On people ignoring common sense…
Joseph Molitorisz “I have a question, the points you have made here succinctly are based on common sense. Yet, a lot of people out there would juxtapose that common sense with what they are being told by their family physician or some other person that they’re in close contact with, who is a professional in some capacity. How do they reconcile these things?” (Timestamp 41:00)
My own experience, frustratingly, shows that most people believe their doctor and their family friend. I’ve said the common sense, which you can debate for yourself. If your family friend, or a doctor says, “Oh, no, no, he’s completely wrong. It’s definitely a virus,” you could ask them, “Well, why was it then that they behaved… it sounds to me like it’s very risky behaviour, but is that really your understanding of policies and so on?”
But the thing you can go and check, you have to be able to read scientific papers, which is the problem, but the epidemiological evidence is unequivocal. That’s not common sense. That’s a matter of public record.
I would say, it’s very frustrating. The most common response I get when I explain this, even to people that I would say are ‘on our side’, is that they believe that senior people are up to no good, but they still say to me, “Well, I hear your argument, Mike… but…” and here’s the thing, they’ll say, “I was ill in ______ (month). I’ve never been so ill before….therefore COVID.”
It’s not even logical, but I’ve had it dozens of times. “In June 2020, I was ill. I’ve never been so ill as that. Must have been COVID.” And I’ve had this from consultant positions, journalists, scientists like me. When I’m listening to it, I’m thinking, “Oh my God, they’re accessing a part of their brain and their reasoning, which isn’t what I’m trying to address, and that’s why I’m failing.”
So, you ask good questions, and they will reject it. They will reject it. It’s incredibly frustrating.
I also think some people are in love with the virus, probably the wrong word, but they are now so attuned to living a life that contains this hazard, as they see it, which they have perhaps done battle with or strong enough to have resisted, or they’ve complied with masking and distancing, and I think some of them will fall apart if they allow the virus to leave their life. (But I’m speculating – that’s not science). So that’s the thing. They do tend to believe they’re doctor and trusted friends, and that’s very frustrating.”
Joseph Molitorisz “Meredith, you can address that. Is that something that you’re comfortable addressing?” (timestamp: 44:33)
Meredith Miller: About why they would believe the ‘not-common’ sense, but what everybody else is telling them?
Yeah, that’s what happens in an abusive system. There’s a narrative that everybody is subscribed to, and this will happen in a one-on-one relationship as well, because every psychological abuser uses gaslighting as a tool to distort the perception of reality, and they push away everything that contradicts that narrative, so that the target is completely subscribed to that perception of reality.
Dr. Mike Yeadon: It is my belief, and it could be wrong, that some people are almost in love with this virus. It becomes such an important part of their life now, that if I knock-away this thing that they’ve been frightened of, or who have managed somehow to ‘not die from’, that they will collapse. It’s somehow become an important part of the way they interact with the world.
Reiner Fuellmich: “That’s exactly what it was designed to do because if we–I don’t know if you’ve seen Professor Matthias Desmet‘s theory on mass formation. I agree with everything he says, except that I don’t agree with his idea that this is a self-igniting mass formation. Rather, we know for a fact, that there are people who are responsible for this. But the basis of everything is, I think if I remember correctly, long-term free-floating anxiety.
I think 70% of the people who live in Berlin are single, living in single households, it used to be different, it used to be large families, but now they’re single households, and they have been living in this single household situation for the last two decades or so.
So things have completely changed and not by accident, but rather by what Catherine Austin-Fitts, “Mr. Global’s” attempts at making them feel insecure, isolated, afraid of something that they can’t really put their finger on, and that’s exactly why when they came up with COVID, this kind of gave security to some of these people because, just like you’re saying, all of a sudden they felt, “Oh, now we know what we have to be afraid of. We’re so happy we can unite on this cause.”
Dr Mike Yeadon: That’s right. Yes, I’ve forgotten about that, and also “following the instructions from public health” becomes a ritual that you see other people doing. You feel part of something important. If you wear your mask, and you socially distance, and you see other people doing it and collectively keep others in line, then you become a “good person” and you’re part of something important, and you have control, which they might not have felt for years.
But even now, 3 and a bit years later, people don’t want to let go. I’ve been subject to, I would say, the worst insults from my own side since I came out and said “I don’t think there was ever any passage of any kind.” Like that’s really pissed people off. It’s upset them.
It is what it is, but if I can’t persuade people who I regard as allies, and know that the rest is a lie, what hope do I have of persuading a significant number of people who are still attached to the narrative? I don’t know. I can only put it out there and hope that it’s useful to some people.
Joseph Molitorisz: In American culture, this fits into a larger pattern, and the term for that that’s become popular is virtue signaling. So it’s part and parcel of a larger cultural movement.
All based on a lie…
Fuellmich: We know for a fact now, in hindsight, there has been no excess mortality anywhere until the rollout of the so-called vaccination campaign.
Yeadon “What about … is that true? I thought there was some increase in deaths after lockdown.
Reiner Fuellmich: That was due to, as you said, medical malpractice. But until then, actually, there were only spikes. Yes, there was increased mortality in New York, for example, and they hyped this on television.
But we know for a fact that in Bergamo, they doctored the numbers. What they did in Bergamo (Italy) is, in anticipation of all the corona or COVID infections, they cleared the hospitals because a lot of people who were frightened had gone to the hospitals, even though they were just suffering from the common flu or cold.
They cleared the hospitals and transferred the patients into the nursing homes, which is where the vulnerable people are. The people in the nursing homes had gotten vaccinated a couple of months before that (I think it was the flu shot), so their immune systems were already damaged.
So what happens if you put seriously ill people with a serious cold or maybe just the flu, if you put them next to someone who is elderly and frail and whose immune system has been damaged? Some of them die, and that’s exactly what happened. Then they hype these pictures by showing caskets, coffins that were being cleared away by army trucks. So it was just a lie, just another lie, the same thing in New York.
In hindsight, we know that 94% of the people who allegedly died of COVID, died of completely other causes in Bergamo.
There was a German pathologist who is now retired, and even though he was explicitly prohibited to do it (by RKI, the CDC equivalent in Germany), he performed autopsies on people who had died allegedly of COVID, and in 100% of the cases, he found that they died of completely other causes, and all of them had lived long past their average life expectancy. So it’s just a big lie.
So what this boils down to in my view is, if this is true for COVID, the corona plandemic, if this is just based on a big lie, what else is there? What about climate change, global warming? Because it’s the same people who are telling us this.
Can it be true that maybe they’re just experimenting, they’re not as powerful as they try to make us believe, but it wouldn’t be true that if we pull away the curtain, just like the Wizard of Oz, there’s just this tiny little person sitting who doesn’t know a thing.
Yeadon: No, I’m sure that, frankly, if this bunch of psychopathic control freaks would just leave us alone, I think we would find a beautiful world that’s mostly peaceful underneath. We don’t need these people. These people are responsible for almost all of the bad things going on. Mostly people are good, and they just want to get on with their lives.
Fuellmich: What do you think, Meredith? Is this a theory that is completely unrealistic?
Fear-Based Propaganda: They did everything to make things worse for you
Meredith Miller: I think Mike is actually really onto something when he says it’s almost like these people are in love with the idea of the virus, and as you mentioned, the climate change and everything else, we’re going to see the same clinging to these narratives.
Why? Because the abuser, the psychological abuser, gaslights and creates this perception of reality. Then we have the target who clings to that because even though they start to see signs that something is not okay, to think that everything they have believed up until now is a lie would be terrifying.
But often what happens is that moment when the disruptive truth comes through, the person’s reality shatters. It’s extremely disorienting and destabilizing to the point where the person feels so alone, so crazy. Those feelings quickly escalate into thoughts of suicide, particularly if the person lacks a healthy social environment. If they lack people outside of that abusive relationship or system, like a family, a workplace, or even a small social group where that happens, that’s why the social connection is so important for our sanity and well-being, and that is exactly what the fear attacks.
So if we ‘follow the science’ – because, by the way, in these psychologically abusive relationships, long before it gets to that collapse point where the person no longer knows what to believe is even true anymore, there’s been this constant long progression of the fear propaganda campaign – they did scientific studies, before 2020 that showed one was called “Appealing to Fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness” in 2015. They found that using fear appeals is effective at influencing a person’s attitude, intentions, and behaviors, that there are very few circumstances under which these are not effective, and that there are no identified circumstances under which these fear appeals backfire.
So they always lead to the outcome, which means you pump the fear and you get them to do what you want. They also found in that study that when the messaging about the fear includes efficacy statements, that increases the effectiveness of the appeal.
So let’s think about the marketing campaign of the vaccine.
The other study they did in 2018 was called ‘Uplifting Fear Appeals.’ This was considering the role of hope in fear-based persuasive messages. It’s really interesting because they found that “Feelings of hope in response to the fear appeals contribute to their persuasive success.”
If we look at the propaganda campaigns that YouTube used, for example, their campaign was ‘Get back to what you love.’ They did all these videos on why you should get vaccinated. You can see your elderly family members, newborn babies, connect with people, socialize, do family, life, and everything. Using hope to stoke that, in the fear appeals, would be an opportunity to deal with what they wanted.
That’s why the 2020 Yale study, which I mentioned in the Grand Jury of public opinion last year, Yale tested 10 fear-laced messages on what would be the most effective messaging to get people vaccinated.
Every one of those used some kind of fear appeal. Why? Because they already knew that was going to be the most effective tactic since fear is the currency of control.
The outcome measures in that study were to:
- get people to get vaccinated,
- trust the vaccine,
- get other people to get vaccinated,
- fear the unvaccinated,
- and socially judge the unvaccinated.
The kicker, though, is the 2017 study called ‘Public Health Consequences of Social Isolation and Loneliness.’ What they discovered is that prolonged social isolation and loneliness cause both cardiovascular and mental health negative outcomes.
So they made a plea in that study that prevention strategies should be developed in public health to not allow that to happen. We see that they did the exact opposite of everything we knew. Why? Because they wanted the loss of social connection. Why is that so key? Because social bonding and social connection are a biological imperative for human beings as mammals. That’s why a person in an abusive relationship so badly needs that social support.
When we have been under prolonged forced isolation, changes happen in the nervous system such that when the person is then given an opportunity to socialize after that long period of isolation, they’re more irritable and aggressive.
If we look at the headlines that we’re seeing lately in the world, we’re seeing lots of violence and aggression, even in interpersonal relationships. We see that irritability.
Two years ago, during online dating, that was in the peak of the fear, the peak of the fear when people were afraid of one another. More people were still connecting and willing to meet in real life and able to form a connection, than now, when we’re supposedly past all of that fear, people are very defensive. They don’t want to meet in person.
When our defensive system is engaged in the nervous system, what is the defensive system? It’s fight or flight. It’s fight, flight, freeze, and fawn. So when we get into the defensive system, the attachment system is shut down. It goes offline. That’s our social bonding system.
So the whole key was to use the fear to separate people, not just for those 2-3 years when it happened but we’re only just starting to see the tip of the iceberg of the ramifications and consequences among people, and we need each other to keep ourselves sane and healthy. So this is only going to get worse, and they’re going to keep using each of these narratives, whether it’s the pandemic, the climate, or war, whatever it’s going to be, to keep further separating us, which is affecting our physical, mental, and spiritual health.
Mike Yeadon: Absolutely. Thank you. Yes, it’s devastating, but everything you told me rang true personally as well. Also what evil people they are, to have worked out what’s the way to maximize suffering. The immersive public health threats, you’ve heard the testimony of Meredith Miller – they’ve used the things that were most likely to terrify and harm you.
Surely in the past, they’d be trying to calm you down? Make sure you survive well, and that would include maintaining social connections where appropriate?
So note they did everything they could to make things worse for you, and isolation and fear can cause illness by themselves, without anything else.
Denis Rancourt told me that they are established to be, I think, some of the strongest causes of illness. Exactly what Meredith was just saying, that some of the strongest causes of illness are social isolation and loneliness for us, who are social animals.
Reiner Fuellmich: So here’s the thing, and I would like to pose a question to Joseph as a philosopher. They’re using fear in order to keep us under control, to make us follow orders, because in that state, most of us, not all of us, will tend to follow orders.
The very first rally or demonstration I ever went to was in Berlin, where there were almost 2 million people in August of 2020. The mainstream media made them into 17,000 people. But we know for a fact that it was between 1.5 and 2 million people.
The speaker before me was Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He told the story about how after World War II, when the major war criminals were on trial in Nuremberg, one of the criminals was asked, “How did you do this? How could you turn well-educated Germans into monsters?” And he said, “It doesn’t matter if it’s a communist or capitalist system, it just doesn’t matter. The only thing you need is fear.”
That’s probably what Franklin D. Roosevelt picked up on after the war in 1946 when he told his people, “The only thing you have to fear is fear itself.”
So the people who are doing this to kill other people, because that’s the bottom line. We’re talking about genocide in the meantime. They’re truly evil, as you just said, Mike.
What do you do with these people, Joseph, from a lawyer’s standpoint? I couldn’t have done a better closing argument than you just did, Mike. But from a lawyer’s standpoint, there has to be punishment because without punishment, without the rule of law, without justice, there cannot be democracy. What do you think about this, Joseph?
Identify and call out the Crimes they are committing
Joseph Molitorisz: Well, I think that one of the major issues there has to do with identifying the perpetrators and the networks of perpetrators, and so far, I haven’t seen very much of that kind of identification taking place in the media. I’ve seen a little bit of it in sort of the social media, but absent identifying people, naming them, and naming the crime that they have committed and the people that are behind them, pushing them.
Absent that, there’s not going to be a revelation in terms of people being able to wake up, really. It remains obscure that there are forces out there that are perpetrating this, but they’re never really identified. They can move in, they can move out with impunity and they can cover their tracks. They can move on to the next atrocity if they’re tired of dealing with the COVID thing because it’s not working out well enough, then they’ll move on to the next issue, which is climate change, war, or whatever the next topic is, and they will essentially get off scot-free.
So I think that it’s incumbent on us to identify those people and to name them and to shame.
Reiner Fuellmich: I think we can do that, Joseph. We know a few of the names have been mentioned already. Dr. Fauci, Drosten, Tedros, the big corporations that participated in this both the pharmaceutical industry (Pfizer, Moderna) and the tech industry that profited from this (follow the money). Yeah, I think it’s not going to be very hard to identify these people.
The problem will be in the end, can they get away with the defense of insanity? Because it’s obvious that they all, including the doctors, that they all participated and many of them were bribed, many of them were coerced. That’s another possibility. We’ll have to look into this because you but the first thing you have to do is go after those who you can see. We know there are others behind them, but we’ll take us where the evidence takes us and we’ll go where the evidence takes us, and I do think that once we find a court, it’s not a problem we have the evidence.
The problem for us lawyers is to find a court of law that will listen to it, that will look at the evidence, that will listen to our experts, and we know that it’s a matter of pure luck. It’s impossible to find that in Europe, anywhere, particularly in Germany. It’s impossible. There are some places in the United States where the law still functions, where people have elected judges. There’s India, which is also promising, but we have found a platform. I can’t talk about it yet, but we have found a platform, a very independent, totally independent judiciary that will give us a fair hearing.
So, I don’t think it’s going to be so hard to identify those who are responsible. It’s going to be a little bit harder to find those who are behind those who we can see. We know that they’re people behind Fauci, Drosten, and Tedros. We know that there are others who are pulling their strings.
On Michael Swinwood’s Case
Our colleague, Michael Swinwood, from Ontario, Canada, filed the first class action complaint in Ontario, but out of disgust with the Ontario judiciary, he left and has been living at Peru ever since. He, not only sued for damages, but also sued the healthcare minister of the province of Ontario, Justin Trudeau, and, of course, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Additionally, he sued the Vatican and the House of Windsor, which may have been premature, but we know that they are responsible, even though we don’t have conclusive evidence yet.
This is the defendants list: Pope Francis, The Holy See, The State of the Vatican, The Society of Jesus, HM Queen Elizabeth II, The Order of the Garter, the House of Windsor (Formerly Saxe Cobourg Gotha), Global Vaccine Alliance (GAVI), The UN’s World Health Organization/Public Health Organization of Canada, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Dr. Theresa Tam, Premier Doug Ford, Christine Elliott, Mayor Jim Watson, Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General for Ontario
Fuellmich: The first step is always the hardest, but we will make it very soon. So, let’s bring these people to trial.
World Health Organization IHR Treaty Warning
Yeadon: I just wanted to drop something new and important. Most of you are probably aware that international health regulations have existed for about a century and have been gradually modified. Currently, the WHO is agitating to have changes made so that, ultimately, if the changes being considered now are agreed upon, the WHO can have sole discretion to declare a pandemic or even a risk of a pandemic, and the regulations take control of every country that is a member state. This includes insisting on certain things like lockdowns, testing, and vaccinations. It’s unbelievable!
My government does not have the power to give away my rights, and I wouldn’t recognize it, and yet on the other hand, the police might be told, “I’m sorry, it’s not us, it’s the WHO. Lockdown is in place, doctor, if you don’t go home, we’ll have to arrest you.” It’s that scary.
As an immunologist, I must point out that severe respiratory disease pandemics are impossible. It’s not possible for these diseases to power around the world. Think of the mildest, like a common cold, you would probably continue on with your day, and if it’s possible that it transmits and some people would say that it doesn’t but if it does, it could travel around the world and the public health effects would be minor. If we go to the other extreme, the more severe the disease, within hours of acquiring it, you are ill, and within a day or so you’re dead, the number of people you can infect is diminutive. The more severe the disease, the more quickly you withdraw from social contact, and transmission stops. That’s why there’s never been a serious disease pandemic spreading around the world. It’s immunologically impossible.
Yet, the WHO, GAVI, and CEPI are all advocating for these powers because it’s the era of pandemics. It’s all complete lies. They know what I’ve just said is true, they haven’t got a wafer of scientific support behind this. Unfortunately, they are gathering the power to “protect us” if one of these things should happen.
Why do you think they’re so keen to have this power when they know it’s immunologically impossible? It’s because they’re going to fake another one of these events and lock the world down. But unfortunately, I’ve got this knowledge. It only occurred to me a few months ago that the situation they tell us that we should be frightened of, and that’s why we’re putting in place these new systems of “central control”. It only occurred to me a few months ago that it’s actually impossible. And funnily enough, it’s never happened.
But you know what? Even if it was possible, the very worst thing you would do is centralize the response. Why? By definition, it’s novel. By definition, no one knows what the optimum thing to do is. Why would you want to leave it to one Ethiopian minister for the world? Wouldn’t it be true that, as has always happened in humankind, the best way to find the best solution is to let individual groups innovate and communicate with each other? You’d find that not only would you test all sorts of ways to respond, so you’d actually know which one was the best one, whereas if you just adopt one central response, the only thing I could be sure of is that it won’t be optimal, and you’ll never know what optimal was.
So it’s wrong if you centralize it, you’ll guarantee to get the worst possible outcome and not learn. So why would anyone even agree with it? Even if the setup was correct, which it is not, it’s impossible. Why would they agree to it? Because it’s not sub-optimal, it’s a disaster.
But you know, there you go. That’s what happens when you have basically a totally corrupt system, it’s going to completely fail us. That’s why I’m very worried that they will do that because lots of people will believe it, even though I know it’s impossible.
New mRNA Manufacturing Plants Worldwide
Mike Yeadon: So then when you combine what I’ve just said with what they’re doing, with the observation that they’re putting up manufacturing plants for mRNA vaccines all around the world, when I’ve told you and others won’t disagree with me, that they are axiomatically dangerous. That is, if you inject something that codes for its foreign protein and always it will, because you’re used to the idea of it being foreign, because it’s meant to teach your immune system, right? But if you inject messenger RNA, your cells that get transfected become a factory for that foreign protein. Every time your cell, any cell makes something that’s not self, non-self, your immune system goes in and kills it.
It will actually kill that cell. There’s no other way your body can keep a pristine environment intact, except by looking for non-self, at all times. When it sees non-self, it sends in lethal cellular and non-cellular mediators to destroy it.
So that’s why I’m saying if you repeatedly inject those people, it doesn’t matter what, it doesn’t have to be spike protein, it could be anything at all that’s not human, you will induce autoimmune attack, and if it lands in your heart or a pregnant uterus, you’ll get heart attacks or miscarriages.
It’s not been any fun having the knowledge I’ve got. It’s not enjoyable at all. I can’t even kid myself that maybe I’m wrong. It’s like, that’s lesson one in immunology: How do you keep yourself free of invaders in your body? Basically, your body has tuned out the ability to attack itself. It’s called self-tolerance. That means that anything that isn’t a self will be recognized easily as not self and attacked. That’s how you defend yourself with a vigorous immune system from invasion.
If you inject someone with mRNA that encodes any non-self protein, you will cause disease, and if you keep doing it, you will kill them.
World Homocide Organization: Genocide and Evil
So they’re setting up a control system that is dependent on absurdities which people are going to believe, such as global pandemics of severe diseases. Then they’re going to centralize power, which is mad. You need to have it distributed so you can run lots of separate experiments and communicate the results, and then finally, they’re addressing people with injections that will injure them if they roll up their sleeves for it. If you do it often enough, they’ll die. That’s why I quickly arrive at the conclusion that this is not just about totalitarian control, but depopulation.
Finally, I think a lot of people have lost faith in distinguishing good from bad, like a good box of chocolates or a bad box of chocolates. That’s not the right axis. We’re dealing with good and evil.
All of these actions are evil, and most people have gotten so far from faith, nature, God, or whatever, they don’t recognize that axis even exists. They’ve got the good versus bad, but actually, the axis is at 90 degrees. It’s good versus evil.
I can’t see anything but evil driving this. How can ordinary people sleep at night? And the answer is they’re not ordinary people. They’re completely evil, crazy people. Well, they’re not crazy, as we often say, evil crazy people, but they’re very clever, crazy. They’re very clever, evil people is what we’re dealing with, unfortunately. But that’s why I’m fairly sure what’s coming our way is bad, and anything we can do to trip them up, I’m for it because I couldn’t define harder.
Reiner Fuellmich: I think there are a lot of things we can do. One of the most important things is exposing this. The way you talk about it is using common sense so people understand what you’re saying, not just scientists, and that’s very, very important. I do think that the people who are on our side of the fence are doing the right things. We’re not enough yet. We’re enough to change this game, definitely, but we’re not enough to do it overnight. That would require a big majority of the people, and we don’t have that yet. But we are the ones. I keep saying this because I totally agree with you. This is not just about wrong and right. This is good and evil.
We’re dealing with people who are truly evil and have no empathy whatsoever and don’t care about us. Some of them have simply sold out because they were bribed. They were making so much money administering the so-called vaccines. Others have been extorted and put under pressure for various reasons. We’ll have to get into that as well.
But the one thing they cannot control, and I don’t think they’re intelligent in the sense of being connected with the universe, having what we have – intuition and creativity. That’s what we have, they don’t. That’s why all these big corporations aren’t creative. They need to buy small businesses to get the creative people in. So that’s our big advantage, I think – our creativity and our intuition, which they cannot make any sense of. They don’t even understand that we can laugh, dance and sing because they can’t.
It’s impossible that you got what they told you was in the vials.
Reiner: As in this interview with Sasha Latipova, she said that based on the testimony of whistleblower Brooke Jackson, whose case against Pfizer was just dismissed, and based on Pfizer’s defense, it is obvious that no trials had ever been conducted. They just went through the motions or, as Bobby Kennedy said, it was simple Kabuki theater to make the public believe there was a trial.
Mike Yeadon: Yes, it’s true. So that’s another thing, folks – if you don’t know it, what you’ve been injected with is not what you were told you were injected with. There are a plethora of people like me who work in manufacturing who knew that from the beginning.
In order to put in the glass vials what they told you that was in the glass vials, it would have taken several years of manufacturing research – not just general clinical research – but the research necessary to be able to produce final products consistently takes years, and they had months.
So, they’ve dumped any old stuff in there. We don’t know. It’ll be tremendously varied, or it’s the only thing you can say. It’s not possible. I remember saying to people, “The one thing I’m sure of is that it’ll be very consistent,” and that was because one thing that the industry is known for is the ability to manufacture consistent products over billions of unit doses.
Yeah, they are, but it usually takes six, seven, or eight years to do so, and then it’s good. If you do it in a few months, then it will be legally a prototype – a manufacturing prototype, and that’s what you’ve got injected with, and I think that explains quite a bit, or at least it’s a big contributor to the variability where someone would be injected, and have no side effects, and others died the same day. That’s because the product will be just chaotically variable. But they don’t care.
You just look at it on paper and then say, “I’m just going to give you an undefined amount of an undefined substance,” and they gave it to your child, your wife, you.
So how can you believe that this is genuine? And when I’ve told you everything’s a lie, and then it never stops unfolding, does it, Reiner?
I know a guy called Hedy Reese (Anyone know proper name? ~ Penny), who has spent 40 years in R&D – has been shouting from the sidelines to say, “I don’t know what’s in the bottles, but it’s not what they’ve been telling you. It’s not possible. Let me explain why it’s not possible.” And it just never stops unfolding. It’s one ghastly discovery after another.
So that’s why it takes a long time. It’s difficult. It’s as difficult as manufacturing an airplane or a car. It doesn’t matter how much money you gave them, they couldn’t produce 200 million of these new cars in six months. It’s not possible because the linear steps required to even do a bad job take time. Take one of them out, and it’s impossible to do it in parallel. It’s BS.
Overcoming Fear & becoming Immune to Auto-Reaction
Fuellmich: Yeah, it’s BS. Meredith, what can we do about this? If this is all about fear – and I’m convinced it is, I am absolutely convinced that 90% or more of what we’re seeing is just a brand illusion created through fear-mongering – what can we do about it?
Meredith Miller: We need to become mental ninjas and spiritual warriors. So, we need to be observant of our thoughts, our perceptions of reality, our behaviors, our choices. Where is this coming from? Is this coming from me? Is this coming from some outside entity that planted that seed in my mind? Is this what everybody else is doing?
When we become more self-aware, we can choose our response instead of reacting, and they’re counting on us just reacting automatically. That’s that problem-reaction-solution thing. So, it’s so important that we examine that, we need to reclaim autonomy over our bodies, our minds, and our spiritual consciousness, because essentially this is a control of the consciousness, in order to get us to take the actions as their enablers to co-create that in this world. So, we have to become very conscious of that, and that’s why it’s important to take those inner inventories constantly and changing those, unsubscribing from the belief systems that aren’t ours, that aren’t aligned with what we want to create in this world.
And connecting with allies – that’s the most important thing when you’re waking up out of an abusive relationship – you need that social connection with people outside of that narrative of reality, outside that un-reality that the abuser has sewn. When we come together, we can talk about things, we can name things, we can articulate what it is, we can process together, and that’s how we stay safe and sane and healthy.
The Role of Social Media
Joseph Molitorisz: May I follow up on that, because fear is a major factor in all of this, but there’s also a new factor that we haven’t discussed yet, and that is the role of social media in all of this. Because on the one hand, social media gives the illusion of connectedness while at the same time atomizing people and locking them within themselves, so that in their desperation, in their loneliness, they’re desperate to try and reach out to a “mythical community” that they have been cultivating or that they think that they’re part of, which doesn’t really exist.
But in order to gain acceptance into that community, they have to project all kinds of things about themselves that may or may not be true and that are not that dangerous to reveal because maybe they’re fudging a little bit about their own personality, their own inclinations and so on.
And specifically, what I have in mind here is that during block-downs, people were on social media all over the place and they were virtue-signaling. They were telling everybody that they could find about what good people they are, because they’re doing all the things that have been asked of them to do.
And I was witnessing a couple of these exchanges where one respondent to this issue said, “You’re living in an illusion. What you’re really doing is trying to validate yourself because you’re feeling so isolated and lonely that you’re imagining that you’re connecting with people out there whom you don’t even know and you’re not really in any relationship of any kind with.”
Or as Chomsky used to say, “If you have friends on Facebook, then you don’t have any friends at all.”
I think that’s one of their tools – one of the tools that they’ve been using over the last 10, 15, 20 years – getting us used to social media. Facebook, there’s a lot of evidence that the person who runs it, Zuckerberg, isn’t really the person who runs it. It could be, could very well be, that it was just another creation of the deep state of the CIA. Allegedly, they are behind most of the messenger services and own 30% of the shares or something like that. We’ll have to dig deeper into this, but it’s very obvious.
And I think it’s common sensical that if you have friends on Facebook, you don’t have any friends because you don’t know these people. You just don’t know these people. We who have been talking to each other, even though it’s mostly via Zoom, know each other to a degree. We don’t really know each other because that requires physical contact.
But here’s the thing: last year, about a year ago, no, less than a year ago, a half a year, three-quarters of a year ago…I met Mike and his wife in Florida and we immediately connected over our shared interests in music and fast motorcycles. Despite only meeting for a few hours, there was no awkwardness between us. It highlights the importance of human connection and social distancing isn’t a natural thing for us. we need to connect with each other. We’re social beings. We need to connect. There is no such thing as “social” “distancing”. How does that work?
Meredith Miller: And it’s so key that we have to stay out of those defensive states, because when we’re in the defensive state – the fight, flight, freeze, and fawn – we’re locked in lower states of consciousness. We’re more frozen; we don’t have access to imagination, intuition, creativity, all these things: critical thinking. All these things that make us human and that protect us from the sort of manipulation and tyranny that’s happening, and I found one of the most effective ways to get out of the defensive state is to make fun of it.
Because what is the defensive state? You’re either angry at someone, or maybe it’s self-pity, and you’re like, ‘Poor me.’ You know? So what do you do? You make fun of it, make fun of yourself, and when you’re among people that you love and trust, and you know they love and trust you, when they make fun of that, it’s like something shifts.
It’s like all of a sudden that state drops, you can laugh at yourself. You can stop taking that so seriously, and you can get back into that safe and social connection, which is the same state that allows us access to all these other higher consciousness faculties.
Reiner Fuellmich: And when you manage to make fun of things, all of a sudden the fear is gone.
All people are redeemable
Well, Joseph, one last thing, what about the concept of good and evil? We’ve been talking about this. Even Mike, who was a distinguished scientist, all of a sudden realizes there’s such a thing as evil. And I, who didn’t think in these categories because I’m a lawyer, agree that there is such a thing as good and evil. What do you think about that?
Joseph Molitorisz: You may be asking the wrong person about this because I tend to view it through a Nietzschean prism. (influenced by the ideas of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche – Penny) That is to say, Nietzsche is famous for having relativized these things in his philosophizing. So I essentially come out of the Nietzschean school here, and it’s difficult for me to wrap my mind around absolute evil. I resist that.
I see the potential for everyone being good, and I see the reasons for people not being good, as part of a process of disintegration that is going on inside of them that they may or may not be aware of. So, even such people are redeemable, in this sense. That’s the school of thought I come from, and that’s what I would advocate coming from the intellectual background I have.
Now, on the other hand, you have the intellectual school of thought that I mentioned early on, which came out of behaviourists of psychologists who invaded the United States from Germany, who essentially boiled all of psychology down to stimulus-response, operant conditioning, and a Pavlovian world in which everything is only on the physical level, on the physical domain, and that everything is calculable, quantifiable, and that human beings are perfectible in the narrowist sense, but the broader development of the human mind, of the spirit, and the connectedness to the universe is completely shut out of that.
Unfortunately, that’s what took hold in the United States in the 20th century, and was taught at major universities throughout the century, which took a firm hold there.
Now, is that evil? I don’t know. Is it misguided? Definitely. Should it never have taken hold in the United States? I propose that it should not have, but it did, and it’s still with us, and if you take a look at, for example, one of the premier universities that distributed these first PhDs in psychology, Johns Hopkins University.
What do we know now about Johns Hopkins University? What happened there in 2019? Event 201 happened at Johns Hopkins University.
So there’s a long tradition here, that has been inculcated into American education, which has essentially said that humans are manipulable. They can be stimulated in various ways to do things that produce preconceived outcomes, and there is no room for spirituality in this at all.
Reiner Fuellmich: That’s missing. We know that it’s there. In the meantime, I didn’t used to know this, but I know now that it’s there, but I’m really glad, Joseph, that I don’t have to think in these categories. I do think in these categories, but when I go to court, I only have to figure out, is the person who I’m coming after guilty or not? And if the crime has been committed, murder, there is a dead person, and somebody else has the smoking gun in his hand, he did it. Criminal Law is very simple.
The next level is: Is there any justification, self-defense, for example? Well, not really if there’s a two-year-old child.
And the third level, where it all plays out, is the insanity defense. Is he responsible? Did he know what he was doing? And could he control what he was doing? That’s good enough for me.
I still believe that there is good and evil out there, even though it’s possible that these people who committed and are still committing these crimes may have some good in them, some spark that needs to be reignited, but I’m glad I don’t have to worry about that, and I think that’s the way it should be because that’s what I’m there for.
As a lawyer, I have to go after them, put them in jail, make them pay, take down these corporations. I think that’s the first step, and then we’ll see what happens.
Do we all agree on this, that most of what we’re seeing is a lie, fear-mongering? And one of the things we can do about it is keep exposing it and make fun of it.
Mike Yeadon: Yeah, yes. That’s good. You should still do good things for your health, spiritually, physically, you need to get outside in the sunshine, have a good diet, take care of yourself, be with friends, go and hug people, you’re not going to catch horrible diseases. But yeah, we don’t need to worry about all these horrible viruses that they’re frightening us with; they’re just boogeymen, not real.
Well, okay. I couldn’t agree more. Thank you very much, Meredith. Thank you, Mike. Thank you, Joseph. I think we’re going to do this again soon.