All Episodes
Previous Next
May 15, 2022 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
01:00:13
Dr. David Martin - Covid vaccine mRNA code is a BIOWEAPON developed via a digital SIMULATION
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The code that is injected into your body between January 12th and January 20th of 2020, that code was uploaded from a simulated server that was a simulation of the spike protein mRNA and it was given to the Vaccine Research Council and Kizzy Corbett,
the doctor who made this stuff, At the very CDC, all the stuff submitted to the FDA, Kizzy Corbett said, and I'm quoting from her interview with Francis Collins, it's really cool because you don't even need much of a lab.
You can build one of these on your computer at home.
That's an admission of biological warfare.
Welcome to Brighton Conversations.
I'm Mike Adams, the founder of brighteon.com, where we are allowed to have conversations about things that you're not allowed to see on other platforms.
God forbid that we dig into humanity and the truth about everything that's going on, or at least...
Curiosity about the way our universe works, because that's where truth really comes from, is curiosity.
So today we're honored to be joined by Dr.
David Martin.
His website is davidmartin.world.
He's the author of a fascinating new book that I haven't read yet, but I'm going to.
Lizards eat butterflies.
We'll talk about that today, but also we're going to ask Dr.
Martin some questions about what's going on with vaccines, the mRNA platform, and many other things.
Dr.
Martin, it's an honor to have you on today.
I'm a fan of your work.
Thank you for joining me today.
Mike, it's great to be here.
It's a delight to be part of your community, and thanks for taking this time.
Well, absolutely.
You are considered quite just a hero, really, among our viewer base.
And I can't even count how many hundred videos are on this platform, BrightTown.com, of your interviews with other people like Stu Peters and Reiner Fulmich and many others.
And people just love the clarity with which you explain things.
Now, since this is the first time that you and I have been able to speak, could you give us just a A bit of a background.
How is it that you have come to be?
Like, what's driving you?
Because you're a fascinating guy.
Well, you know, I grew up in a very religious environment, so my apologies if it offends people, but I use a lot of religious metaphors.
When I was quite young, I had a very interesting experience of reading the Parable of the Talents, which is a very simple story until you actually sit with it, and then it becomes very complicated.
Because the story says that a master gives a servant five talents, another one two, another one one.
They go off.
They come back.
The guy that got five made it ten.
The guy that got two made it four.
And the guy that got one buried it in the ground and delivered the one back.
And the master was very upset.
And I read that story when I was a very young boy.
And I remember having a sense.
That there was a knowing, maybe a voice, maybe a, I don't know, something that said, you've been entrusted with more than five.
You know, Mike, I think a lot of us know that at some early age, we...
We made a really unfortunate decision, and that is to step away from what we were really put on this planet to do.
And that was to fit in, whether it was fit in socially, whether it was to fit in within our community, whether it was to take the job that we had to take instead of the one that we would have loved to do.
Somewhere along the line, I think a lot of us have walked away from what we were put here to do.
And I am very, very fortunate.
I consider myself very blessed to...
To actually have never forgotten why I came.
And the great news is I have followed that path into 168 countries.
I have been able to make impacts all over this globe.
And I am constantly reminded in gratitude that I have been entrusted with much.
So I have an obligation to share it.
Wow.
Absolutely.
I really resonate with that message.
Much of what you just said was part of my prayers yesterday, saying, you know, on one hand, it's easy to think, oh, dear God, why are we being censored and silenced and persecuted as we simply seek to help people?
But on the other hand, thank you, God, for giving us the ability to understand what's happening and to help others.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And it is a responsibility, and we have to be humble in it, knowing that we've been granted this even cognitive ability to grasp what's going on, but with it comes all this responsibility.
You can't walk away from it.
Yeah, yeah.
And that's why I've often said to people, my work is not about manifesting courage.
I think it's much more courageous to try to cover up a lie than to stand naked in the truth.
Yeah.
The great news is you don't have to remember what you told somebody the day before.
You don't have to remember what fact you admitted.
If you stand in the truth, it is the least courageous, most solid foundation you could ever stand on.
And so I remind people every day that what I'm doing is actually the easiest thing to do because it's the right thing to do and it's the truthful thing to do.
You know, once again, incredible words of wisdom.
And I've had many people ask me things like, aren't you panicked?
Aren't you afraid?
And, well, I'm concerned about a lot of other people.
I am not panicked.
Not at all.
I'm working the problem.
I'm working towards solutions.
That's it.
Yeah, exactly.
So, yeah, I mean, my formal training, which kind of, I guess, in a conventional worldview gives me credentials.
My training was in biology, psychology.
And physiology, undergraduate, graduate school in physiology, doctorate in orthopedics, sports medicine, and exercise physiology.
You know, I was on the medical school faculty at the University of Virginia.
Probably most notably in the early 90s, I set up the first medical device clinical research organization submitting clinical trials to the FDA. So I have had a decade of FDA trials.
Interactions, being on, you know, advisory panels, submitting a number of clinical studies, doing one of the very largest medical device clinical trials in FDA history.
So I have the credentials that say I can speak about these things.
During that exact same time in the mid-90s, I started doing an enormous amount of forensic work on Welcome to my show.
So, you know, whether that was the Islamic Republic of Iran, where I was sent in 2005 to go to a conference in Tehran on this topic, whether it was Bled Slovenia, you know, all over the world, I have been...
Actually asked by our government to go and examine what's going on.
So it's fascinating that against that backdrop, the very person who they've sent to the netherworlds of the world to look after the United States and our allied interests, you know, when you find the U.S. doing things it shouldn't be doing, the exact same perspective is very unwelcome.
Absolutely.
But thank you for that brief history of your involvement because that leads me to the first question I wanted to ask you today.
Given the breaking news on Monday with the FDA issuing apparently two different letters, from what I understand, one extending the EUA, another granting approval to Comirnaty, but there's a lot of confusion and it seems like there was deliberate conflation of that by the FDA. What is your analysis of what the FDA has done this week?
Yeah, so it's actually interesting.
They approved a unicorn, and that's metaphoric.
Comorinity doesn't exist.
There is an enormous amount of the BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine material, and I'm going to use that term.
I'm not going to give it what they want me to give it, which is the honor of calling it a vaccine, but...
The vaccine material that they're promoting, they have an enormous amount of stockpiled material that they have built running up until the 23rd of August when they issued this very bizarre approval because the approval is actually for the future production of what they're calling this COVID-19 vaccine.
However, if you actually look at the letter that Pfizer had and if you look at the official publication from the FDA, It's very interesting.
The section on where it can be manufactured and when it can be manufactured is redacted, which is unusual given the fact that an approval letter is supposed to be a public announcement that makes these things visible.
They've redacted the what can be manufactured and where it can be manufactured and when it can be manufactured.
The EUA extension in that document itself Specifically made reference to the EUA with respect to children between the ages of 12 and 15 years of age, because it was very important that inside of the quasi-approval letter, it was abundantly clear that they could not state For a whole host of reasons, but they could not state that there was an approval granted to the age of 12.
And that's a really important distinction.
So 12 to 15 is not subject to the approval.
But ironically, as you've pointed out, the emergency use authorization has been extended across the already manufactured injection.
So when the mainstream media suggests that this approval has suddenly put what is sitting in freezers around the world into an approved status, that's actually not true.
That material is still under the EUA. There are still manufacturing guidelines that were not required for the EUA that would be required for a full approved product.
So there's a bunch of nuance inside of the approval, which is in fact, as you've indicated, a kind of approval backpedaled into an extended EUA. Now, we all know that the political reason for this was very straightforward.
With schools starting, there is a rush by the current administration to try to get kids and school mandates pushed through.
But we need to understand that, albeit the political expediency driving the ship, This entire process has done a number of things that explicitly violate the 1986 Act, which gave manufacturers liability protections.
And it's important to realize that the document that came out of the FDA on August the 23rd does not grant Pfizer-BioNTech The full benefit of the 86 Act, because there are a number of active studies ongoing, so there is an open investigation status to this trial.
It doesn't close, by the way, until sometime in 2023.
So we've got two more years of data collection for safety and efficacy.
And so there's a very bizarre thing, Mike, where they got the headline they wanted, but they don't have the substance behind the headline.
It's fascinating, though, that the entire media then says Pfizer is approved.
The corporations and the policymakers inside those corporations say, boom, it's approved.
Everybody must take it now and so on.
So we call it gaslighting, right?
So they're gaslighting the nation with this false status.
But there's something fascinating about this.
Under the law, at least as I understand it, and this is my question to you, The fact that they granted full approval to Comirnaty, doesn't this then effectively nullify the emergency use authorization of all the other vaccines because EUA authorization is contingent upon there being no approved intervention?
Yeah, so this is where they don't eat their own dog food, Mike.
You're exactly right.
If you look at the conditions that give rise to the authorization of a vaccine, and we do need to unpack the vaccine thing because I refuse to fall for the bait that this is what it is.
But let's stay with the abstraction for a moment.
A mandate for an EUA has to live inside of no clinical alternative.
Now, we know that they stacked the deck.
The FDA refused to consider any meaningful alternative to any vaccine.
So all of the work on all of the other compounds that had showed promise, including NIAID's own research on ciprofloxacin with SARS, all of the evidence was suppressed so that the only path forward was vaccines.
And that we know from the public record.
There's no question...
That the absence of an alternative was born from a manufactured absence.
The reason why we don't have an alternative is because we said there was going to be no alternative, not because science dictated that.
So we need to be clear on that.
But you're exactly right.
The moment there is an approval, then the EUA protections for Johnson& Johnson and for Moderna would cease to exist instantaneously.
Right.
Which is the reason why we have this very bizarre, is it really an approval or is it really an extension of an EUA? And what they did was something that the law does not allow.
There are no provisions that say we can have our cake and eat it too.
We either have an approved vaccine, in which case Moderna and J&J need to be shut down immediately because the EUA doesn't support it.
Or it is still an EUA, in which case we don't have a full approval.
The problem is nobody is supposed to read their own documents from their own hand where you can see the self-evident nature of this lie.
This is a really critical point that you just hit upon.
I want to get to that in a second, but first to add to it, I did interview Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
yesterday, who indicated they had planned to sue the FDA yesterday or the day before, based on a fraudulent approval, bypassing so many of the necessary steps.
However, because of the FDA's bizarre strategy, trying to thread the needle on this, you know, have your cake and eat it too.
This has even thrown Children's Health Defense for, you know, a curveball, so to speak.
And they're now trying to re-strategize how do we sue, how do we challenge this legally when the FDA is not even following its own laws and internal regulations?
But the bigger point is that isn't this also indicative of what's happening across human civilization, the complete abandonment of reason and rationality and process?
Well, I think that's where I've often said that we were trained.
Mike, you knew this when you were in, I don't know, 8th or 9th or 10th grade.
I certainly encountered the same thing.
We were told that the government has three legs that keep checks and balances on us.
We have the executive, we have the legislative, we have the judicial.
In this particular case, I've been pointing out that in the case of the FDA and the CDC, they have decided that they unilaterally We're good to
go.
Funding the pathogen creators in Wuhan, funding the pathogen creators at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, which are well-documented and very strong evidence-backed allegations.
So we have a closed shop that's actually building the weapon.
Then we have a captured regulatory environment, which has interlocking directorates, which are essentially insiders both trading on and benefiting from inside information.
Not surprisingly, leading to Anthony Fauci's very famous interview where he told the world that Moderna was going to be the front-running horse in the race, even though Moderna had never once produced a safe product anywhere in human history.
So how we have the known front-runner being a company that has never produced a product that has ever entered into human distribution, kind of an interesting jump before we even knew what the pathogen was.
So we have a whole bunch of these pieces of the puzzle that are established that this was based on a crime.
As I've often stated, the bioweapons case is open and shut.
In January, a foreign entity in the form of China uploaded a computer simulation of a virus, not a biologic sample, not a specimen.
They uploaded a computer-generated sample of a pathogen.
Now, here's why that's important.
Under the biological and chemical weapons laws in the United States, if you provide the means of manufacturing a bioweapon, something you know to harm humanity, you have already violated the law.
Period.
That's not in my opinion.
That's what the law by definition states.
So here we have a whole bunch of laws that were broken.
And Mike, all along the way, there has been a willful contempt for the legislative branch because we have laws.
Those laws are clearly on the books and they've been clearly violated.
And there's no provision anywhere that says that those laws don't apply during an emergency.
So we have that as part one.
But then part two, equally important, is that we now have these extrajudicial, extralegislative, and extraexecutive, these bodies, the CDC and the FDA, who are essentially saying we are going to willfully break the law.
Well, right.
And what's disturbing to me about this is that for most of our lives, we've lived in a nation where there was a social construct or a social contract of really self-imposed honoring of the limits of certain branches of government.
Now, what a lot of people don't realize is that a document, the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, the document has no magical powers itself.
It is, of course, people's faith in that process and in that construct, which was really self-imposed restrictions on the exertion of power that has made society more balanced and sustainable.
And yet, as you've just said, that has been abandoned, completely thrown out.
Now, even the CDC asserts that it has power over every rental contract in America because people are involved in rent and people might spread the virus.
Well people are involved in everything.
Does the CDC proclaim itself to be the dictator of all human activity?
Well, and the answer, unfortunately, to that question is yes.
Somehow or another, the CDC has found itself mysteriously inside the Interstate Commerce Clause, because as you probably know, most of your listeners probably know, that the one thing that made America work from a legislative standpoint is the Commerce Clause.
And that's why almost every law that we have somehow or another is written into something that says because it affects interstate commerce, therefore that's where the provision law lives.
The funny thing is that what the CDC is doing is it's actually taking the very fundamental legal structure that makes the federated states work.
Which is the Commerce Clause.
And assuming that it lives inside of that protection, which says we by fiat can make any determination.
We can tell you where you can go.
We can tell you what you can sing or not sing.
We can tell you how you can assemble.
We can tell you how you can fly, how you can drive, how you can this, how you can that.
And they have absolutely no legal authority to do that.
And they have been given carte blanche permission to walk over the rights of every American.
To have impunity for every one of the commerce laws, and not a single case has brought up the fact that all of this is predicated on criminal acts done by that organization.
This is organized crime.
That's what it is.
Well stated.
Well said.
So then, on that, why aren't state AGs What I know so far, and you mentioned two, there are about five that are at least circling the wagons.
But the problem is that AGs have a very interesting political tightrope that they walk.
And I think most of us don't examine the humanity of people who sit in those roles.
Attorney General positions are very frequently seen as political testing grounds for whatever comes next.
And an awful lot of people who are sitting in positions of Attorney General have an eye on a governorship.
They have an eye on a Senate seat, possibly a representative seat.
And so a lot of people use the Attorney General position as a posture to get to the next level.
And my concern is that the reason why a lot of AGs are sitting on their hands is because they're actually worried about their own political futures for taking action that they should take today.
Now, that's a tragedy, because the fact of the matter is, as you stated, there are two different bodies that could take action.
We have AGs in the States, and they certainly could group together to take an antitrust case forward.
They're doing that against Facebook and Google already, so we could do that again.
The other thing we could actually rely on is the U.S. attorneys that sit in the districts of the federal district of the judicial system around the world or around the country.
And we could actually have the U.S. attorney for, you know, fill in blank, Central California or the U.S. attorney for any one of the federal districts.
They could bring prosecutorial power to this situation.
But we've got two problems.
The first problem, and this is the one that's most troubling to me, Is that I have had conversations with an enormous number of these individuals, and when I bring up antitrust law, their eyes glazed over.
They don't even know the felonies that are being committed.
So the tragedy is we have justice being blind, and this is not the kind of blind justice we want.
This is blind justice as in they don't know what they're looking at.
That's a big problem.
Justice should be blind from the standpoint of equanimity.
It shouldn't be blind from the standpoint of willful ignorance.
And we have a huge problem on the willful ignorance side.
But the other side of it is that they also know that to stand up against the US Department of Justice, which is where they would meet their opposition, they are ill-equipped Almost every AG's office, almost every U.S. attorney's office is ill-equipped to handle a case that ultimately would have the U.S. DOJ on the other side of it.
And there is no question that our current DOJ is unwilling to uphold the laws of this country.
That's a very powerful statement.
I'm glad you said that.
And it leads me to the next question to you, where there's been a paradigm shift in the minds and consciousness of so many people around the world, and I want to bring your attention to Australia and New Zealand in particular, where the people, people, the citizens of these many nations, and this includes Canada, the United States, UK, France, Germany, Spain, and so on.
The citizens who once saw their government as their protectors are now coming to realize that at least in this context, in this overreach of power right now, that their governments are acting more like really terrorists or enemies or oppressors.
And Australia, I think, is the best example.
New South Wales state, you're only allowed one hour of exercise.
If you're going to have a visitor to your home, you have to register with the government to have permission for a visitor.
These were unthinkable even 18 months ago, but they are here now.
So what do you think this means for, you know, is a tipping point about to be reached?
The governments are no longer seen as protectors by an increasing number of people.
What are your thoughts on that?
Well, I've said many of us failed to take note of these things as they were introduced.
Australia is a wonderful example.
I'm going to unpack it because as you probably know, Mike, I had the good fortune of living there with my wife, Kim, and my daughter, Sienna, for a couple of years.
And we lived in New South Wales and we lived in Victoria.
What we found was that during the period of time from 2016 to 2018, For reasons that were not entirely transparent, the Australian government was passing laws that were very clearly draconian control and suppression laws about the ability to surveil The ability to actually intrude into personal computers, into cell phones, into all sorts of things.
All these surveillance tools, all under the name of kind of what we did back after 2001, after 9-11, where we saw things like the Patriot Act and we saw other things get into legislation, which in fact marched in on the civil liberties.
But in Australia, it was more draconian.
The fact is that in Australia...
The what effectively were like the sedition type laws were extended to anytime you say something nasty about the government, no matter what it is, you could just be upset, you could be frustrated, you have a legitimate concern, it wouldn't matter.
And they extended it, Mike, back then to the press.
They made it abundantly clear that they were going to chase any media source that actually was even investigating the government.
So this was 2016, 17 and 18.
I hosted a cybersecurity conference in Melbourne in 2017 and you would not believe the number of egregious violations of human rights that were clearly spoken and nobody raised their hand.
So what frustrates me is most of us kind of did nothing when we saw all of these liberties undermined, and now we're harvesting from a tree that was planted years ago, and we're saying, oh my gosh, we don't like the pears, we don't like the apples.
Well, guess what?
They planted those apples and pears, and we did nothing.
And so in the case of Australia, if you look at how many laws allow the government to do warrantless search and seizure, the ability to hack into your personal information, the ability to control your movement, all of those things are not an overreach of the law.
It's actually where the law went, and the public didn't know it was going there until now it's being enforced.
And that's a real wake-up call for all of us.
We must have greater vigilance over what we think are incrementally irrelevant steps that the government takes, only to find out after the fact that these are architected to build a pathway to get to this level of organized crime.
There are many people who say that Australia has fallen and that the people no longer have any means to take back their country.
Of course, they also gave up their Second Amendment, well, gun rights, we call it Second Amendment, but gun rights in Australia many years ago.
And there are many people, including myself, and this is my own opinion, perhaps not yours, so I'm not speaking for you, but in my opinion, it appears that countries like Australia are preparing For mass executions of dissenters or people who don't go along with the agenda.
And I know to some people that might sound like a pretty crazy statement, but you know what?
Things that sounded crazy 18 months ago are not that crazy anymore because a lot of them are happening.
But where do you think this is ultimately going with Australia or New Zealand?
Well, bear in mind that Australia lost its sovereignty to China many years ago.
And I say that both literally and metaphorically.
You can't go into an airport in Australia and not see, particularly places like Melbourne, you see as many signs in Chinese as you see in English in Melbourne, Australia.
That should tell you something.
When you go to look at the real estate market, you see that the vast majority of real estate in the major investment markets are being acquired by the Chinese.
But that's just the last icing on a cake that started with the dependency that the Australian government allowed to unfold, where somewhere between 70% and 80% of the entire export interaction with the world from Australia happens to be with one counterparty, China.
When the only money you're making, the only thing that's supporting your GDP is a single country, guess whose wills you bend to?
You bend to that country.
And I would have said, and I have said, and I've said this, by the way, in Australian audiences, much to the chagrin of the government there, that Australia was taken over a long time ago.
It's only now that we're seeing the evidence of it.
But let's go to that second part of your question, which is...
A much more dark question.
And that question is, you know, what's really the agenda?
Well, the fact of the matter is, and I've made this statement very, very frequently, you cannot manufacture a bioweapon and not say that you're trying to kill people.
That's what a bioweapon is for.
And the weaponization of the coronavirus, which officially started in 1999, when Anthony Fauci came up with this brilliant idea that he could come up with an infectious replication defective.
And those are the actual words used.
An infectious replication defective form of coronavirus.
And he paid researchers at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.
He paid researchers there to invent a pathogen that did not exist.
And that's the reason why I'm very careful with the language that I use.
You'll notice I'm not saying a virus and I'm not saying a vaccine for good reason.
We are not talking about a virus.
We are talking about an engineered pathogen.
We are not talking about a vaccine.
We are talking about the introduction of a computer simulated code in the form of mRNA.
But it's a computer-simulated code not to stimulate your immune system, but to turn your body into a factory producing S1 spike proteins similar to those found in coronavirus.
Slow that tape down and listen to it again.
Exactly what I said.
You're not injecting a piece of a virus.
You're not injecting a viral fragment.
You are injecting a code to make your body produce a pathogen.
And then you're hoping...
And that's all you're doing.
You're hoping that the pathogen your body produces also elicits an immune response.
But this is structurally so important for people to understand.
The code that is injected into your body between January 12th and January 20th of 2020, that code was uploaded from a simulated server that was a simulation of the spike protein mRNA, and it was given to the Vaccine Research Council.
And Kizzy Corbett, the doctor who made this stuff, At the very CDC, all the stuff submitted to the FDA, Kizzy Corbett said, and I'm quoting from her interview with Francis Collins, it's really cool because you don't even need much of a lab.
You can build one of these on your computer at home.
That's an admission of biological warfare.
This is extraordinary, what you're laying out, and yet it's also extraordinary the cognitive dissonance that so many mainstream doctors have, where you explain that to them, as you just did, and they will say, No, that couldn't be.
All kinds of justifications or excuses for not believing that.
But you ask them, what is the antigen target that's described by the mRNA instructions?
And they'll have to admit, well, it's the spike protein subunit.
And then you ask them, well, what are the vascular effects of the spike protein subunit?
And if they've done any research, well, it causes widespread vascular damage.
So how can you not realize that these are instructions to tell the body to build Pathogenic particles that will cause harm.
How can they not see that?
Well, it's willful ignorance in this case, because what they know is that because of the regulatory capture, and the most recent form of this probably can be laid at the feet of Obama, but we cannot put it at Obama's feet alone, because this has been going on during the Bush administration.
It was going on preceding that.
So we can't make this an Obama-only story, but we can certainly say that Obamacare and the union...
Federation and consolidation of healthcare into managed care structures certainly crescendoed with what happened with Obama.
But I want to go back to 2001 because this one lays at the feet of George Bush and in 1986 lays at the foot of Ronald Reagan.
We've got to remember that there's equal opportunity for accountability on this thing and we have to be honest with it.
Because this is not one party or the other that got it right.
This is actually a fundamental failure of our government system.
But let's go back and do exactly what you said.
What has happened is that we have in fact turned healthcare in the main in America into essentially the retail front door of the pharmaceutical industry.
Go to any clinic, go to any doctor, go to any, you know, any physician anywhere and try to get out the door without being told that you need something for something.
And I don't care what the something is.
You know, I'm 54.
I cycle a lot.
I have unbelievable passion for vitality.
I have a commitment to nutrition.
I actually have a commitment to getting...
Are you ready for this?
Sun?
You know, solar exposure.
I'm actually a guy who...
God forbid I researched vitamin D as a part of my clinical research back in the early 90s.
The reason why I'm a big fan of getting some sun is because I actually see the good that it does.
I am all about vitality and the number of times I've had to fire my internal medicine doctor, which by the way...
The only reason I even have an internal medicine doctor is because as the CEO of a corporation, I had a board that insisted that they insure me for what was called a key man insurance policy.
And I sat down with this physician and he lost his mind.
He lost his mind about where I traveled.
Didn't I know that there's malaria there?
Didn't I know there's cholera there?
Didn't I know there's tuberculosis there?
And my response was always the same.
And there are people there.
I love it.
To work with the people that are there.
But I joke about it, but that's the problem.
The problem is if you see the world through the lens of it's out to get you, right?
And it's the disease that's going to get you.
It's the chemical that's going to get you.
It's the this that's going to get you.
If you see the world as organized in a framework that's out to get you, Then it's not surprising that you can then sell the public on this illusion that somehow or another everything's out to get you and you need to take 10,000 different things to actually protect you from the thing that's going to get you.
My view is simple.
I think we are in fact a mysteriously, wondrously complex, beautiful organism that And I think we have been, you know, once again, using metaphors that I grew up with, created in an image and a likeness of God.
You know what?
I don't have a vaccine port somewhere on my body.
I didn't come with a catheter to, you know, inject or pull out.
I don't have this, you know, colostomy bag option just in case.
You know, I actually have a sphincter that works.
That's what I have.
Well, I'm glad you mentioned the psychological profile of what people are going through.
I want to ask you about that in the context of your book, Lizards Eat Butterflies.
So I also want to remind our viewers that this is an interview with Dr.
David Martin, and your website is davidmartin.world, and then I just gave the title of your book.
Let's get to that in just a minute, but I had one more follow-up question for you about Australia and the current...
Communist Chinese takeover of that entire region.
Now, I lived for one summer in Manly, Australia, in 1988.
And at the time, you know, I was still not out of high school at the time, but I spent a summer there with my father, who was doing work for Qantas Airlines, computer analyst guy.
And In talking with the locals there, I learned that there was a Japanese invasion that was happening at that time.
And then later on I learned that that was because the real estate bubble in Tokyo in particular allowed the counterfeit creation of real estate assets That provided liquidity to Japanese citizens who then took that quote money, they leveraged it and they were mass purchasing real estate throughout Australia and the Philippines and other areas.
Now then the Tokyo market, the Nikkei, collapsed in 1989.
I don't remember which day exactly.
And then this entire invasion collapsed also.
Suddenly they had to sell everything.
And by the way, even in that time, the Japanese were purchasing Hollywood Studios.
Oh yeah, and they were purchasing iconic buildings across Manhattan.
Yeah.
Exactly.
So my question to you, sir, is...
There's been a lot of talk that the Chinese communist regime is actually also propped up on a financial bubble.
A lot of it's just bluster and that there could be even perhaps a political revolution or an economic collapse in China that would collapse this expansionary colonization effort.
What are your thoughts on that?
So, most of your viewers wouldn't know what this is, but when China was entering into the World Trade Organization, I was asked by the Chinese government to be an accession advisor.
And all that means is you're a foreign individual who can provide insight into what's going on.
And the great news is...
That put me in a lot of inside meetings of the Chinese Communist Party, and I had the good fortune of meeting some really remarkable and amazing people.
And I've always found that wherever I am in the world, I've always encountered good people, and I've sometimes encountered really bad people.
So I'm not good at throwing countries by classification under the bus.
But what I'll tell you is this.
China has a difference than Japan, for a very notable exception.
And that's why I tried to warn people.
I did a speech that you can actually find on the web in text form.
It used to be up on video.
But it was called 10 Years Hence.
And it was a speech I gave at the University of Notre Dame's Mendoza College of Business.
And it was my assertion that the Silk Road was going to reemerge.
Interestingly enough, that particular speech was one of the most downloaded business school speeches in U.S. history.
And it turns out that I was asked to do a reprise of it to do an assessment of how well I predicted 10 years forward, 10 years later.
And to the line in the speech, everything came true, which is actually an interesting piece of insight.
But...
What I said then was actually really, really important, and it really addresses this point.
The reason why what happened in Australia with Japan versus what's happening in China with the Chinese interactions in Australia is that inside of the Australian economy is an internal counter-veiling force, which is very dangerous, and that is that China has come to rely on coal and steel.
And a lot of coal and steel and an enormous amount of the economy of Australia is based on the exports that they make.
And if and when there's any perturbation in the supply chain of either energy or steel into China, Australia will literally go bankrupt in the instant that happens.
But that's where the acquisition of land and the acquisition of real estate in Australia is quite dangerous because if what happens is you have a supply agreement with a counterparty who has both political and economic gain from collapsing you This time you don't just create a real estate problem in Australia, you create an existential problem where literally the economy of Australia can collapse entirely.
And the reason why that is immune from the health of the Chinese economy is for the following reason.
China, through its Belt Road Initiative, which your listeners can go out and spend some time researching, but through its Belt Road Initiative, it has built so much of its own effective World Bank control.
And what do I mean by that?
What I mean is that if you go to the Maldives right now for holiday, the bridge that links the man-made island on which the airport operates to the capital, that bridge is built by and owned by and controlled by China.
If you go to the ports in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in parts of India, those ports are owned by and controlled by, you guessed it, China.
If you go to Congo Brazzaville in Southern Africa, You'll see that 60% of the fields in the agriculture sector are owned by China.
What China has done is it's actually created its own version of the World Bank.
And if you go back and think about John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hitman, where he talks about how the World Bank grew its footprint so that it effectively took over the world, which gave rise to organizations like the World Economic Forum and others, What you find is China's done that on their own.
And now they have somewhere in the order of 86 or 87 bilateral agreements which say that even if they fail, they're kind of still propped up with their alliances and all these trading partners.
So I'm more concerned about China over the long haul, even though it may experience these boom-bust cycles because there is a lot of funny money.
That's very true.
The downside of it is they've plugged that funny money into assets that they own around the world, and that gives them an edge that Japan never had.
Right.
Very good point in that.
And it also, I think, emphasizes China's licking their lips, looking at Taiwan so they can have, you know, a deep sea port access to the Pacific.
And also, I think their influence on South American and Central American nations so they can have ports right on this side of the planet.
But it just leads me...
I've got to ask you this, and then I want to talk about your book for a second.
The complexity of this intertwined global society.
As society becomes more complex, it becomes more vulnerable to single-point failures.
And what you just described with Australia, exports of coal, China's dependence on that, but also China depending on its exports coming to the United States, the US being the consumption country, but then that being dependent on the US Federal Reserve fiat currency money printing system, which is spiraling out of control.
And I could give many more examples, but it's hard to see You're good at projecting 10 years in the future and more.
It's hard for me to see that this system is sustainable.
It must.
Exactly right.
If you want a both kind of tour de force worldview and then a little bit of depression because you're feeling too good some weekend, go read the 200 plus blog posts I have on Inverted Alchemy.
You can get there from davidmartin.world.
But my Inverted Alchemy blog posts go back to probably 2006 or 2007 or something like that.
And I lay out the architecture of how we found ourselves over the edge of the cliff.
You're exactly right.
This is not sustainable.
And the great news is the last chance we had to make it sustainable was 2011.
So think about the wonderful kind of old Wile E. Coyote cartoons, you know, when you're running off the edge of the cliff.
And as long as you keep your feet doing the whirly thing, you can run past the clouds.
And it's amazing.
But the problem is there's a look-down moment.
And unfortunately, Mike, for all of your listeners and viewers, the bad news is I'm going to tell you the look-down moment is 2028.
And I'm not guessing at that.
It is 2028.
And the reason why, and by the way, the evidence of the Treasury's most recent statement guarantees what I just said.
When you have people buying treasuries the day they're issued at par, plus a fee, what you know is you're admitting that you're never going to repay them.
That's what you're admitting.
And that's exactly what happened with Jackson Hole Conference.
So the good news is, this isn't Dave's opinion.
This is actually official Fed policy.
The wheels fall off the bus in 2028.
Now, I think there's going to be some wobbling of the wheels before then, but the wheels fall off the bus, and here's why.
They fall off the bus because Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid rely on acquisition of the very instruments that we now know are illiquid.
And when we hit 2028, We have an actuarial, that means the way we manage money for future obligations, we have an actuarial cliff that we cannot now solve because there is no asset that generates enough return to fulfill the promises we're making today, and those promises break in 2028 without exception.
We can't print our way out.
We can't do anything else.
Our last chance to fix this thing was 2011, and we walked past 2011.
Without giving a rip.
Well, if you say we can make it to 2028, I would call you an optimist, by the way, because I'm observing.
All I'm saying is the body stops twitching in 2028.
I'm not suggesting that it doesn't get pretty nasty between here and there.
But what I hope people realize, and I know our listeners are very good at this, but the masses in particular are not very good at looking at future ramifications of present-day conditions.
So what you are saying, by definition, if we lose the economic production and distribution efficiencies of long supply lines and international trade, then by definition, the current global population cannot even be fed, period.
No, you're exactly right.
And yet, we have politicians running around saying, oh, all we need is more food aid to Africa.
All we need is more money printing.
All we need to do is pay people to stay home.
These are insane ideas.
Yeah, because we've already seen the GDP contraction.
The real GDP, if we actually really measure GDP, is far worse than it is.
And as I did on a show just yesterday, I talked about the fact that We have 55% of the workforce right now, according to the latest statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 55% of the workforce says that they're looking for a different job.
Take half of the workforce out of the economy and just think about what that does to the GDP. It's extraordinary.
But let's transition that to the psychological status of the American people, well, people all over the world, and your book, Lizards Eat Butterflies.
You talk about self-help addiction in that book.
So my opening question for you on that, and thank you for spending time with us, is that people seem psychologically fragile to a degree that I've never witnessed in my life.
What's going on?
This is what I would call the metastatic conclusion, using the cancer metaphor.
This is the metastatic conclusion of a pathology that I would describe as looking to someone or something other than yourself to save you.
If your worldview is, I don't really have to be accountable because there is a something or a someone that's watching over my shoulder, that's looking out for me, that's going to do whatever I'm going to do, right?
If our view of the world is that we are somehow broken, futile, and incapable of managing our own situation, so there has to be a godfather, a parent, or whatever.
There's got to be an out there, out there looking after us.
That cancer...
Is now terminal.
We have to take accountability for what we do.
We have to take accountability for how we live.
And we have to examine the stories that got the cancer into our system in the first place.
And what Lizards does is it actually uses a beautiful metaphor contrast.
Because we've all heard about one day following Deepak Chopra's caterpillar to butterfly BS. But let's follow that thread for a moment.
Caterpillars eat the equivalent of about 78,000 pizzas across the space of about two days so that they can actually get energy to lay eggs, to then go into larval state, to then go into pupal state, then goes into their chrysalis and everything else.
And you go all the way through this thing, and what happens is almost all of them die.
Gluttonous caterpillars are eaten by birds.
They are killed.
They overeat.
They die.
They do all kinds of other things.
And very few of them ever make it to egg layers.
And few of the eggs ever make it to butterflies.
Here's the little problem.
The problem is we have a bad metaphor.
The metaphor of a butterfly makes us all think that one day we're going to get our colorful wings and we're going to float off into some sort of transhuman BS transcendence.
And the problem with that is we're really more like lizards.
What's a lizard?
Well a lizard...
It kind of grows.
And then it outgrows its skin.
And it goes through a mangy period.
And it doesn't look like it's ready to pick up anything.
And it's not going to go out to clubs.
And it looks kind of crappy.
And then one day it finds some rocks that it rubs up against.
Or a tree or a branch or whatever else.
And it gets all that crap off.
And all of a sudden it's kind of sexy and fast and runs around.
And it grows some more.
And then it goes through the print.
But it always stays a lizard.
And the good news and the bad news is, Mike...
You know, our life is about growing, finding the bits that don't serve us anymore, finding the tree or the rock that scrapes that bit off, and emerging the shiny new version of us.
And us again and us again.
We're not floating away on some sort of Disney made for Hollywood, happily ever after, sappy ending.
We are made for being smart, being intelligent.
And my favorite metaphor of all, when a lizard looks at a wall, it doesn't see an obstacle.
It runs up the wall.
And at the top of the wall, it looks at the ceiling and it goes, I can do that.
And it runs across the ceiling.
Somehow or another, lizards are smart enough to realize that obstacles don't exist.
They are merely opportunities to change your perspective.
And so the entire book is a celebration of the intelligence of lizards.
Aspiring for all of us to find the fact that we are accountable for our own lives.
And it's done with all of the blame your mom and whatever happened in your life.
I don't dismiss the importance of gaining experience in life.
But I can guarantee you, how you showed up today is on you, not on somebody else.
And so Lizards is a plea with the universe to have people reconsider the stories they're telling that trap them into the butterfly story, which are going to end up being giant, fat caterpillars that are doing nothing but eating pizzas and then being eaten by birds.
Yeah, exactly.
Well, I'm going to remember your book every evening.
I actually have a glass door.
I live in a very pristine rural area where we use no pesticides whatsoever.
So we have amphibians and reptiles and all kinds of things.
We have geckos that climb on the glass door and they wait for the light to come on inside and then they eat the moths.
Yep.
And in Chinese, we call them bihu.
So we're always like friends.
Hey, bihu.
There's a tiny bihu.
There's a large bihu.
And then there's little tree frogs and other frogs that hang out.
And you're right.
They just go to the wall.
They put their little feet out.
And they're just sticking around.
It's great to watch.
I really appreciate nature.
But final question for you on this.
And again, thank you for your time today.
I've had so many people over the years say things when I'm warning about something that's coming.
Probably the number one criticism is sort of from the New Age angle, where people say, stop talking about it.
You're making it happen.
What you should do is sit in a room and meditate on pretty things, and then that will come true.
Yeah.
That's what they tell me.
Yeah, listen.
I've been around that, as you can well imagine.
I mean, there was a period of time where I was somewhat of an aspirational icon by some of those crowds.
The bad news is I actually wore a bow tie and wore a suit and talked to bankers.
And so they always figured that I was some sort of controlled opposition where I could hang out with hippies and then hang out with Morgan Stanley the next day.
And that never worked for them.
But I'll tell you what.
When Joseph was in Egypt and the famine had started, you know who his brothers came to?
His brothers came to the guy who had figured out how to plan ahead.
I am not about warning people of some sort of impending doom.
I'm actually alerting people to the fact that we have the benefit of knowing now how to prepare for what's coming.
And I think that the contrast that I would have with all of the new agers who think you manifest your nonsense in front of you, there's a tiny news flash.
That may be true in a macro sense.
But what I would say to you is that insofar as you have insight, insofar as you have vision, insofar as you have perception, it is your accountable responsibility to act and to alert and to advise and to make abundantly clear that we are not surprised by that which comes and hits us.
We are merely willfully ignorant of that which we chose not to watch And when that comes to visit us, it is on us, not on the system that warned us.
And so for me, I'm always about saying, I am not manifesting a future that is unfolding in front of me.
I'm actually having the advantage of foresight so that I can be prepared for the famines and the abundances that lie ahead.
Amen to that.
Right.
Well, that's probably the best way to conclude this interview.
And I've had a great time.
This has been fascinating.
I love your mind.
I could talk with you for hours.
I hope we get a chance to talk again.
I would love to do that.
And someday we'll sit down together and do it in a studio and have a real conversation.
That'll be wonderful.
That sounds perfect.
Yes, indeed.
Next time you're headed to Austin, we'll have that studio ready for you.
That sounds great.
Thank you so much for joining me today.
And folks, the website is davidmartin.world and the book is Lizards Eat Butterflies, available at booksellers everywhere.
And thank you for watching.
And feel free to repost this video anywhere that you would like.
Thank you for watching.
I'm Mike Adams, brighttown.com.
Take care.
Take care.
In this nearly eight-hour audiobook, you will learn life-saving secrets of how to use food, nutrients, plant molecules, trace minerals, and chemical compounds to save your life, even in a total collapse scenario.
I'm Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, and I'm the author of Survival Nutrition.
I founded and run a multi-million dollar food science laboratory, and I'm the author of the best-selling science book, Food Forensics.
I'm also a prepper, a patriot, and a survivalist.
I can teach you how to survive what's coming by growing your own food, medicine, and antibiotics that can help keep you healthy and alive even during the worst of times.
At survivalnutrition.com, you'll be able to instantly download the full, free audiobook as MP3 files.
▲
Export Selection