Answers to questions Tucker didn’t ask

Many of the big questions were not addressed ( biolabs, Israel etc. etc.) TRUE and those of us who are awake would have liked an exposure of many of the much discussed Deep State criminal conspiracies, however the interview gave a good insight into how the Russians feel about The West and why they have taken their “defensive” stance.
I would have thought that even anti-Russians like most of the “headwashed” Washington concensus would have been impressed at Putin’s command of history and his love of his Nation and People as well as his overal rationale.

Vladimir Putin remains a “Logic Monster” that all the Neocon propaganda and censorship cannot silence and this has now become apparent to all of America. 110 million views in the first 24 hours and climbing Tucker’s interview has done much to awaken sleepy Joe Public!

Once the veil is lifted ALL the dominos will begin to fall.

El Sisi in Dementia Joe’s world

News Ticker

Copyright © 2024 | MH Magazine WordPress Theme by MH Themes

TRANSCRIPT: Roger Stone joins Mike Adams with WARNING about Dems’ plan to try to sabotage Trump’s upcoming victory to save America – NaturalNews.com

TRANSCRIPT: Roger Stone joins Mike Adams with WARNING about Dems’ plan to try to sabotage Trump’s upcoming victory to save America

The following is an automated transcript of Mike Adams’ recent interview with Roger Stone. Please excuse any errors. See below for the full video.

Mike Adams: Welcome to today’s interview on Brighteon.com. I’m Mike Adams. And our guest today is Roger Stone, who probably needs no introduction, I think one of the most amazing leaders of the political freedom movement here for America first. And Roger Stone. Sir, I really honor your work. Welcome to the show today.

Roger Stone: Great to be with you, Mike. I really appreciate the opportunity.

Mike Adams: It’s it’s great to have you on, you know, and this is one of the few places where you get to defend yourself against all the horrendous accusations and fakery that’s been leveled against you. And one of the most recent things was that somebody came up with a, what appears to be an AI generated audio that mimics your voice and was put out there claiming that you are calling to, to murder somebody? Well, I was able to because I work in AI, I was able to generate my AI voice saying the same thing that you said, even though I never said that either. So we were able to prove that’s AI. What are your thoughts?

Roger Stone: Yeah, and this is, the AI is now going to be the next tool of the radical left is going to be used in politics all the time, to defame people in this particular case. A not very credible left wing website, media AI, which is owned by one of the former talking heads at MSNBC, Dan Abrams, published what they said was a four year old snippet of an audio in which it is alleged that I plotted to murder two Democratic congressmen. First of all, it was given to them anonymously. So we’re supposed to believe who were was taken, who I was talking to, there’s no verification of any of that. And then I immediately sent the audio itself out for forensic analysis using the best two up to date software programs. And one of them showed me there was a 96 point percent chance of likelihood that it was fraudulently generated. The other one was 92.8. I never said the words attributed to me, the ambient restaurant background noise, which makes it harder to detect I was dropped in after the fact it’s a fraud. But what’s outrageous. Mike is the way MSNBC CNN, The Washington Post, Bill Maher, Rolling Stone, all the usual suspects, the jackals of the fake news media, jump on it immediately reported as if it’s factual, never even include my denial. nevermind the fact that I produced the evidence that it was a fraud. And of course, the Democrats are demanding yet another investigation on Capitol Hill police, the FBI, let me be clear, there’s nothing to investigate. I never said those words. The woman who wrote this story woman, Diane Falzon. In Italian Falzon means fake, false. That’s what it means.

Mike Adams: Is that a pseudonym for her?

Roger Stone: That’s definitely her real name, you can see her on Instagram, she’s an unmarried mother of two seems to spend a lot of time on the nightclub circuit. But it’s kind of ironic that that’s her real name. And it really does mean false. Because I’m, as you know, half Sicilian myself.

Mike Adams: All right. So let me educate the audience in case they’re not aware of this. But any person who has done any amount of interviews, and you’ve done 1000s of hours over many years of your career, and like I have as well, or Alex Jones, for example, it’s easy to find voice samples of those people, even Donald Trump, right. And it’s easy to take those voice samples to cloud based AI services, such as 11 Labs, for example. And you simply upload the voice samples, and then you can type in any text you want. And they will have that voice, say those words. And it will do variations. So you could try like 50 variations and get the one that you liked the best and use that one. And they sound almost perfect, right? So at this point, anybody can sort of make you say anything they want, and then hand it over to mediaite or MSNBC or whatever, and claim this as Roger Stone.

Roger Stone: Precisely, in fact, right now, ironically, somebody made a recording of Joe Biden that was used in a robo call to New Hampshire households telling people not to vote in the Democratic primary. Also, I noticed that the state of the family of George Carlin the late comedian is suing two guys because they put up an audio of an hour long stand up comedy routine by George Carlin that is not George Carlin. So this is going to be the next wave get used to this there’s going to be more and more of it. But this is what New York we would call a fog AZ It’s a fraud. And once again, Mike Roger Stone Well, I did nothing wrong.

Mike Adams: Yeah, exactly. Wondering about your website. By the way, stonezone.com is where people can find all your videos your shows rumble channel. What else do you have on your website? Give us a quick.

Roger Stone: There’s a lot going on there. First of all, I do a daily show at rumble have called the stone zone, which I posted there you can also go to rumble.com/roger Stone, I do a weekly radio show W ABC in New York from four to six on Sundays is literally the most powerful am radio station in the United States. You can listen to that at W ABC radio.com. It’s also streaming worldwide. I write also print journalism there. Today I posted my mother’s meatball recipe old family recipe because I had mentioned it on the radio had so many requests for it. And you can you can also go to the store I have stones rules of my rules for life. This is kind of like Sun Tzu’s The Art of War or Machiavelli’s the prince is everything I’ve learned in a 45 year career in the public arena as a great introduction by my friend Tucker Carlson. My book on the Kennedy assassination, the man who killed Kennedy the case against LBJ. All my products, they’re available at the stone zone store. So folks should check it out.

Mike Adams: All right, stonezone.com. That’s website, folks. So, Roger, let’s go back to the AI generated voice snippet, because it seems like if any media outlet were acting responsibly at this point, knowing that the state of the art of AI voice generation is very advanced, that they would have to now suspect any, any audio snippet of being AI generated. And they would have to be able to confirm the actual source, the location, time and date of the recording. And they would have to have a recording forensically analyzed to confirm that it is not AI. And yet, from what you’re telling me, none of the media outlets went through any of those steps whatsoever. Correct?

Roger Stone: Correct. So they just they do no due diligence at all actually, to analyze such an audio, if it were real, you would need the original device on which was recorded and you would need the original audio itself. This has been compressed or both of the of the technicians who examined this, for me told me it has been substantially compressed. As you correctly point out if I have a 10 second snippet of your voice, and I spend any time kind of studying your the cadences of the way you speak, it’s very, very simple. And it’s unexpected, inexpensive to create an audio that people would listen to and they would absolute squeeze swear that was Mike Adams was Mike Adams at all. So look, I’ve been through a lot of witch hunts. This is the latest witch hunt. And of course the two congressmen that I falsely accused of plotting the murder of Jerry Nadler and, and Eric Swalwell. Eric swallow the the Chinese Communist compromised congressman from California. They of course pound the desk and whine about this when there’s really nothing to whine about. I’m not a fan of either one of them, but it certainly makes sense. This, by the way, allegedly happened in October of 2020. But why would we believe that they provide no documentation of that either. And it is alleged that I was talking to a friend of mine, former New York City police officer Salvador Greco. He has no memory of this. He has a pending lawsuit civil lawsuit against the city of New York because they terminated him. After 14 years of distinguished service. unblemished service as a New York City police officer often assigned to some of the most dangerous precincts in the country in the city for the graveyard shift. They just arbitrarily fired him simply because he’s a friend of mine. So here’s a there’s a regulation. For New York City police officers it says an officer cannot fraternize with anybody who in the past may have or may reasonably be suspected of in the future. Being involved in criminal activity. Well, that would be Eric Adams, the mayor of New York City. He was a New York City police officer he was a captain. He had missed having spend time with a convicted felon. Al Sharpton was a convicted felon Mike Tyson with a convicted felon Louis Farrakhan. He was charged Mike under the exact same rules my friend Greco and they docked his vacation time five days that was his punishment, right? It’s all selectively enforced chin, lost his livelihood, doesn’t have good conduct letters so he can’t get a job as a police officer in any other jurisdiction. He’s suing the city of New York that lawsuit has survived two motions to dismiss by the city. It’s going forward to trial now. The investigation against him is a total fraud. It is interesting in one sense though, because because he was made with me on January 5, and sixth, although we never left our hotel suite, we did have contact with a one’s particular member the Oathkeepers. And that guy testified in his administrative trial that No, Roger Stone had no knowledge of what the Oathkeepers were up to the six wasn’t involved and knew nothing about it. So that’s on the record in under oath. kind of convenient, actually.

Mike Adams: Yeah. Well, it’s clear to all of America now that J6 was a deep state trap. But in fact, I want to ask you now, America, Donald J. Trump, as president now more than ever, it’s becoming more and more apparent apparent, with each passing day. Joe Biden, you know, an Alzheimer’s patient, apparently are a walking cognitive zombie can’t function and has no morality and no rule of law. I mean, just just one of the worst presidents in the history of this republic. People miss Donald J. Trump. And now look, I’ve criticized Trump on a few issues. We’re never going to have the super perfect candidate. But I’ve also recently said it’s clear that Trump is our only legitimate option now to save this country from total destruction. How what are your thoughts on?

Roger Stone: I totally agree with that. Look, first, of course, he’s not perfect. No one is perfect only only He is perfect. But without any question. You had unprecedented peace and prosperity. That’s right. When he was president. He didn’t start any new wars. He did bring our troops home in large numbers from the Middle East, without having the countries they were serving and collapse around behind them. Unlike Joe Biden, we had unprecedented economic growth we had, we had unprecedented job creation, unprecedented wage growth, unprecedented amount of money coming back in the country to be invested here, and to create jobs here. We had to scores of conservatives appointed to the federal bench. We had the rebuilding of our military strength, which had been allowed to atrophy. But most importantly, I think, in the foreign policy realm, Trump took advantage of his noted unpredictability. Vladimir Putin would never have invaded Ukraine because you didn’t know what Trump would do. Trump told him he would hit him and hit him hard. I’ll hit Moscow. He said, Well, Putin didn’t know whether to believe him or not. And if he was going to take a chance, same was also true of Premier GE. He told GE directly you move in Taiwan, I move on you. She said you will not do that. Trump said Don’t try me pal. Trump’s a tough New Yorker. And he you come from the world of Manhattan real estate that’s as cutthroat as it gets true. I mean, I’ve said this before I worked for Richard Nixon, he was a very tough guy, he clawed his way back from political obscurity to to the greatest political comeback in American history. I worked for Senator Bob Dole, Bob Dole is an American hero, he was hit by German, pardon me by Italian machine gunfire in World War Two, a hit by a shell as well was told you will never walk again. You’ll never have the use of your limbs again, you’ll never feed yourself. Again. He fought his way back to total functionality was a great US Senator would have been a great president. Those guys were really tough guys. Neither one of them is nearly as tough as Donald Trump. You don’t want to be on the other side of him in in negotiation. That’s the guy I want guarding my tax dollars. That’s the guy I want running by foreign policy.

Mike Adams: Absolutely. I mean, the current foreign policy under the Biden administration is a total disaster. There’s no plan, there’s no competence. There’s not even any understanding of history or what America’s strengths are. So I completely agree with you on that. But given that the popularity of Trump is surging back in the minds of people who might have been sort of on the bench before, you know, they’re walking away from the Democrat Party, and also the invasion of America by illegals is really disrupting a lot of these blue cities. You’re seeing a lot of people who are Democrats saying we need Trump here, otherwise, we’re gonna lose our country. How desperate are the Democrats looking right now in terms of wanting to stop Trump because of his rising popularity?

Roger Stone: I think they’re increasingly hysterical. I think that they I think that they are there. They really can’t believe that this tsunami of lawfare. These totally patched together fabricated charges against Trump, first of all pertaining to his handling of of confidential documents, his questioning of the outcome of the election, which of course he has an absolute first amendment right to do this idea that he knew he lost. But he tried to claim to power while try proving that he knew he lost that’s the legal term there is mens rea. You have to prove Trump’s state of mind. Only Trump knows What Trump’s state of mind is now those who would prosecute and say, well, but the FBI director told me last, yes, so watch doesn’t matter what the FBI director told him, Director of Homeland Security or the Attorney General, it only matters what he believed those guys have proven themselves to be bad actors anyway. So just because they said something was true, doesn’t mean Trump believed it was true. So they have, I think, inadvertently, might they have turbocharged his campaign? He is stronger today than he’s ever been at any point since he entered politics. And it is also allows him to raise the money necessary to run because his donors are small and medium sized donors who give repeatedly they’re not he’ll never be the toast of Wall Street. He’ll never be the toast of the millionaires or the billionaires. That’s not is America is America’s a small businessman and woman who recognizes the existential threat to the country. And just watching the Democrats desperately trying to jujitsu this border issue. Let’s be very clear. Open borders is the policy of Joe Biden, he and his administration are responsible for the migrant invasion that we’re experiencing, and passage of this bipartisan, Schumer Langford border security bill would change. Absolutely nothing at Laos, $1.8 million, a million illegals to continue to enter the country per year. And it provides the funding to process them. It changes nothing. So this idea that Trump is opposing the bill, because he wants the situation in the border to continue so he can run on it, passing this bill would not solve anything whatsoever. And Joe Biden goes from two weeks ago saying or is Secretary of Homeland Security in his press spokeswoman saying, Oh, the border is secure, the border is secure. And now suddenly, he says, well, the border is not secure. But the Republicans won’t give me the tools to close it. Let’s be very clear. The law today just simply needs to be enforced. We don’t need a new law. We actually don’t even need any new funding. Just give the border patrol the correct orders not to stand down but to enforce the law. And Donald Trump proved that our border can be secure. illegal crossings under Donald Trump have trickled down to almost nothing.

Mike Adams: Yeah, and by the way, that Senate deal that has I think it’s been abandoned at this point, even in the Senate. They’re backing away from Mitch McConnell is backing away from it. And in the House of Representatives, Scalise and even speaker Johnson, I said they said was going to be dead on arrival in the house. But you make a really critical point there, which is that Biden wants unlimited illegal immigration. And that deal would have provided border funding for Ukraine and Border Protection funding for Israel, but no real solution to the border problem in the USA. And it’s infuriating to the American people. And under Biden right now, that taxpayer dollars will protect the borders of every other country in the world, but not our own.

Roger Stone: Yeah. So if we were looking at the bill, what it really is, is a Ukrainian war funding bill, right $60 billion to continue to fund the losing war in Ukraine where Ukraine is getting the crap kicked out of them. That’s not what the US media reports. But that’s the reality from every military expert that I know and respect to looks at the situation, General Flynn and others, and then secondarily, a huge amount of money for Israel. Now. We give Israel we already give them I think $1.6 billion a year, it’s very hard for me to realize, even imagine what more they could possibly need. But what’s even more disturbing, Mike is the double game that Joe Biden is playing in the Middle East. I mean, we’re funding Iran to the tune of $100 billion a year. And they in turn are funding Hamas and Hezbollah. And the Biden State Department has basically been infiltrated this fellow Robert Malley and those who work for him. This is the biggest spy scandal since Alger Hiss. His they recently suspended his security clearance, but they don’t tell us why. As I said on my ABC radio show this past weekend, I have sources now double sourced. One in Israel, one in the United States with contacts in Iran, who told me that Jake Solomon, the National Security Adviser, gave the Iranians the heads up regarding these recent bombing raids in Syria and Iraq, passing the message through the Qatar carries so that Iran would move its its top military personnel and other leaders out of harm’s way.

Mike Adams: Well, I knew that happened. But I didn’t know that was Sullivan. That’s a that’s that’s a huge deal.

Roger Stone: There’s no question about it. I my sources who are very good one of them is in the US Senate. The other one is in Israel, telling me that Jake Solomon, that current national security adviser who, based on his involvement in the Russian collusion hoax out to be in jail, in my opinion, yeah. But of course, they pay no penalty for breaking the law at all. Let the let the Iranians know that these bombing raids were coming. So the raids are designed to make Joe Biden look tough in the United States in preparation for a reelection campaign. Meanwhile, our traditional ally, Israel, is told what they can do when they can do and so on. We’re on both sides of the war. We’re funding both sides of the war. We’re trying to control the strategy. We’re giving the Iranians have freehand, why would anyone believe that the 100 million dollars you’re giving to Hamas is only going to be used for humanitarian purposes? Because Hamas said, so why would we believe them? Why would you believe that none of the 100 billion and assets that were just unfreezing for the Iranians are not going to make their way to Moscow as bola. Of course they are. That portion, which is not being used to fund the development of their nuclear devices, Trump said this past weekend that he believes based on his knowledge and his own sources, that Iran is 60 days away from having a nuclear bomb. Let’s change everything.

Mike Adams: Let’s talk about that for a second. Because we all remember that under Obama, Obama flew cargo planes full of pallets of laundered cash to give it to Iran, and Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, which the corporate media dishonestly described as halting Iran’s nuclear development program actually encouraged their program, and at the same time, provided more funding for their program. So as you know, Roger, I mean, this this spans many, many years of the United States of America, again, under Obama, but even now continuing, according to what you’re saying, under Solomon, enabling Iran, while funding Israel funding both sides of this conflict, probably heading towards nuclear war in the Middle East.

Roger Stone: That’s, that’s exactly right. I mean, first of all, in all honesty, the Iranians promised that they weren’t using this money for the development of a bomb. But once again, why would we believe them? Trump ran openly saying, Look, I’m gonna Nix this deal as soon as I get in. And he did. And the truth is, he really had his foot on Iran throat, I mean, because of the embargoes against them, they couldn’t sell their oil, and therefore they didn’t have the cash either to continue their nuclear developments, weapons system program, or the money to fund these terrorists. Now, thanks to Uncle Joe Biden, they have the money for both. And we’re basically, you know, we’re basically funding that program. Now, more importantly, during the Trump presidency, John Kerry is actively conducting his own foreign policy promising the Iranians that he’s going to get their nuclear weapons deal re upped, he’s in violation of the Logan Act, you can’t go out on your personal, private foreign policy, no matter how wealthy you are, why isn’t this guy been prosecuted? It’s really outrageous. But that’s exactly what’s happened in the Iranians. In the the radical those in radical Islam, this is very different than, say, Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, or even communist Russia, those people wanted to live. These people don’t care whether they live or die. They just wanted to destroy America. And if they have to destroy themselves in the process of doing so, they don’t have a problem with that.

Mike Adams: Yeah, and it’s, I’m also struck by the way that the the US leaders use US soldiers as drone bait, so that they put us soldiers out there, in Jordan and in Syria, knowing they’re going to be struck, so that people like Senator Lindsey Graham, can demand bombing Iran. I mean, the exploitation of American lives so that they can push their narratives is very disturbing to me as well. What are your thoughts on that?

Roger Stone: I think you’re absolutely right. It’s my understanding that we have approximately 3000 troops along the northern border, along with the Kurds. Why do we have any troops in the region? Why do we have troops there? It makes no sense at all. The bombing raids that we just conducted on in Syria and Iraq. We threw we flew two b one bombers from Texas that had to stop and refuel on the way Are there no American bombers anywhere in the in the our bases in the Middle East? We have bases there. Other no American bombers anywhere in the European theater that have gotten there more efficiently. So your exam flee, right? This is all being staged to let Joe Biden look tough. And these bombing raids I think were largely ineffective because we tipped them off in advance. We did no damage to those that we’re trying to hit. This is all kabuki theater, for the for the, for the benefit of American voters. I don’t think I don’t think there’s any support for world war three. We are we’re on the cusp of world war three, both here. And in the Ukrainian Russia. Conflict. And Joe Biden seems to be recklessly driving towards it. He reminds me of Slim pickins riding the bomb at the end of Dr. Strangelove and laughing is the world hangs in the balance.

Mike Adams: You know, this reminds me of the Clinton years to every time there would be breaking news about Monica Lewinsky. Clinton would order the bombing of some factories in Sudan or somewhere like that, you know, to try to just take the headlines away from the other news, but that wasn’t a day when the media would actually carry some news that was critical of a Democrat. Those days are long gone. In fact, I want to ask you, Roger, you’ve seen all the shenanigans that the Democrats will come up with. I mean, the Democrat establishment is the most horrendously dishonest, evil, insidious, lawless group of people that you could possibly imagine on this planet. They’ve done things to you that are unimaginable. What do you think they’re willing to do to stop Trump or to stop this upcoming election?

Roger Stone: Well, first of all, I think it’s very important to kind of recognize their messaging, because consistent with Alinsky is rules, anything they accuse us of doing is exactly what they’re doing. So Trump is a danger to democracy. That’s what they say. They’re the ones trying to lock up the leading candidate for President of the opposition party based on trumped up charges. They’re the ones trying to keep his name off of the ballot, what can be more anti democratic than that? Right? They’re the ones who have the intelligence agencies and the Department of Homeland Security, working with social media outlets to cancel and censor anybody who adheres or espouses a narrative. That’s contrary to theirs. What could be more anti democratic than that? They are the ones using the 702 data base to illegally collect information on Americans and to conduct illegal warrantless surveillances on 178,000 Americans, what could be more anti democratic than that? We are there’s been, as far as I know, the Congress has not, has not approved a declaration of war, when Richard Nixon was impeached, one of the counts against him, was the bombing in Cambodia without congressional approval, has Congress approved these bombings by Joe Biden in Iraq and Syria? Are they heaven, that should actually an impeachable offense, we’re going to war, then the Congress needs to declare war.

Mike Adams: So these are things that are happening now. But my question is, what else do you think they’re going to add to the stack of malfeasance that they’re carrying out to try to stop Trump?

Roger Stone: And look, I think the possibilities are endless. We could, for example, have a yet another pandemic, which is used as an excuse to change the procedures for voting, oh, we could have some false flag staged incident that’s made to look like a terrorist attack on American soil that can then be used to justify, as it did in 911, of the launching of yet another war, we could have war with Russia, That one seems pretty obvious to me. And then we, you know, we resort to the War Powers Act, and try to use it as an excuse to change or delay the elections. God forbid we could have an assassination attempt on Donald Trump. I don’t like to talk about that, because I don’t want it to wish it into being in fact, it’s something I pray about every single day is the safety, his safety and security, the safety and security of his family. I wrote a book on this, the man who killed Kennedy the case against LBJ, there is no question that the Deep State or the military industrial complex or whatever you want to call them, they very definitely are deeply involved in the murder of John F. Kennedy. So if they kill one president, if they removed the second President Richard Nixon in a silent coup, because the Watergate break in is as we now know, from declassified documents was a CIA operation. If they attempted to kill Ronald Reagan, that’s my next book, by the way, because with the report on the attempted assassination, Reagan has never been read least we know that John Hinckley Jr, who was who was convicted of his attempted assassination is always in front of him shooting from a crouching position upwards, but Reagan was hit from behind and above, and the four shots fired by Hinckley are all accounted for. There’s another shooter, there’s evidence of that. That’s a yet another Central Intelligence Agency operation. Then, when that failed, they tried to remove Reagan over the Iran Contra deal, which I don’t think he had any idea with the deep state operatives, including George HW Bush, were up to there. And then of course, the same people who tried to remove Trump in the Russia, Russia Russia hoax, there was no Russian collusion. There was no Russian collusion for me to lie about when I voluntarily testified before Congress. And of course, the two phony Ukrainian impeachments. The second one, designed to cover up Joe Biden’s crimes by accusing Trump of doing precisely that was Joe Biden himself at done. So these people are capable of absolutely anything. And they get more apoplectic and more hysterical as their grip on power slips. They’ve also as you know, Mike, they’ve with the Elon Musk, buying Twitter, converting it to x and turning over the files and, and for the first time on canceling people like me and Alex Jones and others, they’re losing their grip on the narrative. And that really drives them crazy. So well, they may have a tight control on Facebook, today they do on on Instagram, and on YouTube. And Google could be the leading bad actor out there. They’re still losing their grip on the narrative. And this makes them even more hysterical. Because, like you and I, we’re not even allowed to, to offer a different explanation of what’s going on. That’s whether it’s health freedom, and it’s in the medical area, or whether it’s what’s going on in our foreign policy, or what’s going on in Washington. If you don’t adhere to their approved narrative? Well, you’re a dangerous radical who must be silenced.

Mike Adams: Well, well, right. And this brings me to a question I really wanted to ask you about what Trump will do when He returns in his third term, because he did win the last election as well. This would be his third victory. But I guess his second official term, but as you’re probably aware, in his first term, I think he made a lot of very bad decisions and trusting people around him like ag Jeff Sessions, for example, who really betrayed Trump and betrayed America, in my opinion, and then later on Bill Barr, and so on, and, and even allowing Comey to run the FBI and so on. Do you think that now knowing what he knows and what he’s been put through, that when Trump returns to the White House, will he make qualitatively different decisions about the type of people to bring in to work around him?

Roger Stone: I absolutely believe that he will. I mean, he gave a great interview this past weekend with Maria Bartiromo, and maybe it was Monday. And I look, he acknowledged that he made mistakes, but let’s recognize he didn’t come from the world of politics. He came from the world of business. He actually honestly thought not unreasonably by the way that the Republicans were with him, the Democrats would be against him. Reagan was an outsider, but the Republicans had rallied around Reagan, Trump, Trump thought the Republicans would loyally rally around them. He led them to unprecedented victories. And then he really did not know that at least half of those in the Republican Party were trying to remove him from the moment he was elected. And he took a lot of bad advice. Despite that, he already goes down in history as a transformative presidents. So look, they tried to talk him out of canceling the Iranian arms deal. They couldn’t. They tried to talk him out of canceling our involvement in the in the Paris Climate Accords. He still insisted on doing it. He achieved many great things, despite, you know, being unfamiliar with the system now, having been through put through the ringer on Russian collusion, and on the two phony impeachments and watching what happened to me what happened to General Flynn? What happened to Paul Manafort, I think he’s completely awake, I think you get a very different man. And I think he has a different standard, both in terms of who he selects to appoint to high office. And I frankly, think you’re going to get finally, not retribution. How about just equal protection of the law? You’re going to charge Roger Stone for lying to Congress, which I didn’t do. Well, then why didn’t you charge Hillary Clinton because she did lie to Congress, and so did James Comey, the FBI director and so did the CIA Director John Brennan. One standard, not two standards of law. Now in my case, I argued that I did nothing wrong. Those people, it’s actually provable. They lied, and they lied about things that were material that were relevant that were significant. I did not write again.

Mike Adams: But this is the selective justice system. I think many of our viewers believe that our judicial system has collapsed. I mean, it’s clear with the selective prosecution of, of Trump, and you and others surrounding Trump. And I think that the American people are ready for Trump to be bold, in his third term, and with executive orders on day one, but to be bold in even firing the traders in, let’s say, the DOJ, the FBI, the NIH, whatever I mean, it’s Trump’s power, he can fire the entire executive branch of government, he could fire 100,000 federal workers on day one if he wanted to. And whereas he wouldn’t have had support for that in his first administration. I believe that now, the American people are so fed up with the criminality of the federal government, the betrayal, the the allowing of the invasion of America, I feel like the American people will support President Trump to be bold in his actions in his new term.

Roger Stone: I completely agree with that. And the good news is there is planning going on this is he’s not going to be starting from ground zero. There’s an examination of his immediate options. I think we’re at that very rare time in American history. There won’t be a few times when the future of the Republic really relied on one man, it was certainly true in the case of George Washington, was true in the case of Abraham Lincoln. And it’s now true today in the case of Donald Trump, is he perfect? No, he’s not perfect. But he does have the big picture view. And above all, he has the courage, and the gumption and the determination to take these people on. It breaks his heart to see what’s happening to America. He built us the most robust economy in our street. And then he was he was basically you curd into destroying his own greatest accomplishment because of the claims of the doctors in the COVID-19 matter. He’s not a doctor. So they obviously didn’t tell him the truth. And he was forced to destroy that which he was created. By the way. He brought the economy roaring back before he left, because the fundamentals of less regulation and low taxes. We’re still there. That’s right. So I think you’re gonna have peace and prosperity under Donald Trump. I really do think he can solve the Russia Ukrainian thing relatively quickly. It’s great to watch the left going absolutely insane. Because my friend Tucker Carlson’s, in Russia, where he interviewed Vladimir Putin. Was he when Mike Wallace or maybe it was Chris Wallace interview with Vladimir Putin, as a left didn’t go crazy. When Oliver Stone interviewed Vladimir Putin that was perfectly all right. But oh my god Tucker Carlson’s interview with Putin. Maybe we should never even let him back in the country, actually, Bill Kristol, who’s largely responsible for the many deaths in the Iraq War, former chief of staff to Vice President and work criminal, Dick Cheney, said yesterday that Tucker Carlson shouldn’t be allowed back in the US all…

Mike Adams: that’s incredible. I mean, I can think of a lot of people we shouldn’t let back into the country. But Tucker Carlson isn’t one of them. There’s, there’s quite a few people we should catapult out. It’s straight up journalism. But you can see how fragile the left’s narrative is, especially about Russia and about Putin, where they can’t even allow one journalist to ask a single honest question and and hear Putin’s response to America, you know, because, look, I’ll just be straight up honest about most Americans see, Putin is making a whole lot more sense than Joe Biden.

Roger Stone: Well, and I think most Americans realize that Zelinsky is a comic actor who was hired to act like the president. But there’s unlimited number of interviews with him and the American media where he talks about Russia as the aggressor. But very few people talk about the fact that what we’re doing right now in Ukraine is in violation of the Budapest Memorandum, which we signed, we agreed when, when Russia agreed to unify West and East Germany, we in turn, agreed not to push Ukraine into NATO, which really means we agreed not to put offensive missiles pointed at Russia paid for by us through NATO on the ground in Ukraine. This administration has pushed forward with that, in violation of an agreement that we signed. And that is that’s Putin is concerned this idea that he wants to take Ukraine and then he’s gonna take Poland and then we’ll take Germany and then he’s gonna take…

Mike Adams:  That’s yeah. All right. So, Roger, what are your plans? For our I mean, are you an I apologize, I honestly don’t know. Are you going to help the Trump campaign? Are you advising? Do you have strategies to share with Trump? How are you going to help us take America back?

Roger Stone: I have no official capacity with the President’s campaign, nor do I want one. I do enjoy his friendship. And he said many kinds of things about me and my wife. As you know, my wife survived a virulent bout of cancer, but through the healing power of Jesus Christ, and because of the alternative therapies that she chose to pursue, she’s now two and a half years. cancer free. Thank you, Jesus. Thank you. But the President, I’ve spent time with him. I’m in regular touch with him. He’s got some excellent people working on his campaign. Not all of them, but but the vast majority of his campaign leadership is superb. These are the people I would choose for him. If it were up to me to choose. Of course it isn’t. But these are precisely the people that I would have chosen. They’re loyal. They’re efficient, they’re wise, they’re experienced. His campaign is very, very calibrated, very disciplined and very carefully budgeted, because he does have this drain, you know, for legal fees, which has to come out of the various political committees, but he’s running an excellent campaign. I can honestly say, as a veteran of 13 national presidential campaigns, going all the way back to Nixon, three campaigns with Reagan, by my service to Bob Dole, my favorite service to to Donald Trump. This is the best run presidential campaign I have seen. And it shows the results in Iowa, he didn’t just win, he won by three times the previous high watermark, right. He didn’t just and New Hampshire, which was a setup, if there was any place where he was going to be stopped. It was in New Hampshire, where while state law does say that registered independents can vote in the Republican primary, they can only do so when the New Hampshire Republican state committee has approved resolution approved approve that was never taken to the Republican state committee. So the Secretary of State allowed independents to vote in the primary, which by the way, is traditional but in the past, was always removed by the Republican state committee. And independents. In New Hampshire, because of the influx of migrants from Massachusetts, they lean left very far left. And then of course, if you’re a Democrat, if you change your registration to independent by October 6, you would have been allowed to vote in the recent primary. Nikki Haley who is just a pawn she’s a puppet being used by the Biden and the globalists to try to damage Trump she spent $38 million. By my calculation, Trump spent about 18 She had the active support of Governor Chris Sununu, one of the most vile rhinos I’ve ever come across. I had extensive dealings with his father, he was a pig guide, liar as well kind of runs in the family. They pulled out all the stops, and Trump still beat them by double digits because he’s an excellent campaign. He’s going to sweep the the Nevada primaries, which is today, he’s going to sweep the Nevada delegate caucuses on Thursday. He’s Mickey Haley didn’t even compete. And Ron DeSantis his support kind of fell away. But more importantly, South Carolina, the home state of Nikki Haley, he’s gonna while a pre could beat her as big as two to one. It’s notable that the governor of South Carolina, the lieutenant governor, the leaders of both houses of the legislature, the Republican leaders, a majority of the congressional delegation, Republicans, they all support Donald Trump over their own former governor. Well, they all know well, that tells you a great deal.

Mike Adams: Why is Nikki Haley still even in the race?

Roger Stone: Because she’s a pawn? I mean, she she’s being used to try to damage Trump. So there’s there’s really two possibilities. One you keep her in the race to continue to attack Trump to try to assist Joe Biden. And who knows maybe she gets a cabinet position out of Biden or whoever the ultimate Democrat is, because I’m not convinced it will be Biden, or secondarily, she thinks I think incorrectly, that she can force her way on to the ticket that Trump will say, Well, the way to bind up the divisions in the party is to take this neocon for vice president. If that were true might. Donald Trump would need a food taster. She is completely duplicitous. She’s just as dangerous as Lyndon Johnson. You could not turn your back on Earth. or an epicenter? Proof is in the pudding. She looked down on Trump in the eye. And she said, Mr. President, you are among our greatest presidents. If you run again, I’m not going to run. But today, she’s running that tells you everything you need to know her word is no good. And her worldview is the same as Lindsey, Lindsey Graham, bomb now ask questions later.

Mike Adams: Well, yeah, but But of course, I think she came out of Boeing, another weapons manufacturer that stands to profit from all of this, and it seems like we’re ruled by either Big Pharma or big weapons manufacturers, most of the time, but Trump supporters would not stand for Nikki Haley to be the VP candidate. Who do you think Roger is the most likely person to take the VP slot with Trump?

Roger Stone: Well, first of all, former President Richard Nixon once told me that in selecting a vice presidential running mate, don’t look for somebody who can help you try to select someone who doesn’t hurt you. And while that may be somewhat cynical, it’s actually pretty good advice. Trump needs someone who first and foremost has the experience, the qualifications, the temperament and the judgment to be president. They also have to have a commitment to the America first anti globalist agenda. Those are the highest requirements. Now let’s look at the politics of it. You need someone who doesn’t upset your base of supporters, but allows you to reach out to a voter group where you can make gains. So by definition, that could be an African American, or it could be somebody who’s Hispanic or it could be someone who is a woman. I think he’s got a lot of great choices. He’s the greatest showman of all time. He understands that this is a matter of great public interest. He’s going to teach it right up until the moment he’s made a decision. Today, I don’t honestly think he’s made a decision or if he has, it’s a tentative decision since he shared it with no one. He has the capability of changing his mind. But I think he needs to pick someone who’s anti war, who wants to seal the border. Without any question. Someone who will put America first doesn’t want to send billions more to Ukraine to be stolen or wasted. I mean, what’s going on in this country is really insane. We we see New York City to New York City police officers get the daylights beat out of them by a group of illegal migrants. And then the district attorney doesn’t ask for incarceration. They’re granted or any bond. They’re basically just released on their own recognizance. Of course, they split That’s outrageous. That same district attorney trying to prosecute somebody for selling fake vaccination cards, unbelievable. Washington state, we’re now gonna give $1,000 to every illegal on a monthly basis taking that money out of COVID-19 funding. Unbelievable.

Mike Adams: UBI for illegals, yeah.

Roger Stone: In New York City. The mayor has just approved the program for $53 million for pre loaded credit cards, which were going to give to illegals in the shelters in New York City. Meanwhile, we have homeless veterans who are hungry in New York City, taking care of them, Americans who’s taking care of them.

Mike Adams: No, no, the American people have been abandoned by the administration, and our replacements have arrived. This is a replacement of America. That’s that’s the aim of the Democrats. And let me let me ask you this. We’re almost out of time, Roger, but in your assessment based on what you know, right now, if we were to have an honest election, and I know that’s not possible, because the Democrats will cheat every chance they get. But theoretically, if it were an honest election by how much would Trump win in this election?

Roger Stone: I think he would win the popular vote nationally, comfortably. I think he would. This is today. Let’s recognize that in politics. Polls are a measure of a snapshot of time that it’s the epicenter of time, and things can change dramatically. So and they know that so if you have some staged terrorist attack on American soil, that could royal thing and change things. But if this election were held today, in this moment, Trump pulled when every swing state by a margin slightly larger than the margin of error in all of these polls, and he would sweep the popular vote as well. The bottom has dropped out for the Democrats, there is no support the fact that they had the South Carolina primary yesterday. And while Joe Biden got 97% of the vote, the overall turnout was extraordinarily anemic, nobody showed up to vote because there is no enthusiasm for the Biden candidacy. So as of today, if we have a free, fair, honest, transparent election, Trump would win comfortably. Now, are we going to have such an election that remains to be seen? This time, however, the Republicans or I shouldn’t say Trump will be far more prepared both legally and Technically, to ferret out irregularities and anomalies on election night there, they’re not going to get away with locking Republican observers out of the polling places and dumping a bunch of fake ballots like they did in Michigan.

Mike Adams:  But how are they not going to get away with that?

Roger Stone: It’s very simple. You go directly to a judge and you get in order to make them open the doors and then you also have to stymie the police that Detroit police were being used as thugs that night, by the way, you got the former Detroit Chief of Police running for governor Republican. You are the chief of police that night, what’s your answer? And he says, Well, I was off duty that night, please give me a break. Please give me a break.

Mike Adams: Okay. Well, Roger, your analysis is just extraordinary. Your experience with so many campaigns, and so many national leaders, really, you have a wealth of knowledge about this, and I really appreciate your insight, and also your passion and courage for America. So I just want to thank you for joining me today.

Roger Stone: I’m delighted to be here. And again, folks can go to stonezone.com And check out everything I’m up to, you know, they say in politics a man is not finished when he’s defeated. He’s only finished when he quits. You know, you might in the struggle for America, I among others will never quit.

Mike Adams: All right. Stonezone.com is the website, folks. And that’s Roger Stone. Thank you, Roger. God bless you. God bless America. Thank you for joining me today. God bless you. Thank you. And thank all of you for watching.

Watch the full interview at:

Brighteon: Brighteon.com/f2922116-fb8e-4d0b-aa2b-98b52849c3e3

Rumble: Rumble.com/v4bxzel-roger-stone-joins-mike-adams-with-warning-about-dems-plan-to-try-to-sabotag.html

Bitchute: Bitchute.com/video/BHfyhkhzKMpU/

Banned.Video: Banned.video/watch?id=65c38c610d63da299e84eef7

The FBI’s ‘Dancing Israelis’ Investigation Reveals Israeli Foreknowledge of 9/11

COLLAGE: 21centurywire.com

You’ve probably heard the 9/11 story of the “dancing Israelis.” You may even recall that most mainstream media at that time treated the story — if they covered it at all — as though it was a distasteful rumor or “canard”. Trump even made a dishonest implant reference to “dancing Arabs” in New Jersey that day.

Then in 2019 the FBI at last acknowledged this event and declassified and released 144 pages documenting the agency’s investigation into a group of men who witnesses reported were filming and celebrating the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Shortly after 8:46 a.m. on 9/11 — mere minutes after the first plane struck the World Trade Center — five men, later revealed to be Israeli nationals, positioned themselves and their Urban Moving Systems van in the parking lot of the Doric Apartment Complex in Union City, New Jersey. They were seen filming the attacks, taking happy pictures, high fiving each other and celebrating as the Twin Towers burned.

At least one eyewitness interviewed by the FBI reported seeing the Israelis’ moving van in the parking lot as early as 8 a.m. that morning — more than 40 minutes prior to the attack.

Around 4 p.m. that afternoon, the van was spotted on a service road off Route 3, near New Jersey’s Giants Stadium. A police officer pulled the van over and found five men, between 22 and 27 years old, inside the vehicle. The men were taken out of the van at gunpoint and handcuffed by police.

The arresting officers said they saw a lot that aroused their suspicion about the men. One of the passengers had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock. Another was carrying two foreign passports. A box cutter was found in the van. But perhaps the biggest surprise for the officers came when the five men identified themselves as Israeli citizens.

In addition, the van in which the Israelis were arrested was “oddly” lacking “equipment typically used in a moving company’s daily duties,” according to the FBI, and residue of explosives was found inside.

Of the explosive residue, the declassified FBI report states:

A search of the van and individuals was conducted at the time of the vehicle stop. The vehicle was also searched by a trained bomb-sniffing dog which yielded a positive result for the presence of explosive traces. Swabs of the vehicle’s interior were taken, and those samples were sent to the FBI laboratory for further analysis. Final results are still pending.

Attorney General John Ashcroft personally signed off on the detainees’ release. Upon entering the private sector as a lobbyist and consultant in 2005, the Israeli government became one of Ashcroft’s first clients.

Of the coverage the story did receive in the U.S. mainstream media, much of it has since been scrubbed. Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can recover ABC New’s coverage.

The official story has been that these individuals, while they had engaged in “immature” behavior by celebrating and being “visibly happy” in their documenting of the attacks, had no prior knowledge of the attack.

This links to a series of photos released by the FBI of the Israelis with heads redacted. The Department of Justice, which oversees the FBI, had previously claimed that all of the photos taken by the Israeli nationals had been destroyed in January 2014.

When the photos were finally forthcoming, they were not actual photos but instead appear to be photocopies of photocopies of the pictures. In addition, of the original 76 images developed by authorities from the camera in the Israelis’ possession, only 14 were released.

One photo in particular shows pre-knowledge. One of the Urban Moving Systems Israelis arrested — Sivan Kurzberg — was seen in a photo “holding a lighted lighter in the foreground, with the smoldering wreckage [of the Twin Towers] in the background,” according to Steven Noah Gordon, then-lawyer for the five Israelis, as cited in New York Times report from November 2001.

However, the picture shown below includes a visible date of Sept. 10, 2001, the day before the attacks, as do two other photos — images #7 and #8 in the collection. The background however is whited out.

Only three out of the 14 pictures appear to carry that date and, second, previously classified FBI report indicates an eyewitness adamantly stated that Sivan Kurzberg had visited the Doric Apartments on Sept. 10, 2001, at around 3 p.m. with at least one other man, with whom he was conversing in a foreign language.

In November 2001, three of the Israelis appeared back in Israel and told their story. One proclaimed they were there to “document the event.”

At least two of the men arrested were determined to have direct links to the Mossad after their names appeared in a CIA-FBI database of foreign intelligence operatives.

And now, thanks to a successful FOIA request, we can examine the FBI’s own files on these individuals. Although names are heavily redacted, the background information is startling.

We lead off with the FBI file on the filming at Doric Tower. Note that the Israelis were filming from the parking lot for 10 minutes between 8:30 a.m. 9 a.m. This is most curious given that the first strike on the North face of the North Tower (WTC 1) occurred at 8:46:40 a.m. At 9:03 a.m., the South face of the South Tower (WTC 2) was “hit.” 

Anyone old enough to have followed the events that morning would know that no one had a clue what this was about at 9 a.m. that morning. It just appeared to be an odd aviation accident.

The FBI confirmed that the photos confiscated were “three of the Israelis”and that other photos showed five of this crew later at the roof of their employer, Urban Moving Systems.

Next, another eyewitness spots the three Israelis “less than five minutes” after the first tower hit. They were filming from the Doric Tower parking lot.

Several other eyewitnesses corroborated the celebration and filming spectacle. One said the men were there as early as 8 a.m.

Another leg of the investigation showed the presence of Urban Moving Systems (UMS) and Israeli nationals out near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where a “plane” was alleged to have crashed. An interview with the owner of UMS revealed no deliveries outside of New Jersey.


Read “The Boeing 757 That Magically Vaporized in Shanksville on 9/11”

Strangely, another Urban Moving System vehicle was spotted near Boston around the time the two flights left Logan Boston airport.

7:59 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767 carrying 81 passengers and 11 crew members, departs 14 minutes late from Logan International Airport in Boston, bound for Los Angeles International Airport.

8:14: United Airlines Flight 175, a Boeing 767, carrying 56 passengers and 9 crew members, departs 14 minutes late from Logan International Airport in Boston, bound for Los Angeles International Airport.

The investigation turned up another Israeli New Jersey based “moving” outfit with direct links to one alleged “hijacker.”

Later, according to a former high-ranking American intelligence official who spoke to the Jewish Daily Forward in 2002, the FBI concluded in its investigation that the five Israelis arrested “were conducting a Mossad surveillance and intelligence mission and that their employer, Urban Moving Systems of Weehawken, NJ, served as a front.”

This prescient doozy turned up in the file. Be sure to read last sentence.

The relevant section of the FBI report asks, “Did the Israeli nationals have foreknowledge of the events at WTC and were they filming the events prior to and in anticipation of the explosion?” The answer is notably redacted in its entirety.

For more coverage on the FBI’s “dancing Israelis” report, we highly recommend Whitney Webb’s article on Mint Press News.


Read “World Trade Center’s Infamous 91st-Floor Israeli ‘Art Student’ Project”
The 9/11 Tale of the Pentagon’s Disabled Security Cameras
NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s Pants Were on Fire During 9/11: A Case Study in Lie Spotting
A Look at the Nonsensical Claim That Hijackers with Box Cutters Commandeered 4 Planes on 9/11

The Deadly Rise of Scientism

By: A Midwestern Doctor

  • The scientific process is one of the greatest tools humanity has created to separate fact from fiction. Because of the remarkable societal advancements science has created, our society in turn has placed a deep trust science

  • This trust has incentivized bad actors to usurp the scientific process so that they can claim whatever “truth” benefits their interests is the truth

  • This coup has been accomplished by transforming science (the open debate of all existing data) into scientism (a religion where you are expected to unquestionably trust the pronouncements of the anointed “scientific experts”)

  • Peter Hotez and Anthony Fauci have played a pivotal roles in enshrining scientism throughout our society. In this article, we will review just how they did that, the profound consequences of their actions and exactly what happens once no one can debate the science

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

One of the greatest challenges each society faces is deciding what constitutes “truth.” Whoever holds that power wields enormous influence and steers the direction of the society for better or for worse.

For centuries, “truth” was delegated to the ruling institutions of the time, and hence truth was simply the narrative which conformed to their interests. Then, during the enlightenment period a new idea emerged — that truth could be determined empirically through experimentation and data.

This in turn gave birth to the scientific revolution, and while not perfect (as vested interests would still try to make their “narrative” be truth irrespective of what the scientific data showed), scientific inquiry began shaping the direction of Western Culture, and in a rocky fashion gradually moved society forward, giving us many of the benefits we take for granted today.

Sadly however, the tendency of ruling interests to want to monopolize the truth never went away and we’ve watched a curious phenomenon emerge where science, riding on the social credit earned by the success of its revolutionary discoveries, has gradually transformed into something not that different from a state religion.

Given that science was originally meant to be a way to move beyond truth being monopolized by the dogmatic institutions which ran society, it is quite tragic that science has become one as well.

As a result, science has more and more become the practice of “trusting scientific experts” and not being allowed to question their interpretations of the data — or even see it. This is very different from what science was originally intended to be — the collective endeavor of scientists around the world to put forth ideas and have the ones that stand up to scrutiny become the generally accepted standard.

In turn, we continually see “experts” put forth ideas which are clearly wrong and hurt a great number of people but help the corporate sponsor who paid the expert off. In the past, this behavior would be called out, but since those same corporate sponsors also own the media, these “experts” are shielded from scrutiny, and science has simply become every public voice echoing the expert’s pronouncements.

This was best illustrated by Fauci’s infamous defense against a Congressional inquiry for his complicity in creating COVID-19, the disastrous policies he had inflicted upon America throughout the pandemic, and the fact he continually lied about his conduct — frequently doing so in an audacious manner that self-evident to anyone who looked at the publicly available footage of Fauci.

To defend himself, Fauci argued he was “the science,” so criticizing anything he had done was unacceptable as it equated to an attack on science itself.

“It’s easy to criticize, but they’re really criticizing science because I represent science. That’s dangerous. To me, that’s more dangerous than the slings and the arrows that get thrown at me. I’m not going to be around here forever, but science is going to be here forever.”

Note: Another important thing to consider about Fauci’s interview was him using the term “antiscience” to attack and dismiss his critics (which will be further discussed below).

One of the saddest discoveries genuine intellectuals make once they enter academia (which is supposed to be their “home”) is that much of the “prestigious knowledge” their institutions produce is actually just simple or nonsensical concepts cloaked in elaborate rhetoric [language] that makes their points appear to be something much more impressive.

For example, the “postmodernist” discourse is pervasive throughout academia and frequently the standard you are expected to measure up to. Yet, in 1996, a programmer from Monash University realized that if he used an existing engine designed to generate random text from recursive grammars, he could generate postmodern essays which appeared to be authentic.

In essence, this meant that complete nonsense (as the text was random) could be passed off as authoritative and credible simply because it matched the expected appearance of this hard to understand writing.

Likewise, in 1996, a deliberately nonsensical paper (which proposed that gravity was a social construct) written in the post-modernist style was accepted for publication by a well-known academic journal — after which its authors admitted what they had done in order to illustrate that the academic process was promoting the publication of nonsensical ideas that conformed to the existing narrative.

Note: The postmodern generator’s products can be viewed here (a new one will be generated each time you click the link). Later, another generator was made that attempted to replicate the linguistic structures used throughout the new age field (e.g., to sell products) and I lost count of how many people I knew who thought the essays were authentic (and often remarked how touched they were by “my” writing).

In turn, I feel much of what we are now witnessing with ChatGPT’s automatically generated text is just a more sophisticated version of those engines, as once you look beyond the surface, there’s a surprising lack of meaning to its essays.

While these examples seem a bit absurd, they are in fact highly applicable to the current state of political discourse.

For example, in many fields, impressive sounding rhetoric is used to describe relatively simple concepts (e.g., in medicine, many diagnoses are simply the symptoms said back in Latin), which results in an aura of prestige and inaccessibility being imparted to those within the field when they are observed by the general public.

Note: This is analogous to how “experts” always claims the public is not qualified to assess the data even when what the data shows is clear and unambiguous.

Likewise, public relations discovered years ago that one of the most effective ways to control the public was by using focus groups to identify short phrases (e.g., “safe and effective”) that effectively emotionally manipulated the audience and then spamming that phrase on every single news network (which is possible due to the fact that six companies own almost all of the media in the United States).

This brief montage provides one of the clearest illustrations I have seen of this widespread practice:

Note: This is also analogous to how politicians, officials and CEOs typically evade whatever question is asked to them and instead continually repeat the scripted phrases their PR firm crafted for them.

Decades ago, a professor at an Ivy League University (at a time when those appointments were held to a higher standard) shared an anecdote I’ve never forgotten:

“If you actually understand a subject, you should be able to explain it to a truck driver. Most academics don’t fully understand their subject, so they cloak it in fancy rhetoric no one without their training can understand.”

In turn, I’ve tried to replicate that wisdom in the writing here, and I know from the feedback I receive that for the most part (excluding the particularly complex medical topics) I’ve succeeded in concisely conveying the concepts covered here in a manner that makes them possible to be understood by those without specialized medical training.

This I would argue is both a testament to the “non-experts” ability to understand the core scientific issues of our era once they are presented clearly, and how harmful it is to the public discourse that so many topics are cloaked behind an impenetrable rhetorical shield which creates the illusion only the experts are fit to discuss them.

When I was much younger, I participated in a variety of debate activities. From that, I gained an appreciation for the fact it is relatively easy to argue almost any viewpoint (especially once you invoke the nonsensical postmodernist constructs) and that if you had a relatively clear presence of mind, you could normally cut through whatever rhetoric [language] the other party was using to obfuscate their point and illustrate the actual absurdity of it.

However, at the same time, I was struck by the fact most debaters did not do that and would instead try to “win” by invoking their own set of nonsensical academic constructs and that in many cases within the weird world of academia, it seemed to be an unspoken rule that you did not directly call out the hogwash for what it was.

In turn, when I watched “debates” happen in the public sphere, as the years have gone by, the “experts” who debate each other became less and less willing to cut to the heart of the matter and instead danced around the point by using a myriad of sculpted language which sounded good but didn’t expose anything of importance.

Conversely however, “non-experts” whose social status was not dependent upon conforming to these unspoken rules held no such hesitation, and thus would rapidly expose the absurdity of whatever point was being expressed.

To illustrate, I recently completed a series about previous vaccine disasters and the media’s willingness to openly discuss them (whereas now in contrast, even though the COVID-19 vaccine has been significantly more devastating than any of those previous disastrous vaccines, there has been complete censorship of the topic on almost every single network).

In that series, I presented a variety of news clips from that era where journalists directly questioned the vaccine promoters, and in each instance, it became very clear to everyone watching it that something was amiss and the “experts” were lying (e.g., consider watching the NBC and 60 Minutes news segments shared in this article).

Likewise, at that time, parties who were skeptical of vaccination were allowed to engage experts who would come on in support of vaccines. Consider for example the debate on one of the most popular talk shows in America between these two doctors (one in support of vaccination and one critical of it) in front of a live audience, and how clearly the audience sided with the doctor who effectively critiqued the vaccination pusher:

Note: While I do not have the entire video of this debate, I do have the transcript of it (which can be read here). From reading it, it becomes remarkably clear that the doctor advocating for vaccination had an indefensible position, that the pro-vaccine camp lied with impunity, and everyone in the audience could see through it once the other side was allowed to point out his lies.

One of the things I find the most noteworthy about each of these clips was that the news anchors and talk show hosts were not hostile towards vaccines — rather they tried to present things in a fair manner and allow both sides to be heard.

However, since the facts so clearly argued against the existing vaccination program, it became very clear to the audiences that something was amiss, and each of these programs significantly decreased the public’s willingness to vaccinate even though the “experts” told them to.

Given that each televised debate caused the public to lose confidence in the vaccines, there were essentially three options for the pro-vaccine camp:

  • Pivot to a more reasonable position (e.g., spacing vaccines out, not mandating them, supporting those with vaccine injuries or taking the most unjustified vaccines off the market).

  • Have individuals who were good at debating defend the vaccine (as most of the “experts” weren’t).

  • Refuse to ever debate again.

As you might suspect, they chose the third option (e.g., I’ve read numerous scientific publications specifically saying it is not appropriate to debate vaccine skeptics publicly), but simultaneously as much as possible tried to pretend they were still publicly defending that position.

This was accomplished through having a complicit media which created safe spaces for the “experts” where they could repeat their nonsensical script without being challenged (e.g., no one should question what I am saying because “I represent science”).

Note: I suspect due to more and more corporate advertising dollars flowing in, particularly after Clinton legalized direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising in 1997 (a predatory practice that is illegal in most of the world), which allowed the pharmaceutical industry to become the largest television advertiser and hence financially blackmail the networks into giving them favorable coverage.

Over the last decade, Peter Hotez has worked to position himself as the public face of the pro-vaccine movement, something I believe was ultimately done so he could secure over 100 million dollars in funding to develop dubious vaccines that (except for a recent COVID one) never went anywhere.

Note: Hotez’s grift is something frequently seen throughout academia, although it exceedingly rare for the grifters to be anywhere near as successful as Hotez.

A key part of Hotez’s grift has been to brand himself as the public face of science (he even wrote a 2020 paper about becoming a national vaccine spokesman) so that he’ll constantly be brought on television to defend the narrative (e.g., by attacking anyone who questions it) and secure funding for his grifts “research”.

What’s fascinating about Hotez is the profound lack of self awareness he demonstrates in his public presentations (i.e. to put it generously, he’s always a mess) and the degree to which he says clearly false statements or continually contradicts his past statements (e.g., from existing footage its possible to make videos of Hotez debating himself).

Yet despite this, Hotez always gets called to speak in front of the media as an “expert” where he is showered with adoration by each news host and never asked a single critical question which might expose how full of it he was.

Note: I hold no guilt in attacking Hotez because every person I know who directly knows him has nothing positive to say about his character.

Conversely, Hotez is notorious for hiding from his critics, never placing himself in a public venue where he can be questioned and only responding to criticisms once he is in a safe space where he can say whatever he wants to say without being challenged.

Note: Hotez also notorious for immediately blocking anyone who criticizes him (even if they don’t even comment on his Tweets), which in turn requires you to use an external service like Nitter to be able to view Hotez’s deluge of self-congratulatory postings.

Recently, a Texas citizen was able to break Hotez’s embargo by (non-confrontationally) sneaking in a question to him immediately after Hotez received a glowing introduction by the Rabbi:

“I’m sorry but I have to interrupt. Dr. Hotez, I know about the children who have died from the Pfizer vaccine and it’s your job to not deny that. It’s not a hate crime to question science, you understand that. I will leave now.”

She was immediately ejected from the synagogue and shortly after banned for life from both her synagogue but also the neighboring cemetery (where her family members were buried) with the explicit threat of law enforcement being called if she violated the ban.

Remarkably, while Hotez refuses to so much as speak to his critics, he loves to throw very nasty allegations at people who challenge the narrative. Typically, he does this with impunity, but this summer, something remarkable happened after he attacked Rogan:

Shortly after, Bill Ackman jumped in, offering to contribute an additional $150,000.00 to get Hotez to debate RFK Jr. Realizing this was a golden opportunity to red-pill a lot of people (which it ultimately was), we made some calls, and in less than two days, the pot was over 2.62 million dollars. The story quickly made national headlines as it illustrated:

  • Hotez was so afraid of exposing himself to criticism, no amount of money could change that.

  • Even though Hotez constantly talks in the media about his moral superiority because of his devotion to charitable endeavors (e.g., his vaccines which went nowhere), when he had an actual opportunity to do something that could help people in need, he wasn’t willing to.

In turn, rather than respond to the debate challenge, the next day, Hotez had a friendly MSNBC host introduce him by regurgitating pharmaceutical talking points, who then gave Hotez almost two minutes to share his talking points, after which the host praised Hotez and doubled down on everything Hotez had said.

Note: I think this three minute segment is an excellent example of the nauseating propaganda you see throughout the pharmaceutical owned networks now. I learned of it after Hotez shared the segment on his Twitter.

Since that time, Hotez has made a number of remarkable statements about those events. For instance, really think through what’s being said by Hotez this recent interview:

“Clayton: You famously declined to debate Robert F Kennedy Jr. on Joe Rogan’s show. Was that an easy decision for you?

Hotez: Yeah, that was never in the cards. I’ve known Bobby Kennedy for a number of years and I’ve had a number of conversations with him over the years. They didn’t get anywhere. He’s just too dug in, doesn’t want to listen to the science. So I knew it wouldn’t be productive, but I also thought it could harm the field because it would give people the wrong message about how science works.

I mean, science is not something that’s achieved through public debate. Science is achieved through writing scientific papers by serious scientists that submit articles for peer review, and then they get modified or rejected and grants that get modified, rejected, or you present in front of scientific conferences in front of your peers for critical feedback.

And it’s a very successful approach. You don’t debate science like you’d debate enlightenment, philosophy or politics.”

Note: The largest problem with this argument is that our scientific system is suffering a systemic failure of erroneous (e.g., fraudulent) research flooding the scientific literature, a sustained inability to develop paradigm shifting ideas that improve society, and a complete inability to reject erroneous scientific dogmas (e.g., consider what happened throughout COVID-19).

All of this is a direct consequence of debate not being allowed into science, and as a result, we spend more and more to simply re-validate the existing scientific narratives.

Years ago, I heard a theory be proposed which argued that the general populace has a great deal of difficulty comprehending concepts which required putting multiple premises together (in other words the complex and nuanced topics) and instead required ideas to be presented to them as “simplistic truths” (e.g., emotionally charged soundbites).

In turn, you will notice that almost all forms of modern propaganda seek to associate a word with everything its promoters need (e.g., that they are good while their political opponents are bad), after which that word is plastered everywhere it is needed.

For example, after 9/11, Bush was able to successfully label anyone who disagreed with the horrendous policies he pushed for “unpatriotic.” For example, on September 20, 2001, he stated the following in an address to a joint session of Congress:

“Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

Note: This line was met with applause by our legislators.

Before long, few were willing to criticize any of Bush’s horrendous policies as they were afraid of being “unpatriotic.” Similarly, throughout Trump’s presidency, the media was able to successfully label anyone who supported him as a “Nazi” and this (nonsensical) label became so powerful it both silenced many of his supporters and drummed up a widespread hatred towards him which made many feel it was justified to use any means necessary to stop Trump or his supporters.

Note: There are many other examples of labels losing any bearing with reality as a result of them being weaponized against a group’s political opponents (e.g., consider what has happened with the word “racist”).

One of the most important things to understand about this tactic is that it requires the other side to be unable to challenge the absurdity of the label (e.g., how on earth does me not wanting to squander the national budget through bombing thousands of innocent civilians in the Middle East make me “unpatriotic?”).

For this reason, the media will always give the individuals weaponizing the current label a supportive forum to repeat it over and over so that the masses will unthinkingly associate it with the sponsor’s agenda.

Note: During Trump’s 2016 campaign, the American media in coordination attempted to make their sculpted term “fake news” be applied to any independent voice which criticized the existing narrative. Once the campaign had gained a sufficient degree of momentum (hence making it harder to stop), Trump suddenly started using his megaphone to associate it over and over with CNN rather than the independent media (e.g., “the fake news is the enemy of the people”).

This resulted in the campaign backfiring and it decreasing rather than increasing public trust in the mainstream media, making it one of the only examples I know of where someone was able to undermine a major linguistic weaponization campaign (as Trump did not did not need to be compliant to be given an audience on the mass media and hence was in a unique position to speak out).

Taking a cue from the propagandists, Peter Hotez also searched for a label to silence all of his critics.

He (possibly with the help of a PR firm) settled on “antiscience,” and as he only presents himself to sympathetic audiences who won’t question him, was able to keep upping the ante with it, before long claiming “antiscience” represented an existential danger to our Democracy, was the greatest killing force in the world, and hence called for governments around the world to be weaponized against anyone promoting “antiscience.”

For a while we ignored these antics because of how ridiculous they were, but eventually realized after this WHO sponsored tweet that it had gone too far (this is the type of thing that leads to dark places) and something needed to be done about it:

Note: Beyond this being full of factual inaccuracies, there is no possible way Hotez could have made this on his own (which suggests it was instead made by a pharmaceutically funded PR firm).

Since the media had strategically shielded Hotez from having anyone call out his lies, I realized the only option to nip this in the bud would be to do something which blew Hotez’s credibility with the public. I then had a flash of inspiration, recalling something I’d seen a few years before and sent this clip to Pierre Kory. By the grace of God, it went viral (I believe it has been seen over 10 million times now) and completely knocked the wind of Hotez’s sails.

Note: This comical exchange represents one of the few times Hotez has been in front of an audience who did not unconditionally support everything he said, which again illustrates why it is so critical for vaccine advocates to never expose themselves to even the lightest form of public debate.

About six months later, after hearing yet another antiscience tirade from Hotez, another thought occurred to me — how is he actually defining antiscience? After looking for a while, I couldn’t find an answer.

This prompted me to write a thoughtful article about the meaning of “antiscience” and Hotez’s habitual tendency to fling nasty accusations at anyone who disagreed with him and then claim to be a victim the moment anyone called out this behavior. Robert Malone kindly agreed to publish the article on June 14, and by some odd coincidence, three days later, Peter Hotez decided to pick a fight with Joe Rogan.

In that article, I attempted to define antiscience. Since I could not find a definition from Hotez, I went with Wikipedia’s which stated:

Antiscience is a set of attitudes that involve a rejection of science and the scientific method. People holding antiscientific views do not accept science as an objective method that can generate universal knowledge. Antiscience commonly manifests through rejection of scientific ideas such as climate change and evolution.

It also includes pseudoscience, methods that claim to be scientific but reject the scientific method. Antiscience leads to belief in conspiracy theories and alternative medicine.”

Note: Since I wrote the original article, an extra sentence was added which stated “lack of trust in science has been linked to the promotion of political extremism and distrust in medical treatments,” which as you might imagine, referenced Hotez’s work (which asserts but doesn’t actually demonstrate that link).

Fortunately, Wikipedia was willing to acknowledge the inherent issues with this label:

“Elyse Amend and Darin Barney [in 2015] argue that while antiscience can be a descriptive label, it is often used as a rhetorical one, being effectively used to discredit ones’ political opponents and thus charges of antiscience are not necessarily warranted.”

Note: One of the central themes I found throughout researching the lengthy philosophical debate on “antiscience” was that there were huge political implications over exactly where a society chose to draw the line as to what constituted “antiscience.”

I thus patiently waited for Peter Hotez’s book “The Deadly Rise of Anti-Science” to come out as I hoped it would at last explicitly define his nebulous slander (especially given that the June 14th article had effectively publicly challenged him to do so). Let’s look at what Hotez said:

“Anti-science has historical roots that go back more than one hundred years, to when Joseph Stalin first understood its value to an authoritarian regime like Communist Russia. Discrediting science and attacking scientists is a central theme for autocrats seeking to hold power and acquire geopolitical dominance.

This is a deeply troubling and profoundly sad American tragedy but one that must be unveiled in order to prevent further loss of life and to restore science as an essential component of the American fabric.

Anti-science is a broader term that includes efforts to undermine the mainstream views of vaccinology as well as research conclusions in other areas, such as climate science and global warming. In biomedicine, anti-science targets multiple fields, including evolutionary biology, stem cell biology, gene editing and gene therapy, vaccinology, and virology.

A prominent example features unfounded claims about the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic in China. Disinformation and conspiracy theories represent major tactics of groups and individuals committed to anti-science agendas. They undermine confidence in mainstream scientific thought and practices but also in the scientists themselves. Anti-science leaders and groups employ threats and bullying tactics against prominent US scientists.

Increasingly and especially in the United States, anti-science has become an important but dangerous political movement. It increasingly attracts those who harbor extremist views. In 2021, I defined it as follows:

‘Anti-science is the rejection of mainstream scientific views and methods or their replacement with unproven or deliberately misleading theories, often for nefarious and political gains. It targets prominent scientists and attempts to discredit them.'”

In other words, it meant exactly what it appeared to from his usage — “anyone who disagrees with me or the narrative is bad.”

Note: A more detailed review of the lies within Hotez’s book and the sinister agenda he is promoting can be found here.

I thus believe that were Hotez to ever publicly debate someone who was not on his side, the moment he started spewing antiscience slanders to support his position, he would immediately be called asked to explain exactly what he meant (which would thus torpedo his argument).

Because of how effectively the media vanquished the idea “experts” should be called upon to defend their positions, the public gradually stopped demanding they be afforded the same public forums we saw throughout the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s when concerns were raised about vaccination.

This changed when Steve Kirsch, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and philanthropist realized it was essential to reinstate that standard and began to relentlessly pursue getting that debate.

Once every party he contacted predictable refused to defend their actions (e.g., FDA and CDC officials ignoring innumerable COVID vaccine safety signals) Kirsch pivoted to a new strategy — offer them increasing sums of money to debate him and then widely publicize their continued unwillingness to debate.

Since money talks, Kirsch’s offers made it clear to much of the public the excuses they gave (e.g., “it’s not worth their time to debate misinformation”) were a bunch of hot air and their actual reason for refusing to engage in a debate was because it represented an existential risk to them.

In short, Kirsch at last found a way to undo the climate the media had worked for decades to create where members of the orthodoxy could spout their lies and nonsense with impunity, and in turn, more and more articles have begun to appear which attempt to justify why it is not appropriate for “science” to engage in a debate with an unorthodox viewpoint.

Note: Things did not always used to be this way. Not too long ago, doctors at hospitals would frequently debate medical controversies and conflicting policies their hospitals were considering for adoption.

One of the depressing trends we’ve watched occur for the last few decades has been for the following collective social beliefs to be established.

  • Step 1 — There are lots of problems with our world. Better science and better data is the solution to those issues.

  • Step 2 — Data is our salvation, we must do everything we can to collect it, and our society’s decisions should be based around it.

  • Step 3 — Data actually is too complicated for anyone except the experts to analyze.

  • Step 4 — Those who collect data (e.g., private corporations or the government) should have the right to keep the data private regardless of how much the interpretations of that data influences our lives. Justifications for this include “the need to protect privacy,” “the need to protect the financial investment a private company made in obtaining that ‘proprietary’ data” and the need to ensure the data is analyzed by “experts” who can understand the data.

  • Step 5 — Any data collected from a non-approved source should be disregarded if it conflicts with the existing narrative.

Amazingly, this strategy has worked. Nonetheless, many attempts were made to oppose it. For example, many people don’t know this, but the reason the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) exists was because in 1986, it was well known within the vaccine safety community that it was impossible for parents to report severe vaccine injuries (as doctors, vaccine manufactures and the government refused to document those).

That in turn made it possible to argue there was “no data” those injuries occurred, and hence dismiss parents whenever they shared the injury their child had experienced.

To solve this problem, the activists forced a provision into the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act which stipulated that a database the public could directly report vaccine injuries to needed to exist, and that the data in it must be made available to the public. Once this database was created, enough of the public learned of it for reports to start trickling into it, and vaccine safety advocates were at last able to identify a variety of specific injuries that were linked to various vaccines.

Conversely, as VAERS broke their monopoly on vaccine injury data, the entire medical establishment did all that they could to undermine VAERS (e.g., by not ever telling doctors it existed, by not staffing it with enough personnel to could process the reports it received and by claiming the data from VAERS was junk only a moron would try to infer anything from).

Because of this, until COVID, relatively few people were aware of VAERS existence or its utility (which led to approximately only 1% of vaccine injuries being reported to it). For example, listen to this response Peter Hotez gave to a surprise question he received at what he believed was a “safe” venue (and hence answered it):

Succinctly, Hotez states that if someone were to raise concerns about the data in VAERS to a doctor, they should be reminded that much better monitoring systems exist and that we should “trust” those ones, rather than any of the “junk” that comes out of VAERS.

Simultaneously, he neglects to mention that the public is never given access to those databases — rather they are told to trust what experts deduce from them, which not surprisingly always points towards vaccines being “safe and effective.”

Note: During COVID, through a lengthy FOIA request, we were eventually able to gain access to one of the “more reliable” databases Hotez referenced. That database showed the COVID vaccines were extremely dangerous and that the “expert” report which had previously been made to the public about that database was deceitfully crafted in a manner which concealed those red flags.

Likewise, in 2014, a CDC whistleblower revealed that after the CDC conducted a study to disprove the link between vaccines and autism, once the data showed the opposite (that vaccines caused autism) the CDC reworked the study to cover that link up and (illegally) disposed of the original raw data which showed that link.

Since it has become so difficult to access critical vaccine safety data, throughout COVID, we’ve instead been forced to rely upon lawsuits and whistleblowers to obtain it or to utilize public databases which indirectly show the societal impacts of the vaccines.

If you take a step back, this is completely absurd, especially given that millions of people had their core civil liberties taken away by vaccination mandates which were predicated on flawed interpretations of data we were expected to “trust” but never allowed to verify.

Nonetheless, given how widespread the harm from the vaccines was, more and more of that data was leaked. Recently, this culminated with a New Zealand whistleblower forfeiting his career and risking his personal freedom (presently he faces a 7 year prison sentence) to leak (anonymized) record level data.

This data provided a compelling case the COVID vaccine was harming people, and to my knowledge represents the first time record level data for a vaccine became available to the public.

Note: Record level data is the “gold-standard” of data that allows one to clearly determine if there is or is not a correlation between an intervention (e.g., a vaccine) and a change in the human body (e.g., death).

When I learned about this imminent release, my first thought was “I wonder how the vaccine zealots will respond to this.” In turn, my best guess was that they’d reuse the existing playbook (ridicule it, refuse to debate it, and insist it was the wrong data source to use for determining causation). This in turn ended up being exactly what happened.

For example, when David Gorski (a well-known ardent defender of the prevailing narrative who actively disparages Kirsch but steadfastly refuses to debate him) learned of the data, he chose to “address” it by publishing a piece on his blog.

Since Gorski consistently follows the Hotez playbook, the content of that article should be easy enough to guess; he made a variety of child-like attacks against Kirsch and the NZ whistleblower (e.g., they aren’t “experts” qualified to evaluate the data) and simultaneously insisted that the data was not sufficient for anything to determined from it.

What I found remarkable about Gorski’s piece was that it repeatedly implied a very simple question. If this dataset in Gorski’s eyes was not sufficient to assess the harm of the vaccines (as it only included 40% of the vaccine records rather than all of them, hence raising the possibility there was some element of bias in the sample and likewise did not contain an unvaccinated control group for the vaccine death rate to be compared to), who bears the burden of responsibility for this?

Gorski and Hotez (and many others) have asserted the burden of responsibility is on individual presenting the (incomplete) data and stating it suggests a red flag is present since more data is needed to be certain this indeed in the case.

However, the far more reasonable argument would be: if the available data shows a red flag is there, the parties possessing the complete data set (e.g., New Zealand’s government) have an obligation to provide that data to the public, and doing anything else is a tacit admission the complete dataset would prove the existence of that red flag.

In short, were any of these defenders of the orthodoxy to debate a skeptical audience in public, one of the first rebuttals to their arguments would be “that’s nice, but if you feel that the existing data isn’t good enough to assess if the COVID vaccines are unsafe, why aren’t you advocating for releasing the raw data which would settle this question?”

However, since the corporate owned media has granted them their own perpetual safe spaces, simple questions like this never can be raised.

The term “antiscience” has had a great deal of trouble “sticking” in the public’s mind both because it’s an awkward term and because it represents a fictional concept most people don’t really relate to (as only members of the scientific orthodoxy tend to be upset by the society refusing to blindly follow their pronouncements). Conversely however, another much more well-known term exists, which I would argue is due to it being a real concept many have direct experience with.

Scientism” is a way of describing science being transformed into a religious institution which cannot be questioned and must be viewed as the sole arbiter of truth (e.g., if you saw seven different healthy people die shortly after a vaccine, because that association has not been proven in science’s peer-reviewed literature, your observation is false and hence must be discounted).

Note: The above picture was put up by protesters in DC two years ago.

Since science is supposed to be a self-correcting institution which depends upon bad hypotheses being thrown out, the rise of scientism represents a profound tragedy for our society as it disables that critical corrective mechanism. Once science is transformed into scientism, entrenched scientific dogmas persist indefinitely while new ideas which challenge them are never permitted to see the light of day.

In turn, countless observers have noticed it has become far rarer for paradigm shifting ideas (e.g., the discovery of DNA) to emerge. Consider for instance what was discovered by this 2023 study published by Nature:

In short, we are spending far more on science for far far less.

Note: This is an unfortunate scenario which often is seen in an industry which receives large financial subsidies, as those subsidies incentivize the industry to focus on retaining those subsidies rather than creating economically competitive innovations (e.g., many believe the government giving unconditional student loans to everyone made higher education much more expensive but simultaneously much poorer in quality).

In the case of research, since the typical scientist’s career depends upon grants or industry employment, they cannot afford to publish anything which challenges the narrative as doing so blacklists them from those funding sources.

While Hotez (and Fauci) claim the greatest danger we’ve seen in the last 4 years has been the rise of “antiscience” (a lack of blind trust in our scientific institutions) I believe the actual issue has been the rapid proliferation of scientism throughout our society.

For instance, believing in the “magic” of science has become a common advertising theme the society has been conditioned to worship. To illustrate, consider one of the key marketing slogan’s Pfizer used to sell their vaccine (e.g., see this commercial):

Yet, at the same time they said this, as whistleblowers revealed, Pfizer was knowingly conducting fraudulent clinical trials which in contrast to the widely parroted “safe and effective” line, had actually found the opposite but concealed it. In turn, once the vaccines hit the market, we saw the same wave of injuries and vaccine failures that had actually been detected in the trials.

In short, “trusting the science” meant denying that was happening and not questioning the integrity Pfizer’s trial.

Note: This is similar to how Pfizer claimed their vaccine prevented COVID-19 transmission even though it was well known that had never been evaluated in the COVID vaccine trials.

Since this was a contentious issue (as it had been used to justify forcing people who didn’t want to vaccinate to vaccinate so others would “be protected”), a member of parliament eventually asked Pfizer why they did this, at which point, their spokesperson justified this lie by saying “we had to move at the speed of science.” Likewise, it was later discovered that the pivotal study used to justify that the unvaccinated represented a danger to society was junk science and paid for by Pfizer.

Throughout COVID-19, many honest academics and researchers observed that, much like after 9/11, a climate suddenly was created where it was simply not acceptable to question the prevailing narrative (e.g., see this article). As a result, many patently absurd ideas were put forward such as:

It goes without saying that had a scientific debate been permitted within the mass media for any of these points, they would have not have stood up to scrutiny.

However, because scientism became the state religion, the few who dared to challenge faced persecution not that different from what heretics experienced in theocracies of the past, and before long, the scientific establishment’s lies became entrenched dogmas the entire world was forced to suffer through (e.g., millions died).

Modern propaganda began to emerge at the time of the first World War. As it came into being, a fierce debate emerged over if it was acceptable to use it, as propaganda offered the promise of ensuring the proper functioning of an increasingly technologically complex society but simultaneously was antithetical to Democracy as it took away the ability of the populace to decide their governance.

Eventually, the propagandists won out as it was believed Hitler (a master propagandist) could not be stopped unless equally effective propaganda was used by the Allies.

Since that time, propaganda has gradually proliferated in our society, with much of it revolving around the idea we should “trust” whoever the currently anointed experts are. Governance in turn has become that expert class deciding what we should do and then commissioning a propaganda company public relations firm to ensure the public complies with their policy.

Because of how effective this model is, I had largely given up on much of the Democratic process or many of the core issues I cared about ever improving. However, two major changes have upended the paradigm we’ve been stuck with for decades.

The first was the creation of the internet and (due to its profitability) it becoming inseparably intertwined with every aspect of our lives. Because of this, an uncontrollable medium now exists which can allow compelling information to be freely distributed throughout society.

The second was the unchecked greed of the ruling class (the propagandist form of government made it possible for them to keep taking more and more, so they did). This is important because while propaganda can make people believe truly remarkable things, once it diverges too far from reality (e.g., getting COVID repeatedly despite being vaccinated with a “95% effective” vaccine was a huge red-pill for many).

Because of this, there is no longer a clear way to ensure the continued control of the masses, and as a result, those who have been in power for decades are now facing an existential threat to their power base.

Note: All the above is discussed in more detail within this excellent article.

If we want to reclaim our Democracy, it is critical we allow open and honest debate to occur. As the last few years have shown, we cannot have the “expert’s” narrative be shielded from all scrutiny, and as the internet has shown, the monopoly they used to hold over the truth is rapidly fading away.

Conversely, I believe if the experts wish to regain the credibility they have lost, they must earn it by publicly defending the merits of their positions, and I believe as time moves forward, the expert class will see realize this too.

Lastly, I want to thank each of you for your support of my work here and on Substack over the last year (you make much of it possible). The world is shifting quite rapidly (e.g., people are moving from the mass media to the independent media in droves) and I am quite hopeful 2024 will mark the point when our voice grows loud enough that we can begin to correct the terrible course of scientific apparatus has taken.

Postscript: Peter Hotez “responded” to this article after it went viral. Because of this, I wrote a follow up to this piece which illustrated the most objectionable content in Hotez’s and showed how it is part of a much more nefarious PR campaign to prevent all dissent from the narrative being censored (e.g., when the WHO tried to push the next “emergency” vaccine on us). The follow up article can be read here.

A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician in the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate his exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and I’m grateful to share them. I also respect his desire to remain anonymous as he is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD’s work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

Get to Know Your Farmers

Video Link

  • My biodynamic brand, Solspring, has one of the largest assortments of biodynamic products of any company in the world. We offer more than 70 Demeter certified biodynamic pantry staples, from snacks and spreads, to coffees and teas

  • Biodynamic agriculture is a spiritual-ethical-ecological approach to agriculture, initially developed by Austrian scholar Rudolf Steiner, Ph.D., (1861-1925). Biodynamic certification meets both organic and regenerative certification standards, and then some

  • Biodynamic farming provides superior crops both in volume and increased density of nutrients. Biodynamic farms are also completely self-sustaining

  • Buying foods produced by farms certified as biodynamic through Demeter offers the greatest assurance of food quality and environmental sustainability

  • Get to know your local farmers. Talk to them. Visit their farms. Organic, regenerative and biodynamic farmers tend to be extremely passionate about their work and most will embrace the opportunity to educate consumers about what sets them apart

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

The short video above features three American biodynamic farmers who supply the raw materials that go into our biodynamic product line. The first is Justin Trussoni, president of Fifth Season Cooperative in Viroqua, Wisconsin. Trussoni grows biodynamic hemp and vegetables.

The second is Cecil Wright, a biodynamic maple farmer and founder of the Maple Valley Co-op. The third is Brian Wickert, vice president of Fifth Season Cooperative. He’s been growing biodynamic vegetables and herbs since 1997. Wickert is also the primary formulator of the biodynamic soil preparations used by other biodynamic growers.

As noted by Wickert, my biodynamic brand, Solspring,1 now has one of the largest assortments of biodynamic products of any company in the world. We offer more than 70 Demeter certified biodynamic pantry staples, from snacks and spreads, to coffees and teas, and that’s in no small part thanks to our partnership with growers like Wickert, Wright and Trussoni, who put their hearts and souls into their work.

Biodynamic agriculture is a spiritual-ethical-ecological approach to agriculture, initially developed by Austrian scholar Rudolf Steiner,2 Ph.D., (1861-1925). Today, it meets both organic and regenerative certification standards, and then some.

Biodynamic farming provides superior crops both in volume and increased density of nutrients. Biodynamic farms are also completely self-sustaining — something that cannot be said even for most organic farms. For example, biodynamic standards do not simply require farmers to use organic animal feed. Most of the feed must actually originate from the farm itself.

And, while an organic farmer can section off as little as 10% of the farm for the growing of certified organic goods, 100% of a biodynamic farm must be in compliance with biodynamic standards to qualify for certification.

In addition to that, 10% of the land must also be dedicated to increasing biodiversity. This could take the form of forest land, wetland or insectary, for example. Biodynamic farming also has all of the features associated with regenerative agriculture, such as crop rotation, the use of cover crops and so on.

Having animals integrated on the farm, with a focus on animal welfare, is another core principle of biodynamic farming. In short, the farm is viewed as a living, self-sustainable whole, and biodiversity of both plants and animals are integral parts of that.

In my view, this is really as good as it gets, and buying foods produced by farms certified as biodynamic through Demeter offers the greatest assurance of food quality and environmental sustainability.

If you want to take a deeper dive into the biodynamic principles pioneered by Steiner, check out Jonathan Stedall’s documentary “The Challenge of Rudolf Steiner,” below. It’s also available on Amazon Prime Video.

Modern chemical-based agriculture has resulted in the destruction of rural economies, water and air pollution, depletion of aquifers, destruction of pollinators and biodiversity, soil erosion and loss of soil fertility, climate destabilization, food contamination, nutrient degradation and the deterioration of public health.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,3 6 in 10 American adults now have a chronic disease; 4 in 10 have two or more, and one of the primary reasons for that is poor nutrition.

The most recent government data4 back that up, showing that 45% of Americans do not meet the daily requirements for vitamin A, 46% don’t get enough vitamin C, 95% fall short of their vitamin D requirement, 84% don’t get enough vitamin E, and 15% don’t get enough zinc. Any one of these deficiencies can spell trouble. As noted by the authors:5

“A well-functioning immune system is essential for human health and well-being. Micronutrients such as vitamins A, C, D, E, and zinc have several functions throughout the immune system, yet inadequate nutrient intakes are pervasive in the US population.

A large body of research shows that nutrient inadequacies can impair immune function and weaken the immune response … Dietary supplements can help address nutrient inadequacy for these immune-support nutrients …

Given the long-term presence and widening of nutrient gaps in the U.S. — specifically in critical nutrients that support immune health — public health measures should adopt guidelines to ensure an adequate intake of these micronutrients.”

Sad to say, I don’t think that will happen, because even if you consume the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables, you’ll still fall short of nutritional requirements for the simple reason that today’s conventionally-grown produce contain far fewer nutrients than their counterparts 50 years ago.6

The reason for this is because plants get their nutrients from the soil, and if the soil is depleted of nutrients, the fruits, veggies and herbs will contain lower amounts as well.

Factory farmed, GMO grain-fed meat, eggs and dairy also typically contain lower levels of omega-3s, vitamin E, beta-carotene, antioxidants and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) than 100% grass fed and biodynamically-raised animal products.

Research7 has consistently shown that organic foods contain significantly higher amounts of antioxidants, especially in no-till regenerative systems,8 and an antioxidant-rich diet is associated with reduced risks for chronic diseases, including heart and brain disease and certain cancers.

And again, biodynamic is organic on steroids, so it stands to reason that biodynamic foods might be even more nutritious than certified organic, primarily because so much of the focus is on optimizing the soil.

Food security is no longer a given, even if you have plenty of available land, and here’s why:

  • Groundwater depletion is accelerating.9

  • Water pollution is worsening — Precious water sources are also threatened by pollution from large-scale monocrop farms and concentrated animal feeding operations.10 According to a report11 by Environment America, corporate agribusiness is one of the biggest threats to America’s waterways.

  • Soil erosion and degradation is rapidly worsening — Twelve years ago, in 2012, University of Sydney professor John Crawford noted that 40% of agricultural soils around the globe were already classified as degraded or seriously degraded.12 In large part due to conventional farming methods, topsoil is also being lost 10 to 40 times faster than nature can regenerate and replenish it naturally.13 14

  • Desertification is speeding up — Land is turning into desert at a rapid clip and, with it, we’re losing biodiversity of both plant and animal life.

The good news is that biodynamic farming addresses all of these problems and more. We just need to get a larger segment of agriculture to make the transition. Our decision to partner with Maple Valley Co-op and Fifth Season Cooperative is just one small part of the effort to expand and normalize that niche. Expanding the demand by buying biodynamic products is how you can help in that effort. As noted by Wickert, reasons to buy biodynamic food include:

  • It’s more nutritious, so you don’t need to eat as much

  • It has longer shelf-life than conventional produce

  • Biodynamic supply chains engage in association economics, making sure everyone in the supply chain, from the bottom to the top, is able to make a decent living

I hope you’ve enjoyed this little “sneak peak” into the biodynamic farms that are part of our brand. Knowing who your farmers are, where your food comes from, how it’s grown and according to which principles — these are all important aspects of a truly healthy lifestyle.

So, get to know your local farmers. Talk to them. Visit their farms. Most will be happy to show you around and discuss their processes. Organic, regenerative and biodynamic farmers tend to be extremely passionate about their work and most will embrace the opportunity to educate consumers about what sets them apart.

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.