While attending CPAC in Washington DC I had the honour of being invited to guest host for the wonderful folks at Lindell TV and on the list of people I was scheduled to talk to is someone who I have interviewed a couple of times before and has since become a friend, Robert W Malone MD.While catching up off camera, Robert was telling me all about his new studio he has built at his home and if I had time I must come and see it.Not one to turn down such a gracious invitation, I jumped at the chance and then...
While attending CPAC in Washington DC I had the honour of being invited to guest host for the wonderful folks at Lindell TV and on the list of people I was scheduled to talk to is someone who I have interviewed a couple of times before and has since become a friend, Robert W Malone MD.
While catching up off camera, Robert was telling me all about his new studio he has built at his home and if I had time I must come and see it.
Not one to turn down such a gracious invitation, I jumped at the chance and then spent a couple of wonderful days with Jill and Robert at their home.
While checking out the new studio we sat down for an impromptu discussion, starting off with his new book and going onto many subjects, touching on Matt Hancock and the UK WhatsApp files, the chances of future prosecution for those spearheading the COVID pandemic and listen out for some wise words on our mindset and how we move forward when all trust seems to of been eroded.
Robert W Malone MD is the discoverer of in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection and the inventor of mRNA vaccines, while he was at the Salk Institute in 1988.
His research was continued at Vical in 1989, where the first in-vivo mammalian experiments were designed by him.
The mRNA, constructs, reagents were developed at the Salk institute and Vical by Dr. Malone.
The initial patent disclosures were written by Robert in 1988-1989.
He was also an inventor of DNA vaccines in 1988 and 1989. This work results in over 10 patents and numerous publications, yielding about 7000 citations for this work.
Dr. Malone has extensive research and development experience in the areas of pre-clinical discovery research, clinical trials, vaccines, gene therapy, bio-defense, and immunology. He has over twenty years of management and leadership experience in academia, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, as well as in governmental and non-governmental organizations.
Robert specializes in clinical research, medical affairs, regulatory affairs, project management, proposal management (large grants and contracts), vaccines and biodefense. This includes writing, developing, reviewing and managing vaccine, bio-threat and biologics clinical trials and clinical development strategies.
His proposal development work has yielded clients billions of dollars.
He holds numerous fundamental domestic and foreign patents in the fields of gene delivery, delivery formulations, and vaccines.
'Lies My Gov't Told Me: And the Better Future Coming' Available from Amazon.....
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lies-My-Govt-Told-Me-ebook/dp/B09R4YD4MP/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=robert+w+malone&sr=8-1
Follow and support Dr Malone.....
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/rwmalonemd
TWITTER: https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD?s=20
WEBSITE: https://www.rwmalonemd.com/
https://maloneinstitute.org/
SUBSTACK: https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/
Interview recorded 7.3.23
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin
Please give us a follow on all our social media, podcast, video, livestreaming platforms and more...
https://heartsofoak.org/connect/
Spread the word by liking and sharing where you can!
[0:24] Robert Malone, it's wonderful to be back with you.
Thanks for being here in the studio and taking the time to travel here to Virginia.
Not at all. Is this the first in-studio interview you've done?
Yeah, since the studio's been set up, I've done a bunch of hits, obviously, broadcasting directly, but not having somebody here in the studio. Very early before we had all the infrastructure, there was an interview for Epoch Times, but that'll come out in some future documentary I'm told.
Looking forward to it. Before we get on the book, CPAC, we bumped into each other at CPAC and interest in CPAC, but from your involvement, because CPAC obviously is a political event and you're there walking down media row and everyone wanting a piece of you.
[1:18] What's that like? Everyone turns their head and everyone recognizes you.
Everyone recognizes you.
[1:18] What's that like? Everyone turns their head and everyone recognizes you.
Everyone recognizes you.
Yeah, it's especially at CPAC, perhaps more than almost any other venue. And this is my third time speaking at CPAC. So the first time was in Orlando and that was a wake up call.
I had no idea that I had this level of recognition in the conservative circles.
CPAC is a funny place because it's people that are politically active that are very committed to the conservative movement of the United States.
And increasingly CPAC has become almost an international hub of conservatism.
So it's a biased sample.
What happens in CPAC is not what happens in most places. And so it's a special place, but a little bit weird.
What is it like?
I don't know how to describe it. It's almost surreal, very odd. The
[2:35] endorsement, support, encouragement, and particularly the people that come up and say things like, I felt that I was alone, or I felt like I must be crazy and then I heard you and I knew I wasn't.
That's really, that gives me a lot of positive feedback to think that I'm actually helping people.
The adulation is a little weird and I'm very wary of it.
The whole cult of personality thing makes me very uncomfortable because I know how easily that can be perverted.
And I also know that just because today this is happening, that has no predictive value of what's gonna be happening a month from now.
And it could all go away in a moment. And so I think it's important to maintain perspective.
[3:35] In what I try to do is focus on the mission and focus on helping people.
If you stay, I think if you stay grounded in a sense of, this term has become very trendy lately, servant leadership.
If you're keeping, if you, what I try to do is keep in my head that I'm in this moment because I'm providing value to people and the moment that I lose control of my ego or start imagining that this has something to do with anything other than this moment in time, then I have lost my own integrity and I won't be true to the mission. So I try really hard to not let it get to my head. And of course, Jill does her best to make sure that I maintain perspective.
That's one of the lovely things about having a long time stable partner is they can keep you grounded.
I had no idea that I had this level of recognition in the conservative circles.
CPAC is a funny place because it's people that are politically active that are very committed to the conservative movement of the United States.
And increasingly CPAC has become almost an international hub of conservatism.
So it's a biased sample.
What happens in CPAC is not what happens in most places. And so it's a special place, but a little bit weird.
What is it like?
I don't know how to describe it. It's almost surreal, very odd. The
[2:35] endorsement, support, encouragement, and particularly the people that come up and say things like, I felt that I was alone, or I felt like I must be crazy and then I heard you and I knew I wasn't.
That's really, that gives me a lot of positive feedback to think that I'm actually helping people.
The adulation is a little weird and I'm very wary of it.
The whole cult of personality thing makes me very uncomfortable because I know how easily that can be perverted.
And I also know that just because today this is happening, that has no predictive value of what's gonna be happening a month from now.
And it could all go away in a moment. And so I think it's important to maintain perspective.
[3:35] In what I try to do is focus on the mission and focus on helping people.
If you stay, I think if you stay grounded in a sense of, this term has become very trendy lately, servant leadership.
If you're keeping, if you, what I try to do is keep in my head that I'm in this moment because I'm providing value to people and the moment that I lose control of my ego or start imagining that this has something to do with anything other than this moment in time, then I have lost my own integrity and I won't be true to the mission. So I try really hard to not let it get to my head. And of course, Jill does her best to make sure that I maintain perspective.
That's one of the lovely things about having a long time stable partner is they can keep you grounded.
Servant leadership is not a term I would expect to come out of something like CPAC. That political.
[4:49] The lights are on, it's showbiz and even sitting, listening to some radio interviews and the level of respect and I guess adoration that people have for what you do.
It's a little weird, there's kind of a folk hero aspect to it.
The tension for me is that people need role models.
And they kind of need heroes. And this all gets wrapped up in the Joseph Campbell hero's journey, a narrative that surrounds all of us. It seems to almost be hardwired into our DNA.
And I'm very conscious that there's an aspect here that's recreating the hero's journey, including the trials and tribulations in the time when the hero goes into the unknown and has to come out hopefully with wisdom that they can then share.
I mean, this is the hero's journey laid out by Campbell.
And I find myself unconsciously recapitulating that.
And I see it in many of my colleagues.
[6:05] But it is so easy, as I see it again and again, for people to get wrapped up in a sense of self-importance.
And the other one that can really compromise people's perspective is all of us have set aside our careers.
[6:28] All of us have, all the way down, the labour that has had their income compromised because of lockdown.
You know, everybody has had, well, except for the elite, right?
We've had this massive upward transfer of wealth.
But for most folks, this has been really hard times. And so it's natural to want to make a buck to recover.
You know, for instance, if you're a high profile physician and you've lost your practice.
And so that siren song of making money and doing things to make money can easily lead you down pathways that you may not be aware you're walking that road until suddenly it's got you.
And I've seen that happen also.
And I'm really... Jill and I have been very, very conscious of that risk.
And this is why in our substack, we don't charge.
[7:33] People can voluntarily pay, but we make the information available to everybody.
Yeah, it would be really neat to have 300,000 paying subscribers.
Number one, that would never happen.
And number two, it's contrary to the mission. Yeah, I'm not Joe Rogan.
Memo to self, I'm not Joe Rogan!
[8:00] So I think it's hard but super important to stay focused on this moment in time and this mission of trying to help.
[8:11] Hence the servant leader mission space, as if you don't, it is so easy for all of these forces to corrupt you.
You have people wanting to touch, wanting to shake your hand, wanting to engage with you, wanting to be your business partner, wanting you to do their podcast, come on their show, you know, and all of this gets monetized. It's a little bit of a weird transactional relationship, not in your case, but with many podcasters. Like there's been an estimate that the net value of my appearance on Rogan, which I was very glad to do, it got information out, it had an impact on the world. But for Spotify and Rogan, it was worth a couple hundred thousands of dollars based on the number of hits. I mean, they have these simple equations. And when you hear those kinds of numbers, I didn't get a couple hundred thousand. I didn't get Zed, right? I paid for my trip down there, right? But there's money at play and there's all kinds of forces that are really easy to get lost in. And I think that that's a challenge. That's the problem I have with
[9:34] moving through spaces like that, like we were talking about CPAC, is all of this comes at you in,
[9:46] and it's useful if you are seeking, if your objective is to build your brand and to monetize it.
It's a window of opportunity if that's what you want to do.
But as I'm saying, if you go down that path, you quickly find yourself making decisions that will compromise people's, they'll compromise your objectivity and your genuineness.
And I think that's the key thing that I've learned through all of this, is people are just craving genuine.
So much is synthetic in their world.
And particularly in the media. You know, it's, I have somehow, together with Jill, found ourselves, because of a set of circumstances, a very odd set of circumstances, in this weird position of being able to influence the tide of human events in some way.
And that's a gift and a burden.
[10:56] Yeah, well, I want to, can I ask you a different question about you that haven't got asked before?
It's Lies My Government Told Me, will touch on the better future coming after, and just out, just before Christmas. And I thought it was a very large book. And then I thought, actually, it's probably very small. Lies My Government.
That's the criticism. It should be as big as the Encyclopedia Britannica.
It was actually twice that size. And when I turned it into Tony Lyons, his acerbic comment was.
[11:31] well, this will sell well for those who need a doorstep, but no one's actually going to read it.
And so they went to their credit, Skyhorse and Children's Health Defense, pulled together a team that just went on a marathon editing effort because everybody wanted to get it out before Christmas.
And so unfortunately, a number of chapters, particularly chapters from the first section that were sharing personal anecdotes about what it was like to be a frontline physician, for instance, got dropped. And I regret that. But that was out of my hands. And then some of the other chapters got condensed. And then the one that I could never properly rewrite was the one about mRNA because for me it's all so technical and it was, you know, I kept getting this feedback nobody is going to read this and the anybody who does is not going to understand it.
[12:33] And so I'd make an attempt to rewrite and then I would get the same feedback. So eventually what happened was that somebody from Skyhorse had to step in and rewrite that chapter and kind of make it easier reading.
Tell me about getting it published. I didn't dare to hold it up.
I held it up and it wasn't in.
But I mean, there are a couple of questions. One is probably why write it?
Because there's a lot of information out there.
And you were already doing lots of media work. So you're getting the story out.
But you decide to spend, I mean, never done this, but I assume it's a heck of a lot of time.
It's about a year for Jill and I.
Okay.
So the genesis of the book...
This was pre-substack. so it was fine?
No, actually it was,
So that's,
This is intimate, This is woven into the sub-stacks.
So I'm asked by Tony in Sky Horse and Bobby Kennedy to edit Bobby's book, The Real Anthony Fauci.
And that was an earlier draft.
[13:49] That was a heavy lift, both time-wise and psychologically. For me, I thought I had known a lot about Tony Fauci.
I've looked at him my entire career. I've been younger than him, but he's always been the big kahuna in infectious disease throughout my entire career, starting from the earliest days when the laboratory where I cut my teeth was working on the AIDS vaccine.
[14:22] Back in 80, starting in 83.
And that's a whole other conversation.
And so, so I thought I had known, you know, cause I sit on these study sections in the office of the study section chair.
I spent a ton of time hanging out in NIH and dealing with their stuff.
And, and thought I knew a lot of the inside scoop on the way things are.
But after the first read on Bobby's book, I was depressed for two weeks.
It was just like, oh my God, the burden of just becoming aware of how deeply corrupted everything is.
And then they liked my detailed edits that were not just content, but also I'm a reasonably good editor for language.
And then they wanted me to edit again with the next version did and then after the you know, the big scrum and rush to get it out the door.
[15:30] Tony Lyons asked me to think about writing my own book and, Jill and I talked about it. The problem is there isn't much money in publishing a book these days and so we said well, you know naively well, what would the advance be?
And modest is an understatement. Overstatement. Modest is an overstatement. You know, it's a couple thousand bucks and we're like, well, this is going to be a heavy lift and there's no way we can afford to take the time to write this book with this kind of revenue model. It just makes no sense at all. You know, we do try to,
[16:12] we had to live on the edge forever and run our small consulting business and we're very attuned to cash flow as probably you are too?
Well, yes.
I spent a ton of time hanging out in NIH and dealing with their stuff.
And, and thought I knew a lot of the inside scoop on the way things are.
But after the first read on Bobby's book, I was depressed for two weeks.
It was just like, oh my God, the burden of just becoming aware of how deeply corrupted everything is.
And then they liked my detailed edits that were not just content, but also I'm a reasonably good editor for language.
And then they wanted me to edit again with the next version did and then after the you know, the big scrum and rush to get it out the door.
[15:30] Tony Lyons asked me to think about writing my own book and, Jill and I talked about it. The problem is there isn't much money in publishing a book these days and so we said well, you know naively well, what would the advance be?
And modest is an understatement. Overstatement. Modest is an overstatement. You know, it's a couple thousand bucks and we're like, well, this is going to be a heavy lift and there's no way we can afford to take the time to write this book with this kind of revenue model. It just makes no sense at all. You know, we do try to,
[16:12] we had to live on the edge forever and run our small consulting business and we're very attuned to cash flow as probably you are too?
Well, yes.
People listening to that.
Oh, yes. We all are.
Right? And so, Around that time Steve Kirsch, this is before the Rogan hit, and I was still on Twitter.
Did you use the black horse interview the three of you?
Did you have that interview with you and Brett was that before?
Did you have that interview with you and Brett was that before?
Yeah, so so after yeah, it was way before Rogan. Okay Um, so and and I actually looked up my very first podcast was in February of 21.
[16:53] With a woman named Dr. Aaron Stair who does a podcast as Dr. Eekes.
And my very first podcast, it turns out, was about antibody-dependent enhancement in the vaccines.
So that's a kind of historic marker, so we'd already done the Dark Horse thing, which was kind of a breakthrough.
[17:19] And Steve calls me up one day. Steve Kirsch can be very effervescent.
[16:53] With a woman named Dr. Aaron Stair who does a podcast as Dr. Eekes.
And my very first podcast, it turns out, was about antibody-dependent enhancement in the vaccines.
So that's a kind of historic marker, so we'd already done the Dark Horse thing, which was kind of a breakthrough.
[17:19] And Steve calls me up one day. Steve Kirsch can be very effervescent.
I've had him on once, and enjoyed it.
Very enthusiastic guy, and he's like, and he knows that we have, I'm destroying my, I've essentially destroyed my consumption.
And so, so Steve calls up and says, Hey, there's this thing, Substack, and I've gotten on it.
And he says, I've made $30,000 in the last month. And you really got to get on this.
And we were like, well, $30,000 a month, that sounds like real money to me.
And so, so Steve calls up and says, Hey, there's this thing, Substack, and I've gotten on it.
And he says, I've made $30,000 in the last month. And you really got to get on this.
And we were like, well, $30,000 a month, that sounds like real money to me.
And this was mid-2021, was it, or?
It was like early fall.
And I'd never heard of Substack, but maybe a little bit.
It was on the fringes. That's in Substack. That doesn't mean that it's anything real.
And then Steve calls up and says, you've got to get on this thing.
And so we launched that and that's kind of percolating along.
And then I get deplatformed. And in parallel, we started on GETTR,
[18:32] knowing that there was this chronic risk, I was busy basically self-censoring on Twitter to try to avoid getting deplatformed.
And I posted a link to the World Economic Forum's, the little circular diagram they have of all their different policy positions, and a link to the Canadian COVID Care Alliance video on the Pfizer vaccine trials that had the title Safe and Effective question mark.
And I still think it's a fantastic video covering all of the nuances that were known then about Pfizer trials and the misrepresentation, the deleted data and other things.
[19:28] And suddenly, about two days before I go on Rogan, I'm deplatformed from both LinkedIn and Twitter.
That was the third time I was deplatformed from LinkedIn. Steve Kirsch had Buddy, who is a vice president at LinkedIn, who saved me the prior two times.
And I had personal correspondence with him. Yeah, because it's all a Microsoft problem.
And so I'm already on GETTR.
I get deplatformed on Twitter and LinkedIn just before the Rogan hit.
[20:07] Rogan rushes the release, accelerates the timeline. So like two days after we did the hit, he dumps it on New Year's Eve of 2021.
All right, is that right? 2021. New Year's. And the substack subscriptions and the GETTR connections just go boom. And I've never seen anything like it and suddenly were launched.
And so it was a kind of this cascade of events that there's no way I could reproduce it.
It was just, you know, like a lot of things being the right place at the right time and having things put in place.
And then we were approached about writing the book and perplexed about how to do it.
There was a history, a century or more ago in British literature, a lot of things were serialized in the kind of like local little publication flyers that would be circulating in London.
[21:32] And so I thought, well, okay, maybe what we can do is use substack as a way to serialize is the building of the book by a chapter by chapter basis.
And so that's what we did of necessity. And one of the consequences is that because we're writing it in the moment, each of these chapters, as a substack essay, Jill and I together, and discussing all the latest news and everything, as you've seen us do in the morning over coffee,
It's full of details that there is no way I could recapture. If I had to start writing this book right now, there's no way I would remember all that stuff. And about the same time, Bannon was saying that he was making the point that everything is getting memory holed.
And he was making comments on his show, which I was on periodically, that the only surviving artefacts of this period in time are going to be written text. That everything is going to get censored and memory hold and we've seen that happening even with the Wayback Machine.
[22:50] And that it's really important to capture these things in the form of the written word.
And that his posse that he's assembled, these people, really love written text. And that there was a market for this. And so we just persevered and had a couple of quote vacation trips. We were away from the farm and able to kind of focus. And one of them involved some people that were very seasoned, experienced writers. And so we were able to get coaching and feedback from them and talked about the structure of the book. And that's when it really got going.
And pulling these chapters together. And then of course the chapters had to be rewritten because they were written in that moment in time and they have to be restructured.
And then trying to figure out how to pull all this, really almost stream of consciousness writing together in a way that made sense.
The epiphany was to structure it using the metaphor of how a physician approaches a patient.
[23:58] Where when the patient comes to you, the way I've been trained, is the first thing you do is you take history and physicals. So you say, what is your chief complaint? What's your pain point? What are the things that are bothering you? And then you do some tests and you examine the patient. And then you have a period of time where you have to synthesize that and say, what is the diagnosis or the series of diagnoses and what's going on with this patient? What is causing their pain?
And then you have to come up with a treatment plan. How are you gonna mitigate their pain?
How are you gonna treat them for whatever their ailment and their chief complaint is?
And so the epiphany was, oh, why don't we use this as a way to structure the book?
So the first third is basically first person accounts of people saying, this is my pain.
This is what I've experienced. This is what this has been like to me.
Which I think is really cool for people that haven't been at the forefront and on the front battle lines to see kind of what it's like.
What is it like through Paul Merrick's eyes to have his career destroyed?
[25:03] What is it like for someone who, there's a chapter in there from a Chicago lawyer, who has always been a philanthropist, often a advocate for liberal causes in the city of Chicago that had bought a non-profit paper, and had written a essay about the vaccine and the problems with the vaccination based on, triggered by his own experiences in his family and what he had seen that had kind of, woken him up about this.
And then had his own damn paper, refused to publish it and go through and edit it and everything in his kind of outrage about that whole experience.
So there's just a bunch of these kind of first person, this is what I experienced, this is what it's like.
And then it was this whole chasing down every rabbit hole we could think of about what the heck gave rise to this.
What was really behind it? And
[26:12] Ernst Wolf was a chapter that got dropped because we couldn't get his permission.
He's a German economist who was really way out front in the theories around the role of the central banks and the economics behind all of this.
And then Ed Dowd, you know, I brought that to Ed's attention that I had met in Hawaii early on when we did a rally there and brought him into this matrix of...
I'd love to do rallies in Hawaii? It's beautiful.
Oh, it was amazing.
It was amazing. Yeah, that was a, it's like 10% of the population in Maui came out.
It was one of the biggest rallies we've ever done. Early on, and then we went from there to Pearl Harbor and then spoke on Oahu.
Not quite as big a rally. There was some key organizers that had done prior rallies in Maui.
[27:20] So that's where we met Ed. So I sent Ed the Ernst Wolff essays about Ernst's interpretation of the economics behind this.
And Ed was, his response was, you know, this is pretty much the way I've been seeing it, but I haven't been able to verbalize it. And this is so much more clear.
And so we ended up with a chapter from Ed in the book. And I was very influenced in parts by things I learned from Steve Bannon.
And, you know, as you know, whatever you think of Steve, he has a great grasp of history.
And he was able to mention some historic precedents that then triggered me, and I went back and researched those same things like events around Watergate, etc. and the Nixon administration and other historic examples that kind of tie into this whole government weaponization of propaganda against their own citizenry and Operation Paperclip and that kind of Mockingbird and those kinds of things. So that's the middle part. The hardest part to write was the third part.
[28:35] Because yeah, the better future coming. The genesis of that part was that Tony Lions had come up with the title,
together talking to some others in the network of writers and experienced authors.
And everybody loved The Lies My Government Told Me. You know, what's not to like about that?
That's red meat, right? But it was so negative. It was so grim. And I just did not want to put out a book that was just dark. And so I insisted that we put a tagline on the back. And that's hence the better future coming. And then I had to write the damn thing. I had to write what is the better future, right? Which was the hardest part of the whole thing. So that third part is the prescription.
What can we do about this? And it goes into things that we can do about the administrative state, the corruption that exists within HHS, the revolving door, all of those kinds of details.
[29:39] There's some comments in there in terms of the lies that I got from Scott Atlas from a presentation that he made at MIT, which he's now kind of recapitulated in this new Newsweek article that's just come out.
And so those are incorporated in there as key lies, these various things that are clearly, you know, I originally thought they were intended as noble lies in the historic Greek philosopher's sense.
It was amazing. Yeah, that was a, it's like 10% of the population in Maui came out.
It was one of the biggest rallies we've ever done. Early on, and then we went from there to Pearl Harbor and then spoke on Oahu.
Not quite as big a rally. There was some key organizers that had done prior rallies in Maui.
[27:20] So that's where we met Ed. So I sent Ed the Ernst Wolff essays about Ernst's interpretation of the economics behind this.
And Ed was, his response was, you know, this is pretty much the way I've been seeing it, but I haven't been able to verbalize it. And this is so much more clear.
And so we ended up with a chapter from Ed in the book. And I was very influenced in parts by things I learned from Steve Bannon.
And, you know, as you know, whatever you think of Steve, he has a great grasp of history.
And he was able to mention some historic precedents that then triggered me, and I went back and researched those same things like events around Watergate, etc. and the Nixon administration and other historic examples that kind of tie into this whole government weaponization of propaganda against their own citizenry and Operation Paperclip and that kind of Mockingbird and those kinds of things. So that's the middle part. The hardest part to write was the third part.
[28:35] Because yeah, the better future coming. The genesis of that part was that Tony Lions had come up with the title,
together talking to some others in the network of writers and experienced authors.
And everybody loved The Lies My Government Told Me. You know, what's not to like about that?
That's red meat, right? But it was so negative. It was so grim. And I just did not want to put out a book that was just dark. And so I insisted that we put a tagline on the back. And that's hence the better future coming. And then I had to write the damn thing. I had to write what is the better future, right? Which was the hardest part of the whole thing. So that third part is the prescription.
What can we do about this? And it goes into things that we can do about the administrative state, the corruption that exists within HHS, the revolving door, all of those kinds of details.
[29:39] There's some comments in there in terms of the lies that I got from Scott Atlas from a presentation that he made at MIT, which he's now kind of recapitulated in this new Newsweek article that's just come out.
And so those are incorporated in there as key lies, these various things that are clearly, you know, I originally thought they were intended as noble lies in the historic Greek philosopher's sense.
Can I, because what is it like to be so vindicated? Because you've spent the last year putting this together and this was all happening before the great revealing. We'll touch on that a little bit, over the last couple of months you were already doing the hard work. And then as you're putting this out, you're realizing the media are beginning to admit and catch on.
So what is that like for you to put together something like this? And then for the media, who have attacked you continuously to say, you're right, not admit you're right.
So what is that like for you to put together something like this? And then for the media, who have attacked you continuously to say, you're right, not admit you're right.
No, they don't say you're right. They never say that,
No, no. Yeah. So I wrote an essay about that and our substack it's one of our most popular. I think the top one is about
[31:08] this being the greatest experiment in human history.
But another one of the top ones is my open letter to the Canadian truckers.
But my essay on what is it like to be vindicated basically makes the point, in many ways, I would prefer I wasn't.
It would have been a lot better if I was wrong.
And we didn't have this massive human tragedy.
And it has been hurtful, because you can't deny that. To be defamed by the fringe conspiracy theorists, some of whom you thought were your allies, as well as by corporate media is not a lot of fun.
And there's been times when I've been frankly suicidal. I have if I'm going to be honest.
Particularly when people that I thought were with me then started attacking me.
That was really hard for me to come to terms with.
[32:20] It's been a really steep learning curve to come to terms with the kind of fundamental evil modern media. And the complete lack of integrity and, you know, ethics. That's another one of the chapters is about the New York Times. And my experience with that essay, which appears to have been written by someone that was probably funded by the government as part of those initiatives, and right after their interview and publication with me, they left the New York Times. And all indications are that they did have connections with the intelligence community, because they had intimate detailed understanding of status with the CIA. So, a complete unwillingness to even look at the paths, let alone mention them in the attack art, which has been kind of a consistent theme with the Atlantic Monthly and the other ones.
[33:30] Um, it's it was really hard, I think, for Jill and I to come to terms with the ethics and the fundamental evil of modern media and into being in a position, I don't want to say victimized, because I hate taking the role of being a victim. You know, I really counsel people against doing that better to become a warrior than a victim. But that's been kind of my own part of my key journey is maybe we were talking about the hero's journey early on. One of the journeying into the unknown for me has been throwing myself into modern media and alternative media and coming to grips with what I encountered. How do you process that? How do you process a ecosystem that is fundamentally evil and just grinds people up like their input for a sausage and with no accountability, never an apology or acknowledgement of the evil that they do to others and the damage that they do. It's just part of how they do business. That, you know, there was a book that I cited here.
[34:58] That a key mentor gave to me that is something like the Journalist and the Murderer, I think is the title. And it's an essay about the legal case that was brought, it was a defamation case, by a convicted murderer against the journalists that had basically taken advantage of him and gained his confidence and then wrote a series of very high-profile but very ugly stories that they got good coverage on.
And this then was examined, this case was examined by a New York Times author, you know, who is normally a New York Times writer.
[35:47] But then wrote a book about this, about basically the dynamic that gets set up repeatedly between investigative journalists and what are really their targets, the people that they're investigating.
And they have a tendency to try to seduce you. And at first, so I would get like this happened with the Atlantic Monthly, oh, I just want to tell your story, right? As soon as I can tell you, If somebody says, I just want to tell your story, the proper response is click, hang up the phone.
Okay, there is no other response. There's a cluster of tricks that I've now come to understand journalists use repeatedly in trying to gain your confidence. And I'm now to the point where I'm very wary about who I talk to because even people that you think might be your friends, there's as I've become more high-profile, I'm a, great target. It's a business model to raise outrage and come up with claims about me because you can get many people, you know, people loved gossip.
[37:08] And so anything that they can gossip about, they'll latch on and they'll get clicks and views and subscribers and all of that. Very dark. And it's really just a version. It's really the same dynamic from CNN spreading fear porn about monkeypox or outrage about Donald Trump, all the way down to the smallest podcaster that's trying to increase their market share and, their clicks by attacking somebody who is seen as more high profile.
It's been an amazing journey.
So do I, I don't regret it.
I Would Do It Again was the conclusion of my essay and it has been extremely painful.
[37:57] And it was worth it.
But another one of the top ones is my open letter to the Canadian truckers.
But my essay on what is it like to be vindicated basically makes the point, in many ways, I would prefer I wasn't.
It would have been a lot better if I was wrong.
And we didn't have this massive human tragedy.
And it has been hurtful, because you can't deny that. To be defamed by the fringe conspiracy theorists, some of whom you thought were your allies, as well as by corporate media is not a lot of fun.
And there's been times when I've been frankly suicidal. I have if I'm going to be honest.
Particularly when people that I thought were with me then started attacking me.
That was really hard for me to come to terms with.
[32:20] It's been a really steep learning curve to come to terms with the kind of fundamental evil modern media. And the complete lack of integrity and, you know, ethics. That's another one of the chapters is about the New York Times. And my experience with that essay, which appears to have been written by someone that was probably funded by the government as part of those initiatives, and right after their interview and publication with me, they left the New York Times. And all indications are that they did have connections with the intelligence community, because they had intimate detailed understanding of status with the CIA. So, a complete unwillingness to even look at the paths, let alone mention them in the attack art, which has been kind of a consistent theme with the Atlantic Monthly and the other ones.
[33:30] Um, it's it was really hard, I think, for Jill and I to come to terms with the ethics and the fundamental evil of modern media and into being in a position, I don't want to say victimized, because I hate taking the role of being a victim. You know, I really counsel people against doing that better to become a warrior than a victim. But that's been kind of my own part of my key journey is maybe we were talking about the hero's journey early on. One of the journeying into the unknown for me has been throwing myself into modern media and alternative media and coming to grips with what I encountered. How do you process that? How do you process a ecosystem that is fundamentally evil and just grinds people up like their input for a sausage and with no accountability, never an apology or acknowledgement of the evil that they do to others and the damage that they do. It's just part of how they do business. That, you know, there was a book that I cited here.
[34:58] That a key mentor gave to me that is something like the Journalist and the Murderer, I think is the title. And it's an essay about the legal case that was brought, it was a defamation case, by a convicted murderer against the journalists that had basically taken advantage of him and gained his confidence and then wrote a series of very high-profile but very ugly stories that they got good coverage on.
And this then was examined, this case was examined by a New York Times author, you know, who is normally a New York Times writer.
[35:47] But then wrote a book about this, about basically the dynamic that gets set up repeatedly between investigative journalists and what are really their targets, the people that they're investigating.
And they have a tendency to try to seduce you. And at first, so I would get like this happened with the Atlantic Monthly, oh, I just want to tell your story, right? As soon as I can tell you, If somebody says, I just want to tell your story, the proper response is click, hang up the phone.
Okay, there is no other response. There's a cluster of tricks that I've now come to understand journalists use repeatedly in trying to gain your confidence. And I'm now to the point where I'm very wary about who I talk to because even people that you think might be your friends, there's as I've become more high-profile, I'm a, great target. It's a business model to raise outrage and come up with claims about me because you can get many people, you know, people loved gossip.
[37:08] And so anything that they can gossip about, they'll latch on and they'll get clicks and views and subscribers and all of that. Very dark. And it's really just a version. It's really the same dynamic from CNN spreading fear porn about monkeypox or outrage about Donald Trump, all the way down to the smallest podcaster that's trying to increase their market share and, their clicks by attacking somebody who is seen as more high profile.
It's been an amazing journey.
So do I, I don't regret it.
I Would Do It Again was the conclusion of my essay and it has been extremely painful.
[37:57] And it was worth it.
You're probably going to have to do an updated version because the information, is continually coming out and what you've done is a snapshot of the information available.
That's contained change and this article in Newsweek by Scott Atlas, I mean he puts down his 10.
I mean, for you, as you were going through the lies, I know you said the better future coming was difficult, but the lies are the dark part.
When you were going through that, were there one or two that you thought actually that, was the lie at all, was on, or I wasn't expecting that until I really delved deeper or kind of stuck out with you?
That's contained change and this article in Newsweek by Scott Atlas, I mean he puts down his 10.
I mean, for you, as you were going through the lies, I know you said the better future coming was difficult, but the lies are the dark part.
When you were going through that, were there one or two that you thought actually that, was the lie at all, was on, or I wasn't expecting that until I really delved deeper or kind of stuck out with you?
So a bunch of them.
So the whole thing is a cascade of, what? That doesn't make any sense. I don't get it.
I thought that was a conspiracy theory, right?
Just gets worse and worse.
Yeah, it does. The deeper you go. And the metaphor is the one from Shrek.
You recall ogres are like onions.
They have layers, right? That whole storyline, which is profound wisdom.
All of this stuff has layers.
And the shedding of one's naivete occurs in layers.
[39:22] And I'm not sure that I'm down to the stub yet. There are still things that I, you know, you think that the world is supposed to be fair and right and good if you've been brought up a certain way.
And then you encounter this stuff. So was there, one of the big ones was early on I had
a film crew come here and there were people that had actually travelled, one of them travelled with Trump to Davos. Okay. And they kept talking about the great reset and I was really wary of that.
I was like, I don't know anything about this. I don't know Davos.
Full on conspiracy.
I don't want to comment on this, you know, try to be nice to the film crew and let's just stick to the things that I do know, we talk about the JABs and technology and stuff like that. And then, truth be told, I was kind of brought into the sphere of influence of Children's Health Defense.
[40:28] And I think they were a little wary of me. You know, was I the real thing? Was I controlled opposition and all that. And so, Meryl Nass and Mary Holland came down to visit us here at the farm, and spent a couple days up at the house where you are staying right now. And Mary kept talking to Jill and I about this great reset and Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum. And afterwards, after they left, Jill was like, well, I like them, but I don't know, this Mary Hall. And she's, pretty far out there with all that. But at that point, we had enough respect for them. We felt like we had to look into it. And Jill found the book, The Great Reset on Amazon as a paperback and got that and we read through it and it was just the the logic there was squishy at best.
[41:35] And, you know, it was real. And then we had to investigate the world economic forum and go down that rabbit hole and understand that.
And that led to the Young Leaders Program. This is before the Trudeau truckers event.
And we had a colleague here locally that was working with us part time.
And we asked, and there'd been another group in Sweden that we were aware of that had done a lot of diligence on the Young Leaders Program and the WEF.
[42:11] And so we connected our local person that we hired part-time with them.
And then they did this huge deep dive, took a couple of months, collating all of the young leaders.
They had to go back into the Wayback Machine and they just searched all kinds of different threads, to create this massive spreadsheet.
It's still the most comprehensive spreadsheet of all of the young leaders.
And we posted this on our MaloneInstitute.org site as a Excel sheet, everybody can download it.
[42:43] And search by industry or nation state or person's name or whatever, and find when they graduated, who the other people were in their class, what industry they're in and all of that.
So it's all there.
And wrote a series of essays about the wef, which are partially condensed in the book.
And came to terms with that. And then once you go there, then you have to look into the Jekyll Island story and the central banks and the Bank of International Settlements.
And like I said, Ernst Wolf and the whole economics this and in central bank digital currency and then along comes Justin and Christopher Greenland and their little reveal about what this brave new world of finance is really going to be like under digital currency where the government can just push a button and you no longer have a bank account or if you've donated to a cause, it gets redirected.
[43:53] Or not made available for that cause because of political pressure.
That was all validating. Then it's like the mask came off and we could see the beast, right?
And the whole world suddenly went,
Wow. And then they almost crashed the Canadian banking system, right?
Do you remember that press conference with Christopher Friedland and Justin Trudeau where they said we're going to drop this?
Christopher Friedland looks like she's having a nervous break down.
[44:28] It's a fascinating case of watching body language. They, it's like they disclosed to us a financial nuclear weapon and had deployed it, you know, the metaphor using a tank to shoot squirrels.
They deployed it prematurely against these peaceful protests that were guilty of the sin of parking their trucks and honking their horns, right?
And for that sin, they decided this was the moment to show the whole world that the Canadian banking system was not a secure place to deposit your Chinese money.
If you're a Chinese heiress or whatever, right?
It was no longer a safe harbor. And then the whole world kind of went, oh, if the Canadian banking system isn't a safe harbor, what is?
And I think I've heard people say it was the greatest advertisement for cyber currency in the history of the world, right?
For Bitcoin. Yeah, so it's been a long strange trip for sure to quote the greatful dead And um..
[45:55] Another book. So we continue to push out the substack. Yeah. Yeah. And Jill and I debate
[46:02] almost daily about whether the next book is more personal biography.
[40:28] And I think they were a little wary of me. You know, was I the real thing? Was I controlled opposition and all that. And so, Meryl Nass and Mary Holland came down to visit us here at the farm, and spent a couple days up at the house where you are staying right now. And Mary kept talking to Jill and I about this great reset and Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum. And afterwards, after they left, Jill was like, well, I like them, but I don't know, this Mary Hall. And she's, pretty far out there with all that. But at that point, we had enough respect for them. We felt like we had to look into it. And Jill found the book, The Great Reset on Amazon as a paperback and got that and we read through it and it was just the the logic there was squishy at best.
[41:35] And, you know, it was real. And then we had to investigate the world economic forum and go down that rabbit hole and understand that.
And that led to the Young Leaders Program. This is before the Trudeau truckers event.
And we had a colleague here locally that was working with us part time.
And we asked, and there'd been another group in Sweden that we were aware of that had done a lot of diligence on the Young Leaders Program and the WEF.
[42:11] And so we connected our local person that we hired part-time with them.
And then they did this huge deep dive, took a couple of months, collating all of the young leaders.
They had to go back into the Wayback Machine and they just searched all kinds of different threads, to create this massive spreadsheet.
It's still the most comprehensive spreadsheet of all of the young leaders.
And we posted this on our MaloneInstitute.org site as a Excel sheet, everybody can download it.
[42:43] And search by industry or nation state or person's name or whatever, and find when they graduated, who the other people were in their class, what industry they're in and all of that.
So it's all there.
And wrote a series of essays about the wef, which are partially condensed in the book.
And came to terms with that. And then once you go there, then you have to look into the Jekyll Island story and the central banks and the Bank of International Settlements.
And like I said, Ernst Wolf and the whole economics this and in central bank digital currency and then along comes Justin and Christopher Greenland and their little reveal about what this brave new world of finance is really going to be like under digital currency where the government can just push a button and you no longer have a bank account or if you've donated to a cause, it gets redirected.
[43:53] Or not made available for that cause because of political pressure.
That was all validating. Then it's like the mask came off and we could see the beast, right?
And the whole world suddenly went,
Wow. And then they almost crashed the Canadian banking system, right?
Do you remember that press conference with Christopher Friedland and Justin Trudeau where they said we're going to drop this?
Christopher Friedland looks like she's having a nervous break down.
[44:28] It's a fascinating case of watching body language. They, it's like they disclosed to us a financial nuclear weapon and had deployed it, you know, the metaphor using a tank to shoot squirrels.
They deployed it prematurely against these peaceful protests that were guilty of the sin of parking their trucks and honking their horns, right?
And for that sin, they decided this was the moment to show the whole world that the Canadian banking system was not a secure place to deposit your Chinese money.
If you're a Chinese heiress or whatever, right?
It was no longer a safe harbor. And then the whole world kind of went, oh, if the Canadian banking system isn't a safe harbor, what is?
And I think I've heard people say it was the greatest advertisement for cyber currency in the history of the world, right?
For Bitcoin. Yeah, so it's been a long strange trip for sure to quote the greatful dead And um..
[45:55] Another book. So we continue to push out the substack. Yeah. Yeah. And Jill and I debate
[46:02] almost daily about whether the next book is more personal biography.
People love your journey.
Yeah, they love this. The personal story of us. You know, we now passed our 44th wedding anniversary the other day. And, you know, we're high school sweethearts and that whole arc of history.
That's on your Wikipedia. Goodness, that little bit's left.
Is it?
Your childhood sweethearts. Yes. Oh, that's been added. Yeah, apparently I haven't looked at Wikipedia. I got so fed up with Wikipedia and Jill's head just explodes whenever she sees it. So we just try not to look at it because it's been so highly edited. And fascinating backstory to that is that it's a lot of that entertainment has been by a person called the sock puppet by the name of Philip Cross, which there's another wiki that some most people don't know about called Wiki Spooks.
Okay. So that's a good tip, always good to check out Wiki Spooks when you're dealing with the 77th Brigade or
[47:10] any of these names because it's an archive of the whole intelligence community globally, that people have built instead of Wiki. And they have their opinions about me too, but they, If you look up the Robert Malone page in Wiki Spooks, they go deep into who Philip Cross is.
And apparently this person edits, it's one of the top editors for Wikipedia.
They edit seven days a week, basically 24 hours a day.
And their personal image is literally a sock puppet.
[47:47] Okay. That's the clip that they have for their picture as a Wiki editor.
And according to Wikispooks, this is an MI5 operation.
And it's just a pseudonym for a group of people that have been, you know, they edit.
I've now to the point where if your Wikipedia page has not been raped in this way, you're probably not trustworthy.
[47:10] any of these names because it's an archive of the whole intelligence community globally, that people have built instead of Wiki. And they have their opinions about me too, but they, If you look up the Robert Malone page in Wiki Spooks, they go deep into who Philip Cross is.
And apparently this person edits, it's one of the top editors for Wikipedia.
They edit seven days a week, basically 24 hours a day.
And their personal image is literally a sock puppet.
[47:47] Okay. That's the clip that they have for their picture as a Wiki editor.
And according to Wikispooks, this is an MI5 operation.
And it's just a pseudonym for a group of people that have been, you know, they edit.
I've now to the point where if your Wikipedia page has not been raped in this way, you're probably not trustworthy.
Completely. I want to ask you about this book which you contributed, Rise of the Fourth Reich, and you're one of the contributors.
But this concept of Nuremberg trial, this concept of those who have done this, and we've seen a lot of the leaks, whether they are leaks or not, coming out.
Matt Hancock, who was Health Minister in the UK.
Yeah, that's the big one.
That's the big one at the moment, but that's the tip of the iceberg.
But this whole thing about Nuremberg trial, about those who are guilty of these crimes having to pay for it, be punished.
Where do you think that's going to go? Do you think we're ever going to have that?
[49:03] So one of the earliest podcast recordings I did was with Reiner Fuellmich.
A lot of people aren't aware of that.
When he was very early in his investigations this German lawyer who also has a license to practice in the States, I think he can, in California. And there was a whole group around him that were pursuing this idea of an indictment for a Nuremberg 2.
[49:34] And when I interviewed with him, the person immediately preceding me, I thought, was a little off the rails because they were citing the US Army and CIA manuals on PsyOps.
Of course, now we all know that that's exactly what's going on in the fifth generation warfare.
But at the time, I thought this was just a little bit too fringy for me.
And it shows how times change.
Well, we are all into it now.
And so Fuellmich was the spearhead, really the tip of the spear in pushing this Nuremberg 2 concept, at least in my experience.
And it all blew up like about half a year ago with accusations that Reiner Fuellmich was controlled opposition.
And on the basis of sketchy evidence and imprints, it's remarkably parallel to
[50:42] the recent events with Project Veritas and James O'Keefe. But there was a rejection of of Reiner Fuellmich, Reiner Fuellmich carried forward, that committee carried forward independently, and that whole thing got diffused.
I'm completely convinced that there actually are infiltrators that are agents of disruption.
And I've written about one of them that was originally identified by Children's Health Defence of things that unfortunately used to work for
[51:22] And I don't think he was aware of her prior history of the Nuremberg's.
But they're out there. Yeah. And they seek, and there's some very active in Europe, that seek to infiltrate and disrupt and destroy these initiatives. Do I think that a Nuremberg 2 might ever take place? That would require a willingness within the European community in particular to allow a legal case to proceed, right, under an international court.
And that's as much a political question as a legal question. And right now I don't see any appetite for it. I don't see any appetite for accountability with the possible, except what was the name of the person that's in the UK that you were just referencing with these WeChat or whatever.
So with Matt Hancock, who was the health secretary.
Yeah, so Matt Hancock, if there is any accountability being the cynic that I am having spent too many years dealing with DZ, it will be some convenient fall guy that'll be thrown under the bus and Matt Hancock kind of fits the profile.
He fits that kind of useful idiot. That's kind of what he's been portrayed as and he went and looked at celebrity status and they sent him on to
[52:51] I'm a celebrity get me out of here and he was there and then he came back and it looked as like he was being rehabilitated and suddenly all this information comes out and he's low enough to throw him under the bus and save the government.
[52:51] I'm a celebrity get me out of here and he was there and then he came back and it looked as like he was being rehabilitated and suddenly all this information comes out and he's low enough to throw him under the bus and save the government.
Yeah and the question is will people be satisfied with the bone?
Will the thing that is pending,
[53:20] that I'm hearing about is that some of the large NGOs non-governmental organizations that have played a key role in this are now being clearly identified for the, activities that they have engaged in okay that if I'm choosing my words That have contributed to the gross mismanagement, whether it's social distancing, lockdown, mask use, or that thing, the vaccine products, that is so controversial right now. But I think that I don't think there are many who can credibly deny the governmental overreach around the lockdowns and social distancing and mask, agendas, masking agendas, the shutdown of churches here in the United States, those are all clearly government overreach. And the, I argue that the weaponized
[54:29] denigration of early treatment is is responsible for at a minimum hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths and so if you are one of these large NGOs and you're facing a public relations nightmare what are you going to do and or if you're a American political party and you're facing congressional inquiries about and if there was to build enough momentum that this is where the lovely things for the administration in terms of the logic that for democracy to survive there must be censorship. Right? Is this media control, this massive, profound level of corporate media control. They can shape reality.
[55:32] As former CIA directors have identified as a specific objective of being able to shape reality and craft public opinion. So they clearly can do that now for a large fraction of the population and they have been successful in doing it. So if there is sufficient momentum where the natives get restless, then the logical DC strategy would be, as you say, turning somebody in the bus. Who would be large enough to deflect criticism from more senior, currently serving government officials and leaders of large NGOs. And I think that Tony Fauci is the one.
[56:24] And he's, you know, getting a huge pension, made a huge salary, his wife is still is in NIH head of bioethics, but his power base of being able to influence as he has done, there's clear smoking gun evidence of paying off virologists with very large grants, $1 million grants to flip their story about the lab leak, for instance, and his intimate involvement in propagating the falsehoods around the natural origin of this virus, the well-documented interactions between him and Jeremy Perard, and the use of burner phones, and all of this franticness around trying to cover up things in the initial phase, It just reeks of complicity at a minimum, and awareness, and an active attempt to obscure truth.
So, does, you know, do we get to a point where there's enough of a concern that someone has gotta get thrown under.
[57:42] In a more global sense?
I don't know. It could be. A lot depends, my sense is there's more anger growing in the EU than there is in the United States.
I think it is funny way, United States has become so jaded about their politics that there is a kind of a numbness.
Of course they are manipulating things. Of course we can't trust them.
Of course they have lied to us. What else would you expect them to do?
And everybody just kind of passes it off as, you know, normal business practice in DC, in the kind of normal Kabuki theatre that DC is famous for.
But what I'm hearing,
In my brief travels that I'm always susceptible to confirmation bias, being around people who are activists or are awake, then it makes you think that everybody is.
[58:48] But because in New York, I mean, you had everyone, my worry is that there be a couple of, medium to lower profile figures who, or maybe one person, but being in Europe, I walked around and looked at the museum there, all the top of the trials, and it was to punish those who had committed wrong. It wasn't to punish one person using them as a scapegoat, everyone who did wrong, and I want them all punished. So I don't know if we'll get to that point, I think, except they'll get a pass.
Will the thing that is pending,
[53:20] that I'm hearing about is that some of the large NGOs non-governmental organizations that have played a key role in this are now being clearly identified for the, activities that they have engaged in okay that if I'm choosing my words That have contributed to the gross mismanagement, whether it's social distancing, lockdown, mask use, or that thing, the vaccine products, that is so controversial right now. But I think that I don't think there are many who can credibly deny the governmental overreach around the lockdowns and social distancing and mask, agendas, masking agendas, the shutdown of churches here in the United States, those are all clearly government overreach. And the, I argue that the weaponized
[54:29] denigration of early treatment is is responsible for at a minimum hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths and so if you are one of these large NGOs and you're facing a public relations nightmare what are you going to do and or if you're a American political party and you're facing congressional inquiries about and if there was to build enough momentum that this is where the lovely things for the administration in terms of the logic that for democracy to survive there must be censorship. Right? Is this media control, this massive, profound level of corporate media control. They can shape reality.
[55:32] As former CIA directors have identified as a specific objective of being able to shape reality and craft public opinion. So they clearly can do that now for a large fraction of the population and they have been successful in doing it. So if there is sufficient momentum where the natives get restless, then the logical DC strategy would be, as you say, turning somebody in the bus. Who would be large enough to deflect criticism from more senior, currently serving government officials and leaders of large NGOs. And I think that Tony Fauci is the one.
[56:24] And he's, you know, getting a huge pension, made a huge salary, his wife is still is in NIH head of bioethics, but his power base of being able to influence as he has done, there's clear smoking gun evidence of paying off virologists with very large grants, $1 million grants to flip their story about the lab leak, for instance, and his intimate involvement in propagating the falsehoods around the natural origin of this virus, the well-documented interactions between him and Jeremy Perard, and the use of burner phones, and all of this franticness around trying to cover up things in the initial phase, It just reeks of complicity at a minimum, and awareness, and an active attempt to obscure truth.
So, does, you know, do we get to a point where there's enough of a concern that someone has gotta get thrown under.
[57:42] In a more global sense?
I don't know. It could be. A lot depends, my sense is there's more anger growing in the EU than there is in the United States.
I think it is funny way, United States has become so jaded about their politics that there is a kind of a numbness.
Of course they are manipulating things. Of course we can't trust them.
Of course they have lied to us. What else would you expect them to do?
And everybody just kind of passes it off as, you know, normal business practice in DC, in the kind of normal Kabuki theatre that DC is famous for.
But what I'm hearing,
In my brief travels that I'm always susceptible to confirmation bias, being around people who are activists or are awake, then it makes you think that everybody is.
[58:48] But because in New York, I mean, you had everyone, my worry is that there be a couple of, medium to lower profile figures who, or maybe one person, but being in Europe, I walked around and looked at the museum there, all the top of the trials, and it was to punish those who had committed wrong. It wasn't to punish one person using them as a scapegoat, everyone who did wrong, and I want them all punished. So I don't know if we'll get to that point, I think, except they'll get a pass.
Except the people that are guilty are so, it's such a large group. And we don't have, one of the things the dynamics in Nuremberg 1 is, you know, victory is history is written by the victors, right? And so we had the allies doing the prosecuting and the vanquished were the defendants. Here we have the world leaders are the guilty, right? Who is the equivalent of the conquering allies? There's nothing like that. There is these transnational organizations and the capital behind them and their various organs of influence and control.
[1:00:12] And they're all still there. They're all still fully empowered.
Why you know, they're there,
I don't see how we end up with an environment where there is political appetite for accountability.
[1:00:30] Unless you know and that's that was my point in the Carlton Club to the conservative MPs was if you don't, release the pressure functionally and acknowledge the harms that have been done and, and seek to provide compensation, restitution and
[1:00:54] some pathway to recovery for the harms that have been done economically and physically medically. You risk an upswelling of anger that you cannot control. And the, longer you postpone it, the higher the probability that there is going to be some abrupt event where people's tolerance is exceeded. And there seems to be the belief that we're never going to reach that because we have so much control over information that we don't have to worry about it. We can completely control the narrative and there's no way that we're gonna be able to be held accountable because we'll just find ways to diffuse it or deflect it or whatever and I gotta say that the data suggests they're right.
So I don't know, that's why I've been trying so hard to message, and it's a tight wire for me, because of the accusation that I'm of controlled opposition, to try to use, you know, we were talking earlier about the kind of burden of responsibility of having this level of profile and recognition. And my desire to use it for good and to use it for healing.
[1:02:22] And our society has been torn asunder. There's no hiding that by the events.
And if they, the more that people become aware of what has been done to them, the more likely we are to have social unrest and disruption, and all the consequences of that.
Do we want revolution?
Is revolution a good way to change?
Is revolution an appropriate response? Because a lot of people want it. They are angry, and they want to fight, and they want to punish, and they want to hate. The hate level is just so high, and it's like a monster. That's why I love the Yates, the second coming, The beast slouching towards Bethlehem would be born is this upwelling of hate.
And it is slinking along looking for a target.
I don't think that gets us to the better future.
[1:03:43] If anybody understands how sucky it is to be subjected to the propaganda and the attacks and vilification, it would be me. Not belittling anybody else, but certainly I've experienced that in its full glory. And I don't forgive my persecutors, but I don't hate them.
[1:04:13] Somebody early, you know, had so many people counselling me, you know, hate the process, don't hate the individual. Hate the culture maybe, but don't hate the person.
[1:00:12] And they're all still there. They're all still fully empowered.
Why you know, they're there,
I don't see how we end up with an environment where there is political appetite for accountability.
[1:00:30] Unless you know and that's that was my point in the Carlton Club to the conservative MPs was if you don't, release the pressure functionally and acknowledge the harms that have been done and, and seek to provide compensation, restitution and
[1:00:54] some pathway to recovery for the harms that have been done economically and physically medically. You risk an upswelling of anger that you cannot control. And the, longer you postpone it, the higher the probability that there is going to be some abrupt event where people's tolerance is exceeded. And there seems to be the belief that we're never going to reach that because we have so much control over information that we don't have to worry about it. We can completely control the narrative and there's no way that we're gonna be able to be held accountable because we'll just find ways to diffuse it or deflect it or whatever and I gotta say that the data suggests they're right.
So I don't know, that's why I've been trying so hard to message, and it's a tight wire for me, because of the accusation that I'm of controlled opposition, to try to use, you know, we were talking earlier about the kind of burden of responsibility of having this level of profile and recognition. And my desire to use it for good and to use it for healing.
[1:02:22] And our society has been torn asunder. There's no hiding that by the events.
And if they, the more that people become aware of what has been done to them, the more likely we are to have social unrest and disruption, and all the consequences of that.
Do we want revolution?
Is revolution a good way to change?
Is revolution an appropriate response? Because a lot of people want it. They are angry, and they want to fight, and they want to punish, and they want to hate. The hate level is just so high, and it's like a monster. That's why I love the Yates, the second coming, The beast slouching towards Bethlehem would be born is this upwelling of hate.
And it is slinking along looking for a target.
I don't think that gets us to the better future.
[1:03:43] If anybody understands how sucky it is to be subjected to the propaganda and the attacks and vilification, it would be me. Not belittling anybody else, but certainly I've experienced that in its full glory. And I don't forgive my persecutors, but I don't hate them.
[1:04:13] Somebody early, you know, had so many people counselling me, you know, hate the process, don't hate the individual. Hate the culture maybe, but don't hate the person.
Hate the sin, not the sinner.
Yeah, yeah, exactly. Right. Okay. Yeah, a lot of this does come down to people who went through it in a strange way. And all the logic of evil and the many levels of hell and all those metaphors. So I can fully understand people's pain and anger about, having to do with how they've been treated and the you know this logic that was propagated functionally advocating for concentration camp, isolation, isolation in home, the damage to business, you're not being able to worship in church or to congregate the direct targeting, you know, this is an epidemic of the unvaccinated.
The unvaccinated are responsible for killing your grandmother.
[1:05:38] The children, unmasked children are responsible for killing granny.
[1:05:44] Remember, that's one of the things that's in the book is, it's captured, it's one of the Easter eggs for the aficionado's is the Yale University prospective randomized clinical trial that tested in 10 separate randomized groups messaging for what would be most effective. Essentially, they clinically tested the propaganda messaging.
The unvaccinated are responsible for killing your grandmother.
[1:05:38] The children, unmasked children are responsible for killing granny.
[1:05:44] Remember, that's one of the things that's in the book is, it's captured, it's one of the Easter eggs for the aficionado's is the Yale University prospective randomized clinical trial that tested in 10 separate randomized groups messaging for what would be most effective. Essentially, they clinically tested the propaganda messaging.
[1:06:06] For before they had a jab, before they ever had a vaccine. They tested the propaganda messaging that would cause you to be most likely to take a vaccine and to convince other people in your social circle to take a vaccine. They tested that through a prospective randomized clinical trial at Yale, which it's not disclosed who funded it. It's like 600 people. That's not a cheap date.
Okay. A 600 person randomized clinical trial with a six month follow-up is a minimum of a few million.
Okay, could be more than that, but it's not a cheap date to run that study.
Somebody dropped a lot of money on Yale to figure out the right propaganda messaging.
And it's from that that we get the stuff that you saw deployed on CNN with Sesame Street.
That's Big Bird, right? It was all pre-tested.
Okay? And what it is, if you unpack it, is it's surreptitious advertising
[1:07:16] by the government for a unlicensed experimental medical product to be deployed in children.
I mean, if you go 40,000 feet, look down, unpack it, the stuff that's been done is obscene.
And it certainly merits anger. To be told that you're responsible for somebody else's parents' death, is grossly irresponsible and it's violent. It's violence against people, and it's totally understandable that they're pissed off and want retaliation.
Want that Nuremberg. Want to see people hanging from trees. And the problem is that if you, number one, that kind of anger will just destroy your soul and it will just corrode you.
It's like acid. And the other problem is that if you keep that anger inside of you, you can never reach those people that are in that persuadable middle.
And those that are awake, like those that we're probably just talking to, I doubt anybody else is going to listen to this. Those that are awake, we're basically preaching to the choir.
[1:08:43] Are already convinced. So all we're doing is reinforcing them in many cases. And they may be
[1:08:51] 20 to 30 percent of the population. That is not a majority. Right? We don't win elections with 20 to 30 percent of the people. Somehow we've got to get, you know, there's as Huxley, we were just earlier going over that video of Huxley from 62 in an interview in which he was presciently saying 20% of the people are completely resistant to hypnosis, 20% of people can be hypnotized with
[1:09:16] a feather basically, and the remaining 60% are in a gradient between those two. And he argues that this is good for society. Society needs some fraction of people that are easily convinced
[1:09:29] to go along with whatever the narrative is or the thing or the society wants. And it's useful for society to have a fraction of people who are never able to be convinced that are always basically a bunch of stray cats going their own way. These are the libertarians. And then the rest to be in some spectrum of the heat makes the case is it's adaptive in terms of social organization, which is why it's probably there, innately maintained in adaptive balance. But the point is that those of us that are in the difficult to hypnotize and awake group
aren't going to win if we just hate and hold anger in our souls as we can never convince those that are in the persuadable middle unless we approach them with an open heart. And I've said repeatedly, this is a lesson from years of consulting, no one will trust you if you don't trust them. No client will ever confer trust on you if you approach them from the base of assuming that they may be controlled opposition or whatever the thing is, right? This is the problem with the whole storyline of controlled opposition. I know of a high-profile person that leads a major
[1:10:56] bonafide anti-vax group, a very successful one, who makes the case that well at least those that are asserting that others are controlled opposition are thinking, so that's a good thing, and that it's adaptive to always be questioning whether somebody else is controlled opposition.
The problem with that is that that drives complete breakdown in society because if nobody can trust anybody, then we cannot exist as a social group. And trust, I think, is the foundational thing. That's why it's so harmful when it gets broken in a marriage or any interpersonal relationship. Once trust is broken, the relationship is gone. The only thing you can have left after that is some sort of transactional thing, right, where you're doing business, but even then that becomes exceedingly hard if you lose trust. So I think this is the problem that we now face is, how can we trust the people that have done this to us? How can we open our hearts? And that gets to this, as we were just saying these fundamental religious and frankly Judeo-Christian ethic-based relationship guidance that we've required over millennia.
[1:12:24] Whether it's divinely inspired or just the product of human society, collective wisdom over you know millennia, whatever it is the idea that you you have to forgive in order to heal, And one of the things, because I've had many times in my life where I've been hurt by people, doing stuff, you know, you know my story of the origins here, my nervous breakdown of the soul and all that, you know, there's a lot of things I have to be angry about. And there are times when I have wished for revenge. But with the tincture of time, and you know, wisdom from the, living. I love the saying the person who goes seeking revenge should first dig two graves. If you seek revenge it will destroy you. You may or may not succeed in destroying your home but you will definitely lose your soul.
[1:13:33] And I think if we're going to heal as a society, even just to the simple transactional level of, building a political majority so we can hold the bad guys responsible and try to make it so this doesn't happen again, you know, try to put laws in place so that we can't have government overreach like this, try to change the laws so that we make it explicitly illegal to breach, we were just talking about Nuremberg, the Nuremberg court Helsinki agreement, the Belmont report, the common rule, these fundamentals of medical ethics that have just been thrown right down the garbage incinerator as if they mattered not at all, so casually we discarded them. Which was the thing that really people ask what did you, you know, what really red-coated you. One of the key things was this willingness to just throw away the fundamentals of biomedical ethics, that we've seen. It's all justified of course because it was such a public health crisis that we couldn't afford the morality of following well-established biomedical ethics.
That's the other thing about this, Jill points out a lot, is
[1:14:58] we are paying for these public health officers. We're paying for these leaders that were supposed to guide us and were supposed to be trained and experienced and seasoned to the point that they would not overreact, to the point that they would provide us with a mature appropriate response, to a true threat assessment. And instead they lost their minds. They were consumed apparently by fear, greed, I don't know what, but an appropriate public health response was not what we got. We did not get what we paid for.
And I think we have a justifiable cause to complain about this.
This is why I just loved being in Mexico last week and testifying in the Senate is
[1:15:57] we all have our stereotypes about different nations, like we can all agree, and want to poke at the Italians for their corruption, right? I mean, this is universal.
You know, the Germans have certain characteristics, the French have certain characteristics, And there's a whole joke about that and the British cook.
Right? But what the Mexicans are not supposed to be by stereotype a mature political organization.
That's not the stereotype.
[1:16:40] And yet the government in Mexico and the president in particular saw what was happening and recognized that there was a lot of propaganda being pushed.
And maybe it's, you know, being a Latin American country that, I don't know if you in the UK, they know this little saying, poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States.
Right? There's wisdom in that. Right? And so, you know, Mexico has seen American shenanigans, United States shenanigans, their entire history, right? The truth is we stole California from Mexico. I mean, that's what we did, right? And so, for whatever reason, they were able to provide to their populace a much more mature response.
[1:17:39] And to not engage in these egregious breaches of sovereignty and freedom and allowed the, contingent. And it's not that the outcome wasn't that great for Mexico. They're near the top of overall mortality, but they have a population that is quite obese in general, has a lot of, kind of pro-inflammatory diabetes or pre-diabetes, the things that are known to be risk factors.
[1:18:18] And they lost a lot of people. It's strange though in Mexico there are sub-populations like people that are more genetically the old Mayan native Indian populations which tend to not be obese.
They tend to be shorter, thinner people, had virtually no mortality. So in any case, Mexico is an example that leadership did not have to overreact like they did. And I think that's one of the things that, you know, people don't talk about that. What the heck happened here?
[1:18:59] I think this is one of the discussions we have to have is why did the Western governments, particularly the Five Eyes nations, but also Austria overreact on this? And why was it considered acceptable to deploy military grade psy ops on civilian populations by these countries that, you know, those in the, in the, they're really all the British tradition, you know, even in America, we still go back to the common law and Magna Carta were still rooted in British law. And the stereotype was that Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United States were all so civilized and freedom-loving and yet they went totally overboard. What the heck happened here?
I think that's, the African states didn't fall for that.
Not even South Africa kind of gave lip service, but my understanding is in South Africa, vaccine cards, which are really doled out and have no relationship to whether or not what took a jab are the norm.
[1:20:27] Yeah, I think we, this, as you point out, this book is a starting point.
It's a way to help people along the journey and make their own assessment, which I think any thinking person has an obligation, really, to their children, to society, to try to process what has happened here and think through what is it that we want to do about it, because otherwise they're just going to continue to do it to us. It's power propaganda and fifth generation warfare technology and information control and the logic that it's necessary to preserve democracy.
[1:21:11] To have censorship. How perverted is that? All of these Orwellian things and you're here visiting us from the UK, we, I think here in the United States and in the West in general, we owe a huge debt to British culture and British intellectuals. In particular, Huxley and his, and the one, and the person that he mentored Orwell, and their in their prescient awareness of where this thrust towards a centralized global government was going. It's captured in so many of the UN Charter and so many other documents from back in the 40s. And I one of the one of, our followers pointed out to me that I'm very indebted for that, in an early edition of 1984, Orwell wrote a forward, in which he predicted the rise of a pharmaceutical state in which we would all be.
Pharmaceutical control to become passive and acceptance. You know, I think a case can be made that we're already doing this with our children, with Ritalin, things like that, they're little boys.
[1:22:37] And that in his opinion, the only way to avoid this as the eventual outcome of the totalitarian
[1:22:47] state that he was envisioning this totalitarian pharmaceutical state specifically, was to push towards decentralization, which is one of the key components in the last section of the book, is various examples of intentional communities being formed in Italy and the need to grow your own food and become more self-sufficient.
And this is what Orwell believed was the only way that we could escape this dark, totalitarian, pharmaceutical future that he envisioned we were being driven towards.
What a gift. It's so unfortunate that we haven't paid attention to that. Let's try.
And maybe, hopefully, it's not too late.
[1:23:40] Well, I appreciate you giving me your time in the middle of slotting into the middle of
[1:23:46] a hectic schedule, as I know you have all the time. Lies, my government told me you can get it as a hardback, you can get it as an ebook. And also to those watching, if you, well, of course you will have signed up to Dr. Malone's substack, but do consider clicking that button where you can actually pay for the content. I think it's vital that we all have learned to consume information for free, but there is a cost to actually put that information out. One way, I think probably the easiest way people can support you and what you're doing is simply click on that and to turn your free subscription into a paid subscription. You may not want to say that, but I can happily say that.
Okay. A 600 person randomized clinical trial with a six month follow-up is a minimum of a few million.
Okay, could be more than that, but it's not a cheap date to run that study.
Somebody dropped a lot of money on Yale to figure out the right propaganda messaging.
And it's from that that we get the stuff that you saw deployed on CNN with Sesame Street.
That's Big Bird, right? It was all pre-tested.
Okay? And what it is, if you unpack it, is it's surreptitious advertising
[1:07:16] by the government for a unlicensed experimental medical product to be deployed in children.
I mean, if you go 40,000 feet, look down, unpack it, the stuff that's been done is obscene.
And it certainly merits anger. To be told that you're responsible for somebody else's parents' death, is grossly irresponsible and it's violent. It's violence against people, and it's totally understandable that they're pissed off and want retaliation.
Want that Nuremberg. Want to see people hanging from trees. And the problem is that if you, number one, that kind of anger will just destroy your soul and it will just corrode you.
It's like acid. And the other problem is that if you keep that anger inside of you, you can never reach those people that are in that persuadable middle.
And those that are awake, like those that we're probably just talking to, I doubt anybody else is going to listen to this. Those that are awake, we're basically preaching to the choir.
[1:08:43] Are already convinced. So all we're doing is reinforcing them in many cases. And they may be
[1:08:51] 20 to 30 percent of the population. That is not a majority. Right? We don't win elections with 20 to 30 percent of the people. Somehow we've got to get, you know, there's as Huxley, we were just earlier going over that video of Huxley from 62 in an interview in which he was presciently saying 20% of the people are completely resistant to hypnosis, 20% of people can be hypnotized with
[1:09:16] a feather basically, and the remaining 60% are in a gradient between those two. And he argues that this is good for society. Society needs some fraction of people that are easily convinced
[1:09:29] to go along with whatever the narrative is or the thing or the society wants. And it's useful for society to have a fraction of people who are never able to be convinced that are always basically a bunch of stray cats going their own way. These are the libertarians. And then the rest to be in some spectrum of the heat makes the case is it's adaptive in terms of social organization, which is why it's probably there, innately maintained in adaptive balance. But the point is that those of us that are in the difficult to hypnotize and awake group
aren't going to win if we just hate and hold anger in our souls as we can never convince those that are in the persuadable middle unless we approach them with an open heart. And I've said repeatedly, this is a lesson from years of consulting, no one will trust you if you don't trust them. No client will ever confer trust on you if you approach them from the base of assuming that they may be controlled opposition or whatever the thing is, right? This is the problem with the whole storyline of controlled opposition. I know of a high-profile person that leads a major
[1:10:56] bonafide anti-vax group, a very successful one, who makes the case that well at least those that are asserting that others are controlled opposition are thinking, so that's a good thing, and that it's adaptive to always be questioning whether somebody else is controlled opposition.
The problem with that is that that drives complete breakdown in society because if nobody can trust anybody, then we cannot exist as a social group. And trust, I think, is the foundational thing. That's why it's so harmful when it gets broken in a marriage or any interpersonal relationship. Once trust is broken, the relationship is gone. The only thing you can have left after that is some sort of transactional thing, right, where you're doing business, but even then that becomes exceedingly hard if you lose trust. So I think this is the problem that we now face is, how can we trust the people that have done this to us? How can we open our hearts? And that gets to this, as we were just saying these fundamental religious and frankly Judeo-Christian ethic-based relationship guidance that we've required over millennia.
[1:12:24] Whether it's divinely inspired or just the product of human society, collective wisdom over you know millennia, whatever it is the idea that you you have to forgive in order to heal, And one of the things, because I've had many times in my life where I've been hurt by people, doing stuff, you know, you know my story of the origins here, my nervous breakdown of the soul and all that, you know, there's a lot of things I have to be angry about. And there are times when I have wished for revenge. But with the tincture of time, and you know, wisdom from the, living. I love the saying the person who goes seeking revenge should first dig two graves. If you seek revenge it will destroy you. You may or may not succeed in destroying your home but you will definitely lose your soul.
[1:13:33] And I think if we're going to heal as a society, even just to the simple transactional level of, building a political majority so we can hold the bad guys responsible and try to make it so this doesn't happen again, you know, try to put laws in place so that we can't have government overreach like this, try to change the laws so that we make it explicitly illegal to breach, we were just talking about Nuremberg, the Nuremberg court Helsinki agreement, the Belmont report, the common rule, these fundamentals of medical ethics that have just been thrown right down the garbage incinerator as if they mattered not at all, so casually we discarded them. Which was the thing that really people ask what did you, you know, what really red-coated you. One of the key things was this willingness to just throw away the fundamentals of biomedical ethics, that we've seen. It's all justified of course because it was such a public health crisis that we couldn't afford the morality of following well-established biomedical ethics.
That's the other thing about this, Jill points out a lot, is
[1:14:58] we are paying for these public health officers. We're paying for these leaders that were supposed to guide us and were supposed to be trained and experienced and seasoned to the point that they would not overreact, to the point that they would provide us with a mature appropriate response, to a true threat assessment. And instead they lost their minds. They were consumed apparently by fear, greed, I don't know what, but an appropriate public health response was not what we got. We did not get what we paid for.
And I think we have a justifiable cause to complain about this.
This is why I just loved being in Mexico last week and testifying in the Senate is
[1:15:57] we all have our stereotypes about different nations, like we can all agree, and want to poke at the Italians for their corruption, right? I mean, this is universal.
You know, the Germans have certain characteristics, the French have certain characteristics, And there's a whole joke about that and the British cook.
Right? But what the Mexicans are not supposed to be by stereotype a mature political organization.
That's not the stereotype.
[1:16:40] And yet the government in Mexico and the president in particular saw what was happening and recognized that there was a lot of propaganda being pushed.
And maybe it's, you know, being a Latin American country that, I don't know if you in the UK, they know this little saying, poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States.
Right? There's wisdom in that. Right? And so, you know, Mexico has seen American shenanigans, United States shenanigans, their entire history, right? The truth is we stole California from Mexico. I mean, that's what we did, right? And so, for whatever reason, they were able to provide to their populace a much more mature response.
[1:17:39] And to not engage in these egregious breaches of sovereignty and freedom and allowed the, contingent. And it's not that the outcome wasn't that great for Mexico. They're near the top of overall mortality, but they have a population that is quite obese in general, has a lot of, kind of pro-inflammatory diabetes or pre-diabetes, the things that are known to be risk factors.
[1:18:18] And they lost a lot of people. It's strange though in Mexico there are sub-populations like people that are more genetically the old Mayan native Indian populations which tend to not be obese.
They tend to be shorter, thinner people, had virtually no mortality. So in any case, Mexico is an example that leadership did not have to overreact like they did. And I think that's one of the things that, you know, people don't talk about that. What the heck happened here?
[1:18:59] I think this is one of the discussions we have to have is why did the Western governments, particularly the Five Eyes nations, but also Austria overreact on this? And why was it considered acceptable to deploy military grade psy ops on civilian populations by these countries that, you know, those in the, in the, they're really all the British tradition, you know, even in America, we still go back to the common law and Magna Carta were still rooted in British law. And the stereotype was that Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United States were all so civilized and freedom-loving and yet they went totally overboard. What the heck happened here?
I think that's, the African states didn't fall for that.
Not even South Africa kind of gave lip service, but my understanding is in South Africa, vaccine cards, which are really doled out and have no relationship to whether or not what took a jab are the norm.
[1:20:27] Yeah, I think we, this, as you point out, this book is a starting point.
It's a way to help people along the journey and make their own assessment, which I think any thinking person has an obligation, really, to their children, to society, to try to process what has happened here and think through what is it that we want to do about it, because otherwise they're just going to continue to do it to us. It's power propaganda and fifth generation warfare technology and information control and the logic that it's necessary to preserve democracy.
[1:21:11] To have censorship. How perverted is that? All of these Orwellian things and you're here visiting us from the UK, we, I think here in the United States and in the West in general, we owe a huge debt to British culture and British intellectuals. In particular, Huxley and his, and the one, and the person that he mentored Orwell, and their in their prescient awareness of where this thrust towards a centralized global government was going. It's captured in so many of the UN Charter and so many other documents from back in the 40s. And I one of the one of, our followers pointed out to me that I'm very indebted for that, in an early edition of 1984, Orwell wrote a forward, in which he predicted the rise of a pharmaceutical state in which we would all be.
Pharmaceutical control to become passive and acceptance. You know, I think a case can be made that we're already doing this with our children, with Ritalin, things like that, they're little boys.
[1:22:37] And that in his opinion, the only way to avoid this as the eventual outcome of the totalitarian
[1:22:47] state that he was envisioning this totalitarian pharmaceutical state specifically, was to push towards decentralization, which is one of the key components in the last section of the book, is various examples of intentional communities being formed in Italy and the need to grow your own food and become more self-sufficient.
And this is what Orwell believed was the only way that we could escape this dark, totalitarian, pharmaceutical future that he envisioned we were being driven towards.
What a gift. It's so unfortunate that we haven't paid attention to that. Let's try.
And maybe, hopefully, it's not too late.
[1:23:40] Well, I appreciate you giving me your time in the middle of slotting into the middle of
[1:23:46] a hectic schedule, as I know you have all the time. Lies, my government told me you can get it as a hardback, you can get it as an ebook. And also to those watching, if you, well, of course you will have signed up to Dr. Malone's substack, but do consider clicking that button where you can actually pay for the content. I think it's vital that we all have learned to consume information for free, but there is a cost to actually put that information out. One way, I think probably the easiest way people can support you and what you're doing is simply click on that and to turn your free subscription into a paid subscription. You may not want to say that, but I can happily say that.
I'm really poor at shopping for money. But thanks for saying that.
And it has been fun and thanks for coming and visiting.
Thank you. And I hope you'll be here again.
Wife permitting.
I'm positive wife will be here. She, you know, as you know, my wife is a dual citizen, US and UK.
And she always likes to have folks visit us or chances to interact with people from the UK just as like her native culture.
So thanks for coming and
[1:25:10] thanks also for your courage. You've been right at the forefront politically and speaking out in a very challenging environment.
I mean, I've come to learn it's even more challenging in the UK than it was here in terms of the censorship and oversight and pressure from the government.
But you do as you say, you do what you do, it's in front of you and you learn from great mentors. Thank you.
Comments (3)
More Episodes
All Episodes>>You may also like
Get this podcast on your phone, Free
Creat Yourt Podcast In Minutes
- Full-featured podcast site
- Unlimited storage and bandwidth
- Comprehensive podcast stats
- Distribute to Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more
- Make money with your podcast
It is Free
