Paused at 1:29:07.
What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant US retaliation to deter a Soviet attack? That we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies? I know this is a formidable technical task, one that may not be accomplished by the present. Victor Technologies, the high-flying hardware computer company which took a nosedive this year, may be bought out by the British firm Applied Computer Technologies.
Piloting the space shuttle is very difficult to do, one would think. Can a kid or a normal person actually pull this off? Well, what I did when I designed this was I understood that problem. It seems the sweep of technology has no limits. In San Francisco this week, the world's first robot bartender was unveiled. The robot can talk, can take smoke and waters, and can mix 200 different drinks. But on the first test run, the robot knocked a glass off the bar and onto the floor and poured beer all over the counter.
The robot's designer said there were still some bugs to be worked out. [Music] Change. Okay, Georgi Dinkov, Raymond Peat, we're talking about borders. Ray, do you want to back up a little bit and just maybe rehash the first part of that conversation? Because that was pretty interesting. I think you mentioned that some federal police, other than the National Guard, were involved in the Portland violence. The reporters were aware of the police violence, and so they got organized and were keeping careful watch on what the police were doing.
So the police were arresting reporters. The mayor got involved and got gassed. So the local police themselves were involved. But the Homeland Security was probably doing some of the nastiest stuff. The Border Patrol has no limits on their authority. They can go into your house and search your person, do anything they want without a warrant. And that applies to everyone within 100 miles of any border. That means Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, Canada, and Mexico. And includes about two-thirds of the U.S. population. And most of the major cities are within 100 miles of the border.
So their jurisdiction has just been expanded. But it seems like the – I remember the Boston bombing, when they were just strolling down the streets and entering people's houses. Do they even have to have a special task force to even do that kind of thing? It seems like they can do whatever they want.
They do it anyway, but it just happens that the Border Patrol, the real people working at the borders, can follow you and open your car and documents and take your equipment or whatever they want to do, as long as they're within 100 miles of the border. But technically it applies all the time to everyone within that massive amount of territory. I remember during the Boston bombings, they invoked something called exigent circumstances to be able to go into people's houses and search for these two bombers.
And then apparently under the official rules, they're not supposed to – if they find something illegal during that search, because it's executed without a warrant, they're technically looking for these two bad people. If they find you doing something illegal, like growing weed in your basement or anything similar to that, it's not supposed to be admissible in court and they're not supposed to be using it to prosecute people.
Guess what happened two weeks after the Boston bombers got caught? 47 people got indicted for growing weed, having ecstasy, small amount of pills on their property and things like that. And all of that was obtained during those searches under exigent circumstances. And when the lawyers said, "This is not admissible, you're not supposed to be using it," the government said, "Oh no, we're invoking national security so everything's classified and these people are convicted, but you cannot know why and what the reason is." So they very much abused the law any way they want, it seems.
They are convicting on the basis of secret evidence, having secret laws, keeping essential documents secret forever, especially when they would incriminate huge numbers of people. When you were dealing with Blake College in Mexico and you were coming back into the States, were you ever harassed by Border Patrol for political reasons? Yeah, I was very careful not to have any botanical matter stuck to my clothes or anything.
But they would do things like, once I was bringing a little clay flute and they scraped it to see if it was solidified cocaine or something and pried the heels off my shoes to see if... Ray, does contact tracing just send chills down your spine? Oh, no more than the usual awareness of what they're doing without calling it anything special. What is contact tracing? The infected people getting near someone else, they can follow all of the interacting chains of more or less direct social contacts.
Wow. But that requires those people somehow cooperating, right? You have to install something on your phone or do you think they're tagging people somehow biologically at this point? No, if they have a cell phone, they trace them by that. Get the phone company records to find their location. Mostly it's going through cell phone tracing, I think. Do you think the government is interested in biological tagging? Eventually they'll get to that.
I have a view of the future of people being called by contact tracers and talking about a barbecue they went to last week. That sounds pretty miserable. Yeah, having a big babysitter like that. Ray, since we last chatted, is there something before we dive into it, is there anything that you feel like is specifically developed over the last month that should be a central idea? Maybe vaccination, because we're just thrusting towards that point where I imagine that will be another milestone of this hysteria of whenever that comes out.
In preparation for that, I was reading a little bit about pandemrix and I wasn't sure if you had any thoughts on that whole fiasco. There was a huge epidemic of narcolepsy in Finland immediately after a vaccination campaign. I imagine that's one of the bases of action against the maker of that particular vaccine. There were several other countries that had epidemics of narcolepsy, but not as big as Finland.
I think one of the things that needs to be done is to get information on the people who were vaccinated for influenza last year in that huge campaign of getting especially old people. That would include everyone in the rest homes and convalescent homes, so they would be 100% vaccinated for flu last year. I've seen all of the studies done on the follow-up, looking for the effect of flu vaccines on the following year's incidence of influenza.
They managed to find a way to claim a certain amount of prevention of flu using very odd methods, very special for looking at the efficacy of flu vaccine. But something that came out in all of those studies was a very big increase in the incidence of other respiratory infections. Even though they saw a slight decrease in flu, there was a great increase in coronavirus infections.
Just looking at those published papers, you would assume that the great mortality from coronavirus was undoubtedly increased by the fact that they were probably 100% vaccinated for flu just a few months earlier. If you look at immune activation on PubMed, you'll find lots of studies of the damaging effects of basically any kind of immune activation, meaning activating an inflammatory process. If it happens during pregnancy, such as either a bacterial or viral infection occurring naturally or a flu vaccine with an aluminum adjuvant in it,
any activation of the immune system during pregnancy has very great long-term, lifelong effects on the fetus. The next generation will have depression and all kinds of after effects. Cognition is one of the major themes of the degree of immune activation. The number of pathogens you've been exposed to corresponds negatively to mandibility. Have you seen people with the Gulf War Syndrome, Ray? When they give interviews, they look like they're about to fall asleep and many of them suffer from narcolepsy. Do you think serotonin is somehow involved in that symptomatology?
Oh, yeah. Whatever they were exposed to, including 20 vaccines, I think at least, just to go there. Ray, what can we learn from the H1N1? Do you think that was a failed attempt to do what they're doing now? Maybe 10 years ago, not as many things were put into place like they are now. For example, Gates is intertwined with not only the vaccines, but also the identification and the contact tracing.
Clearly, there's a big spider web of things that had to be in place before something of this magnitude could be employed and set up so thoroughly. That's possible. Are you familiar with the 1976 outbreak, swine flu? At the time, I think the propaganda was that they had identified it as the same as the 1918 influenza outbreak that killed supposedly 50 to 100 million people around the world. In 1918, people had no idea what the cause of influenza was. They thought it was bacterial.
On the basis of finding a few frozen corpses and finding this coronavirus or flu virus in them, I think it was H1N1, they declared that that was the cause of the 1918 epidemic. The science of the 1918 pandemic was even worse than the present science. The man in charge of evaluating influenza vaccines in 1976 was telling his bosses that the vaccines were going to cause more harm than good because the virus always mutates ahead of any vaccine. He went public with his information that there was no safety data and lots of harm documented.
So he got fired and they went ahead with the production of the vaccines, killed a lot of people, paralyzed hundreds, and paid off a large amount of money to the injured or killed people. But there never was an H1N1 or swine flu epidemic at all in the United States in 1976. Have you seen the recent study that came out about 5G electromagnetic fields potentially capable of inducing the organism to synthesize the coronavirus de novo without any external infection? That would be in line with Montagnier's experiments with the virus acting as an antenna and transmitter.
Exactly. And the study that just came out is by five, I think three of them are physicists, two of them are doctors, they're all Italians from the Galermo Marconi University, I believe in Italy, which is a fairly legitimate institute of higher education. And it seems to be peer reviewed and published and they described the exact same mechanism that because the 5G electromagnetic waves are of such a short wavelength, they can actually get inside cells and the cells can act as antennas and then the DNA can act as an inductor.
And then because when the body is exposed to these 5G fields, the movement that these waves induce in the DNA is causing certain gaps to appear in the cell. And apparently the cell is trying to plug that, so to speak, and it's producing RNA that is indistinguishable from the RNA of the coronavirus. At least that's what the study claims. Does it sound feasible or even possible or do you think it's far-fetched?
When I was taking developmental biology, someone accidentally put in a publication from around 1940 in which they were exposing cells to foreign protein and then reproducing in culture several generations of the exposed cells. And finding that it was emitting copies of the protein that had been exposed to, that was a perfect demonstration that a cell can perceive a very different molecule that it presumably could not possibly have DNA for. And after exposure and multiplication, several, I think, 10 or more generations of cell division, it was still producing very measurable amounts of this foreign protein.
So that indicated that cells have an apparatus for copying a protein, transforming the information from the sequence of the protein into a sequence of DNA or RNA, and then reading out endless copies of a protein indistinguishable from the one it was exposed to. And I commented on that paper and then it disappeared from the file and I hadn't made notes on it. So I think it disappeared from the whole library because someone had accidentally included it. So under the same principle, we could be producing HIV endogenously, right?
Yeah, that's Montagnier's argument on why he's banned and went to China to work. Okay. So that seems especially prudent to point out what's fit for the peons is not fit for the government employees. And so they're going to get the unadjuvated vaccine. And I imagine something similar will happen for whatever is released for coronavirus. Much less harmful and almost totally ineffective. Well, another thing I wanted to bounce off you.
Apparently, this pandemic went through a series of tests that were like, well, not we're, but whoever's producing the Moderna or whatever is not even going to do. And so in your estimation, how much more dangerous is something released for coronavirus going to be than even this narcolepsy inducing and demers? This will be the first RNA vaccine. And I think the people who are talking about it and making it are probably totally unaware that our cells have lots and lots of reverse transcriptases.
And so we're just waiting for a bit of foreign RNA to come in to make copies and send it into our genome as permanent DNA. And then our great, great grand descendants will be able to make the most toxic spike protein part of the virus in uncontrolled quantities. And we're going to be able to multiply it to produce immunity to it. And we're going to be able to produce the same thing and in itself, the whole story of the spike protein and what it does,
is the key to making the virus infectious for humans, which all of the studies of the last 10 or 15 years have been working on perfecting that spike protein. And so it fits a human ACE2 enzyme. ACE2 is the enzyme that detoxifies androtensin, destroys our basic inflammation and blood pressure, raising peptide. And so the danger of having a lot of coronavirus is simply that it creates inflammation by knocking out our intrinsic defense against androtensin.
And that fact has been covered up or ignored or put into some way of thinking about the idea that the virus and its replication create the disease somehow. So the disease will be centered where you find the virus, which is the lungs and the intestine. But it also turns out to be the heart and the gonads and lots of other tissues. But the intestine and the respiratory membranes are actually major sites of viral replication. So they say inflammation of the lungs is what you have to think about.
But when you knock out ACE2, you're creating systemic inflammation and inflammation of the bowel creates systemic inflammation. So the whole thing is the turning on of the androtensin system. And if the spike protein can't undergo a series of confirmation changes, it can't create the confirmation that makes the perfect receptor binding site and the spike protein doesn't work, the virus isn't infective. And I found a recent publication, C. Toelzer et al., T-O-E-L-Z-E-R, showing that the final step in forming the active binding site of the spike protein requires the binding of linoleic acid,
which it finds on the cell surface if the person has been eating their vegetable oil regularly. The more linoleic acid you have floating around in your system, the more likely the virus is to be activated and successful in sticking to you and causing inflammation. And that has only been published in abstract form so far. I'm afraid it isn't going to make it much farther because of its implications for nutrition.
Ray, if you were an evil maniac working in a lab, is the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system something to target to produce incredibly negative effects in a wide variety of people? Yeah. It exists in everyone and every cell. They used to think it was a matter of the liver and kidney interacting, renin and so on. But mast cells in any tissue can make renin and then local converting enzymes can convert the renin into the series of angiotensin peptides. So it's a local inflammation promoter. Anywhere you have a mast cell or any other basic defense immune-related enzymes,
it's a universal thing, more basic than nitric oxide and estrogen, serotonin, for example. It closely relates to those and turns them on. It's an activator of aromatase, for example. So it activates this explosion of all kinds of inflammation promoters, cytokines and so on. And so if you can knock out the enzyme that destroys that, you've created with the least effort the most destruction. I have a question. If, let's say, the body is exposed to these foreign DNA/RNA from viruses or vaccines and it internalizes them as part of the DNA,
and then we know that under stress the body starts shedding the retroviruses into the bloodstream, does it do so haphazardly or does it pick out specific things that it has internalized to start deploying into the bloodstream? Or is it simply just a random reaction to stress, just dumps whatever it has? I think it's regulated by a very ultra-organized system, that antenna we were talking about. There is a website called Cell Intelligence, what's his name, Albrecht Buehler,
a very good website in which he gives his argument that the cell knows how to call up exactly the genes it wants by such things as the antigen that it's exposed to. The cell has a reading system like a super librarian that knows where to find everything specifically. The normal use of the system that reads out retroviruses is, I'm sure it's the same system that produces the exosomes, which are part of a repair and maintenance system that replicates RNA and DNA and proteins as needed,
forming these particles that are almost under a microscope indistinguishable from the coronavirus and other viruses and manufactured in the endoplasmic reticulum and secreted in the same way into the bloodstream. For example, if you have injured lung tissue that needs repair, it composes by drawing out just the RNA, DNA and proteins that are needed for repair to compose exosomes, which it puts into the bloodstream and they travel to the bone marrow where they're picked up by the cells that are more or less stem cells
waiting for a call for help. They are taken up and processed the same way a vaccine will be processed. These exosomes, virus-like particles are taken up by the bone marrow cells, causing bone marrow cells to differentiate into a pre-lung cell, not quite a stem cell, but a stem cell differentiating towards becoming a lung cell and are then excreted back into the whole cell, leaves the marrow and enters the bloodstream. Because it's already on the pathway to becoming lung tissue, it is recognized and sticks to the region
where it's needed as repair. It's like a repair lung tissue that has wandered away, so it sticks when it gets where it's needed and does its job of repairing the injury. It's a very powerful, specific, intra-body communication system between stem cells and injured cells. So basically, these viruses that we're internalizing are like tissue-specific alarm signals that can be called upon for help when needed? Yes. Random stuff getting added to that system is going to have the potential to change our course of development.
Do you know if there's any fixed capacity, but is there any limit on the amount of external DNA, RNA, information material that the body can internalize? Any kind of what DNA? Is there any limit to the storage or the capacity of the storage of the body for external information? I think the body probably has various filters, but a lab in Germany has published many papers showing that the DNA in our foods can be found in our cells. So there is quite a bit of uptake even from our foods.
Autopsies on women who have had two or three husbands have demonstrated DNA from husbands one and two, as well as the most recent one in her tissues, including brain tissue. So she's putting away and storing the semen DNA. Probably those are useful because there are cases where, for example, a white man going into a totally black part of Africa 50 or 60 years ago and having kids, a picture of his kids were progressively lighter. Each baby got paler as the woman accumulated his DNA. Is that the principle that explains telegony, do you think?
I think it's similar to xenia and specifically I think it would be telegony. I was going to change topics, so interrupt me, Georgi, but right. We some of the criticisms of these conversations is that we kind of jumped off into things a thousand miles per hour of the so-called conspiracy things that we talk about. So maybe. Well, number one, can you even separate health and food and nutrition from a deteriorating environment? And then number two, maybe like I imagine you're like consciousness of the powers that be.
That was before the Internet. And some people were curious, like, how did you even learn these things? Because, I mean, that would be interesting in general. How did I learn which things? Beyond biology or political? I mean, investigating the powers that be, the DuPonts, the Morgans, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds. How did you come to learn what was really going on? You called your parents co-conspirators a while ago. Was that information they had already figured out?
And I mean, so I think about the Internet and how it was integral for me learning about 9/11 or UFOs or whatever, and that opening up me to different possibilities. But I imagine that would be very difficult without the Internet. But maybe I'm just short, short sighted. Oh, up until right after the World War II, people used to talk a lot. And a lot of it was personal experience. And there was a lot of mimeographed underground stuff going around, very small numbers.
And people who were curious could get a fairly good picture of what the government was doing in medicine, for example. It never got in the newspapers, but it could be documented later. And once you find a library that has been careless about censorship, when I first went to the University of Oregon in 1956, I went as an English major, but I found anthropology and biology stuff a lot more interesting. So I read lots in those areas. And 10 years later, I went back to the library looking for those books.
None of the most interesting ones were there anymore. And they had opened a bookstore in the basement selling unwanted books for a nickel or a dime. I know you talk about this in your "How do we know" newsletter of a person, their consciousness changing as their structure changes. Do you think something we've heard is that you guys should really just stick to talking about nutrition? Do you think you can talk about health without addressing these, like kind of investigating these things? Or are they mutually exclusive? Or what do you think?
Health involves interaction with the environment, air, food, and information, and the medical system, and the various sources of poisoning. And so you immediately start, as soon as you think about a symptom and what doctors do about it, immediately you're involved in politics. And then when you start investigating any little part, either political or historical or biological, whatever, you find that that leads into more and more expansive implications.
It takes years and years to put together a fairly general picture, but it starts with the suspicion that things aren't what they're said to be in the regular newspapers, radio, and television. Like in 1945, on the radio, Harry Truman said, "We have just dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, a military base." And I started thinking about that and tried to find out more about it, and then it turned out Hiroshima was a big city.
And then later, every anniversary, they would repeat Truman's announcement, but that phrase was deleted, just neatly clipped out and the tape joined together. And I started doubting and looking for background information every time Eisenhower would talk. I would see if there were alternative opinions and objections, and I started seeing what an immense web of corruption Eisenhower was involved in. Money flowing from the oil industry, hydroelectric industry, all very big industries were funneling money to him to buy his support for their policies. Senator Wayne Morse was someone who started investigating that sort of corruption.
Around the same time, Senator Estes Kefauver did the investigation of the drug industry, and he was by far the most popular presidential candidate. But the party did the usual thing and elected a right-wing, middle-of-the-roader, two-time unsuccessful candidate to keep out anyone who was really interested in starting to investigate what the government was really about. The manipulator's ability to memory hole information is astounding to me.
Every event will have a series of anomalies, but they are totally eliminated within a few days or a few weeks, and then the narrative is crafted, it's cemented in Wikipedia, and nobody ever thinks about it again. So it's pretty – I mean just living through that in real time, and you have a way broader sense of that than I do. You have to document the validity of the documents themselves because those are very often forged. Just destroying them is the first thing, but they have done lots of very convincing forgeries.
When the documents are sealed, during that keeping them from the public, you can be sure that there are people working on expunging the most incriminating material. Documents aren't safe anywhere in the government, so you have to look critically at even the documents that should be the last word. You have to look for eyewitnesses, people who lived through it and can tell the story. When you see several people who had similar experiences, didn't know each other but had exactly the same sort of experience, then you can start to form an opinion about what really happened.
Almost all of 20th century history as far as it regards Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union is based on forgeries as far as American historians are concerned. I would love to get into that. One other question. I was just watching John Oliver, who has replaced The Daily Show. A lot of people really go to that show for information. It's a comedy/political show. He just did one on conspiracy theory, so-called. His dominant point, as I'm sure you've heard hundreds of times, is nobody can keep a secret.
When reading Fletcher Prouty's The Secret Team, he goes into great length talking about compartmentalization. The whole setup of the CIA is keeping secrets. Why do you think that's something that's so commonly misunderstood? Obviously, these intelligence apparatuses could not function if they had the inability to keep information secret. Yes, the mass media can keep, even when the secret is out and 100 or 500 people know it, the mass media can keep everyone else, everyone that counts, from knowing it.
Just this last week, someone I had lost touch with for 55 years heard me on one of these talk programs and got in touch. We're starting to put together experiences from things related to the government shutting down Blake College. He was there through the whole thing and experienced a lot of things that I didn't have any perspective on at all. We're going to put together a new picture that neither of us could have formed independently. If we could get in touch with other people who had gone through that experience,
then we could start to put together a historical picture. He's Luis Urias, who was an associate of Alejandro Hodorowski, who made the movies. Holy Mountain. What was that? The Holy Mountain movie. Am I getting the title wrong? Yeah, Holy Mountain. He was going to make Dune, but never did? Yeah. Luis was involved in a lot of his projects. Luis thinks important historical information will come out of several of us putting together what the government was doing there. There were so many government agencies involved.
I have a question which is kind of related. It's half political, half health-wise. In one of the interviews with Danny, you said that civilization's best chance of escaping is somewhere in Western Latin America. Would you say that it's fairly justified at this point to say that civilization is in some process of decline? That's my first question. Yeah. As the empire and the ecology decline, the civilization is being taken down with it.
The CIA did a great job on degrading civilization throughout the world with their Congress for Cultural Freedom in 1950, with their action art, action expressionism, and so on. The way I look at civilization is sort of like an analogy of metabolism at the social level. If at the organism level we have a process like cancer, which is basically a reversal back to a more primitive life form, which can only produce energy in a very primitive way, can the same thing happen at the society level or even at the species level?
In other words, can evolution not go in reverse but kind of take a few steps back? Is that possible, do you think? Yeah. The picture that is imposed as part of the cultural sustaining system justifying this particular kind of authoritarian individualism, that goes with an ideology and an ontology really about the very nature of what matter is. It comes down in their view to quanta. It's a digitized view of the substance that we're made of, and so of our cells and genetic information.
It is reductionism made into a universal philosophy of being, which necessarily extends into this individualism, a particular philosophy of individualism as a basis. Margaret Thatcher's idea that society doesn't exist, it's only the quanta that make up the personality. The concept of long-range order in the cell, which is necessary for these antenna functions or cell intelligence functions. Long-range order doesn't exist in the same sense that society doesn't exist for Margaret Thatcher's type. So the digitizing of ethics, politics, education, everything is part of the very deep degradation of the whole business.
If you see the substance we're made of in a certain way, that means we have that same digitized quality. Our consciousness is ultimately like computer consciousness. It's only patterns of meaningless fragments of on or off signals. It really removes the best basis for criticism and correction at all of these levels. As far as it has become the dominant philosophy of information handling and using computers, then it has destroyed our ability to build up something new.
To use the cancer analogy again, at the organismic level, the organism can only tolerate so much of a reversal, a degradation of the energetic process. At the social level, do you think something similar might happen? Or do you think society can successfully revert to a more primitive structure and maintain it stably?
Or do you think, similar to the organism, once the social cancer gets into effect and it consumes enough of the ability of society to produce, to maintain a high level of consciousness, eventually it will be the same collapse as it happens at the organismic level? In other words, do you think this process can be evolution, social evolution, can go back a few steps and stay at the brute level of the barbarian level?
Or do you think nature will simply not tolerate that and say, "the heck with it, we're going to collapse and then start rebuilding everything from scratch"? There are reasons for thinking that there has been a threshold passed that if we don't somehow establish an energetic, functional society, like the ecosystem, there might be a point at which regeneration of forests is no longer possible. There are some kinds of evidence that suggest that, for example, in the tundra, the melting tundra has a capacity probably, and subterranean methane clathrates are another source of carbon.
As these melt, vast amounts of carbon dioxide come into the atmosphere, going up from parts per million to something like 1 or 2 percent, a gigantic increase in CO2 would change mental function, mental energy, knock out the inflammatory degenerative diseases, increase the growth of forests, and allow the reconstruction of much of what has been destroyed, just on the basis of a sort of explosive healing dose of carbon dioxide to suppress the inflammatory processes that were now under the influence of
Do you think large numbers of people, as in, let's say, the United States, hundreds of millions, can naturally live in a peaceful, well-functioning, structured, productive society? Do you think there is a certain density of people per unit of land that may be limiting a factor, or do you think it's entirely the structures that these people build that either enable the development or contribute to the collapse? With a population of this size, it's going to take some organization beyond just individual family farms.
It's going to take something like cooperative farms to have efficiency to use land more efficiently than private farmers could, buying diesel for their equipment, everyone having their own machinery. A tremendous expense would go into trying to survive in family farms that probably wouldn't be possible at this number of people. But I think there's plenty of productive land that if people can form cooperative groups, it could be politically compatible groups breaking up in the regions in which they start using the land and resources for survival and development, rather than destructive exploitation.
What do you think is the most anti-civilization factor that humans have come up with so far in their social development? Examples? Money, property, organized medicine, organized education? Is there anyone you would single out specifically? Militarism is the first. There have been important anthropologists saying that militarism is the essence of civilization, but I think it's the essence of everything going downhill.
What about things like grain agriculture? It seems that health throughout the history of the world has allowed the creation of massive empires at the cost of massively reduced individual health, simply because they went to grain agriculture. To restore the productivity of the land, it's going to take diversification, getting more trees to create water retention, soil retention, and cool the summers, level the rainfall out so it doesn't come in cloudbursts. It's radically changing the nature of the landscape. The buffalo and the grass were a very stable soil-preserving, water-preserving system.
Without going back to that and having dairy herds grazing on natural prairie grass, that could be done in some regions. I think the climate-modifying development of forests, restoring all of the southern and southeastern US forests would be a big step. Restoring as much as possible of the west coast heavy forestation would be another climate-reversing process.
What do you think the optimal food supply system would look like in a pro-civilization country? Would it be individual farms, mostly focusing on dairy-producing animals and maybe chickens for eggs? Or do you think it has to be more diversified than that? On a personal basis, I think that's very good with as many perennial plants as possible. Trees producing fruits, for example, so that there isn't a constant plowing up and a waste of energy that way. What about seafood? Do you think seafood has an important role in society's food supply?
There isn't as much of it as people used to think. It's very easy to deplete it in a few years. Starting with abolishing fish oil and abolishing the conversion of gigantic amounts of fish into pet food and fertilizer, for example, that would go out with the fish oil industry. Using seafood for fertilizer and destroying a big part of the ocean animal life is going to maybe help the oceans regenerate too.
With that sort of mode of production, let's use the economic term, do you think that naturally the countries will become smaller in terms of population? There's no need for hundreds of millions of people if they're going to be mostly self-sufficient, right? Yeah, lots of countries are shrinking in population now and trying to actually recruit more people to come in or to reproduce faster.
It's a natural tendency when insecurity has been the main driver of population increase. Poor people had no social security, so they would have several kids who would be able to support them in their old age. Every generation needed their social security by expanding the population. As soon as a population gets a fairly modest degree of social security, they stop having too many kids and the population starts shrinking naturally.
You just brought up a great point, Danny, and I discussed last week. Apparently, despite all the propaganda that's being produced by the media, if you look at the actual numbers on demographics, the expectation for the world population is not at all to explode.
In fact, they expect a slight increase to maybe 9 billion by 2050, and then by the turn of the next century, they expect the world population to go back to about 2 to 3 billion precisely because if the processes of improved security continue, then people are just not going to have that many kids as they used to. That was pretty well demonstrated around 1970. There were some very good articles published then, but the political biologists, the Malthusians, insist that they need more authoritarianism.
Because the population is predetermined to explode, and so you need to control this unruly growth. So in other words, the way to population control is by helping people, not harassing them and trying to do everything possible to kill them, physically limit their numbers? Yeah. The idea of a basic guaranteed national income of $1000 or $2000 a month for every citizen, that is going to be a kind of social security that lets people do what they're interested in, get educated, and so on.
People don't like doing the kind of stupid jobs they're doing. If they can stop, they will. And that will remove the need to worry about who's going to support them in old age. You pointed out some nuances about that, though, right? If Amazon was giving that UBI, that would be a problem, right? Do you think that is going back to the roots of what makes us human, more in line with the animal society versus this fake society, which has led us to all these issues that we're experiencing at the moment?
Yeah. The ideology of competition, competitive individualism, has been indoctrinated into people. But like Ropatkin said, if you look at nature all the way from bacteria up, cooperation is our basic instinct within and between species. There have been only a few basically authoritarian political theorists who have promoted the Randian tooth and claw idea of nature. It's all competition and destroy all of the competition. That's a very trivial ideology that is powerfully supported by the right-wing foundations.
Well, I've read this comment a thousand times and somebody will say, you know, Ray is a genius about nutrition, but he's extremely out of touch with his political leanings. So do you maybe want to address that? What information is required or even has been hidden from somebody that is, like I linked that PragerU video about how horrific communism, Marxism, Stalin, and Lenin are. A good place to start is by looking at a criticism of the major American historians of the Soviet Union or Stalin or Trotsky.
We have a falsified history of Trotsky just as much as of Stalin. Trotsky's connections to the US and Hitler have almost totally been eliminated, but there is convincing data that he was acting as an agent for Germany and the US way back while he was still in Russia. If you look at the evidence that the historians have simply lied about all of these people, for example, if you just think historically about what the great famine, the Ukrainian famine, is called genocide,
where Stalin is accused of creating the famine to eliminate the kulaks and create mass murder. The US immediately after World War I not only took its troops and sent them with other European armies to invade the Soviet Union, but they started collaborating with Germany on the development of biological warfare. One of Germany's advances in that was developing a fungus that kills wheat plants by invading the developing seed called wheat rust blight.
Stalin's people and all of the agronomists that were watching the production of crops were seeing a great bumper crop of wheat production coming on in the year that led to the famine. They were seeing the big heads of wheat growing and when it came time to harvest them, they found that the seeds, the heads were big, but the seeds were absent. They had been destroyed by the wheat rust blight, something that Germany and the US had been working on as germ warfare.
One historian, a professor who had been an English professor and specialist in medieval English history, got interested in Russian history when he discovered some outright lies in standard American history books. He has done a series of about 15 books. A good one to start with is Khrushchev's Lies. Khrushchev was functioning in some ways as an agent of the CIA. He was going along with the American doctrine and following the analysis of Khrushchev's lies, he then goes into several of the major American historians and documents in tremendous detail,
page after page of fabricated documents, saying that some documents didn't exist, which were incriminating in the wrong direction, using mistranslations. Every sort of historical evil that has been criticized, these recognized major American historians are basically liars. A lot of it is because they believe their lies, but you can see that every opportunity they're bending things to suit their ideology. Have you read, I'm blanking on the author, People's History of the United States, I think it's called? What was the history?
There's a book by a historian, it's a fairly recent book, it's called People's History of the United States. Oh, as in? Yes. Yeah, yeah. I mean, I think he has a chapter there where he describes that there was a civil war before the civil war, it was called the War of the Regulation, where basically the regular colonists who were doing all the work revolted because I think it was the very high taxes that the emerging elite was imposing on them, and it was brutally suppressed.
And that episode is virtually unknown in the regular history curriculum that people learn in school. Yeah, that's a good example of comparing him to the standard histories. And the trouble is that on the issue of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, America has been so closely tied with the development of Nazism and the opposition to the Soviet version of socialism that essentially there has been no book published in the US that is properly critical of those.
It takes a huge amount of work to look at all of the standard incriminating things and justification for the people who subsidized the development of Nazism, but it's really worth it to try to sort out how we've been brainwashed now for about 100 years. Just because people say it in the comments, what's your definition of Nazism? Hitler and his people were aware of public relations techniques, and they looked at what seemed popular.
There was a threat that Germany would be taken over by the socialists, the actual left socialists, and so Hitler and his people said, "Okay, we're going to be the best socialists of all, and we'll do everything the socialists are asking for." So he got the support of a big part of the left, but totally with the knowledge of the corporations, the Americans, the big banks, all of them knew that he was using the language of progressivism to enslave the people, and shift them over to support a totally authoritarian government.
Step by step, he introduced the changes and said, "It isn't the capitalists, it's only the Jewish capitalists that are responsible for your suffering. So we'll get the Jews, and then we won't have to worry about the good capitalists who really run the banks and the basic industry." So he was the agent and mouthpiece of the banks and giant industrialists, both of America and Germany and the rest of Europe.
Do you think there's merit to the idea that he was supported in order to move the Jewish community to Israel? It's called like the – I'm forgetting the name, but it was like some rich Jewish families had actually supported Hitler. Is there any merit to that, do you think? Yeah, Hitler really wanted to get Jews out of Germany as part of his propaganda business that it isn't capitalists, it's only Jews. But there were the Zionists who saw that as their opportunity. Same with England. They made deals with the English to give them Palestine,
and they were getting support from Germany for a while to move out the Jews into Palestine, so they had overlapping interests. And one more for me. Communism, would we all be in a better situation if tomorrow our system was replaced by communism, or are there asterisks to that? No, it would automatically be just as a rotten swamp of communism as it is of so-called democracy. Okay, thank you. Thank you for – go ahead, sorry. Oh yeah, me?
I was going to say thank you for saying that because I think that's the – there's lots of knee-jerk reactions to that. So, I mean, give us a picture of what would be needed to organize in that way. And also, correct me if I'm wrong, but your biological views stem – or not stem, but they progress into your organizational views. And so, like some people have asked, like, "Oh, I don't understand where Ray's starting place is," but obviously it's like biological organization, and that stems into how you think it might be –
Yeah, reading Kozirev when I was about 14 or so convinced me to start looking at the counter to the so-called Darwinian competitive individualist view of life. And it worked everywhere you look, and the way the organism, as well as the species and the ecosystem, Kozirev was right all the way from the biggest ecological interactions down to the simplest cellular and biochemical interactions. It's interactive and cooperative from top to bottom.
Speaking of Kozirev, I've been wanting to bring this up for a long time. We've heard that you went to Russia, to the Soviet Union, using a boat. Was that hard? I went on a student boat. It cost $200, and it was a very leisurely nine-day trip. Very pleasant. Was it from the East Coast to Russia, to the Soviet Union somewhere? No, just England and then a train through Russia. We didn't go on a tour. We just went where we wanted. We got to just walk around and look for people.
It turned out that most of the people I wanted to talk to were on vacation. Everyone went on vacation for the summer during that period. I wanted to talk to Lysenko, and I went to his lab. He only came to the lab one day a week, and it didn't match the time I was in Moscow. I got to talk to the biomagnetism man, Yuri Holodov, and he gave me a very good list of books, things that were available in the US. A lot of them that my professors never would have heard of.
Wasn't the KGB interested? Who is this American with thick sideburns trying to interview our scientists here? The science people were very nice and open. Holodov said he wasn't allowed to show his lab to foreigners, but he told me everything he was doing and gave me this printed big help for my later study. The tourist people didn't like disrupting their routine by not joining a tour and such, but it was an opportunity to take the subway around and see who was in the headquarters of the science establishment, walk around the university and such.
What do you think led to the downfall of Lysenko? He was on such a pedestal, and then suddenly there was this 180-degree turn, fully pro-Western. The Khrushchev for a while supported Lysenko and what he was doing, wanting to support massive organic farms, for example. Khrushchev supported Lysenko in that, but when Khrushchev went out, then that was the end of Lysenko's career. Wikipedia says Lysenko was a strong proponent of soft inheritance and rejected Mendelian genetics in favor of pseudoscientific ideas termed Lysenkoism.
Until a few years ago, you could usually get some old professor to almost have a stroke by saying something good about Lysenko. He was probably a more popular target for a lot of people than Stalin, but for example, he anticipated Barbara McClintock and the work that got her the Nobel Prize. Everything he did now is not at all controversial, but he increased grain production and food production, and people used his methods. The academic geneticists still had lots of power. The Soviet Union wasn't at all monolithic. The Western factions in science were very powerful.
You mentioned Khrushchev, Trotsky, and potentially others at the Soviet leadership being at least ideologically aligned with the CIA. Do you think that's what may have had a role to play in Lysenko's downfall and in general for the rigidification of the Soviet Union eventually? It's collapse basically turned towards the Western ideals, and that was really the goal to undermine it from within. Lysenko represented the truly materialist approach to reality. Western genetics theory represents the imposed rationalist, reductionist approach to reality. So the Westernization required knocking out any of the remaining actual materialists.
One of Lenin's best pieces of writing was explaining essentially that the concept of materialism in the West is pure idealism, absolutely the negation of materialism in Lenin's sense. Lenin said knowledge is composed of memory, but the memories are recordings of experience, and experience is always new. The source of experience is matter, and so matter is only what is potential to be experienced. So materialism means looking to the future and the possibilities of experience, where the genetics and reductionists try to base their rationalism on an organization of existing knowledge, pre-existing ideas,
and breaking those down into logical, computable units and so on. The essence of Lenin's type of materialism is essentially identifying it with the life process, the process of being conscious and having new experience is the process of interacting with the material world. So this is the same idea as Aristotle's prima matter, the pure potential out of which everything arises. Yep, creative potential.
I got an email from a listener who said, "How can you guys talk about Aristotle and all of these things that he did, when he in fact wrote an entire book and called it 'natural slavery'?" Are you familiar with these writings of Aristotle? Oh, no, not that. He did so many things right. You don't want to throw everything out just because of some... He was much less authoritarian than Plato, for example. Plato did some things right, saying that you shouldn't impose education on children. You should let them play, educate themselves.
You look at what someone has to offer, and Aristotle was a source for much of the good thinking of the medieval philosophers, much of it got into Christian theology by way of Islamic and Jewish theology, but the good parts of Christianity derive largely from Aristotelian ideas modified by the medieval philosophers. And Lenin picked out these good, developmental, future-oriented, unfinished business parts of Aristotle. Do you think preference for idealistic theories may be indicative of some sort of prenatal stress while the person was still in the womb, and then that imprinted them for life?
I think that's part of the imprinting process. Starting with prenatal inflammation and stress, it goes with the quality of breastfeeding. The baby detects the mother's anxiety or happiness and pleasure, and if the mother is not comfortable and pleased to be feeding the baby, the baby starts assimilating those ideas and it starts seeing things instead of the mother as a source of everything living and good. It starts seeing objects as threats. Objects begin to be closed, self-contained, like Nietzschean units, no windows, windowless monads.
This develops into the preference for things that aren't wiggly and changeable, and so it wants timeless objects and looks for the ultimate, unchanging basis of matter, which turns out to be logical atoms or quanta or digits. Do you think the current epidemic of third-person daycare, so-called, where mothers literally, I don't want to call it abandon, but they give their tiny little babies away to people completely unrelated to the baby,
the baby must be certainly capable of sensing that it's being taken care of, if they even provide the same amount of care, by a person that's completely unknown and unrelated to the baby. That must be a pretty severe stress for a young organism. Well, if they get good breastfeeding from the substitute mother, a wet nurse, it can be a very good mother. And probably the more complex antibody support from a volunteer new mother, if she is giving all of the signals of loving support to the baby, then it's perfectly equivalent, I think.
Very few daycares are like that. I mean, I guess maybe I should have said, the third person, in other words, there are these businesses where it's almost like a farm. You give your baby and there's… No, no. Yeah, like the horrible orphanages where they tend them, like in the factory, and bottle feed them, and keep them wrapped up, and are essentially brain-damaging them as thoroughly as they can. Why do you think orphanages closed in the United States? They closed around the, what is it, the 60s or the 70s? What was the first part?
Why do you think the orphanages disappeared in the United States? They seemed to be all over the place in the first half of the 20th century, and suddenly they were gone, almost like in a very short period of time. I guess they found foster parents as a substitute, but lots of the foster parents turned out to be just as bad as the orphanages.
The reason I'm asking is because it seems to me that from an authoritarian point of view, orphanage seems like the perfect breeding ground for imprinting whatever pathological ideas you would like on a very large portion of the population. Yeah, and for the National Institutes of Health to experiment on. Yeah, that's right. Ray, something you might be able to, oh, okay, well, let me back up a second. The last time we chatted about race, some of the things that were said were construed as you having overwhelming support for Black Lives Matter.
Do you maybe want to, one, comment on that, and then two, I wanted to get into whether a pejorative insult to Black Lives, or no, not an insult, but some people say Black Lives Matter is Marxist. It's what? Marxist. I know that you have an understanding of that, and I wanted maybe if you could comment on that. I've heard that Soros, his organizations are funding it largely. I don't know exactly who they are, but to the extent that they are doing destructive things,
a lot of that I think is historically the police have sent in rock throwers and window breakers to peaceful demonstrations so that the police can then go in and arrest and beat people. I think there's still a lot of that going on under the name of Black Lives Matter, but I don't know who really is the main influence on it, but obviously the whole idea that police shouldn't murder citizens, whatever color they are, it's obvious that they are murdering a lot more blacks than whites, especially in proportion to their percentage of the population.
So concentrating on stopping the murderous police should be everyone's concern. It wouldn't matter whether Soros or Karl Marx or whoever was financing them. But I think people use the word Marxism without the slightest idea of what it means. Okay, in the I think maybe the first or second chat we had, we already talked about a little bit about this animal reality and approaching societal and health problems from that angle.
Is Marxism the class? Does that make sense given that what we had talked about earlier, like the splitting everything up into different classes and seeing issues in relation to that? Does that relate to the animal kingdom at all, do you think? Marx and Engels were creating organizations and doing mass education and trying to clarify thinking. Engels in particular was planning a more general philosophical scientific explanation of what Marxism implies. The idea of development is really the only key concept.
Hegel saw logical interactions, the dialectic, as the motor of history and logic reaches a conclusion, history comes to an end, the ruling class sits there forever. Marx said he had it upside down, basically that things are developing but it's not driven by ideas and concepts. So its outcome is not going to be the same that Hegel foresaw. Hegel was rationalizing for the ruling class that wanted eternal stable power. Marx wanted the same thing that a lot of the Christian communitarians, Christian thinkers and people putting their ideas into practice,
trying to eliminate destructive competition, warfare and so on. If you look at the history of the Christian socialists and Marx, what Marx added was the idea of development as the essential thing. It's in the nature of people and society and substance to go on developing. There's a branch of professors who like to call themselves Marxists who are simply Hegelians who think it's more adventuresome to call themselves Marxists. But they subscribe to the idea of the dialectic having these units.
For Marx, they were provisional. The class division was in the process itself of defining itself and changing constantly. So all of the units interacting in Marxism are themselves open and in process. There's not a trace of the Hegelian authoritarian idealism in the thought of Marx and Engels and Lenin. Lenin did a really good job on the level of language and ontology. Almost no one reads those because they overlap with Whitehead and the Christian process theologians. He went a few steps farther than Bertrand Russell in clarifying the nature of language and logic.
And so people just don't like to touch the immense implications of how far Engels went in the meaning of process and development. And could a dynasty like the Rockefellers or Rothschilds or Vanderbilt or whatever, could that be sustained under kind of a Marxist philosophy, do you think? The oligarchs, the dynasties, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, is that impossible under a Marxist philosophy? Or is that more related to communism? No, the oligarchy, the concept of people that leads to ideas such as a ruling class or class superiority and so on, it's all embedded in history and process.
The working class is what actually produces the stuff that makes the economy run and that becomes what is manipulated by the bankers and so on. So as they function, they are the source of meaning and change, but the whole thing, all of the parts of the process are in change and continuous definition. And you can't possibly imagine a terminal state of such a process, much less a stable oligarchy. Once you have the recognition that these timeless definitions of matter or organization, that these are logically impossible constructions,
they self-contradict themselves out of existence, and so what you have is a continuing biological-like process. If I can make an analogy, as you said, knowledge and memory is not matter, they actually come from matter, and matter is pure potential. Would it be a correct analogy, or at least along the correct lines, to say that the social structures, the working class and the ruling class are the analogies of memory and the matter?
In other words, the working class is the potential that's producing progress, and the ruling class is the memory of what the ruling class has produced. In other words, a record of what the ruling class has produced. And they want to solidify this memory into an eternal platonic thing that can't be tampered with. That's where the whole computer ideology comes from. If it's computable, its place in time is irrelevant. It's what it is, and it always will be that.
The ideology is frozen memory, and it can only persist as far as it tries to freeze the productive processes. I was reading Lenin's works a few weeks ago, and in one of the books, I'm forgetting the name, he responds to criticism that he's just proposing yet another idea. Just like any idea eventually will become obsolete. And he said, "No, all we're faithful to is the process of dialectical materialism and analyzing and learning more into the nature of matter as we go along." That's the only thing we're faithful to, the actual process of change.
And if you think that's an ideology, that's fine, but it's always going to change. Do you think that's a more or less correct statement? Very clearly stated. It's what science should be, and exactly what science isn't working as now. I see. In regards to intelligence, not sure if you know, but the courts in the United States have ruled that even though companies or really any employer is actually prohibited from discriminating based on intelligence,
police departments and the military are the only two structures legally actually not only allowed to discriminate based on intelligence, but actively encouraged to do so. To what degree do you think the IQ test is valid? In other words, police and military are allowed to disqualify people who are too smart, who score too high. Do you think that IQ test has any merit, or do you think it's entirely bogus? That principle has actually been in practice in graduate schools in the US.
They don't like critics, and high IQ people used to be dangerous critics, so they were flanked out as quick as possible. Any organization doesn't like critics, and so they have to, to the extent that the IQ test actually discovers intelligence. Some of the tests, the Cattell scale was really a class identification rather than identifying dangerous intelligence. It was identifying acceptable class manners as high IQ. So the power structure is currently select for stupidity rather directly. Right. Sociologists and psychologists in the 50s, they did quite a few studies like that showing that various corporations,
the top IQ that had success was about 120 in accounting companies, 130 was okay. Grad school, it was similar. 130 was fine, but 160 was definitely questionable. Too dangerous. Could IQ be a – is there any way to predict criminality because of that? There's a quote. It's from Neil Brickham of the CIA, and he says, "I have described the CIA as a socially acceptable way of expressing criminal tendencies.
A guy who has a strong criminal tendencies but is too much of a coward to be one would wind up in a place like the CIA if he had the education." Yeah. There's quite a bit of evidence that the people who choose to go into police departments are biased in that direction. They see the ability to exercise power as something they want. I have a question about China because we're hearing about China all the time. It used to be Russia, now it's China.
Despite the fact that, of course, a lot of it is propaganda, China seems to be engaging currently in a lot of the same imperialistic power grabs that the current empire is still doing. What is your opinion of China as a beacon or non-beacon of civilization? Do you think they're doing some things right, or do you think they're just another empire on the rise? Their empire is based on capitalism now, and the great distress of the Pentagon is that they've been doing capitalism better than the United States empire.
Eric Schmidt's National Defense Commission on Artificial Intelligence described the need to destroy the present economy so that we can go directly to artificial intelligence and get there faster than China, otherwise China is on course to reach a computerization degree of automation that will make them unbeatable. So the Pentagon got Google's Eric Schmidt to head this commission, and now Governor Cuomo in New York is instituting Eric Schmidt's plans and advice in New York.
It's definitely what the World Economic Forum has in mind for the whole world process to quickly get rid of all of these middle-level free enterprises and go directly to automation and a complete monopoly of the banks and Amazon-type corporations. So I guess both countries are going towards complete automation. Wouldn't that make a very large portion of the Chinese population useless, as you said, than currently the US population is?
Yes, and to the extent that both are aware of what the World Economic Forum has in mind, China is probably better organized to deal with this world collapse of the economy for the pandemic than American middle-level corporations are. So what do you think China is going to do with its 1+ billion useless people once full automation phase is reached or significantly automated? They're dying all the time. They just have to limit reproduction a little more and they'll shrink fastly, quickly.
So China is very much a copy of the imperialistic blueprint and it's just at a larger scale. Is that what I'm hearing? Well, it doesn't have a thousand military bases like the US, so it's depending on the market economy and that's what the pandemic was designed to get rid of the ordinary market economy and move straight to a mandate economy.
So do you foresee at some point some sort of a union between the two? It seems to me as if somebody was an evil genius would say, "Hey China, you supply the economy since you're so good at capitalism and you, US, you will supply the military." Doesn't that seem like a match made in heaven or hell, depending on how you look at it? Yeah, world capital is deeply involved in Chinese production, so they're already representing a world empire and it's sort of a sub-theme that there's competition between Chinese world capital
and what America has left of productive capital. The trouble is that so much of American industry went to China and other countries that that kind of market capitalism is thought as a threat to the Pentagon. So maybe the word oligarchy is just looking at the different countries as suppliers of whatever service they can do best. China will do economy, United States will do the weapons, maybe Africa will give the raw materials and the resources, and I don't know what role Europe has. Maybe it's just the aristocracy that's still floating around.
That's close to the picture I have of what they have in mind. We can wrap up here soon. I did want to say, Ray, what is your prediction or how do you foresee the election coming up? What do you think is going to happen? And then two, does it even matter? I think it'll matter for two or three months anyway, that it's most likely going to be the installation of Biden.
The real powers are going to do anything necessary to get Biden in, and when they get him in, then I think the virus is going to go on vacation for two or three months. For a mere estimation, I'm not a doctor, but he seems to have serious mental problems. What do you think is going on there? That really doesn't bother anyone to have a stupid president. If you read Eisenhower's statements to the press, he really didn't have much knowledge of what he was doing.
There were so many different videos of Angela Merkel shaking uncontrollably, Hillary Clinton collapsing during the 2016 election. What do you think is going on? Are they neurologically damaged? Do you think there's something else going on? These people seem to be rather physiologically unwell. Yeah, they have the very best medical care. Looking at Hillary's face, you can imagine the dose of prednisone she's been getting. I've had friends who were in the army, so they took advantage of the very good medical care that army people do. They died very prematurely.
I think intense medical supervision will deteriorate your brain and immune system pretty quickly. Do you think there's any country or region in the world that is at least attempting to embark on the right path, more of a pro-civilization attitude? Or do you think it's all under the control of the world capital? There are little opposition countries. Iran has its good points. Venezuela and Cuba are doing lots of good things.
Anyone who tries to break out of the system, Libya under Gaddafi had really big plans to break out of the dollar economy and to create a new currency to break African imperialism. It would have democratized Africa to the extent that it would have ruined the empire forever. There are lots of little countries that would like to break out of the empire and will keep trying to do it. I think that's going to be a good possibility for stopping the deterioration.
On a related note, I heard that Saddam was invaded in 2003 the moment he proposed the creation of an oil stock exchange where the oil would be traded in euros or rubles. Within a week, there was an invasion already underway. Yeah. And they say that Kennedy's money policy was one of the decisive factors. So in terms of pro-civilization, sometimes I guess it does pay off to be small. You're simply not that interesting to the big powers, so you're given a little bit of freedom to do what you want.
Awesome. OK, right. Let me read some of these super chats. These are people that donated and I've been forwarding those donations to you, Christina Tomas, ineffable 500. Harry Burgos. Let me read them out. Twenty four ninety nine. Twenty dollars. Harry Burgos, twenty five dollars. Michelle, fifty dollars. Well, primitive initiative. Twenty four ninety nine. Akila, ten dollars. Brandon, twenty dollars. Unfortunately, guys, I can't read your super chats. I'd love to, but I just would. Ray would be on here for hours, you know, so sincerely appreciate that. I will forward that cash to Ray.
Ray, what are you working on at the moment? I've been having computer problems, but I'm about to write about education. OK, I'm going to send you some extra money for computer problems. Ray, thank you so much. You know, these are always super fun to have you on and you take time out of your day to do them. Georgie, parting words to Mr. Raymond P. I hope his newsletter will talk about how the dream of Ivan Illich is coming true. The dream of what? Ivan Illich of the Deschooling Society.
Yes, yes, yes. He's one of the people. Everyone from JJ Russo on Ivan Illich. Anyway, let everybody know how they can get your newsletter. I have raypeatsnewsletter@gmail dot com. There's an S in Ray Peat's. And then final question, can people order your books and can people order back issues of newsletters? Yeah, both of those same address. OK, awesome. Thank you for that. Thank you, Ray. Thank you, Georgie. Thank you, everybody watching. Thank you for future visitors as well. Very fun. Thanks again, everybody. Take care. Talk to you guys soon. Next week, probably. OK, bye, everybody.
Let me share with you a vision of the future which offers hope. It is that we embark on a program to counter the awesome Soviet missile threat with measures that are defensive. Let us turn to the very strengths in technology that spawned our great industrial base and that have given us the quality of life we enjoy today. What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant US retaliation to deter a Soviet attack?
We could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies. I know this is a formidable technical task, one that may not be accomplished. Victor Technologies, the high flying hardware computer company which took a nosedive this year, may be bought out by the British firm Applied Computer Technologies. Piloting the space shuttle is very difficult, difficult. I think, can a kid or a normal person actually pull this off? Well, what I did when I designed this was I understood that problem.
It seems the sweep of technology has no limits. In San Francisco this week, the world's first robot bartender was unveiled. The robot can talk and take spoken orders and can mix 200 different drinks. But on the first test run, the robot knocked a glass off the bar and onto the floor and poured beer all over the counter. The robot's designer said there were still some bugs to be worked out. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace. To give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons infinite and obsolete. Tonight, consistent with our obligations of the ADM Treaty, recognizing the need for closer consultation with our allies, I'm taking an important first step. Instant US retaliation. Nuclear war. Nuclear war. [Music] In Japan, where high technology showcased consumers stare and wonder at the latest fast-life overtaken by the computer age, the department store.
But while the Cebu store is proud of its technology, it is worried that customers will feel it has lost the human touch. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Victor Technologies, the high-flying hardware computer company which took a nosedive this year, may be bought out by the British firm Applied Computer Technologies. [Music] Piloting the space shuttle is very difficult, the difficult one would think. Can a kid or a normal person actually pull this off? Well, what I did when I designed this was I understood that problem.
It seems the sweep of technology has no limits. In San Francisco this week, the world's first robot bartender was unveiled. The robot can talk and take spoken orders and can mix 200 different drinks. But on the first test run, the robot knocked a glass off the bar and onto the floor and poured beer all over the counter. The robot's designer said there were still some bugs to be worked out. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]