‘As we begin to emerge from the tunnel of the COVID crisis and all of the biowarfare, information warfare, WHO, WEF and US Department of Homeland Security mismanagement which has caused so much damage, we are being presented with a “Great Reset” vision of a fourth industrial revolution, transhumanism, and a new class structure of Physicals, Virtuals, Machines and “Davos Man” Overlords which is being globally pitched by the World Economic Forum and its acolytes as the inevitable outcome.
Pointing out the naivety and flaws in the reasoning of Klaus Schwab and his wingman Yuval Noah Harari is a favorite trope of those writing from an alternative perspective. This recent essay, titled “The Dangerous Populist Science of Yuval Noah Harari” (06 July 2022, Current Affairs) provides an example of the ease with which Harari’s popularized dark visions can be dissected and revealed as sensationalist tripe. As author Darshana Narayanan summarizes, “The best-selling author is a gifted storyteller and popular speaker. But he sacrifices science for sensationalism, and his work is riddled with errors”. Based on my reading, the same critiques apply to the books “COVID-19: The Great Reset” and “The Great Narrative” by Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret. But the power of the WEF and its global army of trained agents to direct public policy at both national and transnational levels forces us all to take their poorly reasoned arguments and dark musings seriously.
It is one thing to criticize someone else’s vision of the future, but quite another to develop a compelling alternative. I have been traveling the world, trying to advance the cause of medical freedom and help others make sense out of what we have all experienced over the last three years. During these travels, I have found that many leaders from the various independently developed resistance groups often speak of similar things; a rejection of centralized authority, a need to build organizational structures which will not merely recapitulate the same leadership failures of present social, political, and corporate structures, and a vague sense of a more decentralized world. This is often posited as the alternative to the globally centralized, utilitarian/marxist/command economy, Malthusian corporatist/fascist vision promoted by the WEF, and increasingly by the United Nations, World Trade Organization, Bank of International Settlements/Central banks and the World Health Organization.
Is the dark vision of the fourth industrial revolution, transhumanism, fusion of man and machine, and total centralized control by a small group of unelected elite Overlords inevitable, as Klaus Schwab and Yuval Noah Harari would have us believe?
I recently learned of Christopher Michael Langan, who has been quietly developing one alternative vision which incorporates many aspects of what I have heard many global leaders within the medical freedom movement beginning to explore. Mr. Langen refers to this vision and model of an alternative future as “The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe” (CTMU). When I first read about these ideas, they struck me as truly transformational in the same way that my first introduction to Mattias Desmet’s “Mass formation” theories have been. It is useful to remember that this theory of Mr. Langan was developed well before the COVIDcrisis, even though much of what he envisions and describes is prescient in retrospect.
By all accounts, Mr. Langen may be one of the most intelligent currently living individuals on the planet, and like many with an IQ measured greater than 150, it can be a challenge for the vast majority of us to follow some of his more advanced logic and writing. In his commitment to living a “double-life strategy”, on one side a regular guy, doing his job and exchanging pleasantries, and on the other side coming home to perform equations in his head and working in isolation on his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, I find many similarities with the way I have chosen to live my own life. Plus, he lives with his wife Gina (née LoSasso), a clinical neuropsychologist, in northern Missouri where they own and operate a horse ranch. I don’t know about you, but this sounds like someone I would like to meet and spend some time with.
Christopher Langen, weightlifter, construction worker, cowboy, forest service firefighter, farmhand, for over twenty years, a bouncer on Long Island, New York, and a super genius.
Here is a lightly edited transcript of the video clip attached above:
We’re approaching a juncture, and this is really a bifurcation into possible futures. One of those futures will take us toward a centralized form of government. It’s more or less like a hive. A certain cohort of elites are going to be in charge and everybody else is going to be… They’ll be the overclass and everybody else will be a kind of underclass, which serves them and does pretty much what they’re told.
On the other hand, we can go in another direction, which is to distribute responsibility and decision making power over everybody. And of course, that takes enhanced intelligence and responsibility. So there’s a certain challenge associated with this. We have to make up our minds very quickly how we’re going to do this. If we want to distribute responsibility, then the first thing that we need is a sound understanding of human nature and the nature of reality, and this is what I propose to bring to bear on the problem.
Mr. Langen refers to the two alternative futures which he has focused on as involving singularities, alternative nodes through which humanity will pass. His language for describing these two consists of “Metareligion as the human singularity” and the “Technology singularity”. The technology singularity which he envisions is very aligned with the fourth industrial revolution/transhumanism dystopian corporatist/fascist government described by Schwab, Malleret, and Harari.
What I find particularly relevant to the current challenge of visualizing an alternative to the mutterings of the WEF and its acolytes is Christopher’s vision of a separate reality from the one that they wish to use in “shaping” a future.
Mr. Langen’s 2002 publication “The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory” provides an example of the densely reasoned complex explanations which he often provides, in which he discusses concepts which rely on language and terms which he has had to personally develop because the English language is not sufficient to allow him to adequately express his ideas and insights. Fortunately for neophytes such as myself, his 2018 essay “Metareligion as the Human Singularity” (published in the journal “Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy”, vol. 14, no. 1) is much more accessible.
If, like me, you find the vision, thought and insights which I have tried to capture with the quotes below to be useful in imagining a better, decentralized future which offers a more desirable vision of the future, I recommend reading the entire work and then venturing a journey into the many podcast interviews and writings of this home grown American genius and philosopher.
To understand his own identity, man requires a coherent and therefore monic self-model reflecting its psychological coherence and relating it to all levels of reality. That is, man requires a valid interpretation of the human individual in society, and of the individual and society in reality at large. This interpretation must take the form of an unbroken correspondence spanning the extended relationship between man, as an inhabitant of reality, and reality in its most basic and universal form; man must see himself as an integral part of reality, and reality as an extension of his own being within a single unified ontology or metaphysics. In short, man and reality must share a common metaphysical identity.
Where metaphysics is a language expressing the relationship between mental and physical reality, spirituality can be understood as the metaphysical essence of human identity, and religion as its organizational manifestation. In its various benign forms, religion provides man with self-understanding and a sense of community … a model of the individual and his or her relationship to other people, society, and reality at large. Religion tells people who they are, and mankind what it is, by establishing their relationship to the global environment on the spiritual level; it is a binary relationship of man to his real environment, and where the global environment of each human being includes all others, the relationship of mankind to itself.
The spiritual model of self, the extended man-reality relationship required by religion, is thus a stratification of human identity from the individual to ultimate reality, the level of reality that cannot be explained in terms of anything prior to itself or any sort of exterior embedment. This follows from the fact that man is embedded in reality and thus shares all of its most general and ubiquitous properties, up to human limitations of structure and dynamics. Parallel to this degree of extension is the outward extension of self that is sought in certain Asian religious traditions; the self becomes ever more expansive as its hidden depths are plumbed.
But here we must note that the phrase “ultimate reality” is necessarily a partial description of God, incorporated in the (otherwise variously defined) identity of all viable monotheistic religions. Any God not incorporating ultimate reality could exist only in a properly inclusive reality partially beyond His influence and creative power, and would thus come up short in virtually every major strain of monotheism. On the other hand, this description holds regardless of any more specific properties incorporated in various definitions of God.
DUALISM: REALITY TORN IN TWO
In mainstream social and economic theory, a human being is understood as a mechanistic automaton driven by individual self-interest and governed by impersonal laws of nature and rules of behaviorism. Human automata are subject to conditioning on the basis of individual self-interest, which is a function of the individual’s pleasure and happiness, freedom from want, pain, and sadness, and standards of biological fitness including survival and reproduction, all of which inhabit a standardized economy with a monetary metric. Man is thus simplistically viewed as an economic agent subject to monetary control, through centralization of which the entire future of mankind can in principle be mechanistically determined by the calculated pushing of buttons. Obviously, this dualistic view of man represents a complete negation of human dignity and sovereignty, reducing the human race to cattle. It is also incompatible with any kind of religion other than that referred to by Marx as an “opiate of the masses”.
Sound familiar? This is the vision which unites the writings of Schwab, Malleret, and Harari, and by extension the World Economic Forum. This “man as economic agent” is essentially the fundamental unifying model currently shared by the WEF and its globalist affiliate organizations.
Langen then launches into some definitions before describing his alternative.
For present purposes, a “singularity” is a point at which a system must undergo a directional break, jump through a limit, or be redefined in order to survive regardless of how it may evolve before or after. Accordingly, it can be understood as a kind of systemic destiny, an inevitable convergence of possible paths or trajectories of systemic evolution. Paths converge on points, and where such a point marks a sharp change in the smooth overall trajectory of a system, it comprises a kind of systemic “metapoint” which can be seen as marking a systemic mutation or change of inertia. This provides a tentative mathematical conceptualization of “singularity” for social systems.
The related forms of dualism thus far discussed — Cartesian dualism, naturalism, NOMA [the “non-overlapping magisteria” of science and religion], and so on — are opposed to the human need for a coherent spiritual identity. This implies a bifurcation or divergence, a human evolutionary choice between two possible adaptations or destinies respectively corresponding to the anthropic and technological aspects of an impending “singular” transformation. Each possible destiny corresponds to the dominance of one aspect over the other, and may be associated with its own conventional type of singularity.
On one side is the Human Singularity, a mass realization of the expansive spiritual identity of the human species. Basically, this is the mass spiritual awakening that we have been led to expect by, e.g., certain currents in “New Age” thought. The prototype for this kind of singularity is the Omega Point of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, representing an evolutionary terminus and divine spiritual unification event through which mankind, and reality itself, will achieve “Christ-Consciousness” and be forever transformed.
On the other side is the Tech Singularity, seminally formulated by the celebrated mathematician John von Neumann as the approaching juncture at which “technological progress will become incomprehensively rapid and complicated”, prior to which “the ever-accelerating progress of technology … gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity [italicized for emphasis] in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue” (Ulam, 1958). In short, von Neumann foresaw an uncontrollable technological quickening, a sudden acceleration of complexity followed by the transformation (or extinction) of humanity.
Most discussions of the Tech Singularity have been naive to the point of disingenuity, boiling down to starry-eyed encomiums to the power of human intelligence to inventively couple with reality on the physical level of being using technological marvels both real and imagined, including implants, prosthetics, genetic engineering, virtual realities, and above all, a merging of human intelligence with AI. The problem with such discussions is that they seem to inhabit a socioeconomic and political vacuum, whereas in fact, the singularity concept is fraught with worrisome complications involving economic and sociopolitical factors apart from which it cannot be properly evaluated.
The Human and Tech Singularities relate to each other by a kind of duality; the former is extended and spacelike, representing the even distribution of spiritual and intellectual resources over the whole of mankind, while the latter is a compact, pointlike concentration of all resources in the hands of just those who can afford full access to the best and most advanced technology. Being opposed to each other with respect to the distribution of the resources of social evolution, they are also opposed with respect to the structure of society; symmetric distribution of the capacity for effective governance corresponds to a social order based on individual freedom and responsibility, while extreme concentration of the means of governance leads to a centralized, hive-like system at the center of which resides an oligarchic concentration of wealth and power, with increasing scarcity elsewhere due to the addictive, self-reinforcing nature of privilege. (Note that this differs from the usual understanding of individualism, which is ordinarily associated with capitalism and juxtaposed with collectivism; in fact, both capitalism and collectivism, as they are monopolistically practiced on the national and global scales, lead to oligarchy and a loss of individuality for the vast majority of people. A Human Singularity is something else entirely, empowering individuals rather than facilitating their disempowerment.)
The existence of two possible singularities presupposes a point of bifurcation or divergence beyond which the evolutionary momentum of mankind must carry it. Presently, all of the momentum belongs to the Tech Singularity; it is preferred by the financial, corporate, and governmental interests which drive the general economy. This momentum is reinforced by the seeming unavailability of alternatives, i.e., the nonexistence of any other track onto which society might be steered in order to escape an oligarchical AI lockdown. It is one thing for humankind to awaken en masse to its impending enslavement through a seemingly inevitable Tech Singularity; it is quite another to have a superior alternative clearly in view.
In order to reach any alternate destination whatsoever, humanity must understand what has been driving it toward the Tech Singularity. At this point, the reason is clear: the virtually automatic concentration of wealth and power, which has been observed to occur under both capitalism and socialism, fractionates humanity into an overclass and an underclass between which all else is crushed out of existence as though by the jaws of a vise. That is, the top and bottom levels of society become the jaws of a vise which, due to the screwing down of the upper jaw against the anvil-like lower jaw, crushes the middle class and all meaningful competition out of existence, thus normalizing the hive through the economic, physical, and psychological standardization of its drones and workers.
For reasons that should by now be evident, let us call this process a “parasitic divergence” — i.e., an organized divergence of humanity into a parasitic overclass and a relatively impoverished underclass serving as its mind-controlled host, mirroring the gruesome effects of certain obligate parasites on the organisms they attack — and acknowledge that it is driven by the self-reinforcing and therefore accelerating acquisition of wealth, power, and technological control by the rich. Left to run away with itself, this process ultimately leads to a “singular” concentration of wealth and power … a kind of sociopolitical-economic “black hole” that never stops gravitating. As the top jaw of the vise grows smaller, denser, and stronger, the bottom jaw grows larger and weaker; and as human utility becomes increasingly concentrated, every significant increase in the wealth of the overclass translates into a greater amount of misery for the underclass, arbitrarily diminishing the net utility of mankind.
Parasitic divergences have occurred many times in history, but the present one is different. Due to the double whammy of globalization and powerful surveillance and coercion technology, the one now in progress is geographically ubiquitous and quite possibly irreversible. If humanity is to save itself from the insectile, hive-like future associated with a Tech Singularity, the Human Singularity must prevail, empowering mankind to exert sufficient control over the production, distribution, and application of technology to prevent its unlimited oligarchical abuse. To bring this about, it is not enough to merely distribute a cognitive avoidance mechanism out of which the moneyed elite can buy and bribe their way as usual, given the absence of a well-defined alternative direction in which humanity can proceed; rather, an alternative direction must be defined and universally distributed in cognitive and attitudinal form. In short, in order to have a meaningful mass awakening, the content of the awakening must be defined and distributed to the members of humanity, thus immunizing them against parasitic mind control. Because this content must be spiritual, the involvement of religion is unavoidable.
I think that these words and vision speak for themselves. I once again remind that they were first published in 2018. As far as I am concerned, this essay gets the closest to the emergent sense of an alternative future consistent with what many in the medical freedom movement have been groping towards of any that I have ever read.’https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/two-possible-futures-for-humanity#play
‘For the second time in a week, top scientists have reported that “Omicron specific” Covid mRNA boosters are a $5 billion taxpayer-financed marketing gimmick.
The new shots work no better than the original mRNA shots to produce antibodies specifically targeting the Omicron variant.
And the Omicron shots are even WORSE than the original boosters in producing T-cells that target Omicron, according to the researchers, part of a group led by Dr. Dan Barouch, a highly respected virologist. This finding is of particular concern because T-cells, the second line of the immune system, keep infections from becoming too severe.
Boosters using the original mRNA formulation have been largely phased out, because – as public health bureaucrats now admit – they stop working against Omicron infection within weeks. In fact, real-world data from many countries suggest they increase the risk of infection within months.
The “Omicron-specific” boosters were supposed to solve that problem. Regulators approved them in August, despite a lack of any clinical trial evidence they reduced coronavirus infections or serious cases of Covid in people. The Federal government agreed to pay Pfizer and Moderna $5 billion for 171 million doses of them.
But both Dr. Barouch’s study and another last week from Dr. David Ho, another top virologist, found that Omicron-specific boosters work no better than the original boosters against Omicron. Both studies showed the antibodies our immune systems produce after the Omicron shot are more effective against the original and now essentially extinct version of Sars-Cov-2 than against Omicron variants.
This phenomenon is called “original antigenic sin” or “immune imprinting,” and can occur after any vaccination – or infection. But the mRNA shots appear particularly likely to cause it, probably because they stimulate such high levels of anti-spike antibodies when they are first given.
The findings help explain why so many people, including Centers for Disease Control director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, have recently tested positive shortly after being boosted.
But Dr. Barouch’s group went further than Dr. Ho’s, examining T-cells as well. It found the same problem; following both the Omicron and the old booster, T-cells focused much more on the original Sars-Cov-2 than Omicron variants.
T-cells are a crucial second line of immune defense, helping the body keep infections from becoming too severe. Because Omicron is not very dangerous to most people, so a weak T-cell response does not matter much against it. But if a future Sars-Cov-2 variant is more dangerous, the relative lack of a T-cell response could put vaccinated people may be at serious risk.
(Bivalent is a fancy word for “Omicron-specific.” Except the Omicron-specific booster isn’t Omicron-specific at all, which is why T-cells targeting Omicron hardly rise at all following the bivalent booster, while they more than double after the original booster.)
As the researchers concluded:
Our findings suggest that immune imprinting by prior antigenic exposure may pose a greater challenge than currently appreciated for inducing robust immunity to SARS-CoV-2 variants.
Such a polite way to say, we gave a billion-plus people mRNA shots that probably opened them to future Sars-Cov-2 infections forever.
No worries! Lessons learned and all that.’https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/another-new-study-yes-a-second-one/comments?publication_id=363080&post_id=81234239&isFreemail=true&comments=true
mRNA Vaccines: Fact Versus Fiction.
‘My purpose is not to overwhelm you with all of the various clips, newspaper clippings, scientific journal articles, et cetera, et cetera, but rather to help you to comprehend the technology and why it’s being pushed and how it’s being pushed. I’m going to present this as being focused on comprehension, not politics.
Now that may elicit some, “Oh, you’re just controlled opposition.” That seems to be a favorite theme that’s hitting me and Jordan Peterson and Peter McCullough and a number of others, which is extremely divisive right now and isn’t helping any of us. But just to set the record straight, two months ago in the Global COVID Summit Declaration IV we made unequivocal statements about the need to prosecute, that the need for accountability is there, that the vaccine should be stopped. They’re neither saved nor effective, et cetera. I just want to make it clear that I put out, and my colleagues in Global COVID Summit and the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists have been very clear about our position regarding these products. I won’t call them vaccines. I think that’s really not an appropriate term given their activity, but that’s not my purpose here. I’m hoping that by, if I can make the slides work, there we go, that by the time we’re through with this, you’ll kind of understand these core things. What are the drivers of COVID crisis response and the multiple truths behind them?
Looking at understanding the RNA technology as a way to start to make sense out of what we’ve all experienced. Paul has just given you another lens that through which you can view what has occurred. There are many others. He, for instance, just barely touched on the World Economic Forum and the World Health Organization, the collusion with the UN, et cetera. He hasn’t really talked about the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation initiatives. There is so many different ways that we can understand and begin to process what we’ve experienced over the last two and a half years. I speak about those various ways in different forums. But this one, I’m just going to focus on the RNA tech. It’s enough to handle that in the time we have here.
What was the unmet medical need that was being addressed? I think it’s important for us to understand at least those points of view of the other side that are comprehensible. There are clearly aspects that are nefarious, but I want you to understand at least some of the underlying rationale. Understand genetic vaccine technology, including mRNA. What is really the tech? It has been presented to a lot of people as a black box. It has this acronym that seems very intimidating to many people. I hope that when you leave here, you’ll feel that you have a good grasp of what the technology is, what its fundamentals are so that you can process information and read the papers and make your own decisions about what you think things mean.
I want you to understand the difference between the payload and the platform. We’re talking about the fundamentals of the pharmacology of this product category. I want you to understand how and why it’s being pushed. This is more about me trying to give you insight and understanding about what is going on here as seen through this one lens of the mRNA technology and the falsehoods and truths that are behind it. It is only one of many lenses. I’ve spoken about mass formation. I’ve spoken about the World Economic Forum. I’ve spoken about the administrative state. There’s so many variables going on here that we could talk for eight hours, but I’m just going to focus on the RNA.
Why mRNA vaccines? Why is this being pushed? There is this universal global, and understand what you’ve experienced here in Virginia is mirrored by the people that I was just speaking to at a conference in Padua, Italy about an hour and a half ago. The same things have been experienced in Brazil, all over the Western world. Why has this been pushed? What is the unmet need that’s being addressed? Now, I’m not placing a value on whether they’re right or wrong. I just want you to understand the underlying logic, at least at the surface of this.
The problem we have is that the technology to enable individuals to engineer bio-weapons has become so trivial that a college senior working out of their, or somebody of similar education level, they can self-train, working out of their garage with stuff they can get off of eBay, can easily recreate the most lethal pathogen combinations that our government came up with in the bio-warfare program that we ran for years. I’m not saying we’re not still running it. We do it under a different moniker. We call it defensive bio-weapons research, not offensive bio-weapons research. I’m not sure what the difference is, but that’s the language that’s imposed from the bio-warfare treaty that was signed. It leaks like a sieve.
But I want you to understand, and if you don’t mind keeping the slides up on the monitor because I need those because I’m of a certain age that I need these visual connections. Just to frame it, with traditional vaccine technology, we anticipate having vaccines, if everything goes well, for all of the bio-warfare agents deployed up until the end of World War II, that’s tularemia and smallpox and all those things. Vaccines for all of the warfare agents deployed up until the end of World War II, and we’ll have all those by the year 2050 if everything goes well.
Clearly, now we’re in an environment in which a young adult or a bad actor in any part of the world can create very potent bio-weapons. Clearly, we don’t have the capability to respond to that efficiently. That is the underlying unmet medical need. That’s the problem set. We need to be all clear about that. We get all wound up. I’m not defending in any way the way this has been deployed. I’m not saying that this solution is the best solution. I’m just saying there is an unmet medical need, which is there is a very significant threat. It is not trivial. It’s not a figment of Cheney’s imagination that bio-warfare agents can be engineered.
I’m convinced we have been doing most of the engineering up until this point, and the stuff that is going to come out in Bobby’s (Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.) next book is going to blow your circuits in terms of what we have done in Georgia and Ukraine. We’ll park that. These things are being done. The problem is that once they’re let loose, which we’ve all experienced over the last three years, it’s almost three years now really. It’s the end of September, the data shows that the beginning of the outbreak was at least September of 2019, if not earlier. We’ve got three years of experience now in what this means.
Once those things are let loose, they can sweep the world. The technology is now advanced to the point where pathogens can be engineered so they’re relatively specific for different ethnic groups based on their genetics. Pathogens can be engineered. I can tell you my friends, or what used to be my buddies at DTRA, Defense Threat Reduction Agency Chem Bio Division, are extremely acutely aware that agents can be engineered to target ethnic groups. That’s the battlefield. That’s the real environment we’re in. We have to have some technology to enable rapid response.
We have to have some technology to enable rapid response for special forces teams that are going to go in to wherever the bad guys are when we detect them and address that problem and take them out. Those special forces need to be protected. We need to have capabilities that can be deployed at the battalion level. We need to have capabilities that can be deployed at the population level. This RNA tech was one of the ones, together with monoclonal antibodies, that the government has long believed had huge potential to enable that type of rapid response.
They actually like monoclonal antibodies better. The idea behind monoclonal antibodies that they really like is you can administer these products to a special forces group. They go in theater, do their business, come back out, go see their wife, monoclonal antibody is gone. It’s cleared. Yay. The problem is that the technology just has not performed. The monoclonal antibody technology is too cludgy. It’s too cumbersome. What we’ve learned over the last three years is that viruses and pathogens can evolve to escape that fairly rapidly because they’re fairly specific. We’ve all seen the viral evolution in real time. We experienced it.
That’s the unmet medical need and the justification underlying this. That there is an unmet need for some technology, that will now allow rapid response to both emerging pathogens and engineered pathogens such as bio-warfare or terrorism-based pathogens. I think we can all agree that we would like such a technology to exist.
The truth is that DARPA, which is the operational development arm, basically the CIA, fell in love with the RNA technology over a decade ago. They decided to capitalize it and force it into the market space. For instance, they’re the ones that have capitalized through In-Q-Tel, their investment arm, the new RNA manufacturing facilities up in Canada. This is a CIA program. There’s no ambiguity here. I’m not telling state secrets.
The technology was basically pulled out of the trash can, because it had been suppressed by Merck after I developed it over 30 years ago. Then it was advanced very aggressively by DARPA. DARPA funded and basically built Moderna. They’re continuing to push all this. They’re pushing it through the government. What you’re seeing is the power of the intelligence community and the new bio-defense industrial complex that’s developed since the anthrax attacks and it really goes beyond that in being able to push their agenda through the government.
When you see all these circumventing of normal procedures and rules, that’s happening because largely our intelligence community is pushing that through the administrative state structure. Why are they doing it? I think if we just back up for a minute and say, “Okay, let’s try to give them the benefit of the doubt for a moment.” What I think they are believing is that they have to push this, they have to get acceptance for this technology because there are no alternatives. The threat is so severe, in their opinion, in their spooky world, the threat is so severe that something has …
spooky world. The threat is so severe that something has to exist, and this is something they’ve latched onto. Now, I’m saying this not to defend them. I’m saying this to try to help you to understand what you’ve been subjected to. DNA versus RNA vaccines. I had come up with both ideas back at the Salk in ’89. DNA can also be used for vaccine purposes. This is the core idea, the little brilliant insight that I had. I don’t think I’m being arrogant in saying that. This little thing that popped into my brain when I was at this gene therapy lab at the Salk, and I realized that we had a problem. The gene therapy wasn’t going to work because the new genes that are the good genes are seen by the immune system as just different. They’re producing different proteins, and your immune system doesn’t know whether it’s a good protein or a bad protein. It just knows that it’s a different protein. It will attack it.
And that turned out to be the logic flaw in gene therapy. And they still haven’t solved that. The only way to solve it is to put the genes into an immunocompromised compartment like the back of your eye or to immunosuppressed people. And I basically was there as a student passionately wanting to develop gene therapy, realized that the whole field that I’d committed my life to was never going to work. And came up with the idea, oh, well, it could be used to elicit a vaccine response. Gene therapy could be used for vaccines. Which is why I’ve said all the way through, these are not really vaccines. These are gene therapy technologies applied to vaccination. That includes the adenovirus vectors. It’s explicit.
And the first embodiment, I filed these patents, and they included use of mRNA in particular. I thought it had advantages, but also, DNA. And the world picked up on the DNA part because it worked in mice. Merck bought the rights, and they spent well over a billion dollars that could never make it work. And they just abandoned it until, like I said, the CIA basically picked up the RNA part out of the trash can and pushed it forward and made it work. So, that’s what’s happening here. It’s about the idea that we can use gene therapy technology, deliver genes into your body and cause your cells to become little manufacturing factories, to produce a part of a virus, a foreign protein, and generate an immune response, both a T-cell and a B-cell. So, cellular and humoral immunity against that foreign protein in a way that would be very similar as if you got infected by the virus. But there’s no virus. That was the logic.
The problem is like everything, it all sounds great on paper, and then, you got to make it work, and you got to deal with the consequences when things don’t go right. I just wanted you to understand that. The logic for why mRNA was because mRNA typically only lasts for a few hours or maybe half a day after it’s manufactured in your body. The idea that I had way back then was that this RNA could be used like a drug, administered, and that if somebody has a toxicity, a toxic reaction, it’ll be degraded and gone. Just like you clear most drugs. And then, a physician can decide, let’s not do that again. That was the idea behind RNA as opposed to DNA, which sticks around for a long, long time in your body once it’s in a cell. That’s where this started from.
Now, let’s talk about, remember, my goal is that you walk out of this understanding. This is not a focus on passing judgment. This is a focus on empowering you to comprehend what’s going on. And the starting point is you have to understand that DNA makes RNA, and RNA makes protein. Not everybody has been through modern biology and understands the central dogma, but that’s where this is going. mRNA is one of many different types of RNA. It’s an acronym. It sounds scary to some people. It means messenger RNA. There’s other kinds of RNA. Ribosomal RNA, transfer RNA. They do different things. RNA is just a molecule, a polymer that your body uses for many different things.
And one of them is to transfer information from DNA to the protein manufacturing machinery. And so, the idea of using mRNA as a drug is basically like hijacking the normal apparatus. If you think of RNA like a ticker tape to tell the little machine that makes protein what to make, you’re taking and sticking in a foreign molecule, a foreign RNA that’s not made from a copy of your DNA, and that’s going to make the protein manufacturing machinery make a different protein, protein from a virus. I just wanted you to understand that. And this is just a diagram of those different types of RNAs and the machinery. We don’t need to go into the molecular biology of it.
And we all know this virus now. Everybody’s become a virologist and an epidemiologist over the last three years. And the spike protein on the right, as you can see, has kind of two parts. One is a part that sticks into the cell. And by the way, it exists as a trimer. I like to think of it as a treble hook, anybody go fishing. It’s a trimer. And the little hook’s on the end, so the barbs or the receptor binding domain, and the part that you tie the string to is the S1 subunit that sticks itself into the cell when it’s being manufactured. That’s the basic structure of the virus and the protein. Now, these are images, and they’re hard to see from where you are. I’m going to talk to you about the tech, the formulation platform.
These are not liposomes. These are positively-charged fats, and RNA is negative. And you take these fats and you mix them with the RNA, and it all collapses into a glob. The problem with that is that when it collapses into a glob like this, it can stick to other globs. It produces very large aggregates. That’s why the people that are administering these vaccines have very strict guidelines. Once they open the bottle and they hydrate it, they need to use it within a short period of time because otherwise, it forms big aggregates. And those big aggregates can be toxic to people. And there is a technology used to keep this aggregation from happening. And it’s one of those different little parts that are in that upper panel that shows examples schematically of the chemicals that are used, these positively charged fats, and some of the other things that are added into the formulation, which includes cholesterol, among other things.
And one of those is polyethylene glycol. And polyethylene glycol is probably responsible for a lot of the short-term anaphylaxis. These are people that die within an hour or two after administration. Some people have hypersensitivity to polyethylene glycol. Polyethylene glycol is in there to keep these things from aggregating, and it’s specifically engineered in this case so that it falls off of the particle soon afterwards because otherwise, it would keep the particle from binding to cells and delivering the RNA. That’s kind of all I want to talk about, about the core idea. And as you can see from that little spiral, all of this aggregates and forms around a synthetic RNA that’s made in the test tube. It’s not really RNA. The stuff that’s being administered is not natural RNA. That’s another… Paul has his list of lies.
Another one of the lies is that the stuff that’s being injected with these vaccines is not truly RNA. It’s modified. One of the four parts, AUGC, that forms the bead, the string of pearls. Think of string of pearls with four different colors. That’s RNA. But one of those colors, the U, is actually a modified U. It’s pseudouridine. And it’s put in there because the RNA has two problems as a mechanism for vaccination, as a delivery mechanism.
One is that these formulations are incredibly inflammatory. They provoke… If you want to generate pus, take these formulations without all the bells and whistles they’ve had to put on them, and inject them into an animal. They are highly inflammatory, and they’re still inflammatory now. We know that now. We’ve experienced over the last three years. That’s always been the problem with the tech. And they tried to solve it by incorporating this modified U called pseudouridine, which depresses the immune response to the RNA and a lot of other things. And it makes the RNA last a much longer time so it can keep making protein.
Pseudouridine is what’s put all the way through this RNA rather than regular uridine. And because it has, it confers these activities, but it is not a natural RNA. It’s not what the ideas that I originally came up with. The stuff would only stick around for a few hours. Now, this is too small for me to read and probably is too small for you to read, but the bottom line, as I said, is that pseudouridine greatly modifies this whole equation in so many different ways. And when it was developed and patented at UPenn as a modification to the core patents and technology, it wasn’t really understood what it does.
The biology of pseudouridine is still not understood. And that’s part of the story of all of this is that folks have kind of gotten ahead of their skis all the way through. They’ve pushed the technology because they want it so badly because the unmet medical need is so profound. They’re so afraid of the risk, in part because we’re creating that risk. But that’s another story. And they wanted to have something that would be universal, that they could apply for any new pathogen and that could go straight from gene to vaccine. That’s the idea.
And what they did is they kind of rushed things without understanding it. Now, you’ll recall that we’re administering, we’re all receiving… Those that have received the vaccine, receive it in their deltoid. And what the FDA has told all the docs and Pfizer has told all the docs, is that that RNA, those complexes go to draining lymph nodes, and they do. The axillary lymph nodes that drain from that deltoid take that complex, it’s piped into there through the lymphatics, and a lot of it does go there. Unfortunately, the data show that it also goes all over the body. But back in the day when this was just getting started, three years ago, well, we could argue about that, but as these particular products were being developed, they were being sold, the technology was being sold that the formulations used would only go to those lymph nodes. Now, we know that that’s not true, but that’s how it was pitched.
Now, what happens when that’s done? The big story here underlying all this fraud and everything that Paul is talking about is the FDA did not do its job. FDA did not do its job, I think, because it was being pushed into a position of having to go along with what the intelligence community wanted and all of the push from the White House and everywhere else that we needed to have this technology, we needed to have this technology deployed globally. And so, we’re going to just allow a lot of corners to be cut.
Finally, at the beginning of this year, with this paper published in January, a group from Stanford University asked the questions. How long is the RNA there? How long is the protein, spike protein being made? How much spike protein is being made? Fundamental questions that should have been known at the very beginning. But the FDA did not force the pharmaceutical companies to do those tests because they justified it. They did a little hand waving.
… because they justified it, they did a little hand waving. They said, “These are not gene therapy products. These are vaccine products.” Now that’s a lie, a convenient lie, but that’s what they did and that allowed them to justify only applying the vaccine safety checklist at the FDA rather than also applying the gene therapy checklist. This is why when I first started talking about this and I said, “This is gene therapy.” I got so much blow back from all the fact checkers in the press, et cetera, is because they could not allow the narrative to come out that this is actually a gene therapy product applied for vaccine purposes. But we know that the manufacturers knew that to be the case because they had said so in their SEC filings before all this happened years ago, okay? So this is another one of the little slights of hand that was used.
But this group at Stanford went and finally did the work that should have been done before this was administered to all of us, and what did they find? Well, among other things they documented, this is one of the first key papers that immune imprinting is happening, which is why when you get multiply jabbed, and I think these boosters are going to make it even worse, you actually become more susceptible to the viral infection because your immune system is tuned to only responding to the historic strain, not the current strain.
But they found some other things in here, and I’m sorry this is too much text, so I’ll just tell you. What they found was that the levels of protein, these are actual patients, this isn’t animal models or anything else, this is patients that have received vaccine, the levels of spike protein in the blood of these patients were much higher than the levels of spike protein found after infection. With infection, the virus is slowly starting to replicate in your nose and your oral pharynx and your mouth and your upper respiratory tract and your immune system is kicking in and starting to neutralize that, and they’re having a fight as a gradual balance and it results in a slow growth in the amount of antigen.
With the RNA, when that young gentleman there that’s going to sleep gets his vaccine, which hopefully he didn’t take, what happens is his body gets a truckload of spike antigen that’s basically dumped into his bloodstream on a very short time course, very different from natural infection. And so when people say, “Well, why would you see toxicity with the spike protein from the vaccines and not see the same… Why would it be worse with the vaccines than with the infection?” Well, because of dosing, there’s so much more protein being produced, and by the way, it’s being produced for a long time, about 60 days or longer. They didn’t test beyond 60 days. Furthermore, the RNA doesn’t just go away after a few hours like real RNA, this RNA that has pseudouridine in it lasts for up to 60 days as long as they test it. Again, this is not theoretical, this is putting needles into patients axillary lymph nodes, taking a sample and asking is the RNA there and taking blood samples and asking how much protein is in those blood samples. So that explains a lot of what we’ve experienced.
Then there’s this issue, and this is part of the lies that Paul was talking about that we’ve all experienced, that natural immunity is not as good as vaccine-induced immunity. There are many, many papers out now that show that that’s not true. And from first principles it’s easy to understand why it’s not true. When they built these vaccines they chose to basically start with what had been done before and failed with MERS and SARS 1 vaccine development and only use a single protein, only used the spike protein and used the whole spike protein because they were in denial that the whole spike protein was a toxin and they still are, but they’re kind of starting to have to concede that point.
But they only used one antigen. When you get infected by the virus, you mount a antibody and a cellular immune response against a whole bunch of antigens, and so if the virus starts to evolve to evade immune surveillance on the spike protein, which is what’s happened in the face of all these jabs that everybody’s got all over the world, if it starts with a natural immunity, if it starts to evolve to escape that immune suppression, immune pressure on the spike, it can’t do that at the same time that it’s evolving to escape all the other forms of immune pressure that are there because of all the other proteins that it makes. This is fundamental. Everybody knows this in my field, but they’ve been in denial about this and this is this insistence that their approach is the best and is accurate and it won’t drive the immune escape, et cetera, et cetera. But the data are in now, natural immunity is more robust, longer lasting, more protective, and likely, results in much less [inaudible 00:33:50] development.
What are the risks? Let’s see if I can read them here. This is actually the Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Report from Pfizer, this is from the data that was forced to be released by Pfizer by court order instead of being delayed for 7 years, like Paul was talking about. Central general disorders, nervous system disorders, musculoskeletal disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, respiratory disorders, skin disorders, infections, cardiac, vascular, psychiatric, blood and lymphatic, eye, immune, it goes on and on. In the Pfizer disclosure, it’s 11 pages, okay? They’ve known all this stuff. This isn’t what they thought might happen, this is coming from pharmaco vigilance at Pfizer with their licensed vaccines, because the stuff that’s here in the United States is not the licensed product, by the way. This is data coming from all over the world accumulated by Pfizer by the pharmaco vigilance team, and this is what they’re reporting to the FDA, which the FDA of course then denied was actually happening.
The list of adverse events is huge, it’s like nothing any of us have ever really seen with a product like this. I’ve certainly never seen anything like with this vaccine, let alone the mortality. And why our government and our regulatory agencies, both in the US and globally, aren’t willing to address that is another whole discussion about the politics and the corruption that’s gone on, and Paul kind of touched on that a little bit, but we could go on for hours.
Now, the last key thing I kind of want you to understand as we talk about this, we talk about these genetic vaccine technologies, and I guarantee they’re going to be deployed on you for years now, but you need to understand some of these fundamentals, platform versus payload, and everybody gets mixed up in this. There’s the platform technology, which has the potential to enable a whole new class of pharmaceuticals, therapeutics, customized treatments for individuals for their cancer, all kinds of good stuff, this is why these companies have their market cap, potentially to enable a new class of pharmaceuticals based on delivery of genetic information.
The idea, as I mentioned with the platform, is that you can go direct from genetic sequence to product and shorten the development time because the manufacturing is the same no matter what the sequence is. You just key it into the computer. That’s why they love it. They think that once they get one standard manufacturing process with all the characterization associated with it, they don’t have to do it again. They can just go to the computer, key it in, sequence whatever the thing is, make customized medicines for your wife because she’s got cancer or any new pathogen that’s come out of Central Africa or whatever the thing is. That’s their belief system.
The mRNA platform includes all of the things that are required to manufacture and deliver the RNA, that’s separate from the thing that’s made, the protein that’s made, that’s called the payload. It’s kind of important for you to understand going forward to make sense out of all this stuff. Okay, so you understand platform versus payload, the spike protein and the RNA coating the spike protein is the payload. The way that it’s packaged, assembled, manufactured, tested, et cetera, is the platform. The platform consists of these fats, the polyethylene glycol, other RNAs, the synthetic mRNA, other components.
Is there graphene oxide? The problem I have with that question, which has been coming at me for almost two years now, is there’s no way for me to know whether there’s graphene oxide or not. There’s a lot of graphene oxide in the general environment, and the only way that this can ever be demonstrated to either true or false is either if, number one, the pharmaceutical companies come clean with the components that are in these products, and they will not release that, okay? They will not release a full component list. Or, a regulatory agency or someone else empowered will test the lots coming off of the line rigorously in a controlled way with a clear chain of custody as they have always done in the past, and which they are forbidden from doing by contract from these manufacturers.
So the problem I have with the graphene oxide and the other contaminants is that in most cases there is no good way to answer that question because we are forbidden from answering that question because, through contract, the regulatory agencies aren’t able to do their job all over the world and assess what’s actually in those vials. Are they truly pure? Is the identity what’s defined? Is the potency what’s defined? The pharmaceutical companies have executed contracts that prevents that from being known.
There’s no question that we have contaminants of small glass fragments and small metal fragments in many lots, not necessarily all lots, and those are known types of contaminants that come from existing pharmaceutical manufacturing processes like fill/finish, and they’re absolutely toxic. And again, that’s evidence that the regulatory agencies have not been doing their job. That’s their job is to ensure purity, potency, and identity.
The payload also includes the manufacturing, purification and testing processes, which I’ve just talked about, have been co-opted. It includes the regulatory package, including the nonclinical testing. So this is the notorious animal testing that was done not with the spike encoding RNA, but with the firefly protein called luciferase, using the least sensitive method for detecting where the product goes, which is whole body imaging as opposed to dissecting the tissues and analyzing them. Somehow the FDA allowed the wool to be pulled over their eyes by the pharmaceutical companies and they allowed them to use the least sensitive method for determining where this stuff goes and where it’s making protein. That’s another huge failure.
But the platform includes all of that data, fill, finish, distribution and storage, all of that goes into the platform tech. And the payload is, as I mentioned, the RNA, which causes your cells to become the manufacturing facilities. And that RNA itself can have biologic activity, so I’ve talked about the pseudouridine immunosuppression, increased half life. Another major problem with these products is that during the manufacturer of the RNA itself or the pseudouridine RNA, what happens is that the polymerase, the thing that’s making it in this biologic reaction stops periodically and when it does that it releases a fragment of RNA that’s incomplete. Those RNA fragments…
RNA that’s incomplete. Those RNA fragments are biologically active. They can interfere, they can elicit immune responses, all kinds of things. And they don’t have a good way to purify those. So the material that’s being injected, it’s not just a false RNA, a pseudo uridine, including RNA, but it’s a whole mixture of stuff of which they hope the majority is the thing they want. But they haven’t created any purification guidelines for all these other contaminants. If it was a normal drug or a normal biologic, the FDA would be rigorously scrutinizing and ensuring that it is only the biologic that it’s claimed to be and doesn’t have any other contaminants or so, if they’re contaminants there’s strict guidelines about how much. That doesn’t exist here.
The payload also includes the protein. And the primary protein in this case is spike. In other cases is the influenza hemagglutinin for the new flu vaccines. But that protein we now know can have other things embedded in it. And I mentioned the snake venom story. I don’t think that the sequence analysis supports that thesis of Dr. Artis. I’m absolutely not convinced. But the possibility that these proteins can be engineered to include other antigens, or do include other antigens is absolutely feasible, is absolutely viable. So the payload and the sequence of the payload and what it causes your cells to manufacture are crucial.
Now, how and why is this being pushed? Obviously, we’ve all experienced the propaganda and censorship, and Paul’s talked about that. I’ve experienced it personally. This is uncontrolled information warfare, unrestricted information warfare at a level the world has never seen before. We have a situation in which all of the major media is controlled by large financial entities that happen to be the same ones that control the pharmaceutical industry. And functionally, control our government. What we’ve seen is that the propaganda information warfare blocking of anybody disclosing adverse events, like all of you that got up and said you’ve known of people directly that have either died or been damaged. I’ve been vaccine damaged. That’s not allowed to be discussed.
It’s not allowed to be discussed because of the potential impact on the deployment of this product, which they believe that the ends justify the means. That it is absolutely essential that they get the world to be able to accept this new technology because if they don’t… And there’s all the other agendas about the vaccine card, and the personal ID and central bank digital currency, et cetera. But, at the fundamental level, there’s a belief that this technology is so important that we have to push it through the entire population. And we have to get people to accept it. And so, that’s so important that they believe that they were justified in deploying the largest propaganda effort the world has ever seen.
Paul underestimated. It was over a billion dollars spent by the CDC, okay? And it’s still ongoing. What that results in is that people cannot have informed consent. So I have a colleague who blames me, says that because I talk about mass formation psychosis, I’m saying that everybody is responsible and the global predators are not responsible. In no way is that true. That’s a false narrative. And I’m in no way saying that individuals are responsible if they, like I, took the vaccine. We were not able to obtain informed consent.
In my case, I had a teleconference because of who I am and my background. I had a teleconference specifically with Peter Marks at the FDA early on where I said, “Peter, I’m concerned about these things that are in this non-clinical package. You guys have been hoodwinked.” And he told me, basically, “Robert, give me some time to get this out. I have the new data package from Pfizer. I have no concerns now. Please don’t make a big issue out of this.” And I stayed silent for a few months based on that, and I took the jab. And I got the toxicity. My point is I was fooled. We were all fooled. And we were all prevented from having informed consent. So forgive each other, please. Forgive me.
Now, this is new information that was just published. In April of 2021 there was a World Health Organization consultation. Now, that’s fancy bureaucratic talk for we all get together and figure out what we’re gonna do. It was chaired by Margaret Liu of Merck, who was the person that was at the forefront of the team trying to get DNA vaccines developed back in the ’90s and failed. But she was the chairperson, very much an industrial scientist. In this meeting that brought together all the regulatory agencies from all over the world, it was decided to circumvent normal preclinical and clinical testing based on this shared core platform concept. That’s why I wanted you to understand what the platform was as opposed to the payload.
So there was a conference at WHO in which all the Western regulatory agencies got together and China, and they all agreed that we’re gonna treat this as a platform technology, and we’re going to push it through with very limited testing. And then once we’ve done that, new products can be rapidly developed by grandfathering in that old inadequate data package. Now, I’m not saying this as a conspiracy theory. It’s published. And we are now seeing that being deployed. The only new data that will be required for these new vaccine and mRNA based therapeutic products is going to be that associated with the payload. So they’re gonna assume that the platform is safe now because it’s been deployed in billions of people. That’s another reason why they have to deny all the adverse events ’cause the whole logic collapses otherwise.
The FDA position, and we’ve now seen this deployed, thank you for five minutes… We’ve now seen this deployed with the new boosters. The FDA position is that changes in the mRNA sequence for similar payloads do not require substantial non-clinical or clinical data. What that means is what we’ve seen. They went to manufacturing, sales, and deployment of these new vaccines with virtually no real testing. To the extent that they did any testing in mice what they found was that it didn’t in any way interfere with infection of those mice by the pathogen. It didn’t work in the mice. It doesn’t matter. They’ve all agreed that this is the new rules.
So now, we have over 100 clinical trials for mRNA vaccines, 51 of which are currently enrolling, the rest are about to start enrolling in the United States, and they’re all grandfathered based on what they assert is the clear evidence that there is no safety risks associated with this technology because it’s been deployed in billions of people in the United States and worldwide.
In addition, there’s over 200 clinical trials for mRNA based drugs based on this same logic. This all grandfathers in a technology platform, ignores that what’s being delivered is not natural RNA. And what it creates is a situation. This is how things work in regulatory space. There’s only two companies right now that have those approved data packages. And what that means is that these two companies now have a monopoly on any new drugs, or vaccines developed and deployed with this technology. Because anybody else that’s gonna try to come in with their own version of it is gonna have to go through all of that other testing and demonstrate that their stuff is at least as safe and effective as the stuff that’s been deployed on all of us. So what the FDA has done is granted a monopoly in perpetuity to Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna.
So I hope that instead of talking about this toxicity or that toxicity, the event rate for the cardio toxicity, or whether or not we’re all going to die in five years that have taken the vaccines, what I’ve tried to do is to help you to comprehend what’s really going on underneath all of this. And remember my statement at the start, that’s not to say that this outbreak and the situation was not exploited for economic and power reasons by a bunch of other bad actors. It’s not to say that there wasn’t planning aforehand. It’s not to say that Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Bill Gates has not made book on this. It’s not to say that in any way I’m denying that the corruption in the FDA, and the CDC and academia, as Paul was talking about, is profound and deep and systemic. I’m only giving you this little lens of looking through the RNA technology environment so that you can comprehend at least that part as you try to make sense out of everything else.
I thank you for your time. I hope it was helpful.’https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/mrna-vaccines-the-cia-and-national?publication_id=583200&post_id=80797095&isFreemail=true
This is scary stuff. Our Western governments know now what these China virus vaccines are doing to people. This is Hitlerism today!
‘Dr. Paul Elias Alexander and Dr. Mike Yeadon discuss the COVID vaccines. July 9, 2022.’
The Leftist establishment is out to destroy the West. One of the avenues in which they are doing it is via the medical field. The China virus and the vaccines are useful tools in the hands of these WEF Marxist tools.
‘September 19, 2022
They made a spectacle of themselves causing disruption, throwing smoke bombs and howling in attempts to try and stop women from speaking.
Pathetically many even covered their faces as they threw tantrums two-year-olds would be proud of. Two arrests were made, one for suspicion of assault and another for obstructing an officer.
Kellie-Jay Keen, also known as Posie Parker, spoke at the event, along with Maya Forstater and other women who have been harassed, targeted and abused by trans activists online, in the workplace and in court. Prior to the event Keen said,
‘I have been called a Nazi for saying I don’t think women have penises. Once you can portray someone as the most heinous person in society – a Nazi – I guess anything goes.
‘I have had a lot of threats over the years, I have been told about how they hope my children get cancer.
‘Sadly, it’s not unusual for trans activists to issue threats about women wanting to talk about our rights – JK Rowling is a prime example of that.
‘We are subjected to a wide range of menacing messages.
‘I think the whole social media thing depersonalises people as well. We have been dehumanised by the term TERF. There are some quite disturbed people within that group, like others I guess.
‘It’s a very effective campaign that we are supposed to believe that men that want to call themselves women are the most vulnerable group in society.As video footage and photos from the event emerged, author JK Rowling took to social media and tweeted: “I see the Be Kind brigade are once more hiding behind their black masks, throwing smoke bombs, screaming ‘scum’ at women speaking up for their sex-based rights and howling abuse at lesbians for not doing d**k.”
Kirralie Smith, spokeswoman for Binary, also noted the extreme lengths the trans activists go to for their ideology.
“It is incredible that trans activists cannot see the harm they are doing by carrying on like this,” she said.
“These males are aggressive and violent, all the while expecting the public to accept them as women.
“They display zero tolerance for truth and will go to extreme lengths in the name of their political ideology. It is dangerous and offensive and their behaviour is unacceptable.
“The media fuels the fire by reporting fiction as fact and promoting the trans narrative as valid. No one can change sex. It is time to stop reporting as if they can.”’https://www.binary.org.au/violent_males_try_to_stop_women_speaking
‘According to many significant scientists, the universe popped out of nothing with a neon sign proclaiming, “Well, here we are.” That is a little irreverent, but that is what many “experts” teach. Moreover, they are offended if you roll your eyes at that ludicrous assumption and are downright insulted if you roll on the floor, holding your sides in raucous laughter.
After all, scientists are supposed to be respected,even revered, never ridiculed.
Some of my readers, with an idealized view of science, will assume I am using ridicule and hyperbole to express my creationist views; however, that is not true. Major physicists believe nothing created everything, which is unreasonable, unbelievable, and unnatural, and it’s also unsane.
Atheist Stephen Hawking declared: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Hawking also claimed the universe “popped into existence without violating the known laws of Nature.”
Many scientists are uncomfortable with nothing creating everything; consequently, that statement is often denied, but the facts are in: many prominent scientists believe the silly nothing-created-everything doctrine. Atheist Anthony Kenny confessed, “A proponent of [the Big Bang,] […] at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the matter of the universe came from nothing and by nothing.” Another scientist declared, “It seems impossible that you could get something from nothing, but the fact that once there was nothing and now there is a universe is evident proof that you can.”
That is not science but religion.
First, there was nothing, and it is admittedly impossible to “get something from nothing,”; but here we are, so it “is evident proof that you can!” That is the most shameful tautology ever. With such thinking, is it surprising that many scientists are analogous to snake-oil salesmen? The atheist philosopher Quinton Smith indicated that “the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.” Of course, that is reasonable if you are a resident of a state institution for the demented, delusional, or disoriented.
Dr. Lawrence Krauss wrote a book supporting the nothing-to-everything theme, titling his book, A Universe from Nothing. The title means exactly what it says. The book’s afterward was written by atheist Richard Dawkins, who compares the book to Darwin’s Origin.
In The Ancestor’s Tale, Dawkins wrote, “The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.” Yes, Richard, that is so outrageous that I would not attempt to put it in words. Astute readers know that by his silly statement, he is not required to prove anything! It is a sophomoric ploy to give him a place to hide.
Atheism is off the charts in human folly. By contrast, the flat-earthers, Elvis spotters, Hitler-did-not-shoot-himself, and man-has-not-been-to-the-moon skeptics are the epitome of stability.
Some famous scientists are embarrassed when their peers specialize in such “scientific” gibberish. World renowned astronomer Robert Jastrow declared, “But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science–the principle of the conservation of matter and energy–which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed.”
Prominent physicist George Davis seems to agree that every effect has a cause when he writes, “No material thing can create itself. This is the basic law of science, the Law of Causality; every effect has a cause.” Even the famous skeptic David Hume did not deny that law. He declared, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause.”
Scientists often claim that real scientists do not believe in Special Creation by a sovereign, personal God, but the kitty is out of the sack: many foremost scientists do believe that God is the answer, not “nothing.” Astronomer Robert Jastrow admitted, “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”
In case that is not clear enough for atheists to understand, Jastrow admits that “there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”
Scientist George Smoot, who led the team of scientists who first measured ripples in the cosmic background radiation, declares, “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”
The physicist Gordon Van Wyden wrote in his book Thermodynamics: “The author has found that the 2nd law tends to increase his conviction that there is a creator who has the answer for the future destiny of man and the universe.”
It is evident that “Bible thumpers” are not the only ones convinced that nothing cannot create anything. Such teaching is not scientific; it is silly. Bible thumpers have been vindicated! [In the interest of full disclosure, I have been called a “Bible thumper,” but really, I don’t thump my Bible very much and not really hard, and seldom in public. And when I do a little Bible-thumping, it is always the King James Version.]
God haters often ridicule Christians who declare that God created everything out of nothing, and they do so with scorn and sarcasm. When I demand to know their answer as to how everything got here (after all, we are here!), they get as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes, try to fake a scholarly look, then they squirm and with less authority in their voice tell me “Nothing created everything.”
That is shabby, shabby thinking. If you have nothing, it is evident that nothing can be produced. In my book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? and in one of my evolution/creation conferences, I began by saying, “When did time begin? Where did the universe come from? Who started it? Where did man come from? Why are we here? John 1:1 declares, ‘In the beginning was the Word.’ Evolutionists parody this by saying, ‘In the beginning was hydrogen.’ (As if that would solve anything. After all, where did the hydrogen come from?) Hydrogen is a colorless, tasteless, odorless gas when given billions of years, produces planets, plants, and people–even university professors.”
I further explain, “A sovereign God created everything out of nothing, but scientists believe that nothing created everything out of nothing! Or nothing became something, and something became everything! Nothing, working on nothing by nothing through nothing for nothing, created everything. Wouldn’t that require that the universe existed before it came into existence? I’m getting dizzy. Stop the world. I want to get off!”
Atheists get indignant when we reveal what they believe; then, they often deny it since no sane person will accept such nonsense. However, American physicist Paul Davies of Arizona State University wrote, “Even if we don’t have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific.” No, of course not! How dare we suggest that such scientists are unscientific if not unstable! Davies also wrote it is “possible to imagine the Universe coming into being from nothing entirely spontaneously.” I think Paul stared at the stars too long, exposing himself to the moonlight.
Physicist Robert A.J. Matthews of Ashton University in England wrote, “It is now becoming clear that everything can–and probably did–come from nothing.”
Wait a minute! Are those atheists trying to convince me that nothing can produce something? But they aren’t just declaring that nothing created something but that nothing created everything. Look, I’m not an Oxford scholar, but you will have to do better than that. I wasn’t born yesterday, and Momma didn’t rear a fool, and you will have to do more than pucker your lips, wipe your sweaty palms, and tout your scholarship to convince me that nothing can do, say, think, or produce anything.
Moreover, in light of the above, evolutionists tell us a sovereign God did not create everything because it is simply outrageous!
Let’s start over again. What is nothing? Atheists don’t know, but they know it brought everything into existence! Aristotle suggested that “nothing” is what rocks dream about!
Look, Bible haters can’t flimflam me because I’ve been around. I’ve been across the state line in two directions, been to three county fairs, one state fair, attended three tractor pulls, one demolition derby, and even been to the Grand Ole Opry, where I shook hands with Minnie Pearle. I’ve been around!
So, this is one good ole boy who can’t be seduced with snake-oil salesmanship. But, back to the origin of everything when nothing did its big job. Evolutionists expect us to believe that once upon a time (as all fairytales begin), there was nothing; well, there was something. There was space, and we are to give them that graciously; I won’t. How and when did space arrive?
There was nothing, then what happened? “Well,” says the atheist, “after a few billion years, a cosmic egg about the size of the head of a pin started floating through space.” “Wait a minute, tell me about the cosmic egg. Where did it come from? He doesn’t know. Well, could it have been laid by a cosmic chicken? Well, tell me what was in that cosmic egg!” The evolutionist/atheist, with a straight face, says, “Well, everything you see around you and everything in the universe was in the head of that pin.” “Say what! Everything in the whole universe was in that pinhead? There you go trying to flimflam me again, but I can’t be flimmed or flammed.”
The scientist assures me that everything (created by nothing) was encapsulated in that pinhead–Then it exploded. I asked, “And what caused the explosion?” The atheist continues his myth by saying, “I don’t know, but it exploded, and everything went everywhere and continued to expand into this massive universe.” About this time, I’m getting a little scared and looking for the men in white coats carrying nets. It is incredible that scientists could be so misinformed, miseducated, and mistaken to believe such nonsense and be willing to declare it in books, lectures, on television, etc. Then, accepting money and perks for propagating such nonsense to others indeed displays a massive absence of character. Those scientists should be out selling insurance or driving trucks, and I don’t mean to insult truck drivers and insurance salesmen.
Atheists want us to believe that the egg exploded, producing a well-ordered universe that runs like an expensive watch! However, no honest scientist suggests that an explosion will produce anything but disorder. Yet, all planets (except Venus and Uranus) go around the Sun counterclockwise, but the Sun spins clockwise! How could an explosion produce such a contradiction? And in our solar system, everything is the necessary distance from each other to make life on Earth possible. That’s called the “anthropic principle,” whereby creation seems to have been tweaked (by whom?) to make life possible for mankind.
The above is reinforced by former Cambridge astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle who argued, “A common-sense interpretation of the data suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics” to make life possible.
Nevertheless, angry atheists tell us that it is improbable, even impossible, that a self-existent, sovereign God created the universe, but it is very reasonable to believe that everything came into existence without a cause! That is pure religion, even fanatical religion, and it might constitute child abuse if taught to children.
Look, maybe we are overdoing the origination of the universe, but after all, we are here. Perhaps we should be more concerned about why we are here and where we are going than how we got here. But the fact is an obvious truth that something can do something, but nothing can do nothing.’https://donboys.cstnews.com/evolutionists-are-mentally-unstable-if-they-believe-nothing-created-everything