“Lynn Margulis said about 9/11 the same sorts of things that you mentioned people like her were saying about AIDS, which is that, if this stands, it's the death of science. Reason and facts aren't going to matter anymore when something this obviously wrong is forced down everybody's throats.”
Ex-MSM journalist Celia Farber was friends with the late, great biologist Lynn Margulis, who memorably wrote: “The 9/11 tragedy is the most successful and most perverse publicity stunt in the history of public relations.” Margulis, a National Medal of Science winner, stated more than once on my radio show that due to the scientific community’s tacit acceptance of the ludicrous, physically-impossible official story of 9/11, “science is dead.”
So who killed science, and why? Lynn Margulis knew that 9/11 and its criminally fraudulent coverup was just an extreme example of the deep-seated corruption that has crept into the American scientific community. Another shocking example, well-known to Margulis and other scientific luminaries but largely ignored by the general public, is the long-running dispute around the causes and treatments for AIDS. Decades ago, mainstream journalist Celia Farber reported on the efforts of Lynn Margulis and so many other scientists to debunk what they saw as the scientifically-baseless insistence that “HIV causes AIDS.” Farber, and the scientists whose work she covered, were targeted by a vicious smear campaign not unlike those endured by 9/11 truth advocates.
After COVID became a sort of AIDS 2.0, Farber recognized that the problem was even bigger and uglier than she had realized. That stimulated her interest in red-pill perspectives in general, and ultimately led her to accept my request for an interview. Below is a transcript of our conversation. -KB
I’m on the web at kevinbarrett.substack.com. And I've had the great good fortune to talk to a lot of really wonderful, interesting people through the years—the free and independent thinkers who question dogmas about all sorts of events, 9-11 and COVID being two of the big ones. Now I'm talking with somebody who actually was around back in the days when you were allowed to question some of these things a little bit more than you are now, and even publish in the mainstream media about them.
My guest today is Celia Farber. She is well known as the journalist who broke one of the biggest stories of my lifetime, which is that the official version of the AIDS epidemic is very likely wrong, or even worse. This is something I've been hearing for decades. I followed it a little bit back at the time. And later I met Lynn Margulis, the great biologist, who filled me in a little bit more.
One of the cool things about doing what I do is that so many of the best people like you (Celia) have to end up on my show instead of being on 60 Minutes or something and having that huge mainstream audience that you really deserve based on the work that you've done. But I guess I can't complain. The mainstream’s loss is my gain.
So where do we start? You mentioned in our pre-broadcast conversation that the AIDS situation was really a kind of a prequel to the COVID pandemic. I was sort of marginally aware of your work back in in the 80s and 90s. I did live in San Francisco from 1981 through 1993. I knew people with AIDS and I followed the discussion in the mainstream and alternative media around it, and I'm sure I did see a fair bit of your work.
I got the gist of it back then. And then I reviewed it a little bit with Bobby Kennedy's book (The Real Anthony Fauci) and Ron Unz's arrticle which emphasized the AIDS aspect of Bobby Kennedy's book on COVID.
So that's my background on that issue. And I'm wondering, what led you down that path of turning into the one journalist who's willing to question AIDS? I don't think you were the only one, but you were probably the leading one. So how did that happen?
Yeah, it's full of, I guess I would say, what seems like fluke events. But I'll tell you how it began. So I did my first work on this in a rock magazine I would not have expected you to have been necessarily reading, Spin Magazine…
I have read it. And I've read Creem and Rolling Stone. I used to read rock magazines.
There you go, yeah. So Spin came out in 1985 as a contender to Rolling Stone. I guess I would say a kind of enfant terrible. It was supposed to be more edgy, more... certainly not punk, but more… willing to confront and tip sacred cows. That was part of Spin's original identity, which is why I called one day and said I'd like to come as an intern. This was as early as 1985. And one of the reasons I wanted to work there is I read their long articles, really impressive exposé pieces, by a man named Robert Keating, who later became my editor on sacred cow subjects such as Live Aid. He did a big expose of the dark secrets, the underbelly behind the PSYOP, behind Live Aid, and how it was not what it seemed, and didn't achieve what it claimed to achieve. And others similar exposés.
I was just back in the States. I was born in the United States, but my mother was Swedish and took us, me and my sister, to Sweden when I was 11. We were raised there, and I came back here when I was almost 19. I suppose I was around 20 when I started at Spin.
About a year later, I was in college and I was an intern at Spin and I was in training about how to do investigative journalism with Bob Keating and others at the magazine. And I had an obsession at the time, an obsessive interest in AIDS. And honestly, at that time, it was driven by my total belief in the whole thing. I believed in what was then called the tertiary model of transmission, which meant pretty much all of us were in the net. If you had ever been with somebody who “ticked any of the following boxes,” tertiary transmission meant three people out, you were going to be marked for death, and would probably turn up HIV positive and die.
People don't remember how intensely they originally sounded the HIV-AIDS death gong. They were completely fabricated models of both transmission and causation, all of it absolute fiction and fraud.
But at the time I was very scared. And I actually only had one HIV test ever in my life. I think that was in 1985. So the way I worked through that fear was to research, research, research. And here's where the perhaps fluke, perhaps not comes in. I saw an issue of the New York Native on a newsstand in New York City. The New York Native was a literary weekly gay periodical, which back in the days before AIDS had things like exchanges between Tennessee Williams and Gore Vidal. A really interesting newspaper. And the publisher, Charles Ortlieb, was really the one who deserves credit for kicking off this whole thing. Because he did a cover that was a split cover. And you had Robert Gallo on one side, and Peter Duesburg, his, what shall we say, nemesis, on the other side. And Gallo's quote was, “HIV kills like a truck.” He had some quote about Clark Kent, it would kill Clark Kent, something like that. That's how Gallo spoke. And then he had Duesburg on the other side saying, “HIV is harmless. I wouldn't mind being injected with it.”
And so I stopped in the street and I said, wow, now that's a story.
Yeah, that was back when experts were allowed to have different opinions on medical issues.
Well, to some extent. For a brief moment in a slightly avant-garde weekly gay periodical in New York.
Well, hey, if it's got Gore Vidal and Tennessee Williams…
The Native was eventually bullied and drummed out of business by ACT UP, the pharmaceutical-promoting AIDS activist group that is deeply misunderstood by almost everybody.
A forerunner of Antifa, probably.
Yeah, there you go. So what I did was I placed a call to Peter Duesburg's lab at Berkeley. He was unbuttering his own bread or sawing off the glory branch he was sitting on. Because even before this, he scotched a potential Nobel Prize he would have shared with a cancer virologist named Peter Vogt if he had just gone along with “yes, we have found an oncogene, a cancer-causing gene.” But he said, “no, it's not a cause. We're not there.”
And so what I heard is that they didn't get the Nobel because Peter Volk himself disproved what they were going to get it for, and Peter Volk never spoke to him again. So you have this scientifically classically pure individual, Peter Duesburg, and then you have Robert Gallo, who is, in contrast to all of that, he's…I want to try to find the right words for Gallo. He's hard to describe, but I'll just say he was associated with, even then, a whole series of…it's like scientific used car salesmanship, trying to push, push, push so-called viruses—I have to say so-called viruses —that he said came out of his lab that he was trying to pin promiscuously on all kinds of illnesses and cancers and leukemias. None of it made any sense. And he was kind of known as like, oh, here comes Gallo again, trying to pin one of his viruses on some disease so he can get the glory.
So in a dramatic sense, in a kind of Shakespearean sense, these two are very, very opposite in character. They were friends, actually. They were contemporaries and colleagues. And Gallo at one point introduced Peter Duesburg saying, “the man you're about to hear from probably knows more about retroviruses than any man alive.”
So this is the early drama. So I place a call to Peter Duesburg's lab. And at this point, I think I'm working at Spin as a research assistant. And the publisher said “AIDS is the Vietnam of our generation and I'm going to commit to it, and I want to make a monthly column, and you, Celia, will bring in the material for the column. Bob Keating will be your editor, and the magazine is going to devote itself to this.” So the publisher, Bob Guccione Jr., and I were like-minded with our fascination with this Duesberg story.
The first thing that happened was that my immediate editor said, “no, we're not doing this. And let's not talk about it again. And next month, you're going to do dolphins and AIDS.” This is what I remember (was happening) at the time. It's all like PSYOPs coming up, Haitians and AIDS, toilet seats and salad, all the ways you could catch AIDS.
But I had already placed the call to Peter Duesburg, and long story short, he called me back early one morning. I jumped out of bed, turned on the tape recorder, interviewed him, transcribed it right away, and put it under the publisher's door. The editor-in-chief called me and said, “this is the most important interview I'll ever publish.” He was over the moon about it, how important, how exciting, how this is the kind of journalism he wanted to do.
And so it ran, to the great consternation of pretty much the whole rest of the staff, which began many years of very traumatic trouble for me, both at that magazine and everywhere else. But we had this football, we weren't going to drop it. And, and so after that one, another journalist did a second column. The column became named “Words from the Front.” And the second column was Gallo just ranting and cursing a blue streak against Peter Duesburg. He also called me at the magazine and scolded me in very paternal tones: “What do you think you're doing? Do you think you're going to get a journalistic career out of this? Do you want to be like Barbara Walters? How do you think you're going to get to be like Barbara Walters? Do you think it's by doing things like this?”
Career advice from Gallo.
Career advice from Gallo. And the darkly comical thing is he was absolutely correct, that it was (career) death.
He “just cared about your well-being.”
So off we went. We had set sail and then I was—you said “you probably weren't the only one” and indeed I wasn't, but Spin magazine has to be classified as a mainstream periodical ultimately. It was mainstream, but it was rock and roll. It was not as mainstream as Rolling Stone, but still mainstream.
Rolling Stone was famous for publishing Hunter Thompson. I remember discovering that when I was in high school and being very impressed. Rock magazines in those days were actually…there were interesting people writing for them occasionally.
Right, exactly. And...there were other people. So in the UK, there was, I'll just name a few names. Jad Adams wrote The HIV Myth as early as maybe 1987. Joan Shenton of Meditel in London did excellent TV documentaries. So there were very few of us in the beginning and we were all mainstream.
And then the hammer came down. There were many different hammers that came down. The Spin column lasted actually 10 years before major, major debilitating harassment kicked in in the form of harassing phony lawsuits. I've been through an awful lot with this thing and it took me a long time, I guess, to recognize that what I was doing was really very dangerous…and very impossible. But for many years, I just believed as soon as people see this set of facts and that set of facts…you probably know that hallucination, right? That you think you're so close to breaking through and this is all going to become clear and everyone's going to understand.
So the work that I did was to interview the scientists who were in opposition to Gallo's theory. For them, it would be a stain on their scientific reputation and honor to not protest this thing. Like our mutual friend, Lynn Margulis. Carrie Mullis, who invented the PCR test. Walter Gilbert, Nobel Laureate. There were several in the original signatories. There were many lists, protest lists, letters to scientific journals, conferences.
This is like a lost war that people don't realize that it wasn't just a media war. It was very much a scientific war, a battle that took place at the highest levels of science. And the battle was lost by the so-called HIV dissidents. That is no surprise. But it was a battle. And I chronicled that very unpopular, very stigmatized battle, which I found fascinating. And I couldn't get enough of finding these scientists and hearing them speak into my tape recorder about what they saw. It was like a lamentation of the death of American science in real time. And they were saying, if this flies, this Gallo BS, then we're done. There are no scientific standards. There's no nothing.
So essentially I chronicled a doomed scientific war, not just in the United States, but internationally. What I didn't know I was chronicling was…it's like we had the tail of the beast. We didn't know it was a beast. It wasn't actually until 2020 that the full beast became clear to any of us, those of us who were still alive. “Oh, that's what it was leading to.” And that's why they hated us so ferociously, attacked us with such elaborate multimillion dollar programs to wipe us all out. And it was an elaborate…I guess I would use the word, like if we could use a word like McCarthyism maybe, about a nationwide comprehensive, not just stigmatizing, but total professional exile system against anybody who touched this, whether you're a scientist or a journalist.
If you're a scientist, you're going to get defunded. And if you're high profile enough, like Duesburg, you're going to become a René Girard straight-up scapegoat. And your name is going to be trashed and trashed and trashed for having questions about this.
So they very successfully conflated questions about Gallo's baseless HIV theory with being a horrible, terrible person who wants to kill gays and kill Africans. The stigma was very primitive and crude, but it worked. And any editor who took it on learned very quickly, you'll lose everything. Drop the story.
So I was fortunate or unfortunate, sometimes I'm not sure which it was, to have a publisher and an editor who owned his own press. And so freedom of the press is limited to those who own one. And he said, I'm not dropping the story.
So that's how it all began. That's what the first 10 years were like in Spin.
That's a really a fascinating episode. It raises questions at least for me. I have firm views about a number of topics that I've investigated to the point that I can kind of get a handle on what I think is going on. And with this one I’m really only halfway there. Because the relationship between the AIDS deception —and by that deception, as I understand it more or less the way Duesburg did, that the evidence that this virus has one-to-one causality with creating this thing called AIDS doesn't really withstand scrutiny—but Gallo and many, many others had a big personal or financial investment of some kind in pushing the hoax. And they made a lot of money off it. It helped their careers and so on. That I understand.
And then also the fact that there's a sort of a virus mafia out there. As you said, Gallo wanted to pin everything on this or that virus. So with COVID, OK, there's certainly a virus mafia involved that's doing gain of function, i.e. biowarfare research. Tony Fauci, who was involved in both cases, became a go-to biowarfare guy when Nixon signed the convention, and they had to shut down all of the official military biowar programs, and they went over to a disguised, supposedly civilian covert biowar program.
So there's that biological warfare element, and then this focus on viruses with COVID. My reading of it is that the most likely explanation for where COVID came from is that elements in the American deep state launched a biological attack on China designed to slow China's economy over the long term. That's the biggest geostrategic challenge that the US faces: the economic-driven rise of China.
And how that would relate to the AIDS situation isn't 100% clear to me. The propaganda techniques of both crises certainly are identical, right? “You're all going to die! Let's whip everybody up into hysteria. Nobody's allowed to ask questions.”
That's a total parallel. But is there a military biowar component to the AIDS situation? Or am I maybe misreading the COVID situation? What is the connection between the two?
I don't think you're misreading. I do think your knowledge of geopolitical dynamics is way beyond mine. So I can't really say anything very intelligible about that model, what you just said about China. It sounds entirely... What I can say, to back up what you're saying, is the HIV model, even though we mistook it for a baseless, wrong, absurd scientific model, was a geopolitical military...post-colonial, a model of something that can achieve so many things at once. It was the gift that kept on giving. It achieved geopolitical goals. Let me start with an example, Africa. I crossed Africa for a month in the early 90s with Joan Shenton, who I mentioned, and a scientist named Harvey Bialy. And it took a long time to understand that the agenda in Africa, and this is really only part of it, is to have a model for overtaking the top corrupt government of African countries, and essentially blackmailing them to terrorize their own populations that they are a hotbed of HIV-AIDS.
What gets achieved here is depopulation, which is, as we know, a big geopolitical part of all the different agendas. What also gets achieved is that we're in those countries and we can essentially take their resources. We control their elections, their politicians. We control their activism. Suddenly it all becomes implanted, synthetic, you know: AIDS activism, “give us drugs!”
And so you have Africans who don't have clean food or water, basic life conditions met, seeming to be clamoring for more drugs from the West. I'm just beginning with some broad brushstrokes. This thing could do so many things. COVID… yeah, it's all connected to the Pentagon, the war machine. HIV is the first war machine-like theory in biology, where it's one cause, it's one target, it's one enemy, and anybody who stands in the way of that…it's a war metaphor for the human body. Which isn't at all how the human body works or how nature works. There's rarely if ever a single virus or organism that causes anything. But they they made it identical to the war mentality. And this really starts with also Richard Nixon and the money he put toward the so-called war on cancer.
I don't think I really answered your question, because I don't know the answer to your question, but I can say, yes, these faux synthetic psyop illnesses, weaponized so-called illnesses—they're not illnesses, they're projections of illness that serve geopolitical purposes.
That's a fascinating notion. Are you familiar with Edward Haslam's book, Dr. Mary's Monkey? (Linking the JFK assassination to research on cancer viruses, including those inadvertently spread by 1950s polio vaccines.)
Yeah so I'll say I am familiar with it and again that's kind of the outer border of what my area of expertise was. It was going around inside the camps of American high-level science and scientists and documenting what their objections to Gallo's theory was and why. And Africa experts.
And so I documented the opposition more, way more than I sought to document what really happened—the crime scene, if you will. So I didn't really get into either biowarfare or, for example, the theory about the hepatitis B vaccine, which I now think I should have paid more attention to. I was fully busy all those years just chronicling the dissent and the war.
And then they kind of put an end to our whole...Our war with them, I would say, ended in 2008 for various reasons I won't get into. And then there was just a silence really until COVID in 2020.
It ended in 2008. It ended with the death of the highest-profile civilian HIV dissident. Her name was Christine Maggiore. And she was out there as a very dynamic—she was formerly from a corporate background. She tested HIV positive many, many years before she figured out that there's another side to this.
She didn't go on the drugs. She started campaigning for “read, study, get the other side of the story. You don't have to go on the drugs. You can still get pregnant, have children, breastfeed.”
So she was was a strong campaigner for all of that. Again, like all of us having no idea about the darkness of what we were actually up against.
She had two children. She had a son who was at the time, I wanna say, around eight years old, and her daughter three years old. Suddenly she fell ill with what seemed to be an ear infection. And Christine, feeling very vulnerable to accusations that she's an AIDS denier and she didn't test her kids and put them on AIDS drugs and so on and so on, went to three different pediatricians. And she just felt that her child was—something was really wrong.
And one of the pediatricians prescribed an antibiotic called amoxicillin. And whether that was the cause or not, I don't know, but the little girl vomited copiously and shortly thereafter died. Just horrible, just so devastating. This caused the very corrupt LA coroner…It took them several months to do it. Initially, the autopsy said that “we see no cause of death. We have no idea what the child died of.” But they kicked it upstairs to a notoriously corrupt corner. I'm not going to name him right now.
This person was known for putting especially black and Hispanic parents in prison for life over yet another politicized weaponized, a concocted syndrome known as shaken baby syndrome. A lot of innocent parents have gone to prison. Likely their children had an inflammatory response in the brain from a vaccine, and they went to prison for allegedly having shaken the baby to death in a rage.
And this is a whole other industrial complex. There's actually an excellent documentary about it. Anyway, Christine's beloved little girl died, and then it took a few months before this corrupt coroner ginned up an autopsy where he found one protein somewhere in the child. The child had an intact immune system by all accounts, nothing resembling AIDS in her cellular system, white cell counts intact. Everything was intact. And he ginned up that she had died of AIDS based on finding one protein that is associated with HIV, a collection of proteins on the test. One of them is called P 24. He says they found a P-24.
They then sent the new revised, “the girl died of AIDS” autopsy to the LA Times, two Pulitzer Prize winners, who did a complete hit job on Christine on the cover. And the cover story read, “A Mother's Denial, a Daughter's Death.” And it absolutely lynched Christine as having allowed her daughter to die of AIDS because of her HIV denial.
That's the sort of thing that some of the COVID journalistic machine was doing too. I think AIDS is maybe even, if you can imagine it, kind of darker even than COVID. The dirty tricks were even dirtier.
So Christine fought and fought them and tried to get the correct autopsy reports and prove her innocence. And she was unable to adopt a child because they would Google and they would get that atrocious article. She confronted the journalists themselves. They even did a law and order episode about her that was written by intelligence agents. The CDC has intelligence agents and they write scripts for television in Hollywood, including Law and Order, that push propaganda about all these things.
So they wrote an episode about an HIV denying mother. Her daughter dies and she's on the witness stand for murder. And she drops dead from AIDS right there in the courtroom. And I begged Christine not to watch it. Because I began to understand about the black magic and voodoo that they're so skilled at. She said, “I have to watch it. I have to know, I have to fight this. I have to know.”
She died three and a half weeks later. She had double bronchitis. She took a nap and she just didn't wake up. She was just absolutely exhausted.
So that of course became “number one AIDS denier dies of AIDS.”
And there was no possibility after that. The propaganda was so overwhelming that…yeah, it was just over.
That's too bad. Because that story, for anybody with eyes open, would just reveal the complete moral bankruptcy and likely intellectual bankruptcy of the whole establishment AIDS mafia.
An incredible mafia. What is the coroner doing messengering that report to the LA Times before the family has any idea? So Christine and her husband, they get a phone call from the LA Times. “What do you have to say about the new autopsy report?” What new autopsy report? “Oh, the one that says your daughter died of AIDS.” And they had no idea this had taken place.
So it's so dirty. It's so unimaginably rigged. And all of us who went through this, I have to say, we encountered a beast so dark…it took so many years to finally accept what all of you, and I'm speaking now to all of us who fought this…we were well-intentioned, but unbelievably naive.
Yeah, I can relate some of that to what I experienced with the 9/11 truth movement. Like you in the early days (of AIDS) I was shocked, around the end of 2003, to discover how obvious it was that critics of the 9 11 official story were correct, and that we had had controlled demolitions in New York, and that something happening at the Pentagon very different from what we were told, and that the real perpetrators were obviously very different, kind of the opposite party, from the one that was being blamed.
And that this was actually so obvious that it should be really easy to convince people. Smart people–you should be able to convince them almost instantly. And everybody else, it shouldn't take that long either. So you think, wow, this is fantastic. We can change the world with this. And then you realize you're up against a very big and powerful machine that's got more resources and more people willing to do completely unethical things to support it than you could ever have imagined.
It’s like when you see programs about a woman who's been subject to a stalker or something, and she says none of you understand, it’s like he's gonna…he's already eight steps ahead. He knows everything about me. He's going to get me this way. It's deeply criminal and deeply hidden. So I imagine what you encountered was exactly what we encountered, namely our pristine, unassailable, truthful facts did not matter.
Lynn Margulis said about 9/11 the same sorts of things that you mentioned people like her were saying about AIDS, which is that, if this stands, it's the death of science. Reason and facts aren't going to matter anymore when something this obviously wrong is forced down everybody's throats.
That's right. It set the ship adrift into the terrain which we're now definitely in, which is post-reality.
And then, of course, they blame us, the questioners of mainstream narratives, for living in a post-reality world, because they imagine that reality is the same thing as the mainstream mythology. And now that that's under question from all kinds of perspectives, some more defensible than others, nobody can not be aware that there is all this questioning of so many fundamental assumptions. And I think the mainstream people are freaking out about that,, and then trying to frantically put together mainstream reality again by silencing everybody who's questioning anything, whether they're asking good questions or bad questions, and whether they're doing it rationally or irrationally. They just want to silence everybody that is raising those questions.
What you went through as early as the 80s and 90s was really ahead of its time. My take at that time was that a lot of very heretical perspectives could still be tossed around. Like in the academy, my colleagues in universities mostly understood that the JFK assassination was a coup d'etat and that the Warren Report and all that propaganda was corrupt nonsense. Everybody got that. Nobody was really afraid to say it, although most people weren't courageous enough to make it what they did in life. But you could talk about it in the university. You could you tell your students “of course I don't believe the Warren Report.” Everybody would do that.
But then post-9/11, not so much. I ended up getting kind of lynched out of the University of Wisconsin just for being a teacher there who had questioned 9/11. And that shocked me. You could question JFK before. Why can't you question 9/11 now?
Yeah, I think this is a very interesting subject. The different fields of trying to break down…Let's see, what shall we call them? What would you call 9-11, JFK? It's like these enormous capstone trauma-inducing events... Mega coups. Which when we counter them become... Like the different levels of pariah status assigned to the different subjects. So you're saying JFK was not pariahed in the academy...
Right.
Academically, you could question JFK, but when you question 9/11, that was a pariah child.
Right. To some extent, with JFK, it was enough of a can of worms that, like I said, most people wouldn't make that the focus of what they did. And you had to be moderately brave to be known as somebody who was interested in that topic and doing research on it. But it wasn't that taboo.
Basically, the majority of my academic colleagues in those days were all aware that it was likely a coup d'etat. And that wasn't a problem. It was moderately tabooed. But with 9/11, they launched that witch hunt, with me as the first target, in 2006. And they really did try to terrorize people away from even bringing it up or being interested in it. They put a huge scarlet letter on it. And they really did succeed to some extent in scaring away most of the academics. Post-2006, only really the brave professors would share with their students the fact that the official story of 9/11 is preposterous.
Yeah, that's right. I actually have a memory of being in Lynn Margulis's car with her in Amherst. This would have been maybe 2009. And I asked her, do you really think 9/11 is crackable, breakdownable? And she said, not in America, but in Europe, yes.
Unfortunately, Europe these days seems to be even more occupied both militarily and psychologically than it was then. The U.S. managed to overthrow Chirac, who was apparently a closet 9/11 truther and publicly opposed to the attack on Iraq. And they replaced him with these puppets that have been in charge of France ever since. They've gotten control of the European leaders in various ways. So unfortunately, I think Lynn was right back then that there was maybe a possibility. But since then, like you saw with COVID, Europe was not marching to a different drum. They were just saluting the dominant American-based approach to COVID.
Yeah, I think all of these psychological operations turn up in all of these different countries with a slight twist that's unique to the country. But it's as though what everybody knows, in the choreography, is that if you want to have a life at all, you go with the official narrative. And if you want to have a lot of problems, you start asking questions. It's not exactly the same as people saying “I believe the truth of the official narrative.” It's just the way to live a life without your life being a nightmare.
Yeah, although I have to admit that despite the various problems that have ensued from my getting involved with 9/11, my life overall has really not been a nightmare at all. The nightmarish aspects have been more than balanced by the very rewarding aspects of getting to meet people like you. I mean, Celia, I think if I were still teaching medieval Sufi studies at the University of Wisconsin or something like that, which is probably what would have happened if I didn't get involved in this, I probably never would have met you or Lynn Margulis for that matter. I got to meet this great biologist…
I have to be careful using words like very traumatic. It's so interesting and full of so many blessings.
I agree with you. I think what I struggle to kind of confront or decide how or whether to articulate is how dark and traumatic and terrorizing and terrifying it all was for so many years and how many people died strangely, all the things that happened. And then also ask the question, does it matter? Do you need to go back there? Is it worth remembering that, thinking about it, or can you actually metamorphose out of that?
I don't want to remember it, but I sort of feel like, do I need to let people know the real underbelly or not? So you can't answer that for me, but I feel like…Now what's amazing about this era, meeting you and the conversation we're having, is now we all speak the same language. So I know you guys are right. You know we're right. I know what they did to you. You know what they did to us. It's the same language.
Yeah, that's right. I think the COVID freedom movement has opened up a lot of people's eyes to these other issues as well.
But with absolutely huge, huge rise in…. there wasn't such a thing before. It was always, “what do you mean? Everybody involved is lying? You think every media outlet is lying?” We were all so naive. And so now at least several of the masks have fallen and several were really… I have to take a step back and say to myself, stop saying you lost the war, because there have been immense breakthroughs. The beast still has its boot on us, right? But we can all talk to each other now.
And I think the trajectory of this war around AIDS and COVID has changed in a favorable way for our side in that, as you say, after the AIDS battle was somewhat lost, in terms of just AIDS itself….But then with COVID, it does seem to me that this fervent belief in the vaccines and in all of the restrictions on what people have to say and the whole kind of lemming-like behavior that so many people were inculcated with during COVID has waned quite a bit. And those of us who were skeptical about those vaccines and other countermeasures early on, I think look better now than we did then. In other words, I think the trajectory is actually towards the pendulum swinging towards the COVID skeptics. If we’re not exactly winning, but still, nobody wants to get more boosters, right? There's a reason for that.
Yeah. I like to think so. And that's what I observed too. But where there's this dead elephant in the room that nobody knows how to confront, like the latest horror stats coming out of Japan, out of Greece, people dying at such a rate that even the top government officials are kind of throwing up their hands. Like, “this is dead people. I can't hide this. What do I say? What do I do?” It's coming out, but there's no framework to, there's no language for it. You know what I mean? It's so strange.
From kind of the scientific data-driven approach to it, it still seems that the question of how much of a mortality rise has there been and to what extent is it linked to COVID and/ or the vaccines, all of that, it seems, still hasn't really been well resolved, in part because the authorities don't seem to want it to be well resolved. Because, as I understand it, after talking to various experts, people like Meryl Nass, for example, and many others, it does seem that there is data that could answer these questions pretty quickly. But that data is proprietary and closely held by insurance companies and the governments behind them. They don't seem to really want to make public the vaxxed-versus-unvaxed studies, just like with other vaccine issues as well. None of the establishment people ever wanted to do really good, big, large-scale vaxxed-versus-unvaxxed studies to definitively answer questions about vaccine harms. And just as in all these earlier cases of other vaccines with this COVID vaccine, it does look very suspicious that—rather than definitively answering those questions about how much of this alarming rise in mortality in various parts of the world might be related to the vaccines—it seems that they don't want to answer that question. And that is disturbing. But as far as what the details are, to what level mortality really has risen due to COVID and or the vaccines, I'm still confused, open-minded, and basically agnostic, listening to the arguments and unable to draw conclusions. How about you? Are you like my many friends who are convinced that there's a clear rise in mortality and the vaccines are obviously behind it, or not?
Yes, I am convinced. But here's the mystery, which I will concede to people who say, I don't see it: A lot of people did just fine. People either did fine and didn't notice it or had a catastrophic (problem). I'm subscribed on different social media to threads that document it, like the “died suddenly” type of thread. I'm in chat groups and text groups (in which) I'm inundated with the dead who were injected. And I've reported and written on it. Mark Crispin Miller has a whole Died Suddenly Substack. So, yeah, I subscribe to that. It’s overwhelmingly clear to me.
Let me put it this way. I see statistics all the time. The other day I saw a statistic—because this is like the age of the statisticians, right? And they're always producing new statistical analyses. And I don't really think that's how you understand a story. I'm not really a statistics person. But it was something like a 15,000% increase in certain kinds of cancers. I want to try to find something on my phone that I want to read to you. And I mean, this is a whole can of worms. I think maybe the reason you're, let me just guess, the reason you're not sure, is because you also see a landscape in which a lot of people are vaccinated and boosted and they have no ill effects. Is that basically it?
Well, yeah. I have a lot of friends and people I know personally, both who did get vaxxed and who didn't get vaxxed. And from that experience, one unvaxxed guy (John Shuck) died of COVID, another (Robert David Steele) probably died of COVID, although they may have messed with him in the hospital. Anyway, based on my own personal experience, I've seen people harmed by COVID. I had a pretty nasty case of COVID myself, actually twice, really nasty once. I didn't get vaxxed, of course. And I've seen the experience of vaxxed people ranging from those who had no ill effects at all to some who did and were hospitalized for COVID-like symptoms.
So anyway, just based on my experience of the people I actually know, as well as looking at the statistical sources, it's left me somewhat baffled. And I would conclude that there seems to have been a major downturn in public health that's continuing now after the end of the so-called pandemic. What exactly is responsible for it? I'm not 100% sure. And like I said, from the statistical perspective, what you would want would be to just look at the records that are already there and compare the vaxxed people and their outcomes to the unvaxxed people and their outcomes. But that's what the medical industrial complex will never ever do for any vaccine. And it's probably because they know they're not going to like what they find if they do it. They probably have done it privately and they know that if they do it publicly, it's bad news for vaccines.
I'm going to read you something that just came in in one of the chat groups that I'm in. I think this was somehow read in the European Parliament and/or it's a scientific paper. It says unexplained sudden deaths among children and adolescents in Greece. The reason I'm reading this is this is one example where you can see the clear truth of a very bad thing that is happening that is undeniably from the vaccine. And then we could go elsewhere in the landscape and see something else. But I'll just read this.
“Greece has recently been shaken by a flood of daily reports of an unprecedented series of sudden deaths among healthy children and adolescents. Furthermore, forensic experts are unable to provide any clear explanation for this. At the same time, the data from the Greek Statistical Service bear overwhelming evidence to what is happening, giving rise to serious alarm. The unexplained deaths of 33 children between five and nine years of age and 37 between the ages of 10 and 14 (a total of 70) were recorded in 2020, the figures for 2021 being 37 and 43 respectively (a total of 80). In the first half of 2022 alone, the number of children and adolescents aged up to 19 who have died in this way already totals 138.”
Everything is confusing in this whole thing. Because my understanding is healthy children didn't get COVID. It all comes down to what's the baseline. And so because there was no such thing as what is a healthy person, for example, in the United States, because they've been poisoning everybody with food for so many decades, so many people are just totally inflamed and obese. And so they parlayed that into “everybody is going to die of COVID” instead of a conversation of “what does it mean to be healthy.”
So my understanding was always, what we essentially call healthy children didn't get affected by COVID at all. So if all these children have dropped dead in Greece and in other countries, it's like Houston, we have a problem.
I think it's crystal clear the vaccine is deadly in those who are…I don't know if it's Russian roulette. I don't know if it's hot lot batches. I don't know. Absolutely, the vaccines are devastating for some people, for some of all age groups.
But what's mystifying is what happened initially in 2020. Definitely it was an op. Definitely they were telling people there was this frightful pandemic upon us, which influenced how and why people believed they were sick. But I also see that it's true that people got sick in a way that was new, that wasn't a flu, that was very terrifying and very bizarre. And I can't personally say I know what caused that.
I have friends in different camps. Some people say 5G. Some people say bioweapons. Some people say “I believe in the conventional COVID model of disease causation.”
All I know is, I know who's messing with our heads and sending out these propaganda storms. And they're never going to tell us, and we're probably never going to get to the bottom of it, because that's also in the design.
Yeah, that makes sense to me. And another sort of obvious lesson from COVID…what I said earlier about it being based on a US bio-attack on China and Iran, by the way, it's not an obvious takeaway. You actually have to do a little bit of research to come to that conclusion. But what's pretty much obvious from the get-go is that everybody's takeaway from COVID really should be that we need to shut down the bioweapons labs and put some teeth in the Bioweapons Convention. Because one way or another, these people do not have our best interests at heart. Having this group of people who we now know beyond any doubt, everybody mainstream or non-mainstream knows and admits now, that some of the people involved in this field of manufacturing COVID or being involved in the closest thing out there to manufacturing COVID, whether or not you believe it was manufactured, those people did conspire to push a totally unsubstantiated story that it jumped to humans from animals. They lied, they conspired, they put that out at a time when, based on their private emails, we know that they thought it quite likely was from a lab. So when you have the very top of your biowar establishment just lying cheating and stealing like that and getting caught, and then you look at the possibilities of what could go wrong with bioweapons research, it is a no-brainer that takeaway number one from from this is shut down these labs. And these labs are not just making diseases, they're also making the hopeful antidotes, right? If you do a bioweapon, you want to have something that you could jab your population or your leaders or whatever with so that only the enemy or whoever the targeted population is suffers from it. The same people would have built the virus as would have built the vaccine. And again, they don't have our best interest at heart.
Everything is hand in glove, chicken and egg. It's these sequences that go together. As you say, they build the synthetic so-called virus or bioweapon already having patented the so-called vaccine, it all rolls together the same way 9/11 rolls together with all the wars. Was it seven nations that we were going to have to (take out in five years), the Patriot Act…They do the thing that they need to do to create the thing that they're going to do to roll out everything. We see the same pattern again and again and again.
Sometimes I wonder what was their payout for the JFK assassination? I know there were many, but that was probably the first one where Americans could not imagine why would they possibly be doing this. In the later ops with AIDS, with COVID, and with 9/11, certainly, we can see how the war machine really functions. And it isn't a mystery, it's just so shocking we can't accept it, right?
With JFK, have you looked at James Douglas's book (JFK and the Unspeakable) or Michael Collins Piper's Final Judgment? Because those two reveal that JFK really did go up against the war machine.
Absolutely.
Both the American and the Israeli war machines. And so in those two war machines, probably some hardliners in both saw great benefits in changing who was president. So I don't think that's a very hard one to figure out if you research it.
Why do you think they did it the way they did it? Not to turn this into a JFK discussion, but just to ask you. Do you see the hallmarks of sacrifice culture? The way they do everything is designed for maximum trauma, degradation. I see ritualistic sacrifice in a lot of it, where a lot of people just see greed, money, the war machine. But I see something occult in it all, even to the point that it seems that they almost deliberately do it right out in the open.
One of these ex-black operator type guys was on my radio show, Chip Tatum. He's been on Ole Dammegard’s show several times. Anyway, he's the first person that I heard this from, that the groups behind these things believe that if they give you advance warning and they do it in public so that you really should know and then you let them get away with it, then the bad karma is on you, not on them. It's some kind of ritual occult belief.
Yes, I know. I used to know the name for that. I can't think of it right now. And I like Ole Dammegard a lot. And I feel like once we can really crack that code, the extra-dimensional, unfathomable element to why they do all these things… Sometimes I'm not even sure I want to know. But I believe that is where everything becomes clear in that dimension of whatever occult religion these people adhere to that motivates them. That's the unfathomable. And most of us spend an awful lot of time trying to put it together according to models that are way too rational.
Yeah, I'm impressed at your grasp of that aspect of things. That is that all of this rational analysis of geopolitics and statistics doesn't get to the heart of it. I understand you're interested in Rene Girard and his work on sacrifice and scapegoating.
Yes. I'm a novice, but I am fascinated by him. I listen to interviews about him as often as I can. But again I’m a novice.
When I was studying literature, he was one of the people you read. And I thought, wow, this guy's a lot more interesting than all these boring deconstructionist nihilists. So I've been following him for a while.
What would you say was the first thing when you sort of cottoned on to him? What was that was like, the aha moment that you could apply to everything you've experienced yourself?
I actually first heard about him before 9/11. At that time his work was appealing because it actually seemed to explain something about both literature and real life. It's an anthropological theory and it's also a literary theory. One of the ways he discovered it was that a lot of what's considered great literature actually has this scapegoating-sacrifice paradigm in the background.
And so that was that was great because a lot of deconstruction and other postmodern approaches at the time were very dry, nihilistic, cast doubt on whether there is any such thing as real life or literature for that matter. So here’s this guy who wasn't afraid to toss out a big idea with spiritual and religious significance. He and Bakhtin were probably the two important influences I discovered through literary-critical studies.
(Girard’s) take on (sacrifice) is more anthropological than spiritual in that he doesn't really have a metaphysical perspective. I don't think he ever talks about actual evil forces that are profiting from these sacrifices. It's really just the people being brought together by blaming and scapegoating and murdering somebody, and that brings their tribe together—that's how human tribes work. And then that whole process has been messed up by, in his view, the sacrifice of Jesus.
However, I think if you plug Girard into something that Gordon Duff once told me—Gordon Duff being this ex-CIA guy that I worked with at Veterans Today, people who got angry at the neocons after 9/11, among other things, and he's been playing mind games ever since, basically in the service of truth and justice for the most part.
Anyway, Gordon has claimed to have had MJ-12 clearance at a certain time in the CIA. So he got to see the memos about ETs and UFOs and aliens and stuff like that. And he claims that one of the memos he saw detailed the existence of an extradimensional entity which feeds on human suffering and interfaces with selected humans through satanic ritual and such to create the very human suffering that it feeds on. And according to the CIA memo that Gordon says he read, this was then explained as, “oh, don't worry. It's all just part of the great cosmic ecosystem. Earth is being visited by many dozens if not hundreds of extraterrestrial and extradimensional species, many of which are unpredictable and piratical and so on. But don't worry about it. It's not a big deal.” Gordon's response was, “what do you mean it's not a big deal?”
How absolutely fascinating what you just said. I just feel like from head to toe, that has got to be true. That's got to be what's happening. There's no other explanation I can think of for everything I've experienced since I began, since I embarked on all of this. Because all through the years of the HIV-AIDS work, what I really felt was, I'm fighting something inhuman here. And it's so absolutely rigid since it's not human. I cannot appeal to this thing. When you traumatize a grieving mother who just lost her child, and you blame her and you take a rigged autopsy and on and on and on. The cruelty of what I saw, especially against women and mothers…they were really cruel and vicious and sociopathic. But beyond that, it wasn't just mean people, if you will, or ambitious people or greedy people. I always felt like the whole thing…at the innermost core of it was something inhuman. And I could never...And yet all of us were dealing with it in this kind of rational humanistic enlightenment so-called Western values way that didn't apply at all. And it wasn't human.
And of course, when you talk about things like this, you're pushed into the margins of Western culture. Because the official religion of dogmatic secular materialist humanist progressivism does not allow for the notion of evil spirits. But here in the Islamic world, it is taken for granted that the jinn, these beings of (metaphorical) fire, exist. They're some form of extradimensional… maybe there are extraterrestrial “humans” too. All of that is part of the belief system here. In fact, if I were to deny the existence of the jinn I would be considered theologically incorrect. I would be a bit of a Muslim heretic. So that's another of the many interesting ways that the belief system among Muslims is more comfortable to me than the dominant one in the West.
In Islam we believe that there are good jinn and bad jinn. But you don't want to mess with them because if you do, the bad ones are likely to come around trying to take advantage of you. According to the view of how magic works in Islamic culture and maybe some other parts of the esoteric world as well, it's considered that magicians have ways of making deals with these entities. And quite often they do involve bad stuff and even human sacrifice, right? It's in the folkloric tradition of Morocco, West Africa, and probably other places as well. There are stories of human sacrifice for which then the jinn or whatever entity then give them some reward, such as telling them where there will be a buried treasure. And then there's the dark shamanism in Latin America which was studied by Neil Whitehead. He was a colleague of mine at University of Wisconsin, and he studied dark shamanism, which involves a lot of really nasty behavior by certain shamans in Central and South America. And he ended up dying an early death, presumably related to his area of interest.
So anyway, I think all this stuff is absolutely real. And those of you who are secular materialists are going to throw rotten fruit at me. It's okay. Go ahead and throw it.
I'm really glad we're talking about this, and totally fascinated by everything you're saying. I know for a fact that one never gets there with the rational secular approach to all of this. For example, the HIV dissent critique, what was its (the scam’s) motivation? Greed. And I always felt like “I don't think these people are primarily after the money. It doesn't feel like it's about money. What could it possibly be?” And then people say control.
But the extradimensional factor is a really queasy, creepy kind of destruction for the sake of destruction in perpetuity. It's like revolutionary destructiveness for the sake of it. It's like a train track that you just can't get on if you're, I guess I would say, a normal person. And I always wanted to know, who are you people? I always wanted to sit with one of them and have them just please tell me what goes on in your head, in your heart? Because they seemed like backward people. Like they thought and spoke and reasoned backward. And I have to say, if we stay more or less in the, like before the extra dimensional realm, if we just stay here on earth, their language and what unifies them and how they communicate with each other and how they do a lot of their inversion work is the phenomenon we call woke.
Doesn't woke remind you of those the AIDS activists who were screaming, give us drugs, give us drugs?
Oh, my goodness. Absolutely. And all those years before it was called woke, there was vaguely something people referred to as political correctness. There's a quote, and I was really happy that he put the quote in full in Bobby Kennedy's book The Real Anthony Fauci…it was his deciding to do that book that kind of crystallized in my mind who and where do I think Fauci's dark power came from. I just posed the question to myself, and then I realized, ah yes he brings woke into the palace, right? First it was NIAID, NIH, NCI, all parts of the American military public health octopus. And if you picture it, imagine it like a potion, like smoke coming out of a little secret vial that he uncorks. What is the magic potion? Well, it's that when... A scientist speaks as a scientist. We gave this person this substance and they died. We tested this substance. This happened, X happened. In other words, the conventional world as we thought we knew it.
What Fauci's woke does when it applies to all this stuff is it renders everything something else. So, for example, when scientists were trying to say, maybe as early as the late 70s, definitely early 80s, gay men who were getting sick from what they then were calling gay cancer. Let's look what they all did. Did they all ingest poppers? Were they all drug addicts? Were they all bathhouse extremists? What were they all doing that maybe didn't work biologically?
So Fauci's Woke comes in and says: There's no such thing as a lifestyle disease. We are all equally subject to this. And Gallo was on board with the woke-speak as applied to AIDS too. So you get all these campaigns: “We all have AIDS.” So it became this part of the religion of AIDS, this crazy obsession to say, you can't say anything about who's getting it or why. We have to pretend we're all equally affected and vulnerable to it and we could all get it, because we had to remove the so-called judgment, which also meant removing the cause and the cure and the everything. So now you're just nowhere. You're just lost. And that was considered being a good person. Just total fog.
I think René Girard's work does help explain how this bizarre situation developed. He theorizes that post-Christianity, cultures have more and more identified with scapegoats and marginalized and persecuted figures. But they don't always do it very intelligently. They can go wrong. And they can be manipulated in who they imagine is marginalized and persecuted. This infatuation for marginalized persecuted people, which became a certain strand of the postmodern movement 30 or 40 years ago—Foucault, of course, was notably lionized for that—they seemed to basically see people with unusual sexual habits, people who used to be called sexual deviants—but you certainly would never want to say that now—are this persecuted category, so they become sacred. There's a religious hysteria that develops around following rules about how you think about and talk about such people. We see that with the AIDS situation, and we see that with woke today, with gender bending and sex surgery for for minors and all that sort of thing.
Yeah, exactly. Sacred. That's a that's a really good word to describe the incredible status of these so-called persecuted (categories). So they're said to be persecuted. But in the Fauci woke, just to stick to that for a moment, with the newly constructed universe, they become worshipped. They become saints. They're kind of sacred scapegoat figures. It's so bizarre. And also what we see, what he's so interesting about is how a scapegoat is sacrificed, and then after the sacrifice is revered and worshipped. And you actually see that in JFK, right? We know that the same people who arranged for his sacrifice are the same people who, I guess I would say, permitted (his posthumous deification). Though there should be tremendous admiration for JFK. I don't know if you've seen this film, Four Died Trying.
You know, I haven't seen that yet. I really should because I know those stories, of course.
Yeah, Libby Hendress and John Kirby. It's really excellent. So all four of those, JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, are in fact very, shall we say…very admired. They are not officially pariahed, and yet they were sacrificed. And we all know this, right? Isn't this Rene Girard that I'm talking about here? It's like the double effect. It's sort of like they kill them and then they say, “here, now we've killed them, now you can worship them.”
Right. We name avenues after Martin Luther King Jr. and put up busts of JFK everywhere, and then allow a big Hollywood film about Malcolm X to become very popular and even convince a fair number of young people to convert to Islam. All of that they can live with, even though they had to kill those guys. But we're not really supposed to pay attention to the part of the program of those guys that got them killed, right? We're supposed to sort of gloss that over.
Absolutely. Never talk about specifics in any of this. It's... It's... We make ourselves crazy trying to understand them or think like them. So what can we do in the midst of all this? I'm sure you ask yourself every day also. Did they design all this? It certainly feels that way to me. I guess I'm going to say there's no solving the Rubik's cube. There's no setting things right. There's no getting to the bottom of things. But what we can see is patterns. What we call psyops, for example. We make ourselves crazy trying to understand them or think like them.
You know what I sometimes look at what we call psyops—for example, the 9/11 hijackers, where they're very sloppy with their psyops. They're very sloppy in the beginning. But in the beginning, we're all so traumatized that it makes sense, right? Because they've studied our brains so much through MKUltra and everything, so they know. And I believed 9/11, like most people. It’s just incredible. But I guess that's what happened. I can't believe that I believed it, but I did. You know, for a few years. I often say like if you want to see a PSYOP, give it 20 years and then watch how the back end of it just falls off and you can see the whole thing.
So what do I mean by that? With 9/11 the PSYOP…And now I'm speaking as somebody who's down here on the base level, not where you are, where you've studied it so much, just basic people trying to understand 9/11. The back end of the PSYOP with 9/11 falls off because they always told us that these Islamic extremists hated us for our freedoms and wanted to destroy us because we represent freedom and they can't stand it because they can't have that so they have to destroy us. So excuse me, but what happened? So did they pulled off 9/11 and not hate us for our freedoms anymore? Or it's all over because they got Osama bin Laden? It's just so sloppy. It doesn't add up at all.
The whole they-hate-our-freedoms thing was so absurd from the get-go.
Just like “if you love somebody, you will wear a condom every time,” you know, that was the style. It doesn't add up at all. Like with AIDS, the base of the theory was—“theory” is giving it way too much credit, so I'll say the word too many times. The base of the PSYOP was: Every sexual encounter between any two people, and please know that heterosexuals are no different, they can get it. It's everybody's disease, et cetera, et cetera. Any broken condom. And you don't know who you're sleeping with. OK, anyone can get it. And then once you get it, like Russian roulette, you turn up HIV positive and then you die. And it changed from like one year, two years, five years, 10 years. It stretched all the way to 30 years.
Let's give them that. Leave that aside. Very stretchy, very stretchy, infinitely stretchy, and they can always stretch it to accommodate whatever part of the backside of it just fell off.
But flash forward now. Gosh, between 1984 and today, I don't know exactly how many years, but many, many, let's see, about 40, right? Why didn't Bill Clinton get AIDS? Why didn't Jeffrey Epstein get AIDS? Why didn't Mick Jagger get AIDS? Why didn't Iggy Pop get it?
Iggy Pop's still in pretty good shape.
Iggy Pop once told me that back in the 90s they wanted him to do a condom commercial for AIDS and he wouldn't do it. “Oh no, I'm not going to do the commercial.” But what I'm trying to say is where is the heterosexual AIDS pandemic that was waiting and gonna happen. If you were a good person you believed in it. Nobody talks about it anymore.
It's even more politically incorrect now to talk about the sociological factors involved in this. All of us who lived in San Francisco from 1980 through 1993—we all knew that a lot of these gay guys were insanely promiscuous. And you had statistics backing that up: hundreds of sexual partners per year, if not over a thousand in many cases and so on. And whereas the females, the lesbians, had sex something like three times a year on the average. Huge, huge difference between male homosexual behavior and female homosexual behavior. Maybe this has something to do with the fact that men and women, for the most part, normally are heterosexual. And that the male predilection for testosterone-driven promiscuity gets tempered by the female predisposition for more intimacy and personality and things like that.
Now we're not allowed to acknowledge that men and women are different, even though common sense and science have long since proven it. And that seems to be part of the same kind of mass-hysteria-driven operation, this war on traditional genders and ultimately on reproduction. Normal human society is all based on reproductive families and extended families, which are tribes, which are the basic building blocks of societies. And that kind of normal reproductive-based human society seems like it's under attack by somebody who really hates it.
I think the AIDS operation was not just a prequel to COVID, but maybe more menacingly a prequel to the Transgender Inc. movement. And there's a lot in that development that I think none of us can wrap our heads around yet. But all of these agendas are connected. And you know them by their…like when things just make no sense, and you're not allowed to say that. For example what you said was absolutely true about male gay promiscuity. But I was really flogged and trained and beaten: “You can't say promiscuity.” What am I allowed to say? And I was mostly immune to these criticisms. But in addition to not being allowed to say that gay men were promiscuous, you had to celebrate the fact that they themselves were flaunting and brandishing their promiscuity as the dominant part of the culture, like the sexual story of America. So they were allowed to kind of bask in that identity, with gay pride and everything, but you weren't allowed to say, okay, so you have a lot more sex than heterosexual people do who are just having jobs and coming home. So maybe we're not identical in terms of an epidemiological group. So you're also not allowed to say that. It's like the woke quadruple gotcha trap.
I think people are really vulnerable to these things because so much of normal social interaction involves having to soft pedal certain things to certain people in our lives in order to get along with them. So we have these built-in propensities to find ways of not saying what we really think, not just blurting out the full stark truth. And boy, that's been weaponized. And they've built technologies to grab that tendency in our brains and just really run with it. And so we're not allowed to think all of these thoughts that would threaten the powers that be. It's maddening.
It's abusive. It's very abusive. I think the way to get ahead of it all, or to get on the right side of it, is to declare it fascinating instead of traumatizing. It's both.
One of the hard parts of quashing conspiracy theories is that conspiracy theories are so interesting, and kind of even entertaining, that people are just so interested in them. And so many of them actually turn out to be true. It's really hard for those people who are trying to keep all this stuff under wraps.
Yeah, that's why I feel psyops fall apart. Very few people believe the official theory of JFK's assassination. They can't cultivate every psyop garden forever. They have to let them go over time. So probably the best chance of getting to the bottom of any of them is waiting until they're 50 years out.
And the best chance of mitigating their impact is to jump on it 10 seconds after it happens and just blast out your skepticism as hard as you can. But then know that you may not actually get to the truth for 50 years, if ever. I ended up stuck in this because they just keep doing this stuff. In 2015, when they did Charlie Hebdo and the follow-ups, at that point, I'd learned my lesson that you want to react quickly. With 9/11, I didn't even really pick up on it very much for a couple of years. But with Charlie Hebdo, in six weeks, I had a book out about it.
Really?
Yeah.
I'm not familiar with that one, but I'm guessing it was another pack of lies.
Somewhere between the whole thing being totally basically staged or choreographed, or at the very least, some Western intelligence services had their hooks in the guys who shot the cartoonists and made or let it happen, some combination thereof. That's the short version of it.
Oh, boy.
Well, you know, Celia, we've been on for (going on) two hours. That's longer than I usually do shows. But in your case, I'm very happy to extend the show. And there's probably still some things that we could get to. We haven't really gotten too deeply into the spiritual dimension of this. What's the alternative to the technocratic evil that we're talking about? Is there a positive spiritual alternative? I would like to think so.
My spiritual answer is to begin to extricate myself from looking outward at the crimes and sins of others and look at myself instead. Not to the exclusion of looking at that, but as a way of coming to peace and being like Christians say you want to be: a blessing and not a curse. You want to be a blessing. You want to be a blessing to the world, to the people around you. I feel personally that I've been too overtaken by this war, these different wars. And I want a real human life as a human being. And I want to…in some ways I want to surrender. I don't exactly mean admit defeat…but I mean, yeah, admit defeat that I'm never going to crack all this. None of us are. I think it's really great that we've done all this work, but now I want to do the inner work.
A few weeks ago I attended a Russian Orthodox church here in New York. And then I was away for a couple of weeks, so I couldn't go back. I can't wait to go back. And they gave me some short books. And in one of them it talks about—and I've heard this from Catholics, I was an unsuccessful late-in-life Catholic—about the importance of repentance and confession. But when I read it in these Russian Orthodox textbooks, I felt that was explained to me in a way that I really resonate with.
And in some way, I think it can be part of just a trauma response to constantly be trying to deal with these gargantuan black mountains of lies. And it can really change you in such a way that you're no longer the person that you want to be. And you look around and you've maybe spread trauma to your family or friends, poverty, all the things that sort of come with the terrain. And I'm trying to stop myself in time. I'm not repenting for the work that I did. But…well, we all have repentance going on whether we call it that or not. That to me is a lot harder than the work that I've done so far. And that's the mountain I want to confront now.
Yeah, I can totally relate to that. When you're doing this kind of work, the anxiety and trauma inevitably comes with it. And you're an agent of spreading negative feelings to people. And it can mess with your personal life and make you question, is it even worth trying to tell the truth about all this stuff? They used to call David Ray Griffin the bearer of of bad tidings, the opposite of the evangelist bringing good news. Those of us telling the truth about these things are bringing bad news, but ultimately, I like to think that it's for the greater good.
Well, that, that was very, very beautifully put.
I wish you the best and blessings in your next stage of this, and I think Orthodoxy sounds very rich. Have you read Tikhon’s Everyday Saints?
I have not. I'll take note of that.
It's a very readable book about the life of Orthodox monks in Russia. Tikhon has been called Putin's spiritual advisor, among other things. And I hope he is. Because it would be good if a world leader at that level had somebody like Tikhon advising him.
I do think this in closing: Many, many people in our landscape of, let's just say, truth seekers and truth warriors, may be conflicted for very valid reasons about for example, Christianity, whether they were raised Catholic and traumatized and so on and so forth. I will say that I feel there's no question that our opposition in all of this is, I'm not going to say atheist secular, but at war with…I'll just say at war with God and the natural world. And so in that sense, I actually feel like, it has been said and I'll repeat it: This is a spiritual battle. This is spiritual warfare that we're conditioned to see as earthly warfare. As a Christian, I see the satanic in it all. And that word bothers a lot of rational people, but that's what I see. And so when I counter it, when I'm good, it means that I'm just bringing more prayer into my life again to make myself more of a vessel of peace and harmony.
Amen, sister. I love it. That's a beautiful note to end on. We never even got to talk about your work with OJ Simpson, but we'll save that. Just let it be known that you've done some of the most important writing on that topic as well. And he just happened to pass away a few days ago. I noticed that and I wondered if I should talk about him on the show. Then I thought, yeah, probably not. Your other stuff is more important.
Well, let's use it as like a bridge to a possibility of having another conversation.
There you go. We’ve got to talk about OJ some other day. Okay, well, thank you, Celia Farber. It's been wonderful. I really admire your courage and tenacity in this work. Your Substack is celiafarber.substack.com. Highly recommended. If I haven't officially recommended you at Substack, I will certainly do so.
Oh, Kevin, it's been such a delight to speak to you.
Share this post