Paused at 0:00.
I think there's a lot to physics that has not been properly explored because I call it the Mowgli effect after the discovery of the atom bomb. Whatever reigning paradigms of physics were in vogue at that time that were given credit for the discovery of the bomb became enshrined in a kind of untouchable glass like the holy of holies of scientism. We kind of sealed it off and said, "Okay, nobody touched the physicists, especially the elite because they've discovered a world-changing world-destroying power in their minds and
their equations and I think it created a kind of anthropological reverence that the human species almost unduly put into the theoretical physicist's hands. It was actually the engineers that really do a lot of these things that the physicists get credit for and I think kind of encasing relativity and quantum into kind of an untouchable paradigm that we can't really, we can't think outside of that. I think has slowed down the rate of innovation that physics could help us explore like we
were kind of on the trajectory for before we went off in the World War II era, the new order that was established with the bomb. In many ways I was when the government created big untouchable science. It was kind of like the bomb was kind of like the founding moment of the order that we're in now. It was like the founding myth. But I think there have been a pressure in that direction with the logic of math behind the quantizing digital approach or the analog approach and I think the reality basically
sees a causality place, Norbert Wiener sought an analog manner and the government coming along with the power to enforce and enforce the digital thinking because it overrides the judgment of the individual who's doing the experiment and observing makes it all just mechanical. Interesting. No criticism possible. Yeah, it's interesting. Yeah, that reminds me of Marshall McLuhan's, the medium is the message, you know, have you ever looked into his work with the medium? Oh, yeah. Do you think he was on the money with what he was talking about?
I mean, he obviously didn't see where we're at today, but we are in a completely, you know. Yeah, sometimes he got a little formalistic and idealistic and essentially abstracting it too much, but his heart was in the right place. Right. Yeah, so you think that we've got too much digital thinking from government and not enough analog. Is that which? Yeah, essentially, Andy is too much when it's under the control of government. Norbert Wiener's fate at MIT was very representative. He rejected money from the military for his research, but there is absolutely nothing
wrong with his analog form of cybernetics and causality. But the Pentagon went against obedience and digitalizing use of computers, and so they pushed Nolan Chomsky to the foreground and just totally obscured Wiener's approach. Interesting. Yeah, it's interesting how there's a lot of sketchy origins for a lot of the big digital platforms like Google and stuff, having a kind of relationship to some of the intelligence groups of our government, you know. Oh, total creations of them. Yeah. Nothing creative, just imposed doctrine. Chomsky's so-called linguistics was absolutely unworkable.
It simply destroyed what was known about linguistics and was utterly fraudulent, but just by arrogance and Pentagon money, he changed the way universities teach language and linguistics. In a way that doesn't work at all. How did that shape the world we're in today, you know, that move? In 1968, I did a student initiated a course at the University of Oregon, in which we asked a well-known professor from each of 10 departments to present one-week lecture on what was the most important contribution of his department to understanding the nature of man.
There were people from linguistics, anthropology, literature, sociology, philosophy, 10, 10 separate disciplines, and after about the third lecture a student came up and said, "This is a joke, isn't it?" Because everyone was saying Chomskyism was their department's best contribution to understanding the nature of humanity. It turned up every one of the 10 that viewed already in 1968 and already in 1960 or '62 when I was working on it, obviously there was a fraud. A deliberate fraud? One of his students, one of his spaces was these rules generate language, and they pointed
out that nothing is generated; you can't know which rule to apply until you know what to form in the language as you want to explain, and he said, "Well, of course, to generate is use in the mathematical sense of to account for," but it was in his public statements saying to generate describes of creative mechanism in the brain genetically installed set of rules, and that these rules are explaining the creative generation of previously unproduced language, but one of his flight students got him to say, "Well, no, if it just means
to generate in the sense of account for," right, yeah, it's interesting because Chomsky has presented as an anti-establishment figure for the left, but he's really kind of a court jester in your opinion, huh, and so- Oh, yeah, it's the most recent thing about that people who refuse to be vaccinated should be socially isolated, and someone said, "Well, who would take care of them, basically, how would they survive if they were isolated other than you said that's their concern?" Wow. Interesting.
Yeah, what do you think of some of these other figures that have become kind of Godfathers of where we are now in our culture? I'm thinking about folks like Herbert Marcuse, he worked with the OSS, and he ended up becoming a big figure, in my opinion, for the development of what we think of with these influence of the Frankfurt School in the development of what they popularly call social justice movements today, is that, by design as well, by these powerful forces to create these critical theories?
I think so, getting away from the basic idea of a class and on this humanitarian judgment that there was no conflict between the formal Marxism and the communitarian Christian ideals of social morality, but under the influence of the government, the secret services, the marginalized ideas of politics were used very deliberately to distract attention from the basic things of class, power, and justice. Right. Yeah, so you would say, would you lump some of the French post-modernists that came over the big wave that hit academia in America, the 1960s and '70s, and all that, was--
Oh, the CIA was big in that. Why? It was abstracting, it was confusing, distracting from the continual practical approach to politics and deconstructionism and a lot of it just became mystical garbage. Yeah. Yeah, that's a good way of putting it, mystical garbage. Are you familiar with the work of Slavoj Jiejek? I'd say it's again. Slavoj Jiejek? Oh, yeah, he was sort of a maniacal talker, a very fun to listen to, but it doesn't seem to have much traction getting it deeper. Right.
So, you think the whole post-modern project in terms of its intellectual effect on America has been something the CIA and other forces have put into our politics to scramble the powerless and confuse them? I think so. And what is their purpose of doing that is, you know, the anti-establishment right would say, "Oh, that's because they were planning a communist takeover of America that they, you know, there's a long march through the institutions, and so this is all part of that process." I think it was just to insert their weakening slant on things.
I can't think of his first name, but a former professor in Ethiopia and an author of a very interesting libertarian, you can find his articles on, I think that my brain is getting tired of the libertarian. Lou Rockwell? Yeah, exactly. Lou Rockwell. Yeah. And Cummings, is his name? Iver. Iver Cummings? Yeah. No. No. Iver. No. But he showed how the CIA took over the anti-apartheid movement. He inserted sexual politics, and everything except simple justice thinking, and Cummings has a very detailed analysis and history of the South African role of the CIA and how
it interacted with the New Left politics in the U.S. Yeah, I think it's interesting, you know, how America, you mentioned Ethiopia, and I interviewed Prince Ermias Salasi, the grandson of Emperor Holly Salasi, and the story of how Emperor Salasi was basically set out to die by the American establishment in Ethiopia, you know, in this, you know, this Soviet-backed uprising, but it's really, if you actually look at it, a lot of the intellectuals that were stirring up the Ethiopian, you know, revolt and ultimate
killing of Emperor Salasi were people who came from America, you know, intellectual new left thinkers that were coming over and radicalizing the population, and of course, Emperor Salasi had his flaws, but he certainly did a lot to try to, you know, push back against colonialism in Africa, and he's, you know, becomes a victim of America's foreign policy as well. So what is that, you know, I guess, what is the animating force behind these institutions? Is it, do they have a, do they have a, you know, a motivating vision of the world, that
kind of religious imposition that they want to remake the world in a certain way? Are they ideologically motivated? The people who were- Oh, you have things like white racism and Darwinism and the, through the eugenics tradition, imperialism and the whole profession of anthropology was motivated by this, a very strong trend of English racism. And that's what's moving the CIA's actions through the recent history in America, you would say? Yeah, you know, major strain of the ruling class through the end of the 19th century, for most of the 20th century, was dedicated to genocide through eugenics.
And it was only in 1945 when Hitler became a scapegoat for just about everything that American genetics people had to take the word eugenics out of their lexical. The American Journal of Genetics changed its name suddenly in 1945 to the human genetics, but exactly the same racist, white supremacist ideas were permeating the whole so-called science of genetics and the anthropology that was applied policy of the ruling class largely recruited from places like Yale in this CIA, blurring essentially the nature and the evils of the assumptions behind genetics. Right.
But you say that they are motivated by white supremacy, but that's the number one thing they call everything today, Joe Biden said his number one enemy is white supremacy and you hear about the critical theorists talking about institutional white supremacy and they're rooting it out with these organizations, Black Lives Matter and all these different things. Yeah, it's a very fraudulent kind of justice movement, but that doesn't really do anything. So why is it just a classic projection? You project to your victims what you're doing, what you believe and what you want.
Yeah, basically the same way that the journals had to drop the word eugenics, the whole culture realizes that it isn't popular to talk white supremacy as a supremism, but that's still their basic policy to create it. Now, do you believe that this is like people feel like this great reset is a part of this kind of controlled demolition of the American economy in a shift towards a new kind of globally managed? Yeah, it's actually that these all of these threads became very open with the World Economic
Forum, Rockefeller Institute and several other foundations have been segmented very openly that the population reduction and destruction of the existing economy have to go together and Klaus Fab just openly said that the COVID epidemic came along just in time because the climate change wasn't working fast enough. So now we've got something down that can significantly move towards destroying the economy in just two or three years. Yeah, we're seeing constant supply chain disruptions and baby formula shortages. Of course, those baby formulas are filled with toxic poofers, as you would say.
Yeah, and the Ukraine war is not just part of the way to destroy the economy and get 100 to come on massively within a matter of a few weeks, we're right on the edge now of the southern hemisphere hunger epidemics because of the war or because of the sanctions for the war, but they totally whitewashed the origins of the war, the west reasons for supporting the, you know, Victorian New London for, might then revolution, that, what was to impose a change of constitutional law on the Ukraine because they had passed laws to
protect the smaller medium-sized farmers who wanted to produce the traditional crops not genetically modified and the west wanted to destroy those laws to rewrite the constitution. So that Monsanto could write the laws and require the privatization of all of the productive land so that Monsanto could provide their round of and resistant seed for essentially Monsanto's sake and the crude people have been steadily working on that to knock out the protective laws put in the Monsanto laws and that, but at the same time this was happening
the Europe had put out instructions to boycott Americans genetically modified grains and the policy of Monsanto, so there is a conflict between U.S., G&O policy and European G&O policy fighting it out within this coup change in the Ukraine and Russia had been even more consistent in avoiding Monsanto's laws and G&O then Europe even, so if you see direction policy favored by losing the battle of Europe against American GMO production that puts the U.S. against the Russian and the Kennedy European boycott of G&O. You think that's the main driving issue is the GMO thing in Ukraine?
Well, it was at the major thing for the coup in 2014 and gradually back and forth putting in Monsanto's laws. How do you rank that issue compared to the IMF loan issue and all that, about the U.K. Ukrainian government making a decision to be more closely connected to Russia's oligarchs versus the EU's oligarchs financially and the debt obligations they would have to pay to the IMF? Well, the IMF and World Bank are the major forces in enforcing Monsanto's privatization of the wheat and the oligarchs tend to go with the privatization of direction policy as
a self-consistent against GMO. Now, another thing that they've been pushing lately in the media that you never saw before or like this, well, I guess it's been a long time since the mainstream media talked about it, is the UFO thing. I mean, remember the media used to talk about the UFOs flying over the White House? When was that? It was the 1950s? Was that when Eisenhower was president? And then all of a sudden it goes off and they do this announcement that there's nothing
here and then, you know, and so it's become kind of a tabloid subject. And now all of a sudden, you know, CBS at 60 minutes and they've done a congressional hearing now just a couple of weeks ago that they're revisiting this UFO thing and they're saying it's these objects that are tic-tac in shape and they move way beyond hypersonic speed, they can go in the water and go back up into the space and like almost instantly. I've actually interviewed some of the naval people who have reported these events themselves.
They seem to be credible and genuine in their reports of what they saw. But I wonder what this all is. Is this a government hoax? Is this just a bunch of eyewitnesses all getting it collectively wrong? I mean, we look back into the records of American history. We see in earlier decades in the 50s, naval pilots reporting flying lozenges. They didn't have the word for tic-tac established as well as we call them now, these tic-tac objects, you know? So they've been seeing these objects for a long time.
So if that was some kind of secret technology from China or Russia, that would be hard to believe they had that back then. What do you think is this story? Is this a hoax from the government or what? I've had my own few experiences like when I was in the 7th grade. My mother, now that night, hanging laundry, and she said she just saw something very strange. There were 9 green, luminous objects, it was about 9.30 at night. And they were silently moving across the sky towards the north, and the next morning in
the paper, in Portland, about 5 minutes or 10 minutes later than that, the same reports came out. And so they were traveling at something around the south some miles an hour in the group, and no more was made of those sightings, except that looking, following the trajectory, there had been a little earlier in the southwest area. If on the same trajectory, again, the same 9 luminous green triangles. So what do you make of that? I mean, I was wondering if that's something that the government's pushing to try to scare
us to the new hysteria, but you're saying it might be something real, or how could they have that kind of technology so long? Yeah, that was very fast for the, around 1915, and in the 1970s, I think it was, I was viving out this way, south side of the city, and that there had been a very short sort of chain with one of those, like a gas station's very tall album tower, sort of a plastic bubble of sighted to help in closing four fluorescent tubes, so the sign was luminous, to some extent
during the day, but I was viving along outside of my eye, I saw what looked like one of these luminous plastic pods, about for the tower, would have it, but it was in the daylight, and I'm very, just like a brightly illuminated, white or silvery pod, roughly the shape of one of those signs, as you look like people, and I watched it, assuming that it was an actual, it would have been the sign, seeming to move, as the car moved along, but suddenly
I saw there was no stem attaching it, and instead of rising as a approach, it started lifting towards the horizon, and slipped down behind the hills, so at the positions of the hills it would have been about 200 feet tall or something, and in orbit it was bigger, and it looked in the papers for anything about it, and some very different areas, Northern California, I think, was said that there had been some experiments that basically unexplained what they were doing, but the government said they had done something, but it was a very
spectacular, huge luminescence in the daylight, is it your personal opinion that these things could be government technology that they've had for a long time, you don't believe it's extraterrestrials or something like that, I consider it a possibility, but so far I think it's more likely that some of them are maybe natural phenomena, others are government saying these are covered up, and what do you think the government is coming out publicly in their favorite state media outlets, like CBS, to talk about these things has real phenomena now, what's in their interest to do that?
I don't know. Yeah, it's interesting. I really appreciate your time, I don't want to take up much more of it, I guess I wanted to get a baseline of your thoughts about where we are today in current events, do you have any kind of prognostications, are you hopeful about the future in the long term, or do you think things are going to steadily go downhill for a long period of time in America at least, or do you believe it's very open, the choices?
It has been made open by the conspirators themselves, these last ten years or so, and I think the fact that the public is now, just that the Prince is starting to talk about and recognize that just because it seems impossibly huge as a conspiracy, that they're really considering that the conspiracy could be that evil and that's huge, I think that's a potential dilemma of hope. And do you believe the ultimate goal of the great reset is kind of a malthusian reduction in the population and consolidation of markets under cartel control?
Oh yeah, the faster reduction of population, the better, and the destruction of the mere economy that has supported billions of people, they don't need that. They want a lot more space for themselves and their friends. Yeah, and a better ratio of power and force. Do you think that's what's behind the metaverse, the Facebook creation of these people, virtual reality, where you're going to supposedly want to stay on this virtual reality world 24/7. Oh yeah. Have you read any of Eric Smith's papers or talks since he was openly working for the Pentagon? Oh, the Google guy?
Yeah. What's he doing now? What's he talking? After a Google or before Google? In 2019, he emerged from the Pentagon as the head of an agency of artificial intelligence and was actually saying these things that we have to destroy the existing economy so that we can more quickly have total control through artificial intelligence. A lot of people believe that we're already basically controlled by artificial intelligence because of how much these algorithms control the population's moods and hysteria's and manias through algorithmic manipulation in Google and Facebook and Twitter setting the
tone for what people think and feel. Yeah. And the election control. Right. So is there any way to, what's your, I mean, do you have any prescriptions about how to break free from this stuff? Is it just freedom or education, enlightenment, innovation, you know? Encouraging everyone to investigate and talk about it. Right. So do you land on a kind of a political conclusion of libertarianism or anarcho something? And there's all kinds of anarcho groups that you see out there, you know? One important thing is to stop being divided and conquered and stop worrying about competitors
and realize that essentially it's everyone against, you know, flop and gates. Wow. And how do you think is the best way to beat them at their power game because they want people to react violently because that's how they were able to create more power. Look at what they've done with the January 6 riot. They've milked that as a religion for them as a kind of remembrance of their sacred temple being, you know, sullied by the unwashed masses from flyover country that weren't supposed to be anywhere near that temple, you know?
Everyone has to start recognizing that we're all deplorables and stop squabbling among ourselves and focus on the very, very few people who were actually doing it. Do you believe that the action that positive change can happen through the electoral process or does it happen by creating a counter, like an alternative economy, an alternative food system that, like, is it action in that way of organizing a society outside of their grid? Yeah. Yeah. I think we have to have direct reorganization. Interesting. Yeah. Well, I really appreciate your -- what's that?
The Google controls everything through the algorithms, I think makes the election change meaningless. Yeah. What do you think about Bitcoin as a solution or these cryptocurrencies? I don't think there's anything there if anything that's probably a creation of the NSA or who's ultimately in control of the Internet, and I don't think there's such a thing as real secrecy. Right. Do you believe -- are you a fan of gold and silver as a real money, a hard asset that actually -- Yeah.
In practical amounts, I'm extra of it because silver is too heavy to carry around a large amount of wealth. And gold is so hard to negotiate without the government recognizing it. Right. Yeah. I think what you're saying is accurate that we need to get out of the false dialectic and kind of embrace -- it's just so hard. You know, they put so many triggering things that divide people. The newest thing that has been inflammatory is trying to normalize children to embrace gender reassignment surgery, you know, and hormone blockers at five years old and six.
They're taking toddlers into drag queen bars where there's a lot of, you know, very sexualized content and stuff. That kind of stuff makes it very difficult for, you know, your average rather conservative family to get along with the, you know, the leftists that are kind of buying into these cultural identity markers. How do you overcome that? Start fixing the so-called "left" that recognizes it's a deliberate ploy of the institutions, the government at foundations. Interesting. Is there a good left you like or, like, where do you point people to read or learn from philosophers or --
Oh, okay. You have to look back at the under -- or so years of whole-hearted terms mean and why they have glossed to their meanings so totally. What do you make of this new right that's emerging on the right, you know? Is that another controlled opposition or is there something there? Most of it, I think, is manipulated for our dealings, mistleting the public. Yeah, it's hard to navigate and have discernment to know where do you get your best accurate information from?
The trend thing was very powerful at confusing people on what is left and what is right. And that regard, it was a good thing because it scrambled people's normal patterns, right? Yeah. Yeah, it's interesting to see, you know, I think we're living through what could be a very, very difficult and dangerous time for America. I think that the folks who run these globalist institutions are treating America like a fire cell. When your stores closing, everything's half off, it's a vultures are coming and starting to pick apart.
And it's happened for a long time now, but you can really start to see a lot of the machine in the, you know, veneer of comfort and wealth in America really start to fray right now. And I think it's a very apocalyptic moment, so to speak, in the true sense of the word of unveiling that which was hidden, you know? Are you familiar with the work of René Girard, the anthropologist that taught at Stanford? No. Yeah, he was an anthropologist that I think you would like his work.
He believed that all culture and language was all mediated on hidden victims, this sacrificial mechanism, what he called the scapegoat mechanism that societies are constantly on the hunt to, you know, devour escape, go to maintain the sense of differentiation and order. And that's kind of the heart and soul of the social contract and everything we consider to be modern is really a vestige of the sacred, you know, sacrificial ritual. So I think that's kind of where we're at right now. This whole process is falling apart and they're trying to hunt for scapegoats and it's not
working, you know? Yeah. Well, Dr. Peat, I appreciate your time and how can people stay in touch to read your work. I always like to let you share with people where they can contact you. Oh, my website is always there, repeat it at thebreakeat.com. We're very good. Thanks again, sir. Okay. Thank you. All right. Bye.