Everything's Political Season 4 Episode 21 - Dr. Robert Malone - PsyWar: Enforcing the New World Order

Dr. Robert Malone, co-author of "Psywar: Enforcing the New World Order," joins us to unravel the tangled web of censorship and propaganda infiltrating our everyday lives. Dr. Malone shares his personal encounters with deplatforming and the insidious defamation campaigns he's endured, revealing how tactics initially crafted for military operations are now deployed against citizens. We explore the fine line between maintaining freedom of speech and ensuring public safety, offering listeners a toolkit to better understand and navigate the forces of social media and censorship.
We explore the psychological tactics employed in modern society, spotlighting "sea lioning" as a method of provocation, and examine how these strategies mirror historical events such as those chronicled in "All the Shah's Men" by Stephen Kinzer. The conversation takes a deep dive into the murky waters of information control and its impact on political dynamics and public health discourse. We dissect the societal divisions caused by differing acceptance of authoritative narratives, drawing parallels to significant movements like Brexit and the Tea Party.

From the manipulation of fear during the COVID-19 pandemic to the challenges of safeguarding personal autonomy in a digitally dominated world, this episode offers a comprehensive examination of the psychological warfare waged against the public. We reflect on the importance of moral courage and personal agency in resisting totalitarian narratives while emphasizing the enduring relevance of the First Amendment. Join us on this enlightening journey as we uncover strategies to reclaim our sovereignty in an era marked by pervasive information control.

#Censorship, #Propaganda, #Deplatforming, #Defamation, #SocialMedia, #PsychologicalWarfare, #SeaLioning, #MarketingStrategies, #InformationControl, #PublicHealth, #FreedomofSpeech, #SocialMedia, #Censorship, #Brexit, #TeaParty, #Misinformation, #Disinformation, #Malinformation, #Blockchain, #Fear, #COVID-19, #Technology, #HumanBehavior, #AuthorityFigures, #Isolation, #GovernmentService, #Politics, #Corruption, #Biodefense, #GrassrootsActivism, #TotalitarianControl, #MoralCourage, #PersonalFreedom

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:05):
Hey everybody, and welcome to Everything's Political. I'm your host,
Taya Shoemake. You can also find us online at Everything's
Political dot substack dot com. Shout out to Magicman, Joe Strecker,
the Nat King Cole of podcast producers.

Speaker 2 (00:23):
Unforgettable, that's what you are.

Speaker 1 (00:34):
Unforget unforgettable indeed, and on this day, Joe. In nineteen
fifty six, the Nat King Cole Show debuted on NBC.
It was the first variety show hosted by an African American.
And my grandmother absolutely adored Nat King Cole said he

(00:56):
had an olive oil voice.

Speaker 3 (01:00):
Ssolutely same ass.

Speaker 1 (01:25):
And returning today is very special guest Robert Malone, author
of cy War Enforcing the New World Order, and he
co authored that with his wife, doctor Jill Glasspool Malone.
And for those who of you who don't know, doctor
Malone is an internationally recognized virologist, an immunologist, clinical research

(01:47):
and regulatory affairs expert. My goodness, the resume goes on
and on US federal contract proposal and project manager. And
he was the original inventor of mRNA delivery in vaccination
as a technology, and of course, as most of you know,
it was him speaking out against the issues of that

(02:10):
technology that he thought originally were resolved but ended up
not being resolved. That kind of put him in a
quagmire and in the crosshairs of everyone from the DOJ,
to the media, to the globalists, et cetera. And that's

(02:35):
probably a lot of the impetus for this book, Doctor Malan,
welcome back, Thanks for coming.

Speaker 2 (02:40):
Thanks a lot for having me on.

Speaker 1 (02:42):
Okay, before we dive into the book, I just wanted
to ask for those who may not be as familiar
with your journey, could you give us a brief introduction
as to why right, Why this book?

Speaker 2 (02:56):
Why Cywar? Which is our second book, actually our third
book to get other Jill and I. The first one
was censored and deplatformed by Amazon for violating community standards,
and it was a book on how to prepare and
protect yourself from the novel coronavirus written by a PhD
in an MDMs very referenced, et cetera. But I guess

(03:17):
we went against the approved norms because we actually discussed
the established public health norms for responding to a pandemic,
which of course pretty much were completely broken during this
response That led to a series of experiences a long

(03:40):
and winding road and chronicling those experiences first in Substack
as serialized set of chapters essentially, and then wrapped up
into the book Lies My Government Told Me in the
Better Future Coming, which included sections from a number of
people Meryl Nass, Pier Corey, and many others, and was

(04:00):
published under this Children's Health Defense banner. We carried on
a course with the Substack and continued to the present
writing daily essays. I think we're pushing about two thousand
total now. And one of the themes that emerged as
we were grappling with trying to comprehend what was being
thrown against us by corporate media, social media, on peer groups,

(04:23):
et cetera, was the nature of censorship, propaganda and these
new strategies and tactics that were being deployed against us.
We could sense they were being deployed. The coordination of
the delegitimization was clear. The campaigns of defamation in corporate media,

(04:47):
in particular in published media Atlantic Monthly Business in Cider,
Rolling Stone, Washington Post, New York Times, et cetera. All
of that was clearly coordinated and occurred in ways in
an attempt to make sense out of this something that
I'd never experienced before in my career. I dove into
the literature around propaganda censorship, and this led me into

(05:11):
the literature scant literature about fifth generation warfare. So as
I began to explore that thought space and that literature,
I realized this was something different, That this set of
suite of technologies had been developed for offshore combat against
the likes of al Qaeda and the Taliban, and then

(05:31):
had been turned by the Western nations against their own citizens,
including me or Sam Donald Trump, and so many others.
Bobby Kennedy is another example. Nicole Shanahan was taken aback
when it hit her. Even Dell Bigtree was a little
bit stunned when he started getting the attacks that he
was controlled opposition, having that experience in writing about it

(05:54):
fairly frequently on Substack in a series of essays like
The Sins of Information Warfare was a notable one where
I argued that aping or deploying the same tactics on
our opponents that they're using against us is immoral and
will cause us to basically become or assimilate the ethics

(06:16):
of our opponents, and that this was wrong and many
others exploring the nature of defamation. And then there was
a couple of key reports out from the House of
Representatives in the Weaponization of Government Committee and the Energy
and Commerce Committee that revealed a lot more about the

(06:37):
censorship industrial complex. Because they had the power speeding than
even the likes of Matt Tabe and Schellenberger and others
had revealed in the Twitter files and the Facebook file,
et cetera. It was a little bit odd to find
myself named in some of those reports, and so I

(06:57):
went along and Jill and I decided that there was
enough substance here and enough of a need for the
general public to understand what was being done, and hoping,
perhaps naively, that if we helped people to understand the
nature of the technology, how it was being deployed, who
is deploying it, and what their agendas were, and furthermore,

(07:18):
what you could do about it, that it would be
very helpful to people to have this companium and the
glossary in the back. I think is a huge asset
for people that just want to kind of understand the
structure of social media and the Internet and these trollery
and what goes on. I never would have thought that
I would learn the meaning of the term sea lioning

(07:41):
so that tactic gets deployed all the time.

Speaker 1 (07:44):
I don't think I've heard of that.

Speaker 2 (07:46):
So this is the If you've ever had a three
year old, you understand sea lioning. If they ask you
question after question after question after question after question until
it drives you barking mad. That is pretty close approximation
of what sea lining is, only it's done intentionally as
a trollery tactic, whether or not the three year old

(08:06):
is doing that intentionally to provoke their parents, which might
be the case. So Jill started to pull this together
about starting two years ago. She dove into our sub stack,
pulled out all of the various essays we'd written that
had anything to do with this, and started structuring them
into sections, and then together we started rewriting them and

(08:29):
updating them. This book is the work product of that. Again,
the intention here is to provide people information that they
can use in their daily lives to understand what is
an adjacency to marketing. Just like when we understand that
corporations are using sex to sell us food and cigarettes

(08:52):
and cars and hamburgers and everything else, then we become
more resistant to those messages in all their other various
markets strategies. The thinking was that since this kind of
suite of technologies is analogous, that if we help people
to understand what's being done, then they'll become much more
resistant to it, and these technologies will become less effective.

(09:15):
And furthermore, I argue in the book extensively that the
deployment of this tech, which is amazingly powerful, it's designed
to go straight into your subconscious, deployment of this tech
by governments against their own citizens is intrinsically unmorl You know,
if we want to say a sin or however you
want to structure your belief system, this is wrong and

(09:38):
it violates the fundamentals of the contract between the governed
and the governing, and it violates personal sovereignty. And it
seeks to control all of your thoughts, all emotion you encounter,
all information you encounter. Your thoughts, your emotions, your very essence,
your being, your soul is the goal here. The battlefield

(10:01):
is your mind. And that's the modern concept which NATO
incorporates in their current battle strategy known as hybrid warfare.
A very large section of psychological warfare together with kinetic warfare.
We have a division of the Army down in Fort
Bragg that's their Psyops division. You can look up the

(10:23):
video if you search cywar soldiers. When people watch it,
they're often stunned. It's very effective. In itself, is a
bit of propaganda. It's a recruitment video. But that's the
goal here, and that's what's being done, is that Western
nations have convinced themselves that it's necessary and acceptable to

(10:47):
not only do things like nudging, which is the you know,
we have Obama created a nudge unit within the US government,
just like there's a nudge unit within the British government
that is designed to socially engine near all of us
in subtle ways having to do you know, if you've
become if you're somebody who finds netflix content offensive because

(11:08):
of the let's say, disproportionate representation of certain groups or
behaviors or these various euphemisms like wocism or transsexualism, et cetera.
If you find that offensive, you don't these days, you
don't have you can go to another channel, but it's

(11:31):
all over. Just like diversity, equity, inclusion is a fundamental
principle of the US government and throughout most of our
industry reinforced by black Rock and equity and inclusion is
our key watchwords. These things are all being reinforced throughout
our society using nudge technology, and you can see it

(11:52):
as you encounter media, particularly Hollywood and the various streaming channels.
So that's the nature of this thing. That's the goals
and objectives. And I hear that people are finding it useful,
that it is a deep read. I recommend to people
they don't just try to do it cover to cover,

(12:13):
although those that like the audiobook format seem to like
to do that, and it is structured well so that
you've moved from section to section, but rather for the reader,
I think it's a good idea to start by taking
a look at the table of contents, picking out chapters
that you find intriguing. One fun place to start is
at the back the glossary and some of the back

(12:36):
chapters that talk about what we can do and then
skip around. A lot of people like the chapter on
psychological warfare psychological bioterrorism. I mean they enjoy some of
the concepts in the sections that talk about the new
cast system, of physicals, virtuals, overlords, and machines. So just

(12:58):
take a peek at the table the contents, pick out
the things that you like, start there, and then fill
in as you wish. If you're somebody that finds the
whole thing a little bit intimidating to go from soup
to nuts, well.

Speaker 1 (13:13):
Thank you for that. So important to know what we're
dealing with. I'm probably gonna do both the audio and
the literal book so important to know to define the term,
so I also appreciate the glossary. You know, several years
ago I read a book called All the Shaw's Men
by Stephen Kinzer, and now this was Operation a Jax.

(13:35):
It was right nineteen fifty three, and when things started
happening here, I guess maybe the when things started to
spiral after twenty twenty, that book immediately came to my mind.
They did everything in Operation a Jax that they're doing
to us.

Speaker 2 (13:52):
The CIA seems to have kind of just a go
to playbook.

Speaker 1 (13:57):
They really do, and unfortunately the technology is on in
their favor right in the fact that unsuspecting Americans or
most of us just want to be left alone. And
you know, it's uh. I found out early on. They're
not going to leave you alone. That's just not possible.
So you have to really stand up and say no.

Speaker 2 (14:16):
They seem to feel like it is there a prerogative
to control us in shape American society, and uh what
our what our motives are, what our beliefs are. You know,
there's the famous William Colby quote, Our our disinformation campaign

(14:36):
will be complete when everything that the American public uh
knows is false and that has been tracked down. That
wasn't actual quote. Somebody that was there in the room
when it was said is spoken about this on the internet.
So yeah, and Mockingbird and the Mighty World, sir, and
all of that uh is is for real and it's

(14:59):
still pursue into the present day. I was on a
broadcast in one of the second tier networks, Conservative Network,
the other day, right after Washington Post put out their
off piece on the latest Bob Woodward a book called War,
and he seems to have a habit of over I

(15:20):
think his last five books all are pinned in some
way to an election, and particularly elections of Donald Trump,
and they are often quite pointedly defamatory about Donald Trump.
And this is the case with the book war. And
there was a comment there that was highlighted by the

(15:41):
Washington Post and corporate media that involved a unattributed source,
and so I was asked to comment and all this.
I said, well, this is clearly great propaganda, great propaganda
in it. You can see it really plainly in corporate
media pretty much all the time when they say something

(16:01):
like sources said or experts say, and they don't name
who the sources are or the experts. That's great propaganda
right off the bat. The one that is black propaganda.
These colors of propaganda is one way to sort it,
and it's really useful to kind of understand that white
propaganda is more classical marketing. You know they're trying to

(16:21):
sell you something. They know they're trying to sell you something.
The whole transaction is pretty transparent, and you know who
it is that's selling it to you and how they're
selling it to you. Great propaganda there's this utilization of
unnamed or accult or hidden sources of information, but you
usually know who's pushing it, so that's kind of gray.

(16:44):
And then black propaganda. There was a great example on
X the other day. There was a group of boats
moving up a river and they were flying pro Trump,
pro MAGA flags from their sterns. And so, you know,
these boatsmen seem to somehow find pleasure in doing this

(17:07):
and having their little boat parades, just like sometimes people
when they're going to the football game will put little
flags on their cars representing their favorite football team. So
these boats were going up river and one of them
had two sponsors or whatever you call it, out the
back and flags on top, and on the top was

(17:31):
Donald Trump flags, and right below that were it was
Trump vans or something like that, you know, the kind
of classic poster that they put out. And right below
that we're flying Nazi battle flags. And on deck was
somebody who was holding up a placard talking about my
pillow and that whole marketing campaign, and others in that

(17:56):
Procession recognized right off the bat that this was black
propagand that these were people that were purporting to be
messaging on behalf of Donald Trump and MEGA, when in
fact they were infiltrators, misrepresenting their affiliation and they were
actually acting on behalf of the Harris Walls Democrat National

(18:18):
Committee agenda. And so one of the larger boats kind
of veered across the channel, and I think they call
it a prop wash. They elevated their outboard engines and
gundam and flooded the one boat with water as a consequence,

(18:39):
you know, so they called them out and they took action.
But that was just a great case of black propaganda
that I like to use as and illustration so people
understand it. So that's an important one. I think if
you go through the book, you'll end up with structuring
your mind a little bit. So that what I hear
again and again is people saying I kind of sense

(19:00):
that this was out there, but now I have a
way to think about it, and and suddenly things come
into focus that before were just kind of vague senses
of unease.

Speaker 1 (19:10):
That's fantastic. So folks asked me, well, this was I
guess one or two years ago when the topic of
limited hangouts first started.

Speaker 2 (19:19):
Yes, the other important one.

Speaker 1 (19:22):
Yeah, And and my explanation, They're like, how do I know?
And I said, well, did you ever did your mom
ever say to you no craptick, Tracy or you know
that was my mom saying growing up when someone said
something that was obvious. And I said, whenever I've heard
a limited hangout it's something that I've known, they're just

(19:42):
now saying it. And yet they're also trying to push
the narrative behind the scenes.

Speaker 2 (19:48):
Precisely in the And it's a distraction tactic, which many
of these are, in which some entity, some government agency
or something has ostensibly come clean suddenly and we're all surprised,
Oh my god, they finally said it. We've all known it,
but now they've acknowledged it, and we never look deeper

(20:08):
into whatever the thing is that they're trying to cover
through this distraction tactic. I caught this. I was asked
to present on Bannon once about some recent event where
the government had disclosed something that was self evident, and
Bannon and I think it was Natalie, we're both all
in the narrative, and oh boy, isn't this amazing they

(20:29):
finally said this. I said, guys, guys, this is a
tactic that's been deployed on you, and you need to
look underneath it and why they are doing this at
this point in time.

Speaker 1 (20:41):
And I don't know if that is curiosity. I mean,
you know, we talk about the people behind this, whether
whatever you call them, the deep state or the globalists
or whatever. There will always be an element of humanity
around us that is evil, that wants to violate the
social contract or wants to control everything. And but there

(21:02):
are people who, for instance, I know folks who instantly
knew Anthony Fauci was lying from he went from there's
nothing to see here to you're all going to die
gasping for air waiting on a hospital bit and that
was just a bridge too far for them. And so
there are I think it's a minority of people who
have a proclivity to go no.

Speaker 2 (21:21):
Who is it?

Speaker 1 (21:22):
Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book called Blink and it's based
on doctor John Goodman. I believe that's accurate. And he
calls what the mind does is thin slicing. It's the
mind's amazing ability to thin slice or sum up a
situation or a person without a lot of context. And

(21:46):
I mean, I might call it intuition, I might call
it something different. I don't know. But he talks about
how amazingly accurate the mind can be. And so you know,
my goal is always to try not to have a
lot of noise going on so that I can look
at what is the truth of a situation.

Speaker 2 (22:05):
So to your point, Matias talks about this. Sigmund Freud
talks about this, although sexually talks about this. That there
is a fraction of the population reproducibly. Studies indicated it's
about twenty percent that are readily convinced of a promoted narrative,
or you call it hypnotized. There's a big crossover between

(22:27):
susceptibility and hypnosis and this kind of credulousness of being
willing to accept a promoted narrative from an authority figure.
And then there's something like twenty percent of the population
is extremely resistant to this type of thing. Unclear why,
by the way, what their common characteristics are. It's always

(22:48):
a key question that people start asking. And then there's
this persuadable middle that kind of goes whichever way the
wind blows. They're suggestible but not really hypnotized, and they
can you can think of this as somewhat akin to
the undecided voter, but the undecided voter in our society
where it's so polarized as a tiny fraction compared to

(23:11):
the general persuadable middle. And Huxley interestingly argued in the
early sixties that this is absolutely necessary to govern, that
you have this twenty percent of people that are just
willing to accept whatever the party line is, because if
you didn't have that, we truly would have anarchy, because

(23:33):
we would all be you know, the metaphor is hurting cats.
We would all be going in our own independent direction
and nothing could ever get done. As you often see
when you see a conclave of libertarians. The joke about lawyers,
if you put four lawyers in a room, you'll have
six opinions. The same is true with libertarians. So you know,

(23:56):
Nigel Farage complained about this and said that the only
way that he was able to get you, Kip and
Brexit together was they had to come up with a
word that everybody could agree upon, and that word was Brexit.
And once they did that they could move forward. But
until they could do that, they spent years and years
just bickering with each other. That's the nature of that

(24:18):
twenty percent that isn't so readily convinced of things, and
they are relatively uncomfnable, right, I.

Speaker 1 (24:25):
Mean, there's a reason why libertarians can't get traction on
a big scale. I mean, it's just it's they implode
at some point. It's very frustrating when you look past
at the past, movements that have been effective, organic movements
that have been effective. The last one I remember is
the Tea Party movement, and it was fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility.

(24:49):
They had three bullet points and everyone could agree on
and I think that's why it was relatively successful. I
think that I think they genuinely scared the people.

Speaker 2 (25:01):
You know, I forget about the Tea Party movement as
a key predicate to what we're experiencing. I often talk
about Brexit and Trump's first election, and remember, in Trump's
first campaign, they explicitly used social media toolkit. They really
used psychological warfare very effectively. And prior to that, the

(25:23):
use of psychological warfare and the social media tools that
were designed for that, like Twitter and Facebook, they were
very effectively deployed during the color revolutions, most notably during
the Middle Eastern Arab Spring movements, and were very very
effective in enabling regime change without needing to go to

(25:45):
kinetic warfare or targeted assassinations. And I think that convinced
the intelligence community and kind of the broader NATO world,
and you know, as if Russia and China weren't already
on board, but convinced the West, that they really did
need to push this technology and that they had lightning

(26:06):
in a bottle with the likes of Twitter and Facebook.
And then along came Brexit and Trump and as you
point out, the Tea Party movement, and that created the
momentum towards the Obama position announced at the Hoover in
that notable lecture where he made the case that was

(26:28):
going to be necessary to have censorship in order to
preserve democracy, and that's now become a core theme much
of the government in their activities and Justified you know,
and not just the US government, all across the West
is the JUSTIFICA and the United Nations and the World
Health Organization. Hederos just went on a rant about the

(26:49):
need to become more aggressive with the anti vaxxers.

Speaker 1 (26:53):
Huh.

Speaker 2 (26:54):
Sounded like he was channeling Peter Hotez. That loops back
to the Department of Homeland Security Andro Mayerici's position that
people spreading miss dissin mail information are domestic terrorists and
everybody just kind of swallowed that without taking a moment
to figure out what the meaning of miss disin mail
information is. You allow me, just for your audience to

(27:17):
dive into that, because is super important. And of course
I've tested interest because if you look up my Wikipedia entry,
you'll see that I am a prominent spreader of misinformation
during the COVID crisis. It's one of the first things
they mentioned. So what is misinformation. It's any information which differs,
in the case of public health, from the approved narrative

(27:38):
of your public health infrastructure in your nation state. In
our case, it's the CDC, in H and FDA and
the WHO. So if you say anything at any point
in time that differs from their official narrative, you are,
by definition a spreader of misinformation. Then I mentioned that
will Miam Colby a definition of disinformation or mention his

(28:01):
quote about disinformation that our mission will be our disinformation
campaign will be complete when everything that the American public
knows is false. Disinformation is the spreading of misinformation for
political purposes. So if I was to spread aggressively spread
information from Turtles all the way down in order to

(28:27):
promote Bobby Kennedy's candidacies explicitly, then that would meet the
criteria for disinformation. Malinformation is the one that I find
most notorious. Malinformation is any information, whether true or false,
which causes the listener to become suspicious or wary or

(28:48):
concerned about their government if they think for themselves.

Speaker 1 (28:52):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (28:53):
Well, more importantly, if they share their thoughts with someone
else about something like inerence, for instance, even if they're
citing actual facts that demonstrate like we've seen a number
of them come out about this current election and dominion
voting machines and disclosing passwords and things like that, if

(29:15):
we share that, then we're guilty of malinformation because then
that will cause people to become concerned about election integrity
during the current election. No matter which way it goes.

Speaker 1 (29:27):
I'm of the belief that my government does everything and
more that it only accuses other governments of doing.

Speaker 2 (29:34):
Because the elephant will be a lot of projection. I agree.

Speaker 1 (29:38):
The elephant in the room of your last statement is
where's free speech in all of this? Because that seems
to be the antidote we you know. I feel like
anytime there's a controversy, actually both sides sometimes want to
take a shredder to the Bill of Rights, and that's
a problem.

Speaker 2 (29:56):
Just to illustrate the complexity of this issue, I was
having a conversation with a group of people down in
Mexico City about a year and a half ago that
we're talking about building a new web architecture built on
blockchain and decentralized servers, so that all of us that
were participating in it would have a small fraction of

(30:17):
the global database of everything all identified through the blockchain,
and then when someone seeks to access some bit of information,
it's pulled from this decentralized network of blockchain aligned laptops.
So here's the point to illustrate this. What happens when
someone decides to This is rather a blunt so forgive me,

(30:41):
but it's intended to shock. What happens when someone decides
that they want to store snuff films or kittie porn
on this blockchain network to be accessible through a dark
web or whatever the thing is. Well, I don't want
snuff film or kittie porn on my laptop, let alone surreptitiously.

(31:02):
I don't want anything to do with that. So therefore,
if such a structure was created, we're going to have
to have a governance board that will set norms and
establish capabilities to ensure that no one is utilizing this
new internet to distribute kitty porn and snuff films okay,

(31:24):
And once you've got a censorship board set up, the
bureaucratic momentum is they expand their and we see that
again and again and again, this kind of creeping mission
problem in every structure, every organization set up to censor
in any way, and so you end up with this

(31:45):
really difficult problem that's somewhat into the problem of if
you're going to say yes to abortion, but you're going
to draw a line somewhere in terms of the time
since conception, then you end up in a real ambiguous
space where there is no true distinction, and you end
up in a kind of a sliding morality. So it

(32:07):
is with censorship. And I've forced myself into kind of
a more libertarian position on censorship. Although it is reflexively
easy to say, well, that person should be able to
say that because that's false, or that's inflammatory, or that
is immoral, or whatever your criteria is, if you're going

(32:31):
to be rigorous about it, you have to take a
really permissive position on information and thought and speech, and
that brings with it some real hard moral problems. But
we have the benefit of this brilliant document from the

(32:53):
founding fathers that says that we have some freedom of religion,
and we have freedom of speed and number of other freedoms,
and they don't put boundaries on it. Somebody the other
day wasn't a pandemic exception to that. I certainly appreciate
the challenges and the logic of making the First Amendment

(33:16):
somewhat negotiable, but I think that we have to be
more absolutist about it, even though that means that we
will tolerate some things that we think are just absolutely disgusting,
like modern pornography and that destroy human souls and result
in exploitation and other things. It's kind of the price

(33:41):
we have to pay.

Speaker 1 (33:43):
I agree on. And you know, there is a personal
tolerance that you can employ, but there is also a
personal choice. And I think if we are curious and
we're critical thinkers, I think it was Aristotle. It's the
mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain't
an idea without accepting it.

Speaker 2 (34:02):
The other paradox in this, though, is our children, because
they're not that developed to discern correct some of these
things are as addictive as narcotics.

Speaker 1 (34:14):
Yeah, and I think that's our role as parents.

Speaker 2 (34:18):
You know.

Speaker 1 (34:19):
One of the issues that we face is that we've
we've come to outsource the blessings of liberty instead of
walking through them, you know, whether it's our finances or
our security, or the education of our children. I'm not
saying everybody homeschool. I'm just saying you have to be
involved in the school, right. You have to go to
those meetings, make sure you're seeing what's coming out of

(34:39):
the backpack, whatever that means to you. But the care
of our blessings seems to be focused on whether or
not those blessings are easy and comfortable, right, Because I mean, if.

Speaker 2 (34:53):
We're focused on what we can get, what are the goodies?

Speaker 1 (34:57):
What are the goodies? And so we don't see the
blessings in adversity, and so we have to outsource them.

Speaker 2 (35:06):
Well put, so, you.

Speaker 1 (35:08):
Guys cover such a great amount of things. I'm going
to reread all the shows men, because I know there
was a free technological counterpart to some of these, but
cywar tactics, techno totalitarianism, surveillance capitalism, can you talk about
that just briefly.

Speaker 2 (35:26):
So, surveillance capitalism is crucial to comprehending this whole ecosystem.
And I didn't invent the term. It's an established concept,
and it is basically the term which describes the business
model that makes Silicon Valley profitable, Silicon Valley being a
metaphor for social media, Google, et cetera, any of these

(35:50):
tools that are involved in social communication. So to illustrate
the point, there's a toggle on X that comes natively
set when you upload it and you know we're downloaded
or whatever you do and install it, it comes natively
set that you're allowing Twitter or X to capture, to surveil,

(36:15):
and capture information from any tabs that are open on
your browser, not just the X tab. Okay, And there's
analogous with Amazon of course, if you want to really
just have your life uploaded all your metadata, just go
ahead and get Alexa or whatever the tool is. But

(36:35):
the business model is to as I was kind of
alluding to, using their language to capture as much or
as all of the metadata cloud surrounding it, which is
to say, everything that you do, say, interact with on
the Internet and to capture this archive it. And that

(36:58):
extends down to Delco is capturing information from how you drive.
That's the recent lawsuit from the Paxton in Texas against
Delco because they don't really disclose. That's what they're doing
to the purchasers. So the goal is to capture everything
about you what you're buying when you sign up for

(37:19):
the little cards in the discount cards at your local
grocery store. That enables them to capture and sell all
information about what you're buying and when you're buying, in
the time of day and everything else. There's standard agreements

(37:39):
that you're asked to concur with when you go to
your doctor, and they're using a digital health care system
that allows all of those data to be uploaded. I
have an Apple I Watch. My Apple I Watch, I
have to sign in on my Apple I Watch captures
all kinds of health information data from me because of
the model that I have. So all of this is

(38:02):
uploaded into the cloud and it's used to create a
digital you can call it a signature, or you could
call it an avatar of you, and then that is
used to create what are called behavioral futures of you
or other people that or you as an individual as

(38:22):
well as you in aggregate. You might be part of
a digital ID group, a behavioral future of moms who
are interested in homeschooling. Now all these things get parsed
and segmented based on the metadata. And by the way,
the extension of this is the belief that eventually there
will be sufficiently granular metadata profiles for most people to

(38:48):
enable the creation of avatars, and that those avatars can
be sold so you could or least better because in
the future you will own nothing and be happy. So
they will be leased, and you can have your little portfolio,
your little folder of avatars of people that you find

(39:10):
useful to have their opinions, and you can consult with that.
You can learn all kinds of things that the avatars
can advise you. They can teach you about medicine or whatever.
You could get a Peter McCullough avatar to tell you
everything you ever wanted to know about cardiology, et cetera,
et cetera. And furthermore, in these behavioral profiles are very

(39:32):
aggressively sold. They're sold to advertisers, marketers, and in the
case of Amazon, Amazon is vertically integrated, so they don't
need to sell it. They already own it, and they
own all of this broad spectrum of goods and services
that they sell, and so they can push those that
can anticipate what it is you're going to want. And

(39:54):
anybody that interacts on Amazon has these spooky stories about
how they were talking with their wife about something and
then suddenly Amazon was trying to sell things to them
that relate to whatever it is they were talking about. Yes,
and then there's Google with its algorithmic manipulations based on
your metadata will actively shape the information that you're presented with.

(40:16):
It's Robert Epstein has demonstrated with his team that Google
has and deploys the capability to sway undecided voters by
up to twenty points by selecting which information they're presented with.
With this ephemeral information feed, which is the push media

(40:38):
that you get when you log on or access some
Google aggregator side or whatever. That's all curated and pushed
at you based on Google's AI driven interpretation of your metadata,
who you are and where Google wants you to be.

(41:00):
So if you take that information and then take a
moment to process the nature of modern psychological warfare technology
cognitive warfare, that's the accessing your subconscious. Psychological warfare is
accessing your conscience mind. So the cognitive warfare example is

(41:21):
one example is the repeated messaging that is become so
notorious in network news, for instance, safe and effective, safe
and effective, safe effective without ever saying what they mean
by safe or by effective. That goes straight into your subconscious.
So if you take these two things, the one that
is I argue, stealing part of your soul because they're

(41:43):
not paying you for it, they're taking it from you.
In the sense of Austrian school of economics, there's only
two ways to build wealth through your act you actions
in building goods and services and real things or stepped
and clearly Silicon Valley is stealing part of your soul

(42:06):
and reselling it, which anybody that has a background in
theology knows is one of the things that are prohibited.
You started off by saying evil, that's truly evil. So
they steal this. They fashion this metadata structure about you,
this cloud of information about you that becomes the input vector,

(42:26):
as I was saying with Google in the example for
psychological and cognitive warfare tools that then seek to shape
effectively everything that you information, you encounter, everything that you think,
feel and believe, and so the vector. Some of all
this is that you as an individual interacting with any media. Now,

(42:48):
if you're conscious of what's going on, you become aware
that you have to second guess your own mind, that
you're not able to discern what are actually your own
thoughts and emotions versus those that are implanted in you.
We all talk about neuralink and elon musk, but effectively

(43:09):
this is already being done to you without having any electrodes. Furthermore,
I argue that not only does this result in this bizarre,
surreal landscape where you can't know what is true because
everything is manipulated. Furthermore, you can't readily discern whose friend
and who's foe in the social media landscape because of

(43:34):
all of these surreptitious tactics that are deployed. And so
what that results in is further social fragmentation. You're further isolated,
you know, we so many of us are, you know,
a run into younger people through middle aged people now
that just live in their home and interact online, and

(43:54):
all of their social interactions are through an online community.
And now even that concept of community is flooded with
bots and trolls and various surreptitious actors spreading black propaganda,
et cetera. So you can't know that somebody is friend
or foe so you're further isolated. And if you follow

(44:15):
the work of Mattis Descimond and others, Hannah Aren't, et cetera,
then you become aware that the predicate condition that enables
this creeping totalitarian in terrianism into our lives is social fragmentation.
That is the disease that is the precursor in the
sense of helpless, hopeless irrelevance, which Mattist calls bullshit jobs.

(44:42):
We're really not only re isolated from each other, we're
not even really contributing anything to society. And so in
that environment it becomes really easy for an authoritarian figure
to step in and say that because that creates that
creates anxiety and social pain.

Speaker 1 (45:00):
Sure there's no purpose, and so you're going to allow
someone else to tell you what your purpose.

Speaker 2 (45:04):
And you have more than that. You have angst, in dissatisfaction,
unhappiness and free floating, you have free flooding anxiety, you
have cognitive dissonance, all these sources of psychological pain. And
so somebody can step in and just to use it
as a stocking horse. Anthony Fauci can step in as

(45:27):
the White Knight, the rescuer and say I understand why
you're having so much pain. It's because of this outside influence,
this nasty virus, or we're still the people that haven't
taken the JAB are causing you this psychological pain. And

(45:48):
I have the way to relieve that pain. I alone
hold the special thing. This is Wizard of Oz. Behind
the curtain, right, listen to the Great Oz. Don't look
behind the curtain and believe what you're being told. Remember,
Wizard of Oz was a intensely political book. Yes, so
none of these things are new. They're just fundamental in
human behavior. But as you pointed out, but with the

(46:12):
amplification of modern digital technology, they become so much more effective.

Speaker 1 (46:18):
And still, isn't there a measure of intellectual laziness that
has to accompany that proclivit. I know that we're overwhelmed
and the messages repeat and we get kind of bombarded
with those things, but there has to be some BS
factor or some part of an individual that says, you

(46:38):
know what I need to I mean, even during COVID,
I'm an introvert, right I'll be. I'm happy to stay
in my house and read books all day. But during COVID,
I never realized how awesome it was to talk to
somebody like someone would come to the door, and I
realized how important that social interaction is.

Speaker 2 (46:58):
So a couple of things about that this fear of
infectious disease, which is essentially fear of death, promoted fear
of death. And we've now learned that in this recent
report from the Energy and Commerce Committee that came out
last month Mary Rogers, being the chair on the Forest
marsh a billion dollar contract with HHS, that there was

(47:22):
an intentional weaponization of fear, excessive fear of this virus
in order to manipulate people to accept the various non
pharmaceutical interventions and then the JAB and that was all
purpose built and funded by HHS. A clear explicit validation
of the book that psychological warfare is being done on

(47:45):
us by our government. Thank you very much. So. One
of the oddities about this is that the data have
shown that well, remember there's a series of experiments that
shows that people will turn up the electricity on somebody
that in theory is being shocked if they're told to

(48:06):
do so by an authority figure in the white coat.
That we have been through the application of fear of
death trained just like Pavlovs dogs to respond to certain
types of stimuli, and we can't avoid that. It is
intrinsic in us as mammals. And furthermore, that which is
why it's so powerful. That's why this tech is so powerful,

(48:28):
is it cuts through the conscious mind. It cuts through
your cognitive defenses and goes straight into your lizard brain,
into your subconscious and the parts of your brain that
respond to fear stimuli, et cetera. And then on top
of that, the paradoxical finding is that the most educated

(48:50):
are often the most susceptible to these things. So I'm
college educated, I'm really smart, and I'm not going to
be susceptible to this. Maybe the stupid plumber. Well, well,
it turns out the stupid plumber is the one that
is leasing. Yeah, because they live in the physical world.
They actually have to interact with things. And there's a
whole bunch of reasons. Some of what you're obscure. And

(49:11):
it's the academics, for example, that have been trained repeatedly.
In order to become academics and I'm admitted into the
Ivory Tower, they have to become very good at assimilating
information presented by authority figures, and so they go through
this extent and I'm a victim of that. You know,
you can call it a victim. I hate to call

(49:32):
myself a victim. But anybody that's got through medical school
is all of the above plus because one of the
key things in particularly, you know, I had the benefit
of being trained as a physician scientist, so they gave
us some latitude to ask questions. But for the most part,
if you're a medical student, it's shut up, kid, and
recite the answer, and just regurgitate what you're told and

(49:55):
follow the protocol. And you're judged on how well you
assimilate did the conventional wisdom what we might call the narrative.
And so you think that people would be resistant to this,
You think that physicians would be resistant to this, right,
but in fact, they're trained in a way that makes
them among the most susceptible, more susceptible as Mahalta.

Speaker 1 (50:17):
Mahortra made that point on X a long time ago.
He said, how is it that myself and my colleagues
were totally not getting what was going on? And Joe
Sixpack did I think those are his work?

Speaker 2 (50:32):
That's the nature of this stuff. It is really insidious,
and it has absolutely been normalized as common practice by
the Western nations.

Speaker 1 (50:40):
And yet that it violates, to your earlier point, our
contract of it violates bodily integrity, personal privacy, all of
those things that have been long lasting jurisprudence models, at
least in our country. And I don't know how we
turn it around, because I feel like we're in a
situation where we're floating laws to men with sores, right,

(51:02):
and in that situation, our opportunity for redress is very limited.
And you guys go over that in the book, correct.

Speaker 2 (51:10):
Yeah, so that's kind of the last section. And frankly,
I hate to leave a podcast or a book on
a grim note. And I've seen, you know, so many
of these books that are just depressing. Frankly, Bobby's. I
extensively edited Bobby's Real Anthony Fauci book twice for him,

(51:31):
and both times it left me depressed for over week.
There's a lot of grim, dark information.

Speaker 1 (51:36):
Out there, very but it was amazing.

Speaker 2 (51:39):
Yeah, Yeah, I was an amazing book. So if we
go back to first principles, to keep it simple, you
and I were discussing the fragmentation of society and the
isolation of the individual, and that we have this profound
you know, Mattias talks about it. There's a chapter and
that talks about Mattias's theories also summarizes them for the

(52:02):
few that haven't already read the book. The predicate that
has enabled this tech to be so powerful, as we
were just talking, involves our social isolation. And we as
human beings, have a fundamental need to exist within a
social context to have connectivity, and our absence of interpersonal

(52:26):
decentralized connectivity is what enables a central authoritarian power to
come in and substitute themselves for our natural interactions with family, spouse, community,
religious affiliation, et cetera. And so what's the remedy? If

(52:47):
you think about the basics of what got us here,
then it becomes self evident. The remedy is to recommit
to family, friends, social context, community, et cetera. And the
starting point for that is, you know, kind of requires

(53:08):
a certain kind of bravery and the extension of empathy,
which you know, in a world in which narcissism has
become the defining characteristic, empathy takes a back seat. But
work on your empathy and do your best to talk
to people one on one. Reach out to people, especially

(53:33):
those people that aren't part of your tribe. Try to
connect with them, even though you may be angry at them,
and particularly after this upcoming election where we've been so
thoroughly divided, try to reach out and understand where they're
coming from. And start from the concept not that they're crazy,

(53:55):
but that they're rational. They're just operating off of a
different set of parameters or instructions or baseline beliefs or whatever.
Then you and your job is to figure out what
those are and find common ground. And if you do that,
then you break down this what many think, I agree

(54:18):
is an intentional strategy to divide us against ourselves, which
benefits only our adversaries certainly doesn't benefit us. And try
to your best to build community, and that's that's how
we get out of this. But we're up against a
set of plans and actions that seek to shape the

(54:42):
nature of reality, the nature of society for whatever reason
you know, nefarious or seemingly benign. You know you've mentioned
that you read my essay today in which I rant
and rave that basic, this reflexive response that we have

(55:03):
that we must help the suffering we must help mitigate suffering,
strife and bad things that are happening throughout the world,
and that it's somehow our responsibility to do so. And
I argue against that. The problem is in complex systems

(55:23):
that when you intervene here, you have no understanding or
way to predict what's going to happen over here, the
blowbacker and intended consequences. And so you have to be
really cautious, step wise and start small if you're going
to try to build ways to create more social justice

(55:44):
in the world, rather than just implementing global policies from
a centralized government that consists of the fusion between the
World Health or with the United Nations and the World
Economic Form, which is what is being proposed right now.
So and that's the other part of the last part
of the book is what is this new world order?

(56:06):
And what are the predicates? Are the examples that we
can look to, how is it behaving, how's it likely
to behave? What's the underlying logic? And again that's the
belief is that unilateral global implementation of the best plans
is concocted by the United Nations together with their WEF affiliates,

(56:27):
which is the largest corporations in the world yields plans
which all of us should just accept and assimilate. And
if we're not willing to, well, they'll be imposed on us,
both directly through authoritarianism and indirectly through psychological warfare. And
that system is quite advanced. It's captured in the form

(56:50):
of various treaties like Agenda twenty thirty international treaties and
now the Pact for the Future. It's intrinsic to the
whole global warming from Work for Global Warming dialogue. It's
intrinsic to modern energy policy. I argue that in one
substack recently that we're watching the deconstruction of a German industry,

(57:13):
particlarly their automobile industry, because Germany has believed its own
baganda about green energy and global warming and the need
for electric vehicles. It's exacerbated by the social democrat you know,
basically socialistic policies that have been implemented in Germany since

(57:36):
World War Two, involving the kind of hybrid trade union
management organization that runs all of German industry, which is
the basis for Claus Schwab's versions of stakeholder capitalism, which
we also cover in the book that word stakeholder.

Speaker 1 (57:57):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (57:57):
Yeah, So Germany kind of convinced itself of these things,
has implemented it. Shut down the nuclear power plants, conceded
to blowing up Nordstream and cutting off the natural gas.
There's windmills everywhere in Germany and little solar panels on
cute little German farmhouses, you know, probably manufactured in China.

(58:22):
And China meanwhile, has scooped up almost all of the
world's lithium deposits and has become the go to source
for not only lithium but the derivative lithium based batteries,
which is what's necessary in order to drive our electric vehicles.
And Germany has, in the thralls of all this propaganda,

(58:42):
gone all in on evs, which consumers don't want to buy,
and so they are destroying their own automobile industry. And
to the extent that evs are being bought, the Chinese
have built major manufacturing plants in Europe that are based
undercutting whatever it is that Germany is producing. And I

(59:05):
don't know if you remember Donald Trump talking about a
new automobile plant down in Mexico. Yeah, during the debates,
what he didn't say was that's a Chinese ev plant
by the same company that is busy destroying the German
automobile industry. So his warnings that that company and that

(59:27):
plant is specifically designed to destroy Detroit actually has merit.
You know, he wasn't as eloquent as jd. Vance is.
He didn't make his point as well. But the underlying
truth is there is it.

Speaker 1 (59:41):
Accurate to say that the chapters in the book that
outline the tactics. I have a feeling I'm going to
look around the world and go and we can start
with Arab spring to your earlier point right and say, oh,
here was this one.

Speaker 2 (59:59):
You can start the this election. This election has been
a case study in deployed psychological warfare technology.

Speaker 1 (01:00:07):
I have found that being socratic with the information that
I see also helps with the people with whom I disagree.
Good because and it's ironic, because we are in a
narcissistic society. What does the narcissists love any more than
talking about themselves? So if you get socratic with them,

(01:00:27):
they will actually share the information I think.

Speaker 2 (01:00:30):
I think that doing that, coming from an empathetic place,
is absolutely the kind of thing we have to do.
We have to if we're going to win this, we're
going to have to bring the persuadable middle over and
the twenty percent that are fully hypnotized and in the
narrative that you know, often is referred to as sheeple
or there's various caricatures that are common on the internet

(01:00:53):
of these people, often with purple hair and very aggressive demeanor.
Those folks we're not going to reach. So just don't
even truct.

Speaker 1 (01:01:01):
Yeah, but that's unfortunate.

Speaker 2 (01:01:03):
Yeah, the other ones, the fact that they kind of
blow with the wind is an opportunity.

Speaker 1 (01:01:09):
Well, I agree, and we can look to the founding
for that. You know, it was a minority Sam Adams, right,
it was a minority of men to stir the rush.

Speaker 2 (01:01:16):
I've heard it said five percent. Yeah, right, me too.

Speaker 1 (01:01:20):
And when you consider that, and then all of a sudden,
the persuadable middle is my guest, you know, said Okay,
let's do this, and so I think it can be done.
And I'm just I'm grateful for this book. I have
one last question. If you were to be offered any position,

(01:01:41):
oh this question, Yeah, and an administration that is intent
on restoring the public, what would it be And what
would be your first couple of things.

Speaker 2 (01:01:50):
So interestingly, there appears to be at least four different
health and Human services transition committees. I've learned from various sources,
and I I've been contacted by at least three of them,
if not four of them. So I've dealt with this question.
So here's my canned answer. First off, if asked to
serve my government, I will do so to the best

(01:02:11):
of my ability, but I don't seek it. I am
fully aware of how deeply corrupt and a disingenious and
just horrible DC culture is. I spent many years in
beltweigh industries. I get it, and I find it disgusting,

(01:02:31):
and maybe that's one of the reasons why I was
willing to jettison my career. When I was placed in
a position of being a truth teller, it was a
low barrier to say I'm done with that unpleasantness and
I'm just going to speak truth. So I don't like
DC at all. I know that if I was asked

(01:02:52):
to be part of the administration in some administrative role,
it would be unpleasant at best. But I am asked
to do it, I'll do to the best of my ability.
There are a lot of other options, and I've spoken
to seasoned DC insiders about those kinds of things, and
I suspect that Bobby is going to be confronted by

(01:03:13):
that range of options, rather than attempting to get him
through the unpleasant, winnoing process of Senate confirmation, which I
personally don't think he's going to he will survive as
a candidate for Secretary of HHS. Don't particularly want to
do it. A lot of other ways I could be useful,

(01:03:36):
but if I'm asked to serve, I'll serve. Where would
I be? The question is, then, you know, most people
approach that from the standpoint of what would I want
to be? What would I want to get? And often
that's wrapped up in status and ego and all those
kinds of things. You know, what would be the capstone
of my career? Of that kind of stuff, That's not

(01:03:58):
the way I think about it. The question I confront
is where could I be most useful and productive? So personally,
I don't think that NIH is the landing spot for
me in one of the divisions or director or whatever,
I mean, whatever that spectrum is. I'm very familiar with

(01:04:20):
the problems of NIH and they're pretty intractable. Absolutely don't
want anything to do with CDC. By the way, it's
not even a federal agency. It's never been structured as such.
That was revealed to me recently. The two where I
think I could be most productive in contributing is trying
to get FDA back on the straight and narrow, and

(01:04:44):
the one that I have particular core competency in is
the we call it the bi defense Industrial complex and
the governmental side of that, which is in particular Assistant
Secretary for Preparedness to Respond, and those jobs downstream of that.
So that's bart those kinds of things. So those are

(01:05:07):
places that I could step into and be immediately effective,
But it's the honest truth is it's far more likely.
So there was an article in Politico the other day
that had a committee that basically went through the key

(01:05:27):
high level Trump appointments and cabinet appointments and sub cabinet
appointments and who they thought was on the shirt list
and who they thought would be selected. And this diverse,
fairly large group of authors basically ended up selecting a

(01:05:48):
bunch of what you and I might call deep staters.
And I think there's a pretty good probability that that
is going to be the outcome here is that at
the administration level, we're going to end up with seasoned
hands because they know how to run the government. And
it's going to be a less egregious version of what

(01:06:10):
happened previously in the Trump administration, but uh, it's going
to be of a similar flavor. And then they're they're
and Bobby's highly unlikely to become Secretary of HHS in
my opinion, and I think that there is a strong
probability that he'll be. He and Elon, with his streamlining

(01:06:33):
the government initiatives, et cetera, may find themselves with some
sort of a Blue Ribbon commission or Czar mandate which
doesn't require Senate confirmation. And to extent that they have
any power, it'll be consequent to the willingness of the

(01:06:54):
potus to act on their recommendations, which is a you know,
wild card. Well, that's true, That's that's how I see it.
In terms of Surgeon General, I think Joe Ladipoe is
my guy. I think he's earned it, as they say,
the old fashioned way, and he's brilliant. He's so level headed,

(01:07:14):
his communication capabilities, his a Billy to reassure people, and
his ability to withstand the fire of press and everything
else is proven, and I just wish him the best.
I hope that DC doesn't eat him. If he does
take that job, I wish him absolute best. And so

(01:07:37):
that's that's my answer to your question. I was a
little complicated and a little bit dark, but deeply realistic
and born have been there, done that, got the.

Speaker 1 (01:07:47):
T shirt right, born of experience. I hear you. It's uh,
you know, hopefully people can start lobbying their their senators
and you know, to what end?

Speaker 2 (01:07:56):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:07:57):
Again, they've done most of them have been compromised.

Speaker 2 (01:07:59):
But when I think of so, Mitch McConnell is no
longer to be heading up the Senate right so Republican caucus.
So there is that, But he has apparently done everything
he can to insert his minions into positions of power.
So this is another long, long, This is going to
be another long march.

Speaker 1 (01:08:19):
Well, you know, and I try to tell folks that,
you know, I've been involved for a long time. I mean,
I'm going on three decades of grassroots activism. So I
was bitten by the Uniparty for a long, long, time ago,
and you know, Republicans did to me everything Democrats are
doing to people now. They just they're just better at it.
They're more clandestine. And the way I try to set

(01:08:43):
people up is that we've got to have realistic expectations.
I would love Bobby to be in charge. I want
him to be in charge. I want him to have influence.
I think he's got the bona fides of walking his talk.
And I feel the same way about you. I feel
the same way about Pierre Corey. I feel that same
way about a lot of very competent people that I

(01:09:07):
think we.

Speaker 2 (01:09:08):
Need in public relations in an administration.

Speaker 1 (01:09:13):
Okay, maybe, of course, and because there is such a
lack of competency.

Speaker 2 (01:09:20):
Right, thank you for that kindness. So you're you're a
thirty year vet. You know how wicked DC is. You know,
if I was gonna crystal ballet about Republican Party leadership
in the Senate, Rick Scott is going to do another
run at it. And I recall it speaking at Heritage

(01:09:45):
with Rick long ago and him just complaining at length
about how corrupt the Senate is and the committee structured
power structure. But his claim to fame was he was
the head of a huge HMO. So you know, the
good news is he knows something about healthcare. Bad news

(01:10:07):
is he's probably gonna be biased towards corporate healthcare because
he made his money. So you know, Ron Johnson, in contrast,
made his money selling overalls. I don't know if you
know that. I did not know that. Yeah, so what
do they call oshkosh bahgosh? That was his company?

Speaker 1 (01:10:27):
I did not know that.

Speaker 2 (01:10:28):
Yeah, so I'm not too worried about the overall lobby.

Speaker 1 (01:10:36):
Okay, well, doctor Malone, I can't thank you enough for
being here today and for sharing with us just I
could talk to you for days, and please pass on
our best to your awesome wife, doctor Jill Blastone Malone
and reminding everyone cy War enforcing the new World Order,

(01:10:57):
and I cannot wait to read it. I get the
audio and the regular book. How crazy is that?

Speaker 2 (01:11:03):
And I read I sat in this same chair with
that microphone that you're seeing off not seeing off screen,
and recorded the whole darn thing. It took me hours
and hours and hours. And because I have street noise
here by this old pig barn here on the farm,
whereas my recording studio, I had to record it between

(01:11:24):
like eleven pm and four am, over the span of
about three weeks, and it left me absolutely googly eyed.
But I got it done. So it is in my
voice and a couple of chapters. It may seem like
I'm falling asleep because I am. Forgive me that, because

(01:11:48):
in the morning, yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:11:49):
Yeah, okay, oh man, Well, I can't wait to read
it and to listen to it. So again, thank you
and godspeed say of travels, and we hope to have
you back soon.

Speaker 2 (01:12:03):
Thanks, I'll see you on the other side. Amen.

Speaker 1 (01:12:07):
Okay, doctor Robert Malone, everyone, and again, the book is
cy War Enforcing the New World Order, and he wrote
it with his equally brilliant wife, doctor Jill Glasspool Malone.
You can find that at Amazon or your favorite booksellers.
And again, it is just the history and tactics of

(01:12:28):
the modern psychological warfare on the American people, and as
he said, offers a way forward for us to resist
totalitarian control. We have agency, we just need the moral
courage to use it. I want to thank everyone for listening.
Thank you as always to magic Man Joe Stregger. Until

(01:12:48):
next time, everyone who will stand in either hand and
keep the bridge with me, have a great day.