Latest / UK Column Radio / Steven Young on why nuclear energy doesn’t exist - Jerm Warfare

Transcript

Steven Young on why nuclear energy doesn’t exist - Jerm Warfare · UK Column Radio

0:34
None. Stephen Young, thank you for
0:39
joining me in the trenches. You're very welcome, good to be
0:42
here again. I chatted recently to Jeff
0:46
Berwick and he said trenches, What trenches?
0:50
What information war? Really.
0:59
He's like, I'm not part of any information war, I'm not in any
1:02
trenches. Well, that's not how I feel, I
1:08
guess. Shots fired at me like on the
1:10
regular, like I feel, I feel it. Yeah, you're definitely in the
1:14
trenches, aren't you? Yeah, yeah.
1:16
I mean, it's, you know, I mean, I was, I honestly didn't like
1:19
conflict. I was an artist, so I would
1:21
avoid conflict at all costs because I just wanted to get on
1:25
with creating. And conflict just kind of slows
1:27
you down and bogs you down. So I was not into conflict.
1:30
But then after I've reached my book, of course, I start getting
1:33
a lot of conflict. And I've just kind of gotten
1:36
used to. I started going to the gym and
1:37
stuff, and that kind of pumps me up in the morning and makes me
1:41
sort of ready to deal with any heavy lifting I have to do
1:44
during the day in terms of, you know, comments and attacks by
1:48
e-mail and stuff. But yeah, it's fine.
1:50
It's just part of life now. I'm quite a fan of the gym.
1:54
I actually set up my own gym at my home so that I don't have to
1:58
go to the gym and wait for, you know, the bench press or the
2:02
squat rack to become available that are starting to get very
2:05
annoying. Yeah, yeah, that's a good idea.
2:08
I mean, I go between 8:00 and 9:00 in the morning, which is
2:10
the quietest time, but if you go outside those hours at all, then
2:13
it's so busy that it's kind of annoying.
2:17
What do you do at the gym? Well, I just do.
2:20
I like, I like the boxing, you know, I hit the bag quite a lot.
2:22
I'll do, you know, various different weights and work on
2:25
different muscles and stuff. But it was kind of a new thing
2:27
for me. I never really until like, you
2:29
know, earlier this year, I wasn't really a gym guy, but I
2:32
just got into it. And I think where it helps is,
2:35
you know, in dealing with online conflict, because you know, when
2:39
you when you lift the heavy weights in the morning, it's in
2:42
a way that's the most resistance you're going to face for the
2:46
whole day. And so if you get resistance
2:48
online, it actually just seems like really small compared to
2:52
all the, the weight you've been lifting that morning.
2:54
And so it's sort of easy to deal with.
2:56
But if I haven't done that, then I start getting this resistance
2:59
coming in. It's like it feels like heavy
3:01
lifting, you know what I mean? But very importantly though,
3:06
what is playing in your in your playlist while you are lifting?
3:11
Actually I don't listen to music at the gym, but maybe I should.
3:16
I just do it sometimes because it pumps me up.
3:18
Well, I've heard this, yeah. And it makes sense.
3:20
And I probably should take some headphones to the gym.
3:22
I'll probably get a better workout.
3:25
But yeah, they usually have like old school dance music playing
3:27
in the in the gym. So.
3:29
So it takes me back to my youth. It's always the same thing on
3:32
repeat. Yeah, yeah.
3:35
It doesn't matter where where in the world it is.
3:37
All gyms are the same. It seems like yeah, yeah.
3:42
I find that a bit of metal or or some some Hard Rock or or or
3:46
like drummer bass or something or break beat or something
3:49
that's got like a huge amount of like bottom end that that kind
3:52
of psychs me. All right, that's it.
3:54
I'm taking my headphones to the gym next time.
3:58
But you're a musician, right? I am, but you know, I want to
4:02
say I spent so much time like immersed in music and working on
4:05
it all day every day and going to gigs every weekend,
4:07
everything. But actually now I hardly listen
4:09
to music at all. I'm, I'm sort of like, my
4:11
tolerance is worn thin. My fascination with it, you
4:14
know, I'm not, I'm not so easily entranced by it anymore.
4:18
But whereas I used to be so fascinated by music, I would
4:20
just get sucked into it all, all the time.
4:22
But now it doesn't work on me as much as it used to.
4:27
But, you know, and you know, yeah, it's just I hired it too
4:31
much, you know, but. But that's also not what you
4:35
actually do. You're a nuclear physicist.
4:38
Yeah, so before I became a full time music producer, I did a
4:43
degree and APHD in theoretical physics, specializing in nuclear
4:47
physics. Yeah, and it was, I was five
4:49
year, so I did that until that was 2005.
4:52
I graduated with a PhD and I did five years work in industry.
4:57
And then 2010 I actually quit my job and just went fully into
5:00
music. It's something I've been into
5:02
since I was a kid. You know, I've been a DJ since I
5:04
was like 1213 years old and I just really sensed an
5:08
opportunity to just put everything into it and and run
5:11
with it. So yeah, I did that for 10 years
5:13
until 2020. And then, yeah, it kind of all
5:17
kind of, well, it didn't all come to an end.
5:19
I mean, I've still made music since 2020, but I haven't, you
5:21
know, my career hasn't recovered from COVID.
5:25
I was like out the club and yeah, I don't, I don't really
5:28
get the gigs anymore so but. It's fine.
5:30
I can totally see, I can totally see the the connection from
5:35
nuclear physics to DJ ING are. You being sarcastic?
5:42
No, I'm never sarcastic. Well, I mean, there is a
5:48
connection in that actually when you start doing physics, then
5:51
real physics, like making calculations, it's all based in
5:55
wave theory. It's all wave equations.
5:57
And actually the, the, the synthesizer is, you know, a
6:01
device for manipulating waves. And so I got really into
6:06
synthesizers and making electronic music.
6:08
It felt like an application of all the theory that I'd been
6:11
learning, you know, even though it's nothing to do with quantum
6:13
or nuclear or whatever, it was music.
6:16
But music is actually something that people enjoy.
6:18
It's something that they buy. It's something that rings
6:21
forever. You know, once you've made a
6:22
good piece of music, it's good forever.
6:24
And it just seemed that music was so much more valuable to
6:27
humanity than any of the stuff I was doing in physics.
6:31
But it translated because of the vibration harmonic theory and
6:34
stuff which is built built into physics.
6:36
So. So yeah, there was a connection
6:38
there, though it's maybe not obvious from the outside.
6:42
I. Remember when you and I last
6:44
chatted, you basically dust so much of of theoretical science.
6:51
Yeah, and I'm only just getting started as well.
6:55
What is it? Quantum, Quantum physics, I
6:57
think you you mocked. There were a few things actually
7:00
that you said. Basically it's just all sort of
7:02
like, what's the word intellectual masturbation,
7:06
really. Yeah, our sophistry.
7:08
Yeah. Yeah.
7:09
I mean, you know, I used to love it.
7:11
Don't get me wrong. I'm at the time and you know, I
7:13
have no, I have no beef with my teachers or lecturers or
7:16
anything. I mean, I had a good experience
7:17
at uni and, you know, my teachers were were cool and
7:20
everything. So this isn't like some personal
7:23
beef, but it's like 20 years of growth and research since I did
7:29
that. That's a lot of time to test the
7:33
things that I've been taught and to see if it actually holds up
7:37
on the world stage. And my view is it doesn't.
7:41
And actually the more you look into it, the more wacky it gets.
7:45
And I believe just to, you know, as a sort of conclusion, I've
7:50
come to the conclusion that quantum theory is kind of a
7:53
military intelligence operation to hide secretive technologies.
8:00
So instead of when you go to university, you get the good
8:03
grades you want to learn about how the world really works or
8:06
how you know the fundamental reality works.
8:10
And instead they give you all this theory like masses and
8:13
masses of complex theory about things that you can't see and
8:17
nobody can, you know, verify or isolate or falsify.
8:21
And I feel like it's. Just.
8:23
Yeah, like atoms. Yeah.
8:24
And it just channels. I mean, you know, this is a 120
8:28
page PhD thesis on nuclear theory.
8:31
And I mean, you know, nobody in the world is going to check this
8:34
work, right? I bet, you know, nobody will
8:37
ever on the Internet go through this and verify everything I did
8:40
in here. And the reason is because it
8:42
would take years and it would take funding.
8:45
And even if you did go through all of that and verify it, what
8:48
good would it do? You wouldn't be any better off
8:51
because it's fruitless, right? It's, it's pedagogical, it's
8:55
designed for teaching purposes, not for the purposes of
9:00
application in the real world. And you know, and so, you know,
9:04
fair play. If, if the purpose of school is
9:06
to train your brain through solving really difficult
9:09
problems, then that's fine. Nuclear physics and quantum
9:12
physics will do that. But if you expect it to apply to
9:16
reality when you leave university, then you, you've got
9:18
it wrong. It, it doesn't, you know, it's
9:20
not a useful skill that, that, that you can be employed to use
9:25
in any real world capacity. And I, I stand by that.
9:28
And the more I look into it, the just the more true it gets.
9:33
A virus has never been isolated and therefore observed.
9:37
Has an atom ever been isolated and therefore observed?
9:41
No. So an atom is, well, so they say
9:45
a virus is 1000 times smaller than a bacterium.
9:48
Well, a, an atom is probably a million times smaller than a
9:53
virus. So if you think, you know, if
9:59
you can't isolate viruses, then you know, can they isolate
10:01
atoms? And then what about electrons,
10:03
of course, which is even smaller than an atom.
10:06
And they talk about electrons all the time as if they're, you
10:09
know, like in the room with us. But of course, those have never
10:12
been isolated either. So.
10:14
So, yeah, I, I, you know, I'm highly critical of the model of
10:18
the atom and yeah, a lot of modern theoretical.
10:21
Hold on. But then how did they arrive at
10:23
that? I mean, it's it's standard
10:27
vernacular. Well, I mean, it's, you know,
10:31
historically we're only talking like 100 years or maybe like 120
10:36
years or so since the electron was coined, like the term was
10:40
coined. It might be a bit older, like
10:41
late 1800s. And then the other particles
10:44
came along afterwards. And, you know, the models have
10:46
been built up. But you know, The thing is, it's
10:51
sold to us as if it is these brilliant, you know, noble
10:56
scientists who were just investigating the structure of
10:59
matter and energy and came up with these great theories to
11:02
help us understand it. But when you actually look into
11:06
it, who these people were, they were all tied up in the nuclear
11:10
bomb narrative. They were all involved in it in
11:13
some capacity or another. And the whole goal of quantum
11:20
theory was to build a nook. I didn't.
11:24
That wasn't why I studied quantum theory.
11:25
I was seeking fundamental understanding.
11:27
I'm not thinking about nukes or anything.
11:29
But then I ended up, I followed that path.
11:31
And where did I end up? I ended up doing a PhD in
11:33
nuclear physics, but even after a PhD in nuclear physics, I
11:39
couldn't. I couldn't tell you how to how a
11:41
bomb works or how a nuclear power station works.
11:43
And yeah, I could tell you what they told us.
11:46
I could, I could tell you what they told us, how those things
11:49
work. But it's not a true
11:52
understanding. And I've come to, I've come to
11:55
realize this as the years have gone on.
11:56
I was like, I wasn't given a true understanding of how these
12:00
technologies work or a true understanding of how nature
12:03
works. But if we can't see something,
12:08
can we conclude that it doesn't exist?
12:11
I mean, there are lots of things that we can't see.
12:15
True. Well, what they do when they so
12:19
how do when they're modeling this stuff, the way they test it
12:23
is by just firing light at matter.
12:25
OK, So you have a piece of matter that I was studying
12:29
lithium. So if you imagine you got like a
12:31
lump of lithium and then you've got a laser beam which you fire
12:35
at the lithium, right? So when the light interacts with
12:39
the matter, it will disperse off.
12:41
It'll, you know, go off in different directions.
12:44
And you know, essentially that's what I was doing.
12:47
So I was creating a model for what would happen when a light
12:50
beam hits a piece of lithium. Create a model for how the light
12:54
goes off, what directions it's, it goes off in, and it's all
12:58
done with vibration, like modelling using sine waves or
13:02
something called the Fourier's theorem.
13:04
And you know, we do this in, in, in music.
13:06
So you can make any sound like absolutely any sound you can
13:10
imagine by adding sine waves together.
13:13
Well, similarly, you can model any substance by adding sine
13:18
waves together. And that's what they do.
13:19
And it's so that that aspect of it is mathematical modelling,
13:23
right? It's actually not quantum
13:25
theory. It's it's like it's mathematical
13:27
modeling using harmonics, using vibration.
13:29
And that's a very good science that actually works.
13:32
But the theories of the particles and you know, the
13:36
particles zoo, as they call it, it just just doesn't stand up.
13:40
Because if particles are meant to be solid things like solid
13:43
objects, and if they're solid, then you should be able to hold
13:46
them in your hand or, you know, create a bucket, you know, or
13:49
put them in a bottle or something like that.
13:52
You know, there should be a way to isolate them, but but there
13:55
isn't because they exist in a dimension that's beyond, well,
13:58
they are said to exist in a dimension that's beyond our
14:01
reach and will forever be beyond our reach.
14:05
Does the same apply to DNA? DNA, yeah, the the double Helix
14:10
structure, I don't think there's any evidence of that existing as
14:14
a molecule. So it's a kind of a hypothetical
14:17
molecule of the soul because it's said to contain all the the
14:21
information like the blueprint of of your soul and the the
14:26
double Helix structure is a model of what that molecule
14:30
would look like. But I would say that the the
14:33
information about your soul would be contained in the
14:35
structures of the water in your body, not actually wound up in
14:40
this physical double Helix molecule.
14:46
You told me earlier that you watched my conversation with
14:51
Michael Palmer, who was on my UK column show a few months ago in
14:55
which he, I think, quite convincingly argued against the
15:01
idea that atomic bombs were dropped on Japan.
15:04
Yes, absolutely. So, you know, I, I was skeptical
15:10
of the bombs, but I was coming at it from a different angle to
15:14
Michael Palmer. So I listened to him on, on you
15:17
and I listened to him also on Crow 777.
15:20
And, you know, one of the things he said when he started, he said
15:22
I'm only qualified to talk on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
15:26
He said that at the start of his conversation with Crow and not
15:29
not anything else. Oh, that's Max Egan.
15:32
Sorry. That's Max Egan isn't it?
15:34
Crow, 7777. I don't think so.
15:38
No, I don't. It's not Max Egan.
15:41
I've met Max Egan as someone else but.
15:44
Oh no, I think he's a Crow house or something.
15:46
OK, nevermind. Anyway.
15:47
Yeah. Anyway, so there was an
15:48
interview with Michael Palmer and I listened to them both like
15:50
and, and yeah, so he said he was only qualified to talk on
15:54
Hiroshima and Nagasaki and, and nothing kind of outside of that.
15:57
And I thought it was interesting.
15:58
And then so he's very thoroughly debunked this and we can go into
16:03
some of his points if you want. But what I thought was
16:06
interesting was he's, he then said that, but he actually still
16:09
believes in nukes and he, he believes in nuclear physics
16:12
completely. So he, he thinks they actually
16:14
just hadn't finished working on the nukes.
16:18
So they had to, they had to fake it.
16:19
And there was other reasons why they faked it as well.
16:22
But then that shortly after the war, they then did develop nukes
16:25
and then they've been testing nukes ever since.
16:28
And I thought that was, that was quite an interesting twist, of
16:32
course, because like, he is the guy for debunking Hiroshima and
16:36
Nagasaki, but he still believes in, in nuclear physics and
16:39
everything. So I I thought this was a good
16:41
opportunity for me to to come at it from the other side.
16:44
Yeah, I mean, isn't there a difference there between a bomb
16:47
and creating energy? Well, yes, actually.
16:52
So as it turns out, they're only connected by name.
16:56
So they use the same term, nuclear, to describe the bombs
17:00
and to describe the power plants.
17:01
But there's actually not really a similarity.
17:04
I mean, as Michael Palmer pointed out, in Hiroshima and
17:08
Nagasaki, they used napalm and mustard gas, which are chemical
17:12
weapons. So chemical weapons were banned,
17:15
of course. So they they kind of had to.
17:19
So the thing with nuclear is it was a clever way of
17:22
circumventing the chemical weapons ban.
17:24
So they were able to use chemical weapons, but claim that
17:28
it were non chemical because it was a new type of combustion
17:31
fuel called nuclear. You see, because under the, the
17:34
Chemical Weapons Convention, you, you're allowed to blow
17:37
people up with combustible fuels, but you're not allowed to
17:41
poison them or burn them with chemicals, right?
17:44
So it's, it's crazy. So, so because they were using
17:48
napalm and mustard gas, which are chemical poisons that burn
17:51
people, they had to spin it as being a new type of combustible
17:56
fuel. And so they, they came up with
17:58
this nuclear thing, but actually nuclear power stations, they use
18:03
a system that's, you know, quite, quite clever way of, of
18:05
generating electricity. It has nothing to do with napalm
18:08
or mustard gas. So the two are only connected by
18:12
the name nuclear, which is, you know, as you know, it's quite a
18:15
powerful word that they use to to scare people.
18:18
OK, but just for clarity, I mean for you it's obvious, but the
18:22
for the rest of us who aren't scientists, what is meant by the
18:26
term nuclear or a nuclear bomb or nuclear energy?
18:30
OK, so the etymology of the word nuclear actually comes from
18:34
nuke, meaning nut, nut or seed or or kernel.
18:39
So when you talk about the nucleus of something, you're
18:41
actually talking about the seed in the middle of the thing.
18:45
And so the idea of nuclear is that matter contains a nut at
18:51
the at the very center, the smallest, you know, dimension
18:56
this of matter, There's there's a nut to seed of, of that
18:59
matter. And that's the nucleus.
19:01
Because in, in the atomic theory, they say you've got
19:04
neutrons and protons in the in the nucleus, and then you've got
19:06
electrons around the outside. But the electrons don't define
19:09
the substance, right? It's the, the nucle, the
19:13
nucleus, the neutrons and protons, the number of neutrons
19:15
and protons that define the character of the substance, not
19:18
the electrons. So the nucleus is the nut, but
19:22
so that's what nuclear means. And but it's it's it's kind of
19:29
because it became all about this quest for the biggest bomb
19:35
that's ever been made. Now the word has just become
19:39
associated with war, fear, threat, destruction, all this
19:45
kind of stuff. It's a real like military power
19:47
word that they can use to assert military dominance.
19:51
You know whenever they throw this this idea around.
19:55
But in reality, Stephen, that's exactly what they do.
19:59
They throw around the term everybody talks about nuclear
20:02
war. Yeah, yeah.
20:03
No, it's a threat. And, you know, it's politically
20:08
convenient because it establishes a kind of military
20:13
dominance like to if, if you have the enemy thinks that you
20:16
have the biggest bomb ever, right?
20:18
That's like a, it's like a psychological warfare technique.
20:23
And, you know, when it comes to nuclear bombs, all we have is
20:26
videos, videos of mushroom clouds.
20:28
That's it. And as Michael Palmer points
20:31
out, a mushroom cloud is not evidence of nuclear, right?
20:33
That's a, that's a myth. People think they if they see a
20:36
mushroom cloud, it must be nuclear.
20:37
It's like, no, any explosion above a certain magnitude will
20:41
produce a mushroom cloud. You don't need to have nuclear
20:44
fuel to do that. And yeah, it's really
20:46
interesting. I mean, the stuff you found out
20:48
about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you know, there was like people
20:51
like 50 meters away, you know, eyewitnesses like 50 meters away
20:55
who survived and stuff. And we've got this idea that
20:57
it's like this massive blast that's like blasted away like
21:01
thousands of people destroying a whole city.
21:03
And it was a fire bombing. It destroyed part of a city.
21:07
And, you know, there were people as close as 50 meters who saw it
21:09
happen. It's like it just doesn't add up
21:12
to the the scale. You know, the scale was
21:14
exaggerated and then there was no reporting, right?
21:18
So the first journalist to get in to Japan was four weeks after
21:22
the event and they had all their work confiscated by the US
21:27
military. Guy Weller wrote 25,000 words on
21:30
what he saw. It was all confiscated.
21:32
Another guy went in and took a load of pictures, all
21:34
confiscated. So it was very controlled.
21:37
They didn't want us to see or know what happened there, but
21:40
they told the whole world it was like this huge nuclear thing
21:44
but. It wasn't.
21:47
Meanwhile, Dresden and Tokyo were fire bombed and they looked
21:51
pretty much the same as Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
21:55
Exactly. Yeah.
21:56
So Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not the first cities to be
21:59
destroyed by fire. It's happened many, many times
22:02
throughout history. But we're supposed to believe
22:04
that this was just like the biggest, most, you know, worst
22:07
destruction of a city that's ever happened.
22:10
And, and of course, in nuclear physics, you're expected to
22:12
believe there'll be thousands of years of nuclear fallout where
22:15
all the atoms will be decaying and nothing can grow, and
22:18
they'll be like mutants and all this kind of stuff.
22:20
But actually, the city's just built right back after, you
22:24
know, they just got back to business after the explosion.
22:26
So it just none of it really adds up.
22:30
If you walked right into Chernobyl itself, what do you
22:35
think will happen? Well, you know, it kept
22:39
operating for 14 years after the, the, the accident that
22:43
there's, there was another plant like right next to it like 100
22:45
meters away that kept operating and people kept working there
22:47
and stuff for like 14 years. But so when you're asking a
22:52
question about radioactivity and whether that is real and whether
22:56
it's dangerous, and I think it's just a subtle point on this is
23:00
that with radioactivity, they tell us there's three kinds,
23:04
alpha, beta, and gamma. And they tell us that alpha and
23:07
beta are particles. So that's solid objects that are
23:10
being spat out from the source. But gamma is frequency
23:15
vibration, radiation or light. And I just, I'm of the opinion
23:20
that alpha and beta are actually just light as well.
23:23
They're not particles. It's like alpha, beta, gamma are
23:27
is a classification of radiation by penetration depth.
23:31
So the gamma rays have got strong penetration.
23:33
They can go through a lot a long way through matter.
23:37
But the beta can only penetrate, you know, not so far.
23:40
And alpha can only penetrate a little bit, right.
23:42
So it's radiation graduation by penetration depth.
23:48
Now radiation can be dangerous. It depends on the quality of the
23:52
radiation and your dosage of it and how close you are to the
23:56
source. And I think the best way to
23:59
think about it is just like sound.
24:00
OK, so music can be beautiful and healing.
24:04
It can make you feel good. But if you go right up close to
24:06
a loudspeaker, you could damage your ears.
24:09
A lot of things happen when you go up close to the speaker.
24:12
You can no longer hear the bass very well because the bass needs
24:16
a lot of space to to open up right.
24:19
But the high frequencies are like super loud when you're like
24:22
close to the speaker. So the, the, the, the whole, the
24:25
spectrum becomes tilted. You have high frequencies are
24:28
too high, bass frequencies are turned down and that becomes
24:31
dangerous, right? Even though it's the same music
24:34
that you're enjoying a few meters back from the speaker is
24:36
now dangerous to your ears when you're close to the speaker and
24:39
the high frequencies are boosted and the bass are turned down,
24:41
right? So it's like that with
24:43
radiation, right? Your closeness to the source and
24:46
the frequency or energetic spectrum of the radiation, it
24:50
all depends on that, like how how dangerous it is.
24:53
But generally it gets less dangerous the further away you
24:55
get from it. And I think even with things
24:58
like Wi-Fi routers and stuff like that, it's like, you know,
25:01
it's probably not that dangerous when you're sitting around at a
25:05
distance from it. But if you were to sit right
25:07
next, like holding your Wi-Fi router all day, then you're a
25:10
lot closer to it and the high frequencies will will kind of
25:13
get into you more so. But that's kind of how I see it.
25:16
It's just all radiation, it's all vibration.
25:18
There's no particles. I don't, I don't believe they've
25:21
been adequately, you know, proven to exist.
25:25
OK, but then if you are not convinced that nuclear power is
25:30
a thing, what was Chernobyl? Well, so nuclear power is is a
25:36
thing in the sense that, you know, these power stations
25:38
exist, right? So nuclear bombs are just
25:41
videos. These are videos and claims.
25:44
Yeah, so, but nuclear power stations, obviously they're
25:47
dotted around the place and they, they are, we only do
25:49
exist. But the question is, are they
25:51
nuclear? Is it, is it justified to use
25:54
the term nuclear to describe what they're doing there?
25:57
And I've done a deep dive on this actually just this week.
26:00
I've just, I've just finished a new presentation on nuclear
26:03
power, which I'm going to put out this weekend on YouTube and
26:06
Substack. So what it what they do there is
26:11
it's, you know, the basic idea of how it works is they say it's
26:14
like a kettle. It just works like a kettle.
26:16
So you've got a heating element in some water and then the heat
26:20
goes into the water, the water turns to steam and the steam
26:23
drives the turbines, right. So that's the basic kind of
26:25
engineering schematic of a nuclear power plant.
26:29
But how do they heat the water? Well, they tell you that they
26:32
use uranium, a nuclear fuel called uranium, and that it
26:37
heats the water by this exotic nuclear energy called neutrons.
26:43
And so I started looking into this and the first thing you
26:48
notice is they don't actually use uranium in the reactor, so
26:53
they use something called yellow cake.
26:55
Have you heard of this yellow cake?
26:57
No. Yeah.
26:58
So nuclear fuel is called yellow cake.
27:00
It's a bright yellow powder. It looks virtually identical to
27:04
sulphur and they call it uranium dioxide.
27:09
Now, is it uranium dioxide or isn't it, or is that just the
27:13
name they call it? It looks virtually identical to
27:16
sulphur, as I say. And sulphur is a very fiery
27:18
compound. So yeah, it's a, it's a bright
27:21
yellow powder and they get it from an ore called pitch blend,
27:26
which, you know, is extracted from this ore and then they
27:30
enrich it through just, you know, basic processes again,
27:34
uranium or they call it uranium enrichment, but it's actually
27:37
yellow cake enrichment and they, they purify it and kind of
27:42
distill it essentially to get the like the, the lightest
27:45
components out of it. Like with distillation, they use
27:49
something called gaseous diffusion and centrifugal
27:51
separation to enrich it, and then they put it in these little
27:56
pellets. So you get these zirconium
27:58
pellets, they're about this size and they pack them with the
28:02
yellow cake fuel. Now then using, they then ignite
28:08
the yellow cake by heating it to a certain critical temperature.
28:13
And then what happens is like if you were to just ignite the
28:15
yellow cake, normally it would just explode, right?
28:19
Boom, it's an explosive. But when it's inside these
28:22
little pellets, it can't explode.
28:24
There's nowhere for it to go. There's no oxygen in the pellet,
28:27
so it can't burn because you need oxygen to burn.
28:30
It also can't produce any sound because there's no it can't
28:34
produce any light. There's nowhere for it to go.
28:36
So what happens is all the energy comes out of the pellet
28:39
as heat. And so the pellets like slowly
28:43
heat the water, which produces the steam.
28:47
It's actually pretty clever. And you know, I think it's, you
28:51
know, people say it's like nuclear, right?
28:53
NEW clear nuclear energy actually makes more sense
28:58
because it is newer than the coal burning stations we used to
29:03
have. And it's clearer.
29:04
So it doesn't produce any smoke. It produces steam instead.
29:08
And the downside of that is if you have nuclear power plants
29:11
everywhere, you might end up with a lot of rain because, you
29:14
know, they are essentially just pulling water out of the river,
29:17
turning it into steam and blasting it into the sky, right?
29:19
So we went with a very rainy environment if there was nuclear
29:23
power everywhere. But you know that that's
29:26
essentially how it works. But there's it's dressed up in
29:30
all this jargon about the the fuel and that the fuel is this
29:34
really dangerous stuff called uranium.
29:36
And you know, it heats the water by neutrons and stuff.
29:39
But man, if you want to boil water, you need heat.
29:43
You don't need neutrons. Like, you know, it's just, it's
29:47
ludicrous. It's like it's, it's, it's the
29:49
water is boiled by the process of heat, not by the process of
29:52
neutrons. It just that just dresses it up
29:56
in a very jargony way that hides the simple thermal mechanical
30:00
processes that are going on. Why though?
30:03
Why would there be this quote UN quote cover up?
30:10
Because it's all tied in with secretive military technologies
30:14
that they, they don't want you having.
30:15
I mean, look, they don't want us generating our own power for a
30:19
start. So if everyone was taught the
30:21
secret of how to, you know, build nuclear power, then we, we
30:25
could all just start building our own power, power devices.
30:27
They don't want that. And, you know, tied up, of
30:32
course, with the bomb narrative as well.
30:35
And, you know, well, the way I put it is I, I realized this
30:39
after my PhD was that, you know, if they really did have the
30:44
secret of world destroying power, are they going to teach
30:49
it to just any old Tom, Dick and Harry who got good grades in
30:52
school? You know what I mean?
30:54
All all you need is like, you know, bees in maths and physics
30:57
and you can go to school and learn the secret of how to
30:59
destroy the world with yellow cake.
31:02
I mean, it's just ludicrous. So they, they don't actually
31:05
teach you how these things work. And they, it's what they, they
31:11
look at very abstract ways of like modelling the nucleus and,
31:14
you know, all this kind of thing.
31:15
But they don't actually just teach you how to build a power
31:18
generator or a bomb. And you know, probably good
31:23
reason for that, you know, but. So the evidence for atomic bombs
31:30
on Japan is remarkably flimsy, and you're saying so is the
31:35
evidence for nuclear power or any type of nuclear weaponry?
31:40
Yes, yeah. So the the the bombs don't even
31:44
use the nuclear fuel. I mean, that's that's what
31:46
Michael Palmer has shown the. Can I, can I interrupt you?
31:53
I used the word or the phrase atomic bomb.
31:55
What is the difference between a nuclear bomb and an atomic bomb?
31:59
I I think there it's just terminology, you know, the
32:02
terminology changed because it's like the atomic nucleus, right?
32:08
So it's, they're, they're sort of interchangeable anyway,
32:11
that's how I always understood that you can call them atomic,
32:13
call them nuclear. It's basically the same thing.
32:16
Yeah, just, well, just coming back to the, the nuclear power
32:19
thing. So it's obviously there's a real
32:21
power generation happening and it is actually quite clever and
32:25
really good engineering. And you know, it doesn't produce
32:28
smoke. So it is clear.
32:30
And you know, I'm not, I'm not even against it honestly.
32:33
I think actually the main reason people are against nuclear power
32:36
is because they bought into the whole radioactivity narrative,
32:40
right? So they think that this is a
32:42
potential source of danger that is going to blow up one day and
32:45
release all this radioactivity, and then we're all going to be
32:47
living in nuclear fallout and stuff like that.
32:50
So there's a lot of fear around nuclear power plants, which is
32:53
derived from the fear around the the nuclear bomb and the dangers
32:58
of nuclear fuel. And I just think it's actually
33:01
unjustified and perhaps it was done to keep people away from
33:05
the technology, right? Because with the radioactivity,
33:09
the idea is that the matter is spitting out little particles at
33:13
you, like little bullets, right? And so if you're, you're
33:16
probably, well, I'm going to go near that stuff, right?
33:18
It's probably the first thing you think I ain't going near
33:21
that stuff because it's dangerous.
33:22
It's going to spit out radioactivity at me.
33:25
And I think that was probably the idea was that they wanted
33:29
ordinary people to be like, I'm not going to go near that stuff.
33:32
I don't want to go close to it. And so it's all dressed up in
33:37
like heavy, like safety regulations as well.
33:40
So Galen Windsor, you know his story.
33:44
Yeah. Didn't he drink nuclear
33:48
something? I don't know, he drank something
33:49
that was toxic or radioactive or whatever.
33:52
Yeah, he would drink the water from the from the nuclear core,
33:58
but I mean, it's just water coming in from the river.
34:01
Do you know, it's like, it's like big deal, you're drinking
34:03
river water. So what?
34:04
But I mean, you know, what he said was that he when when he
34:10
started, he was head of nuclear fuel inventory for the US
34:14
government. And they all loved their jobs.
34:16
They were handling the fuel, handling the waste like they had
34:19
a good crew, good operation running.
34:22
No one was sick. People loved their jobs.
34:24
It was good. And then one day the government
34:26
came down and was like, oh, you can't touch this stuff.
34:28
You, you got to stay, you got to keep your distance, you got to
34:31
wear protective gear. You can only have 10 minutes
34:33
exposure a day and all this. And he said it actually just
34:36
made everyone's job a complete misery and kind of ruined the
34:40
operation, you know, But the fact that they were doing it all
34:44
without safety gloves, without quite happily for a lot of
34:49
years, you know, that shows you that it was never dangerous to
34:52
begin with. It was all about control.
34:55
He actually said that nuclear weapons don't exist.
35:00
Yeah, and I, I would. And he said that.
35:02
Radiation fear, yeah. And he also, I think he said
35:04
radiation fear was mostly just about exactly that, the fear.
35:09
Yeah, yeah, hysteria and yeah, just a fear to kind of keep you
35:13
away from powerful substances, essentially.
35:16
I mean, you know, this is an explosive substance like the the
35:21
yellow cake and you know, they they.
35:24
If you think about it, Steven Fear is a great way to get a
35:31
compliant group of people. 100%, man, I mean, look at all the
35:36
stuff that's been done in the name of nuclear as well, you
35:38
know, like the children, you know, duck, duck and cover
35:42
drills. I mean, I thought that was very
35:44
reminiscent of the masking, you know, masking children, making
35:46
them sit in like plastic boxes and everything to protect them
35:50
from the deadly virus. It was very reminiscent of,
35:53
like, get under your desk and, you know, duck and cover in the
35:56
event of a nuclear blast and all this, like it, you know,
35:59
traumatic, you know, terrifying things to consider for a child.
36:07
You've got a book called The Fool's Wisdom, and part of it is
36:11
what you call the Secret Art of Alchemy.
36:14
What is that? Yes, well, alchemy is ancient
36:18
science and you know, it's, it's a science which is based in
36:21
fire, earth, air and water. So it's actually common to all
36:26
ancient civilizations because obviously all civilizations were
36:29
familiar with fire, earth, air and water.
36:32
They're like the, the, the true elements of life.
36:34
And so it's kind of a science that kind of reframes things in
36:37
terms of fire, earth, air and water instead of in terms of
36:40
atoms and protons and neutrons and stuff.
36:42
So the atomic theory was not around at that time.
36:46
So alchemists, they invented chemistry, they did all kinds of
36:51
great science. And you know what, what the
36:53
ancient architecture, the cathedrals and, you know,
36:55
stained glass windows and all this stuff.
36:57
Like alchemists were involved in all of that.
37:01
And it was all they did it all without any knowledge of atoms.
37:05
And so when I started to look into alchemy, I started to
37:09
realize it actually can provide a superior explanation of
37:13
anything because it explains it in terms of real elements, fire,
37:18
earth, air and water. So it actually helped me to
37:21
understand technology better, like, like understanding the how
37:24
a nuclear power station works, right?
37:26
It's actually, I would say it's an alchemical engine.
37:29
It uses alchemical processes and techniques like the, the, the
37:34
yellow cake in the pellets. You know, that's like, it's what
37:37
they call the secret fire in alchemy, which is when you heat
37:40
something without oxygen. It's also known as pyrolysis.
37:46
So when you heat something in the absence of oxygen, it
37:48
doesn't burn. It actually it, it transforms in
37:54
a, in a positive way, right? It's like, but if, if, if
37:56
there's oxygen present, it will burn, it will explode, right?
37:59
It will, it will go on fire. And so, you know, they are
38:03
actually using alchemical techniques and processes in
38:06
these nuclear power stations, but the schools and the
38:11
universities and the media and all that, they just don't teach
38:15
us exactly how this stuff works for whatever reason.
38:20
Are you of the opinion that science is quite broken?
38:24
Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, since COVID, you
38:28
know, most science people, if you like science gurus,
38:32
professors and all that, have no legitimacy whatsoever because of
38:36
how they responded to COVID. You know, it's like they, if
38:41
they promote it, if they went along with it, they promote it
38:43
is like they've lost all scientific legitimacy because
38:46
they've shown they don't have the discernment.
38:48
And they've also promoted poison to masses of people, right?
38:52
And you know, if I was running a company and my staff were
38:56
promoting poison on social media, they'd be fired, you know
39:01
what I mean? And I might even call the
39:02
police, right? But of course, now it's
39:05
completely normalized. So many people promoted the
39:07
poison, right? And most of them have gotten
39:10
promotions and, you know, bonuses and knighthoods and all
39:15
this kind of stuff, right? So, but, but for anyone with
39:19
discernment, it's like you can't trust these scientists ever
39:22
again, right? Unless, unless they were, you
39:24
know, unless they were humble and they came forward and say,
39:25
you know what? Look, I was, I was actually
39:27
totally wrong about that. I was misled and I was afraid.
39:30
And, you know, I said some things I regret and everything.
39:33
Then you start to get some legitimacy again.
39:35
But you you've got the wrong side on COVID.
39:39
You haven't repented for what you've done.
39:42
No legitimacy whatsoever. Oh, that just.
39:45
Sounds like a cult. What's that the?
39:50
Scientism. I love this this the sentence
39:52
that you use. Just scientism is the troll that
39:55
guards the gates to the fountain of alchemical truth.
40:00
Alchemical. Alchemical.
40:02
How do you say that alchemical? Alchemical truth.
40:05
Let me just say that statement again because I've completely
40:07
butchered it. Because that's so beautiful.
40:09
Scientism is the troll that guards the gates to the fountain
40:13
of alchemical truth. Yeah, it is like this kind of
40:17
troll. I mean, you talk about
40:18
gatekeepers, right? So we have these.
40:22
It's like a priestly class of scientists, you know?
40:26
You know the ones. I'm not going to mention their
40:28
names, but there's, you know, certain signs you just see again
40:30
and again, they're always in the mainstream.
40:32
Even if you don't follow them, you still see them, right?
40:36
Which is a sign that you're being programmed.
40:39
If you, if you, you know, if you see things without having to dig
40:41
for them, you're being programmed.
40:43
And so when you, when you see all this, the sign is that they
40:46
are programming you. They always have the same spin
40:49
on everything. And, you know, they're impious,
40:55
right? You know what I mean by that?
40:57
Impious. Like they, they have no
40:58
reverence or respect for the divine at all.
41:01
And I, I've never, you know, seen a scientist in any of these
41:05
fields who actually has, you know, some respect or, or
41:08
reverence for the divine. They are atheists.
41:11
They're impious. And they have a priestly sort of
41:14
status in society where they just get to say all this stuff
41:18
unchallenged and everyone goes, wow, you know, isn't that
41:22
fascinating? Isn't that awesome?
41:24
And it's like a spell. Trust the science.
41:27
Yeah, trust the science no more. Yeah, you lost your, you lost
41:33
your trust privileges during COVID, I'm afraid.
41:37
You refer to it as a scientific materialism.
41:41
Yeah, so this is the idea that there's nothing except matter.
41:46
So there's, you know, we're made of matter, but in between the
41:50
atoms of matter there's just nothing like void vacuum.
41:55
So there's matter and nothing. And this is materialism because
42:00
in alchemy there's something called the ether.
42:02
And the ether is not nothing. The ether is a fluid that fills
42:06
all space and it's, you know, it's living, it's dynamic, it's
42:10
like the root of consciousness and, and all this stuff.
42:13
So alchemy provides a bridge between science and
42:17
spirituality. But in materialism they've taken
42:20
ether and thrown it out. So they've left no space for
42:24
spirituality. It's left us like trapped in
42:27
matter, as it were. And that is a materialist is one
42:30
who is trapped in matter because they there is, there's still a
42:34
spirit, right? You're a spirit in matter, but
42:37
you believe there's no spirit and it's only matter.
42:40
So you're kind of you're trapped in there.
42:42
And so, but part of the great work of alchemy is actually to
42:45
help people out of materialism to actually open and become
42:50
more, more spiritually aware. And, and that because that's a
42:53
transformational process and, and that that is part of alchemy
42:58
as well. It's like the transformation of
42:59
yourself, your soul, as you, as you go through this journey from
43:02
materialist to, you know, spiritually aware.
43:07
And what you're saying also does ring true because if you, if you
43:10
listen to space scientists, you know, talking, they end up in so
43:17
many wood salads, they end up going in strange into strange
43:21
mental gymnastics to make things work.
43:24
You know, 70% of the universe is dark matter.
43:26
We don't know what it is, but we know it's there.
43:28
And then you've got black holes and, and, and and The Big Bang
43:31
and everything came out of nothing.
43:33
And now it's expanding into itself.
43:35
I mean the the absurdity becomes like a Monty Python sketch.
43:39
Yeah, yeah. And, you know, I used to be so,
43:42
like, fascinated and sucked in by all that stuff.
43:44
But yeah, when now I look at it, it's just like an absolute clown
43:47
show. Like the problems we have in the
43:49
world now, the things that need done, the things that need to
43:51
fix, the improvements that need to be made to the world.
43:55
And they're talking about black holes in some Galaxy far, far
43:58
away. It's just like, yeah,
44:01
absolutely. Yeah.
44:02
What happens if you go through it and, and, and you end up
44:05
somewhere else and can you teleport?
44:08
And I mean, it's just, it's insane.
44:10
Yeah, I sometimes think that the outer space stuff is actually
44:14
designed to, like, take your attention away from what's going
44:17
on down here. You know what I mean?
44:18
It's like it takes your attention so far out into, you
44:22
know, La La land that you end up blissfully unaware of what's
44:26
actually happening on the Earth, like, right in front of you, you
44:29
know? Yeah.
44:30
I think it was you who said to me a while back that
44:33
astrophysics is just nonsense. Well, have you ever needed an
44:38
astrophysicist for anything? Well, let me call one up.
44:43
I've got a problem with the plumbing.
44:48
Yeah, so astrophysics is actually nuclear physics as
44:51
well, because the the theory is that all the stars in the sky
44:57
are actually nuclear reactors. You know, so we're told the sun
45:01
is a giant nuclear fireball and that all the stars are of that
45:06
nature. So what they do with nuclear
45:10
physics then is they take like the model of the cosmos and then
45:14
they apply like nuclear physics to the stars, and then they
45:17
model the stars in that way. And, you know, again, very
45:20
complex years and years of time could be spent, like looking
45:25
into all this stuff, but what can you actually do with it when
45:28
you come out? Not nothing at all, really.
45:31
And I think, yeah, I mean, I thought I started studying
45:35
astrophysics. That was a, you know, for the
45:37
first two years of my degree, that's what I was studying.
45:39
And, you know, I thought it would get me into space to, you
45:42
know, I was like 18 years old or whatever.
45:44
I'm like, you know, if I have a degree in astrophysics that
45:46
maybe one day I can go either go to the moon or go to Mars or
45:50
something. But then, you know, you come out
45:53
and you realize, no, that's actually, you don't even need to
45:57
know anything about astrophysics to be an astronaut.
45:59
You just have to be a essentially A brainwashed
46:02
soldier to be an astronaut, right?
46:04
It's a, you have to go through military psychological
46:08
brainwashing in order to do that.
46:11
And I'm just like, yeah, no, I'm not doing that.
46:15
A number of years ago, my wife and I visited a very this very
46:18
big telescope that's here in South Africa.
46:20
It's and sort of the middle of the, well, not really in the
46:22
middle of the country, but it's out in the middle of nowhere
46:25
where there's no light pollution.
46:28
And we were taken on a private tour and my wife asks the one,
46:33
what do you, what do you call? But what is he an astronomer, I
46:35
suppose. And she, she asked him, what do
46:39
you do? And he says, well, I observe the
46:43
stars and whatever the sun, etcetera.
46:45
She's never OK, but what do you actually do?
46:47
Yeah, yeah. When I was doing nuclear
46:50
physics, that if people ask me what is it you actually do is
46:54
it's tough, You know, you're just like, well, I'm, I'm, you
46:57
know, start probing the, you know, structure of matter using,
47:01
you know, mathematical models and everything.
47:04
It's just like, yeah. Yes, but can you parallel park?
47:12
Can you unblock a sink? Yeah.
47:14
Nope. You know, whatever it is.
47:17
Yeah, it says so, yeah. You miss out on a lot of
47:20
practical education, you know, doing a PhD and something like
47:23
this. It's because you're, you're sort
47:25
of formative years from like, you know, 16 through to like 25
47:28
when, you know, you could be learning all these like basic
47:32
skills and how to run a business and how to fix things and do all
47:35
that stuff. You're you're just sat in
47:37
lecture theaters and libraries, you know, looking at equations
47:41
and, and things like that. So, yeah, so I came out of uni
47:44
like pretty, you know, unskilled and totally out of touch with
47:48
reality, like just, you know, business and industry and, you
47:54
know, all these things. I was so out of touch with all
47:56
that. And it was, you know, it was a
47:58
rough landing, you know, coming out of uni for sure.
48:02
So basically what you're saying is that it's just all academic
48:05
wankery? Yeah, academic.
48:07
You know, I, I don't want, again, I don't want to be too
48:09
harsh on the training aspect of it because it was, you know,
48:15
very rigorous mental training, right?
48:18
It's like it wasn't easy. It was like I had to do real
48:20
hard, you know, mental gymnastics and it was very
48:24
rigorously checked and tested and stuff.
48:27
But as I say, it's like a sandbox.
48:31
You create a sandbox by setting some limits and assumptions that
48:35
you start with and then you do all your science within those
48:38
limits and assumptions. And so you may be doing rigorous
48:41
science that's very complex and very time consuming, but it
48:44
doesn't translate to the real world because it was just all
48:48
taking place within this sandbox, you know, with
48:52
mathematical proofs and stuff. I mean, again, it's like, what
48:55
are the fruits? You know, that's, that's how,
48:57
that's what got me into this to begin with.
48:59
I'm looking at like, what are the actual fruits of the
49:01
theories? It's like, you know, theories
49:03
just like a seed, like an idea what what's actually what grows
49:08
out of it and into into the real world.
49:12
Music is a good example of this. So music is a theory as well,
49:15
you know, music theory and it's the theory of vibration and
49:18
chords and notes and everything. And actually the theory is so
49:21
good that it can produce infinite music from that.
49:25
That one theory of music you infinitely different songs.
49:28
Every time someone makes a piece of music is different from
49:32
another. They're always unique.
49:34
It's, you know, the music theory has produced uncountable
49:37
infinite fruits for humanity. Well, what are the fruits of
49:40
nuclear theory? And they'll be like, well,
49:42
nuclear bombs, nuclear power stations.
49:45
And then so you look into those and you're like, but actually I
49:48
can explain those without any nuclear theory whatsoever.
49:51
So let me ask you again, what are the fruits of nuclear
49:54
theory? And now there's none, you know,
49:58
and it's like, OK, so you actually don't do anything.
50:01
So when I ask you, what you do is nothing.
50:05
There's nothing. And yeah, I again, I was, when I
50:08
was writing the book, I was first starting to wake up to
50:11
this stuff. But now like 3-4 years down the
50:14
line, I'm like, it just gets more and more obvious the more I
50:18
look into it that this stuff doesn't add up.
50:22
Do you think there's a problem? Too much specialization, yes.
50:28
Yeah, absolutely. Yeah.
50:31
I mean, you know, probably be interested to just have a look
50:34
into some of the crazier topics that people have done PhDs in,
50:39
you know, just like how we like specialized and just like out
50:42
there. And, you know, it would probably
50:44
blow, blow our minds just to, to, to look into that.
50:47
I mean, you know, my, my, the topic of my PhD was a pie on
50:52
photo production as a probe for studying Halo nuclei.
50:56
So that was incredibly specific. Incredibly.
51:01
Specific and without. Any applications in the real
51:04
world? Of course but but I mean no, but
51:07
I mean on a. You know, on a in, on a
51:10
day-to-day basis, hyper specialization seems to be
51:15
creating a lot of stupid people. Because what happens now is that
51:18
you have the whole stay in your lane scenario becoming very
51:22
apparent where you can't comment on anything because it's not
51:25
your field. Yeah, So you so someone will
51:28
say, are you a virologist? Well, no, but if I'm going to
51:31
ask about the existence of viruses, I'm not going to ask a
51:34
virologist. Yeah, because.
51:36
Because by default. A virologist.
51:39
Has subscribed to that narrative.
51:42
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Yeah, the whole stay in your
51:45
lane thing. I kind of broke out of that with
51:48
the book because, well, because when I looked into alchemy, what
51:52
I realized was that all the sciences unite in the ancient
51:56
world, right? So they've become fractured in
51:58
recent years with all these different specializations.
52:00
But when you trace it back through history, it all goes
52:02
back to natural philosophy and alchemy.
52:05
And so, you know, alchemy, as I said, they, they invented
52:07
chemistry. They were the first medicine
52:09
makers. You know, they were making the
52:13
metals, you know, making machines and, you know, so
52:17
alchemy is the foundation of everything.
52:18
So I, I sort of broke out that in my book.
52:21
I I criticize physics, I criticize chemistry, I criticize
52:24
medicine, you know, criticize politics and you know,
52:28
everything. I just like, broke out of my
52:30
lane, as it were, and just went for all of it.
52:34
But Steven Science. Traditionally.
52:38
Or historically. Was open source, no.
52:42
Yeah, I mean, you can be a scientist just.
52:44
You know, off off your own back, of course, I mean depends what
52:46
what you're doing, how much funding you need.
52:49
I mean, like for me at the moment, I, you know, I don't
52:51
need funding to do my work as I'm doing what you might call
52:54
secondary research, right. So I'm not building machines or
52:58
running experiments. I'm just pouring over all the
53:01
literature and the writings and the research that others have
53:04
done and trying to make sense of it and, you know, distill it
53:07
into like, what are the, what are the golden Nuggets?
53:10
And, and what's the stuff that we can just throw away?
53:12
So, and then that's kind of an alchemical process in itself,
53:15
right? That's part of alchemy.
53:16
Separation is like taking what's good and throwing away what you
53:20
don't need. And I'm just trying to do that
53:22
with science in general. So, you know, medicine,
53:25
chemistry, physics, all of it. What's good, Keep it what we
53:29
what isn't good. Chuck it, You know, because it
53:31
feels like we're at that stage in the world now where we, you
53:35
know, we really need to look at everything and be like, you
53:37
know, let's save what we can, but check out the rest that
53:41
doesn't work, you know. Yeah, But I mean the phrase.
53:46
Scientist these days really only means getting funding or having
53:51
access to laboratory. Yeah, I mean.
53:56
Yeah, people would say that, yeah, that you're, you know,
53:58
because I'm not working in a lab, I'm not a professional
54:01
scientist. But then, you know, people will
54:03
say I'm a nuclear physicist even though I never worked in a, a
54:05
nuclear power station or a, or a nuclear bomb, you know, facility
54:10
or whatever. I just, you know, science.
54:13
But that's not what I'm saying. That's not what I'm saying.
54:15
I mean. Obviously, if you work in a, if
54:16
you study in a particular field, you have every right to to label
54:20
yourself that afterwards. What I'm what I'm saying is that
54:23
the field, the greater macro field of science, doesn't
54:30
require a scientist. No, Yeah, I because ultimately,
54:38
ultimately it's critical thinking.
54:40
So like Leonardo da Vinci was, he was multiple things.
54:44
He he opened up human bodies and he drew pictures and he sculpted
54:48
and, you know, all sorts of things.
54:50
Yeah, absolutely. So the curiosity.
54:52
You know, logical thinking and, you know, questioning your own
54:58
assumptions and beliefs. I think this is unfortunately
55:01
what the, I guess the kind of scientist you're talking about,
55:03
right? The trained scientist, the
55:05
university educated sign that this is the problem we have with
55:07
them as they don't question their own conditioning and
55:10
beliefs, especially not if there's a paycheck involved,
55:14
right. So that's the difference with me
55:16
is that I, I don't, I don't get paid for science, right?
55:19
So I've no, I don't have to, yeah, I don't have to believe
55:25
everything that I was taught anymore.
55:28
But if I was working in university, I, I would, you
55:31
know, I can see it. It's like you wouldn't end up
55:33
just like tearing up all the assumptions that everybody
55:36
around you is like taking, you know, you're just going to start
55:39
ripping all that up. You just lose your job.
55:43
This is an interesting. Anecdote, yeah.
55:46
So a number of years ago there was an expose done on this here
55:51
in South Africa. There was a surgeon who had
55:53
spent, I don't know, I think 11 or 12 years working in a
55:58
hospital and he had a very successful history.
56:03
All right. He didn't, I think like he's,
56:05
the mortality rate was like 2 or 3%, which is exceptionally good,
56:10
you know, if you're a surgeon. It turned out that he.
56:15
Had never qualified. As as a doctor, he, he, he
56:20
dropped out in the final year or something to that effect.
56:22
And you know, he scammed his way in and of course it became a
56:27
big, big, big sort of legal thing.
56:32
But he was a surgeon nonetheless.
56:37
And his patients who were interviewed said I I'm happy
56:42
with the results, yeah. So he was, well, you know, a lot
56:47
of the best people leave university or whatever.
56:50
You know, a lot of great people like skip out of college or
56:53
university halfway through because they maybe they know
56:56
what they, they want to do or, or they're like, you know, this
56:58
is bullshit. You know, they, they have an
57:00
awakening or whatever. But yeah, people can be good at
57:05
what they do without getting the qualification for for sure.
57:07
But then also people can get their qualification and be
57:10
useless at the same time. So correct.
57:13
I mean just give it a deal at COVID.
57:16
COVID again. Yes, because I was.
57:18
Always in two minds about using doctor before my name, right,
57:22
because of which I'm entitled to do.
57:24
I am a doctor, but I don't always use it right.
57:27
And you know, and, and after, after COVID, I thought I was
57:31
like, damn, I was like being a doctor.
57:33
Having a PhD now means nothing because we've just had all these
57:36
doctors and PhDs like supporting COVID.
57:41
But then at the same time, and I started looking into the
57:43
definition of it, doctor, really Dockery, it means to teach
57:49
doctor is like one who's like qualified to teach on a certain
57:52
subject. And then philosophy, doctorate
57:55
philosophy is love of wisdom, philosophia.
57:59
So and I realized it's actually one who loves wisdom and is able
58:02
to teach people wisdom and help people attain wisdom.
58:05
And I thought, you know what, actually, I like that.
58:07
And you know, I'm going to start taking it more seriously.
58:10
That's that's what I'm going to do.
58:11
I'm going to study wisdom, which is like the highest knowledge
58:15
that's been passed down through the generations and, and try to,
58:19
you know, teach people about wisdom because that's what
58:21
philosopher does. And that's what my
58:23
qualification, that's what my doctorate is, Philosophy,
58:26
doctorate, PhD. Yeah.
58:28
I mean, I think you should use the title.
58:30
Because you need to reclaim it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I.
58:35
I I agree. I mean, it was just, you know,
58:38
it just felt, yeah, during COVID, it felt like it was just
58:40
meaningless now, like everyone's qualifications are just
58:43
meaningless if they're going to, you know, peddle, peddle this
58:47
nonsense. I mean, what?
58:48
Fauci is also a doctor, but I mean, he's.
58:50
Destroyed. He's destroyed that title, and I
58:53
think that people who are doctors like yourself should
58:57
reclaim it. Yeah.
58:59
Yeah. Well, thank you.
59:00
Yeah. So.
59:01
I'm, I'm trying to use it more like, I mean, I didn't even put
59:03
it on the front of my book, for example, which I would have, you
59:06
know, you would think I would do, but I thought I'd just put
59:08
my nail, I put doctor on the back of the book.
59:09
But yeah, it was just, you know, it's just because of how I was
59:13
feeling about the whole institution of education.
59:17
I was, I was feeling so down about it all during COVID and
59:20
like it like really let us down, you know, in a, in a big, big
59:24
way. How can my audience follow your
59:27
work? OK, well I've got a YouTube
59:30
channel. Stephen A Young and I also have
59:33
a Patreon and a sub stack and my homepage is stephenyoung.uk and
59:39
that's Stephen with AV and you can find everything on there.
59:42
Basically Stephen Young with AV. Thank you for joining me in the.
59:48
Trenches, you're very welcome. Thanks for having me back.