, 80s, and 90s.
And one of the things I've seen about scientists, it's fascinating, is that there is one way of thinking that says we take all the evidence and we force it into a pre-existing model, like all the new discoveries, trying to force that into Darwin's theory of evolution, or we allow the new evidence to lead to the story that it tells.
And this is where science is stuck right now, because the old theory, Darwin's theory of evolution is in trouble.
And it's the DNA is the reason it's in trouble.
It's no longer superficial or fossil evidence.
I mean, the DNA is telling the story.
And the new story suggests, at the very least, a scientist has to say there's been some kind of intelligent intervention.
And this is where science gets stuck, because science says it's not equipped to talk about any kind of an intelligent intervention.
But that ties in to everything that's happening.
Now, if we're going to talk about ancient civilizations or if we're going to talk about we've been here before, are we going to talk about what it is that is disclosure?
All of those kinds of things.
So science is kind of at the crossroads right now.
There is something called the standard model.
And that applies to evolution.
And what the evidence suggests is that we are the product of an intelligent and an intentional act.
Who or what that is, that's where it can get sticky.
The universe.
We've had physicists on here and really good physicists.
And some of them are not aware of some of the new information that's come out now.
But when I was in school back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, I was taught that the universe is dead, inert, just cold, And we happen to be lucky biology.
You know, that's kind of what they used to teach.
Now, physicists are suggesting the universe is alive, it is intelligent, and it's conscious.
And one of the reasons for this, and you can go to the NASA website, and you can look at some of these images, the James Webb Space Telescope.
They're showing galaxies that are in proximity of something that is dangerous to them, like an exploding, you know, whatever.
And what they'll do is they'll create jets from the center, both directions, these jets that actually move them out of the way.
I talk about this.
I've got a new book, and I talk about that in the new book.
So it's documented in the book.
They actually move them to a safer place.
And you say, well, maybe that's a fluke.
It's a one-off.
And now that they have found that, they found it happens time and time again.
If our universe is alive and intelligent and conscious, and we are the product of an intentional act, we solve our problems, Joe, and we build our world based on the way we've been taught to think about ourselves.
We use our resources.
We apply our technology based on the way we've been taught to think about ourselves.
And we have been taught that we are a flawed form of life.
That we are powerless victims of the world around us.
And because of that, this is going to lead into this whole conversation.
Because of that, we need a savior.
And that savior is being touted as technology.
So now we are living at this time where we're being encouraged, indoctrinated, coerced, mandated sometimes, to embrace the technology outside of our bodies because we have been conditioned to believe that we are a broken, flawed form of life.
And you're seeing this play out in the AI conversation.
You're seeing it play out in what's called the transhuman movement, the intentional movement to replace our humanness with computer chips in the brain, chemicals in the blood, RFID chips under the skin.
And it's all playing out right now, Joe.
I mean, this can't go on for another 20 years because it's moving too fast.
This is the generation, right?
And I'm very passionate about this.
The experts are saying unless we change our trajectory right now, we very probably are the last generation of pure humans that the world will ever know.
That by 2032, when you go to the supermarket or go to the airport, the people you talk to will be some hybrid, maybe some more and some less, but will have some kind of technology embedded into their bodies.
I was on a panel recently and I was with a group of scientists and they said, well, what's wrong with that?
You know, isn't that the next step?
Isn't that our natural step in our evolution?
And I said, no, it is not.
And here's the reason.
When we replace our natural biology with synthetics, our natural abilities begin to atrophy.
Cells will, let me just give a perfect example.
We used to be taught when I was in school, I was taught that we're born into this world with a fixed number of brain cells.
Well, what I'm going to say next is not a reason to drink the beer.
But what they found, there's a part of the human brain, it's the hippocampus, that is producing new brain cells until the last breath we take on this earth.
There's a catch, and the catch tells the story.
If we do not use those new brain cells in a meaningful way within about seven to ten days, the body says, oh, you didn't use it, so you must not need it.
But that principle, so it's called use it or lose it.
We've all heard that.
That principle applies to every system in the human body.
It applies to our cognitive abilities, to our reproductive system.
And when we replace our natural biology with these synthetics, this is exactly what's happening.
And we've been doing this long enough.
Virtual reality goggles, for example, they've been around long enough.
Psychology magazine has published article after article.
If you take young kids with malleable brains, parents are busy.
They want to entertain them.
So they sit them on the floor, put a virtual VR goggle on three or four hours a day and say, hey, so here's the kid.
They're just sitting there like this.
And they're seeing images that they would never see in their backyard.
And colors and sounds and situations.
But here's the thing.
It's all being done for them.
They are not using their imagination like you and I did when we were kids.
They're not using their imagination.
So now what's happening is there are parts of their brain that are atrophying.
So they are diminished cognitive abilities, diminished language skills, diminished communication skills.
But listen to this.
The visual cortex, which is what they're using to watch everything, is enlarged in the brain.
The visual cortex gets bigger because that's what they're doing.
Now, because of epigenetics, all of that can be reversed.
When the kids are put into a healthy environment, go outside and play with your friends.
You know, they're young enough that they can reverse that.
Right.
I spend a lot of time with shamans in the Yucatan and in Peru, Costa Rica, places like that.
And they found the same thing.
The shamans that maybe do, you know, 5,000 ayahuasca journeys because they're leading groups.
And every time the group does it, they do it.
So, you know, they're doing that.
Their visual cortexes are enlarged, but their other abilities are diminished.
Now, if you're a shaman in the jungle, maybe that's no big deal.
But if you're a software engineer in Silicon Valley writing code for nuclear triggers and on the weekends, you know, this is what you're doing every weekend, chronically, it could be a problem.
Well, it seems to me the people that I have encountered that use it maybe a little bit too much, they seem to have a loss of a perception of how other people see them.
They get slippery, like the world gets slippery.
They act weird and they don't know they're acting weird.
And it seems like there's like a piece of the interface has been damaged.
And no matter where we go in this conversation to start with, it's going to bring us back to the same place.
And I can show you exactly where that slipperiness comes from in just a moment when we get there.
Because, and I'll say it right now, there's a part of us that doesn't live inside the body, but that the body tunes to, and I'm using that from an engineering perspective, that the body tunes to through the antenna of neurons and DNA.
And this is where it gets a fascinating conversation.
Scientists now, a segment of scientists are beginning to look at the human body as more than soft, sticky, wet, gooey, mushy cells and skin.
Joe, they're actually looking at us from an IT perspective.
And this sounds crazy.
But they're looking at the human body from the perspective of information passing through and communicating with the world around us.
That we are such an advanced form of life.
We're not primitive computer chips and wires and chemicals.
We're more than that.
We're neurons and cell membranes and ion potentials moving across cell walls.
And the ability for us to self-regulate what is now being called soft, we are a soft technology.
The ability to do that is the core of all the ancient and cherished spiritual traditions in the mystery schools.
How we go about regulating this technology.
So now let me just break that down a little bit.
I mentioned during the Cold War, it was a very civilized war.
I remember it was 1980s.
I was working, I was civilian working on contract for the DOD and with a civilian security, I had a yellow badge.
It was not high.
It's secret clearance.
It wasn't like top secret or anything.
But we have access to research papers that were coming in from the Soviet Union.
Even though we were at war on one level, the scientists were still cooperating.
And the Soviets were the first that sent these diagrams of a human cell as a circuit diagram.
Now, this is a mind-blower.
I mean, it wasn't a metaphor.
Literally, every human cell is a gated circuit.
It's got an input, an output.
It has transistors, the equivalent of transistors and resistors and capacitors.
Every cell produces about 0.07 volts of electrical potential.
And you say, well, that's not very much.
And I agree.
And then you do the math.
We've got about 50 trillion cells in the body.
50 trillion cells times 0.07 volts.
It's about 3.5 trillion volts of electrical potential in the human body.
Every cell is the equivalent of a transistor.
Every cell is the equivalent of a resistor, of a capacitor.
We're photon emitters, and there's a whole science now about reading the photon emissions from humans.
And we're photon receivers, and we store information just like a computer chip.
And this goes on.
Blockchain technology.
Our DNA stores information.
And the way that it's described is that it is secure, it's transparent, and it's immutable, and it's distributed.
And those are exactly the terms being used for blockchain technology today because blockchain technology in the world actually mirrors the technology of human DNA.
We have a record, and you and I, every human body, we have a record of every successful genetic transaction for our species.
It is transparent.
It's immutable.
If you know how to look for it, it's not hidden.
It's secure and it's distributed across all the nodes that we call humans.
This goes on and on and on.
The point is that we are the only form of life that can consciously self-regulate all of this technology and apply it to our healing, to our intuition, to our resilience to change, to any of these kinds of things.
And the ability to do that is the secret that has been hidden within the mystery schools, within the religions, and it is the reason for everything that you're seeing happening in the world today.
There's a concerted effort, Joe, to deny us our ability to express our humanness.
And part of that effort is replacing our humanness with technology.
And what she meant was the world looks scary to her, Joe, and it does a lot of people.
It looked like things were happening for no reason, for no apparent, there was no apparent structure.
It looked like things were just popping off here and there, out of control, looked crazy.
And she said, you know, this isn't my world anymore.
Well, we are in the middle of a process.
The process has a beginning.
It has an end.
We're in it.
The only way out of it is to go through it.
And that's why I'm excited to have this conversation with you.
There are two parallel themes that are playing out in our world right now.
And we can explore both of them.
One, there is a concerted effort for the first time in the history of our world to remake the stated intent, to remake our world and to remake our bodies.
Now, we've never had the technology to do that, but we do now.
So the intent to remake the world and remake our bodies, that's one conversation.
The other conversation, the best science of the modern world, is showing us that we're not what we've been told.
We're so much more than we've been led to believe.
And we're about to give our humanness away to the technology before we even know what it means to be human if we remake our bodies.
So this is, and this is in this generation.
This cannot drag on for, you know, five years, ten years, because all the tech is being pushed on us so quickly.
I'm a systems thinker.
And rather than get into the weeds of the Democrats and the Republicans and liberals and conservatives, which is all important, and we can have that conversation.
But there's something much, much bigger that's playing out here.
And it literally, we're in a battle for our humanness.
And if we don't claim our humanness, there are powers and forces that will stop at nothing to deny us our humanness.
One of the reasons they're denying it is what we just said, because it's through our humanness that we have these extraordinary potentials that empower us as sovereign, critically thinking, self-regulating human beings.
And it's very difficult to play out the agendas that are proposed for the world upon populations that are sovereign, critically thinking, self-regulating human beings.
unidentified
So just like – Well, the problem seems to be power and control.
And the only way to have power and control over people is to limit their ability to express themselves and then keep them at each other's throats.
Well, those are two things that are happening all the time with social media.
The people that manage social media are consistently trying to limit the reach of people that have voices or narratives that don't approve, that they don't approve of.
And ultimately, what you're seeing in other countries is moving to digital IDs.
This is just implemented in Europe and in the UK.
You're seeing it in a lot of places where you're going to have to need that to work and vote and travel.
And it'll be even more of a constriction on your ability to express yourself, particularly when you think about the UK, which has had more than 12,000 arrests for very mild social media posts.
And the fact that our mainstream media is relatively silent on this is insane.
You're seeing a complete, total attack on one of the most fundamental principles of the Western world, which is your ability to express yourself.
And your ability to call out that you think that the policies that are being implemented in your country are destructive.
People have always been able to do that.
These people are not calling for violence.
They're being arrested for wild things.
People are being arrested for liking posts.
Some people were investigated for viewing posts.
12,000 people arrested by the police in the UK, the same place that just implemented digital ID.
I mean, this is an Orwell nightmare coming to life right in front of our face, and no one's flinching.
No one in America is freaking out about what's happening in the UK at all.
I mean, you get people online that are kind of freaked out by it, but they're way more freaked out by nonsensical things like whether or not what Jimmy Kimmel said in his monologue was offensive.
They'll go to the ends of the earth to fight that.
And a very limited amount of people are controlling a huge amount of people.
A limited amount of people with fantastic access to resources and the ability for the first time in human history where you have individuals that are in charge of companies that are, they can shift the entire narrative of the world.
So they're doing it through these tech companies for the first time ever.
Well, it allows for new methods of control and resource extraction.
And we found out that data itself is a fantastic resource and worth billions and billions of dollars.
So some of the richest companies that have ever existed, they're data companies now.
That's kind of nuts.
And that's like we miss that.
But this is all the same thing that happens with kings and with emperors.
It's control.
You've got to limit the people's ability to rebel, limit their ability to gather resources, keep them at each other's throats ideologically, keep them fighting over the dumbest shit possible, including the color of their skin.
Fight over everything, what gods you believe in, what foods you eat, what fucking computer you use.
Keep them fighting over everything and then get social media bots to continue that fight going all day long.
Meanwhile, closer and closer and closer to total control of the population.
Or they're even openly stating it.
Hillary Clinton said in an interview, if we lose, if we can't control social media, we lose control.
Like, yeah, you're not supposed to have control over other human beings.
Yeah, you're going to lose the thing you're not supposed to have.
An elected official is supposed to be a representative for the people.
You're supposed to be a person who's a public servant where you go out and you do this incredibly moral and ethical and beautiful thing where you sacrifice your time for the betterment of your community and your society instead of just a means of extracting fantastic wealth that is totally unprecedented and that shouldn't exist in the first place.
You shouldn't be able to take that fucking job and then immediately go and start working for some Fortune 500 company making billions of dollars.
Like that's crazy if you're a government employee involved in any regulatory fashion and then you go and work for the very industry you were regulating.
Or if you're a person who runs for office and you get in office and then all of a sudden you're worth hundreds of millions of dollars when your salary is $170,000 a year.
It's real obvious what's going on.
It's just wealth extraction.
And the way to do that is with control.
You have to have control over people and you have to be able to censor them because you're going to call that shit out.
Okay, so this will open the door to answering Sidonia and everything else that we've done.
So we're not totally beating around the bush.
We're going to bring this all together.
I wasn't sure how deep you want to go with this, Joe.
And what I'll say is I'm going to acknowledge things we're talking about for a lot of people is a very different way of thinking.
And it certainly is different from what I was conditioned.
I was born and raised in northern Missouri, a rural community.
My first degree is in geology and computer science.
This is a very different way of thinking, and it's where the evidence is leading us.
What are most ancient and cherished texts, whether you're talking about religion or not religion, they say that we are born into an ancient struggle that began long before we ever got here.
And for lack of a better term, and this is where words are powerful and they carry a lot of baggage.
It's a struggle between good and evil.
We're born into this struggle between good and evil.
It's not a religious struggle.
When we talk about evil, I think it's important to quantify what that evil is.
And to do that, we have to talk about who we are.
There's something inside of us, Joe, and this is where science is stuck.
This is where science and spirituality come together in a beautiful way.
And this is where language may fail me.
So I'm going to do my best.
There is something inside of us that is so rare and so precious and so ancient and sacred and powerful and beautiful that there are forces that have in history and are currently working to deny us access to this force.
The force is the reason for the ancient texts, the spiritual traditions.
And there's two ways that we can have this conversation.
You can say we can do it from a biblical perspective and talk about angels and demons.
We could do it from a high-tech perspective and talk about an advanced civilization from another world in another time.
And you're talking about the same thing, exactly the same conversation.
As to our origin, there was an intentional intervention that created us.
Biblical traditions are giving us one perspective.
The Mesopotamian texts are telling us that we are the product of the blood of a higher form of life.
And now the archaeological sites are revealing that those, what's reported in those Sumerian texts actually existed.
Well, let me say, in the 90s, I was a member of an organization called BAR, Biblical Archaeology Review.
And the idea is that you follow the instructions in the text, and you go someplace and you dig, and there is what the text is talking about from 3,000 years ago.
So they use that to try to validate the events, not the religiosity, but the events.
In the Mesopotamian texts, when we talk about the kings list, you've had guests on that talked about the king's list in Sumeria that talks, it literally says when the kingship descended from the heavens to the earth, and then it gives the list of the kings, and then there was another flood, and they evacuated, and they came back, and then they created humans.
And it actually lines up date-wise with the 200,000, 250,000 years of when we were created, but there's no religion involved.
So two different languages.
Are we talking about an advanced civilization and our relationship to them a long time ago?
Are we talking about angels and demons from a long time ago?
Are we talking about beings with wings in the religious tradition?
Or when you look at the Sumerian traditions, the kings all had wings as well.
But they're telling the same story.
And what the story is, is that we are an intention, we're the product of an intentional act, and we were imbued with a force that was greater even than those who created us.
And there has been an effort from that time to deny us that force.
That is from, if you're familiar with the Gnostic texts, in the Gnostic texts, the So the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1946, 47, the oldest unedited records of the Old Testament, pushed the date back a thousand years.
In 45 and 46, the oldest records of the New Testament and the texts that were excluded were discovered in the little village along the Nile in Egypt called Nag Hammadi.
Can I just tell you, it's a crazy story.
There's not much firewood along the Nile in Egypt, and there was a woman who needed kindling to feed her family, to build the fires, to feed her family, and heat their home.
And she told her son, go find some kindling, and he was very resourceful.
There's no trees, so he found an old tomb.
And in the tomb were clay vases, and he opened those vases, and there were documents that were very dry and brittle and made great kindling.
Oh, no.
And we don't know how many were lost before the authorities were noted, but right now there are 13 bounds.
So among these were things like the Gospel of Thomas, which is considered the second most heretical book in the Nog Hammadi Library.
There's the Gospel of John, also called the Secret Book of John, also called The Apocryphon of John, which is considered the first most heretical book.
There are books from Gnostic women.
Thunder Perfect Mind is a book by a Gnostic woman that's in there.
The Gospel of James is in there.
So these, and I'll be very clear, if you had Wes Hough here, I know you've had before, and I think he's a brilliant scholar, he would say that these are not accepted because they're not accepted by the church because of dating and because of,
you know, there's a lot of reasons, but there's a lot of new research showing that these are worthy of exploring with the same validity that we give to the other texts that we're talking about.
They're dated the late first, early second century, somewhere right around there, some of them later.
The book of John, the secret book of John, what makes it so exceptional is that he believes, he said that it was dictated to him by Jesus of Nazareth after his crucifixion.
So it wasn't before, it came after.
But the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas is probably the most controversial.
It's 114 sayings that were recorded by Thomas, and the book says Didymus Thomas was the name.
And it's almost like it's different from all the other books in that it is each saying is a teaching unto itself.
And what he is saying are, again, I'm hesitating because we're just covering so much ground here.
What Yeshua was his name, what he was teaching was so profound for his time.
There were outer teachings and inner teachings.
The outer teachings were for the masses, and it's primarily what you see in the Gospels.
The inner teachings were for those initiates that could really understand what it was he was saying, and that's what the Gospel of Thomas appears to be.
It did come from a later time.
I don't think it invalidates that what it is that is being said in that.
Well, there's 114 sayings in there, but the bottom line, and this is one I think that is probably one of the most well-known, where he says, what you have, what you bring forth from within you will save you, and what you don't bring forth from within you will destroy you.
He's saying there's a power inside of us that has to be expressed.
And these texts are all about how we awaken that power.
Okay, so the name, I'm going to use a word and then I'll define it.
The name that is given to that power traditionally is called divinity, but it has nothing to do with religion.
So that association is made because there are schools of divinity that make that, and they're great schools.
They do great things.
But the contemporary definition of divinity, I love this.
The ability to transcend perceived limitations.
And that's it.
So the ability to transcend, to become more than perceived.
Joe, you and I, our listeners, we are living limits that probably aren't even real.
We're living within limits that we have been indoctrinated to accept about ourselves.
Divinity is our ability to become the best version of ourselves.
Expressions of divinity, imagination.
I mean, no other form of life can do what we do with imagination.
I want to talk about that in just a moment.
It's more than just a picture in your mind.
An image in the mind is setting into motion a cascade of chemical effects in the human body that literally change us.
We are changed in the presence of the right kind of imagination.
And the books tell us how to do that.
So imagination, creativity, innovation, empathy, sympathy, love, compassion, healing, forgiveness.
These are expressions of human divinity.
It's what sets us apart from all our forms of life.
It makes us such powerful beings.
The purpose of evil, and this might be the most important thing that we say today, because it's a nebulous concept, good and evil, until you give it a benchmark.
The purpose of evil is to deny human divinity.
The purpose of evil is to deny us our greatest expressions, imagination, creativity, the ability to communicate and share our ideas, empathy, sympathy, self-healing, all of those things.
So in a very real sense, Joe, anything that denies those things is an expression of evil.
So when we find that algorithms are denying us the ability to communicate our ideas from this perspective, that's an expression of evil.
When we find we put something into our bodies that prevents us from healing our own bodies, that is an expression of evil.
What the Gnostic texts are saying is that we are in a process that has a beginning and an end.
And the purpose of the process is to deny humankind our own humanness.
That has been playing out over eons, and now the technology is allowing it to play out to a greater degree because things like AI, things like misused, I'm not anti-AI, it's how it's used, things like computer chips in the brain, computer-brain interface, all these things, what they're doing, Joe, is they are denying our humanness, use it or lose it.
If we're using technology in place of our imagination, for example, and the psychology journals are full of articles about this.
People that chronically use artists, musicians.
My wife is a voting member of the Grammys, and we just had this conversation.
You've got musicians who go to ChatGPT and say, hey, write me a song, and now put some music to that song, and now you enter it with the Grammys, and you are competing against a human who has labored 30 or so years to master their voice and an instrument, and you say, is that fair?
Well, they're struggling with that right now.
So these are all expressions of anything that denies our humanness from that perspective is an expression of evil.
They have a problem with the dating, but they also have a problem.
It doesn't support the narrative.
That was, this is what.
So there were two councils.
There was a council of Carthage and the Council of Nicaea.
And this is where they excluded these documents, but they had been accepted prior to that.
Just like Enoch.
You've had people in here talk about the Book of Enoch.
That was accepted before these as well.
So what these are, they're inner teachings not meant for the masses, based upon the concepts that he's sharing.
And this is where he's saying there is something inside of us.
And the rest of the gospels, this is what Philip and Thomas are talking about: we are imbued with this force, given to no other form of life.
It's a light.
It is an intelligence.
And when we are fully empowered in this intelligence, we are sovereign, critically thinking beings, and we are no longer susceptible and vulnerable to the agendas and the ideas of others.
And there are multiple agendas that are out there.
So from this time, and now, when you go to the Sumerian text, they say the same thing.
They're saying when they beheld what it was that they had created, it had more light, more power than those that created it.
Then you get into the whole conversation, Genesis, you know, where it says God created man, but that's a translation error because the original texts say Elohim, and Elohim is a plural.
Some people will say it's not.
There's exceptions to that.
But it says Elohim said, let us create man in our image.
So even if Elohim is not plural, us implies more than one God.
So the point of all of this, and we can drill down into the weeds and all these, but it appears that there was a collective of intelligence that is responsible for us.
Okay?
That's not science.
That's the text.
Now you look at the science.
The DNA is telling us that 200,000 years ago, there were mutations that cannot happen in nature that imbued us with the ability to communicate with one another and all of these things that we're talking about.
And almost from the moment that we were imbued with these things, there was an attempt to deny us our power, and that attempt continues today.
So I think a good case can be made.
Everything you're seeing happen in the world, it's all important.
The wars, the economies, all the conversation of climate, it's all important.
And there's a level where it has become a distraction to keep us spun up and in fear so that we, because we're so close, Joe, we're so close as a species to awakening this fundamental force within us.
The closer we get to that awakening, the more chaos you see in the world to keep us distracted.
2022, scientists took neurons, but there was no human attached.
And they put them into a Petri dish to keep them alive.
And they hooked up the neurons to a computer chip.
So now you've got a biology technology interface.
So the neurons are hooked up to a chip.
The chip was put into a computer that was loaded with Pong.
The neurons began playing the game of Pong, even though there was no human attached to the neurons.
And the longer they played, the better they got.
They were actually learning how to play Pong better.
And now the scientists are struggling with a question, how does a neuron not attached to a human in a Petri dish know how to play Pong?
Where are the instructions?
Okay, so I remember when I was a kid, Einstein had died, and they had his brain thin-sectioned in the University of Kansas because they wanted to see what made his brain different from everybody else.
And it looked pretty much like everybody else's, with one exception.
He had a whole lot of folds in his brain.
So when you stretch those folds out, he had more surface area.
He had more neurons.
So they're thinking, but there was, E equals M C square wasn't in the brain.
All right, so now they're looking at those neurons.
They're saying, where's the instructions for Pong?
You know, and they're trying to figure out where it is.
Well, here's what this experiment is telling us.
The instructions aren't in the neurons.
The neurons are a biological antenna, a molecular antenna, that tune to the place in the field where Pong is pervasive.
The field.
There was a time when the field was a metaphor.
You know, metaphysical people, spiritual people, you say, oh, yeah, you know, it's out in the field.
July 4th of 2012, the CERN superconducting supercollider made an announcement that they had discovered a field that had been predicted by Peter Higgs, the physicist Peter Higgs.
Higgs boson.
Well, they found the Higgs boson, and what that implied was that there was a field supporting the boson, and now it's accepted science.
They say, oh, yeah, there's a field.
So, but here's the thing.
I was at a conference recently.
Here's what scientists are doing.
This is a hoot.
They're still saying this.
They're saying, oh, yeah, there's a field out there that connects everything, and their hands are doing this.
The field's not out there.
We're the field.
50 trillion cells in the human body.
Every one of those cells has about 100 trillion atoms emerging from the field and collapsing into the field right now.
You and I, we're constantly, the atoms in our bodies are emerging and collapsing into that field.
We are the field, and that is what makes us so powerful.
This is why we can heal our bodies almost instantaneously when we know how to access this part of ourselves because we hold the blueprint that tells those atoms how to express when they come into the body.
So if you've got something you don't like in your body, what you do is you are using the gift of imagination to create a new blueprint for that atom to come into.
And that sounds crazy to some people.
And there's a lot of science that's struggling with this.
But when you get into the quantum world, you get into the fact that the Higgs field exists.
You get in to the fact that imagination in the mirror neurons of the human brain, mirror neurons were only discovered in 2004.
And the thing about mirror neurons is they don't know the difference between watching an experience and having an experience.
So for example, you can be on the couch on a Sunday afternoon watching the Joe Rogan show with an exciting guest.
You're just laying there.
But your heart might be racing and your body's perspiring your muscle or maybe you're watching soccer.
Because your neurons don't know the difference between watching and having the experience.
This is why porn is so addictive.
Because the mirror neurons don't know the difference between having and witnessing the experience.
They're going to kick up the same addictive chemicals, the same dopamine, the same levels of adrenaline, watching the image that they are having the image.
Here's where our power comes from.
Because the image can be imagined when we are able to hold an image of ourselves fully enabled, fully capacitated, fully healed, fully awakened, hold that image.
What we're actually doing is we're programming the body.
And this is something, shamans know this.
I live in northern New Mexico.
Our indigenous healers all know this.
I spent a lot of time in Peru and the Andes, the Andean Peruvians.
They use different language.
So the point of all of this is we're not what we've been told, and we're so much more than we've been led to believe.
And it is the attempt to deny that power that is driving so much of what we're seeing happening in our world today.
We've got to have light and dark, plus and minus boys and girls.
You know, we live in, the darkness is a passive polarity.
Evil has an active stated purpose.
And the purpose of evil has always been, whether you're looking at those ancient texts or the Sumerian texts, Mesopotamian texts, it's always been to deny, to deny us the greatest expressions of our humanness.
And now we live in a time, this is no ordinary time in history.
None of this is happening in a vacuum.
We're barreling down the road toward this convergence of so many natural cycles and the date 2030 that has been identified by the United Nations, by the WEF, by a number of corporations, by Ray Kurzweil, in terms of AI implementation.
They're all looking at 2030.
And what you're seeing are the powers and the forces of the world jockeying to be in the best position when this date is upon us.
And I'm not saying it's like January 1st, 2030, but the United Nations, for example, they've got, and again, I don't know if I'm being redundant here, but they've got the UN SDG 2030, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, they want implemented by the year 2030.
They're not getting much traction because they're not good ideas.
The goals, if you read them on the outside, Joe, they're deceptively beautiful.
Who doesn't want food security?
Who doesn't want the end of poverty?
Who doesn't want the end of disease?
Now, you look at the fine print.
How will they achieve those goals?
And that's where it gets very concerning.
They haven't had much traction because the way to get there is concerning.
They're not good ideas.
Now we look at World Economic Forum.
I know you've had people talking about WEF.
They've been around since 1971.
They meet once a year in Davos.
You know, they talk about what they would like the world to look like, and they have every right to do that.
Some of their ideas are very dystopian, in my opinion.
Things like you will own nothing and be happy.
You know, we've heard that.
Or the great reset is the term that they coined, or the fourth industrial revolution.
They haven't gotten much traction.
But they recognize that their goals were similar to the UN.
So in 2019, these two organizations joined forces.
They signed a formal document.
So now the WEF ideas have traction through the UN implementation of these sustainable development goals.
And the goals can be beautiful.
I'm not against the goals at all.
It's how we go about, do we honor ourselves and do we honor our humanists as we achieve those goals?
And there are very different ideas about what it is that means.
I have a video clip, WEF.
Do you see that on there?
Can we bring that video clip up?
Because in one sentence, Klaus Schwab states the goal for the fourth industrial revolution.
And if he doesn't have, I just wanted to hear it in his voice.
He said the goal is the merging of the natural world, the digital world, and the biological world, our biological identity.
He said the goal of this fourth industrial revolution is to merge all of those into this massive database run by AI.
And here.
You can hear it.
It should be the next.
unidentified
It's at the end.
What the fourth industrial revolution will lead to is a fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities.
who the hell would dress like that who would say the things that that guy jimmy find that photo please Who would say the things that that guy has said like that, with that accent, and dress this way?
Again, there is a fundamental, it's a very ancient, if you don't know this, the world looks like it's spinning out of control for no reason.
When you begin, and you don't have to think about it every day, but when you look at the big picture and you can see there's a fundamental struggle between if you want to use the language good and evil, it's a charged language, and I know that, and that's the language that we're using.
But the denial of our human potential.
And so the best way, what do we do about that, is if the purpose of the evil is to deny our humanness and our divinity, we triumph by living the best version of ourselves.
We triumph by imagining freely and sharing ideas and creating.
And don't be afraid to have empathy and sympathy and compassion.
And now you have a benchmark because when something comes up on social media or something, we're asked to do something, we say, well, I don't know if this is a good thing or not.
You ask yourself, does it affirm or does it deny my humanness?
Does it affirm or deny my ability to imagine, to create, to love, to forgive, empathy, sympathy, compassion, to share ideas, deep intuition.
Does it affirm or deny those?
And then that'll tell you what you need to know.
What you choose after that is up to the individual, but it won't be a blind choice.
And I think this is up for us right now.
Okay, so now, evil in technology and the algorithms of social media that are designed to break the social bonds that have always held us together as communities.
And this began right around 2011, I think was the Occupy movement, and it pitted the rich against the poor, 99% against 1%.
That's a very real issue.
And Joe, we could have used that and come to the table and had a conversation and a healing that would bring us closer together as a society.
But it was weaponized to drive us apart.
And then the same thing happened.
Men against women, blacks against whites, Christians against Muslims, Jews against Muslims.
Now it's male against female, and the genders are being blurred.
All of this, by design, breaking the social bonds that hold families and communities and societies together because we're more vulnerable when we lose these bonds.
And the algorithms that do that, I mean, I'm fast, as a computer scientist, I'm fascinated by this.
We have what are called information silos.
So say there's parents and their kids, and the mom goes to work, and she goes on YouTube and queries a bunch of stuff.
And you know what happens is the algorithm just starts feeding you.
I mean, it's everywhere.
You're feeding one perspective of what it is that you've just queried.
Meanwhile, dad's at work.
He's doing the same thing.
His algorithm is giving him a separate perspective.
The kids are doing the same thing.
And now they meet at the family dinner table.
And everybody believes that their story is the real story.
It's the right.
It's the true story.
That breaks the social bonds.
And we're seeing this happen.
We're seeing this happen in our society.
And, you know, there is a, it's following an algorithm that's very easy.
Are you familiar with Saul Alinsky?
I think you're probably.
Rules for Radicals.
Yeah, Rules for Radicals.
This is exactly what it's following.
He said you choose a target, you freeze that target, you isolate it, you personalize it, and you polarize it.
And that's exactly what's being, it's a simple algorithm, and that's exactly, you think of all those things we just talked about.
All of a sudden, it's all you see in the news.
You're freezing it for everybody to see.
You're personalizing it.
What is that?
How are you getting ripped off and how is it hurting you if you do that?
And then you polarize that and it just drives people apart because they believe what they're being shown.
Well, you can if you curate your feed well, but the problem is if you spend any amount of time, you're going to be impacted by some ideas that you don't like.
You know, there's going to be a lot of negativity.
There's a lot of things that X shows me that I did not sign up for this person's page.
I do not know.
They just showed up in my feed.
I do not follow them.
But all of a sudden it appears and I read it and I'm like, oh, this is fucking horrible.
What a terrible take.
And you see people arguing in the worst, most evil way possible, celebrating people's deaths and hoping more people die.
And you're like, oh, my God, I got to get out of here.
That is evil.
I'm not saying that those human beings are evil.
I think most of those human beings don't even know what they're doing.
There's a lot of people expressing their boredom with negativity, expressing their frustration with their station in life, with negativity online, and then feeding into it, arguing with other people.
Instead of addressing their own individual real-life problems, they start looking at all these things that they're creating online.
That's their primary focus, like throughout the day, is these stupid ideological battles they're having with people that might not even be real people.
But see, and this is why I said what I said earlier.
We can tie into this.
People who have a propensity, they have a spiritual weakness.
This is a spiritual battle.
Not religious, but it's a deeply spiritual battle that's playing out on earth right now.
And it's showing up in every facet of our lives, whether we want to think about it or not.
People that have a propensity for greed, because that's their spiritual weakness, or a propensity for power or control, they will fall into those roles.
They don't even know.
And I've worked with people, and I've been in organizations, and I've seen it happen.
They're naive.
Many of them, some of them know exactly what they're doing.
There are some that know exactly what they're doing, but most of them are very naive and they want to be relevant.
And so they will follow the pack, is what they will do.
And so this is where I think you can recognize, this is where discernment comes in, to recognize it without judging it, because this is a spiritual battle.
And at the end of the day, what matters, Joe, is what do we become in the presence of what the world shows us?
What do we allow the events of the world to make us into?
Do we allow an election that didn't turn the way that we had wanted to reduce us to the most primal levels of hate and revenge and anger?
Something we'd never do in a million years, but we succumb to that.
Or do we recognize what it is that has happened?
And it doesn't mean we have to agree with it.
But the question is, do we make the decisions from our love of the families behind us and our friends and our community?
Or do we make our decisions from the fear of what we perceive as our enemy in front of us?
And that happens every moment of every day.
I have been in a business meeting with someone who is pure evil, pure evil.
And the first time it happened, it caught me off guard.
It was in this industry that we're in right now in the information industry, the publishing industry.
And I was with an individual who I'm hesitating the words that I use here.
I found myself saying things that I would never say in a million years while that individual was looking at me and smiling because he was somehow inciting me to say those things.
It was almost like in some way there was a force that I had not learned to reckon with.
To do what is happening there when it comes human to human.
The only way that a human, one human can perpetrate that onto another is to sever the relationship to their divinity.
All right.
And we have the choice to do that.
We can deny our divinity.
We can have it taken from us by those who have power over us.
Or we can, technology can deny our divinity.
But someone who, and that is closely linked to the soul, which is not the spirit.
So the soul is our localized lifetime experience.
When we sever that relationship, that is what allows an individual to carry out those kinds of atrocities.
Because an individual who is connected to their divinity and their soul could never look another human in the eye and hurt them the way that we know that has happened in our lives.
And it has.
It's happened throughout history.
So my focus, what I'm really passionate about, and it's not just like any old time in history.
We're on the precipice, Joe.
I mean, the decisions are being made within the next couple of years as to whether or not we will give our humanness away to technology or if we'll allow the technology to serve us but not enslave us.
AI is an example of that.
The brain-computer interfaces that are going on, BCI, that's a big conversation going on right now.
And if we get lost in the weeds of just AI or just the BCI, it's easy to do that.
But I think it's important to keep, there's a bigger picture.
There's a struggle.
There's an ancient struggle going on here.
And it is because, and this is what's so powerful.
It's because there's something inside of us that's worth the struggle.
And our children are not being taught that.
Our young kids are being told that they're a flawed form of life.
I think it's our divinity is the ability to express, and this is going back to the Gnostic texts.
This is why they were heretical.
Because the Gnostic texts said that we have a hotline to a higher realm, that we don't have to go through an intermediary, that we are imbued with this spark or whatever language you want to use, given the no other form of life.
And that when we awaken that, that we become God-like.
Not God, but God-like.
And this was the message of Yeshua in the Gnostic texts.
And that's the message that was denied and called heretical.
Because if we are that, then we don't need an intermediary.
So I think what we're looking at right now is do we love ourselves enough?
Do we love ourselves enough to accept the gift of our humanness and what it means to be human and what it means to be divine?
and not bring religion into the conversation.
And maybe just find another word if people aren't comfortable with that word.
But I really want people to know, and especially, you know, I do live events with these young kids, Joe, and they've been taught to worship technology.
The computer chip is God.
AI is God.
And then I show them, and I showed some studies.
Salk Institute in Northern California did a study, and they compared a human brain to a microprocessor.
And you say, well, how can you make that comparison?
I said that.
The microprocessor has about the same number of transistors that the human brain has of synapses in the brain.
Interestingly, it's about the same number.
And so they ran all these tests.
And what they found, literally, the human brain, okay, the computer chip, is it fast?
Yes.
Is it efficient?
Yes.
Is it scalable?
You can only scale the chip.
It'll only run as fast as the physics of the stuff it's made of will allow, the silicon or whatever it is.
And then it tops out.
The human brain.
Is it fast?
Yes.
Is it efficient?
Yes.
Is it scalable?
What is the top end of a human brain?
And the answer is we don't know.
Because every time we push a human brain to what we think is the limit that we've been taught to accept, this is the beauty of our divinity.
What we do is we morph and adapt and open up a whole new vista of potentials.
The Tibetan monks, a perfect example of this.
When I was in school, again, back 50s and 60s, we were taught that the human brain maxes out about 40 hertz, 40 cycles per second, all the medical books, textbooks, everything.
And then these Tibetan monks came along and they said, wow, if we do a certain kind of meditation, you know, we'll exceed that.
And then they bumped, they doubled it.
They went to 80, 80 hertz.
The scientists said, okay, so maybe we got it wrong once, but the human brain can't possibly do any more than that.
And the monks said, well, if we do a different kind of meditation, you know where this is going.
And they push it up to 100 hertz and then they had to come up with another brain state called gamma.
And then they push it to 120 and 130 and 150 and one, and they, 200 cycles per second.
Now they have to call it hypergamma.
But then they even went the other direction, Joe.
This is a mind blower.
We typically think when a human brain shows less than one cycle per second of processing, less than one hertz, that person's not there anymore.
And the monks were able to consciously drive their brain state to 0.5 hertz, less than one.
They're very conscious.
They're very awake.
They're just in a way different state of mind.
And that opens the door to a lot of questions about, you know, what does it mean when you see low brain activity?
Is someone actually in a healing state or are they really not there?
I think it deserves more study.
But the point of all of this, and there is a point, is that through nothing more than breath and focus, so nothing external, no chemicals, no machines, those Tibetan monks demonstrated that we not only meet, but we are exceeding the brain capacity that we thought we had in the past.
But Eddie Van Halen played guitar for thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of hours with an incredible focus and became Eddie Van Halen.
If you're a monk, you know Eddie Van Halen is a huge amount of time.
And what I want to say is there are levels that you and I can do right this minute.
I think, I don't know if you've had any of the folks from the Institute of Heart Math.
It's a pioneering research organization, Northern California, been around since 1994.
I've worked with them since 95.
They explore the power of the human heart beyond being simply a pump in the body.
That's probably the least of what it does.
And what they have done and made very accessible to the average person is the ability to create coherence between the heart and the brain, and that can happen in a heartbeat.
So the first step in heart-brain coherence, developed by the Institute of Heart Math, you shift your awareness from your mind into your heart, first step.
Second step is to slow your breathing.
And the key here, it's not just enough just to slow it, but you exhale for a period of time longer than you inhale, because we all breathe at a different rate.
So for example, if we inhale four counts and release six, okay, that might work for me.
Somebody at a higher elevation might do it differently.
But the point, the point is when you release, when you exhale for a period of time longer than you inhale, that triggers the relaxation response, parasympathetic nervous system.
You're telling your body, it's a language.
And what you're doing is you're telling your body, I am safe, because that's the only time you release it.
So second step is you're breathing slower, longer on the exhale, focusing as if your breath is coming from your heart while your focus is on your heart, two steps.
The third step is where you create 0.01 hertz.
You feel a feeling, a positive feeling, because you choose to feel the feeling.
And this is deceptively powerful, Joe, because most forms of life, including humans, only have a feeling in response to what the world shows to them.
We have the ability to have a feeling because we choose to have the feeling.
And what the science is showing is that the feeling of gratitude almost 100% works for everyone.
We all can sense gratitude.
I mean, you can think of words like compassion.
That means different things, different people.
Love means different things.
But we can be grateful for our children, our families, our lives, something like that.
And when we feel that feeling, it sends a signal, a very low frequency, 0.1 hertz, from the heart to the brain in the presence of the slower breathing.
And that harmonization between the heart and the brain is what gives all the benefits that we just shared.
Everything, you know, superimmune response, stem cells, longevity enzymes, all of those things.
And it's also if people do affirmations.
This is the place.
An affirmation is a message to the subconscious.
And you have to speak in a language that the subconscious recognizes.
And the coherence between the heart and the brain is like a hotline to the subconscious, but you don't have to be hypnotized.
So when you're saying affirmations, if you do it during that time, they're even more potent.
And we could spend a lot of time talking about the role of imagination, mirror neurons, all of that happening within the presence.
But the point, going back to what you were mentioning about the Tibetan monks, yeah, you can study years learning what they're learning, and there are benefits that we can access pretty quickly.
And it's science-based.
I mean, this is all peer-reviewed.
This is the beauty of the Institute of Heart Math.
They publish and peer-reviewed journals, and they've done much more.
I'm just scratching the surface.
If anyone is not familiar with it, I invite people to go to www.heartmath, H-E-A-R-T-M-A-T-H.org, and it's all free.
This is such a good question, Joe, and here's the reason.
And this is one of the places where it's so powerful.
I mean, you can use this stuff in a business environment for this very reason.
When we look at the world and solve our problems from our mind, our brain, brain's left and right brain.
So, you know, you've got logic and intuition over here.
Those are the ego loops.
And the brain will always work in polarity.
That's where you're going to get your right and wrong, good and bad, success, failure, worthy, not worthy.
And the ego, man, it'll spin you up in those loops for hours.
But here's the thing, the heart is non-polarity.
It's not a polar organ.
So when you harmonize the heart and the brain, what you're doing is you're bypassing the ego loops.
And here's where that can be powerful.
I did this in a corporate boardroom.
I was the youngest.
So I was the first tech ops manager at Cisco Systems 1990 when they got the RFP for a protocol converter so that all the branches of the armed services could computers could talk to all the others before the first Gulf War.
And when I would go into the boardroom with an idea and I knew that I was going to be criticized.
It doesn't have to, you know, it's a stereotype, but it happens to be true for me.
Emotion plays a big role.
Criticism, coming from an alcoholic family, my father was the abuser and the criticizer.
And I've spent my whole life, you know, working to, I'm still healing, you know, from that.
So when somebody would criticize my ideas, you know, it'd be hurtful.
I'd take it personally.
When you move into the coherence and you're not taking that criticism through good, bad, right, wrong, success, failure, now you can be much more objective and you can listen to it.
And when they're finished, you can say, well, you know, have you ever considered this?
because you haven't reacted, then it's a really powerful place to Well, it certainly works if you're talking to a good faith actor, someone who's really wants to talk about stuff and has a legitimate criticism.
But most of the time when people are criticizing you, they're trying to hurt your feelings.
Like, you can learn a lot from intelligent people, from their perspectives of things.
I've learned a lot from other people's criticism.
But the difference between that and dwelling on criticism, that's the part where people get wrapped up in their own identity and also interpersonal conflicts.
If you're a kind of person who, like, you're naturally argumentative and then someone says something, you're like, that's not fucking true.
And you want to say something back.
But it's just, it's a lot of negativity and a lot of wasted time.
And the way I try to describe it, especially to emerging famous people, and I'm like, you have to think of your life as if like your energy is a number, like you have 100 energies for the day, like it's a unit.
And if you're spending 30 or 40 of those energies on 30 or 40 of those units on social media and of criticism and of negativity, it's going to rob the 60% that you really enjoy.
It's going to rob your time with your friends, your family, your hobbies, your job, your community, whatever you really love.
Hanging out with your dog.
There's people right now that are going on a walk with their sweet, sweet dog, and they're thinking about some mean post that someone made and the mean shit they're going to say to get back at that person.
Meanwhile, they're with this beautiful animal.
And if you get on your knees, you're going, Are you having a good time?
They give you kisses and they put their paw.
Like, you're having so much fun.
It's so beautiful and loving.
And you're thinking about something stupid that has no bearing on this moment.
And you can't escape.
You can't escape.
You're like psychically connected to this negativity.
But see, but what you're doing through coherence is that you're defusing that the shithead criticism from having the impact on you so that you're thinking about it while you're out walking your dog on a beautiful day.
Well, if you're if you're going to do something, I think whatever we do, book or you know, music or whatever it is, we do put a million percent into it.
I learned this, you know, my dad left when I was 10, and our family was devastated.
My mom was my mom.
I have a younger brother, four years younger, and myself.
And mom all of a sudden was raising, you know, two boys.
And we knew we were in for some pretty rough times, man.
We were more than broke.
We ended up living in government-subsidized housing.
And, you know, it was a tough time.
And mom gave me a book at 10 years old.
She handed me this book and she said, I think this is going to be useful to you in your life.
And there are different pieces that mean different things to me throughout my life.
But there was one piece where he talked about work.
And in the environment I grew up in, my father hated his job.
He hated work.
My friends all hated their work.
They just wanted to make money.
And Khalil Gabron, this is on every email that I write right at the bottom.
Khalil Gabron said, Work is love made visible.
And I like that because it means that when we're going to do something, you do it to the best of your ability and even more, or don't do it at all.
If you're going to do it, do it really, really well.
And find a way to give meaning to what you're doing.
So, you know, I went to work.
I used to work midnight to 6 a.m. in a warehouse loading.
I don't talk about this a lot, but I was loading 50-pound bags of Purina cat-chow onto boxcars so they could go out in the morning to this distribution.
And the guys I work with, man, they hated.
They hated their job.
And I said, you know what?
If I do this just right, 50-pound bags, if I use my legs, I can get a pretty good leg workout out of this.
And then when I'm done with that after dinner, I'll come back and I can get a good upper body workout and I can use my arms.
And all of a sudden, I was getting paid for a great workout, and they had a boxcar full of Purina cat chow, and it was love made visible.
And I'm saying this because if I write a book or if I do an event, anything I do, if I'm going to do it, I'm going to do it really, to the best of my ability.
If I can't do it to the best of my ability, I'll just, if I don't believe in it, I won't do it.
Well, yeah, I mean, if you have a negative attitude about something that you're doing versus a positive attitude, you can do the exact same thing with a positive attitude and actually enjoy it.
Although there was a conversation that you had recently that I thought was very interesting.
I don't know if it was recently, but it made it into my social media feeds recently where you were talking to someone about climate change.
And you were talking about carbon in the environment and its actual effect versus a lot of the narrative that you hear about this Green New Deal stuff and just the climate, the freak out, the climate freak out from the Al Gore film, which, by the way, freaked everybody out and was totally inaccurate.
It was horribly inaccurate.
This was a film, An Inconvenient Truth from, was it 2005?
The whole thing is kind of nuts when you're that wrong and nobody even calls you out on it.
Like you freaked everybody out from when I saw it in 2006.
All my friends were like, oh my God, we got to do something now.
We were all freaked out.
20 years later, very little difference.
It's not, what he said wasn't true.
And there's a lot of weird, inconvenient things.
One of the things that Randall Carlson brings up is one of the things about carbon is there's more green now on the surface of Earth than there has been.
During the Manhattan Project, when they did the crash program for the weapon, they went through the periodic table to find out what elements could possibly be used to create the energy.
And they chose uranium because the byproduct was the plutonium that they needed for the weapons and for the nuclear reactors.
But it's not the only element that would work.
Element number 90 is thorium.
Thorium is abundant in the Earth's crust.
It's inexpensive.
Almost every nation has access to it, so it's very easy to get.
It cannot melt down like a Fukushima.
It cannot be weaponized, which is one of the reasons that they're not using it.
The waste can become the new fuel.
It can be recycled as the fuel.
What?
Thorium element number 90.
And if you look it up, this is why Wikipedia is a problem.
If you look up Wikipedia and some of these other things, they'll say, well, it's theoretical.
We had thorium reactors back in the 80s.
China, Russia, the United States had them.
In Colorado, there was an Indian River facility that was largely run on, it's called thorium salts is what they were doing.
And that's just one example.
So what I'm saying is, if we were serious about clean, green, sustainable energy, there are technologies that they would have allowed us to have that we haven't.
All right.
So I just, I want to say that.
When it comes to this is part of our earlier conversation.
We are being taught to demonize carbon in general.
And our young people are frightened of carbon.
They think carbon is bad.
Carbon is evil.
Carbon is what we're made out of.
And so they have no problem relinquishing their carbon-based, frail, fragile, flawed bodies for the technology because they've already been taught that carbon is bad.
And you can see, so here's here, and this was in the 80s and 90s they were doing this.
And the real scientists know what I'm going to say, the real geologists that are not politicized and are not beholden to academic or corporate interests that are paying their paychecks.
One of the problems is in those ice cores, the temperature actually rises before the CO2 levels.
If the CO2 is causing that rise, that's a problem because you would expect the CO2 to rise first and then the temperature.
And that's not what the ice core is.
I do have a slide of that if he wants to bring that up.
And the migration, what happens, I'm not sure how far back to go.
So what we know is Paul Laviolette in the 1980s.
I knew him before he passed.
He was a brilliant, brilliant physicist.
Wrote a book called Earth Under Fire that was ridiculed a lot in the 80s.
And what he said is that every once in a while, on a clockwork basis, there is a volley of cosmic rays that comes, cosmic rays that come from the center of our Milky Way.
And cosmic rays, like they're passing through you and me right now because we're mostly empty.
You know, we're 99.999% nothing.
Neutrinos and stuff like that.
Exactly.
And when they pass into the crust of the Earth, nothing happens.
In the core, the core is so dense, Joe, because of the pressure of the Earth.
It's iron-nickel.
And it's so dense that those they can't pass through.
And it actually causes what's called perturbations.
And it begins to heat the core of the Earth.
And that causes it shifts rotation.
And right now, Japanese scientists are saying that the core is slowed or possibly even stopped.
I don't know if your guests have talked about that.
And as the core goes through these cycles, so you look at the cross-section of the Earth, there's the inner core that's solid.
The outer core is molten.
Then the mantle is about 1,800 miles thick, and it's magma.
And then the crust is only about 36 miles thick.
So in the textbooks, the inner core always looks like it's floating right in the middle of the Earth, but that's not what's happening.
When it goes, when those particles are hitting it and heating it up, it actually bumps up against the outer core, causing ripples, perturbations is what they're called, against the mantle, and the mantle begins to seep into the crust, and it's the mantle that is heating the oceans from underneath because of that.
It happens about every, well, about every 12,500 years.
And that number, if you talk to Randall, we just did a conference in Boulder.
He was in the conference that we did up there.
And that has to do with the Younger Dryas.
I think you've had guests talking about – so the Younger Dryas was the last time that this happened.
It happened 12,500 years before that, 12,500 years before that.
I'm looking at that NASA thing, and it said, I went to the website, it says that it's rising because the ocean is absorbing the gases, causing the water to rise over time.
So can I go, but before we go any further, if we didn't exist at all, if there was no industrial civilization, we existed like hunter gatherers, would we have no impact or Would it be the exact same thing?
Or would it be a fraction of a degree warmer because of human society?
We're only at 240 parts per million right now, which historically is low.
We're on the low end right now.
If we were to meet those goals, they want us to go back to, we would meet the goals, it would push it back to about 236 parts per million is what they're looking at.
180 parts per million is dangerously low.
So there, and this isn't something like you can just take a dial and adjust a little bit here and there.
They are pushing, if we were to meet those goals, Earth would have, by the way, they're also pushing for global cooling of 10 degrees, global average.
We're at 56 Fahrenheit, global average right now.
They want 46 degrees.
The last time on Earth we had those kinds of temperatures and that kind of CO2 was the Pleistocene era.
We're being pushed for war, and I think you can see that.
And the nations of the Earth that have the capability for war are waging that war, and what's happening is we're depleting our resources as nations.
We are, and I just did a search on this the other night.
The superpowers are dangerously low on weapons and on the ability, humans to fight in those wars.
If Earth ever needed to fight, we don't have what we need right now.
So our weapons are being depleted.
Okay, let's put that over here.
Now there's a concerted effort to break the social bonds that have held us together as societies, as nations, as communities.
And that is working very successfully.
We're breaking down those borders.
That's not good for us.
That's not good for anyone.
Now, you look at the transhuman movement to replace us with technology, with machines, to debilitate our ability for critical thinking, our ability for imagination, for creativity, for all the reasons that we just talked about, use it or lose it.
When we give our power away to that technology, we're not the best version of ourselves.
That's not good for us.
None of those are good for us.
So if I said that to you, what would you say to me?
Well, now is where you go back and you look at all those ancient texts.
You look at the, and depending on what language you're using, if you're looking at Sumerian texts, this world was never ours to begin with, is what those texts say.
And there is a good argument that can be made that Earth is being modified in ways that are not necessarily good for us.
Who are they good for?
There's a whole conversation that we can have around that.
Well, we want to have control over things all the time.
And when you see certain areas that become too hot for a certain kind of agriculture or things change or certain lakes dry up, there's things like that that happen that people freak out about because we want control.
That's why we want to bring animals back from extinction.
Like, we want control over everything around us because it makes us feel better.
But the problem with this one is you're getting people that are saying we're going to lower the Earth temperature.
Like, we didn't vote on that.
Like, just because it's your idea and you people are moving in this direction, you have so much money, you're making a decision for literally eight people.
It's nuts that they think they could spray things in the sky to reflect particles, reflective particles, to dull out the sun and lower the temperature of the earth.
But all of this, I mean, so now we've identified these things, I think it's useless to be angry.
I think what we do is we recognize, Joe, that all of these applications of technology are a reflection of the way we've been conditioned to think about ourselves.
When we wake up to become the best version of ourselves, then we recognize it makes sense to go clean and green.
It makes sense to grow our food differently.
It makes sense to have different kinds of energy because we recognize our relationship to ourselves and the world around us.
That is insane, that as a human race, that we allow that.
That's insane.
Like, but then you look at places like, is it Singapore, Jamie, that we watched that video where it was fascinating there, I believe it's Singapore, where they have like the most sophisticated recycling program, like unbelievably efficient.
And they take that stuff and use it to pave the roads.
They burn things down, specific materials.
They have, I mean, it's an insane job they do of taking the garbage.
So everything we're talking about is a consequence of what happens when we give our humanness away and we believe that we are a flawed species and that we need something outside of ourselves to be the best version of ourselves or that we believe we're powerless so we say to someone else, fix it and make it better.
We're now, right now, and the AI is driving this conversation.
We are at the point where we are being asked by the conditions of the world to accept the deep truth of what it means to be human.
And in that humanness, when we accept our ability that there's a part of us that doesn't live in here, what that means is the more that we can honor the antenna, the gift of the body to access that, we become healthier, we become the best version of ourselves, we begin to live differently.
We begin to eat differently, we begin to recycle differently, we use energy differently because we're living in the world a reflection of the new honor and respect that we have for the gift of our bodies.
And nobody's telling our young kids anything like this.
Well, this is, but the AI right now is the tip of the spear.
This is what they're using day, again, the powers that be, because we're so close, Joe, for the first time in a very long time, on a mass level, to awakening to what it means to be human.
There are pockets that are coming together, and we're saying no, no to war.
We're saying, I think in this generation, I think you will see us walk away from the use of war to solve our problems.
What happens if they throw a war?
Nobody goes.
I think you're going to see that happen because people are saying this isn't right.
I think not the way we're seeing it, not the way we're seeing it right now.
This ties into the disclosure conversation.
Because when you talk to the people behind the scenes in disclosure, we obviously, I don't think anybody would have a problem with a flying saucer in an Air Force hangar somewhere.
We've seen it in movies where, you know, I don't think anybody's surprised me.
I don't think anybody's got a problem with a gray alien in an Air Force conference room somewhere.
But the implications, if we've had this relationship for so long, we know they didn't get here on a Chevy V8 engine.
I mean, they've got some pretty high tech.
And part of the implications are that we are being asked to step up to become a different species to meet the intelligence that is being offered to us.
And there are different forms of that intelligence.
Some of that intelligence is prone to war.
And that's not the ones that we want to necessarily...
And they believe that there is a compelling argument that could be made for war destroying.
I think when we get there and we see the archaeological remnants that are there, I think we'll have the answer to that.
But that is scary, isn't it, Joe, that you have to be so advanced and still have the still allow differences to be so great that the only way to solve them is to hurt one another and destroy one another.
Maybe we wake up our humanness and we accept the power of human divinity and we accept what it means and we imbue our children with a deep sense of a healthy sense that there's something very special about them worth preserving so that they care about themselves.
And then that begins to inform the way we live in the world.
We would be living in a very, very different world.
And I think you saying that is very important because it gets that word out there and people start to consider it and think about it.
And I think that's the only way people find these things is for people like you to come out and have these conversations and spark thoughts in people's heads.
Like maybe I'm thinking and behaving and living the wrong way.
And maybe we could just become more united and more positive and recognize this incredible gift that we have of this life.
But if we can begin seeing ourselves and really, I think the greatest task that we're cherished, that we're tasked with right now is to cherish and honor and care for the gift of the human body.
Because I believe it is a gift because there was an intervention that created the mutations that give us what we have today.
We don't know who or what, but we're not the product of natural evolution.
And until we understand fully what that is, Joe, why would we want to give that away to technology before we even know what it means to be human?
And once we give it away, we can never go back.
This is how you lose a species.
And I think we're worth preserving.
That's my message.
I'm advocating for our humanness, for our divinity, for our love, because that's what sets us apart from all our forms of life.