Woke Be Damned: Bring Back Science with John Droz, Jr

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:13):
This doctor Joon Coursi, and wehave a special program today where are joined
by a very prominent guest, JohnDrose Junior. John received his undergraduate degrees
in physics and mathematics from Boston College. He has a graduate degree in physics
from Syracuse University. Then a MENSAmember, he's worked as a physicist for

(00:36):
GE Aerospace Electronics, Mohawk Data Sciences, and Monolithic Memories. Now one of
the things I think is more remarkablepas most remarkable about John is he retired
at the age of thirty four andhe's focused on educating citizens about technical issues
wide range of subjects. He's fromclimate to COVID to energy and education.

(01:02):
And his underlying concern is that thesepolitics should be based on genuine science,
but said they've often been about politicalscience, which guarantees inferior results. John
has been a guest speaker and dozensof radio and TV shows nationwide, as
well as lectured numerous organizations on theseissues, in addition to publishing more than

(01:25):
one hundred articles and reports. Amongother things, John is on the North
Carolina Oil and Gas Commission, isa member of the CO two Coalition and
the National Association of Scholars and wasUS ambassador for the Global Climate Intelligence Group,
which is CLINTEL CLI n TEL.John is a founder of the Alliance

(01:49):
for Wise Energy Decisions and International Coalitionpromoting science based climate and energy policies is
Wyseenergy dot Org. Website focuses onwind and solar with the unusual emphasis of
showing citizens how to defend their rights. John publishes the Free Media Balanced newsletter

(02:12):
twice a month, and it coversa wide range of topics not adequately addressed
by the mainstream media and has areadership of over ten thousand worldwide. In
late twenty twenty, John was askedif he would put together a team of
independent experts to analyze election data.He agreed to do that and they have
generated ten major reports posted at Electionintegrity dot info. He's been very active

(02:40):
in this space for two years nowand has actually involved is that expert witness
in some of the court cases onelection fraud. Consistent with his focus on
genuine science, John created a webpage on COVID nineteen which is C nineteen

(03:00):
Science dot info C nineteen Science dotinfo the number nineteen whereas multiple COVID reports
videos are posted. John now postsweekly to his sub stack space, whereas
commentaries discuss the importance of critical thinkingabout our societal issues, like the corruption

(03:21):
of our K twelve education system,which is going on almost unchecked. So
John, thank you for joining ustoday. We're greatly pleased to have you
with us. My pleasure, andI want to start out with the K
kindergarten to twelve issue on what isyour analysis of what's going on in our

(03:44):
school system, especially at these criticalyoung ages. Well, I think there's
a few background things that I shouldlead up to that, and versus the
I'm going to say general terms asto who our opponents are here, and
I'm just going to say the left, So we'll use that vague term if
you don't mind. One of thethings that's different about what those people do

(04:08):
and what people on the right dois the people on the left are playing
the long game. I can't overemphasizehow important that is because people on the
right just don't seem to get it. They if I say they have a
plan here that's going to come tofruition in ten years, they say,
what to waste the time? Thatis? You know, we're going to
do something, They're going to fixsomething next year or something like that.

(04:31):
They just don't understand that this isan entirely different perspective and that's exactly what's
happening to us. And because itseems to be sort of slowly evolving,
a lot of people aren't paying attentionto it. So back around prior to
twenty ten, these progressives decided thatthe most significant way they could influence American

(04:58):
citizens was to start in K throughtwelve and propagandize them at that level.
And then they went through to decidewhat subject area they would be most effective
for doing that, and they decidedscience was topic. Well, people again
would say, how can that be. Isn't science just about equations and stuff?

(05:20):
Well, no, So they wroteup a document that's still posted today
called the Framework for Science Education.And this was a four hundre and fifty
show page polemic about what they're doing. So they had such confidence that people

(05:42):
wouldn't read it, that they werequite quite bold in the things they said.
So one other preliminary thing I wouldsay is, in my view after
being involved in this for decades educationbusiness, is that by far the most
single important ofbjective we should have asa society is the objective of when a

(06:05):
student graduates from high school that theyhad the ability to do a critical thinking
nothing else. I mean, obviouslythey have to know the basic three hours,
but I mean saying or above thatthey need to be critical thinkers.
We have never been at such atime here where there's so many attacks on
us, whether it's from artificial intelligence, computer programs, whatever. Anyone who's

(06:30):
not a critical thinker is going tobe victimized. So the question is how
we teach critical thinking, And theanswer is that science is the area that
we teach critical thinking because scientists,by definition, are people who ask questions,
who, when, where, how? Why? Well, that's a
lot of what critical thinking is about. Asking questions. Don't just accept things

(06:54):
at face value what you're told.Ask questions. So that's why I'm connecting
back here to this framework that theseprogressives knew very well that the way to
get students to think critically was inscience. So they said, we want
to make sure that that does nothappen. We want to make sure,

(07:15):
in fact that the opposite is happening. So they are teaching students and science
the opposite of critical thinking, whichis to be a effectively a lobotomized person
who, let's say, defers toauthority, who accepts political science instead of

(07:36):
real science, who goes along withsomething because it's the consensus view, things
of that nature. That is what'sbeing programmed into our students to do those
types of things. None of it, none of they are no times said
be an independent thinker, be acritical thinker, ask questions, nothing like

(07:57):
that, whatsoever. The opposite.But this is explained in this document four
hundred and fifty or show pages theysay had this framework. Another indication of
its leanings is that in this document, if you do a search over it,
you say, okay, what dothey say about critical thinking? It's
not even hardly mentioned. I thinkmaybe mentioned in passing once or show.

(08:20):
But on the other hand, theyhave an entire chapter in this document about
equity. You might say, well, today, that's maybe not so surprising,
but this is back in twenty ten, and equity wasn't a hot topic
back then. And I can tellyou, in my view, that's one
of the reasons it is a hottopic today because it was instilled in this

(08:41):
science program. So I pikuld goon about this. But so then the
next thing was they did is theyhave a sister document they created called the
NGSS, which is called the NextGeneration Science Standards. And the point of
that was they took all the materialin the Framework and reformatted it into a

(09:03):
way that states could adopt it.So, in other words, the NNGSS
is broken down by grade level,so it says, in grade eight,
here's what a child is supposed tobe taught about science, et cetera.
Every grade level. So these twodocuments, the Framework and the NNGSS,
so I might say, well,this is an academic matter. Well no.

(09:26):
What happened next was that these peoplegot together a group of allies and
created a very professional dog and ponyshow, and they literally went to every
single state board of education in thecountry and made a pitch for them to
adopt this NGSS set of standards.So when this this this group of advocates,

(09:48):
they had scientists from National Academy ofSciences, left leaning sciences. They
had union teachers from NSTA National ScienceTeachers Association, they had business people arranged
by Bill Gates, and a groupcalled a Chief. They went around and
the bottom line is, as oftoday, forty nine states have adopted this

(10:13):
progressive set of standards forty nine.So we're not talking about academic matter here.
This has been sold to Billy Goods. Well, let me just give
you one example. I wrote areport about this, and you send me
an email, I can send youthe bird. But one example is in
this page framework and the ngsas theydecided to scrap the scientific method. Where

(10:39):
have you heard that? Have youheard? Has anybody told you that the
scientific method is taken out? Becausethe reason they don't say this is the
reason. But the reason, ofmy view is because a lot of the
left ideological things that they're trying tofoist on us. Let's say aft wind
energy for an energy man. Ifyou subject that to the scientific it fails.

(11:01):
So they had two choices. Oneis to change the policies to make
them more scientifically acceptable, or tofight the scientific method. Well, naturally
they chose to fight the scientific method. So if you read through this,
this this polemic and see what theysay about it, it's hidden in the
notes, but they do have onesentence in there that says, we have

(11:24):
decided to scrap the word scrap it. We've decided to not include the scientific
method because quote it promotes linear thinking. That's what that's their justification right there,
that one little sentence. It promoteslinear thinking. Well, first of
all, that's not true. Scientificmethod does not promote layer thinking. Second

(11:45):
of all, liliar think is nota bad thing anyways. But this is
the type of things we're being theShenanigan with that. No one is paying
attention to this. I can't imagineif you took a poll of people on
the street, say what do youthink about scientific method? They'd all say
good, And I'd say you askthem, okay, you believe your kid
is being taught the scientific method?They say, well, of course,

(12:07):
I hope the answer is no,they're not. John If let's I want
to drill down on this, becausethe list is all Left is also very
good at language perversion, so I'msure. As you know, critical thinking
is adopted by the Frankfurt School andit's a code word for Marxism. It's
an attempt to retroid the marx andto essentially establish a subjective reality. Where

(12:35):
in other words, if you know, the Left says, well, there's
a scientific consensus that a carbon dioxideis causing global warming produced by humans with
the burning hydrocarbon fuels. Now whatthey don't mean is that it's scientifically provable
or true necessarily in a scientific method, that carbon dioxide, a minor molecule

(13:00):
zero point zero four percent of theatmosphere, is able to be the turning
knob of the earth temperature. Whatthey mean is that scientists who see their
vision of the future, who seethis utopian idea of what they want to
create, agree that we shouldn't beusing hydrocarbon fuels because they're bad and they

(13:20):
exude carbon dioxide, which we seeas a greenhouse gas, and it can
get sigmatized, stigmatized by appearing tobe noxious because it warms up the earth
as a greenhouse gas, without lookingat the fact that it is also plant
food that we exhale carbon dioxide.It's almost self defeating to object to carbon

(13:45):
dioxide. And so when you're sayingthey don't, it's political science, aren't
you referring to the fact that it'sit's really ideological science. It's science that's
based on an ideology of how theworld ought to work, rather than how
the world does work. I meanthat seems to me to be a fundamental
difference. Would you agree? Yes? When I say political that means that's

(14:09):
what politics is about a premoni ideologythe versus real science. Real science is
supposed to be neutral and objective anddriven by the facts. So they're not
doing that. They've decided they havea political agenda, ideology, or whatever.
And so I use the term politicalscience because it's actually a very close

(14:31):
understanding of what the differential is theaverage person. They've done money surveys about
people support of science, and byand large, American citizens are extremely supportive
of science. But the interesting thingis if you ask them to then define
science, almost none of them dohow to do that. So we have

(14:52):
an ecotomy there where people are supportiveof something they don't understand. Well,
that's an important distinction to appreciate,because that's exactly what the left knows.
They say, Okay, if wepresent our policies as being science based or
a personalized doctor Faucer stands up saying, I represent science. He knows that

(15:13):
by definition, he's going to getthe support the majority of American citizens because
they support science, even though theydon't realize that he's not science and he's
not speaking for science, and thesepeople aren't either. Well, it's what
CS Lewis called scientism. It isa It is a cloaking yourself in the
authority of science to make an ideologicalstatement. I mean when you talk about

(15:39):
the scientific method, which of courseI was taught you know and understand completely
to be testing your ideas against whatin reality happens. In other words,
so you can say, okay,carbon dioxide is the turning out of the
Earth's history, and you say,well, wait a minute, six hundred

(16:00):
million years ago there was more carbondioxide in the atmosphere and we had ice
ages. Well, that should refutethat idea because it's not true, you
know, more carbon dioxide and theEarth wasn't warmer. Well, then the
major variable causing you know, warming, is it was cooler we had ice
ages, than the major variable isnot the quantity carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,

(16:23):
which it's not true. Well,you're right, I think if you're
looking for hypocritical counteractor statements, there'smany on this uther side of the fence
here, right. I mean,for instance, the fact that they claimed
that ninety seven percent of scientists orninety nine or whatever the percentages are supporting
If you look at the basis ofthose figures, they're completely bogus. I

(16:48):
know as a scientist, if youwant to say you would have a pole,
there's never been a pole a scientistson anything. For the more,
even if there was a pole,what the consensus is is irrelevant. That's
that matter. Another factor that's important, speaking the energy part, is that

(17:10):
the most successful reduction source of reductionof CO two ever in our history total
is nuclear energy. And yet thesame people are objecting to nuclear energy.
So how can you stand there andsay, look, we've got to be
pull out all the stops because theworld coming to an end in a very
short time period, and say okay, let's switch the nuclear and say,

(17:33):
oh no, we can't do that. Okay, what is it that I'm
missing here of this foolishness. Anotherpart that's wrong is that they claim we
need more wind energy. Well,I can tell you is a matter of
scientific fact, there's never been Isay this slowly, there's never been a
scientific study anywhere in the world thathas concluded that wind energy saves a consequential

(17:59):
amount of CEO two zero. Itdoesn't exist. They are they are assuming
that this average technical person who's technicallychallenged is saying, well, okay,
wind doesn't use any fossil fuels,so ergo it must be not CO two
benefit. Well, interestingly, therehas been some interesting studies done. I

(18:22):
don't want to get too technical here, but actually show that using gas saves
more CO two than using wind energy. Think about that, right, that's
that's a reality. It's a reality. And also, when you're talking about
the equity coming into the educational system, the word equity, equity does not

(18:44):
mean equality, does it. No, it's the opposite, or it's a
different perspective of it. It meansthat redistribution of income so that everybody basically
comes out equal. Yes. Ithink one good way of seeing it is
that equality is about everybody staring equallyand equity is about everybody ending up equal.
That's a good point. Yeah,And it's outcome oriented. In other

(19:08):
words, the outcome has to beequal. Whereas the original you know,
civil rights equal opportunity was we wantan equal chance. It's starting and how
it ends may be dependent on ourabilities, but this equity insisting that regardless
of our abilities, it has toend up equal. And the bigger picture,

(19:30):
Jerome, in my opinion, isthat they are also attacking our value
standards, yes, which our countrywas basically founded on Judeo Christian standards,
and the no one familiar history woulddeny that, and they are adamantly opposed
to Judeo Christian standards. So there'sa lot of really bad things like relativism.

(19:52):
I mean, once you have theideology of relatism, which means everybody
makes up their own standards effectively,what the hell I mean if that is
a definition of chaos, I don'tknow what is well, it becomes like
postmodernism. It's schizophrenic. Whatever youdecide you are, everybody has to celebrate
or or go along with yes.And so therefore, I mean, you

(20:18):
can have an infinite number of gendersbecause the variations can be as creative as
you want, as long as you'resaying it's no longer sex, which is
a duality. We don't want thisbinary. We want infinite numbers of possibilities.
I think one of the reasons they'redoing that is if you look at
the Bible, because a lot ofpeople do have a belief that the Bible

(20:41):
Americans and say, what does theBible say about equity versus equality? Interestingly,
the Bible is arguing for equality,not equity. At no place in
the Bible is that say we're allgoing to end up at the same place.
The fact that says the apposite.So they're going to be radical difference
here you end up and where I'mgoing to end up. That is not

(21:03):
equity, that's equality. In fact, there's radical differences where we begin because
we're each born in a different circumstance. We're each born with different capabilities.
I mean, we're not born equaland we don't end up equal. That's
just from a religious point of view. I think the perspective of the Bible
is everybody is given a certain gracesopportunity, yes, to start, So

(21:26):
that's the equalness at the beginning.What you do with it matter, free
will, whatever, will determine theoutcome, which could be good or bad.
So fundamentally, what you're saying isthat this attack on science is an
attack on the fundamental fixed values,natural right, thinking, natural law,

(21:49):
that there's a way things work andthat is God determined. This universe has
a set of rules how it worksdown to the sub atomic level to energy
and how it works, you know, and so you can't just make it
work the way you want it towork, or impose your set of values
on how everybody has to behave Andonce you go down that path, you

(22:14):
end up with this kind of tautalitariansystem where you have to be tolerant of
all these bizarre ideas, and ifyou're not, you're not allowed to speak
if you want to defend traditional values. I mean, it's really upside down.
Yes, they're effectively trying to establisha different set of values. Right,
This is a very complex matter.So I add, these people say,

(22:40):
Okay, we have the Bible forour valuation. Show me the book
or the Bible, your bible sowe have a clear definition of what your
values are. Show me who hasthe authority to put together such a book.
Show me the authority of people whohave the right to judge others based
on your set of values. Showme that, Well, they just pooh

(23:00):
pooh all that type of thing here. I'm sort of a big picture person,
Jerry. That's somewhat different than mostpeople. I like standing back to
see how things are because I thinkthat gives you a perspective of seeing things
when you back up lots of times, and if you want the big picture
of view here, I think ultimatelywhat's going on is we have two opposing

(23:23):
forces that one side is pro God, the other side is no God.
Right, I agree, pro Godversus no God. So that's really the
big picture of what this fight isall about. God no God. I
agree, And it's a spiritual battle, and it's a spiritual value for the

(23:48):
hearts and souls, not just thehearts and minds, but the hearts and
souls of human beings. Well,that's why I'm concerned about this education here
if you go back to that hereeffectively, on the one hand, people
are saying, you know, wedon't have any religion here. It's not
allowed to be taught in published rules, for instance. But the fact number
one is that atheism is a religion. If you look at the definition of

(24:11):
what a religion, constitute's atheism isa religion. But second of all,
if you look at what is beingtaught in the area of sciences, whether
it's let's just say the origins ofthe universe as an example, the only
perspective they discuss is the atheistic perspective. I'm not saying they said promoted God,

(24:37):
but they should say, hey,there's several possibilities here. We don't
know for one hundred percent sure whatthese possibilities are. I mean, people
can say, okay, well theBig Bang has the support of a lot
of scientists. Well, maybe itdoes, but the fact is there's dozens
and dozens of things that they don'tunderstand about the Big Bang. They're just
saying, well, let's talk aboutthat later, or you know, this

(24:59):
will all be figured o out tothe fears from now or whatever. But
it's not like it's some scientifically provenhypothesis. And I'm careful of using the
word theory versus hypothesis because the wordtheory is an abused word here by the
left ear it's a hypothesis. That'sreally what the big bank. It's not
a big bank theory, it's abig bank hypothesis. Okay, So I'm

(25:19):
just saying that's an atheistic perspective.I don't say it's not possible under some
variation, but I think it's equallysensible that there would be some other higher
level being that has a say inwhat's going on here. I can't prove
one way another as a scientist.All I can tell you is the more

(25:41):
I've learned about science and going intoadvanced physics and things in the stature,
it's been mind bent mind bendingly apparentto me that there's an amazing amount of
things we don't know. Right,Well, we say, all this computer
power, we got all this,all this years and decades and Mollennia is

(26:03):
of expert scientists. We've got towe've got to have a pretty good idea
of everything. Well, we don'tknow. In either direction you go,
if you go on the microscopic view, interplant everything so forth, inner solar
system, or if you go onthe microscopic view. The more you go
in either direction, the more youfind out that we don't know. We
don't know how many power sources let'ssay types of energy there are. Let's

(26:26):
say I'm on a molecular level asexample, we just keep finding out,
Oh, there's six six different typesof energy here. Wow, forces different
forces. Wow, where where'd thatcome from? Yeah? Where'd they come
from? Indeed, how would thatjust be created? How would you have
six different molecular forces based on abig bang? Give me a break?

(26:48):
Well, and and one person canchange and science is fundamentally hypothesis driven,
because any one person can come upwith an idea that is so revolutionary.
I mean the clearly Einstein's theory ofrelativity there's many examples of it going through
history. Fundamentally, this is whatThomas Cohon called paradigm shifts. Suddenly everybody's

(27:11):
an agreed that this has to betrue, until somebody comes along and points
out that it isn't true, thatthere's something that wasn't considered, if something
wasn't known. And I doubt thatwe as human beings will ever be able
to know at all. We're alwaysgoing to be in this quandary of discovery.
I think so, I think sotoo, and and and the discovery.

(27:33):
You know, if you don't takeGod into the equation, it's hard
to explain how law driven what wefind out about is. You know,
in other words, you can't,I say back, even a graduate school
I remember arguing you can't. TheGorgias, which is one of the Platonic
dialogues with a sophist, is arguing, you know, beauty is what he

(27:59):
thinks it is, and true iswhat he thinks it is. And you
know, the argument is, well, how about if you cut a hole
in the bottom of your boat becauseyou want to see the fish. It's
a bad idea. What's going tosink? Because there are laws as to
how boats and water work. Itcan't just decide I'm going to see the
fish and make it work the wayyou want to work. It's going to
sink. So I can't jump offa clip and say I'm going to fly.

(28:21):
You know, there are in factlaws that govern this place, and
I think fundamentally you're insisting that wecan't redefine those laws in an ideological way
to meet some godless agenda. Andthe godless agenda always seems to be chaos,
subjective, destructive, that it isnot productive. And there's a discussion

(28:47):
even in you know, the Republic, where Plato is writing and saying,
you know, Socrates has a discussion. You mean, justice is what works
utility one. Socrates says, well, yeah, I think that has a
lot to do with what you justis. It's got to work, it's
got to actually make sense, it'sgot to function well. It has to
be a set of rules that dictatesbehavior in a way that's productive. And

(29:11):
so that's you know, this isthe fundamental discussions. I want to shift
in this because it's kind of interestingto me. I want to shift to
your work on election integrity. Okay, because now we're applying you know,
your your genius, you're thinking toa fundamental question of Now the left says,
well, we'll just you know,create machines, dominion machines, will

(29:34):
have bail in ballots. We justwant to win the elections. We don't
care how we win them. Wewant to win them. And so therefore
you're up against again, an ideologicalargument, trying to identify structures which allow
illegitimate votes to be counted. Andthat's a very hard that's hard. Tell

(29:55):
us why that's hard to do intoday in this environment. Well, election
teger is a bit of a complextopic. But if you want, I'll
give you a little background and howI get involved in it. Yes,
that's what I'm asking, Okay.About a week after the twenty twenty election,
I received a phone call from anattorney who I did not know,

(30:18):
and she said she was representing agroup of attorneys who were investigating the election
integrity issue. And she asked mewhether I was willing to put together a
team of experts to help them diagnoseddata. You should say so, I
had no idea. She didn't saywhy she called me. I speculated after

(30:41):
the fact that maybe she was givenmy name by somebody who read my news
letter because that's been going on sincetwo thousand and nine, so a lot
of interesting people are reading that.But that's just a guess. So anyways,
I told her the short I'm beingshort here, so I said yes,
and I said, I have toget some other experts here and see

(31:03):
if they're interested. So I wentthrough the list of people subscribed to the
newsletter because I have a description ofthem. Out of the ten thousand plus,
there's over a thousands that they hadPhDs, so a very high percentage
of pretty smart people. So Iwent through and I picked out five people

(31:23):
who had PhDs and statistics so Icould sort it that way, and I
came up with it. So Idecided to write. Because she said this
is sort of time sensitive. Iphoned each one of them up and I
was able to get in touch ofeach one of them, and I outlined
for each one of them, andI say, okay, here's what happened.
Are you interested, and obviously it'sfree, are you interested in analyzing

(31:49):
some election data? And gratifyingly,even though these are all very busy people,
every single one said yes, theywere. Well. The next day,
this turn and called me back,which is what I asked her to,
and I said, okay, fine. We have a team of six
people here, me, the leaderof these other five statistical one was an

(32:10):
IT PhD. They're all PhDs.And she said okay, fine. So
I said, so what specifically?She said, we're going to send We
have set up a website here thathas Pennsylvania data on it just for that,
and I'm going to give you theproprietory link for that. And I'd
like you and your team to lookat the data we have accumulated there and

(32:32):
tell us what you see. SoI was glad to see. At no
point did she try to steer mein a direction. She didn't say look
for problems with Biden or Trump.She didn't mention Trump or Biden. She
said, look at the data andsee what jumps out at you. I
said okay. So I said,how much time are you going to give
us here? And she said,well, how about the two days?

(32:54):
Okay, we're just starting from scratchhere. And I had to look through
all data and then find something andthen write it up. It's going to
be more in two days. Butthe bottom line, I can tell you
we did it in forty So wewrote up a report that's fifty pages,
and this is on this website.And what I decided to do was to

(33:15):
have each of these gentlemen that workedwith me do write their own chapter about
an issue they found interesting, statistically, surprisingly, statistically suspicious, statistically whatever,
and then I put this together ona multi chapter report. I'd write

(33:37):
an introduction, a summary, stufflike that. So that's what we did
and it's still there posted on thewebsite. This was the first report done
by anyone in the whole United States. We published this, I don't know
we have the data. I thinkit was eleven fourteen or something like that,
the first report published by anyone.Then subsequently we did nine more reports,

(34:00):
so we have ten major reports altogether, which is to my knowledge,
more than anybody else has done.Heritage, you name it. But these
are fascinating reports because we didn't haveany agenda here. We were looking at
things from a statistical statistical point ofview and say, what are some statistical
aberrations here that we wouldn't expect tohave happened. So these are all written

(34:22):
up and I'm still long to explainthe end result, but the bottom line
was there was an enormous amount ofstatistical and all give us, give us
an example of one or two kindsof anomalies you found. Well, each
chapter in this particular report in Pennsylvaniawas done by a different guy, and
they did different graphs to show thedeviations from the norm. I mean,

(34:49):
for instance, one guy does what'scalled contrast analysis. This is doctor Stan
young Are. He likes that sortof a traditional way of statistics people working.
So he said, we're going tolook at the twenty sixteen election what
happened there between the Democrats and theRepublican And then look at the twenty twenty
election, see what happened there betweenthe Democrat and the Republican. And he

(35:09):
did that not in a general way, he did that for every state and
every county in every state, everycounty, so we have an analysis of
that every county, every state comparingthose two. This is a phenomenal amount
of work. But he shows whata lot of a lot of the Democrats'

(35:32):
response was to say, well,trump laws, because we had better success
at getting the vote out, wehad better messaging here, stuff like that,
which if you think about what thosethings are, those would generally apply
across the board. And the factis that this particular report shows that that

(35:57):
isn't what happened at all. Thatthere was Like let's say in you look
at the look of report, butlet's say let's say there's one hundred counties
in the predictor state. Out ofthose counties here, ninety of them would
be almost identical to what happened intwenty sixteen. So by and large,

(36:20):
almost all of them were identical distributionRepublican versus Democrat. Three maybe would be
favoring Trump more than happened in twentysixteen, but seven would be favoring buying
it more than what happened in twentysixteen. So it's those seven, six,
seven, whatever on that type ofdistribution here that made all the difference

(36:43):
here. And so somebody was obviouslyfocusing on those particular counties, and so
better messaging wouldn't account for why sevencounties were significantly different where ninety three weren't,
and all this kind of stuff here. So there's a fascinating them out
here. And that's one of thereasons I've asked to be a testifier for

(37:04):
John Eastman, for Sydney, Paulfor Rugi Giuliani. All these people know
me here now because of writing thosereports. Those are just some of them.
But we looked at this from ascience point of view, and then
nobody else has really done that,and the facts are irrefutable. The bottom
line is, let me give youone bottom takeaway. The biggest thing we

(37:27):
have to do. You say,well, okay, what did we learn
from all this? The biggest thingthat's the problem that we need to fix
is that as of today, wehave zero zero meaningful post election audits.
Zero. Now you just think aboutthis. Let's say the IRS operated that
way. You could send in yourtax forms and you knew there'd be no

(37:49):
meaningful audit. All I would dois check your edition or other stupid things
like that. How many people doyou think would be sticking to the rules
here if they knew that was goingto happen. We have zero. There's
not a single precinct in the UnitedStates that does a meaningful post election audit.
That is just mind bendingly stupid.So, in other words, you're

(38:10):
saying that these anomalies, statistical anomalies, are indicative that something different happened in
these counties where the anomaly occurred,and then it's subject to what different happened
and why did it happen in thesenot the others? And I'm sure you
can find that the ones that wereaffected with anomalies were more critical to the

(38:34):
ultimate outcome than the ones that werenot anomalous. They were the ones that
were perfectly fine were probably inconsequential asa whole. And because the distribution of
population is not equal across counties,city councy counties which are more densely populated,
more densely democratic, yes, areAgain, if the anomalies occurring there,

(39:00):
you've got reason to be suspected.Okay, what were the rules that
were followed? And if there's noaudit, then there's no way to go
in and determine accountability as to whetherthe correct rules were followed or not.
So you've begun to build a casehere of this just can't be. So
it's a logical case. There's somethingwrong here. You haven't specified yet what's

(39:21):
wrong, but something's wrong. Well, there is other things. I'm being
brief here. Actually, there werethree major important audits done following a post
twenty twenty election within a twenty twentyand the way we wrote up that's our
report number ten about audits, whatthey should be And the way we look

(39:42):
at it is that the election processis really three different, three integral components
to it. One is the voter, the second is the mechanisms of handling
the vote machines or things of thatnature, and the third is the the
post election handling of balance. Eachone of those things is a separate thing

(40:06):
and has different concerns about it.In my view, the most important probably
is not the machines, but actuallythe voter. And I say that because
we're unbelievably fortunate that there were onlythree meaningful audits done in post twenty twenty,
none authorized. These are technically separateaudits that were court generated or whatever.

(40:29):
Two of them were court generated,one was done in Nevada of the
voter part, one was done inMichigan of the machine part, and one
was done in New York States aboutthe processing part. So fantastic luck that
three audits were done, and eachwas done in these particular areas. And

(40:50):
the interesting thing to me is thatall three of those audits were indicated a
disaster, disastrous failure. Every oneof those three audits failed horrifically bad,
every one of them. So saywe did three meaningful audits in the whole
country and all three of them weredisaster. Hello, what what else do

(41:12):
you need to know? Right?So the voter anomalies, we don't require
to have an id state. Somepas don't, but that's right. We
don't require that to be a citizen. Another another variable that could be,
we don't really you can walk inand just vote. What depends on the
state. In other words, thepoint is what's the what is the scrutiny

(41:35):
on the voter to determine the legitimacythat person has to vote, and that
is the person who is voting asproperly identified by the identification and they're only
voting once, voting once, andso forth right, And then the the
nature of how the ballots are collectedokay or are the okay? Do the
machines work? Do they tabulate correctly? Is it you vote for this candidate?

(41:59):
Does a record or is that candidate? Yes, you've got a big
box and you can dump ballots.How many balants are just dumped in boxes
a mail in? How many werereally legitimately scrutinized for signature and other characteristics?
And then afterwards the handling how manyballots show up suddenly and counting is
stopped and then candidate switches to theother guys suddenly as a winning after the

(42:23):
voting resumes. These kinds of incongruitiesand inconsistencies. So you're finding patterns,
yes, yes, well that's theseare and again you're doing it statistically,
so you're not beginning with a politicalbias in the analysis. You're looking for
what are the anomalies that the datashows up, and how are they related

(42:44):
to the mechanics of voting, whichis a precise process, which is not
biased to begin with. It's anobjective determination of what happened, which I
think that that gives it merit.But again it's because you're in the understanding
that there are things that are rightand wrong, there are procedures that are

(43:06):
correct and incorrect. And you know, men do not have babies. Two
plus two does not equal five.We don't need to put we only put
tampons and men's bathrooms because they're notgoing to menstrate. These are fundamental ideas.
They're hard for the left to grasp. But the point is, I

(43:27):
don't think they're no, they're nothydro grass. They understand the confusion they're
creating, and why they're creating it. It's very very well thought out and
as you point out, over along period of time, not expecting,
you know, having an horizon offifty years, a horizon of whatever period
of time it takes to do thisgradual change, so at some point the

(43:51):
change is irreversible. Let me pickon what the point you made their German
that is the Marsian meeting. We'reboth in here where Chrismin talked here.
Yes, one of the points hemade was they are purposely trying to create
confusion. So you just said they'retrying to create confusion about these sexual identities.
Well, he's saying this is aparticular format they used because they know

(44:16):
that that that weakens people's defenses andwhatever. So it's not just accidental,
it's on purpose. From a psychologicalwarfare perspective, there's a lot of psychological
techniques that are being used by theleft that have been very carefully studied over
a long period of time. Yes, and they are as fundamental as simple

(44:37):
principles which tell a big lie andtell it often and repeat it, get
an echo chamber to repeat it,and pretty soon people believe it. Yep.
And these kinds of techniques are veryvery powerful, and people rarely recognize
that they're being used. So youturn on the TV and you know,
Russian collusion for next Western collusion,next Wshing collusion, got echo chamber.

(45:00):
It's repeating a big lie. Well, that's one of the reasons that I
say or that the best defense wepossibly can have against this type of strategies
is to teach people to be criticalthinkers. That is something that if they
start asking questions about what they're beingtold here properly and they don't just accept
any type of Bologney answers. That'swhat critical thinking is all about. And

(45:22):
I can tell you the number onefear the left has is to have citizens
who are critical thinkers. They don'twant that at all. They want people
to be, you know, followersand just compliant. So that's why they're
doing all what they're doing. Andtake their twelve schools and this ENGSS,
they are teaching them to be notto be critical thinkers. One last point

(45:45):
about that as to why that's important. Do you know how many high school
kids graduate in the United States everyyear? No, I have no idea.
Make a guess, Oh, bea wild guest. I don't even
know the basis to make make awild guess. Well, forty million,
okay, so tag asking people what'sthe percentage of CO two in the atmosphere.

(46:05):
Maybe the answer is four million?Okay, four million students now again
playing the long game. So whatI'm saying to you is they have now
infiltrated forty nine states. Florida's theonly holdout forty nine states with a science
program that is teaching students to becompliant, to defer to authority, to

(46:27):
go along concessus, to accept politicalscience instead of real science, all this
kind of stuff they're being taught.And so what I'm concerned about is that
these four million graduates within a shortperiod of time become voting citizens. So
you figure out four million a newa year, new voting citizens that have

(46:50):
been completely propagandized. So this startedback in twenty twelve incially, so it
didn't it took a while to getup to steam because it went through all
the years here. But now they'reat the point where every year it's four
million new lebatoviized voting citizens. Soyou tell me how many years we as
a society can accept having an influxof four million new citizens who are completely

(47:19):
propagandized. It's not a good prospectwhen you think of the people who are
dying and the people who are inthe horizon of length of life, likely
they will be lived by this fourmillion that are graduated propagandized. So we've
got an exponential increase in population simplybecause the olders are the older people are
dying and they were taught critical thinking, Yes, now I want to go

(47:43):
one more thing. Because you alsoare on COVID, it seems to me
that a lot of what you're doingties into COVID because if we have the
proposition of a population that is acceptingwhat they're told. And so Fauci comes
out and says, you know,we've got a lock down because if we

(48:06):
don't, we're going to spread thisdisease. And we've got to have social
distance again, we got to wearmasks. So where is the basis in
science for these innovations, because youknow, the human race has gotten to
this point. There's never been apandemic that's wiped out. The whole human
race is evidenced by that. We'restill here, and we got here by

(48:30):
our immune systems being exposed to variousillnesses, and those capable of strong enough
immune systems or somehow resistant are theones who survive. And it improves our
immune system, which is our fundamentaldefense, which is improved by exposure,
not by isolation. So how doyou interpret the way the pandemic was orchestrated

(48:52):
and managed given what you've talked aboutwith critical thinking and the propagandizing, et
cetera. Well, I interpreted thatwhat they're doing is that they're gradually giving
us higher level tests to see howsome of their strategies are taking hold,

(49:12):
to see what's going on here,how successful their efforts at infiltrating the population,
how compliant the population can to be. So there's several examples that preceded
that. That's one of the reasonsI objected at the meeting the other day
that Stephen Frost, that's something thefact out did this all happen in twenty
twenty, Give me a break.This is happening well before twenty twenty.

(49:35):
And one example I use was conof change. But there's other examples here,
just what they did with energy,since you relate to that the fact
that they started doing renewable energy portfolios, like I don't know twenty some years
ago. What that amounted to wasthat there the government would say, Okay,
here's the preferred energy sources, andwe're going to mandate not just get

(50:00):
preferentially, We're going to mandate thatyou have to use let's say, twenty
percent wind energy in the State ofNew York's energy portfolio. We're going to
tell you this. So at thetime, I remember, I said,
this is so absurd. I said, what if the government stepped in and
said you have to have twenty percentof your cars be a certain way here.

(50:22):
Well, now, all of asudden, you see this is well,
okay, yes, they are sayingtwenty percent of your cars have to
be electric vehicles for instance, orsomething of that nature. But at that
time, people understood say, well, that'd be absurd. They said,
you know I had to buy acertain type of car that I would be
unacceptable. I said, well,you know the reason you're accepting it in
the energy field. You're going topaying attention to the energy field, where

(50:45):
a car is something you relate to. But that's exactly what they kept trying,
pushing this this further and further,and I think what they're looking for.
They're like the parallel I would makeis it's like dealing with children.
Children are looking for limits, andthat they keep pushing against the parents.
It's up to the parents to setthe limit, and as long as they
have a flexible limit, the troilergoing to keep pushing further, and then

(51:07):
the parents gonna say, oh,my goodness, what hell happened here?
I don't know. Well, it'sbecause they didn't have proper limits, so
they didn't stick to them. Commentary, but you go back to the nineteen
seventies, you've got Jimmy Carter talkingabout ethanol and biofuels, and so therefore
these ideas have been germinating for along time, and they did not require

(51:30):
that they work. Ethanol is notparticularly good to put it in an internal
combustion engine for many reasons. Butyet it was mandated that a certain percentage
of gasoline had to be ethanol.And Jimmy carterson, we're running out of
oil and natural gas, so we'vegot to use corn. And you just
wruped the corn cycle. So cornis now being produced for ethanol instead of

(51:52):
being consumed. And again, asyou point out, these ideas start in
small or start with the suggestion ofthe idea, and then they build the
mandates. Well, they're based onthe fact that the population isn't critical thinking.
The population is not technically competent tobe able to understand some of these

(52:14):
issues. So they've been trained tobe deferral to authority. So they say,
look, we're we're looking out foryour best interest here, blah blah
blah blah blah. And with peoplenot being critical thinkers, they say,
well, okay, fine, Ihave a life. Otherwise what am I
going to do about it? Sofine, and that's what I'm saying.
They just keep pushing to saying,you know, how much we can get

(52:35):
away with. So we're in somedangerous territory here for sure, because the
limits of homuts are going to getaway with has been horrifically bad here,
horrifically bad. Well, we've goneabout an hour. I want to ask
a couple of concluding questions. So, John, what do you think two
things, What are your prospects thatthis can be beaten? And what techniques

(52:57):
would you recommend have to be employedin order to reverse this trend which has
been going on for a long timeand has gained momentum, And it looks
to be the future of ways peoplehave already been indoctrinated to mature with their
indoctrination intact. Well, I'm gonnahave two answers to that. One you
may be surprised at, but I'vealready hinted at it, and that is

(53:21):
I think we need to have Americansget back to religion. I agree there
is a security in God. There'sa lot of answers there in the Bible
for us here. And I'm notsome fanatic, but I am a practicing
for some person. But I thinkthat helps make sense out of a lot
of things, and it may putsome of these things in perspective as to

(53:44):
their we're fighting evil, which Isaid, no God is really thing program
versus no God. So that's onething, so anybody can do that.
The second thing is people need tobecome critical thinkers. It's a little harder
for adults to do that, butthey should get in the practice of asking

(54:05):
questions as part of the idea.But as a minimum, our children we
have absolutely, unequivocally got to beteaching our children to be critical thinkers.
This is unequivocally, in my view, the top priority here. We cannot
let them be propagandized to be lobotomizedlemmings canon, which sounds like taking them

(54:27):
out of the public schools. Notreally. I think the public schools are
fixable. For instance, there's alittle aside you haven't meant for another side
certainly. Okay, there's a bigfight in North Carolina about this issue.
North County as an early major state. Right, So the person that is
the current superintendent of the public schoolsthere, Department of Public Instructions called is

(54:55):
a Republican. So I'm trying tobe chure here, but I've had multiple
dealings with her, and for instanceabout this issue of critical thinking, and
her sort of bureaucratic answer to mewas John were already doing a fine job
on critical thinking, so there's noneed to do anything different. It was

(55:15):
basically an answer, Well, that'sthat's totally false, because I know it's
false because I've studied the standards andso forth, so I know that's just
not happening. So anyways, Iwas concerned that the primary, it was
just a couple of weeks ago,that there was not going to be any

(55:36):
candidate who ran against her because she'sthe incumbent and you know, moderately well
liked and whatever. So a weekor so before the primary deadline, a
person did say, I'm going tocompete here. So this was a housewife,
a mother who had five kids.All five kids had been homeschool so

(56:00):
she had no experience of the publicschool system. She had no plaudit prior
political experience. So this is sortof a joke that this this mom would
say, Okay, fine, Iwant to take it over. I can
run this school system. And ofcourse she was opposed by everybody the GOP

(56:20):
primary. Now, so the GOPstate, GOP was in favor of the
incumbent. The leaders of the Senatewere all in favor of it. Other
power players, you're all in favorof it. She got a lot of
money. She outspent this housewife twentyto one. Something like that here blah
blah blah blah blah. So inthe election, so I had spoken to
her too, So I called herup after the incumbent said she didn't want

(56:44):
to do anything. I called thiswoman up and said, what are your
views about what we need to fixhere? And she said, will you
tell me since you know more aboutit? So I told her about critical
thinking, and she was very receptive. So she said, John, you
know, I'll tell you what inmy I get a want action. Now,
this is in January. I'm goingto introduce critical thinking into the talks.
I said, okay, you tellme what happened. So she called

(57:07):
back a few weeks later and said, John, T want to tell you
that every time I introduced critical thinking, which is almost all the time,
the response was very, very positive. I said, well why not.
Who was against teaching critical thinking?And she said, well, you're right,
everybody sort of assumings being done,but it's not. So I'm going
to continue to emphasize that. Soshe did. And she's a staunch conservative,

(57:30):
and she was against some of theother bad things that are happened in
schools like SEL. So the storyis that primary day in March happened and
she won. This was a nationalnews story. It was on Fox National
Headline here for a couple of days. They were stunned to say, how
this, this housewife could beat thestudying incumbent who had the support of everybody

(57:54):
and had all this money and everything. How did this happen? So I'm
telling you some positive That's why I'msaying what can be done if you get
out there and support good candidates,and if you get these people the right
time of ideas. I'm working withher now because she has continued to be
receptive to some things. So Idon't see any indication that's going to change.

(58:15):
I don't know what's going to happenhere. We're down to a two
person race here, so she hasa pretty good chance of succeeding here.
But I'm just giving that as examplethat one person, or you know,
small numbers of people can make adifference. I agree, now, John,
How do people get in touch withyou? They want to follow you?

(58:36):
What what's the best way? Well, I have a newsletter that's free
every two weeks. I have thesubstat column that comes out every week.
So how do they subscribe to thenewsletter? And how do they What is
the substack? What is the substantcalends name thinking? What is the name
of the substact? Well, it'scritical thinking about societal issues. But I

(58:57):
think if you just type in criticalthinking for my name, you'll find it,
John Drowse. As far as thenewsletter, the best way is probably
just to send me an email hsaying John, I'd look the newsletter and
I'll subscribe you. So if you'regonna post that on your site, my
email it's A A p R.That's Apple, Apple, Peter Robert,
A A p R. John.My name j O h N so A

(59:21):
A p R John first part atnorth net and r d h n E
T north net dot org. SoA p R John north net dot org.
Send me an email. I'd beglad to subscribe to you. If
you don't like it, money backA A R A p R Apple Apple,

(59:43):
Peter Robert P R John, jO h n at north n O
R T h n e t yepdot org dot org. Okay, great,
very simple. I'll subscribe this Internet. Thank you, h I've been
delight to be with you. Thankyou very much. I always end by
saying, in the end, Godalways wins. God will win here too,

(01:00:06):
There's no doubt about it. Goddid not create the human race to
fail. And we go through thesespiritual challenges and we may have a judgment
of God. I can't as theysay, you can't fool with mother nature.
It's not a good idea. Butin the end God will set things
right. And this is a spiritualbattle. So I always encourage people to

(01:00:30):
implore people to go to second chronicleseven fourteen, which says we should repent
for letting things get to this point, killing millions of babies in the womb,
all the things we've done, andGod will hear our prayer and heal
our land. But it begins withus taking action, with us recognizing our

(01:00:51):
role and responsibility in reversing the waythings are. And that applies their jury
if you don't mind, it's aone pace up to the motto that I've
lived by for a long time,and that is that the proper perspective about
God but God in you is prayas if everything dependent on God, but
work as if everything dependent on you. Well, that's a good one because

(01:01:15):
in fact, God is not goingto act until and unless we act,
and God acts through human beings.And that's I think where people do have
to pray, But at the sametime you have to take responsibility and have
to get involved, have to understandtheir role and being responsible for living moral

(01:01:39):
lives and supporting moral values. Yes, we have to have a moral society
else we've got chaos. John,it's been a great pleasure to have you
with us. Thank you very much. Any less comments you'd like to make
and I think you is there awebsite You've given out the email for the

(01:01:59):
news letter. People can say upemail in general. So that's your email
in general A A A P R. John and at northnet dot org.
Yes, okay, great, we'llfind that on the internet. And thank
you very much John for being withus. We greatly appreciate your time.
God bless and we'll be wanting tohave you back from time to time.

(01:02:22):
I appreciate that. Jerry, thankyou very much. Thank you, God
bless We'll be back with more programslike this. Thank you all for listening,
Doctor Droon Corsi, this is theTruthcentral dot com to a special program
with John Drose d R o Z. We were greatly appreciated for his time

(01:02:43):
and his insight. Thank you forjoining us. God blessed defends, defends

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist

Crime Junkie

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Woke Be Damned: Bring Back Science with John Droz, Jr

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist

Crime Junkie

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes

Woke Be Damned: Bring Back Science with John Droz, Jr

CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist