Law of Implication Explained Finale

I started recording. All right guys, um, I put Finale on this. I just want to kind of wrap up this series and start, uh, fresh. I think, um, in this series, my, I got caught between a few priorities. That each of the webinars, I think, has been very profitable. Um, some I particularly was happy about. Some I felt like maybe were a little bit meandering, but those are very helpful in their own way. They just sometimes, uh, anyway, just depends on individual people. Um, a lot of people like those very much too, but of course, they can be difficult sometimes to pay attention to.

Um, uh, let's see here. [Music] Um, uh, okay. Hey, Peter. All right. So, uh, so we're gonna wrap things up with this particular series today. And then I think I can put together a series. I, I may or may not do some kind of one-offs for a little while while I'm preparing. And I'd like to kind of have a, a pretty good overall organizing principle and structure for a series that can be good for people in general, kind of wherever they're coming from. I think my priority with this series was, was, uh, weirdly enough, people that are already kind of into Law of Application, have a background in it. Um, I want you guys who kind of want to master this and take it to others and so forth, or integrate it with what you're doing, to not get it wrong, like at the core, right? To not feel like you're using LOI principles and then be doing that to some degree, but lack a certain, um, uh, foundation, or when push comes to shove, not really having it fully right with checking your own ideas and so forth. I don't mean being right about everything. We're not gonna necessarily reach that part, right? Like, um, but there's still, um, uh, uh, I want us to, um, you know, there's, there's different aspects. The foundation one is a basic humility, which I think, uh, a lot of, or even all of people that are really, um, serious about Law of Application will have, where even if they have things wrong, they'll want to get things right. So that's huge, right? That's excellent. And then when it comes to like applying methods, um, uh, anyway, um, but, uh, like just to be able, I, I don't, I don't, it's one of the kind of mysteries to me is, I don't know how, like where my talent ends and where method begins, to in a certain sense of like, how much can I, how much of what I do, how much of what I might call Law of Application is something that I do particularly well and easily. Um, there's going to be other people that are going to have a significant talent for it. It may exceed mine, maybe less than mine, but they still might be very talented versus, uh, you know, the general population. Um, and then on the other hand, there's, there's methods that are, that are, you know, correct or not. A little bit like calculus, right? Some people might have a real talent for that type of thinking. There's a, there's a basic method of calculus that's true for all people, right? Depending on how much, so how kind of easily or or or difficult, how difficult it might be for someone to kind of to get to work with calculus. There are certain rules that are true. But then the question is, if someone's particularly good at it, or even invented it, then how much are they going to duplicate that? And how much does it matter, you know, to certain people? Now, with Law of Application, as opposed to calculus, we all need it, right? So there's a certain amount of basic, um, competency that everybody needs because it's not like my opinion or my take on things. It's a discovery of correct, um, thinking methods and more right frames, uh, assumptions that are there's a whole bunch, some more on the surface, some more deep, of assumptions, right? That some are kind of universal for pretty much all people based on the way minds work and brains process. Some are cultural, but some are cultural, but nearly all cultures have them to some degree, right? Um, and of course, there's plenty of, uh, differences between cultures, obviously, with more kind of surface assumptions. But, um, uh, but anyway, I think I can do a series where I'm particularly focused, kind of like I was early on and like when I first introduced things, and then during Alchemy, uh, where I think both of those attempts, kind of in 2013 and then Alchemy around 2016, where I did 30 webinars that were each actually quite long, um, in the three-hour range. In this with this new series this year, I don't plan to do it in the three-hour range, but maybe I'll be able to have a format where it's like an hour of me talking, an hour of discussion. I'm not sure about that exactly, but I think I can do a reasonably good job of having a bit of a progression and structure while still hitting the important points. And then as the series progresses, continuing to make sure, like I care about a lot too, that there's not, that it has some sort of defense against getting tainted in people's minds, where they're not veering off in an importantly wrong direction and then thinking that they're not, you know.

Um, all right. Now, last webinar, I, um, introduced an idea that in one sense is familiar, or is a, leads us to a similar place as things I've talked to all along in Law of Implication, but in another sense, had a bit of a, a new way of explaining it, a new way of presenting it. And it had to do with, um, really the core of Law of Implication, right? There's a few angles on the core. Um, this angle was, um, and I'll actually mention a couple angles in the core right now, but the one from last webinar was, I phrased it, uh, last, during the webinar, as, um, as we go to achieve whatever, right? Which is what we're doing all the time. As we, um, whether we're, we have some degree of awareness of that we're going kind of after a goal or a feeling of progress, kind of constantly, right? It's kind of the natural consequence of the, of the state of existence that we're in, right? We want to make things better. Um, the alternative would be to either just be perfectly comfortable staring at the wall, doing nothing, right? But that's kind of agitating for people, right? So there's a sense of wanting to make progress of some sort, which has to relate to the, which implies that there's, there's some goal going on of some sort in our minds, either some goal or some set of goals or something goal-like, right? That we're kind of constantly trying to pursue, um, one or multiple, and, you know, and so forth. And, uh, another alternative would be if we were like consciously trying to make things worse, which we, it's not only illogical, but even though it might seem like people try to do that, they're really not, right? Like, like on a certain level, everything's kind of geared one way or the other, kind of necessarily. No matter who somebody is, no matter how good or bad their thinking might be and so forth, they're at least attempting, or their mind is, to make things better, right? There could be a ton of errors, wrong assumptions about that where they end up making things worse, but they're still trying to make things better, whether, you know, even if that's being done with a whole bunch of contradictions that don't end up actually making that happen. So as we go about doing that, as we go about pursuing our goals, basically living our lives, trying to make things better one way or the other, then, um, what, what by default, what people want to do is to see the result, right? The, or the, or the set of results relative to the goals that their mind is working on at the time. Um, and the paradigm shift, and then after seeing the result, they want to see progress or see a path to progress or something. They basically want to see, um, better in the sense of they want to see what they're trying to see. But I brought up the idea of, we want to make a paradigm shift to trying to see better in a different sense. Of if we're looking at a landscape or looking outside and we want it outside to look nicer, and we think about how we might change what's outside and get a landscaper or do this or that. But if we're looking through a dirty window, but without realizing it, then there might be little symptoms or anomalies or something that cause us at some point to like think, maybe there's something I'm not realizing, right? Because if you don't see a dirty, that that you're looking through a dirty window, it's kind of complicated. If you see that you're looking through a dirty window, right? Like there's, there's the, um, kind of little, um, I don't know what the right word is, anecdote is not quite the right word, but, um, uh, of, uh, in self-improvement, you might come across some version of, you know, a guy is like trying to cut down a tree with a saw, and or a bunch of trees, right? And he's swung on a tree, and a guy walks up to him is like, your saw is dull, maybe you should sharpen your saw. And then the guy who's sawing is like, well, I don't have time to sharpen myself, I need to cut down these trees, right? So that exists, that idea. And I'll, I'll kind of take a look at what category that type of thing goes into. That's a very relevant type of understanding when it comes to, uh, achievement, of course, is, is to be aware of and, you know, when to sharpen your saw. But in that case, the saw is visible, and you at least see that you're using this saw, right? Um, so what we might not see, whoops, let's see what we got here. That's the top of a while ago. Um, here, um, so I could have put the, the word like frames or assumptions up here. Uh, let's see if I can still do that. It might not be easy to click and do that. All right.

Um, so it isn't, uh, so, um, with the saw, it's like a frame or an assumption or tool that is, uh, in that case, it would be a visible saw. We would be aware, we could see this saw, right? We're using it, and it's external. We don't really identify with it. If someone says that your saw is dull and you're sawing something, typically someone won't take that personally, so to speak. They might, if they themselves built the saw or for whatever reason, if they, they really just didn't want to question at the time, they might take it personally. But it's also very plausible that they wouldn't, right? Because it's, um, it may or may not be looked at as part of their kind of core identity or their saw or something they do that they identify with. Again, if they do identify it in some way, if it somehow gets associated as part of their identity, then they'll feel kind of defensive and like, like they're being attacked if you mention the saw. But in the case of a saw, it might also be that they don't feel attacked, right? And that's how people are, right? Is we have stuff we identify with, and it could be core beliefs, it could be other various assumptions, it could be something we created, it could be our career, could be our body, right? There's, and it just varies from moment to moment and based on circumstances, but one way or the other, um, and from person to person and so forth, right? But that's kind of the divine line of whether someone's particularly going to be defensive or not with feeling like they're being attacked if we're talking about improving something, right? Um, has to do with if they identify, um, so when I say external or internal, it could be like identified with or not identified with, could be another, another term. So with the saw, it's visible. With the dirty window illustration, I mean it to not be visible, right? Like, of course, you could be looking through a dirty window and see that you are. But if we just make it in our little mental image that someone's not aware that they're looking through a dirty window, then, um, but they are, right? Then if they were able to figure that out and clean the window, then if we think about what would happen at that point, it's kind of interesting. Without any more effort, they would, the landscape outside would look differently, and they wouldn't, they wouldn't have to look at the landscape any differently, except for the fact that they cleaned their dirty window. And furthermore, they might see ways to improve the landscape at that point, right? And I could, we could improve the metaphor and instead of there just being like a landscape outside, like they're, you know, like an English manor and they're looking at a window to a landscape that they're thinking of improving, there could be, um, some, you know, project related to their career or making money or, you know, right? That they, that you kind of adjust the metaphor where you're looking through something that's, um, not very clear, and then you're not seeing, um, something about what you're, uh, that you need to, you know, do or whatever. Once you clean the window, then you're going to kind of seem smarter relative to adjusting what you're looking at through the window, right? But all you did was clean the window. And all of a sudden, again, you don't need, you, um, without, without yet adding any more self-improvement techniques or determination or smarts or cleverness or whatever, just various things become apparent. But the trick becomes when the window itself is invisible. And then the trick becomes even further more tricky when there's a whole another layer, which in practice is very impactful, which is when someone identifies that window, that that dirty window, as part of themselves in a way that they don't want to believe that. Well, and then you can add yet another layer where are kind of our original experience of the world. Well, I talked about Alchemy in the beginning, is is in a sense being helpless, right? You're a baby, and there's things, basic things that you're kind of programmed to want, and you can't do much about getting them right. You could basically scream and hope, right? Um, and then you grow up a little bit, and you're exploring the world, um, but you're not only kind of helpless, and you have some amount of ability, like the fact that you can cry, right? And then that could, that might then get it, you might get help when you, when you cry. So then you can feel like, oh, I can do stuff, right? And then as you grow up a little bit, you can, you move your hands, you can gather things, you can do things, you can impact the environment, you can do things to try to get what you want, um, and you can also gain knowledge, right? But both your knowledge and your power is limited. And so it's really what that means is, it's outside of your control whether you can, uh, really experience a lot of pain, a lot of, a lot of lack, a lot of suffering, right? Um, and also just to move forward, there's a certain amount of kind of confidence that you want to have in in your actions and thoughts, right? And so forth. And, um, so people's minds create, create this whole defense, um, against, um, like they, there's kind of a benefit to feeling confident and competent, and, um, there's this kind of shortcut or short circuit kind of thing that that's done where it becomes important to feel sure that both you're right, you're in your mind is right about its conclusions and what it's telling you. Well, you don't even think of it as your mind telling you something, you just think that I thought of it, right? Um, so, um, also as the, the way the mind works is it develops confidence in its own, um, construct of the world, right? Its own knowledge and stuff, as as it develops conclusions about how the world works and then tests those conclusions, just sort of mechanically, right? Like as you look around and you walk and you grab things, you put things in your mouth and and so forth, as you're as you're young, um, then it develops confidence. And it makes that confidence, kind of ends up as a feeling, right? That you're aware of, like, yeah, I'm sure of this, right? And so as it develops and people grow up a bit, they reach a point where they, um, it becomes important to, uh, there's, there's an identity, right? Um, that is tied into what we call ego and so forth. But, but there's an identity that involves not only just core beliefs, but even that you're your body, and, uh, if you're things you create, things that you pursue, your ability at gymnastics, your ability at a, at school, and then later a career, right? All that sort of stuff can can be part of an identity. And it can feel important for incorrect kind of real reasons, where you need to believe that either you're awesome, or at least you're not too unawesome, right? Um, and that can sort of give you confidence and, and so on and so forth. Instead, I've talked about the alternative is that you can get confidence through method, right? But that takes a lot of layers of figuring out. But as you figure that out and make the paradigm shift to that, it's very transformative in in so many ways. And now you're getting confidence from the, not only a correct place, but a place that can then be corrected, because a method can be worked on, right? Your identity can become that your, that you're developing and working on and improving and fixing and filtering wrong ideas out of a method and a tree of of constructed, well-constructed knowledge of things or frames, a set of frames that are stacked. So everything I'm saying now has to do with this idea of an identity, um, that is, that's different, again, different aspects, right? Body could be, career could be, other things that you've worked on, and then, uh, core beliefs and such. These things, uh, are in many cases invisible. And, and I have examples lined up here on the next slides for you. But it's these, oh, oh, not only invisible, but internal, is like the identity. And then if we're not aware of them, then, um, it turns out there's a huge opportunity there to vastly improve your life, your functional brilliance. You, um, one, one example is that our people's, so when you think, you're basically using some combination, just to be a little bit simple, but, you know, a little bit descriptive here, when you're thinking about things, then you're using kind of like mental objects and words, right? I don't have to get too deep into what each of those means, but you're basically having, you know, there's objects in your mind, so to speak, that you're thinking about, right? If you're thinking about, uh, building a website, right? Then, then there's mental objects that you're, that you're thinking about, right? Like a website, uh, of various programs, a keyboard, right? Having a laptop, right? Those are, when you're thinking about those, that's what I mean by a mental object. And then, you know, of course, relationships between those objects. And we use words for you to, you know, in conjunction with mental images, and so we're thinking about things, right? Um, and, of course, our mind uses a process of association. But anyway, but when you're thinking, you're using words and mental objects. Our mental objects that we're thinking about are pulled from our basic idea of of reality and what it's made of. Um, and our words are pulled from our, um, idea of how to define words, plus our sense of reality and what it's made of, where the mental objects come from, because the words are referring to these mental objects and, and, and, uh, which we also might think of as real external objects, and, um, and relations between those objects and so forth. When people try to start to think about deep stuff, the problems in their view of reality and, and how that relates to mental objects and, and how words are defined and what words refer to, um, the major errors or, or error, or basic, basic, um, way that the, what, what the mind does as you grow up is it, it makes a sort of mental construct of reality. Like we can be called in different ways of speaking, like a map of the world, or like a mental map of the world, or I've called it a reality construct in the past. I can call it a story construct. You're making, like, a story about the world that you don't really see exactly as a story. Normally, people just think of it as reality, right? But, um, in Neuro-Linguistic Programming, they had this sort of breakthrough about someone's mental map of the world is different than the world itself, which, in a certain, when you understand what that's referring to, it's sort of so obvious that you almost think like, well, did I get the concept right? But in practice, it's not obvious to people. People, I've used the term naive realism. Normally, the way people operate in the moment, day to day, is just based on naive realism, right? Is that our thoughts about the world are basically correct. And unless they're like, unless that if they're, if our thought is not correct, we don't, it's kind of the, the plot of the moment. If maybe something isn't correct, we don't even, we, we don't, and almost can't question. Uh, there's so much framework and, and assumptions that goes into every moment that we live our lives that, um, it would be impossible to question all those things every second. We couldn't really function. So, um, so we kind of adopt this, you know, what you see is what you get, or, or real, my, my mental construct of reality, or my brain's construct, or story about reality is reality. And that's how we function. There's nothing wrong with functioning that way, except that wherever our story about reality doesn't overlap accurately with reality, uh, then we have a chance of running into a problem, right? Like, it's kind of out of our control, right? It's, it's not that different than if, if you have a blurry window that you're looking out of, or blurry glasses or vision, then, um, there's just a chance that that's going to be a problem, right? If there's a blind spot when you're driving, then if you don't compensate or deal with that in some way, uh, then once in a while, that might just be a problem. It might even kill you, right? Like, so it's, it's just kind of unpredictable how big the consequence is going to be, but sometimes it can be large, right? Um, some of those large consequences are tough in a sense because they're kind of like, in reality, right now, there's, there's issues and there's just cultural ideas that are out there that are that are also tied to political ideas and so forth. When, which, when I say political, it just literally means like, when, when we're okay and even support the use of violence towards, you know, other people, right? That kind of on an aggregate level, it's this kind of one of my puzzles on an aggregate level that's extremely impactful. Like the, the lack of overlap between people's story and reality, and like between their story and correct ideas, is, um, significant in various ways that are very impactful, cause a tremendous amount of suffering, but also kind of psychic destruction. What I mean by psychic destruction is like, imagine you raise a child in an environment where, um, where their peers are like torturing puppies, right? And it's like normal to torture puppies. And, um, then, and I apologize if you've been saying that is kind of difficult for someone here, but, but anyway, it's, uh, that will presumably have ripple effects on the child that's experiencing them, right? Like, it may not, they may, they may reject it in a certain way and be strong, you know, but it's not, we're not like gonna do it. I mean, of course, for the puppy's sake, we're not gonna do it. But you see, like, but that's like what I mean by damage to like the psyche, you know, when whenever there, or if someone was raised in the, in like 1800 in the South in America, and there was this terrible slavery, which is horrific, right? People's kids are being literally sold out from under them and just, you know, people treat themselves inhumanely, et cetera. Um, if a person was presented with the idea that this is normal, that's how it should be, then that's going to cause psychic damage in all sorts of ways. In the sense that in order to, in order to incorporate that into your worldview, that that's an okay way to treat other people, other stuff has got to give, right? Like, like there's going to be ripple effects there. You can't, um, right? Like you, you can't just take on one horrific idea of how to treat your fellow man and have that be isolated, typically, right? That's gonna, um, that's gonna impact other thoughts and decisions about what's okay to deal, to deal with people, even if it's like, uh, not someone who's a slave, right? But just all kinds of things, like, you know, some might be thinking whether to steal, or whether to beat their friend up for because they're pissed off at them, you know? And if it, you know, it's already normal to beat other people, right? Like it just, right? These things have a big impact. So, um, now the, the my dilemma, or, or our dilemma, to the extent that a lot of people care as well about this, um, that are listening, is of course that, um, not of course, but, but it's that there isn't like an immediate benefit. Like if someone's having a survival issue in life, right? Or any kind of issue where they're, they're kind of hectically trying to deal with their own problems, which I by far understand and have been through, right? Um, then there's not like an immediate benefit to exploring ideas that will then lead to other frames and ideas and clear things up. For example, talk about words and how to understand them or use them, right? And how they work. If you do that, your functional brilliance will go way up, skyrocket, you know, other people really won't be in the same category or league, or you'll be qualitatively different than them and your ability to think. And there's all kinds of practical benefits to that, but they might not be immediate, right? Like it, there's going to be kind of steps and layers. And so the, um, the, the idea is necessary to help to start to dissolve some, some or many, you know, the, uh, horrific kind of cultural ideas that are causing great damage, both immediately and, as I say, kind of like psychically and a ripple effect in so many ways. Um, I mean, you have people publicly praising the burning and destruction of other people's like livelihoods and stores and, you know, whatever. I mean, that's bizarre, right? Like to me, I mean, when I say the way I was raised, actually, even the culture I was, it's just kind of a, a bit, um, surprising. Like we wouldn't necessarily have thought that we'd get to that point. Or, um, in my generation, so to speak, uh, it was right at that point. Like I was growing up, coming of age in the 80s. That means that Martin Luther King had given his speech about the content of someone's character versus the color of their skin, what about, uh, 16, 17, 18 years ago, right? Well, that's a 1980, of course, then in the middle of the 80s, it was more, but, you know, in that time frame, it had really resonated to the culture. Um, there was just a lot of, um, improvement and a feeling of improvement and a feeling of that really catching on, even though there's plenty of various forms of racism still, um, maybe especially when it came to like, I think at the dating level, right? Like when it came to that sort of thing in marriage, uh, I think that there was a lot of that having to be worked through. And then that got worked through about as over, for about another 20 years, I would say. This is just me spouting off for a second, but like around, I mean, just getting opinion in a sense for my best call, but maybe, maybe in the 2000s, uh, at some point, then it became almost, uh, a plus, I think, like, kind of in the, in the culture at large in general, to have an interracial marriage, whereas in the 80s, it might have been looked at as a bit of a, a risk, or would carry some negatives with it, you know? Um, but that was changing, right? But it was still on kind of a good upward trend. But, but that's reversed itself now, where it's literally, um, can be, I mean, someone can be horribly criticized and destroyed or whatever for now agreeing with Martin Luther King's statement about judging someone being kind of sort of colorblind in the sense of of, uh, judging a song on the content of their character, versus the color of their skin. Right now, it, it's, um, there's an idea that if you do that, that's horrible. And instead, you need to judge people on the color of their skin. It's very critically important. Uh, we need to treat people extremely differently depending on what race they seem to be. Um, and, uh, and it's just kind of a little, right, uh, that might on the surface seem to make sense in certain cases, but then again, the kind of psychic damage from re-adopting the idea that we need to treat people very differently based on the color of their skin, you know, or it's once again perfectly fine to call entire races or groups evil, or even calling for them to be killed and so forth. In the case now, it's, uh, white, especially white men, right? It's perfectly fine. But that, it's a little bit weird because that actually is a subgroup of white men, generally, pretty much always Jewish men, or some group of white men. And so, you know, it's back to calling for Jewish people, you know, evil and to be killed, um, as a subgroup, you know, of white, uh, people. So it's, it's odd. And that's gonna cause damage. However, the, the immediate benefit to people, you know, of, of dealing with things that can deal with that, or is, uh, is not always apparent, right, to people. But, but in an aggregate and, and as a ripple effect, it will live in a much better world if we can, um, dissolve a number of bad ideas that are up. So there's that on the whole. But now I'm on kind of a more personal, or not personal to me, but on a kind of more individual, uh, level. Let's take a look at, um, some examples here. Um, and as I take a look at these examples, so to, to summarize, when we, if we work on what we see with, then that is going to lead to reliable success. That's actually oddly easy as well. Um, but it takes a paradigm shift to feel progress from doing that. And, and sorry, just to go back to the slide way, wrap up a couple things. Um, if we had, I started saying this a couple times, if we had a, a dirty window, but we didn't realize it was there and that we were using it to look through, then we can ask the question, well, how would we then spot it? And it has to do with another paradigm shift, related, related paradigm shift about how we treat anomalies. And this is, um, illustrated so well in a book series I really recommend. This, I really recommend that you go look for Sophie Hannah's, H-A-N-N-A-H, Poirot books, and just read one and see. I think the first one's called The Monogram Murders, um, I believe that that I'm going for memory, I think that's correct. But you can find them, uh, you would probably be under Christie in the, in the, if you're in real life in Barnes and Noble, of course, some people go online these days, or maybe every, most people. I like having like a book in my hand to read, rather than a computer. Um, but, uh, it would be under Agatha Christie alphabetically, probably, and like Barnes and Noble. But then you'll have Sophie Hannah. Now, her books are great too. I'm just, it just, she particularly emphasizes that it's clear in her books about this thing where with anomalies. And of course, this shows up in various other murder, type of, um, you know, people like Sherlock Holmes and a veteran, you know, there's a zillion other, uh, types of angles on on this on various characters, right? But it's particularly explicit in the Sophie Hannah's, uh, Hercule Poirot, um, uh, books where, where he focuses on questions and, and, and regarding kind of these small anomalies. But so the paradigm shift I'm referring to about anomalies is that the way our mind normally works, it first does really tries hard to marginalize and delete things that don't fit into its story of reality, right? And there really have to be a lot of pretty strong anomalies, and maybe some environmental situation that kind of causes someone to be sort of humble or confused or something that that sort of opens them up a bit, right? Could be in some cases, a critical mass of anomalies. Um, it's hard to track exactly what it is, but we don't want to have to wait for that type of circumstance in our lives. And then the other problem is that when someone has that, they don't get all the way to the bottom of their thinking. They'll just have that about a certain area of life, right? And so even whatever the circumstances are that kind of caused that for someone to start to notice, wait a second, and break out of their worldview, right? Like the, the Walk Away series, like politically, right? That on YouTube, I think they somehow got removed from Facebook, um, which is odd because it's just testimonials of people leaving, um, one political party that they were raised in, um, because they'd been, they'd been previously taught that the other side was just evil. And then over time, they're like, wait a second. Um, so, so our mind normally, uh, wants to marginalize and delete, you know, anomalies, things that don't fit. And that's not how we spot these invisible, like dirty, dirty windows, right? In our mind, so to speak, our lives. Um, and, uh, so what we want to ask ourselves is, what would be a way of thinking and acting that would help us spot these dirty windows, right? Again, because you can't see them directly, so you have to, um, at least you have to be like asking and trying to find them before you might find them. But you're, but I've talked before about like, kind of the Perseus thing about like, you kind of see in reverse, right? Or you see like with a mirror, like the opposite or something. But in general, it's anomalies. And again, as I get to examples, maybe I'll be able to explain that better. Um, and I just want to cover the, um, the invisible and external. That's actually the type of thing where, like me and my career, um, which of course is my own, like business, like as an entrepreneur, as opposed to a job, and it's always had to do with info marketing, basically packaging, like a coaching course that would help people, you know, and selling it. And here's what if you're doing that, what you want to sell are invisible, but external, um, uh, things like, uh, these end up being like tools or lenses. But basically, what Greg Morrison comes up with, what Eric Breith comes up with with funnels, right? Um, talk to people on the phone, and then very, uh, other many brand, you know, he's developed into also just a funnel approach, email, and other types of contacts that all integrate. But, um, I mean, and I looked for years to try to find a person who's particularly great at spotting, right? This comes across as very clever, and because it is, right? Very talented and clever people that develop tools. In the case of sales, like scripts and other things relating to to scripts and how to look at stuff, but these very clever frames that other people aren't spotting, including me, right? For how to get clients. Right? Even people are getting clients, but Eric Breith is just so much better at showing people how to do it, right? Than what a normal person would figure out on their own, or even people that are purporting to teach that stuff, or me. I taught, I made a couple of videos giving, um, some good understanding of and some kind of shifts, you know, about, um, that would help people get clients and help people. But I wouldn't, I'm nothing compared to Eric, right? In terms of just sheer talent and being into it and figuring it out, right? And so forth. Um, um, so, and he, and also, and he just, both so talented and curious, had good methods for figuring it out and spent years doing it. And same thing with Greg with SEO, right? So those are examples of things that are invisible, but, but once you discover them, they're, they feel very, they feel and they are very valuable to people. Um, there's these sort of two different types of value. There's this kind of, because the perceived value of these external, but previously invisible until someone figures them out and points them out. And I, I have a bunch of this in Law of Application too, right? When I, there's things that I show people that are kind of easy to see, um, and they're, they feel like clever, and people didn't see them before. And then I showed them, they're like, wow, that's awesome, right? And I'm really aware of how awesome that feels and how useful it is, right? It's just that there's two types of, or two categories of these invisible frames. And the thing is, we need both, and they each have their place. But we just want to get, get a bunch of correct frames, right? Like the, um, the, the, the internal, what I'm calling internal, or the ones you kind of identify with, that are kind of see, there's things that I'll point out that are, they kind of remain invisible, even, even like after, or, or sort of invisible, or hard to see, or at least there's like, there's also like, kind of an emotional, um, defense against working on them, right? Like, they can feel wrong. Um, these kind of internal invisible things, um, they're hard to see because there isn't something to see them with until we develop that first. And if I start by developing the most foundational frames, that can, the irony there is that there's no immediate use for those, except for to see another problem, right? Does that make any sense? Like, like, um, so, uh, I need to get to some examples, but just to try to explain the concept, um, if I, in either, okay, whatever I do, it, I kind of, you need to kind of both, I need to explain the concept and get examples, and I have to start with one of those, right? Until I do both, then it's going to be a little bit of vagueness, or a lot. But anyhow, um, uh, okay, anyway, just to quickly say the general concept, um, in order to see internal and visible frames, assumptions that are that are core, deep, um, or any other things you identify with, a problem in, what career someone's going after, they've invested in, or what angle in business, something that someone's really invested in, and they feel like that, I really want to do this type of business, right? But maybe they shouldn't, maybe that, that's not a good, a good idea, but they really feel like they identify with that, right? That's them, they've decided they want to do that. So that's hard, right? To shift for someone. They feel defensive to some degree about it. They might even work with me or whoever's helping them, like whether or not they might not be fully defensive, right? There's a difference between being like totally closed off and having some amount of resistance, right? There's always going to be some amount of resistance in a certain sense, right? From something where we identify with it. In essence, we have to almost like chip away at the identification itself and, and, and be able to step away from it, right? Now, what helps us do that, right? That that helps to show why explaining who we are as a being who's conscious and that has some amount of power or free will and such, that fundamental foundational frame allows us to step away from most anything else we might identify with. So which then, as a, which then has massive consequences, right? So it allows us to make the paradigm shift of stepping away from things we identify with in individual cases of things we identify with. Even just to examine them, there might be things you identify with that are just fine, that are even correct, right? But you still need to examine them because you don't know that they're correct until unless you examine them, right? It's like doing door-to-door sales, just to picture it. Like you, you can't just knock on the doors that are where people are home and are gonna buy something, right? You just have to knock on doors. If you're not willing to knock on doors, you can't do door-to-door sales. Um, and same thing, if you're not willing to examine ideas, um, you know, that that are core to you, then you're not going to spot the wrong ones, right? There's going to be plenty that are right, but then there's just going to be plenty. So in order to see, in order to see, in order to be able to step away from, stop identifying with, and look at various core beliefs, we would first need to have the correct idea of our identity, ourselves as a being. When I first talk about ourselves as a being, if someone has something they need to urgently deal with or some goal that they're trying to work on, they might feel like, well, why do I, you know, I like that's a little bit interesting, David, but you didn't really get anything that I felt like was relevant to me because you were talking about like realism, naive realism, perception, uh, you're starting to talk about like the world is made of reason, you know, or the external world or something. And well, you know, I don't know, you know, where to go with that, right? But if someone doesn't have that, they can't see things that are that are, um, very deep and core and that can really be messing with them, right? Um, an example of another thing that that, or example of something that people have that I mentioned is, uh, I mentioned constantly is, um, I even have this on the slide with business here. Um, if I, if I, um, come down here, um, I wrote, order to underline this, actually. Um, so I, I discovered this a while ago. I talked about this before, several years before I did OMG. I was, um, talking in a kind of a small conference or whatever, and I even mentioned this that prior to something called Stompernet, um, that I worked on, that's where I kind of started to learn how to do like internet, you know, business and launches. But I was aware of this, and it helped me so often and so constantly, and I was pretty much the only one that the people I looked at that could keep this consistent, or at least almost like very highly consistent relative to other people, just because I was aware of it, not because I'm more moral or or fundamentally better, right? But if you have a distinction that's clear in your mind, and if culturally or just basic to how minds work, the opposite is how people are going to be by default, then they're just going to keep on making the mistake. And so people would make this mistake constantly. It didn't make me feel superior or anything. It just, I just knew it was a better mistake not to make, right? It's like if they can't add and I can, it's not that I'm better, except that I know how to add and they don't, right? It doesn't make me a better person or morally superior, but it means that when adding is relevant, then I'm going to basically, uh, have better results, right? And if it kind of keeps adding up and adding up and adding up, you might have radically better results. So, um, and it's, uh, reasonably likely that you're running into this still, you know, to some degree, right? It's such a powerful and pervasive thing in people's minds, and so it's gonna kind of keep seeping back into our mind in a sense. Um, but when you're trying to make money, then you're trying to make a profit, right? You, you want to have more money at the end of the day, right, than you than your spending. And you also want that profit to get into your personal account, you know, not like theoretical profit, you know, like people have all kinds of ways of like bending the definition of profit because what is going to keep happening is some some angle on

Trying to prove that that you're awesome, right? And Suleiman gave the great example of, uh, in a recent webinar where he discovered that on some level he was trying to compete with his sister, right? Or kind of prove that, like, he could do as well or better. Of course, presumably she wouldn't be doing internet business, right? She might just have a career, and the parents might be like, "You know, why can't you be like Sally?" right? Or, you know, whoever.

Um, or, or just they might not say that directly, but I mean, "Hey, Sally, you know, is doing this, you know, and it's like, 'Oh, she got a new car,' you know, or 'She's got a raise,' or, you know, or, you know, 'It's nice I can visit Sally on the weekends because she doesn't have to work on the weekends, but you seem to, you have to because you're doing your business.'" It just seems to come up. There's all kinds of ways that parents or other people can kind of, um, pressure, right, the psyche. And so, but that would be an example of what I mean about proving yourself is awesome, right? If you're kind of subconsciously trying to impress your parents. And, and, and that's powerful, right? We all have that to a certain degree, right? Or at least we all have that pressure, right? Maybe we've dissolved it, right? But at least if we dissolved it, we had to dissolve something, right?

Um, but something like that is going on. Um, obviously, we could be married to someone and they could be saying little things too, right? Again, they could be saying, "You know, someone's husband, uh, doesn't have to work on weekends," you know, and that, that's it. Or they just might say, like, "You know, uh," and that could put pressure on you to feel like you shouldn't have to work on weekends, right? Um, but, and then people can just be talking, or, or, or there can be people on stage, and they can be talking about how much they make in a month, or how much they made with this project, or car they bought, or this or that, right? And it's not that it's wrong or right to be talking about those things. We've done plenty of people talking about how they've, they've succeeded with OMG, because then we can learn from things. But what can seep into our mind for sure is, "Well, I want to prove that I can do that too." But you're not in business to prove that you can do something. You're in business to get money into your personal bank account, you know?

Um, I would basically explicitly, and I would say this to people, and Hotel Mike and so forth, I'm like, "My, my business, in the sense of my, the way that I measure my business success, is how much money is like in my personal life." Not even how much money I, um, in theory or whatever, put into my personal bank. Not even the profit of my business, um, but how much I even kept, right? I still had at the end of the year, right? So part of like, because, because again, I wasn't even in life to be doing business, or I wasn't dealing with, I wasn't in the money game. I was in the money game not by choice, but by necessity, right? And so it wasn't even about doing business, right? Like even thinking of it as doing business is still like kind of starts to meander over this "proving yourself awesome" as a goal. Um, I wasn't trying to succeed at business, or excel in business, or prove I could do business, or be a businessman, right? I just wanted a certain amount of money, either monthly or overall, in my personal bank account, and I basically wanted to be able to not have to, you know, deal with money. And so that had, that that was more of a holistic approach of spending, right?

And then you, how do you deal, like, and then what you're, what you're trying to do in succeeding at something is then you start to look at, well, or if you're smart, you ask questions about what else could be realistically, you know, in the environment that would help, right? So if I want to spend less money, now there's a limit to spending less money, right? Like it, like then I need to kind of understand what that means, right? There's a certain somewhat minimal level of comfort, but not below that, whatever, whatever minimal is, but minimal in the sense that I'm, I'm comfortable as is reasonably necessary, right? Or at least, um, but if I'm uncomfortable doing business to a certain degree, then I need to weigh that against how comfortable I need to be, you know? And with the money that I've spent, right? There's kind of a bit of a, a place where there's a sweet spot within you that you estimate.

Um, but then, uh, whoever is like, really in my psychic space, right? Like, for example, people living with you, obviously, like your spouse is going to be majorly in your psychic space, in the sense of their comments, the things that they kind of light up about, right? Like, like, um, just your spouse getting kind of a shining, happy look in their eyes and really feeling like communicating that they think you did something awesome, that's a, you know, a powerful positive thing, right? And so the more that's aligned with, you know, ending the year with a bunch of extra money in your personal account, without while spending money in a kind of sustainable way, right? Like if you're eating beans and rice and and living in a shack, that, but you're, you really don't want to be doing that long term, then maybe you don't need to be eating beans and rice and living in a shack. Maybe you can eat decently and live in a decent place that's more sustainable. Certainly, you can, you could have something that that's less expensive before you have the money to get something more expensive, right?

But again, you're just kind of looking to, when, when you keep your eye and you're able to see, right? Because you kind of, um, clean some windows, and that you've spotted at least, then you can kind of, you can kind of see to judge. Like judging accurately sometimes just happens simply and automatically when you have worked on what you can see with, right? So I use that general paradigm of, "I want to break free financially," and to think to use that itself to kind of as something to see with. And then that leads to questions of what enviro, what, you know, environmental things can I think of that would be conducive to that, right? And so the culture in your home would be something, right? Um, you can influence that to a decent degree, depend, and depending on on your relationship and the the personality, right, of the person that your significant other or whoever else is in your home.

When it comes to parents, in my case, it's fairly hard to change the culture if I'm living in my parents' house, or if they're too much in my space, right? Then I don't really have a lot of impact on how they think and and their little, um, things that they say. And I have perfectly fine parents, by the way. Um, I don't mean to be implying that that they're, um, fundamentally, you know, flawed and in a way that's abnormal, like that they're perfectly kind of, you know, normal, even on the good side, you know? Um, but anyhow, um, uh, but I had to mostly remove myself from communicating too much with them, and then being ready when I was communicating with them to not get drawn in, right? Because my mom certainly will, you know, say things that push in a certain direction, right? And like I said, you know, like, "Oh, so-and-so has done such and such," right? You know, that, that sort of stuff.

Um, and again, those are, that itself is can be a bit of an invisible thing. And then, and you can also, and this all relates to little pressures on proving that you're awesome, right? Or proving that you're good enough. It might not be awesome, it might be good enough, right? We all, people have these. And it relates to there's different areas of life where, um, in some areas of life, you probably have this kind of subconscious sense that you want to be awesome in that way. Maybe it's morally, maybe it's a specific subset of morality that you look at, or how you dress, or how people like you, you know, whatever it might be. And there's other places in life where you just want to be good enough. But it's important to be good enough and not, you know, terrible in other people's eyes, in your own eyes, et cetera, right? There's, there's your own sense of wanting to feel like you're good enough, or or awesome, depending, uh, in in various ways that you can look for. And then there's the, uh, ones in terms of, uh, peer group, or or family, or or your significant other, or wherever else.

Um, having this distinction of keeping your eye on profit, or even more specific than that, right? When it comes to your personal bank account, or whatever growing, or or however it is, um, and it could be a sustainable kind of monthly thing, but where it's kind of sustainable, where, um, what's important to do to sustain the income, it's a little bit of a parallel to a relationship, right? Um, relationships have to be upkept. They're kind of like the equivalent of like monthly income, right? Um, but what you're looking for with something that has that's ongoing, like a relationship, as opposed to, I also have the idea where you can make a certain amount of money and then just put some of it into annuities or whatever else you think is wise, or that it works for you. Um, and I'm not into giving advice on like what amounts to speculation, right? But I just, I like annuities because they kind of essentially remove the speculation. But you can't really remove all the speculation. But anyhow, there's the idea of just getting a certain amount of money once and for all that is fairly realistic. You can't fully control that. People can steal from you. The world could end, you know, so to speak. Um, the whole world financial situation, you know, system could collapse. But I don't really, I don't really see a lot of profit in really worrying about that stuff.

Um, but then there's the idea of monthly income, which is also, which is valid. And but it's valid in the sense that it's similar to a relationship, where you, monthly income is valid if what's important to do and to not do in order to make that income is something that is cool with you, that you can deal with, right? Same thing when you're in a relationship with somebody, then the things that are important for that of the other party that you're in a relationship with, that you'd both do, and the things that support them that you don't do. Um, then, um, then if you can handle those things reasonably, and you got to be realistic about that stuff and try to get it right, because it, if you make a long-term commitment that involves a maintenance that you're, you're overly optimistic about maintaining, then you can be kind of screwed, right? I mean, you know, eventually you probably work your way out of it somehow, but, but it can be a, you know, not a great thing to have to deal with. So anyway, um, profit, and again, you can tailor it to yourself, again, that could be kind of ongoing where the maintenance is reasonable for you. I wasn't really, I maybe have now, I've said this, I've said it, but I, but ironically, maybe I have found a way to, to for now, may at least make profit in a way that's reasonably sustainable, right?

Um, one of, one of my issues with making money ongoing is that, um, I'm a little bit too aware of how you're basically a criminal. And I've, I've just been running, I run into an actual real-life, not where I've, you know, been actually put in jail or anything, but where I'm just being treated, you know, like a criminal when you're, when you're audited. Or I just cannot, the, with the state that I live in, unfortunately, Tennessee, there's positives to it in terms of the government, but the corporate tax law is just impossible to decipher. It's not built for internet business. And when you're, your business has nothing to do with Tennessee, and there's a tax, you know, it, and it's just, um, so in my personal situation, it's just kind of, uh, I was gonna say, there's a tax you can't really figure out. Yes, guys get conflicting advice on paying it or not. Um, and so it just kind of messes with me, right? In a lot of different ways. Um, so it's just kind of based on a personal situation, right? Someone else that might live in Florida or Wyoming or whatever, might not have nearly that same kind of problem. But then for me, moving there is just a whole bunch of other issues. I don't really want to leave my house, you know? I like the, the house plan and like the, both my parents and both my grandparents did, where you kind of live in a house for decades and then keep storing stuff in the attic or somewhere, and then your kids, when you die, have to deal with that. I like that method. Um, so again, you just kind of deal with stuff that, that's tailored for yourself.

Um, but boy, um, is that, I talk about this all the time because the difference in actually being able to keep your eye on this versus getting into all the things that people do, uh, I, I just, um, I think it's, it's easily like a 10x difference in terms of the money at the end of the year. Um, your, your time investment, the things that you don't do because you feel like that's not something that, you know, I want to do, or, you know, all that stuff. Um, the, the subliminal being being scared to do certain things because it might show you that you're, uh, unskilled at something, but that you feel like you don't want to confront that, right? Like you don't want to go through that, um, period where you're kind of bumbling around, right? We'll all do that to some degree, but then there's places where we really don't want to do it. I feel that, you know, um, but that might be what you, that the place where you feel like you don't want to do it, um, might be a place where you need to do it, you know, in order to make money. And so, um, really thinking about this and trying to keep focused on this, um, on the, the profit is your goal of some sort, and really watching out for for the other things that people try to do in business. And you can spot all over the place when people are talking about, um, what they've done in business in a way that is, uh, not really specifically geared towards profit, you know, in their personal bank at the end of the day. Not that if you do have that, you should run around bragging about it or not. Um, uh, but you can just notice the ways that people kind of imply that these other, um, markers of success, right, in business.

Now, there can be semi-soft locks, like things that you accomplish on the way to getting profit that are very relevant to accomplish, and you can be very happy to accomplish those intermediate things. So I'm not, I'm not saying that you can't be happy about building a website prior to making profit, or, uh, whatever, right? Learning a thing, or learning a tool, or whatever, right? Or that if you get a client and you're spending most of the money that the client's paying you, reinvesting and doing a great job with them because it's early on and you're trying to figure things out and make sure you get it right and and so forth, that's perfect. That can all be reasonable. I'm not saying you have to b-line straight to, straight to this, but you want to have this as your beacon, and not, and, and be aware that there's a fake beacon that's going to keep popping up about proving that you're also more, or, um, or at least not too unawesome.

Oh, then one other quick, um, manifestation of this that comes up a lot is when people have this intuitive idea of how long something should take, right? I've touched on this recently in previous webinars, but just to bring it up in this context, um, if you're, let's say, you, it's a particular day, and you got a new software program, and within a certain amount of time, we can all, we can all imagine ourselves feeling like, "Damn it, this is taking too long. Why is it so, why is this taking so long to kind of figure out how to use this software? I don't, you know, I don't know if I can make it work." And if you have your windows clean, then there are times when you, you, you, you're seeing kind of in a reasonably accurate way how, how well something's working, or how well, how good a certain path is, or a particular software tool in this case, and you accurately see that it's not a great way to go. However, when your window's not clean, so to speak, then that can be confused with an arbitrary amount of time that it's supposed to take you to learn something, or get a software working, or, you know, or whatever, accomplish any particular task, whether or not it's software.

And so when you spot yourself feeling like, "This is taking too long," or any manifestation of that, either either beating yourself up about that, or feeling angry at the people that made the, you know, some other party because it's taking too long, then step back and think whether that's actually sensible or not. Um, again, if there's, uh, there's times it's gonna be a good judgment call to go look for a different path towards something, right? When you're trying a certain path, or tool, or software, or type of venture, or whatever strategy, whatever sub-goal, um, but, um, just make sure you're, you're looking, you're, you're, you're doing it in a way that you're kind of reasonably looking at at the situation, um, and not just comparing your minds, not just comparing it to kind of an arbitrary sense of how long something's supposed to take.

Something I've talked about, not, I don't think I've really mentioned it specifically in this this series, it came up again just a little, um, uh, of just a personal anecdote about an acquaintance who is a playing for college and really wants to get into a certain type of college. Um, it's an another of a million examples of always watch out for in general for when your plan is for plan A to work, right? It's a very bad plan if you have one plan and it needs to work, right? A plan should basically always have the structure of, "I will try this path, and if that, and it, and under these following," you know, it could be general, you don't have to get into a lot of detail, but "under the following circumstances, I'll start to look for another path." Right? Either in, sometimes you'll try something and it clearly won't work, like you'll knock on someone's door, you'll call some of the phone, and they'll say no, or they won't answer, right? Then you're like, "Alright, I'll try it out." Right?

Other times, you're not sure whether the path you're on is going to work, right? You know, in the case of you're trying to make a certain software work, you're trying to run like a site in a certain way, or or use some service, and you can't tell for sure whether it's happening or not, right? So, um, or you're in a relationship, and you're not sure, um, whether it's standard or not, business, personal type relationship, whatever. Um, so, but in general, your plan needs to have the structure of, "I'm gonna try this path, this plan A," and, and the general rule on switching to plan B is that you're eyeballing the difference, like you're kind of looking at the field, and it's clear that plan B, now that plan B, or path B, um, makes more sense. If it's unclear, stick with plan A, right? If it's unclear, if you're in a relationship and it's unclear whether getting out of it is a better idea than sticking with it, then stick with it and set it up for success.

The, um, because what's the overall thing that we're discussing here? Oh, I'm already at the hour, um, hour mark in the webinar, but, um, the overall thing that we're discussing here is that you want to work on you. You want to try to succeed or or pursue success via having better, developing better things to see with, or being better able to see what you can see with, right? And that the way to see what to see with is to be able to have a perspective or a place to stand that's very deep, or even literally rock solid. And then you can see all the stuff metaphorically speaking above it. Unless you get underneath things, you can't see, right? To see, you have to have some way of literally stepping back, actually stepping back from whatever it is you're trying to see, um, or getting underneath. That's why me talking about really foundational things about reality and and fundamental things about thinking, um, fundamental things about morality when it comes to property rights and so forth, very relevant because, um, on a, if we skip over to, um, relationship stuff, relationships have just a, you know, beyond massive impact on our lives and kind of on every level, right? Our sense of well-being, our practical sense of having other people to team up with in all sorts of ways. Um, other people have all kinds of various talents that we can do a sort of trade, right? In their business and just personal stuff, right? In a personal or marriage relationship, there's various things that people either have a talent for and or they don't really mind doing, especially in the context so that it helps the team, like the two-person or family team, um, then they're glad to do it versus someone else is really relieved not to have to deal with that sort of thing. So relationships can just do so much for us, right? Obviously, but a lot.

And so the, um, when it comes to relationships, morality, not not even so much in the sense of acting moral, like not cheating or something, but in the sense of all the judging and the, "This person should do that," or "I'm going to be upset if they don't drive me here," I'm going to feel like they don't love me, and, right? People have all these things. "A man should do this, a woman should do that. If they don't do this, then they don't really care." Right? Just a non-stop, massive, never-ending list of judgments. And I really have made a marriage where that is hardly at all going on, if you know, very minimal to, you know, to zero. And it's not, it's below a threshold where it's a, you know, issue in essence, right? Like we're just super happy every day, we treat each other very nicely, we're not nagging and judging each other and just feeling these little dings that are building up in our mind. "If they should have done this, they should have done that." This little resentment just keeps building on, right? Um, and so morality is so important because it is so impactful because people have this, like, if the little, I don't have this, like graphically, but if their little circle is what really should be done, kind of morally, and then people have this huge circle of stuff that they think that people should do for them, or should do, what they should do, and all that, it's huge. And if you can just cut that out and pare it down and let the other stuff be bonus and nice and opportunity, uh, that right there will have this just radical impact on your ability to have relationships and the quality of them, and your quality of life, and how calm you are. And because you're gonna do the same exact thing to yourself, like your peace of mind is like your relationship with yourself, right?

Like, you know, the, three really practical overall categories that the law of implication deals with, at least is my version of it, so to speak, is, is, you know, relationships with others, peace of mind, which is like relation with yourself, and then just like money, right? Um, and, uh, and so really, if you deal with those three things, you're so, you're in such good shape, right? Um, and that the tools can be used for various other things, right? But just in terms of the examples I use where I personally focus, right? Then like, kind of the, like the subframes that are more surface and more applicable, and what I'm kind of interested in, are going to be in those categories, right? And that I'll mainly talk about. So that's what I mean by if you're learning it from me, right? If someone, as other people, master the fundamentals of method and thinking and the nature of perception and existence and things like that, and then they apply it to other areas like health, then excellent, I'm glad to have that. Um, but I'm not going to spend long. I'm going to wrap up this monologue part here. But, um, when it comes to these invisible frames, right? Understanding who you are, understanding the basic way that existence works, allows you to then see, um, to stand in a place, so to speak, where you can see morality. Also, you understand as you understand that your mind is not conscious, your brain is not conscious, you are. And you start to tease apart the difference, and then you tease apart how your brain needs to twist things to kind of remember them and encode them and stuff. And so it twists the idea of good, which is, which is an aspect of consciousness, it's a quality of consciousness of your conscious experience, good, um, it twists it into that which furthers or is perceived or calculated or associated with furthering goals, right? And it'll associate like people with, "Well, this person's good," right? And it's like, they're associating a person with what's associated with furthering their own goals, right? Which might just mean that the person has a similar worldview or similar politics, right? But that kind of provides a backdrop that they feel like being around that person kind of generally furthers their goals, or provides a framework for furthering their goals, because they agree on cultural things. These deeper frames allow us to see morality more more accurately, where we understand that our mind is going to twist good into that meaning of furthering goals, and, and also that which is associated with furthering goals, right? In terms of people and, and beliefs and worldviews and so forth.

Um, so then we can, um, we, we're, we're standing in a place where we have the ability, we still have to do it and think it through, but we're now theoretically differently able to see morality in terms of, and we can eliminate a massive amount of judging other people. Um, but also, uh, realize when people really are doing something that that's very harmful, because the trouble with harmful things is they're actually harmful, right? Like, um, like when I talk about taxation, or or other things in government, like with the FDA using, uh, violence, right? To prevent us from having a vaccine a year earlier, that has real harm. Like someone's really, you know, having property taken from them, right? It's not like, "Oh, you should go to dinner with us on Thanksgiving," or "You should drive me here if you love me," right? Like it's, it's, um, and if something, it doesn't, isn't really an idea that's going to reliably cause harm, right? Um, and when you undermine property rights, then you're causing harm by extension, right? Because if people are consistent with violating property rights, then the result is horrific. Um, so some things really are harmful, right? And we can understand that those ideas are harmful. A person is not their idea. So a person isn't bad, but their ideas, this, they might have individual ideas that are bad, and some are like, really harmful. And if we don't recognize them as such, then how are we going to get rid of them? Right? But again, that the person's not the, the bad, right? They're just associated, like it feels like they are, but it, it's the ideas.

Um, but like if we're, if we're, um, if we're dating someone and then we see them enjoying torturing puppies, right? It's not that I have a thing for torturing puppies, I just, instead of bringing up rape and stuff, you know, non-stop, I'll just talk about that. Um, then I, I think a lot of us, maybe virtually everyone, would break up with a person, right? So if we think about that consistently, then if someone else is doing something politically, like in the political realm, or supporting something that's the exact equivalent of torturing puppies, because why? We're not a puppy, so we don't think they're gonna torture us. As a, like in a one-to-one correspondence between, "Okay, I don't want to date this person," be like, like if someone's torturing a puppy, we're not in immediate danger of being tortured. If all they do is torture puppies, but our reasoning is that if they're going to torture puppies on a regular basis, then that's going to lead, that means there's, that's going to show up in other areas that really will be a problem, right? And so, um, so I think you really have to be careful with getting close relationships with someone whose political views involve violence, uh, and a massive violation of property rights, as if it's nothing, because how is that not gonna show up in other places? And I just mean that as practical advice, right? It's not like a political, right? I just, I just think it's going to show up in the same way that the torturing puppies are going to show up other places.

All right, okay. Well, that starts to give some examples. And hopefully, I covered enough of the invisible but external that you can sort of recognize that if you're gonna, you know, do a coaching program, or if you're gonna try to draw some into your ideas, then you just kind of want to start with these kind of clever things that people are not identified with. Like, people love having these sort of paradigm shifts that they don't identify with. Like, "Oh, that's a great tool. I never thought about it. That's a great strategy. I didn't think of that." Right? If someone can see something that you show them, whether it's a strategy, or whether it's a tool, or an online tool, or, or whatever, a technique, or something to say to somebody else to get a result, um, and feel like, "Oh, that's awesome," that means they don't identify, right, with, um, with someone that already should be doing that, right? Or, or with an opposite idea that, you know, that conflicts that they identify with. And that's the sort of thing you want to like sell or provide to people as you, like your sales funnel, or just on a, on a social level, the kind of thing that if you want to come across as clever, then you kind of, you know, show people that without making it too obvious that you're patting yourself on the back, you know, or trying to show off. But all right, I will wrap things up because I always have to just basically stop talking at some point. There's always more to say. Um, and, um, I want to have Mike Broadwell on soon. I'll take a quick look at some comments, but just to kind of look over, um, something to see better with. Metaphoric cataract. Yeah, cataracts are a great example because you might not, you generally won't realize you have cataracts, right? And then there's anomalies. Maybe at some point, like, "Oh, you know, I catch stuff." And con, and sometimes there's miss, there's, there's miscommunication. Uh, this can come up with Mike Long and myself regarding, I, I meant to ask him to do a certain thing in business, and he misinterpreted, right? Or something like that. Now, he messaged, I'm sorry, it's not his fault, right? I, there was a misinterpretation in between what I said and what he said. It didn't get communicated the way I intended. The fault could easily be, you know, it doesn't matter, could be aware. Um, but there's times when there's little anomalies, and something he'll say about something he's in the middle of doing, or whatever, um, and one of us will pursue that anomaly, and we'll realize, "Oh crap, we really had a mystification there. We thought we were saying one, then something else." Right? Um, and, and if, and it was whenever that happens, it would have been very easy to ignore that anomaly. So there's a certain mental habit of paying attention to certain types of anomalies, um, or anomalies, I don't know, in general, or that are related, could be related to something important, you know? Um, you know, there's times in life when it'll be pretty obvious if an anomaly is in an area that isn't important, right? Um, but as we start to ask deeper questions about frames that are deeper, then we can have a feeling that something's important. Like, "Wait a second, what does it mean when I refer to that tree?" Right? That doesn't seem important to people, but if you're asking the right questions, then it can feel important. And if you'd be important anomaly, when you start to notice contradictions and what the word refers to and so forth.

Okay, Fletch says, "I recall having a conversation with you, David, about someone's favorite books they told me about, and how that was a telling feature of the way they looked at things, what they noticed and connected, what they're trying to do with their life." This sort of thing is quite similar to what you discussed about the torturing puppies. Yeah, right, totally, exactly.

And that, you know, it would be nice if we lived in a society where there were different worldviews, but none of them, you know, that none of them were particularly toxic, like horribly toxic, right? There's just, there's just times and place in history, probably a lot of times in place in history, but, you know, like in the Roman times of the Coliseum, right? If people, lots of people were cheering for someone to like get killed if they lost a fight or something like that, right? Or of course, in like the 1800s in the South in America, and just lots of times and places, obviously Nazi Germany, etc., right? You know, my, uh, my wife grew up next to her grandmother. Her grandmother lived near, you know, within walking distance for her grandmother. When she was four or five, her parents were taken by, um, government workers working for Stalin, and they were taken to be worked to death. And they were, and she never saw them again. They went to some place in Siberia, probably died within a few years, horrible, uh, conditions, treated subhumanly, and just, you know, died trying to build probably like the Trans-Siberian, some sort of thing, or whatever, some road or whatever. Um, but, you know, because they were like intelligentsia of some sort, or whatever, or Stalin, you know, you just did this to literally millions of people. I think he was responsible for the deaths of like 50 million people or so in his own country, between Ukrainian farmers displaced and all kinds of starvation and stuff. And that kind of thing.

Um, so there was a culture that there were people, and there were just like police, right? I mean, they were just doing what police do, doing the bidding of the authorities, right? And so forth. And they did that. They just probably went home to their own families, right? And, and, but they, like, dragged these, you know, her grandparents' parents away, right? And just did that. Like there's just, it's kind of the norm in the world is that they're these, like people really aren't going to evil. They're in a certain sense, they're, what I mean is, in a kind of a simple but practical sense, they're extremely context-dependent. And in the wrong context, they can really act evil, right? Again, even just supporting the existence of the FDA, like it's okay to violently prevent people from, um, someone who makes a vaccine from from providing it to people. That's terrific, right? I had a friend, a close friend growing up, and his wife, who I knew growing up too, both went to my high school. I mean, she worked for the FDA. I mean, I wouldn't marry, I wouldn't be married to someone that worked for the FDA, right? To me, that's like torturing puppies. It's just so evil. It's incomprehensible, right? Um, and also, you have to believe in expanding the federal government past the Constitution. So you have to fully and utterly believe that the Constitution is 100 worthless in terms of, you know, like you just have to believe in an infinite tyranny in order to work for the FDA, right? Since it's unconstitutional, it's expanding outside the boundaries of the Constitution, which means you have no boundaries on on anything, right? Um, and then there's, there's no amount of tyranny that you won't tolerate and approve of, basically, except if you're just being arbitrary. So it's just this beyond evil organization. It's mere existence too, is so weird because because it's outside of the Constitution, um, the people, anyone that that supports it is an enemy of the Constitution, which we're supposed to be defended against by anyone that takes the oath in the military. So every single military member, past and present, has sworn an oath, a clear oath, to militarily defend us against the people, the FDA. And yet, they're none of them are are upholding that. It's just, it's all just strange.

So we live in this weird world that's, um, when you look just out of the surface, there's just so much that's dictated by violence and in a way that's extreme, right? That's really, um, like, in, when I say extreme, it's on the level that of things that we are horrified by. And yet, like, it's the same level, like we're horrified presumably by by slavery, right? In the 1700s, 1800s in America, you know, I'm sure, right? Just all of us are just feel like, "Wow, that's horrible." But what we have today is literally on par with it. And I, I'm okay saying that, right? Um, and on so many levels, right? So just crazy. Myself, I, I, when I, you know, my teens and at some point, I don't know when it changed, when I realized, maybe sometime in my 20s, I would feel like pride about how the US developed nuclear weapons and used them to win and defeat the Japanese and, you know, and just kind of win World War II in a certain way, right? Or win it a second time after Germany was defeated. I literally, like, I felt like that was cool. And that's horrifying. I mean, how sick is that? I was, I was, I, I got like a good feeling. I didn't think it all the way through. That's how people arrive at these things. But in, in little babies being burned alive, they were fully innocent, right? And then Nagasaki and Hiroshima, these are just little children, and they were burned alive. And while their parents were like holding them, in some cases, they had to watch their parents get burned alive. And I felt the feeling of like pride, like, "Yeah, we won." Right? And so, but at some point, that's an example of an anomaly. Like, if you feel a good feeling and babies being burned alive that are obviously innocent, there's no real such thing as like a non-distant baby, right? When you're talking about burning them alive, um, then, uh, then that's an anomaly big enough that there might be, there might be other ripple effects, right?

Anyway, so it just, like, we all need to confront this in ourselves, you know? And then, you know, and so forth. Um, yeah, 100 million makes sense. He's in Mike's kind of an expert on Russian history. Yeah, okay. Well, let's get, let's get Mike Broadwell on. Do you want to go on audio, Mike? Let me, I have to find you and unmute you, obviously, by default. Let's see here. Uh, attendees. Now, this can be interesting because starting out in in in practice, I disagree with Mike Broadwell's, uh, position, but not, not in a way where I'm threatened by it, at least. Of course, I'm, you know, I love finding out that I'm wrong or figuring it out. Um, so I don't know where this will go. Um, I'm not in this at all of course, proven wrong. I'd much rather he'd be right, right? It's much, much nicer for me. Um, but, uh, and then it might not end up being about right or wrong. It might just be about, um, identifying just pieces of things that where he can enlighten us and enlighten me, and where I can point out, "Wait a second, maybe you need to take this into account," or "What about this?" And where we know we just kind of do that, right? So we'll see. Okay, Mike, uh, are you able to talk? Yeah, can you hear me now? Okay, I can hear you well. Okay, great. Yeah, so I appreciate the chance to come on and, uh, yeah, and I'd love for you to start in a sense of just kind of talk about your thoughts about whatever it is, but obviously related to vaccination, COVID, and so forth.

Okay, well, let me give a bit of context. For the last decade or more, I've been working in holistic health. It's been my primary thing. And, um, in particular, the type thing I've been working with, we work along what's called the terrain theory, or the biological terrain approach to health. And that's one of the things that the law of implication has really appealed to me because when you talk about dealing with context, it fits so perfectly with health. And that most health conditions are complex issues. And instead of trying to shoot for the answer, which is really more what conventional medicine does, is to show progress by hiding symptoms, it's actually to work on the context of health until the, till the problem kind of clears itself. And that this is a whole school of thought known as biological medicine. I think Paracelsus is one of the founders. I agree, that's absolutely a lot of implication principle of working, yeah, intervening in context until it fills itself in and the problem solves itself. Yeah, by the way, let me just say something for everyone, um, not about this, but I mean about this, that idea, um, but, uh, never be confused about the idea. I'm always fine with directly trying to solve any issue, achieve any goal. Like I'll often, as my first try or first thing I do, is just go with the most direct, obvious, normal, common solution, if that makes any sense. Um, like for exa, in the context of health, for example, and I'm not an expert, but I'm just saying, uh, I'm perfectly fine with trying the most kind of normal, common treatment. I'm perfectly fine with hearing what a doctor would do to treat something or trying it, as long as it, you know, won't be a massive risk necessarily, you know, whatever. But anyway, just when we talk about solving, I'm not talking to Mike Broadwell here, Mike, you, I'm just saying, I said, I'm not in any way correcting what you're saying. I'm just kind of interjecting something I wanted to mention in general that everyone's clear on is that when I do talk about context, or overall how to solve a problem, or we talk about deep frames and so forth, none of that precludes directly trying to achieve something or making that your plan A. It's just that, um, you know, we, we also, lots of things we need, lots of things can't be answered or solved unless we understand how to keep on layering, going wider in context, deeper in context, until something soft, but perfectly reasonable to solve anything that can be stopped instantly, and or, you know, whatever. Okay, go for it.

Well, and it also relates, it's an, it's an ideal approach to really understanding nature and and all the complexity of life. Is because, because you mentioned also GMOs, which kind of go hand in hand along a similar vein. But if you look at the real problem, yeah, genetically modified foods, the problem is the human body is way more complex. And what we've, one of the big failings in our western society is that we have tended to ignore what we don't understand. Is it can't be important if we don't understand it. And this is, uh, I think that's universal to all, all people's minds, as they marginalize and delete, regardless of culture. Problem, exactly. So I've got a friend here who's a farmer, for instance, and he's studied for many years, uh, how to grow grasses and and the whole ecology of nature. And so one of the problems with our modern agriculture, when we just want to, you know, kill bugs with pesticides and and then we fertilize, is we actually destroy the whole economy of nature. Uh, there's, there's a very complex symbiotic relationship from everything from funguses to bacteria to all the things in the soil. And actually, even insects are designed to sense the frequency of weaker plants. They're actually meant to take out the wheat plants. The strong, healthy plants have too much sugar for the insect to handle.

So they're actually designed in a healthy ecology. So what we've done in our modern sense of trying to up yields and and make money on things is to poison and totally disrupt this uh cycle of nature, which has led to this declining ability to get nutrients in the food. Even the water, the way that—what's that? Sorry, maybe more allergies. Yeah, more allergies. Um, even the way we use water is very destructive. Water has incredible properties. So, just overall, using the the law of implication method of starting with what we know and not what we don't know, really is the way to approach a very complex ecology, something like the human body, nature, all these things. And it goes back to the ancient world, which ancient teachings were about retroduction, or eliminating what's not true till you get to what's true. That that actually goes back, as I've been learning, uh, it's a very, very ancient times. And so that's kind of the context of where I start.

And then, if if you look at even the whole germ theory, which Pasteur is the father of, uh, in in the West, he was opposed by a guy named, a guy named Beauchamp, who was who promoted the terrain theory. And Pasteur is actually the guy that came up with the whole viral theory of disease. The word "virus" means poison in Latin. It didn't mean organism. And, um, so this Pasteur thing, the whole idea of pasteurizing milk, again, killing, killing off, you know, supposed pathogens, has led to this kind of sterilized, uh, everything's an enemy, this, everything's a terrorist, you know, we have to be in fear of all these viruses and all these things that are going to get us. But there's another side to it, which is the toxicity of the environment that we've greatly increased with industrial, you know, use of oil, use of all these sprays, pesticides. And there's really been an ongoing debate since the beginning of vaccines that are, have they really been the root of ending polio? Because there's a lot of research that shows that polio was peaked because of usage of DDT. And when DDT started to be backed off of, that kind of correlated with the same timing of the polio vaccine. And even, even the developer, Salk, and the other guy that developed a separate vaccine, sued each other and blamed each other for causing all these deaths. So the, the world of vaccines has not been an unbridled success. And in fact, it's, it's, it's pretty scary. And, and one of the indicators of that is that vaccine manufacturers are no longer liable for injuries. There's a separate government-funded pool of money for vaccine injuries called the, the vaccine VAERS, where you, you actually go to the separate court, which is funded from taxpayer money, if you have a vaccine injury. So, um, there's a lot of, uh, and a lot of criminality on the, on the behalf of the vaccine manufacturers, a lot of lawsuits on other drugs and other things.

So, but my question is, is when we use law of implication, because to me, this is, this is really a fundamental property rights issue. That if I can be forced to have something injected in my body that is, is hotly debated. Now, it's interesting, the same group that is squashing, you know, property rights, free speech, and all that, are the exact same groups that are promoting vaccines. If you look at Biden's whole campaign, it was, we're going to vaccinate everybody, make everybody wear masks, make all this stuff. If you go to a college campus, they are the most, they're like Soviet Union. Even Sewanee, which I don't know if you've been down to Sewanee, not too far from where you live, that little campus out in the woods, which is a gorgeous little campus, it was like huge signs about you must wear a mask, even walking in the woods. And, and just the propaganda of colleges. So the same people that we would say are horrible in terms of free market and in, um, free speech, are actually, they're, they're squelching alternative doctors. I know a lot of the top alternative doctors, like Mercola, uh, there's a doctor Christiane Northrup, who I haven't met, but she has been on Oprah eight or nine times. I mean, she's a big name doctor who was lauded by the establishment for years. She has come out against the vaccines and how dangerous they are, and she's been completely marginalized. And so the, the same marginalization we're seeing across the board with political stuff and in freedom of speech, is happening exactly to anybody opposing this vaccine agenda. So there's a lot of—

Mike, let me ask you something. Um, so I, so I agree with you on that, for sure. Um, of course, like the, the censorship is insane, right? It's like, also, when you compare apples to apples, there's all kinds of hoaxes that are, you know, kind of obvious. You know, recently in the news, there was the, um, the thing about, uh, Russia putting bounties on American soldiers in Afghanistan, which was false, but it was a big campaign issue. Democrats telling it was true, and there was no warning label on Facebook, you know, about those things, right? It's only stuff like vaccines or, you know, election stuff. Um, so it's ridiculous. Um, and, uh, the politicalization of things in America is, is of course, um, a real problem. But so when it comes specifically to, like, I'm with you on everything you're saying, but when it comes to the, a couple things, so viruses existing in the first place, um, I don't see how we get to saying that viruses don't exist as like a, a DNA sequence with a, with a coating. I mean, they're so, the amount of that type of of mistake, I don't, there's, there's tons of terrible mistakes that live in the world, right? Get ideas, but I don't see how viruses wouldn't exist. And and and, uh, how that can possibly measure up. It's like saying Paris doesn't exist. Like, like the same people that have all kinds of horrible political abuse, like Hitler might have said that Paris existed, right? I'm sure he believed that Paris existed since he, you know, invaded France. But that doesn't mean that Paris doesn't exist because you know, Hitler thought that it did. Um, I'm sure Zuckerberg believes that Paris exists too, but it doesn't mean that Paris doesn't exist. When it comes to the existence of viruses, I just don't see how that could be a hoax. And then, and I'll let you, sorry, I'll stop in a second until I have you respond. And then COVID specifically, I don't see how COVID itself wouldn't exist and actually be the thing making people sick with COVID in many, in nearly every case, or whatever. Um, and then you also have like Semmelweis and the washing of hands and germ theory. And kids used to die in childbirth like nuts. And then doctors started washing their hands, and that made a huge difference, right? As I understand it. Like, there's something about that coherent story that I don't see, like, it made sense for, it made sense not for them to do it, but in the sense of understanding how people think. The medical establishment resisted Semmelweis and the handwashing and so forth, as the story goes, for a long time. They resisted Pasteur. I mean, Pasteur had to disprove spontaneous generation with his little flasks, you know, and his ingenious experiments. You know, you have penicillin, which to imagine that that hasn't made a huge difference and really helped and saved a lot of lives. I like sometimes killing germs and things, or, you know, bacteria or viruses, seems like it's relevant. Or the idea that vaccines in general don't, I guess I'm bringing up too many layers here. I need to let you respond. But, uh, but where do we go with, we're trying to, like, with with viruses not existing and COVID itself being basically all false or not even really existing, and it being like toxicity. I don't, I don't, I can't follow that. Like, that just seems like, like where I, and I don't see where that motivation would be. Or seeing what happened in Italy early on, where they denied it, and like everyone's first response to COVID, so to speak, was to say, it's probably not a big deal, right? From Pelosi and the Democrats to Trump. He took it seriously in one sense of of stopping some travel, but I mean, everyone's first response was, it's not here yet, we don't need to panic, it's not a big deal, which is understandable, right? Same thing in Italy. But then people really were just dying by the droves in Italy, and husband and wives would just die together, you know, in their house alone. Was that all toxicity all of a sudden happening? Or, you know, like, anyway, go ahead.

Um, well, yeah, I'm sorry, I wasn't sure if you were finished or not, or if I lost your case. Yeah. Um, so I'm not saying that there aren't viruses, per se. What I'm saying is, and, and certainly bacteria. I mean, bacteria, and see, this is another scientific problem, is that when we take cells out of a body and put them in a petri dish, one, we're shifting from an anaerobic to an aerobic environment, or vice versa. But we're taking them out of the whole context that they actually work in. So, yeah, a body fluid, which works fine inside your body, if, if we cut you and it spills out, and then somebody eats it or it gets in there, you know, that can become toxic because that's going to shift states. And, yeah, that can become poison to somebody and cause an issue. Uh, but viruses, see, the, and this goes back to the AIDS, if you go back to HIV virus, there's, they've never made a causative link between AIDS and HIV. HIV AIDS was always considered, you had all these existing diseases and you're HIV positive. And they use this PCR test, which the founder of said is not valid to use for for human diagnosis. But if you had, say, was it called Kaposi's sarcoma, or whatever, and you didn't have the HIV virus, then you were not considered an AIDS patient. But again, the, the correlation, well, COVID is the same thing. They've never, they've never isolated the COVID virus. What they've done is computer model it. And if you actually look at what they call virus isolation, it's, it's almost beyond absurd. They put things in a blender with monkey kidney cells and antibiotics, and then they, then they, they mix all this other stuff in, and then they claim, well, okay, these cells died, so there has to be a virus here. But they're not isolating it. We would consider isolation to be purification, that I can singly isolate this virus. And what they've done, once the, the virus, like a year ago, more than a year and three months ago, well, they've been, you know, coronaviruses have been around forever. There's a million, you know, different variations of coronaviruses. So there are coronaviruses that exist. Well, I'm not saying viruses don't exist. I'm saying is, I don't know that they're causative for what we think they are. They're, they're basically little chunks of DNA or RNA. There's no life in them. They don't have any—

Yeah, yeah, I get that they're not life. They're, they're a protective protein layer around DNA or RNA. But I mean, remember, we, something happened in Italy, and that's it. It's not the kind of like when 9/11 happened. 9/11, people could theoretically debate on certain causes or issues. Right? I have traditional views on it, but, but that it happened, that the Twin Towers were blown up, you know, like, there's certain things that just don't, again, like, there's not really any anomalies. It's just, it, to question them gets to the point where my terminology would be unreasonable, right? Like, again, if, if I just said that Paris didn't exist, and I said, well, Paris doesn't exist because, like, there was a city one time and people thought it existed, but it didn't exist. And so Paris doesn't, like, you know, like, or, you know, or these other people that say Paris existed, they're wrong about this, that, or the other thing, but Paris just exists, right? Like, um, and at the, there's at some point where we can't, like, live consistently with the idea that it doesn't. In Italy, people were dying. Like, the idea that they weren't dying of COVID in Italy, it just gets a little bit like, all of a sudden, these people got this disease. Like, it's so consistent as a reality. Um, and then, like, just to give a simple, like, here's my worldview about about coronavirus, and try to tell me where, where I'm going wrong. So, a, viruses exist. B, vaccines can, can help against them, right? And there's just, you know, I realized that, anyway. Um, so, so I take that as true. And again, I get that we could debate that, but I mean, I mean, in the sense that some could beat anything. Um, and I don't dismiss it. If someone wants to bring something up, it's perfectly reasonable to do so. But the story is so coherent, and there's no, there's no, like, when, when Democrat, when Fauci wants us to still wear our masks after being vaccinated, you can track the mistake. Like, why that starts to get insane, and you can track the kind of thirst for not even just power, but this kind of weird situation in America where it's just everything's political. In the sense that if one side thinks one thing, the other side thinks another. And how the left loves to have these kind of moral, weird moral issues that they, these crisis-type panic things, and these virtue signaling of wearing a mask and so forth. So the position that after you're vaccinated, you don't wear a mask, you don't need to, you know, and that culturally, it shouldn't be that, that seems so reasonable to me. And, and everyone, when you look at how that would would function our society, that's, that works out great. Um, now, like, like it could be a return to normalcy. Before any government intervention or shutdowns or whatever, the economy was running into major issues that were gonna almost certainly get worse because COVID. What was happening in Italy, and then there was, there's outbreaks in New York City, and it was getting more and more, and people weren't going to restaurants, you know, and so forth. Like sectors were shutting down, or or starting to shut down a little bit before even the 15 days, you know, to stop the spread. And then vaccines, I don't know, like, I, I mean, it, some things, like you're not prepared to, to kind of discuss the opposite, but, um, business, the great thing about businesses is they have their brand to protect. When you have a big business that's making a vaccine, yeah, they have profit motive, yeah, there's, there's flaws there. But same thing, like I don't, like Xfinity or whatever the cable company, but they do, in fact, reliably give me internet, right? Like a pharmaceutical company that's making a vaccine for COVID has such an incentive to get it reasonably right. And there's enough, what'll happen is, there's enough people that are willing to take a risk for the sake of others, not just others that won't get sick, but so many people's lives were destroyed economically by COVID, and so many people's mentally, the isolation, the ripple effect of the economy, having their kids around all the time, whatever, it's so devastating psychologically, or, or, um, people not doing medical appointments that otherwise make, that could be relevant, right? I get that modern medicine has various flaws, and maybe major ones, but at the same time, people aren't going to hospitals for procedures they need. That has, that is issues too, because there's various things that the modern medicine or Western medicine does handle okay. I actually agree that there's plenty of things they might not handle. But anyway, but the ripple effect of COVID is so terrible that there's a bunch of people in the population, including myself in this case, right? There's things that I'm not that into doing, but this, I would go get the vaccine right off the bat in January of 2020, when it was made. I would have tried it, just like there's people that volunteered for the, uh, the trials, right? And maybe you try it on rats for for a week and just make sure they don't die instantly, right? But yeah, it's a foreign substance into the body, just like when I eat a hamburger, right? It's a foreign substance under the body. But, and I don't know what's in it. I don't know the long-term effects of exercise, you know, and we can be careful and not take any risks of hard work, um, we're exercising, but, um, enough, some amount of people would have gotten it, then we'd see if they lived through it. And even depending on the effectiveness of it, um, there's just apparently enough technology these days that they can make safe, safe vaccines, like right off the bat. I mean, it just has to not kill you, right? Or not cause, like, some terrible, you know, neurological, you know, thing. It's, I don't see how it's that hard to make stuff that don't kill people. I mean, restaurants do it all the time, right? They make food, it doesn't kill you when you eat it, even though it's a foreign substance. We don't know what they put in it, you know, they're, they're a profit-oriented corporation, and yet we eat their food, and it may have various amount of health, but it doesn't just kill us instantly. Um, and I don't know, I just think it's reasonably likely that the vaccine would have worked, you know, over a year ago, and I think that actual real life has proven that to be that to be correct. I think that if someone's vaccinated, I know I'm just asserting something for a second, but the position that I have is, if you're vaccinated, there's a good chance that greatly defends you against the disease, which then, and then I also think that the, the real effects of COVID between people dying, but then all the ripple effects of the everything shutting down or nearly shutting down and having to wear the mask and all that stuff, is, um, is so powerful that the cost, you know, is not that powerful. And one last thing, the whole thing about they're forcing me to be injected, I'm fine with not forcing people to get a vaccine. However, it's not as cut and dried as it might seem. First of all, if someone's gets hit by a car, they're unconscious, and the only thing that's going to save them is to inject them with adrenaline. Then without their permission, it's reasonable, even necessarily, even very possibly the obvious right decision to inject them with, let's say, adrenaline or whatever. Maybe it's an allergic reaction that's knocked them unconscious, they're about to die. You inject a foreign substance in their body. We don't know the long-term effects of that particular substance, even if it's been used for 100 years, we still don't know what will happen after 200 years, or what will happen with that particular person who's complex. But we still inject them with something to to help save them. If someone's going to get by a car, you can tackle them physically, which otherwise would be a property rights violation. But there's, there's circumstances where it's not the same type of violation. What if there was, um, a zombie apocalypse caused by a virus, and people were turning into zombies, but they could be turned back by injecting something into them? Uh, I would be fine with with injecting people with with something that unzombified them and turned them back into a normal person. I'd be against their permission, I'd be injecting them with a foreign substance, even if it was fairly experimental. If they were a brain-eating zombie, then the risk reward on something experimental, just the, the eyeballing it, the balance is just not even close. So for me, taking that into account, to me, like eyeballing it, it's not even close. You get the vaccine and you live a normal life. Like people that are saying wear a mask at that point, they're insane. It's terrible, it's horrific, it's tyrannical. Wearing a mask prior to that, reasonable, maybe wrong, maybe dumb, lots of arguments on both sides, but reasonable. Wearing one after vaccine, not, you know. Um, anyway, that was kind of a long spiel. I don't want to use the fact that I'm leaving the webinar to talk over you or anything like that. So I'm finished for now. I want to hear whatever you want.

For one, one is, these are not really vaccines in the classic sense of what's called. These are technically, or not vaccines. These are mRNA genetically modifying things. So what they're doing is they're making your cell act as if it's, uh, working against these symptoms. And they're not even designed to stop COVID, they're designed to minimize the symptoms or lower the symptoms. But they're not, they're not traditional vaccines. Put a small amount of the virus or whatever supposedly they're protecting against to cause your body's natural immune system to build up antibodies to it. That's not how these work. And these, and some of these, like the AstraZeneca and the Johnson & Johnson, have been halted. And certainly in Europe, a lot of the countries have actually stopped the AstraZeneca. And the Johnson & Johnson's been stopped in several states. In fact, my dad was was going to go, and we kind of scared him. He said, we scared him, but he called to cancel his appointment, and they told him, well, we had to cancel anyway, because this Johnson & Johnson is causing, uh, stroke-related issues in certain people. And so, and the, in the vaccine injury report, this is by far the highest percentage of vaccine deaths ever in history. Since December, the, the vaccine, the reported vaccine injury deaths with the CDC is over 2,500. Studies have shown that that that system underreports from 30 to 100 times the actual amount, because people don't always correlate, and then there's a lot of pressure to not correlate. And then in the same way that even, what's her name, Brix, or whatever, the lady was in fact, she admitted that if, if you get hit by a bus and you've got COVID, we're going to put you down as a COVID death. Yeah, no, that's what's going on.

What's that? But the thing with, I, I'm aware of that. Yeah, you get in a car accident, you have COVID, they might put them down as COVID. But I, there's still a lot of people dying of actual COVID. I mean, like, even if those numbers are inflated a bit. So I, like, one thing I'm not prepared to discuss one way or the other, you can just, you know, you say it, and it, it can cause questions, and we can look into it. Like, the amount of, of deaths caused by the vaccine, I mean, I, I'm shocked if it's anywhere near that high. But, and particularly 30 to 100 times that high, I mean, you're coming from a particular worldview where you're particularly suspicious of these things. I remember reading as a young boy, so I'm biased, kind of in the other direction, where reading about Pasteur as a young boy, and I, I found him pretty cool. And fast, and obviously there could be plenty of propaganda and stories that you give to kids, I get that. But, uh, it just seems like, like, basically the, the hand, like, uh, the, the increase in, like, sanitation, like with the handwashing and so forth, that that doctors do and such, that it's just been the main, you know, way that people live longer, you know, and yet you avoid infant deaths. Um, vaccines just seem to be something that just, in my simple experience, just seem to generally work and not kill that many people. Um, are they, are, are the authorities incentivized to not report? And the media incentivized to not report on on deaths related that could be related to the vaccine? Absolutely. Of course, I agree with that. You'd expect them to not hear news reports, particularly about it. In a certain sense, oh, there's plenty of alternative media sources that would be fascinated by that stuff and want to talk about them, as I'm sure you're aware of. And look at, it's tough with a vaccine, because if you give someone a vaccine and they die a week later, if you give it to 100 million people, then some number of those people are going to die, you know, regardless. Right? I'm sure you know, you're aware of that. Of course, I mean, not that you would take into account, but a lot of this comes down to how dangerous is the vaccine really? Is it causing thousands or dozens or any number of deaths? Um, and these are facts that I'm not, you know, gonna, I have nothing to say about them, you know, in either way. It's one, one, one of them or the other is true to me. In terms of like being an early adopter with a vaccine, in this case, the, the amount of suffering and and death and destruction from, you know, economic to mental and so forth, is so large with COVID that I'd be willing to risk to, you know, have a minimal but existing risk, you know, to my life to, um, you know, to, to take a vaccine based on the, the mass, like the cost, that if it just seems, you know, incredibly out of proportion. Um, you know, something was killing all those people in those nursing homes, remember in Seattle, you had a ton of people in one nursing home die. Like, what is that? If it's not a virus that's real, you know? And, and, and fairly, you know, uncommon, right? Like, it all is just so, you know, whatever.

Um, well, we don't know for sure because there could be a toxic release. I mean, one, one doctor that I've met, who's really, he's got three different MD certifications, so he's very, very smart guy. He pointed out that the symptoms of people turning blue and not being able to take up oxygen is a sign of the same thing as cyanide poisoning. He said, this is very, so this is exactly what happens in cyanide poisoning, and we have well-established protocols for addressing this. And he also pointed out that many of the hot spots, like New York City and Italy, these, these areas are places that are using a lot of, um, the green energy, you know, the, uh, fuel oils, the, uh, that they make from, uh, recycled waste and from, uh, fracking oil, which are very high in cyanide. And in these, these refineries, and these, these city buses in New York run off these, these kind of, uh, fuels that are actually high in cyanide. So we are getting into very toxic situations, um, in, in these cities.

Yeah, but isn't that just going out of the background as a base rate? Like, how does, how does the general existence of cyanide somewhere explain, like, COVID? We've all lived in this world for a while. COVID is like a fairly unique and major thing. That's again, it's like cyanide poisoning. How is that going to? I just don't see how on a wide scale that sort of thing gets confused with COVID. It just, the incentives aren't there. Like, like Julie was talking about how there could be, there could, I agree, like without government, then the more effective and safe vaccines would, like, just like, you know, the better movies, they could rate it higher, you know, people talk about it, they can get online, right? And again, companies, because of their brand, which really matters, they want to get things right. So it would get sorted out rapidly and relatively effectively, given that government is not composed of, of smart angels, right? It's composed of basically the opposite, right? That a lot of the assumptions that people have in the background about government is, oh, if the government doesn't do it, then what? But they're assuming these, you know, these all-wise angels. So, given the government makes plenty of mistakes, yeah, just having, anyway. Um, what the hell was I saying? But, like, so there's, there's all kinds of places where you expect biases and errors and outright bad things and evil. But COVID actually being cyanide poisoning, it just doesn't, it's so far away from what makes sense. And the, the incentives aren't there. The, how, like, all of a sudden in Italy, all at once, they're getting poisoned by cyanide and it becomes COVID, they say. And how does that add up? It just, it's too—

Well, it's not so much that it's just exactly what what we're seeing though, is is there is increasing toxicity everywhere. The 5G rollout, there's a lot of questions at the frequencies that 5G works at and electromagnetic frequency. I, I used to work in technology and I remember going, I was in at a company meeting one time, you know, a sales meeting from all over the country, and I heard these guys talking in the bathroom, and they were talking about how somebody that worked in a certain radar lab had died of kidney cancer. And he says, yeah, we all have to get checked all the time because these certain frequencies are causing kidney cancer. Well, the 5G is is operating at a frequency that's that's, uh, in the, in the level of oxygen, uh, uptake and all too. And, uh, so there's, there's a lot of, and there's been no safety testing on 5G, even though there are several professors and researchers in Europe and Canada and other places that have said this thing is very dangerous. And so there's, there are, um, what we're seeing is that these corporations are really running roughshod, and they own the media too. Yeah, media lies so much about everything that we can't really know. Um, yeah, Geert Vanden Bossche also talks about how dangerous the, the vaccine rollout has been. So, there's, there's a lot of stuff going on. And then you've got the fact of the, the thing that Bill Gates put together in October of 2019, which is this pandemic, you know, this globalism, this, what do you call it, a dry run? What if the world gets hit with a coronavirus? And they had all these people, uh, you got the World Economic Forum that was putting out information about how we need to restructure the world economy because we're going to have a pandemic. And a lot of things were put into place before this hit that show this, this was kind of planned on a larger scale from a lot of the big corporate entities and the governments around the world.

Which we're seeing really are just, you know, I mean, but do you see Bill Gates, like, I'm not a fan of Bill Gates or his wife. They have their motivations, their their authoritarian elitist, you know, etc. But do you see them as like a Bond villain who's literally plays a secret part in spreading a deadly virus to prove themselves right? I mean, I don't. That would, to me, that's a, uh, again, it's a, it's a bridge too far in terms of like acting on or affecting my behavior. I mean, it's a theoretical possibility, but I don't know. I, I, no, I, I don't see him at all. Is that in fact, I see people like Gates and Zuckerberg, it's really fun. They certainly take advantage of, obviously, obviously politicians take advantage of COVID to advance agendas that have nothing to do with COVID. Like that's by far clear, you know, what I, I said, and not that in this debt, obviously, so I'm not saying it was smart of me, but when Biden got elected, he was obviously going to pass a massive amount of spending that were just to interest groups and and lying in the pockets of rich powerful people and saying it was for COVID. Like that's that obvious. That's not a, that just fits with everything we know about the world. It's the most, the most predictable thing in the universe. And that's exactly what he did, right? Just massive sums of money to rich, politically connected allies, right? That's what it's about, right? There's no platform for the Democrats, it's just that and useful idiots. Um, and, and he just did it in plain view. I mean, anyone couldn't see that that's exactly what he did, right? Just massive sums of money to rich, politically connected allies, right? That's what it's about, right? There's no platform for the Democrats, it's just that and useful idiots. Um, and, and he just did it in plain view. I mean, anyone couldn't see that that's exactly what he did, right? So that's the sort of thing I expect. Um, but I think even, even with Biden, as much as is evil as he is, if, and no one suggests, I'm just saying, if someone said, what we can do is release a virus that'll kill out the population and it'll make you and your son richer, I, I think he actually wouldn't do that because it's not, they still need some way to feel like they're they're virtuous. They're so evil, but they still find ways to think they're virtuous. I don't think they could do it if they're intentionally killing people. Or even with the FDA, they don't see themselves as killing hundreds of thousands of people, even though they did. You know, no, I don't think that this is necessarily an intentional release of anything. And, and I don't really see. There's so much, I mean, you can, there's documentaries out there about how Fauci and the NIH have been funding this gain of function research. Are you familiar with all that? Yeah. So they purposely try to make viruses more deadly in order to patent them and use them as military weapons and also to create the need for more. So that's very important. I think it's fairly likely or very likely that this was engineered half on purpose, half by accident, you know what I mean? Like, in essence, right? Like that it was in a lab and they they were messing around where they shouldn't, you know, be for the wrong reasons. You know, they didn't intentionally release on the population, probably. Although you never know with the Chinese government. I don't think the individual doctors didn't necessarily. But, you know, at some point with, you know, the leader of China, I think I, you know, he could, you know, do a lot. He didn't have no idea what he might do. Um, but, um, um, yeah, anyway.

Okay, we'll raise some good questions. I'm glad that when you talk about law of implication, you'll talk about things, right? Like context, you know, and so forth. I think we don't know, you know. Uh, what I do want to hear with these people that say that the vaccine is dangerous is a really hard-nosed cost-benefit. Same thing from Fauci, you know, when these two, these mass crazies, I don't mean it was crazy to wear a mask before, but after a vaccine. And, by the way, the reason I say after a vaccine, maybe I haven't made this clear. The thing is, at this point right now, whatever vaccine we're getting is the best we're going to get. And it's better to, when I say that, practically speaking, given, given government stopping things and messing around with things and various people's motives, the only way to get back to normal is a vaccine. Because people aren't just going to get back to normal without one. And so we, it's better to just behave as when you don't know. Remember, I say in a gray area, you pick what's most useful. So what I'm going to do is, and I'm about to get my second shot in a few days, I already got the first one. I'll get that second shot and I'm done wearing a mask unless I absolutely enforced for somewhere, you know. I'll wear a mask if I'm forced to, the same way if someone mugs me in the street, I'll hand over my wallet, right? If I'm not able to fight back, there's a bunch of guys with guns. Um, so I'll get the vaccine, I'll behave normally at that point. I forgot what I was saying about Fauci or these people with them. Oh, that, you know, they'll take advantage, whatever crisis, you know. But, but yeah, and then, you know, we get back to normal. I don't see why someone would pick something other than, I don't care about forced vaccination, but voluntary vaccination and get back to normal. Because the point where there's voluntary vaccination, then we can all stop wearing masks, we can all behave normally. If someone doesn't want to get vaccinated and they don't get vaccinated, they're fine. They can behave normally anyway, right? And then if they do want to get vaccinated, then they're, then they're either safe or there's nothing we can do and we have to stop. Because at some point, we have to stop shutting things down, stop having the economy destroyed, and move along. Or stop having these poor people in Starbucks wear a damn mask for eight hours. I can't imagine living like that. I can't do it. You know, maybe I, it's more difficult for me with the way that I breathe and so forth. And, um, but, um, but I gotta get back to normal. It violates OSHA. And OSHA, surprisingly, is just dropped. Under OSHA, you have to prove medical health and be trained to wear that PPE type gear. Oh my god, they're violating the Constitution in blatant obvious ways, right and left. And people, you know, there's not enough pushback. You know, and there's not, again, the military, I get it, it's tough, right? Ashley Babbitt, when she was trying to uphold her, she just got shot, right? And then no one cares. It's just extraordinary, um, in the capital. But, but yeah, I mean, uh, sorry, uh, but, but yeah, anyway, like, given the, and when it comes to like the property rights violation of it, I don't see why we would fight. Why would we die on the hill of whether or not we're vaccinated? Like this libertarian idea of, oh my god, Big Brother, vaccinations, a vaccination list. So what? Like, my point is, if we lived in a world where other much more horrible things weren't going on, but why would we fight there? It's like, you know, I'll tell my son, like, why are you fighting about this, right? Like, like, there's places to fight. If we're going to fight, taxation is infinitely worse than even forced facts, vaccinations, and a list of whose vaccine, who cares? This might sound shocking to somebody, but who cares if there's forced vaccinations? Who cares if there's a vaccination? I could easily see, if I had a business or any private residence, of saying, I don't, I don't want you coming in here if you haven't been vaccinated for some reason. That's a, a reasonable thing, right? If there's a zombie apocalypse, like, you just take things as I say, to an extreme sometimes, you just think, right? Like, like, if there's a dangerous virus, now, if I've been vaccinated, I might not care, right? I can see why that wouldn't care. Um, but so that's, that's where the, the weird issue is, is I don't see why we need to be forced or a list. If, if people can get vaccinated, then if they're worried about it, they get vaccinated. If they're not worried about it, they don't. And that's that, right? Unless there is some third reason that I'm, you know, not taking into account. Like, for example, if the vaccine was was deadly to people 70 and over, and so they couldn't get vaccinated, so we had to really be careful about the spread, then that could be a different story, you know, in some way. But anyway, I don't see why fight there. There's no, like, this whole slippery slope. I say, you don't worry about that. There's a real thing going on. Taxation isn't just taking your money. The government at any time can force you to give all you and your wife, all your spending records, private business, everything. Taxation is over 100% if they want to be. They can deny all your expenses, tell you that you owe millions of dollars past what you even made. It's so horribly violent, it's so horrendous in so many ways that why wouldn't we focus on that? You know, and Faith pointed out, there's slavery, you know, sex trafficking. Why die on the hill of a virus? And why have, you know, half of the people on the right saying they don't want to get vaccinated? It just, it's just, uh, again, why fight there? These are the same people that don't care much about taxation, or they're in favor that most of the people, you know, most Republicans and people in the right are in favor of taxation, right? All Democrats and most Republicans.

Well, see, the problem is, is that we don't really know what the numbers are, one, because they've openly fudged the numbers. We also don't get hammered every year how many people die from flu and pneumonia, which flu and pneumonia deaths have gone down to about nothing. And there are plenty of people out there that are actually showing the numbers and showing that this is no worse than say, the flu season three or four years ago. So this has been a manufactured thing of hysteria from from a lot of different, uh, points of view. So there's a lot more to it, and I don't trust the media at all. I mean, they literally make up so many things.

Well, like I said, though, you don't trust the media, but when they said 9/11 happened, it still happened. Like, you know, but I'm not arguing with you. If you look at the facts and you look at what you're looking at, and you have a different, I, I think, I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable what you're saying. I think my position is also reasonable. I think despite the fact that I don't trust the media, despite all the the terrible, uh, incense people might have, you know, um, and so forth, you know, the, the basic idea that there actually is a virus, that a vaccine, vaccination could help, both psychologically and actually, right? I mean, if nothing happened, but people could just get back to their lives, and then whoever dies, the virus dies. The virus, at this point, that's probably better, right? I mean, whether, you know, one way or the other. So even if it was totally, the funny thing is, even if it was completely fake, the, the vaccine, if people just genuinely believed that it would, it would still at this point probably help, probably the, you know, because nothing, nothing seems to matter in terms of the spread. Right? Countries have all kinds of different policies, states have different policies. They say, you know, three feet does make a difference, and I believe it. Six feet is just BS based on some guy's guess about some other disease in the 1800s. That's what Tucker said, that, you know, I figured that that might be true. So, um, you know, anyway, whatever, just, uh, is the same way with masks. I was in favor of generally, whatever will get people back to some sense of normalcy for the sake of people that this is devastating too. It's not devastating to me, I don't care, you know, doesn't, the, the staying inside and having businesses get destroyed, it's not personally impacting me. I still make plenty of money, have plenty of money. But so many people are getting so devastated by this COVID that that's why I was in favor of just everyone wearing a mask a year ago and let's get back out, at least go in a restaurant, you know, something. And now, just get the, you know, again, I'm not advocating this, I'm just saying that this is where I eyeball is the most reasonable thing with everything taking into account. But without getting deep into all the the anomalies, you know, like, yeah, I mean, it just might be a huge opportunity, there might be massive fall, you know, fallacies when it comes to viruses and vaccines and toxicity, and that we all just need to pay attention to those anomalies. Like I'm saying, I think it, you know, it's obviously worth looking into in a sense, uh, long term, you know, but again, the funny thing about the vaccine, if it doesn't kill you, and even if it helps a little bit or not at all, same thing with masks, if it gets, if it gets people back to normalcy, what I, what I think is the most unreasonable, and is objectively unreasonable, is this stuff about, you know, staying away from normalcy after the vaccine. Because at some point, there's nothing more we can do or wait for, because there's no way, you know, every, another several months or a year that we act like we are now in terms of just staying home a lot or having to wear a mask if we go out, which makes me want to stay home, you know, is just so devastating to so many people. But see, the other thing is, we don't, we don't actually propagandize people with anything healthy. Because it'd be much healthier instead of wearing these masks to quit drinking soft drinks. And, you know, one of the big problems, and one of the doctors pointed out that if we just cut down on ACE2 inhibitors, which are wide, or take vitamin D, right, or zinc. But those things that you have to also keep in mind, those things are not going to happen. So we can advocate for those things, but there's two separate things. You can fully advocate for stopping drinking soft drinks 100 percent. Um, but again, the vaccine is just a fully separate issue. And again, it's interesting to take into account my view of even if it didn't work that well, and it's just, how does it not work? It's been tested on tens of thousands of people. I mean, again, there's a point in life where you can investigate, and there might be something massive to find.

out about how it's all BS, you know? But, uh, um, it's, at least, at least if the people talking about how we don't know about the vaccine and who's died of it, at least if they were very clear and quantified about the cost of ignoring the vaccine, or, or downplaying it, or actively fighting against it, then that would be great. Like, if someone's like, "Here's my issues with the vaccine, here's the cost of taking the vaccine, here's the cost of not," and really take into account, which also, you know, that she doesn't do, and all that stuff, right? Like, and, and the wonderful thing is, we got really lucky and had this unbelievably great president who did think about that stuff explicitly and thought about the vaccine. Like, it was such a balanced approach from Trump. You're just like, "A normal," you know? Like, it just seems to me like, you know, when he really fought to get the vaccine made, I just think in real life, thank goodness we had a president who took the vaccine seriously and who took the cost of the shutdown seriously. Or DeSantis, same thing. He takes the vaccine seriously, but he takes the cost of the shutdowns and the policies. And, and not just the policies, but how people, I think you just need to look at both in this case because, uh, the cost of the existence and the fear of COVID. And I don't think it's an entirely fake fear because, again, Italy, like, you know, I'd have conversations with Mike and, you know, good conversations early on, we try to figure out COVID and what's going on. And it's so politicized. And you asked, but then I said, "Look, however much it's politicized in the US, look what happened in Italy." Was that in order to overthrow Trump? Or against Trump? No. What happened in Italy had nothing to do with the Democrats wanting to screw Trump. Do the Democrats want to screw Trump on every possibility, including making up the most ridiculous things? Yes. Right? But COVID, did they use COVID to, in all sorts of incredibly unethical ways? Yes. They literally blame Trump for nearly every COVID. A lot of these leftists, which is just beyond extraordinary. Yeah, I agree. But, you know, the, see, the countries aren't even what we think they are. These big corporations are running the world in my view, and there's no real countries anymore. These are just, uh, figments that we still believe in, and they keep us. But how does that address what's happening and what happened in Italy? We don't know that the numbers in Italy are any more accurate than the numbers here. I mean, there were, there were certain conditions. In today's day and age, how do you have basically no important disease in Italy and have the news reports of of tens of thousands of people dying in Italy when it's not happening? Well, how do you fabricate that? The numbers are not that high compared to some of the, some of the worst flu seasons in recent years. And actually, the, uh, there's, there's a lot of statistical analysis and people running numbers that just don't get any play. The media has been 100% uh, COVID fear, uh, in the mainstream, and so people are being herded into this fearful response. And, you know, the thing is, I don't think there should have ever been a shutdown. There was no constitutional basis for doing it. And, uh, it should have been voluntary. People wanted to. I agree. I agree with that. Just, but even, I mean, look, it's kind, it's so complex. I agree. Uh, you don't know what to do with COVID. There's just so many, so many kind of reasonable different things. At least you just try to eliminate the unreasonable. Um, and, uh, you know, and that's all I try to do. And, you know, you, where I don't even, there's not like a specific thing where I try to convince you of one thing or I think you're wrong about this or that. Um, but I kind of have to cut this short at this point. Um, but I'm glad we got to discuss it. Hopefully, the discussion itself was, uh, was worth something. And you can continue, you know, obviously continue to kind of point out specifics or, or people, you know, like you've done posting in the group so we can kind of look into, you know, various things. Um, but, uh, you know, as, as I've made obvious, I'm not kind of like reflect, like I'm kind of weirdly mainstream, you know, with various things, and I pick my battles, you know, and so forth. Um, but, um, at some point, you know, what I don't know. Um, but, uh, yeah, yeah, maybe I'll, I appreciate the opportunity because I think a lot of us would just tend to say, "Well, if David thinks this, it has got to be true." And, uh, because we do think, you know. And so I think in this case, well, I don't have on health. I, I'm explicit. I don't, I don't think I'm right in general. I'm just, you know, I try to point out, you know, certain, you know, things. Yeah, yeah. And I agree. And I think it's just really more of a, we're kind of forced to start in an arbitrary position on something like this and take it from there. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's why we don't want to, you know, at which we don't, we don't can't. You can't base your life or, and or get all worked up over kind of like facts that get so confused and nebulous. And that's where like, you, like you said, you know, we have to try to identify little bits and pieces of what we know. But that's why I go back to Italy because there's something large there, you know, there's something big that happened. I go back to, oh, I was gonna say, like Pelosi. I need to drive this up, but like Pelosi in February was encouraging people, you know, to get out and stay out and ignore the virus and it was no big deal. So I, I agree that they changed their mind at some point because they, because of the political office. Like everything's political in my opinion, because of that. But, uh, oh, maybe we can destroy Trump over this. You know? But it's interesting that pretty much everyone's instinct with COVID was, it's not a big deal. Everywhere, like no matter where you look, China, Italy, Democrats, Republicans, me, right? No one was going to start because, because you had SARS years ago. And I hardly knew, apparently it was a big deal somewhere, but it was no big, like, you know, like we ignored it. There's nobody didn't matter. It didn't somehow come to America in some way. Um, so this idea that it was all fabricated, again, I think it was taken advantage of. Um, but, uh, but I don't know, like, it's just hard to imagine it wasn't some reality. Uh, that there isn't some, you know, reality underlying it. And the idea is that vaccines just don't work at all. I mean, because you really need to, you really need to kind of go all in on both the fabrication theory and vaccines don't work theory in order to be against the vaccine, if you think about it. Because if they just work reasonably, vaccines and COVID generally exists and is relatively dangerous in the way that, you know, that it was, if, if there's, you know, again, you're either all in on it doesn't exist and, or vaccines are utterly worthless and utterly dangerous. And, but the, this is where I get my conclusion from is to kind of wrap up. The minute vaccines make, like, work decently, and the minute COVID is reasonably real, then it seems to me it only makes sense to take the vaccine, to get to make, to, to not have roadblocks in front of the vaccine, like I talked about the FDA, get the vaccine in people's hands who at least want it, and then give it. And then, then, and then people need to behave normally because at that point, uh, you know, like those are the correct ideas. You know, get the vaccine quickly, go back to normalcy. And, and again, that is consistent with with the premise. So if the premise is true, the vaccines work reasonably well at all, even a bit, and if COVID is reasonably real, then I think it necessarily follows that you go with the vaccine and then you get back to normalcy. You know, you don't have government policies shutting anything down, no masks, etc. Same thing with masks. Before the vaccine, if vaccines work at all, as if masks work at all decently along with three feet or whatever, and that's all you got, right? Then if that's going to mitigate the hor, the horrifying effects in the economy, in people's lives, then you do that. You know, but then you stop it after the vaccine, just like you date when you're single and you stop dating when you're married, right? Uh, and, uh, you know, and so forth. So again, I would say that it's definite that my conclusion falls from the premise. If someone challenges the premise, I'm not, I'm not equipped to have much to say except for to listen and to say, "I'm glad you can present that alternative idea that maybe vaccines don't work, they're way more dangerous than we think, they hardly work in a way that matters, and, or COVID is way less real and dangerous." You know, and basically, it's not dangerous in the sense that we say that flu and other things, you know, it doesn't rise to the level of people panicking. Um, and, but it's an interesting, uh, the whole thing with COVID is an interesting thing that what seems to be true is that right about two or three or four times worse than the flu, deadly, deadly than a bad flu, then you should, you reach a critical point. And I think this, this makes sense psychologically. Now, we could say, "Well, the media made it," but really, the media, who gets elected? It's all mirrors of each other, right? They all reflect and reach. It all reaches a critical point. Same with stock market. The, the prices of stocks in the stock market, there are several factors. A lot of those factors are psychological, but then they become, they're real, right? And the psychology matters at some point. So at some point, when the flu, something that this would be a bad flu becomes two, three, four, five times more deadly, um, then, uh, then there's an interesting psychological impact. Apparently, I read that they could have vaccines ready for literally anything that's going to come about because there's hardly any that are reasonably tested and approved and just takes a bit of money because there's not that many variants of even what could possibly exist, which also goes along with what I know about evolution and the limits of it, you know, and so forth. So, um, again, I'm, I'm kind of, you know, for that reason, as if vaccines work at all, [Music] then I don't see not being pro-vaccine. That's kind of a little bit. It does have to just really not work and, and then therefore be the product of of, you know, this incredible a conspiracy of corporate greed and, you know, and so. Well, I think the big picture is is that when you let a system that's as evil as we have, own property rights violations and taxation grow to this degree that it becomes such a monstrous thing that all kind, you can't really trust anything it does, and it's, it's really poisoned the. Yeah, I agree that that sucks. That's what, yeah, that's why it's so, it's so counterproductive that Facebook, you know, is so, of course, we don't want them to censor at all, but at the same time, they're so obviously insane and and hypocritical with what they censor, right? You have these massive conspiracy theories that are very impactful that they don't censor at all, they're obviously false. Um, and then, you know, they randomly just censor the most reasonable things. I mean, there's a ton of extremely reasonable stuff that they, and Amazon, and all these places censor about vaccines, you know, that that needs to be out there. And it's Tucker Carlson, who I think is on point with a lot of stuff these days. I don't, you know, there's times when he's not, but, um, I feel like, you know, he's been pretty a good perspective. But, uh, I don't know why I bring him into it. But, uh, but anyway, there's just a lot of like, when you eliminate, oh, what he says is, you know, when, when you eliminate reasonable dissent, of course, it just makes people very suspicious. It's just very kind of productive and it's stupid, right? There's lots of very reasonable stuff from the point of view, or like just silencing it all is just just crazy when it comes to COVID and, you know, and stuff like that. And then the vaccine, you know, and stuff. All right, I'm going to have to cut this at this point. Um, I'm going to look to do some one-offs. Um, I'm even fine with having, uh, Mike Broadwell on again. And, uh, and even maybe somehow getting more into things in a certain sense of, in some way, who knows? But, uh, but then, um, I'm going to put together a particularly great series that I'll try to, I'll probably hype it up pretty decently too when it's all ready. And it's be free, the usual, everything's gonna be, you know, not like a business thing now, but, um, but make it so it's particularly, um, focused in the right way and, and really good for new people because really, all we all of us, what we need is something great for for new people that's also comprehensive over the course of the series, right? Like, I think at all catering to people that have heard things before, worrying about saying something I've said before, I have to drop all that completely. I have to have a series that's public and complete and, and interesting, like a good sales funnel in the sense that it kind of holds people's attention fairly decently, you know, throughout, you know, they see the benefits, uh, in various ways, um, while, you know, while getting into, you know, all of it over time. I think is what we need. Haha, that's a great way to say how we have it out. That's great. So I appreciate again the great attendance and, um, over 50 people on live, you know, the whole time. And, um, and, uh, just appreciate you guys a ton and, you know, the participation, the support, and then the mission, you know, getting this out there to people. Um, and appreciate Mike for coming on. We had a great talk. I think because the subtext is, it also just shows how to talk, what to talk about, um, what to, what to get wrapped up in, what not to get wrapped up in. Um, and facts are great. It just takes time. It's not worth discussing facts on a webinar in a sense. It's more worth opening up and referencing them, and then people being able to look into things. And a lot of the stuff is going to take a ton to unravel, you know, for whatever reason. I'm kind of currently my conclusions are, I'm not against like GMOs. I'm not, I'm kind of, uh, you know, just kind of odd in my, you know, in my opinion. I'm not, but, uh, but I'm kind of mainstream, you know, with that stuff. Yeah, because there's certain premises like, "Hey, we don't know how what the long-term effects of such and such are." Well, that's true. The trouble is, that's true about basically everything, you know? So, uh, you know, at some point, it has, what has it's like with Facebook censorship. We have to apply that universally or not apply it, you know? If we're, if, if we're going to be suspicious of everything because we don't have the long-term effects, we have to be suspicious of everything. It's hard to live your life that way. At some point, you have to pick, you know, where it's important to kind of investigate and fight and so forth. Okay, love it. Um, love it, guys. Um, and, uh, a welcome. I mean, you posted a good amount of facts, but I welcome, you know, additional facts and and resources. Don't think that there's any any issue with with posting about those. Um, and so great. Thanks, guys. And I will see you soon. Up, probably, I'll do one in two weeks, but I'll, I'll update in a week or so with what's going to go on in the near future. But for sure, I'll be making that overall series. And I'm gonna really, I think I'm ready to be kind of immersed and obsessed with making it good as opposed to with this previous series, I was into it and wanted to do a good job and spend a lot of time preparing, but I wasn't fully obsessed, if that makes any sense. Thanks, Lawrence. I appreciate you greatly. Um, oh, you know what? I also really want, you know, what I want to do for a little while? I want to have other people on. I want to have Megan. I would like to have Lawrence. I'd like to hear from you, Lawrence. Um, whoever else, uh, um, I don't know if we want to, if Zulman would want to come on. Um, and, uh, which Sophie Hannah book? Oh, the Poirot ones. I think the very first one. I think she's written four of them. I think "The Monogram Murders" is the name of the first one. Um, so, uh, yeah, so I might contact people as well and look to just talk about your experiences, interpretations of Loi, any questions or things that you've found impactful, anything you've discovered or whatever. And I'd love to have that. So maybe we'll look to do that while I'm working on getting the the series prepared. So I'm, I'm interested in kind of having a fairly large amount of preparation, even much more than I had for Alchemy, where I still was working to do it in between, you know, sessions. I'm going to see how much I can have all kind of ready in like outline form before I start launch into the series. I want to really do the best I can to make sure that it's going to be very good before I start. Calorie, absolutely. I wanted to. Calorie, yeah, it's true. Great. Um, well, yeah, I didn't have Alchemy like outlined out that specifically before I started. I was just ready to be very obsessed with it and focus on it constantly was the main thing with Alchemy. And of course, I discovered a ton of stuff prior to doing. Um, all right, guys, uh, so, yeah, we'll almost certainly do something in two weeks. And almost certainly with, um, where we have someone else live doing a lot of, even a good amount of the webinar. Okay, maybe we'll start with Megan, if you will, maybe two weeks. Okay, I'd love to go with Lawrence then after that. Um, but I'd love to have you on. I, I, uh, I'd love to have you lead a webinar, but I think the ideal thing for every, in every way would it be to have me have me on it live, but you can really take the lead with it, Megan, in a sense, um, and I could just be kind of on live with you. However, um, but, or it wouldn't be really be relevant who was leading and who wasn't, but just beyond, you could have anything you wanted prepared, but then I could be on, you know, with you and ask some questions sometimes and so forth. I did that with, um, sometimes with OMG topics, right? Remember during maybe dimensionality or something, every other week, I had it for, I had about four different people on. I think maybe Megan was one of those. Um, but, um, but that, that was about, um, you know, SEO and business stuff. But anyway, okay, super. Silliman, great. Yes, the general idea would be if someone was going to come on, you would have prepared a decent amount or some structure what you want to talk about, and then I would be on there with you, and then we would go from there. [Music] Mohammadi, yeah, if he wants to come on. Yeah, I'll go for several weeks. I'd love to have a number of people on because I wanted a vala, you know, heroes, so to speak. And I don't mean that I don't pronounce who a hero is and who isn't. I don't mean that. I get, I know what you want. I just mean help people rise up. Just the same with OMG, right? And OMG, we didn't like dictate, you're a superstar, you aren't necessarily. I might say this person's a superstar, but not in contrast to somebody else. I won't even really say that in this because I'm not really more in marketing mode, you know, um, but I just have people on and it'll be great for several, you know, spend a few months doing that, and then get into the series. That would be great. Yeah, exactly, right. I think it would be great, you know, to start fresh and, and particularly, like I learned lessons from this series where I kind of had one foot in and one foot out of starting fresh and kind of one foot in and one foot out of being kind of obsessed with my life. And I think I, I want to, um, spend some amount of time when I'm doing the series, you know, spend a few months where I'm really focused on it non-stop. I have my notebook every day, you know, and so forth. It helps me with COVID winding down. Be great if Starbucks itself would just allow seating at this point. I don't, I don't get it at this point. Why, why people can't return more to normalcy with the vaccine? In Tennessee, anyone can get the vaccine already, literally. So, um, whatever. And again, it's fine if someone doesn't want to get it, but then they can just not get it, and that's fine too, right? In either case, people should be able to chill out. Awesome. And what's heroic is just caring, you know, about Loi. You know, it's not like some make, there's not like with money where it's like, "I'm making such and such a month." You know, shake out your wine sugar. Oh, that's great. Yeah. You know, so Mike, maybe what we could do with you is just have you come on for one of these webinars as well, and I'll just spend as long as it takes to get people on because I want to develop people, you know, I want to have a thing for new people that's critical, but I want to develop people. And if, you know, and if I need to do it every week, you know, it's because it'll take too long, you know, in real time, um, to do it every other week, you know, it's not a lot of difficulty for me if I'm having people on. And it doesn't, you don't have to go for an hour, you can, you know, you can go for half an hour, 20 minutes, whatever. But, um, what I could do with you, Mike, just like with everyone, is you can have something prepared about Loi or something, you know, and it could be related to what we talked about today, but kind of additional, or, you know, you talk about the shake out your wine sugar and that sort of thing. That's awesome, buddy. Anyone can try. Anyone could drive in the dawn of Mike's. Uh, all right, super guys. You can also message me, uh, here in in WeChat and give me a contact for being like a friend. I think that facilitates things. Awesome. Yeah, and of course, just faith, if you want to come on. All right, well, great. So I might have to do every week, um, starting in maybe two weeks. Um, all right, guys, I appreciate you eventually, and I'll talk to you all soon. You.