Zero head start about that. I'll see if I can find it while you guys are talking here.
Yeah. All right. Now is Stephen here yet? It's five past. We'll get this show on the road.
He will be. Yes, we will get this show on the road. As I said, Carlene, thank you for organizing
Jerome. So everybody welcome to Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International. In today's
discussion, this group was founded by Dr. Stephen Frost during the darkest days of the COVID scam
responses with a desire to pursue truth, ethics, justice, freedom, and health. Stephen has stood
up against government and power over the years and has been a whistleblower and activist. His
medical specialty is radiology. I'm Charles Covess, the moderator of this group. I'm
Australasia's passion provocateur. I practiced law for 20 years before changing career 30 years ago.
And over the last 12 years, I've helped parents and lawyers to strategize remedies for vaccine
damage and damage from bad medical advice. Bad medical advice, I think is now was number three
for a long time as the biggest cause of death in America. I think it's become number one on the
latest data that I've seen. I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company and hemp is going to be
a core element in our fight for freedom. We comprise lots of professions, including doctors,
lawyers, homeopaths, journalists, scientists, filmmakers, professors, peacemakers, troublemakers,
and we're from all around the world. Many of us thought that vaccines were okay. Now many of us
proudly say, yes, we're passionate anti-vaxxers. If this is your first time here, welcome and feel
free to introduce yourself in the chat and where you're from. If you publish a newsletter or podcast,
or you have a radio or TV show, or you've written a book, put the links into the chat so we can
follow you, promote you and find you. Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War Three
and there are various battle lines as part of this war. And as we were talking earlier,
when you're in war, you have to be willing to do the work to suffer, to fight for what you believe
in. Most of us understand the development of science and that the science is never settled.
Some of us believe in viruses, some of us do not believe in viruses, some are on the fence.
This meeting runs for two and a half hours after which, for those with the time, Tom Rodman runs
a video telegram meeting. Tom puts the links into the chat if you're able to join. We will listen to
our guest presenter, Dr. Jerome Corsi, PhD. Or Jerome Corsi, that's a good question. Is it Dr.
Jerome Corsi, PhD or Jerome Corsi, PhD? Anyway, nice question. You can have both. We'll listen to
Jerome Corsi for as long as Jerome wishes to speak and then we have Q&A. Stephen Frost,
by Long Established Tradition asks the first questions for 15 minutes. There's no censorship,
it's a free speech environment with appropriate moderating. The accusations of anti-Semitism for
anybody questioning activities of anyone who's Jewish keep coming loud and clear. I assure you
it's not anti-Semitic to ask about anybody what they're doing, but that's the danger of free
speech. I don't say anything that might offend somebody. If you are offended by anything, be
offended. We are genuinely not interested. We reject the offense industry that requires nobody
to say anything that may offend another. Jerome Corsi has written books on stuff that will offend
people, including the climate emergency hoax. Jerome, I'm sure you're used to facing the
accusation of being offensive. However, we come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear.
Fear is the opposite of love. Fear squashes you. Love, on the other hand, expands you.
And the great challenge of the Christian message is to love your enemies. It's pretty easy to love
people who are all nice to each other. How do you love someone who's not nice to you?
These twice-weekly meetings are not just talkfests. An extraordinary range of actions and initiatives
have been generated from linkages made by attendees in these meetings. And many of our presenters
have made wonderful links and used resources that have been offered to them from participants in
these meetings. If you have a solution or a product or links or resources that will help
people, put the details into the chat. If you here have any recommendations for people you want to
add to the invitation list, please send me an email. I'll happily do that. The meeting is recorded
and is uploaded onto the Rumble channel. And by the way, if any of you want to say anything that
you don't want on the recording, you're okay to say, listen, I want to say something. I don't want
to record it. It's easy enough to pause the recording while you might want to say something
privately and then we'll go back to the recording. And now welcome to Jerome Corsi, our guest
presenter. We thank you, Jerome, for giving us your time, wisdom and insights. We thank you,
Carla Dean-Graves, for organizing Jerome to be with us and enabling Jerome to be with us. And thank
you, Steve and Frost again for creating this group and for organizing Jerome to be here. Hello,
Stephen. Your hair is beautifully brushed. Good to see you. Thank you. Thanks. So, Jerome,
Jerome's bio, we've circulated to everybody. Your latest book came out. I just want to share that
because it's very apposite, just so the people on the recording get it. So here is the book synopsis.
This is Jerome's latest book, The Truth About Neo-Marxism, Cultural Maoism and Anarchy Exposing
Woke Insanity in an Age of Disinformation. And this is the second of Jerome's trilogy.
And this book reveals how communist ideology has evolved into its present-day woke madness
that began with Immanuel Kant and Hegel continued through Gramsci. Yes, we've been talking about him,
The Frankfurt School and the cover copy, this is volume two of the Great Awakening trilogy,
demonstrates that today's anti-racist critical theory is a neo-Marxist ideology that seeks power
through a Maoist cultural revolution. Jerome exposes the intellectual bankruptcy of the
Hegelian dialectic, drawing extensively on original texts and over 3,000 footnotes, everybody.
It's extraordinary. Jerome reframes the social justice argument from the realm of magical
thinking to the reality of practical politics. And Jerome has published over 30 books, everybody.
30, gosh, I've only done four on economics, history and politics, including six New York Times
bestsellers. The book is available. Jerome will tell us where and have a look. There's the website,
thetruthcentral.com. I've been listening to a number of Jerome's podcasts, wonderful. And
Jerome has ventured into telemedicine developing Habla con un men, and offering Spanish-speaking
patients an affordable electronic consultation with a Spanish-speaking physician licensed in
their state. GetLongivityMeds.com for those interested in medical consultations aimed at
living longer and better. And Jerome, that's me, I want to live longer and better. Over to you.
Thank you so much for being with us, and you have full ability to share your screen as you wish.
Well, thank you very much. It is a great honor to be with you. And it's hard to know where to begin.
I'm going to begin with the current book. And it's available on Amazon. All my books are available
on Amazon. And that's what it looks like. That's the cover right there. And it is part of the
trilogy. The first book I wrote in this series was on the energy. It is the truth about,
you can see the truth about energy, global warming, and climate change,
and it's exposing climate lies and an age of disinformation. So this book, first of all,
says that the left lies. And the second book says why they lie. They live in an entirely different
psychological reality, an entire different phenomenology. The left is constructed through
a series of iterations from Marx and Hegel. And I go through the political philosophy in great
detail in showing how the neo-modernism has combined to create the subjective reality.
Now, let me start with the climate change for a minute. Because the fundamental science,
the understanding that global warming is not caused by carbon dioxide,
reveals the fundamental insanity of the left, and that the science is not anywhere near justified.
So we begin with carbon dioxide. It's a trace molecule in the atmosphere, 0.04% approximately.
The most powerful greenhouse gas is water vapor. Water vapor is 70% of all greenhouse gases.
The earth 600 million years ago had much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than we've
had today. We've had ice ages in that period of time. The most powerful force that affects
the earth's temperature is the sun. And the global warming crowd wants to ignore the sun's impact,
minimize it. It's really pretty ridiculous. I mean, I point out often in broadcasts and interviews
that at night time it's dark. That's because the sun isn't in the sky. We call that night.
And it's colder. And then the sun comes into the sky, we call that day, and it's warmer,
because the sun's in the sky. And the fundamental aspect of the earth is the rotation, which these
things are just not taught in school anymore. I mean, it's amazing how little is being taught
in school. But if we did not have greenhouse gases, the irrigation that the earth absorbs
during the day would evaporate out into outer space at night. This place would be too cold to live.
We need greenhouse gases in order to trap some of the heat at night on the earth.
The major impact with the sun, the sun burns a little bit hotter. We have a warming period,
like the medieval warming period. When there's fewer sunspots and it burns cooler, we have a
little ice age as we had in the Napoleonic era. Michael Mann's hockey stick, which argues that
the earth's temperature was copacetic through entire earth history until the industrial age
when we started using hydrocarbon fuels. And then the earth's temperature shot up in extreme
is nonsense. And the Clonic 8 emails that were stolen out of East Anglia demonstrate how Michael
Mann, who created this hockey stick graph and the others, falsified the data. And I explained that
in great detail. The earth has 4.6 billion years of earth's history. 80% of the earth's history
pre-Cambrian. There was nothing living on the surface of the earth. Last 20% of earth's history
we're talking about. Weather is a natural function of the earth. The sun hits at the equator and
weather is designed to distribute the heat from the equator to the upper atmosphere into the poles.
There are very extreme forces involved in this. Earth, the currents in the oceans, we have El Nino
right now coming up in the Pacific Ocean. It's going to have massive changes in the coming winter.
These forces are enormous. Every 100,000 years when the earth gets farther from the sun, the
Milankovitch cycles, which are complex, we have an ice age. And it's not going to matter how much
carbon dioxide there is on earth. In the earth history, there were five extinctions before human
beings ever got here. The earth is not a stable place. It has had massive cataclysmic change,
as well as gradual change in its combination. But the cataclysmic changes like the asteroid that hit
in the Yucatan 65 million years ago and contributed to the wiping out of the dinosaurs
are the kinds of massive changes that the earth has experienced. And these again have nothing to
do with carbon dioxide. So I went back to the original writings in the post-war period,
where various thinkers were beginning to develop this whole idea of global warming.
And I found that some of the early thinkers were talking about resource limitations. They were
concerned that we were running out of resources. There were too many human beings. And as such,
we needed to limit the population. Harrison Brown, who was a nuclear scientist and worked on the
Manhattan Project developing the atomic bomb in World War II, in 1954, wrote a book called
The Challenge of Man's Future. And then he fundamentally framed the argument that we needed
to depopulate the world in order to preserve the world's resources. It was a Malthusian idea.
And he proposed world government to end overpopulation, restriction of sexual
incourse, abortion, sterilization, fertilization control. And he said we're running out of fossil
fuels. Well, then you had Paul Ehrlich coming along, who also in the population bomb was on
the same theme, until he met John Holdren, another nuclear scientist, who combined with Ehrlich and
Anne Ehrlich. By the way, Ehrlich's specialty was he was an etymologist. He studied butterflies.
He never said there were too many butterflies. He said there were too many people.
And John Holdren said if we're going to really limit capitalism, which was their aim, and shrink
the population, we have to have an existential threat. And so Holdren concocted this idea of
carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas and that the industrial age was going to produce too much of
it. At first, they thought there might be an ice age. But then they quickly changed it to be global
warming. And that's what stuck. But it evolved eventually. By the time it got to AOC and the
Green New Deal, it was out and out a neo-Marxist movement. And so the environmentalists,
which start in depopulation, end up being a neo-Marxist movement aimed at eliminating
capitalism. If we eliminated the use of hydrocarbon fuels, we would very quickly be in a
situation where modern industrial society would not function. So that's the fundamental basis here
is that the people constructing these ideas did so to be destructive. They intended to destroy
the modern industrial state by depriving us of hydrocarbon fuels. They knew this would limit
population and would starve many in the third world. And they did not care because their goal
was to limit population. They were depopulationists. By the way, no fossil ever created any fuel.
Fossil fuels, as they're called, hydrocarbon fuels, are a natural ongoing product of the Earth.
The Fischer-Tropsch equations, which were developed by German chemists in the interregnum
between the two wars, Germany had a lot of coal, but it did not have oil. And so going into World
War II, the German chemists were tasked with figuring out how to synthesize oil. They came
up with a process in which coal could be converted into various petroleum products. In doing so,
they came up with the equations that show how the Earth manufactures hydrocarbon fuels.
Fundamentally, a combination of taking something that's hydrogen, something that has carbon,
and under extreme heat and temperature and pressure, with the presence of a catalyst like
iron oxide, hydrocarbon straight line, hydrocarbon chains are formed. And this process got to be very
well understood. And in fact, China today still runs the largest Fischer-Tropsch plants on the
Earth. We tried it after World War II when we got the German science with our scientists going in
and capturing the German documents. We did try to build them, but they were not economically
feasible given the abundance and cheapness of hydrocarbon fuels. So there's a lot of lying
in this that goes on, and it becomes really a secular religion. And what the second book shows
is that the ideological basis of this starts out with Kant saying that all of our perceptions are
subjective. Our senses are what have the basis of how we perceive our reality. Kant did have an
a priori and categorical imperatives. He felt that there was still, it wasn't unlimited
subjective interpretation. There was an objective reality, and that we had an intuitive knowledge
of this, which he felt in the perfection of pure reason would produce categorical imperatives or
moral rules by which everyone could live and no one could disagree with. Hegel took Kant and he
essentially eliminated much of the deity that's in Kant to say that this was a mechanical process,
a dialectic, such that history was designed to evolve into higher and higher forms of civilization
through these world-significant figures like Napoleon. He was very much believing that the
German people would be the ultimate survivors in a world that would be advanced through this dialectic.
It's almost magical thinking. There's a mystical element in Kant that there is a force that is
destined to evolve into superhuman. And by the time Marx got a hold of that, Marx was, by the way,
not an atheist. He hated God. He resented that, you know, God was in charge of the fundamental
biblical garden of Eden. He embraces the idea that Satan says God does not want you to
have this secret of the fruit because you could improve this place. God wants it to be ruined.
And so therefore, if you'll partake with me, we'll make this place perfect. And there is an element
in Marx in which God is marginalized. Of course, classical Marxism failed. We did not get a cultural,
we did not get a, in 1848 when the European revolutions were occurring, we did not have
workers of the world arise. By the time the labor unions were created, communists were realizing
all through the world that communism is a fundamental doctrine failed. It began to be adopted and
changed by Gramsci, who was an Italian communist before World War II with these prison notebooks,
and he focused on let's destroy the culture of capitalism. And capitalism is ugly. It makes
people work. Their labor is taken advantage of by the capitalists. And if we just destroy the
culture. So Gramsci hit on that we need to get rid of God, we need to get rid of family, we need to
make people dependent on the state, we need to fundamentally change the culture. And as this
evolved, I think the next big development was really the Frankfurt School, which grabbed onto
another modification of Marxism in which the Frankfurt School, largely coming to the United
States after escaping Nazism, started combining Freud with Gramsci and saying that essentially
we had to have a post-Oedipal world in which sexual liberation, the fundamental
Freudian doctrine which they rejected was that civilization requires inhibition of
human sexual impulses. And by the time Marcuse got a hold of it, he wanted uninhibited sex
and began getting the idea of sex, drugs, and rock and roll as being the cultural divisive factor
that would destroy capitalism. As it merged with postmodernism, and now I'm talking about people
like Lyotard, and my favorite is Baudrillard. These people began to say all perception is
subjective. And so Baudrillard who wrote simulacra and simulations said everything is a language
game, everything is a narrative. There is no subjective reality, it's how we construct it.
And so therefore we can construct the perfect reality if we want to. And we just have to
reimagine it because every objective reality that we try to define is just simply another narrative.
He was picked up by the Matrix movies which begin with the Baudrillard book, but he rejected the
Matrix movies because Matrix movies have this opposition which perceives reality and Baudrillard
said there is no perception of reality other than subjective. He was an nihilist. But it evolved into
essentially a schizophrenia. There were some of the actually embracing the idea that whatever
identity you imagined, whatever identity you could create for yourself was equally valid,
value relativism. And so therefore it had to be respected. And then you had others like Habermas
that came up with discourse narratives that put together a consensus of values that were
superior. And it's like John Lennon, you know, imagine a world without God, imagine a world
without boundaries. We are the believers, there are many of us, won't you join us?
Well, I prefer to imagine there was a world without John Lennon because these are very
destructive ideas. And what's happened is they become totalitarian. The left has always been
totalitarian and they insist on no discourse, they insist on no confrontation, no debate.
They don't really want to teach the fundamental science. And we're developing two generations in
America that have been taught to hate America, which is an extremely dangerous situation.
The third book will be about transhumanism, artificial intelligence, perpetual life extinction.
I think as usual, this neo-Marxist cultural Maoism movement, and we're going through a cultural
revolution in the United States right now, are only the useful idiots, the real powers to be,
the World Economic Forum. There's always been an elitist group that think they can control all the
power, they can have the resources of the earth for themselves. They and their machines will
merge together to form a higher intelligence. They will extend life and they will have
productivity, which will be abundant, and they don't need the billions of people who are here.
So therefore, the underlying idea is that the first to go when the World Economic Forum gets
control will be the woke, because they won't want any more disruption. And the oligarchy which takes
hold is really an old idea. I mean, Hitler would have been happy to have a small group of
Nazis who were national socialists in charge together with the multinational corporations,
and genocide to him was an acceptable idea. It was not just the Jews who would have been happy to
exterminate the Poles and a number of other people would be considered inferior, to create living
space for the Germans. And even there, there would have been a hierarchy of the select.
These are old ideas. These are ancient ideas where the king and the serfdom.
The fact is the earth is abundant. I follow Julian Simon, who was a resource economist,
who came to a fundamentally different position and said, we're not going to run out of oil.
We're not going to run out of oil. By the time we run out of oil, we'll have another fuel we'll be
using. We'll find our technology improves, we can get oil. It was harder to get more cheaply.
We will begin to find that it was more abundant than we thought it was. And by the time we're
really utilizing coal, we'll be on the oil. By the time we're on the oil, Julian Simon said we
should be on the nuclear and whatever is beyond nuclear. That the ultimate resource for Julian
Simon was human intelligence. So for his concern was how many Mozarts and Beethovens and
Garthas did we kill in the Holocaust? And the human beings can populate the earth in greater
numbers. If we had the vision that human beings are creations of God, shouldn't be chopped up in
the womb. We get very satanic ideas that merge in these movements. And so when it came to the
pandemic, I began to see again the and I started studying the, I started reading the medical
literature. And I got close to Dr. Zelenko and realized that hydroxychloroquine had been recognized
for a long time as a isophor, which would open up the cells such that zinc would protect the cells
from the duplication of the virus within the cells. And COVID was a very strange,
again, this question of virus and bacteria is a murky line, I think, because Dr. Zelenko had
combination of hydroxychloroquine, zinc and azithromycin. You wouldn't usually use an
antibacterial agent together to combat a virus, but yet COVID seemed to get into the receptor that
was ACE2 receptor that got into the heart and lungs. And once the disease got into the heart
and lungs, you had this massive cladocomix storm, this huge reaction of the immune system to try to
defeat this. And ultimately people died from the treatments they were receiving on these respirators,
which were destroying people. Hydroxychloroquine could have done much to cure people. So in that
period of time, I was working with Dr. Graves, who was also involved, we were trying to
inform President Trump of the hydroxychloroquine. And this was nonsense that even Fauci had written
articles about hydroxychloroquine being effective against these kinds of SARS
viruses. And it was relatively cheap. So I got invited to participate with the group
in telemedicine. I got an email one day from a gentleman who said, why don't you help us
with telemedicine? We will find doctors to do the hydroxychloroquine, Zelenko's protocol,
and ivermectin. And I did that. And we did extremely well during the pandemic with
helping hundreds of thousands of people, helped thousands of people. And we became the go-to site.
And of course, I came under a congressional investigation for doing it. I'll return to
that theme in a minute. But that led me into also going into telemedicine, because I want to
decentralize the government's control of medicine. I want to break this chain of big pharmacy,
creating diseases to produce vaccines that don't work, that ultimately go along with their
depopulation agenda. By the way, since 1974, depopulation has been the official policy of
the United States government. Kissinger and National Security Memorandum 200 wrote a
national security directive saying that the goal of the United States government was depopulation.
And that has never been rescinded. So I've created two or three websites now. I decided I worked for
two years with a Google partnership team, Trillo, which is a company headquartered in California,
it's owned by Indians, Hindu from India. And the programers are Muslim from Pakistan. And they
agreed to write the administrative software for Oblicon and MD, speak with an MD in Spanish. I
want to create Spanish speaking people, regardless of documentation, to be able to talk with Spanish
speaking doctors. And I've created a program, Oblicon and MD, which is now being unrolled.
I've got the support of the, here's one of the, you know, we can see that very well, but it's a
card which shows, you know, a Spanish speaking doctor is in your telephone. That's the thing.
You don't have to go to the emergency room. You don't have to go to a doctor who won't understand
what you're saying. And then we, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference,
40,000 churches is endorsing this as well as the National Hispanic Pastors Alliance. So we have a
communication tool for the pastors. And I'm saying this puts the congregation in your phone.
And you can change this. You can change your messages. You can have donations
and links to Oblicon and MD through QRs. Okay, now I want to cover a couple more things.
And then I'm going to open it to questions. I don't want to monopolize the time. I'd rather
engage in conversation and just lay out the basis of the framework of who I am and what I'm doing.
I'm 77 years old. I started getting, I've had a massive career in banking. I've had three
careers. I've had a career in academics. I left academics. I felt academics was too restrictive
on increasingly becoming liberal. And I felt it was not what I had hoped it would be. I got my PhD
at Harvard in political science when I was 25. And at that time, I thought we could make impacts
by doing academic work. And I came to realize how politicized the universities were even in the 1970s.
I did some major work for the National Science Foundation. I did a project in New Mexico for
four years, a randomized field experiment that showed you could use telephone technology
to do unemployment insurance and welfare hearings. It was fairly revolutionary at the time.
But it informed me later that you could use the telephone to do medical practice. And I've always
understood how the technology extends our ability to reach people and needs can be used in this in
the service of benefiting people rather than in the attempt to control people.
And my career in politics began in 2004. During the Vietnam War, I had known John O'Neill.
We debated against each other. I went to Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio,
before I went to Harvard. And John was in Annapolis. And he went on to Vietnam. And he took
over the command of Carrie's boat, Swift Boat Book, John Carrie. I'd had eczema. I wouldn't take me
in the military. So I worked at civil violence research centers at Case Western Reserve. And
then at Brandeis when I was at Harvard, I worked at the civil violence research center under John
Spiegel. And I for a while bird dog Carrie and the Vietnam veterans against the war. So when
John O'Neill was going to, when John Carrie was running for president in 2004, and I had seen
John Carrie debate John O'Neill and the Dick Cavichow in the 1970s, I wondered if I should call
John and help him. And I had a sense not yet. It wasn't the time. But 2004, I called John O'Neill
and said, John, Jerry Corsi, I apologized for neglecting the friendship for 37 years.
They said, that's okay. The phones work both ways. When I realized he was going to do something with
the Vietnam veterans, Swift Boat veterans go against John Carrie. I said, well, John, you've
got half the story. I've got you've got Vietnam. I wasn't there. I've got what he did in the Vietnam
veterans against the war chapter and verse. So let's combine. And we did. And we wrote unfit
for command and became a number one New York Times bestseller. I followed that in 2008 with
another New York Times bestseller, The Obama Nation, which showed that Barack Obama was not
who he said he was. But he was a committed Marxist had been trained by Frank Marshall Davis
as a child, and had a history that seemed like he his life was a CIA legend. Because the pieces
didn't put together and you couldn't document any part of it. So that launched me on writing
books. And I have been controversial. 2016. I've known Donald Trump for 40 years when I had a
career in banking. I've had a very diverse career. And for a number of years, I was working to
get banks into insurance and security sales when the banks were prohibited by Glass Stegall from
doing so. I figured out ways to do it. A Walter Wriston, one of the prominent bankers in New York
said to me one day said, I want to be in these other businesses. He was with Citibank at the time.
I said, well, Mr. Wriston, the law prevents it. He says, of course, you don't understand.
First in banking, first, we change the business. Then the regulations change, or we change the
regulators. Well, that was a fundamental lesson for me. And I began to realize how change could
be affected. And I think one of the key themes of my life is that it's the truth that you've got to
tell and you got to explain it to people in a way they can understand it. But when they see that,
you know, the truth is, you know, banking, deregulated banking can offer more services
and get more competition. When they see that deregulating energy, which I'm also involved
in right now, gets third party energy to be sold. Are we are you saying something I didn't hear?
No, no, no, okay. Well, I'll just continue for a few more minutes. I in 2016,
I got together, I supported Donald Trump for president. And we've known each other for a long
time. As I said, when I was doing this banking, I was a VIP guest in the Plaza Hotel when he owned
it. And I worked with this whole staff and we got to know each other. I mean, it was not that we
weren't having dinner together or anything of that nature. But I was a VIP guest and he was very
gracious. And he did know who I was and had followed me subsequently. And would call me from
time to time. And I was working with Roger Stone. And Roger, of course, was working very closely
with Donald Trump. When it came to the Mueller investigation on Russian collusion,
they were convinced that I had had contact with Julian Assange. And the linchpin of the Mueller
case was that the Russians stole the emails from Hillary Clinton and gave them the same
email as Hillary Clinton and gave them to Assange. And that Assange coordinated with Donald Trump
to time the release of these emails so as to do the most harm to Hillary Clinton's campaign.
And the first batch of emails that had gotten released by the time the Democratic National
Convention started in 2016. And Assange released a group of emails that showed that Debbie Wasserman
the head of the DNC had coordinated with Hillary to make sure Bernie Sanders could not win the
primaries. And Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned the day the Democratic National Committee opened.
Assange said he had a second batch of emails. What happened was that in a flight to Italy,
and I was in, I was at 25th wedding anniversary to a woman who's by the way now divorcing me
after 32 years, she got tired of all the politics. That's going on now. But at any rate,
I figured out on that trip that Assange had Podesta's emails. And no one told me,
I've known John Podesta and I figured, I didn't think that the Russians had stolen the emails,
I figured it was an inside job because I had excellent intelligence in how the
Democrats put their computer systems together. And I understood that the transfers of data
that were being implied suggested it had to have been an inside job. And that the groups that were
being recruited to say the Russians stole it were Democratic operatives that Hillary influenced.
So I started writing about all that. And I told Roger Stone from Italy that that put that Assange
had Podesta's emails, I described what was going to be in the emails without having seen them.
I made it sound like I had a source because I didn't think he'd believe me otherwise.
Well, the FBI knocked on my door on August in 2018, just before my birthday,
and wanted me to come to the grand jury. I spent 40 hours with them. I handed over all my devices,
my cell phones, my laptop, everything, and went in to tell the truth. They first asked me a couple
questions. Did I want to go see Julian Assange? I forgot a few emails. You get picked up by the FBI.
They drive you to an unmarked FBI building in southeast Washington, DC. You have to turn on
all your cell phones, all your electronic equipment at the door. They bring you up to a room with no
windows. They put you in there. And you can't leave until they say you can leave. And we'll go on for
hours and hours and hours. Well, then you've got about eight or nine FBI and three special
prosecutors from Mueller's team, and me and my lawyer, David Gray, who is my local lawyer here
in New Jersey. I did not hire a Washington firm. Washington firms work closely with the bureaucracy
and had the bureaucrats leave and go to the Washington law firms. They all work together.
It's cozy. They make deals behind your back that are not to your favor. At any rate,
when they all walked out of the room, because I forgot a few emails, they came back in.
I basically said to them, I thought you guys were good at profiling. I came here to help you.
And I'd recommend you not behave like this. I forgot. They let me go back. I amended the
testimony and the emails. I had indicated early on that if somebody wanted me to go see Julian
Assange, I would have done it. I just thought it was a fool's errand because he wasn't going to
tell me what he had. He was going to keep it for himself. And I'd figured it out.
So at the end of all this 40 hours, it took two months with the FBI. They said,
you're lying. You have a source. You won't tell us. We're going to indict you for lying.
That would have made their case because they could say they couldn't find out my source,
but they knew I had one because I admitted I was lying.
Well, as I thought about it, I couldn't imagine standing before a judge and God and
swearing a lie to stay out of prison. So right after Thanksgiving 2018, on that Monday, I went
into New York and got on One American News and I announced to the nation that I was not taking
their plea deal. They were the ones who were lying and I went public with it. And I was not indicted.
In fact, I closed the Mueller investigation closed because I hadn't broken. They had no link
between Assange and Trump. They could not make their case. And so they did not indict me. They
said they were going to put me in front of a jury in Washington, D.C. that would hate me and I would
be in prison the rest of my life. I said, if you want to do that, go ahead. I'll spend the rest of
my life in jail, but I will not lie before God to save myself from jail. So I fought them. And then
when we did the covid, we had all the hydroxychloroquine, Clyburn was heading the
House investigation of covid wanted to bring me forward and investigate me for selling this drug
that making a lot of money selling a drug that the FDA had not approved for covid. And I said,
well, it's off label and doctors are free to prescribe any off label medication for any disease
they want. And I'm in favor of that. And the Clyburn typically got things wrong, just like the FBI
did. And I nailed him on the lies they told. They said I would ran the program. I didn't
I created the program. I didn't I had a contract to market the program. I wasn't in charge.
At any rate, that stopped. And so now I'm with the truth central, I'm recreating telemedicine,
I'm working in third party energy. I'm writing books. And at 77, I'm probably more active. My
take on my wife deciding to divorce me is that God decided to take her out of my life. She wanted me
to quit doing all this. She didn't want the FBI knocking at the door, traumatized her. And she
didn't want to go forward with it. So she got herself out of the marriage with an affair and
it's long story, which I'm not going to bore you with. But the point is, I'm now probably more
active in doing more exactly what I wanted. I don't have an other to have to take her concerns
into mind about our future. So that's, that's about all I want to say is a prelude. And it kind of
covers a lot of the ground points that are most important to me right now. And I look forward to
the questioning. Jerome, wonderful, wonderful. And trust me, as Stephen will assure you,
we're great at asking questions. And so it is, and I've been a professional speaker for 30 years,
and it's great having, it's great having questions. You are an academic, sometimes I remind everybody
of the definition of an academic. An academic is a bloke who knows how to make love in 100 different
ways, but doesn't have a girlfriend. That's good. I mean, I may borrow that if you don't mind.
You may reuse that. So, so the, while Stephen's getting his questions organized, one thing I want
to, I haven't heard of Julie and Simon, but I'm a big, big fan and student of Buckminster Fuller.
And I'm wondering whether in your journey, you came across Buckminster Fuller and, and you know,
I do a lot of work on his number one principle that, that you raise GDP population comes down.
I'm sure you've done the statistics. Oh, yeah. So the solution to, we don't need to kill people,
depopulate. All we need to do is improve living standards and pop, and birth rates come down
automatically. So Jerome, your experience with Bucky? Well, yes. In fact, on the Get Longevity
Meds, I am working with a group that does carbon 60. In fact, they work with the original scientists
that about 40 years ago discovered carbon 60. It's a remarkable molecule of 60 or more carbon
atoms around the nucleus. And it turns out to have longevity principles. It's structured, the carbon
60 version is structured like a Buckminster geodesic dome. In fact, these carbon,
multiple atom carbon structures, they come in nanotubes, they come in very many structures.
They are graphene, they conduct electricity as well as having longevity principles. They're
called fullerenes. And so in this book, we want you to talk all about the discovery of carbon 60.
One of the major themes is Buckminster Fuller. Julian Simon is not particularly well known,
but he's known to those in the United States who really get deeply into, he studied a lot of
demographics. And his major theme was that immigration revitalizes a country. And we should
encourage immigration, although controlled. I mean, not as we're doing it in the United States
right now. And that's another whole theme I can get into. But I caught HSBC money laundering in 2011.
And you cannot run a drug cartel by driving around semi trailers full of $100 bills,
you have to get the money in the banking system. So the US Treasury and the CIA run the drug
business and they have since the OSS was in the drug business before World War Two,
as World War Two started. Wonderful. We run the drug business. We are the drug cartels.
I love it. And just before, Steve is going to go to the next 15 minutes, but just
do that link again that you learned so that the bank has told you in early 80,
that we change, we ignore the regulations and then the regulations change or we change the
regulators. Is that the cycle? That's a cycle. Excellent. And we've talked previously.
How's it just like the MHRA? So June Rains, who's the medical doctor in the UK,
said our role is not so much to regulate any longer, it's to enable. That's right. Once we
change the reality of medicine, then the regulations have to change. If the regulations don't
change, the regulators change or we get rid of them altogether. And the issue is change the
business. Don't worry about the regulations, change the business and figure out a way within
their rules in which they can't stop you, even though it's not what they want you to do.
And they come after you point out to them that you're following their rules,
confound them and tell them that if they go public, you'll go public. And it has always worked.
I'm in the UK and I'd really appreciate your magnificent mind to help me write a letter to the
MHRA, which absolutely nails them so they've got no wriggle room.
Okay, I'll be happy to do it. And June Rains in particular.
Oh, that's the kind of thing I like doing. Oh, so Jerome, what we'll do now, the next 15 minutes
is yours, Stephen. We have a lot of hands up and lots of questions. So Stephen, over to you now. So
thank you, Jerome. Wonderful presentation. Stephen.
Yeah. So I'm just amazed about all the things you've told us about. I rang a couple of people
who I thought would appreciate the call to ask them to join. They did. I think Matt Palsbeek and
Lars Johansson, they know you. But you were talking and so I described this guy who you,
who yesterday I unfortunately hadn't heard of you, Jerome. But anyway, I do I know about you now.
And I said he's just destroyed the climate change nonsense and Marxism in 10 minutes.
So that was that got them on the call, I think. But anyway, so we've got I think it's 1700 members
in this group. But unfortunately, a lot of them are too busy to come on the calls. We have a
succession of brilliant guests who they come to regard, they think it's normal to have these
people talking to them twice weekly. So having said that people watch afterwards, and we don't
know the reach of we haven't even got a website, Jerome. So we don't but that means that they can't
attack us because they don't know what we're doing. They know what you're doing, but it's
probably better not to have a website. You think it's a good strategy not to have a website?
Yes, I think it's a good strategy. Yes, exactly. Don't make it easy. Don't make it easy for them.
And we certainly have no rules. So that will confuse them. They can't quote our rules back to
us. Anyway, I just wanted to ask you, so I think it's really important, especially with your
connection with Trump, who he obviously respects you, but he you're not big friends, and you've
known each other for 40 years. I wonder whether you could get the message. In my opinion, I don't
know who advised Trump in the COVID area, but it's just mystifying to me how many doctors have gone
along, you know, they go along with a gain of function narrative even. And I think that at
least a possibility and a probability in my mind that the gain of function narrative is, I don't
know how to, a double bluff, a kind of limited hangout, you know. So it gets people to go,
who should know better, to go along with the narrative. When one of our guests called JJ
Cooey just happened to mention one day that on this meeting, he said that he thought that it was
possible, at least, that they couldn't actually do what they said they were doing. And I thought then,
ah, that's interesting, because I'm a doctor. JJ Cooey is a biologist, so he's not a medical doctor.
And I said, I thought a couple of weeks later, I went back to him and said, do you think it's
possible that actually none of what they're putting about is possible, technically? And
actually, they're doing, maybe doing something completely different, but they're not actually
doing what they say they're doing. And what they're doing, of course, is creating in the public's mind
a perception that they are at huge risk from endless deadly viral pandemics in the future.
And we know why they're doing that, of course. But the point is that a deadly viral pandemic,
it got me thinking about it, what he said, it was just a kind of, he mentioned it. And it just
demonstrates the importance of not just thinking with on your own and never actually talking to
people, because they can trigger your thoughts. And together, we kind of worked it out, that
we didn't think that anything that they said they were doing, they were actually capable of doing.
So if you've got a deadly viral pandemic, if you believe in viruses, that is,
which I'm not sure I do any longer, I haven't really had time to think about that,
or look into it properly. And also, I don't think we need to know. But this is very important,
endless deadly viral pandemics, deadly and pandemic cannot coexist in the same senses.
We actually learned that in medical school, in my medical school. And everybody who heard those
words at my medical school forgot, it seems, because I am in touch with the with the they're
having a reunion and and I wrote to them all and called them out and set expected at least a few
private replies. Not a single person replied to me, even privately. And I was a pretty popular.
Well, I wasn't I didn't go out of my way to be popular at medical school, but I certainly wasn't
unpopular. And so it's very strange that none of those people. And also, I called out the medical
ethics. I said, What are you all doing? What are your views on this? I write to them every Christmas
with a bombshell email. Anyway, what do you think about deadly viral pandemics? So a deadly virus
kills its host. And by definition, that means any virus, even if it's not deadly and just dangerous,
it has great difficulty in spreading sufficiently well to become a pandemic.
Yes, well, I think, first of all, the you're making very many good points.
The first is that my definition of a deadly disease is, you know, the plague in the Middle
Ages where you get it one day and you're dead the next. You know, as I read the accounts and
the acidities or the various accounts of real plagues that have hit, you know, as soon as the,
you know, the red death hit a city, they all went wild, had a celebration because half of them were
going to die or great number of them were going to die the next day. And there was no remedy.
The acidity says the same thing. What we had with COVID was a bad flu. It behaved like a flu.
I don't the distinction between virus and bacteria has always been intellectually
troubling to me. And I think it's an artificial dichotomy that is drawn in the medical
literature. And as I study them, I don't see the act I see the actions of being comparable
within the body. Most, another point I want to make, what you're talking about is how this,
the intelligence agencies right now today control much of the constructed reality we are experiencing.
And it is a constructed reality, constructed to be destructive. I don't know why the intelligence
agencies have decided to be evil and do be acting against human beings unless they just want to
control power. And there's a great deal of power loss that goes into this World Economic Forum
thinking on denial of God, which is fundamental. But the idea that we're going to have a sequence
of deadly diseases, it's like what they do with the transgenders in the kindergarten,
they're grooming, they're preparing people to accept an idea. They are preparing us,
the programming, it's a psychological warfare technique.
That's exactly what I mean, Jerome. So they're actually preparing people to expect these
deadly viruses and create the fear which of course is very necessary to them to get the control.
That's correct. That's exactly what's at work. And you made another good point, which was that
what they're talking about having been able to do to create this virus in a laboratory
is beyond their capability. I was writing some things about what they could do next. I took a
look at the patents that are held by scientists in the NIH. I realized they could go after other
receptors in the body. They go after receptors in the intestines and make this thing more deadly.
What happens is they start playing with these forces, thinking they're God,
and then something goes wrong. Next month I'll have a book on JFK assassination. I worked with
a doctor, Dr. David Mantick, who's my co-author, who is both a physicist, PhD physicist and MD
radiation oncologist. He's done optical density measurements of the Kennedy, 3X in Kennedy skull
X-rays. Kennedy was shot twice from the front. The three extant X-rays are all forged and the
optical density measurements show it. Now the key in understanding the Kennedy assassination
is that the government decided they were going to kill Kennedy and the CIA was at the center of it
and everything went wrong. So mostly in these big elaborate government projects, everything goes
wrong and something gets out that is equally destructive that they couldn't control.
And so somehow or other, and messing around with these viruses, I'm sure some got out
and it was actually beyond their control. They just made it look like they did it.
And then they used that for grooming and for conditioning. As they reconstruct the reality,
the CIA and other intelligence agencies, especially in control of the mainstream media,
have learned how to create constructed realities. This is why the postmodernism of people like
Bo Reillard, who wrote a book during the Iraq war, said the Iraq war did not happen.
Now he knew it happened. What he meant was that the narrative they were talking about was not
happening. That narrative was a false narrative. It was designed to make you think that we were
protecting the oil in Kuwait. He said at the end of this war nothing changed. That Amnesty was still
there. We had a big celebration that we won the Iraqi war in 1991 and we went home.
Nothing fundamentally changed. So he said that the narrative is the reality.
That's what the intelligence agencies have learned. I think there is objective reality. I think there
is objective truth. You can't say I'm going to jump off a building and fly and succeed at it
because the laws of physics don't permit it. You can't flap your arms and fly. So there are
fundamental realities that constrict. But the point is you've got to look at when all these
major themes that were being given are we've got to stop using hydrocarbon fuels because we're going
to have global warming and the young are made to fear their future is at risk. It's all an elaborate
lie that was known to be an elaborate lie and was concocted in order to produce an effect
which was to reduce the ability of industrial states to run, the modern industrial state.
We see the same thing going on over and over and over again. Trump was confrontative to them
because Trump was not the most effective president. As you say, I'm not terribly close
to Trump. Trump is not a good listener and Trump is not well advised because he won't take advice.
And so Trump is great as a spokesman, as an articulator. I encouraged him to play a role
like Churchill when Atlee took over after World War II. He became a senior spokesman. He'd been
instead of creating all this chaos again, he could have spent his time articulating themes
that would have resonated with the American people. And Churchill did come back into the
prime ministry after a period of time. But Churchill understood after World War II that his
role now had changed and he accepted it. And we need the combating, this control of the narrative
because in the postmodern world, control of the narrative is the key to power. And these narratives
are constructed and they're brilliantly constructed. And then the media is an echo
chamber to reinforce them. They all say the same thing over and over and over again. And if you
object, you're marginalized as a conspiracy theorist. So I've been writing books that have said,
here's the truth, and the government's lying, which is what I told the Mueller people. I didn't have a
contact with Assange, even Julian Assange said I didn't. It was the government that was lying.
Russia didn't steal the emails. Probably Seth Rich did. Somebody from the inside did. And
that was discernible. I don't have the resources of the CIA, but I had sources. I knew exactly how
the Democrats constructed their email system. And those emails came out of a server that was an email
server that was accessible by those who were maintaining the server inside the campaign.
It was not these other servers that they said had campaign data on them and other data. And they
were distinguishable by where they came from. I could distinguish where the email came from
within which computer system in the Democratic Party apparatus. And I knew that Russia didn't
steal them. And when I told that to the Mueller prosecutors and the FBI, they said, Dr. Corsi,
we're not interested in your theories. Well, they should have been because I was right and
they were wrong. But that doesn't mean anything to them. One more point. When they say there's a
scientific consensus that hydrocarbon fuels, I refuse to call them fossil fuels, cause global
warming, they do not mean that all scientists agree. They mean that all scientists who have elevated
to this post-Marxist cultural Maoist view of the future are in ideological consensus
that we must stop using hydrocarbon fuels. That's the consensus. It's an ideological consensus.
It is not the fact that this scientist, I mean, thousands of scientists signed petitions saying
this is nonsense. And it's obvious that not all scientists, some of the best.
And I've got excellent endorsements of my books from professors emeritus at Harvard and Princeton,
who were physicists, who were climate scientists, meteorologists, because the climate science
is so dramatically different. The science is nonlinear. I mean, the mathematics of climate
are nonlinear. You can't say that if we have this much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,
it's going to produce this much global warming. The mathematics don't work that way. And so
therefore in a nonlinear system, you're not going to get determined results. The variables
interact in ways that change the results in unpredictable fashions. And in fact, the weather
is unpredictable. The models, the climate models that we are utilizing are heavily biased climate
models. Lorenz proved that when he showed and demonstrated that small differences in measurement
yield massive differences in outcome. And that's characteristic to any set of differential equations
that are hard to solve. And this is a, the climate is a set of interactive differential equations
that are almost impossible to measure precisely, which means that both because you can't get
precise measurements, you know, God does not need decimals. God does not need to know that pi
is infinitely decimal points. Well, that's going to change the outcome. So any irrational number
that you're utilizing in climate science automatically means God can calculate the weather
better than you can. And you're not going to do it because you can't get precise measurements,
let alone that the mathematics are not determinative. Now try to explain these ideas to people.
And again, I try in this book to make it so that the average person with some effort
can understand. And then I try to get it down when I'm doing my presentations to very simple ideas
that will stick in people's minds and make those points, you know, that I ridicule the left about
the sun. I say, you know, that that big yellow thing up in the sky is not a tree ornament.
It's why we're here. And explain its importance in terms of the physical qualities of the, you know,
climate science is extremely difficult. You've got cosmic rays that affect the formation of clouds
that was proven by the Swedish geoscientists who actually did some experiments and realized
that the ionization caused by cosmic ray bombardment causes the aerosol to form
clouds. And so the, how we pass through the Milky Way, depending upon whether we're passing
through an arm or passing through an open space, in part determines how many cosmic rays hit us.
There's factors here that are beyond human control. And the forces involved are enormous.
So the idea that, you know, carbon dioxide is controlling earth temperature, we need to stop
using hydrocarbon fuels is an example of your idea where they know they can't control climate
science, but they can control the narrative. And the narrative can be controlled to create fear
and to produce the behavioral result that they want.
Yeah, very good, Durham. Why would key people in the USA betray their country and for that matter,
betray Western civilization? How have they got so many US citizens to work from within against
their own country? It's treason.
Well, it's obvious. And, you know, the problem is the universities, I left the universities in the
1970s, and 1981, I think was my first, after I finished that project with the National Science
Foundation, I left, I could see the indoctrination of the left was getting control of the universities.
I went back to Bella Dodd's testimony in 1950s to the House on American Activities Committee.
She was a communist who saw through it and made it clear that one of their ambitions, not only to
eliminate God, but to get control of the educational system. And they had realized in the 1950s that
race was the dividing factor, and they were going to demonize the United States as a racist country
formed by slaveholders to perpetuate slavery. And the Constitution was formed to allow that to
continue to exist. So they planted ideas of us being an evil country. And it was very, this has
been, this has been worked on for decades. When I was much younger, I was a very, very, very
much younger, I got to know Edward Bernays quite well, who is the creator of public relations.
And he wrote a book in 1933 on propaganda that Garibald was using. I got to spend a lot of time
with him. And I would ask him things like, why did you write this book? I mean, the Nazis would
have been happy to have him as a Jew come over and explain to them how to use this book. And he said,
well, you know, it is these, I understood the mechanics of how ideas are formulated and
propagated. And so I had to explain that now it could be used for good or evil.
So I had to explain it. And now that you understand the principles, maybe you can
use it for good. And maybe you can explain to others, you know, what, how they can be manipulated.
So I had those conversations with him in my 20s. And had him when an undergraduate.
And Case Western Reserve. And I understood what he was talking about, didn't I? I got it.
And so I resolved that that would be something I would try to do. But he was a very brilliant guy.
I've had the benefit of having interacted with many, many brilliant people. I was a true and from
school. My mother brought me to kindergarten. I left. I refused to go to school. And she was a
hard headed Irish woman. She insisted that I do it. They go to school. But the more I went to
school, the less I attended. By the time I was at Harvard, they delayed me. James Q. Wilson brought
me into his office as chairman. He said, Mr. Corsi, you're not going to get a PhD at the end of a year.
I said, why not? I'd written my dissertation. Took all the coursework. He said, well, it took me six.
Well, how am I going to take you to take you for? And they were paying me. I had a National Science
Foundation grant. So I said, all I wanted to be able to do is go from here and MIT and talk to the
people I want to talk to. And you tell them I'm OK and that you endorse me being there. And they
don't have to pay tuition or anything. So I spent four years, three years more, auditing everything
at Harvard and MIT and just meeting people and learning what they, you know, having,
if you want to know something, I've tried to find the best to teach it to me.
And let me see it through their eyes. And so over the years, I've learned techniques
to expose these things. And what was said at the beginning is I don't, I've been demonized.
Let me just read my Wikipedia pages. I've been, and I've also been more famous than I ever wanted
to be. I never aspired to be famous. I don't consider myself famous now. It doesn't, it's not
relevant to me. What's relevant to me is I want to oppose this evil, which is now at a point
where we are at a tipping point of going into totalitarianism or having another potential for
many generations of freedom. And we have to expose these ideas as evil and show how they are
constructed to destroy and the people constructing the ideas know what they're doing. It's not
accidental. Not accidental that we have inflation. It's not accidental we're spending the money
supply, the United States into no value by printing money. These people know what they're doing
and they are destructive. And I view it as fundamentally, you know, I see the world,
I have strong faith and I see the world in terms of good and evil. And I see these ideas.
It's not surprising to me that many on the left have combined with Satanism, which they have.
You can put up a statue of Satan in the United States right now today better than you can put
up the Ten Commandments. So we have lost a lot since the 1950s with this whole
communism, neo-Marxist, Gramsci, Frankfurt School indoctrination,
which has now taken over the universities. And to answer your question, they are
teaching generations who have not taught the fundamental skills of thinking or science or math
or reading to have the intellectual capabilities of knowing that they're being fed ideological lies,
that they take on for their emotional power and proceed to behave in ways that the intelligence
agencies and these others had constructed that they behave in order to destroy a great potential
for a capitalist system that had produced more wealth in the history of the world than had ever
happened before. In an interglacial warming period, we had more green than the earth has ever had.
We exhale carbon dioxide, of course trees absorb it. We have more green in the earth.
We could do hydroponics in the desert. We could grow enough food to have many more people in the
world. And as has been pointed out, the natural dynamics of population are as populations get
successful, as the GDP increases, people naturally have fewer children. You don't have to have rules
and regulations to have it do it. Populations do not endlessly increase in a geometric way.
They don't behave that way. Julian Simon proved that point.
So it's one thing that they hate their country and talking about the United States now and in the UK,
same thing and I'm mystified as to why they should hate their country to this extent.
Why would they want totalitarianism? I just don't, apart from the control,
but they're going to be controlled too. So what's the point?
First of all, they're not subtle enough in their critical thinking abilities to realize that.
Markoosi wrote a very short essay on repressive tolerance in which he argued
that you could not allow these reactionary ideas to be expressed because they might influence
people in the wrong way and they were destructive. So since they were wrong, they had to be quashed
as you wouldn't let someone express a dangerous idea. Now, of course, that was an ideological
construct and the left has always been totalitarian. If you go to the extreme right,
the extreme right wants no government or little government. It isn't totalitarian.
The Nazis weren't on the right. The Nazis were opposed to the communists. The communists wanted
to have no private property. They wanted to have collectivism, collective ownership of all property.
You know, you own nothing but you'll like it. Where Hitler wanted oligarchy to be in charge,
working with the multinational corporations and interlocking directorates. Wall Street funded
Hitler in the 30s because they believed his insight would put together U.S. steel and crop
on interlocking boards and directorates. Prescott Bush was involved in that.
Harriman brothers, Brown brothers, Harriman, there's a long history on that. So the left is
totalitarian and the left is by nature anti-free speech, anti-debate and wanting to control. The
right in the extreme wants limited government, wants open debate, wants, it doesn't matter if
your feelings are hurt. If you take a look at the Supreme Court decisions like Whitney v California,
which was a 1920s decision. Judge Brandeis wrote the majority opinion. Holmes was on the court.
He said, you know, let's not talk about shouting fire in a crowded theater, which was Holmes'
dictum. He said, we got a judge's speech only if it's really dangerous. By really dangerous,
he meant something was said like publishing troop movements in the newspaper that could actually
had an imminent chance of harm and real damage. Could you that we prosecuted Eugene V. Debs
for a speech he gave in 1917 at Dayton, Ohio, in which he opposed World War I. And they said he was
trying to restrict conscription into the army. Well, Debs had a right to give that speech. Debs
ran from prison for president, I believe in 1920 and got over a million votes. And the standard
of what should be repressed is this Pentagon. I wrote my dissertation on it, Pentagon Papers.
You know, again, there was no imminent harm. These were, but it did expose the lies that
had been told by McNamara and the State Department and the Defense Department since the beginning of
the Vietnam War. And it was disruptive and dangerous, but that needed to be done. We should not
have classified documents. We shouldn't have government secrets. We shouldn't have these
bureaus that maintain their fiefdoms and grow in power and make regulations that we are not in
agreement. They're their own views, their own ideological views. I believe in free markets.
I want to have people debate. I want people to disagree with me. I want to be argued and contested
and challenged and then think hard to figure out what are the arguments that, you know,
I really believe in. Get them simply said so that an average person could. Abraham Lincoln used to
say he thought ideas down like coals in a fire down to the cinders. And when he got to the cinders,
he felt he understood the idea. And his speeches reflect that. I always admired that.
All right. Thank you so much, Leon. I just want to say I'm very sorry to hear that your wife is
betraying you for the reasons that you've given. Well, thank you. But you know, God's will be done.
Charles, let the natural. Sorry, what did you want to say? I said God's will be done. If God
put her in my life and she did serve a very good purpose, one of the key moments in the Mueller
decision, she sat up in bed one day when I was trying to decide to take this plea deal.
And she didn't say, I was just set right up. She said I would rather visit you in prison the
rest of your life and have you not be the man I married. Now that woman was put in my life at that
moment for a reason. She's also taken out of my life for a reason. So I look at all these things
as an act of God. Very good. OK, thank you, Stephen. That's Julie.
Hey there. Very nice to meet you, sir. It's Julie. I'm in Butte County, California,
and I'm a health freedom fighter right now. And I've got two questions, one on each of the topics
you covered. And again, very nice that Charles and you and Stephen to bring this gentleman on.
So and again, your stories about Trump are fascinating to me and I'm a political junkie.
So I knew early on Peter Navarro, he ordered enough hydroxychloroquine for like every person
in America and put it in the stockpile. And then I think they got overrun by whether it's Bill Gates
or the White House task force. I put the org chart to Operation Warp Speed into the chat. It's
massive. You know, the DOD, I mean, I'm not sure he had much of a chance, to be honest, with the
elections and all of that. But what a shame. I mean, seriously, they had Dr. Zelenko's protocol
ready to go. It's just such a tragedy. But you know, the socialist Marxist totalitarian stuff,
where does their obsession with big pharma come from? I mean, seriously, here I'm in Chico
and Stonewall Alliance, they want every kid to be on hormones and gender reassignment surgery and
SSRIs. And they want monkey pox shots given out all over the place here in the town square during
Pride Month. And 80 vaccines for children is okay. Where does that fit into the Marxist socialist
history of things? It drives me crazy. Well, you've got to remember these are depopulationists.
And they want to kill people. Now, we've figured out that by health and by the narrative that this
vaccine you must take, and if you don't take, you're going to infect others because you're going to be
the cause of them being sick. It's a very powerful narrative. And certainly, a lot of social
psychology that had been done going back to Milgram, who did an experiment showing how much
you can get people to inflict pain on others by ordering them, by creating the narratives.
The pharmaceutical industry, they have two goals, make money, kill people. They are not out to save
lives. They are not out to, you know, they don't want to kill you immediately. They want to keep
you alive, keep you on the medications. But it's not many of these medications. All the vaccines
that were issued on COVID were experimental. The research was not done to prove that they were safe.
And when data came in that they weren't safe, it was suppressed. It was suppressed because they
had an enormous amount of money they could make and they could kill people. But they get everybody
to take this vaccine, they could affect everybody's cardiac system and put into play something that
would cause early deaths that we're seeing in different population segments. And they knew that
was going to happen. They did it anyway. They did it because of that. These mRNA vaccines, I'm not
sure should be used at all. And they certainly have not done the experimental work that would
validate them. The experimental work is now starting to be published that hydroxychloroquine
was effective. And Dr. Zelenko was right. And there was a large body of literature that showed that.
But you can go through many areas of medicine, many different areas of medicine and
telemedicine I'm creating is going to allow the doctors to prescribe off-label all kinds of
medications. And I'm very much in favor of supplements. I'm in favor of people who want to
have natural treatments, naturopathy. I do not believe that everything can be solved with a drug.
And I don't trust the scientists who are doing it to do it with a spirit of advancing society. How
can people participate in these gain of function research when they know it's inherently evil?
We do not need to be creating bio weapons. No, I agree with you. It's just fascinating.
My second question on climate change, and again, I'm in Butte County in the center of California.
I've been working with Dane Wiggington of the geoengineering group because I watch the planes
that are spraying the chemicals and I record them and I track them. And there's two airlines in
particular that are the culprits. What is your position on this whole chemtrails and this
geoengineering and destroying the planet? And don't these totalitarians know that they're also going
to get sprayed too? And again, thank you for your time. Well, I mean, these geoengineering plans come
out all the time. Biden was considering populating the upper atmosphere with certain kinds of
metals that would deflect the sun. I mean, John Holdren, when he was the science czar for Obama,
which was a travesty, had many different geoengineering schemes, some of which were
published in Foreign Affairs. He wanted to do these ships that would have these clouds
formulate and block the sun. I mean, they want to block the sun. There's an evil streak in all these
people. Depopulationism is a... it's like these things are malware of that brain. Once these
programs get inside of a person, the ability to think correctly ends and the ability to reason
with the person ends because it's malware. You're dealing with a computer that's not functioning
correctly. And so it's endless to debate with these people because they're just going to start
screaming at you because they can't tolerate the fact that they're being challenged. So I ignore
all the abuse that I get and I try to speak to a group of people who yet have common sense
and will listen to these ideas explained simply. I illustrate that by pointing out the importance
of the sun. If it isn't a tree ornament in the sky and if we didn't have it, we probably wouldn't
be here. It'd be dark. It's not good at dark. Say ice ages aren't fun. Why don't we want it to be warmer?
We don't do well in ice ages. It's no fun to be in the winter all the time. Endless winter is no fun.
People can get these ideas, but the indoctrination is very powerful and the chemtrails
are another one of the evil aspects. All of these have one thing in common. They have in common
a group of people who think that they don't need God and that they can perfect things for themselves.
They can have the resources of the earth for themselves. They don't need all these people.
All these people just need to be fed and they're messy. They grow old. They have to be taken care
of. They're not productive. You know, so they don't want the people. And it's fundamentally
evil in the sense that we exhale carbon dioxide. How can you demonize something that is inherent
to our respiratory system? You know, it's almost a suicidal type idea and many of these ideas
are suicidal that they propagate. Very good. Very good, Jerome. Brilliant. Love it. So
we've got to get out there and propagate everybody. That's the message.
That's the message. Get out there. Make love, not war. It was Timothy Leary, wasn't it, in the 67?
Timothy Leary, yeah. By the way, Jerome, and those on the call have heard this, I'm 71.
So I'm only six years behind you and my game plan is to be around until I'm at least 120. And so
your book, so Buckminster Fullerene Molecule, the C60 Molecule, I keep hearing messages and I'm,
I keep hearing that message and people are just, I just, I wonder if there's an expert here on C60.
I've heard the reference. I haven't started taking it despite hearing it for so long. So
I'll get your book. I'm taking it for four years, taking it for four or five years. It works.
Yeah. So good. I'll go, I'll expand my thinking to 130 by getting some more C60 into me. Thank you,
Jerome. Thank you, Julie. Julie, I need to put you in touch with Nicky Florio on geoengineering
because that is deeply evil. Simon DeWolf, who's in Belgium and coming back home to Australia
next week. By the way, you've just had the Melbourne Cup, haven't you?
Oh yes. I meant to, thank you, Jerome. Yes, Jerome was in Melbourne in 99 for the Melbourne Cup. We
were talking on the phone. It was a horse called Without a Fight that won. It was the third
favourite out of 23 horses. There were 85,000 people at the course, 30 degrees centigrade,
so 95 Fahrenheit. And it was a spectacular day. And for any of you worried about horse racing,
the sole purpose of thoroughbred horse racing is to use the horses as an excuse for a party.
And it was a big party in Melbourne and it was a public holiday in Melbourne.
30 degrees is, I think you'll find it's not what you said, at 95.
No, it's not. It's 90, isn't it? I think it's 90.
It's all right. It was warm. No, it's 86. It's 86.
It was warm. It was beautiful. Beautiful day and a great race and a big celebration.
Go ahead, Simon.
Please, if you wanted to, Jerome. Oh, I was just going to say, I also,
I didn't get to go to the proms this year, but in London, I did get to listen to a lot of them.
On the BBC with a VPN. So, the proms were spectacular this year. I wish I'd been there.
Go ahead, Simon. Who's your favorite composer, Jerome?
All of them. But I have many favorite composers. I guess,
Mahler has captivated me in recent years. Yeah.
I find Mahler. Mahler, Wagner, of course, and less of the Germanic operas. I mean, I'm more
Beethoven. I'm more Mozart. But Vivaldi's really captured my interest in the last few years and I've
studied it extensively and consider him to have been a really dynamic and game-changing composer.
So, I'd say at the moment, he's my favorite.
You should listen to the Schubert piano sonatas if you...
Oh, yes. Schubert, there's so many. That's why I say all of them. I mean, I love Schubert.
There's so many of them. Haydn, I mean, Vivaldi. I mean, that just goes on and on.
So, Stephen's very good. I've got a client who's almost finished the musical on Beethoven. There's
never been a musical done on Ludwig. That's good.
That's been produced here in Melbourne. So, we need some investors, everybody. Invest in the
Beethoven musical. Good idea. Simon, over to you.
Thank you very much, Jerome. Very much enjoyed your talk, especially in the scripted reality you're
talking about where I remember from university where, you know, if you found five professors
thinking the same, you'd have a group of same subjectives. You sit in the middle and you're in
an objective environment, but it's not more than the fish know he's wet kind of thing.
But anyway, my last 25 years, I've been busy with working on creative thinking and critical
thinking. And one of the biggest sources we're using is the patent database. We have one of the
biggest patent databases online and we use that for saying, if you have a problem, whatever area,
find if somebody in the world already solved your problem. It could be in a very different
industry, but it's very quick to actually then get inspiration from one domain to the other.
That's a great idea. Works well. But now more and more, we, you know, we do it with text analysis
and we try to abstract our problem and find out, you know, if you try to cut some part of rubber,
maybe you could find it in a cheese cutting machine or something like that. But now we're going to AI
and more and more we're adding some of the IT tools, which are less transparent on what they do.
80% of it is right. I don't know what 80% but the patents can kind of give you that.
But then they start to be biased. They become very available. They kind of almost push you to start
using them in older companies. And there's something that feels a bit wrong in this whole part.
And I was wondering, what is your opinion on the push of AI now, all over companies and decision
making and even the medical areas and the legal areas, as it is very much pushed also from WUF,
where they did some experiments, I think in New Zealand on why not having a trial from AI or medical
advice from AI? What's your take on that, if I may?
Well, AI is, I think, a complicated subject. Clearly, there are benefits from it. This neural
learning and other benefits does work to a certain extent. You have to be careful that you don't
introduce biases into it. It's very easy to introduce a bias into it and have that become
determinative. That gets reinforced as the algorithms mature. So I think there's
applications for AI. I'm also in favor of quantum computing, which I think is a real breakthrough.
And I think in the next 50 to 100 years, we're going to learn to see the world as more of a
quantum world. The world appears to us to be material right now, because that's how our senses
perceive it. But if you get down into fractals and begin measuring the size of a beachfront,
depending on the deeper you go into, the more infinite the measurement becomes.
And if you go down far enough, you get into string theory and you've got energy.
Well, those dimensions coexist. And the way they connect, connect across distances,
they are connected in a spiritual or a quantum sense or in a matrix sense that is not spatially
determined. Space and time are dimensions that work because of how we're made as human beings.
And we experience this particular realm, but it isn't the way it is. It's just the way it is
because of how we're constructed. A cat sees it differently. A dog sees it differently. And we
will see it differently once we began to understand why Einstein was wrong to say that strange,
spooky action in a distance can't happen. It can happen. It does happen. The universe is
interconnected in ways we don't understand. I think artificial intelligence is overrated
in thinking that we're going to solve all the problems of the world with AI. AI is like
everything else. It'll be a tool. Human beings are capable of causing problems and we'll probably
never be, we'll never be fixed. But the problem, the challenge in human beings is to block the evil.
And that doesn't seem to ever go away. That's got to be a constant mission. And the educating of the
young, the worrying about what set of principles and they become moral principles. I agree with
the founders of the constitution. You cannot have free people if they are not given a moral education,
which means God. They have to be taught the rules. I mean, the Ten Commandments, very simple ideas.
Don't kill, don't have sex with your neighbor's wife, don't steal. I mean, you really have to
teach human beings this. These ideas should be obvious. If they're not obvious, we're dealing
with a species that is not that advanced morally. And that's fundamental. Giving more powerful tools
to a species that is not advanced morally is problematic and the tools can be easily misused.
So I believe AI is here to stay. We've got to figure out what it does just like everything else.
Just like the narratives that the CIA creates, we've got to be able to recognize when it's going
wrong and being used for evil purposes and stop it. We've got to apply the principles that will
contribute to life and contribute to health in a way that is truly to the benefit of human beings.
And that has to be decentralized. You cannot have governments or central planners in charge.
My solution to the federal government is to move the entire U.S. bureaucracy to Death Valley
and give them all the solar and wind they want in their Quonset huts and let them be happy out
there because most of them will quit. You cannot solve these bureaucratic problems once they build
to the point they're at because they become control mongers and then the evil forces take
over that want to kill people. That's what we're dealing with right now. But again, I have a very
spiritual view of this existence and I do believe that God is in control. God created this place.
He can unplug it anytime He wants. And I don't believe God created the human race to fail.
So fundamentally, I think that's why I'm calling this series The Great Awakening.
I think when you see the results of these people, the fruit of the trees, you know, you have to use
electric vehicles. You can't have a stove. You know, we're going to have 15-minute cities.
Who wants to live this way? If this is what they want to do, we don't want these people.
You know, do we really want somebody in the White House who appears to be demented?
You know, what are we doing? Fostering wars? Why don't we, instead of sending more weapons to
Ukraine, why don't we figure out legitimate grievances that Russia may have and legitimate
issues that Ukraine may have and send in some peacemakers? We don't think that way. And so
therefore, you get the pharmaceutical industry and it gets its payday and it designs drugs that
they convince people will heal them to kill them. We get a war going that's politically motivated.
So now we've got the payday for the arms manufacturers and the arms dealers, and we
convince people that this is for freedom. You know, and again, it's just money, power, and
people in charge who have no care whatsoever about advancing human freedom or human dignity
or caring for people. They want to advance their own personal wealth and their own personal goals
and their own power goals. And I believe like Cincinnati's, we ought to demand that our
politicians only be in office for a while. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Just a very small
point on the part that you said about revealing also what's going on. I mean,
patents can also be a very good source, not only to show, say that there's 4,000, there was 4,000
patents, I think, about natural treatments for COVID before they started vaccinating,
as well as there is many patents talking about how to create a hurricane owned by US government or
how to control weather, geoengineering, it's all in there. So it's also a source in which we can
reveal a lot of the things that are happening. Well, I think that's that I agree with that. I
think that's great. I think that's important information. And these people that want to
control the weather want to be God, I think are very dangerous. Thank you. Thank you. I mean,
I can put you in touch with sorry, Jerome, I can put you in touch with Simon. Great. That'd be
terrific. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Simon. And Carla Dean, thank you so much for organizing
Jerome to be with us. Your next, Carla Dean. Thank you. I just wanted Dr. Corsi to say a few
words about how he had to or how he tried to warn President Trump about the oncoming loss of the
election in 2020, his own cabinet, and even his own vice president, if he doesn't mind saying a
few words about how he actually constructed an outline for President Trump, which he was able
to get to President Trump and the outcome and why Trump would not listen to Dr. Corsi's presentation.
So Dr. Corsi, if you don't mind just making a few comments on that. Well, Carla Dean was very
involved with me on this. Dr. Graves and I worked together. I had great insight and I had a number
of brilliant people. When I've gotten into trouble, not a lot for the state of Israel,
and Israel often sends someone around to help me in times of difficulty, then they disappear.
And what I constructed was I saw what was going on in 2020 was going to be a series of constructed
reality events that were going to dethrone Trump. They were sequenced. The Black Lives Matter,
George Floyd, they found a Black person killed by a cop and they had that narrative all prepared.
They sprung it into action. And Black Lives Matter destroying the cities and a whole series of these
events that constructed a reality of chaos and made it so and then they were going to try to get
Pence to agree to go along with the 25th Amendment, remove Donald Trump because he was mentally
incompetent. They had other schemes to, on and on and on, all these different plots they had.
And so finally, I wrote two books that was giving away his e-books at the time. One was
The Next Disease They Would Try to Create. And I took the patents that Fauci and others had and I
showed how they could go after the receptor that would put the disease in the form of HIV into the
intestines. And I got confirmation they were trying to do that. Of course, they don't have
the capability to do it, but it could be done. That would be a very lethal disease because it
would attack the immune system while it was attacking both the lungs and the heart. And it
would come in through a different receptor, which they had patents on and they knew how to take these
HIV diseases and make it come in through that receptor. So I wrote that up. And I also wrote
up all these different attacks on Trump and how he was going to be one attack after another.
And I wanted to get it into being read by him. We had various people. I did get confirmation
that he read it. In fact, I was told he probably read that document longer than he read anything
else in his presidency. Trump is not a great reader or student. He's not a great administrator.
And he did not follow the advice. I was telling him to do things that would have, I was telling
him how they were going to steal the election. I told him precisely how they were going to do it.
They were going to hold up the results in the battleground states. They were going to
pass all of these measures through state, not through the state legislature, but through
governors and through boards of election where they would have ballot harvesting. They would
get COVID to do a lockdown. So it would justify balloting by mail. They would harvest the ballots.
They would have buying ballots, voter fraud, just by money. And that they would stop the count until
they could bring in enough fake ballots to put the curve of Biden above Trump and carry it to
success, which is exactly what they did. And I warned Trump about this. It said he basically had to
invoke certain procedures within the constitution in order to get back to the state legislature's
determining how the rules of the presidential election would be done. So I was predicting
things and telling him how it was going to be done. And Trump did listen. But Carl Dean knows
how hard we fought over that to get that into the White House and in his hands. But the problem was
Trump was getting advice. He could not pick, everybody Trump picked to advise him, starting
with Renz Prevost as his first chief of staff. I've known Renz Prevost for a long time. And I
have no regard for him whatsoever. He is complete sellout. These people will come in and tell Trump
that they were going to support him. Barr did the same thing as attorney general, and then they turn
on him. I told Trump that if anybody comes to talk to you in Washington, first of all, you've got to
assume they're lying. The only question is why are they lying? What do they want? Why are they lying?
And secondly, when the doctors came in and told them there were going to be all these
millions of people would die, I said, look at the mathematical models. These things are being
hypothecated on models that are completely unrealistic and how they've constructed the
models. It's impossible for the disease to have propagated the way they're predicting it.
And the early on in the disease, we were telling him these bodies stacked up and all this propaganda
about people in the hospitals. A lot of this is staged. Try to convince him that the treatments
that were being given to people in the hospitals were killing them, not helping them. And we did
get him the hydroxychloroquine. In fact, when Trump got COVID, we actually had somebody fly
into Washington to hand it to someone who would bring it into the hospital for him.
And Ivermectin as well. And Trump was at risk because he went into the hospital
and got under the control. But he listened to Fauci and to these doctors. If they'd come into
me, I just said to them, show me your proof. I listened to them and I brought in others.
I would not have gone on their actions, but they scared Trump. If you don't do this,
millions of people are going to die and it's going to be your fault.
And he did not have the background to understand that they were lying and why they were lying. He
didn't understand the NIH or the CDC. He didn't understand the bureaucracy. I've had lots of
experience with the bureaucracy. I was first in Washington about 1954 with my father, who was a
lobbyist in Washington for the railroad unions. And I learned a lot from him growing up about how
Washington worked. And Trump knew New York, but he did not know Washington. And the people he had
around him ran the Trump Organization. I've been many times in Trump's organization and saw how it
operated. It was chaos. But he would have different people who could run different things and they
would just run it and tell them about it. They'd listen to them and do what they knew worked.
And Trump would make a speech. I can tell you many stories about Trump. But the point was that
he was not prepared to understand or to accept the reality of what was being constructed for him.
And he did not take seriously the warnings he was given. And so therefore his own advisors
constructed for him the reality that he could not combat it successfully. And they did not help him.
They fought against him. And they had done that from the beginning of the administration.
So Carl Adina's right. We tried. And that's one of the reasons I encouraged Trump to,
I actually wrote an editorial in the Washington Times trying to encourage Trump
to not run again. And I think he's going to have a massive fight because they're still doing it to
him. Look at all the indictments. This is a concerted plan, lawfare attack that's being done
by some very brilliant people. When I was at Harvard, I knew Larry Tribe. Larry Tribe wanted
to be on the Supreme Court. He was a constitutional lawyer. He was one of the prime movers behind lawfare.
And it is a, these actions that happen that you see, there's no coincidences in politics,
and things do not happen accidentally. When things happen, you've got to say, who benefited?
Who benefited? Why was it done? And what's really going on here?
And Ukraine is being supported because it's corrupt. And because the money we're sending to it is still
being stolen. And because the arms dealers are getting their payday. And so therefore,
this is a war that should not be being fought. And Israel's in a desperate situation right now
because there's been enough neo-Marxism around the world that Hamas has supported. I've studied
Hamas. I've been to Israel. I've advised the government many times, going back to about 2005
when I wrote Atomic Iran. I was worried about this problem in 2005. I wrote a book on it that no one
wanted to read at that time. But Hamas was created to destroy Israel. The Palestinians
are a construct. They are neo-Marxist revolutionaries. They were thrown out of Egypt.
They were thrown out of Lebanon. They end up in Palestine. Yasser Arafat was born in Egypt.
He was Muslim Brotherhood. He was not a Palestinian. He was not PLO. He has no roots in Israel.
And the situation with Harry Truman deciding to take over the country, he was not a Palestinian.
In Israel, and the situation with Harry Truman deciding to partition
Palestine to create the State of Israel in 1948, he had to oppose the State Department. He opposed
the CIA. George Marshall came and told him if Harry Truman partitioned Palestine to create Israel,
he would never vote for another Democrat. George Marshall owned his career to Franklin
Delano Roosevelt. Harry Truman did it anyway. He thought he had a biblical purpose. He created
the State of Israel because he could. That night, they woke up Ben Gurion and let them know that
Nasser had attacked from Egypt. They were in the 1948 war. That night, Israel was created.
I don't know that there's a good solution here because if one side will not accept the
existence of Israel, this will become an existential war either today or in the future.
But having talked to the Jewish leadership of Israel, Israel understands the game. They
understand the consequences. And Israel will defend Israel regardless of the consequences
if it comes down to it, which means they would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons first.
The attempt to destroy the Jewish state is a foolish attempt when the Jews would work
with the Muslim states and you could have prosperity in the region if everyone would
decide that this is an insoluble problem and certainly it cannot be solved except for
peacemakers. And there aren't very many.
Jerome, thank you. Thank you, Carladean, for that. And, Jerome, we've got 35 minutes to go now.
Okay, as a matter of health, if you want to live longer and better, you better go and have a toilet
break for a couple of minutes for the- No, I'm fine.
Are you okay? That's a bad- You're not drinking enough water, but that's okay. Good.
I actually drink lots of water. I went to my semi-annual physical yesterday and my blood
pressure was 20 over 70, so I don't think I'm going anywhere soon.
Good. All right. Well, if you're okay, we're okay for another half hour. Carladean, thank you so
much for that question and, Jerome, thank you for that. Your story is most-
just really making my brain go pop, pop, pop. Lars, you're next.
Thank you. So, Mr. Corsi, I understand that you are
vested in party politics in the US, but it seems to me that there is now a process to
consolidate power, certainly in some issues at the WHO, and to have a coup,
yet another coup in the US and in all our countries. How many in the leadership
in the US and Congress do you think understand that this is going on right now?
Well, I think that it's understood, but the group opposing it is small, because you've got
really only a small group of true conservatives in the House of Representatives, maybe 30,
that are in the conservative caucus, who do understand the threat of the WHO wanting to take over
the ability to declare international emergencies on health and lockdown or whatever they decide
they want to do, force people to be inoculated or put them in isolation camps. Unfortunately,
the power and money of the pharmaceutical industry, I believe that there's not enough will in the US
Congress. Many people will support this and even give up sovereignty. I've been fighting this battle
back to when George W. Bush wanted to do the security-prosperity partnership of North America
and put the United States, Mexico and Canada into a North American union. I've been opposed to the
formation of the EU since John Monet and studied John Monet, so I think that it's important that
and study John Monet, study how the EU went through the
coal and steel agreement saying that this was not going to be a regional government.
It was always intended to be a regional government. It was done incrementally.
There's been some brilliant work on that. I think the EU itself is fundamentally flawed,
both economically and these countries are so disparate, they're tough to put into one currency
and one system. Greece and other countries have demonstrated that repeatedly. And secondly,
the national interests of these countries override the type of globalist determinations.
The EU has become a massive bureaucracy. The European Central Bank now, I think,
has got a 50% ratio to GDP with its reserves, federal reserves at 30%. These are dangerous
ratios for a central bank to be at. The EU is going through a recession. Germany is
deindustrializing. Germany closed its last nuclear plant, will not reopen coal,
are cutting off cheap sources of energy. You're seeing companies leave Germany. The central
planners are raising taxes and Europe is going to go through a massive recession.
And I don't think that the economics of the world, we're going to have a massive crash,
in my opinion. I think it's building. It will happen almost inevitably. The
real estate in the United States, commercial real estate is going to tank because of the vacancies.
Europe is already in a recession. And the fundamental idea of these international
organizations is to create chaos and then to step in and say, well, our solution is the World Health
Organization will just make everything okay. So people are forced out of fear to rely on central
government or global government. And certainly that's within the plan of the WHO. The pandemic
is so frightening that we will give power to the World Health Organization to make rules
internationally. Well, that's a bad idea when the WHO is controlled by China.
And so I think it should be opposed. I'm not convinced. And a lot of people are working to
oppose this, including Carl Edin, Dr. Graves and others. And I think it's going to be difficult to
stop. But it's another idea that won't work. Like many of these ideas that are being pushed upon
people, they are destructive. And this is a destructive idea.
Just a brief follow up question. I mean, it's obvious that the US military has been deeply
involved in financing through DARPA, the injections that are spreading around the world, killing people.
And is there any opposition at all in the US against what the military is doing?
The military is killing people.
Well, again, our military is pervasively woke. Obama started firing all the generals who wanted
to fight wars, and many of them left. The military now you've got Milley during the...
There's another thing I told Trump. I told Trump that Milley... Trump could invoke this national
security provision where he's declared an emergency and can send in the military.
It's a law that goes back to the times of US grant. And Milley said he would not send in the
military. And Epsi, who is the Secretary of Defense, agreed with Milley. And they had a
concerted effort to say that the military... That was in subordination. I told Trump that that day
he should have fired Milley, court-martialed him, for insubordination. The US Constitution and that
law gives the president commander-in-chief authority, and no military commander can tell
the commander-in-chief, I don't want to do what you want me to do. Milley did that. Epsi supported
him. The military was not invoked when Antifa was destroying Portland, Oregon, and Seattle.
They were allowed to burn things down. The Justice Department took a blind eye.
The Justice Department is going after Donald Trump. They're not going after Biden. And by the way,
the way I found HSBC, it was involved in money laundering, was I had a branch manager in
Long Island who was desperately trying to get somebody to listen to him. He said,
I've got all these records. The bank is opening up accounts in people's legitimate
social security numbers, and they're running millions of dollars through the account.
Then they close the account. He said, bring me the records. I called one gentleman in
Manhattan, and I said, this is going to be an unusual call, sir. He said,
is your social security number? And I read it. He said, how did you get that?
I said, we'll get that in a minute. But did you run $6 million through your HSBC account under
that social security number last week? He said, no, I closed that account. He said, well, you
better give me your lawyer because I've got records to the contrary. The Department of Homeland
Security got involved. The Senate Permanent Investigating Committee wanted to see the records.
I met with them all. It turned out the HSBC was money laundering for drug cartel money and
terrorist money. Treasury knew about it. CIA knew about it. They let it happen. You can't run
a major cartel without a bank. All the major banks launder money. None do it as well as it's
done in Ukraine. We are the drug cartels. We run the criminal enterprises, and we turn a blind eye
to it so that our military is in cahoots with big pharmacy to kill people with vaccines,
should not surprise anyone. And our military is run by so-called generals who go around and drag
as transvestites. The US military would be better running a transgender parade down Fifth Avenue in
New York City than they would running a war. We abandoned all this equipment in Afghanistan,
and we're still sending Afghanistan some 80-some million dollars a year. We funded Iran,
and we reduced sanctions and let Iran get back in the oil business. We funded this war. We funded
Hezbollah. We funded Hamas. We funded the rise of ISIS in Syria, and they're all opposed to go to
a regional war. Why we would do such a fool thing, I don't know. John Kerry has been after every bad
idea I can think of since I wrote unfit for command. He negotiated this Iran deal, which
allowed Iran to build nuclear weapons. He sent them millions of dollars in airplanes full of cash,
and now he's on global warming. He gave away Israeli military secrets to the Iranian government.
I do believe that happened. And John Kerry, no one knows anything about it. So right now,
you've got Israel in a situation where Israel sees this as a potential existential threat,
and it's extremely dangerous because if we cut off their weapons and cut off their supply,
they will go to the next level of weaponry. We continue to send advanced weaponry to Ukraine,
except I don't think Ukraine can use them. Putin would go to nuclear weapons,
which he has in Belarus. So the major points I'm watching is whether or not Putin does anything
to attack Kiev, whether the Israelis do anything to attack Tehran. These will be game-changing
events, and I'm praying that they don't happen. But the point to answer your question is,
it should not surprise you that the US military institutions are, like all our institutions,
are deeply corrupted and working for goals which have nothing to do with American freedom.
Thank you. Thank you, Lars. Excellent questions. Okay, we've got two more questions. Then we have
Stephen, and we're finishing at the two and a half hour mark. And then for those with time,
go to the video telegram group. So Albert Benavides,
Jerome, who's doing great work on analyzing the VAERS data. Albert.
Albert Benavides Yeah, thank you. And thank you, Jerome. I'm on my cell phone data here, mobile,
so and it's been a long day. No, it's bad, Albert. Bad reception.
Okay.
No, we'll put you on. We'll put you in the choppy, so I'm going to leave my camera off.
But I wanted to ask you a question about your awesome telecommunications business there.
Spanish style. Talk to your doctor.
Albert Benavides And Quest or sorry, I got muted there. Are you there? Hello, Albert? Albert,
your reception is so bad. Try, try again. Just make it short and sweet. We've got some of it and
didn't get some of it. So unmute yourself and try again.
Okay, sorry. So as I would have already
Albert
Albert, it's crap. Albert.
Albert Benavides Work that I wanted to get done. I want the whole enchilada and I negotiated.
Albert Benavides Albert, it's crap. All right. Dari, we'll try you and then Albert might come back.
Dari Okay. Hi, Dr. Corsi.
Dr. Corsi Greetings.
Dari Hi, everybody. So great to see you here, because I've been following your work and I have
a number of your books going back as far as I think I first learned about your observations
in 2009. So it's quite a delight and deeply grateful that you joined us here. Thank you
for all your insights. I want to go back to something when you were talking, I was driving
home from the car project because I've been having some stuff in my neck. But I wanted to ask you,
the thought popped in my head, and I might have missed this, you could have already mentioned it,
about the concept of morphic resonance among species. I heard Mike Adams, Health Ranger,
talk about this at some point recently this year, how certain behavior patterns and adaptations in a
species in one geographically distinct area start getting picked up by the same species of animal
remotely far away without any direct contact. And I could see how the Holy Ghost can make something
like that happen. But I was wondering if you have in your experience, some other perspectives on
that, because I think this whole point of, you know, to take it to the human level, this sense
of awakening that people are having, that haven't been paying attention to this for a long time,
may have something to do with it, because we all do put out energy. And I think that might be part
of it. In other words, good vibrations and bad vibrations can both be contagious. And so I was
wondering what you had to say about that. Well, I've studied this for a long time. I mean,
there have been experiments done with animals who are on South Sea Islands, let's say, and the
islands have no way, monkeys who have no way of connecting or various animals. And they might,
one animal might find a way of getting a, you know, a shell fish out of the, and cracking the
shell. And within a very short time, all the monkeys in the entire chain are doing the same
thing. Well, they had never done it before. It's what I was talking about earlier in terms of
this spooky action at a distance. The nature of reality is not as we perceive it. We're really
all connected and such that ideas transfer without any obvious contact or communication
between people such that when an idea is born, it is born simultaneously in several different places,
several different minds, because that idea is shared in the common psyche that we all share.
We're all connected. Everything is connected. And an action in one part affects an action in another.
It is not spatially determined. Our ideas of space and time only work in our exact perception
of the world, but that's not how the world is functioning. The world is also functioning
at a subatomic level. It's functioning at an energy level. It is functioning at a spiritual level.
And the mathematics that apply at one dimension do not apply at another dimension. And quantum
physics, which has fundamentally different ways of perceiving the reality of the universe,
and we're only at a beginning point of understanding this, will fundamentally reconfigure
our idea of who we are and where we are. The truth is we come into being, we don't know where we
came from, we don't know where we're going, we don't know where this is. And that's fundamentally
intended to be that way. And the process of discovery is one in which we're going to realize
that we're not individuals who can benefit ourselves to the disadvantage of someone else.
We are not here to gain when others lose. We are not here to benefit a nation to the
demise of another. We have to learn that, you know, God put all the races together on this planet,
and the fundamental idea is can they all coexist and intermix without being forced to do so.
And in fact, that's possible. It's already happening. But the point is, it is not this
morphic resonance happens all the time. We live in it. And, you know, God communicates ideas
that he wants done too. When I say I get a book to write whole before I even realize I'm thinking
about it, I see the whole book and I can't get it out of my head unless I sit down and write it.
And then it often writes very quickly. Well, I don't attribute that to myself. And I've come
not to attribute it to myself. I don't have that great an opinion of myself. I'm not here to boost
my ego. I don't really particularly care. I'm not here to win awards. I don't know if I would.
That's not why I'm here. It's not what I'm doing. I want to pursue these ideas and get as much
written as I can in my lifetime and hopefully leave some things here that will
fundamentally change how people think in a more positive way. If we work together,
if we advance these ideas, we can have a stable, peaceful world for a thousand years.
It's just a different set of principles that we have to operate under. And the principles have
been articulated. Now we have to realize that they work. And these principles are more send in
the peacemakers. Don't send in the war makers. Don't let power concentrate. Don't trust governments
in bureaucracy. Decentralize. Human resources, human beings are the best natural resource that
exists. And human beings allowed to create and allowed to fail will create remarkable things.
But don't believe that we can ever replace God. We have to again have a world that accepts God
and operates on moral spiritual principles. And if it doesn't, we will certainly have nuclear war.
And we'll have it within our lifetimes if we don't reverse some of the trends that are ongoing right
now. Thank you. Yeah, I always say that godlessness is hell on worth.
And that's pretty much where we're heading. And it's already here in a lot of pockets.
I don't mind. Look, I did extremely well working with the Hindus who own Trillo and the
Muslims who in Pakistan who programmed the programs. I celebrated their holidays. I said
it's Ramadan and talked to them about what Ramadan was. I blessed them. I said God bless
everybody on the call. I want people to believe in God. I don't really particularly care how they
believe in God. But I want people to have a spiritual awareness. Because if a person has
a spiritual awareness, they begin to contemplate that this is not about what it appears to be about.
None of us get out of this alive. And it's fundamentally about the only thing you draw
from the only thing you take from here is your experience. And there are consequences to your
experience, consequences to your behavior. And you can work to advance yourself and advance your
soul, which means moral principles. Or you can go to the dark side and I don't recommend anybody do
it. I think we need to make it clear again to the youth. The youth come in with an awareness of God.
Animals have an awareness of God. Animals know what's right and wrong. Animals think. They know
what's good people, good people who are going to harm them. And so therefore,
that moral consciousness is built into the center of this experience and we're all interconnected.
All right. Thank you, Daria.
Beautiful. Thank you, sir.
Excellent. Excellent. And what you, Daria, was asking and what Simon spoke about with
artificial intelligence, Jerome, reminds me of a wonderful passage from Buckminster Fuller's
Critical Path. And I'll just, I'll just take a minute to read this before we go to Albert's
question. He said this, fortunately, page 47, a critical path. Fortunately, the unrealistic
thinking of humans has had little effect on universe and evolution, whereas realistic
thinking has cosmic effectiveness in pure principle, realistic, comprehensively,
comprehensively responsible, omni-system, considerate, unselfish thinking on the part of humans.
Does absolutely affect human destiny. If the realistic thinking can conceive of technically
feasible options facilitating satisfactorily effective human fulfillment of its designed
functioning as local universe information inventorying and local universe problem solving
in support of the integrity of eternally regenerative universe, then the accomplishment
of that realistic conceptioning is realistically effective in satisfying universe that human mind
is accomplishing its designed evolutionary role. So there you are, Jerome.
I think I have that book on my bookshelf. I was just looking for it. I greatly admire Buckminster
Fuller and that idea encapsulizes and says better than I have what I was trying to express. I mean,
he got it. Yeah, he did. Yeah, wonderful. Page 47, check that out. All right, now quickly,
Albert's question, Jerome, was, Albert, let's try and get you, if you've got reception, are you there?
Just try quickly, otherwise I'll ask the question on your behalf.
No, it's bad. Good. So here's the question that Albert, can Albert get, he needs to do some lab
work. He needs a prescription, Jerome. With your tele, he will specific lab work done. Albert is
doing some great work on VAERS analysis and the fraud that's being perpetrated on VAERS. He's
negotiated a cash pay lab fee, but he needs a prescription. Can he get that through your
telehealth system? Where is he located? LA, I believe. East Coast. West Coast. Yes, he can.
Yes, he can. Anyway, Albert, there's your question, mate. There's the answer to your question.
Just have him get in touch with me directly. Carladean can provide the information and we'll
get it done. I'll get that to you, Albert, the connection. Now, Simon had his hand up with the
time for two quick questions, Tom, no long questions. I'm going to ask you a quick question.
So, Simon, is your question answered? Yeah, sorry. I was just thinking about the
point you made about decentralization and going local instead of global. I think it's beautiful.
And trying if there's a way back to get sovereign countries rather than getting Europe where
Belgium was actually created to create Europe. And I think that's a great point. And I think
that's a great point. On the peacemaker part, I'm always a bit feeling like this peacemaker
thing is about, okay, let's govern more global. And it feels almost like peacemaking is ultimately
a one world government rather than saying let's leave them out and let's every country decide for
themselves. And I think that's a great point. And I think that's a great point. And I think that's a
great point. Is that, you know, if the people decide for themselves, how would you mean
peacemaking would solve the problem? Well, I don't mean peacemaking in terms of one world government.
That's imposing a solution upon people. I think that there are various kinds of problems. Some
problems are almost insoluble. I mean, if Hamas is determined to destroy Israel and it can't be
budged from that position, you've got a no-go solution to that issue.
You have to be able to get to a point where people are willing to, in a sense, compromise,
in a sense understand other people's objectives, and in a sense have some fundamental rules
about human dignity, human existence that have to be promoted.
And that, to me, means allowing people to be able to make their decisions and to be
morally responsible for their lives without having the intervention of government dictate
what they may or may not do.
And international conflicts are particularly difficult to negotiate, but what I was impressed
with, for instance, is what I mean is a moment in history when Jack Kennedy and the Cuban
missile crisis realized that his military wanted to go to nuclear war with Russia, thought
they could win it on a first strike capacity, and that Khrushchev's military is probably
telling him the same thing.
And he established a back channel where he could speak directly to Khrushchev and his
speech at American University, which he gave just before he was assassinated, in which
he said, the fundamental reality is that none of us are going to live forever.
We all share this small planet, and we have to do it in a way where we can live together.
And he was willing to reach out to Khrushchev and tell the military and the bureaucracy
to go park themselves, and that probably contributed to his assassination.
But that's the type of leadership we're going to have to have, not a leadership like John
Kerry who comes in with an agenda or Blinken who comes in with an agenda.
These are just operatives of the one world government or operatives of the power structure.
I want people to be able to communicate and understand, okay, Russia, what are your needs?
What are your concerns?
What are your concerns, Mr. Putin?
Well, we have to have access to the Black Sea.
People in Donbass speak Russian.
What are we going to do?
You can't bring NATO to our border and have us not react as a nation state.
You can't have Hillary Clinton in 2013 taking money from Pinochek, an oligarch in Ukraine
through her Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of state running a private email
server so she could make money in the Clinton Foundation outside the aspices of the government,
taking money from an oligarch, working with the State Department in Soros to overthrow
Yanukovych, who was duly elected even though he supported Russia as president of the Ukraine
in 2014 in Maidan and have Russia say this is all okay.
You can't do these kinds of things.
And when you allow these, you know, Curtis LeMay to be on the chief of staff of the military
under John Kennedy's time, he'd firebombed Japan, wanted to go to war bombing Cuba and
invading Cuba and go to war bombing Russia.
I mean, this is a guy who probably needed psychiatric care rather than being allowed
to run the United States military.
How many people did he fry?
I mean, Dresden, firebombing, really, do we have to do that?
What was the military significance of it?
War, we have to prevent war, not cause wars.
We have to think in ways that look for solutions, not for problems.
We have to realize some problems are nearly insolvable, and those are the ones that we
have to work on the hardest.
We have to identify these conflicts and get in front of them before the people figure
out how to make money on them.
And that's again the divisiveness in human nature, the self-interest, which overrides
what I consider to be a goal of peace, which is fundamentally just let people live securely.
I mean, you have to have law enforcement, you have to have order, but let people live
however they want to live.
Let them fail.
They need to fail.
Do it with the purpose of advancing life and do it with the purpose of finding solutions
rather than looking for problems.
Thank you, Simon.
Thank you.
Tom, quick, and then we've got Stephen.
We're going to finish in 10 minutes.
Tom?
All right.
Yeah, I was told by Gary to not ask too many questions.
Just a little background.
So I've been surrounded by people on the left, and I wanted to believe that they, you know,
I believe that they did really care about humanity and so forth, but I've seen a real
change.
I don't entirely understand it.
But what gives me hope is this idea of an egalitarianism, caring about each other.
And then what you say, the spiritual awareness, not all of us can genuinely believe in a God.
So I guess I'm trying, you know, obviously, like, I'll just give you one example of this
lawlessness.
They're talking about stealing $240 billion from Russia, from all the central banks around
the world, and then using that to fund the rebuilding of the Ukraine and then maybe even
furthering the Ukraine war.
It's just morally wrong, in my opinion.
How do you, how do we transform?
There's so much of society that is secular.
How do you get them to get in touch with these moral, with some sense of spiritual awareness
and morality?
That's it.
Well, I'm going to give a short answer to that so we can get a couple more in.
But it's a very important question.
And God is not a matter of, God is an experience.
You learn to see God in everything.
You understand that we are created with a moral awareness and that morality works and
immorality doesn't work.
As soon as you say you're an atheist, you've just given me the idea God because you've
negated it.
And atheism is negation.
And so therefore negation is not going to be positive.
God is hardwired into a human being.
God's hardwired into animals.
God's hardwired into what we're experiencing.
People don't want to accept it.
But you have to get to a point where there's a way to experience it and you have to teach
people to be aware of the experience so that when it occurs they accept it.
And it demands, it's hard for human beings because it demands the acknowledgement that
we are not supreme.
We are not all that special.
We are not all that all important.
We're not supposed to dominate.
We're not supposed to be in control.
We are here to serve God.
And if you'd accept that mission and when you do accept that mission, life becomes a
lot simpler.
And unfortunately the left is right now going through, there are a lot of progressive Jews
who in the United States are questioning why the Democratic Party, which has become a
neo-Marxist party, is so in support of Hamas when the progressive Jews have for decades
marched with the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party is right now tearing itself apart in the United States over these
issues.
And what happens is the immorality, the refusal to accept God, the refusal to accept rules
that are just in a fundamental sense, using money, stealing money from Russia, the proposal
you advanced is inherently evil and only evil people would think of it.
Very good.
Excellent short answer to a tough question, Tom, but important question.
We could spend two and a half hours on that, but great.
Stephen Frost, unmute, show us your face.
And for final questions for the last couple of minutes and the last two or three minutes,
Stephen, where are you?
There's your smiley face.
You haven't given me much time, Charles.
I had loads of questions, but anyway.
No, no, I'll give you ten minutes.
If Jerome's okay for ten minutes, just the last ten minutes.
I'm fine.
So, Jerome, is so put simply, is Trump the best that America has at the moment?
Who's actually got a chance of winning the next presidency?
And does it matter?
Trump is not necessarily the best, and I'm not sure it matters.
I think that I'm watching very carefully Robert Kennedy as at 17 years old, I had seen his
uncle and his brother many times in Washington.
I'd like to say I know them.
I didn't really know them.
They didn't.
They weren't going to pay any attention to a 17 year old kid.
But I did study them and they had remarkable qualities.
I think Robert Kennedy, Robert Kennedy may have that in him, too.
There's no, there's no one person that can solve this.
And Trump is going to be divisive.
And he's determined to try and it will be divisive.
I'm not sure if its outcome is in the long run positive, but I think we're going to divisive period right now.
You know, we're going to have to go through almost a judgment of God.
I mean, we're going to have an economic crash.
We're going to have intensifying wars.
Jerome, faced with all these problems, don't we need someone who's divisive like Trump, who dares to say the unpopular thing?
I think we're going to get Trump anyway.
I mean, he's going to happen.
He's going to be he'll run from office for president from from jail if he has to.
I just don't know if that then triggers the Democrats to try to steal it more.
I mean, this is a complex question.
I favor Trump a great deal.
And I have always favored Trump.
I was disappointed in his administrative capabilities and how I tried to coach him and help him.
And Carla Dean and I worked to do that.
Many people did work to do that.
But we're facing a lot of entrenched evil, entrenched agencies.
I'm not I think it's going to take more than any one person.
I'd like to see I I'm in favor of Trump.
But I'm not willing to bet he would succeed any better the second time around.
I've got my questions about that.
And the crucial question is this, Jerome, he seems to me to be the only one with any courage in large amounts, apart from Robert Kennedy, of course.
But I just feel that Robert Kennedy Jr. is maybe not as.
Not as courageous as Trump anyway.
I mean, I share your view, but I'm looking at it from a little different perspective.
I'm happy to see Trump take the lead.
I'm happy to see Mike Pence fall down and not succeed right now.
I'm happy to see Matt Gates and Jim Jordan and Johnson.
We're getting a new group of people coming forward who said enough.
If we get this across the world with people saying we see where this is going and we're saying no, and they are willing to rise and are willing to fight this.
We could I am I do not believe God created the human race to fail.
I do.
I do believe God will intervene.
I think he has intervene.
I wrote a book on the Battle of Bastogne on the exam.
The question of whether God did intervene.
And so therefore, I think positive I see light at the end of this.
I think we're going to go through a very difficult time.
But I retain hope that the human spirit will come through this stronger.
And the question about whether we should love our enemies that we started with.
Jesus's perspective was you love your enemies because they make you stronger.
And I've experienced that.
So you thank your enemies.
Exactly.
These challenges.
Yeah.
So what you went through and to a lesser extent what I've been through, I think if you survive the onslaught, then you understand things without that challenge to your very existence.
You would never understand.
That's correct.
I went through that experience myself.
I share that idea and I share that experience.
Yeah.
So Pottinger is a name that I heard coming up.
Regular.
Well, no, actually, it was only mentioned a few times, actually.
But it seemed to be the case that Pottinger was very influential behind the scenes in the Trump White House.
And he was so I've only heard this from a couple of sources that he was actually proud of his role.
He was unseen, but he was highly influential.
Do you know Pottinger?
I don't know him.
No, I don't know him.
But there were people who did try.
I mean, there were many people who tried.
And if Trump were a better listener, it would help if he were not a better listener.
Not so confident that he would all Trump was raised by Norman Vincent Peale, attended Norman Vincent Peale's church.
And that whole positive, positive thinking is fundamental to his makeup.
And sometimes you have to think positively, but you have to assess clear mindedly, soberly what you're up against.
And if you just rely on positive thinking without realizing the degree to which you are in danger and could lose, you're not going to take the best steps.
And I see there are certain failings in Trump.
And I believe that's one.
But Trump's a remarkable person.
I have always greatly admired him.
And but he's very divisive.
And I wish we didn't have to go through another divisive period of time because I think we need leaders that will call for rationality, call for unity.
I mean, call for ideas that would be fundamentally positive rather than rush to these ideas where we can solve things to war.
The way we fell into World War I, the way we fell into World War II incrementally and with great enthusiasm to go to war.
You know, I think of Aida and the great enthusiasm for Guerra at the beginning of the opera.
And that's always the case.
I think we should have less enthusiasm to go to war and less enthusiasm for the war makers and those who are going to profit from the war.
And right now they're in the ascendancy.
And I go back to this depopulationism.
I think we've got to wake the people up to say you are at risk.
And this is a time not to trust your leadership.
So, Jerome, we were talking earlier about these great composers.
I mean, there are great writers as well.
But let's just so given that these composers are absolutely brilliant, you know, Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, it's just amazing.
I'm really shocked at what has happened this last almost four years now.
Really, really shocked.
And I've said to people the best way I've come up with this, I say to people to get them to think I thought we were better than this.
Do you understand?
Yes, I understand.
I think it was always a great shock in the concentration camps that, you know, the German culture, which had produced all this brilliance, produced this horror.
Human beings are capable of both.
I believe geniuses like Mozart came in, they'd already heard everything they wrote.
Same with Beethoven.
They weren't composing.
They were writing down what they had already heard.
They came into life with that.
And I believe that was a spiritual element and great human genius, I believe, is gifted by God with the ideas that appear to have been self generated.
I've certainly.
When you observe.
Sorry.
I've certainly had the feeling of that with my life.
I probably never made a plan for my life that worked out like I wanted it to or thought it would.
I've given up trying.
I just go along with what comes next.
And I've come to experience that I'm going to be thinking about what's important to be thinking about next because that's what's going to be, you know, this great mathematician, the Indian mathematician, Rasmus John, the one who was Oxford during World War I, when he was asked where he got his brilliant mathematics, you know, probably second to Newton.
In terms of fundamental mathematics genius, he said his God gave it to him.
And I trusted he experienced that.
So, one last question.
I'm sure.
Do human beings need suffering and wars.
Because if they don't have that suffering and wars, they're never forced to think and they become lazy.
So is this a mechanism by which the species survives the suffering and the wars are the wars inevitable.
Well, certainly in human history, we had far more wars than we've had peace.
And whether human beings learn from them or not is a debatable question.
You know, we're redoing in Ukraine right now.
World War One World War One was redoing the Civil War.
I think there's got to be a fundamental transformation of human beings, which understands the fallen nature of human beings, understands the fact that we are capable of great evil.
And it has to start with moral education, just like the communists started with the children in schools to indoctrinate them going back to the 1950s and are still doing it today.
Transvestites in classrooms talking to children about sex when they don't understand what sex is, grooming, all that.
I think we can have moral education.
Do I think human beings, we can have a great expanse of peace and we can have a great we could have a thousand years of human history that prospered.
If we designed if we decided to engineer that and take the and take the lessons that we've learned from history and apply those so that we do decentralize, we do realize the corruption of power, the corruption of money.
We do get values in people where they are driven by moral principles of life, where, you know, we could feed the world with the genius that we've got.
We don't have to create totalitarianism with the machines we're creating.
We could have a great era, but it's going to take a fundamental moral awareness for that to have a chance of happening.
Yes. And you were talking earlier about the human species.
Does it have the necessary morality?
I think I can't remember exact words. I did write it down, but I can't find it now.
Sorry.
Since there should we expect as much as we do expect from the human species when we look at Beethoven and Bach and all the writers Tolstoy Dostoevsky.
Should we expect as much as we do from human beings?
Yes.
Always have to expect the best and aim to achieve it and plan to achieve it, which begins with the fundamental principles by which you live.
And getting those principles to be shared.
We can create a species of human beings which reject the propensity to evil.
But it begins with awareness that we have each of us built and within us, the propensity to evil requires a decision not to be evil.
And that is that has to be taught.
Yes, exactly.
And actually teaching Jerome.
The thing about Trump that I noticed is he's the only one of the candidates who's been talking about education and he's going to change the education system.
Well, I think that we'll get nothing done unless we do that.
I agree with that.
I mean, there's a lot about Trump I like.
I just understand what a battle he's in for again.
And I'll be writing books trying to explain to him.
I wrote a book, Killing the Deep State, in 2019 that Orban in Hungary got translated into Hungarian and he brought it into the White House and talked to Trump about the book in the Oval Office.
And I was very pleased he did that.
And, you know, we've got to continue to do this in order to increase the awareness of people that you can reject evil.
All right.
Wait, time's up.
So, Jerome, I am president of the Australia Hungry Chamber of Commerce here in Melbourne and I've said to the group to a week ago that the president of Hungary was in Melbourne last week celebrating commemorating October 2356, the start of the uprising so well done on getting your book published in Hungarian.
Stephen, well done for organizing.
Carla Dean has left us.
Jerome, round of applause everybody.
Congratulations.
Jerome's website is thetruthcentral.com.
So please go there.
Podcasts and the like.
And, Jerome, you're doing great work and I look forward to being working with you for the next 50 years.
And Stephen, if you start looking after your health better, you'll be around with us for the next 50 years as well.
Well, I'm honored to have been with you all today.
Thank you.
I'm honored to have been with you all today and thank you for the opportunity.
God bless.
Thank you so much.
How long does it take you to write a book, Jerome?
I'm just interested.
Well, I can write a book in a couple of months.
The Kennedy book has actually taken me six months.
It was hard.
But I write these in about four months.
Wow.
So your 30 books have been published in the last 10 years?
They've been published since 2004.
I haven't actually totaled how many books I've written in my life.
I've got to do that someday.
But it's going to be probably pushing 50 because I did a lot of writing in academics.
I did a lot of writing in business.
I published my first books when I was a junior in college and professors used to approach me.
I thought I'd done something wrong.
They want to see me after class.
They wanted to either publish my term papers or write a book with me.
So I started doing that as an undergraduate.
Excellent.
And again, these things just happened.
Even at the time, I was glad they did it because then I didn't have to go to class.
I didn't have to spend as much boring time in class listening to them because I could write a book with them.
It was more entertaining.
That's how I reacted to it.
Stephen, Stephen, your question is only making us all feel inadequate because remember Jerome got his PhD at 25.
Hello.
And they slowed me.
I'm still mad that they slowed me out.
Very good.
All right.
Great work, Jerome.
Come on.
By the way, you should know this, Jerome, if you speak to Trump again.
In my opinion as a medical doctor, there was no disease called COVID-19.
And I say that because none of the tests was reliable and you don't test for a viral disease with a test anyway.
And guess what?
There was no symptom which was pathognomonic for COVID-19.
So the whole thing was a lie.
I agree with you.
All right.
Done.
Thank you.
Thank you, Jerome.
Thanks, everybody.
I'll contact you about the letter to June Raines.
I look forward to it.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Thanks, everybody.
God bless.
Thank you.
Thanks, everyone.
Thank you so much, Jerome.
Brilliant.
My pleasure.
Thank you.