Mark Gober is an international speaker, author of the award-winning book “An End to Upside Down Thinking”, and host of the podcast Where Is My Mind? In this episode, he distills the World Economic Forum and The Great Reset as well as his views on sovereignty, libertarianism, democracy, and even aliens.
00:00:00 00:00:29 Mark and His Many Topics
00:01:46 The WEF and The Great Reset
00:04:34 Collective Energy That Establishments Hold
00:07:02 Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better
00:11:49 The Great Reset and Yuval Noah Harari
00:15:47 Sovereignty and Being a Libertarian
00:19:22 Do We Truly Have Private Property?
00:24:12 Democracy is Tyranny
00:27:05 Difference Between Equality and Equity
00:31:44 Diversity and “Belonging Surveys”
00:35:02 Compassion Can Be Weaponized
00:42:31 The Science of Consciousness
00:46:54 How Corals Spawn, Telepathy, and Lucid Dreaming
00:52:12 The Reincarnation Studies
00:58:35 The Phineas Gage Story and Altering Consciousness
01:02:45 Wider Acceptance of Psychedelics
01:14:25 Where to Find Mark
The Great Reset
In June of 2020, the Executive Director of the World Economic Forum Klaus Schwab alongside then Prince Charles announced “The Great Reset” wherein we have a chance to reshape society in a positive direction with COVID providing that opportunity for us. Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret shortly thereafter published a book entitled “COVID-19: The Great Reset” and a sequel book called “The Great Narrative”. The World Economic Forum is in itself a powerful organization that influences or at least has relationships with very important companies, and Schwab himself has said “we penetrate the cabinets” meaning that people with their ideology are involved with global governments. The WEF, whether we like what they do or not, has influence over governments and companies all over the world, so when they came out with “The Great Reset” on their vision for society, it’s worth paying attention to. What Mark explains in his book “An End to the Upside Down Reset” is to try to distill what’s been written about “The Great Reset” and how he disagrees with an organization such as the World Economic Forum and especially given their close relations to governments and companies.
Sovereignty and Libertarian
Mark defines Libertarianism as based on the notion of private property wherein you own your body and you own your stuff that you either bought or made on your own, as well as the ability to trade these things. If you believe in private property, the next step is the non-aggression principle, meaning that that property is yours and no one has the right to assert any form of aggression towards you, and when they do, you have the right to self-defense. These kinds of policies that a third party such as governments and organizations would impose on people could also mean that they are imposing without our consent. Laws will be determined by those who subscribe to the organization and if you refuse to participate, then you can leave. This is not the kind of regulation we currently have and we currently have implied consent with governments versus the explicit mutually-agreed upon consent that we normally should have. This is what Mark fears with the WEF who can influence the governments to then impose policies that people didn’t necessarily agree to.
Links and Resources
0 (0s): You all know a Harari who's an advisor to the world economic Forum. He wrote the book Sapiens, very smart guy. But he has certain views that people are concerned about and he's said things to the effect of the idea that there is a, a soul or spirit that's over that basically science has transcended that superstitious notion. And I think we need to be moving in the opposite direction. So all of these things, to me, on the surface, some people might say, well, they, they're just wanna help humanity. I'm concerned about everything I just said. 2 (31s): Mark, thank you so much for coming on the podcast today. I am so excited to have this conversation. I was going through a ton of your content today and you talk on a wide array of topics, so I'm super excited. We are going to hopefully get into the WEF, The, Great, Reset spirituality, possibly some aliens, and we'll save the aliens for, for the end, keep people around. But yeah, thank you again. I'm really excited for this. 0 (58s): Well, thank you for having me, Candace. 2 (1m 0s): Do you feel like speaking on so many topics and then having your whole book collection kind of span all of these topics is, is tricky for people to digest or maybe they write you off because they're like, oh, here he's trying to talk about serious economics and at the same time he's talking about Consciousness and past life regressions and near death experiences. So we can't take this seriously. 0 (1m 24s): Hmm. Well it's definitely a challenge, yeah, because it's sometimes hard to find readers that are interested in or open to all of those things at once. But I really can't control what other people think. I try to make the best case that I can and by the time I'm writing a book on something, there has been an internal paradigm shift and at that point I decide, well, I wanna share that with people. So th there's another part of me that says, well, I would love for people to understand what I'm talking about and accept it and be on board with me, but I'm also realistic and know that not everyone's gonna do that. 2 (1m 56s): Do you self-publish? 0 (1m 58s): No, I have a publisher, Waterside Productions, and they've published all five of my books. 2 (2m 3s): Oh, that's awesome. That's good to hear. Yeah, I mean there's definitely a people out there. I'm, I'm curious about all of those subjects. So at least there's a community of two that we know of. But I, I know your books are doing excellent. You've been on some really huge podcasts. What, I guess let's just dive right into the meat of the WF and The Great Reset. For people that don't know, can you define those two things? 0 (2m 24s): Yes, that's a great place to start because I've had some conversations where I've told people that I, I wrote a book about The Great Reset and sometimes people will say, what's The Great Reset? And these are some very intelligent people who are knowledgeable. And then other people will say, well I've heard about The Great Reset and that's just a conspiracy theory. So what I will say now is just factual. I'm not gonna draw any conclusions. And that's what I try to do in my book and into the Upside Down Reset where I, I try to show what the World Economic Forum is saying because they've said a lot in June of 2020. So this was just a few months into Lockdowns, the Executive Director of the World Economic Forum Klaus Schwab alongside then Prince Charles announced The Great Reset. 0 (3m 8s): And they basically said like, we have a chance now to reshape society in a positive direction. Covid is providing that opportunity to paraphrase. And Klaus Schwab and his colleague Terri Malleret shortly thereafter published a book called Covid 19, The Great Reset. And there's a sequel book called The Great Narrative. So this is something that's been talked about by a very powerful organization, the World Economic Forum WEF for Short. And this is an organization that is involved in public-private partnerships. That's something that it talks about. And if you go to their website, it lists its partners. So these are partners within industry and they're basically just the biggest companies that you most people have heard of in a wide range of industries. 0 (3m 53s): So the, the World economic Forum influences or at least has relationships with very important companies. And Klaus Schwab has even said, we penetrate the cabinets, meaning that his people with their ideology are involved in global governments. And there's even a young global leaders program within the world economic Forum where the WEF works with young up and comers. So the point here is that this organization, whether you like what they do or not, has influence over governments and companies all over the world. So when they come out with a great Reset for how society is their vision for society, basically, in my opinion, I think it's worth paying attention to. So what I do in my book and enter the Upside down Reset is try to distill what's been written and said about The Great Reset cuz they've got this vision for society, what is it? 0 (4m 41s): And in my view, it's a comprehensive vision for society. It spans culture, politics, economics, environment meaning especially climate technology and metaphysics. So it's comprehensive. My opinion is that even though some of the people involved might have a benevolent intent, maybe some of them don't, but I think some of them do. My view is that it's not a good direction for society, which is why I wanted to write a book about it. 2 (5m 5s): So I do agree with you and you have these large conglomerates, they're made up of a bunch of individuals and they don't necessarily share all of the same values or have the same mission for the company. But do you think that there's kind of a Collective energy that that establishment holds? Because I feel like when you're hiring somebody for any kind of position, you're going through a protocol to make sure are they gonna be a good fit for the, for this job, for this company? Like there's a certain ethos that you wanna maintain and you can't have, let's just say a super Christian company, whether it's like a nonprofit and then start hiring a bunch of atheists or a bunch of people that were like worship Satan or like it just doesn't fit the model of and vision of that, that business. 2 (5m 46s): So when it comes to like the WEF, do you feel like there are probably still some kind of filtration system or hiring process that does guarantee a certain agreement as far as mission and values and where they kind of see society going as a whole? 0 (6m 1s): I would say most likely. And also the people that would be drawn to the WEF or affiliated organizations probably would have similar ideals and in the worldview. So for example, the people that attend the Davos conference from the World Economic Forum, this is an annual conference. I remember hearing about this when I was working in Silicon Valley before I was interested in The, Great Reset or anything. And I knew lots of people that talked about it, some people that even went. And it was just a place where the world leaders and the most influential people were getting together to try to make the world a better place. At least that's the way it's positioned. And I think a lot of people probably believe that. But I also think that that those who are not aligned with the ideology wouldn't be inclined to go to Davos or let's say companies that are aligned with the W F's ideology. 0 (6m 46s): Maybe people wouldn't apply for jobs there. But also something I've noticed, and I saw this in my, in my business life, is that some of these really big companies are siloed. So the people doing the hiring might have a certain ideology within one department and maybe certain people in the interview process might have an ideology, but in such a big company there can be diversity. So you could have a company that comes out with an initiative that other people at the organization don't agree with or they didn't approve of it because there's so much bureaucracy within it. So this is a very important point. I'm glad you're raising it, that like just because someone's affiliated with an organization or affiliated with the WEF in some way as a partner, quote unquote on the website, doesn't mean that they're necessarily aligned with every single thing. 0 (7m 27s): They might just have an alignment on one thing and it's like a Venn diagram. We don't know what that overlap is always. 2 (7m 33s): Yeah, and I, I would say one other thing to consider too is you probably don't have a strong opposition also to anything. Like maybe you're like, oh, I'm not really sure about that thing, but I support X, Y, and Z. But I feel like it'd be really tricky to be like, I'm totally against, we'll just say like that really famous quote which is you will own nothing and you will be happy. Right? Like you can't have a really strong opposition to that if you're part of the W WEF. And then I heard other people talk about it and they say that that was totally misconstrued. So I wanted to get your opinion of that and like the breakdown of that article because to me that's terrifying. And I, I don't think I'd be happy if the state owned everything cause someone's owning it. 2 (8m 15s): So if it's not me, then who's owning it? 0 (8m 17s): Yeah, I think it's concerning. This was an article that came out in 2016 by the WEF and it was by a politician from Europe who actually wrote it, but it was a WEF affiliated article and it talks about the vision for 2030 and it's this very dystopian vision where you like rent everything you're sharing and there's artificial intelligence. You don't have Privacy and I don't know how you could misconstrue misconstrue what they wrote. Maybe I could see people making an argument that, well that's not The Great Reset per se. So if you read Covid 19 The Great Reset, they're not promoting that article, but the WEF put that out and it is very dystopian. So the argument that I make in my book is, well, let's see what the WEF has said in the past because they write lots of articles on things when they talk about you'll own nothing and be happy, they're very concerned about quote unquote disinformation and who gets to define that They're concerned about overpopulation, there are things that they're talking about that from one lens could be construed as very dangerous. 0 (9m 12s): But I under also understand that some people with rose colored glasses who maybe have a a positive intent, they might say, wow, look how convenient this society is. And they just, they're blind to how the masses might construe this of like, wait a second, you're gonna take away my Privacy and take away private property. So my sense is that they've backtracked and they're trying to to cover up the the negative aspects of it. But it's a concern to me that an organization that would promote you will own nothing and be happy has a vision for society. And we didn't hire these people, we didn't elect them and they have a lot of influence. 2 (9m 46s): Yeah, I think it's great that technology has offered us a lot more transparency when it comes to Davos and the convention that's goes on every year there and now you, I guess you can just buy a ticket and show up. I met someone recently that we were at a speaking event and then they said they were there for a psychedelic, I don't know, would it be like a conference? It was like a non-affiliated event with the WF and Davos. I guess they didn't officially do anything with Psychedelics, but there were certain like offshoots of that happening. So you can just sh just go there. But I think it's great that we can kind of see these crazy things out in sunlight and be like, they're actually saying what, and some people are kind of arguing that these conversations should be private because like they need to be able to work out these big problems that like us simple folk don't understand. 2 (10m 31s): I don't know that I agree with that perspective because I think who's in charge of, of telling me what I'm capable of understanding and deconstructing and especially if it applies to my life and my liberty and like how my, my society is going to run, right? Like whether or not I can leave my house if I'm gonna be eating bugs, whatever that looks like. Cuz that's another thing, right, that I see a lot is all this protein packed cockroach burger and it's just as much protein that has just as much bioavailability as cow. I'm like nonsense. So yeah, there's a lot of things that I'm not on board with. So I like the transparency that that's providing. I don't know what your opinion is if we lay people should be privy to these conversations or if it should be in private because we're just misconstruing everything. 0 (11m 16s): I mean I'm, I, I tend to be in favor of transparency, but if they are a private organization, I guess they technically they can do what they want. But if they're gonna do things in secret and yet have a plan for the world, they should expect backlash because like we're talking about not everyone is agreeing with their vision and if they have a vision for all of us, we should know about it. And in spite of the fact that we have transparency through technology now there still are a lot of people who are not aware of this stuff because the media and social media to a degree, they do a good job of hiding things and just not talking about certain topics. So if you watch just the mainstream media, you wouldn't even know that certain things are happening. So all of this stuff to try to decode what's happening in the world, I found it requires a, it requires being active and not being passive. 0 (12m 2s): Like you have to seek things out on your own and ask questions and not just accept what you're told. So critical thinking is important even if technology provides information. 2 (12m 11s): Yeah, this video will definitely have a little tag on the bottom for sure on YouTube. I almost guarantee it. It'll be some like disclaimer of sorts. So I guess let's get into The, Great Reset. So what is their vision? I know that it's probably a lot of content out there, but I guess just to kind of give the summary to someone who doesn't really know. 0 (12m 32s): Sure. It is about, as they say in Covid 19, The Great Reset, the return of big government centralizing power, more regulation. It also relates to a cultural shift. So they talk a lot about like justice and equity, Equality fairness, and they're also very concerned about climate. So whatever needs to be done to save humanity because climate is going to kill us. That's the kind of mentality that this is an existential threat. And then also technology. So Klaus Schwab has written a book called The Fourth Industrial Revolution where we're moving to a new technological era, human beings and machines might merge, where humans could be enhanced by artificial intelligence. 0 (13m 19s): So things of that nature, which in some ways people might say are gonna be beneficial and other ways are potentially dystopian. And then there's this metaphysical component. To me, this is the big omission of The Great Reset, especially considering my prior work talking about the need for a spiritual revolution that we are inherently spiritual beings and there's a lot of scientific evidence to to show that's true. That was not my belief system previously, but part of my own paradigm shift was recognizing, wow, there's a lot of evidence for this and I've been arguing we need to have a paradigm shift in this area. And then I read The Great Reset and that that's not what they're talking about at all in, in fact, you've all know a Harari who's an advisor to the world economic Forum, he wrote the book Sapiens very smart guy, but he has certain views that people are concerned about and he's said things to the effect of the idea that there is a, a soul or spirit that's over that basically science has transcended that superstitious notion and I think we need to be moving in the opposite direction. 0 (14m 11s): So all of these things, to me on the surface, some people might say, well they they just wanna help humanity. I'm concerned about everything I just said, 2 (14m 19s): I am too. And I was really disappointed when I saw Yuval and a lot of his clips that were going viral because I, I mean he, he's a great author and he's got some good books, but some of his ideas are just totally encroach on any type of Sovereignty that I truly believe in. A lot of it is kind of mommy and daddy government are supposed to be caretaking for you and that you can't make decisions on your own, whether it's how you're going to eat medical procedures, medications. I think one of the clips I saw, I'll try to find it and like have it dubbed in, but it was something like taking an, it was a nanotechnology that was supposed to monitor your biometrics constantly and then be able to give that feedback to someone else. 2 (15m 0s): So whether or not you needed any kind of medication or healthcare and that sounds great at first, but what if all of a sudden it's like, well we see that you have a prescription for this and should you be really out there driving or should you be at home resting or maybe you shouldn't eat that because your cholesterol is a little bit high. So I just like see where it can go wrong so easily and I just, anything that encroaches on that Sovereignty, I immediately am like this is probably not in the best interest for the long term for everybody. 0 (15m 28s): Yeah, it seems like there's a desire to micromanage people with the belief that these individuals know what's best for others and their ha therefore have a right and maybe an obligation in their view to impose that on other people. That's my big concern because I, I'm a big Sovereignty liberty person and I've written about that as well where I don't think that things should be imposed on you without your consent and, and what's happening here is that they're finding ways to try to impose stuff on us for the greater good quote unquote for the good of the Collective and the problem with collectivism. And in some ways it's a nice thing to wanna help others. I'm all for that. But you can then rationalize doing horrible things to individuals because you say, well this is for the greater good of society. 0 (16m 11s): And that's where I see a lot of these policies and ideas potentially going wrong. 2 (16m 17s): Hey everyone, this is new. So we are taking a quick break for a couple of sponsors. How exciting is that, that we have a couple sponsors for this podcast? So this is, please don't skip it, listen cool stuff prompt. So my first one is a small company called Rass Rock and I'll make sure I have the leak below. As you know, I love crystal's, I get made fun of for it all of the time, but I'm, I'm not gonna change my ways and I stand by it. I truly believe in them and they're beautiful. So he sent me, I mean how incredible is that? This beautiful amethyst, I've got this really cute rose quar bowl. 2 (16m 59s): All this is on the table you can't see, but when I start and this cute little crystal Buddha, how adorable is it? These bracelets are from there. I mean I was really stoked to have Ms sponsor because right up my alley. So if you're into any crystals, I wanna check out the website, it's fragner rock.com, I'll link that below. And the last affiliate last sponsor, please don't skip, this one's a good one. So we all know the benefits of fasting. Well my husband and I have used this company ProLon actually a couple of times. So I was really excited that they wanted to be an affiliate of podcast. 2 (17m 41s): So if you want to try ProLon, it's a fasting mimic diet. So you get all the benefits of a water fast and it's a lot easier to get food instead of having completely eaten nothing though you can try ProLon for $150 with the code. Candace, some of the claims for, and I mean I say claims but I'm going off script you guys, 60% of people that completed the fast had better energy, mental clarity and focus. You'll definitely shed some lbs. I felt a ton lighter after doing it. It's cool to do difficult stuff and obviously fasting is not easy so it's kind of cool to see how you kind of push it and get through something that you thought you might not be able to do's a lot easier than doing the water cleanse. 2 (18m 27s): And again, like I think the average here, yeah people lose an average of 5.7 pounds and 1.6 inches off of their waist line. So as soon as I'm done breastfeeding, I'm doing one of these and Eric's supposed to be starting at the time now, so we'll see when he decides to start. So I'll link that below again if you wanna try ProLon, try it for 150 bucks. Code Candace. Yep. Good. So when it comes to Sovereignty and libertarianism, which I feel like is getting a lot more traction, can you be a Libertarian and then also be pro mandate or pro I guess like limiting of one's ability to make decisions for yourself Because there's that argument like if you're poisoning the water and then that water goes down to your neighbor and now you're poisoning his his farm, that technically there should be some kind of regulation to prevent that intrusion. 0 (19m 22s): Yeah, this is a very deep question you asked. So let me take a few steps back here and define the way that I look at libertarianism and I do this in my book and end Upside down Liberty. This is an extreme version of Libertarian principles that even some libertarians probably wouldn't necessarily agree with, but I'll, I'll express to you how I think about it. And it's, it's based on the notion of private property fundamentally that you own your body and that you own stuff that you either bought or something that you made on your own and then you claimed it because it's yours and then you have an ability to trade those, those material things. So let's say you grow tomatoes, those are your tomatoes, you can sell them, you can buy things from other people. And once you own it and you legitimately own it, meaning it's not fraudulently obtained, then it's your property. 0 (20m 4s): So If you believe in private property and then the next step is the non aggression principle, meaning that that property is yours and no one has the right to initiate any kind of aggression on it. And aggression could be physical violence, fraud, theft, coercion, extortion, things like that. And then the second part is that if someone does initiate aggression against your body or other property that you own, you have a right to self-defense. So these kinds of policies that that a third party would impose, let's say it's the world economic Forum or even a government, they would be imposing on your property without your explicit consent. 0 (20m 46s): So that doesn't mean what I'm talking about that that you wouldn't have a society without any form of regulation, it's just that the regulation would be determined on a voluntary basis, on a private basis. So you would have laws determined by those who subscribe to the organization. So let's just say a, a very large land mass exists, someone owns that land or maybe multiple people own the land and say we're gonna be selling plots of acreage here, but you have, if you wanna buy it, then you're gonna be subscribing to the rules of this community. And if you don't want that then you can leave. And some of the rules might stipulate, well in the event of an emergency these people are gonna have the decision making authority. 0 (21m 26s): And some people might say, well we don't want that. Other people might say, well I really like those people, they're smart, I'm gonna sign up. And therefore the regulation quote unquote would not be an imposition because you have voluntarily subscribed to that organization. So it's, it's not regulation in the same way that we currently have regulation whereby Mark Candace, we did not sign a contract with the government as a service provider. The government's gonna do all this stuff for us. And we said, yes, you can do all those things. We have a right to terminate, this is the price you're gonna charge. We agree to that. If you hire a law firm or some other organization, typically you sign that sort of a contract where it's mutually agreed upon and it's explicit. 0 (22m 7s): So that's a nuance. We have this implied consent with governments currently versus the explicit mutually agreed upon consent that you normally have. And that's the big issue in my opinion because you have the WEF or other powerful organizations who can influence governments to then impose policies that you didn't necessarily agree to. It's more of this implied consent. 2 (22m 27s): Oh, there's a couple places I wanna go with that. First I wanted to ask about private property. So what's your viewpoint of that? Do you think that we truly have private property or that all states are created equal? Because to me the idea of property tax and then how that just hikes up over time and then you can eventually kind of price out a family that's owned land forever just because they can't afford the taxes anymore. To me, that's not true property rights. Like you don't actually own it because if you miss just a couple of those tax payments, even like let's say you've had a property and it's been in your family for a hundred years and it's completely paid off, there's no debt to the bank and for a hundred years it's been within someone in the family, you miss, let's say two property tax payments, they send you a letter that you miss, it gets, goes to someone else's house and then all of a sudden you show up and you don't own that land anymore. 2 (23m 17s): How is that your land? 0 (23m 19s): Hmm, that's a very good point. So I would argue that we don't live in a society where, well, I guess it depends on the type of property where you actually own everything even though you're told that it's your property because you, you have to essentially pay rent to the government i e taxes in order to maintain it. So what I'm talking about here is a society, again, this is where not all libertarians would agree with me, something in the future in which these government organizations where we don't have an fully voluntary relationship with them, it's not an explicit contract that wouldn't exist. So you'd have truly private property where Candace would be the landowner and that would be it. You wouldn't be paying rent to someone unless you agreed to pay something. 2 (23m 57s): Right. And what am I getting for that as well? Like are you maintaining the property for that? Are you protecting the property for that? Yeah, and my water clean exactly. You know what I mean? Yes, it's, oh sorry, sorry, go ahead. 0 (24m 9s): Yeah, this, I think this is one of the like tricks where we don't even realize it. I'm glad you're raising this point where we don't recognize we're not fully free, we don't have full property rights in all the ways that we believe we do. I guess what the government would say to you is, Candace, we're protecting you and you get all these services and that's why you have to pay. The problem is that usually when you pay for a service provider, you're like specifically agreeing to pay for that thing. And right now with taxation, which some in a Libertarian sense, many would call it a form of extortion or coercion or even theft because you didn't hire them to do X, Y and z they you that you could have hired them but they just collect your money and it goes into a big pool and then they get to determine what goes on with that money. 0 (24m 51s): And if they do a bad job at it, they still collect taxes. Whereas a normal business, if they collect your money and do a bad job, then you're gonna hire someone else next time. 2 (24m 59s): Yeah, I feel like if it was an honest transaction, let's say you missed a couple of those payments, then all that would happen is they would hold the asset, give you opportunity to pay the the di the difference and if not, if they seized it, they would give you what your stake was already in it. Like if you had already paid for all of it, why because let's say you missed $5,000, all of a sudden are they acquiring a property that's worth $500,000? How is that even exchanged? To me that's like a gangster move that's ma mafi that is not, that doesn't seem above board at all. And one of my girlfriends, she's from Vietnam and she still has some property over there. The way that it works over there is like they're, they're very transparent about not owning the property. 2 (25m 40s): Basically you lease it from the government for up to 50 years and then you have to renew that lease or they can potentially give it to somebody else. But it, I'm like, I dunno if that, that's much different than what we kind of do right now. Especially cuz most people don't hold onto that property for 50 years anymore. Yeah, 0 (25m 57s): It's, it's problematic. I think the key here is acknowledging that this exists, I hadn't even thought about this stuff until I started researching like political theory. Why do we have governments? Another thing that government might say to you Candace is well we have a social contract. Yeah we don't have an explicit contract, we've got a social contract and therefore we're doing this for the greater good. Even though you might not understand it, your money's being pulled for the benefit of the Collective. And this is something Klaus Schwab talks about too in in the covid 19 The, Great, Reset, we need to revise the social contract. I think this is one of the big issues and really a manipulation of the population. Like what is a social contract? What does it say? I don't remember signing a social contract. How is it gonna be rewritten if we haven't even signed an initial contract? 0 (26m 40s): And there's almost an acknowledgement and Klaus makes this, this statement in the book that I call out in my own book where he's saying it's an often implicit agreement acknowledging that it is not an explicit contract and and I think if we made things more explicit then we wouldn't have these issues as much because if you agreed to something and then it didn't go well, well that was your agreement, but right now it's being imposed or there's an attempt for this imposition and that's the real danger. And historically we've seen how this goes horribly wrong in dictatorial regimes right now in America. I mean we could argue that things are less free but we're much freer than other societies have been throughout history. And the question is what's the tipping point where things could get really bad? 2 (27m 17s): There's this quote that I came across and it might have actually been on a podcast that you were on, I'm not sure. And it said that Democracy is Tyranny for 49% of the population and I was just like whoa, that's a really interesting way to look at it because for just under half of the population, that's not who they voted for. That's not who they support, it's not their ideologies, et cetera. Is there a way moving forward, maybe politics 3.0 where you can still have democracy but you can have that implicit consent or you can have that it's just like if you vote you can somehow you can still vote and if your team loses, I don't know, like it has to be like maybe super decentralized kind of how you were talking about people kind of joining into like a group or a club and allowing those people to make their decisions. 2 (28m 6s): I'm not really sure. 0 (28m 7s): Yeah, I've been very critical of democracy as well in my books and in particular compulsory democracy versus voluntary democracy. That distinction often is not made voluntary democracy. I'm all for compulsory democracy is a form of Tyranny where it's just a distributed Tyranny where a bunch of people get to determine your fate rather than one person like in a monarchy for example. So you could vote for something in a democracy and then not get your wish even though you wanted it because other people are imposing their view on you. So we hear a lot often these days like there's a threat to democracy and that basically means that some people are threatening the current majority and the current majority wants to keep imposing its will. 0 (28m 48s): So I think democracy in a compulsory manner where you don't have, you can't say no to it, that is a problem where you have an implied consent. I think it's gotta be something where you sign up in advance and say we're gonna be part of this organization together and part of the rules stipulates that certain people are gonna get to vote on it and if there's a majority that rules then that's the ultimate decision. But then it was your consent to allow that democracy to impose on you. So it's not really a Tyranny in that case. 2 (29m 18s): Do you see it maybe going decentralized in the way that states just have more rights and that federal government maybe gets smaller. So then it's like let's say Texas passes X, Y, z and their governor is so and so and you're not happy so you can just leave and go somewhere else. You kind of, and then there's like less imp. 0 (29m 36s): I think that's a step in the right direction, more decentralization because then at least you have optionality in terms of like which impositions are less bad to you or better. So you could choose different states. I mean the, the argument some people will make is that, well it's not really an imposition mark because you could always just leave and go somewhere else. The problem is then you're just under a different ruler. So it's a matter of like finding which ruler is is most acceptable to you and a form of decentral decentralized government is relatively better. It's moving in the direction of what I'm talking about for this like theoretical, voluntary future. 2 (30m 10s): Yeah. So I wanted to get into, we brought up equity versus Equality and I think that the language there is really important. So you can't go to any school whether it's private or public, that doesn't have some diversity, equity, inclusion, you know, disclaimer somewhere on the website and I used to in the very beginning as a new parent was terrified because I don't support the traditional definition of any of those things. Like what not maybe not traditional I should say like the more the sneaky definitions of those things. And I know that it can kind of be insidious in the way that they teach kids. And I've seen all these videos and it's separating kids based off of skin color and I'm just like, no, no, no, no, no I don't want any part of that. 2 (30m 51s): And it was my understanding that everyone knew what these definitions were. So I just thought everyone that supported it was out of their mind. And then what I came to realize is even a lot of the educators aren't in agreement as to what these things mean. So can you break down to the listeners what, what is the Difference Between Equality and Equity? 0 (31m 9s): Yeah and and this is also an important point with regard to The Great Reset because when a lot of people who know just little bits about The, Great Reset, they think big governments you'll own nothing and be happy. They don't always recognize that they're also talking about equity in this kind of social movement that could be very toxic. So equity has come to mean equal outcomes. So that means if someone let's say performs better than another person due to that individual's merit and hard work, well that's not okay Candace, we're gonna need to take something away from you even though you perform better because we need to support this other person who didn't do as well and we're being so compassionate to that other person. And what people fail to recognize often is that it's like a selective Compassion. 0 (31m 50s): So we're gonna be compassionate toward, toward someone, but we're not being compassionate toward Candace who worked really hard to achieve that thing. And you could end up with some very nefarious possibilities of doing horrible things to individuals to create that Equality of outcome. And to me it goes against nature. I mean as a, as a spiritual person, I mean my worldview is that at some level of reality we are equal. We come from an equal source let's say, but we exist in a duality where there's variation and there's mark and Candace and other people and we're all diverse and unequal, meaning we're different. So this movement toward Equality, this is even sometimes people use the word Equality to get there is that you shouldn't be different at all. 0 (32m 32s): And that's pretty dangerous cuz it goes against nature and maybe even against the spiritual diversity that we're supposed to have. So like on one hand you, you can understand where people are coming from that they don't want, that they're concerned about people who might be underprivileged but then it's warped and and brought into this equity Equality version of reality where you can end up doing horrible things to people. 2 (32m 55s): Yeah, I agree because it's like you should treat everyone with respect and kindness regardless. And I think that's what a lot of people were thinking or maybe presenting a quality of opportunity perhaps, but quality of outcome is pretty much, you can't guarantee that. And from what I've heard is that in societies that implement that the Equality of outcome, you actually see a really big difference as far as like the sex traits when it comes to professional choice. So like you'll see more female teachers and more nurses that are female, like more of those stereotypes kind of show up because of the Equality of outcomes. So like they're less inclined to maybe deviate from their professional stereotypes, which I'm not sure if that's true or if you've known anything about that. 0 (33m 39s): Well I just, my sense is that there are like lots of negative side effects basically if you try to impose this on people when people are actually diverse and you want to make them all the same. I'm thinking of a quote now from Fa Hayek who was a Nobel prize winning economist and I'm, I'm paraphrasing here. And he is like, look, given the fact that we are all different, if you wanted to make everyone equal then you'd have to treat them unequally. So you end up with, you end up with these paradoxes where you can't actually keep things consistent and like you end up also with an anti meritocracy where you end up with people who are not qualified for the position, who get a position just because you want Equality and then that could actually hurt consumers or it could hurt people that are, that are using that product because they're not getting the best service. 0 (34m 23s): And this also relates to the principle of of Diversity and inclusion, which again sound nice but is it really diverse if you're only gonna choose people, let's say of a certain gender or a certain ethnicity or pick your thing, you're including some people but then you're excluding at the same time. So it's like you, you end up with aspects that are beneficial but then it turns into something dark. 2 (34m 49s): Yeah, the diversity one's interesting too because I'm like well diverse in what we had to fill out this survey for our kids' school and it was like a Belonging survey, which is really interesting to me in in general because what is Belonging and who, whose job is Belonging, I'm of the school of thought that Belonging is an inside job and that is such a powerful tool if you can cultivate that sense of Belonging internally, not have it be so easily shattered by the external, whether someone calls you a name or is mean to you doesn't let you sit with them, whatever it is, obviously all of those things suck and I think every kid, at least in, you know the millennial generation has been bullied to some extent and that's not great. But if I had cultivated tools to feel secure, confident and Belonging when within myself, I would've been able to handle those pressures a lot more easily and that's a lot I think more convenient and responsible is to train the individual rather than try to like bend society to get rid of all of the thorns. 2 (35m 46s): Where was I gonna go? Oh yeah, with diversity. So there's also this thought that like there's nothing more diverse than the individual. Like there's not another mark out there, there's not another Candace out there like you are the ultimate diverse thing compared to anything else. So what are the factors for con considering these diversities and then when you check off those race boxes? So I'm Japanese, Spanish and Jewish, so and then my husband is pretty much just polish like he is Polish and Nordic so he's pretty white, but our kids are like this blend of all of these things and they're blonde with blue eyes, so what do they tick off? Like their, their pigmentation and their coloring says nothing about their ancestral history whatsoever. So I think it's a really lazy way to put people in these buckets and not actually dive into their stories and be curious and treat everyone like an individual. 2 (36m 34s): We're just trying to say like you are like I Candace and and accurate representation for all, all women. That's not true at all. There's a great variance. So to just subjugate me to that doesn't seem accurate or responsible. 0 (36m 46s): Yeah, often diversity has come to focus on superficial qualities. We don't often hear about diversity of ideology. Especially if you look at academia, I wrote about this in in An End to the Upside Down Reset. I have a whole chapter on how there's a lack of ideological diversity in universities in the entertainment industry and so forth. And yet men often they're talking about Diversity and yet they're focused on these more superficial traits. And one of the reasons I I'm increasingly concerned about this is that those who have escaped, let's say communistic or otherwise totalitarian regimes are saying like let's say a communist China or there's a woman who escaped from North Korea who's talking about this. 0 (37m 28s): They say look what's happening in the US is very similar to the cultural revolution in China where political correctness and identity politics and these things which might seem benign because on the surface they're trying to help people, they end up with a lack of tolerance where you have to obey the Narrative and if you don't then you're an outcast. And that in the case of China, according to the black book of communism, 65 million people approximately were murdered in Mao's regime. So this is a a very serious thing if it goes to an extreme and it's like we're inching toward that and many people don't seem to recognize the potential dangers because it's all cloaked in Compassion. 2 (38m 7s): Yeah, Constantin does. He's spoken out about this because he like him and his lineage is from Russia and he gets into the origin of what politically correct is because I think the west has developed this idea of it's just being polite but when actuality it's a very political thing like politically correct was what does the government say is allowed, like what is the allowed Narrative? And if you weren't speaking in a politically correct term, you would go to a gulag and see it later, right? Or your family would lose its rations or whatever the consequence was. So it's not just be kind it it was no there is a government Narrative and that is the only thing you're allowed to say. There was this quote you said and we, you kind of brought up the theme a little bit throughout this conversation, which is Compassion Can Be Weaponized and I love that so much I've, I've said something very similar in the past. 2 (38m 57s): Can you elaborate on that? Yeah, 0 (38m 59s): This was one of the reasons I decided to write the book about The Great Reset because there is this push toward, well let's help other people and let's help society. And even people who have a spiritual orientation I find agree with a lot of this stuff because on the surface it sounds really good. So you can get people who have a very good intention to go in a certain direction because you show them the compassionate part and then what often doesn't happen is that where you don't see, where you're not being compassionate, you don't see what's beneath the surface. So it requires real discernment to look at any situation and determine whether or not you're truly being compassionate. So something I've talked about in my books is not just Compassion but Compassion with discernment. 0 (39m 39s): And often I just see the compassionate part and then not the discernment of actually determining, well is this policy that they're talking about that's allegedly gonna help the poor? Is it really going to, for example, or you could take any example where you're presented with something that's compassionate and then it actually ends up not being compassionate. And this is a way to really move large groups of people who wanna feel good and wanna feel like they're doing the right thing and you tell them you're doing the right thing by supporting this because you're gonna help society. That's a way to mobilize people. And we've seen this happen historically. I mentioned collectivism earlier, it's, it's tied into this where if you tell people it's for the greater good, then you could rationalize doing something horrible to an individual because look, we're gonna help society candidates to do this and we're being compassionate. 0 (40m 25s): So I'm, I guess I'm just trying to raise a red flag here that we have to question always whether the results of something are going to be good in the end, even if it sounds good or even if it makes you feel good on the inside, the results might not be in alignment with that. 2 (40m 39s): Yeah and if you wanna get a little bit conspiratorial, so women represent a large percentage of the swing vote and we tend to be more in tune with our emotions than men just because a lot of how we were raised boys aren't allowed to have feelings. Hope like thankfully that's being undone a lot right now. But you know, that was the traditional Narrative. So if you're using Compassion and a lot of like your political jargon and all of these movements, then you can kind of lock in that that swing vote. So like there's that aspect, there's this quote Jamie wheel said at one of these like retreat things we did a couple years back and he said sometimes Compassion is cutting someone's head off with a samurai sword and it sounds so aggressive but it's supposed to make you feel something. 2 (41m 24s): And that compassion's not necessarily all the soft ooey gooey love. What is the nice easy thing for you sometimes like you do have to, you you have to stop enabling somebody. Sometimes you might have to like put an animal out of its misery, right? Like sometimes the compassionate thing is to put a dog down. So it's not necessarily all the things that make you feel good if it's just for you to feel good. That's ultimately like a really self-centered way to approach things and you're not considering the other person at all. I had someone on the podcast in the past and he very much was in my opinion, a victim of this Weaponized Compassion where he would talk about, we were talking about like the homeless population and people that were really struggling with substance abuse and he's like, I don't know why there's no sympathy for any of the homeless population and how people talk about them. 2 (42m 16s): And I was like, well I think there there is a lot like people, there are a lot of people that are trying to fix the problem and I know a lot of people that are very sympathetic to that issue because I think it came down to like they should be able to just camp on the sidewalks. Well you're not being compassionate to the mom that has to walk her kid to school that's stepping over needles, that's stepping over human feces that is having to walk through a crowd of people that are struggling with mental illness. Like not knowing the level of violence that's possible. So like if you're gonna be compassionate, you have to be compassionate to everyone's version of that reality, not just the one person that's on the sidewalk. Because that is the way that I can wave my, re my flag and say I'm a good person cuz I care about this person that doesn't have anything. Well what about the person that's paying taxes and doing everything quote unquote, right? 2 (42m 60s): Like operating in society, like the least damaging to those around them, right? Like they're not So I was like, you're just, you're missing Compassion on on the other end of this vision. 0 (43m 12s): Yeah, it's like a a microcom Compassion versus a macro Compassion and a microcom Compassion is looking at just a very specific iteration of the issue and not zooming out and seeing all the other parties that are involved. And that's what happens. And the media does this too, and the politicians do it. They get you to focus on one aspect and you don't see everything else and you don't realize that maybe we're being compassionate to those few people, but we're being the opposite of compassionate to everybody else. 2 (43m 36s): Yeah, very inconsiderate. There's this teal swan video I saw just the other day and there's some stuff she does that I'm like, oh that's great, another stuff. And I'm like, oh not that so much. But this one I really liked. And she said, if you take a jar of ants and you fill it or a jar and you fill it with ants, you put black ants and red ants in it, they're fine, they coexist and everyone's just kind of happy to be there. If you take the jar and you shake it, all of a sudden the black ants will start attacking the red ants and the red ants will start attacking the black ants because they each think the other is responsible for shaking the jar. And I was like, whoa, that is crazy. So who's shaking the jar? Why do they want to shake the jar? 2 (44m 18s): And I think how important it is to not see each other as the cause for all of this friction. 0 (44m 24s): Yes, very important. And where my mind goes when you mention that is on a spiritual level because I think humans are impacted by a field of Consciousness that we can't see with our eyes and that our ordinary perception is not accessing it, but we're being influenced by it. So it's like who's the ultimate puppet master here? It's probably something we don't see. And the human beings are vessels for certain types of energy to carry things out. And my overall worldview, which I'm, I'm still constantly grappling with is that we're trying to evolve collectively and darkness and evil are involved in that process for us to transcend it. So it's like one level, the evil stuff is horrible and there's a lot of suffering that comes, but the more of it that occurs, the more we're being shown things that we need to be transcended. 0 (45m 10s): So we could say the ultimate puppet master is maybe playing that dark light game that we're involved in. And part of our path I'm thinking increasingly is not just the Compassion part. Cause I do think that's an important part of our evolution, but it's this discernment piece might be the most important thing I'm, I'm starting to come to that view because if you don't discern then your actions might ultimately be harmful. So it's like you've gotta discern and then apply your compassionate mindset too. 2 (45m 37s): So you've, one of your books was on debunking the idea that Consciousness is created in the, in our minds or in the or skulls basically what is, what is The Science of Consciousness because that is a category right now that people are really spending a lot of money and time and energy into. Like how do you measure Consciousness if it's not coming from our brain, where is it coming from? Well, 0 (46m 2s): Let me give you a little backstory here because I, when I'm about to talk about was not my worldview. I used to think life was random and meaningless and when you die, that's the end of your sense of experiencing life. That's it. Psychic phenomena, things like that, that's superstition. Things from ancient mythology and religious texts, those are, those miracles didn't happen like that kind of a thing. And then in 2016 I was not looking for something new, but I started listening to podcasts and came across anomalous phenomena. So things that didn't fit my paradigm, these weird things like people claiming they talked of spirits and people claiming they have psychic abilities and working with clients on it and stuff like that. And then I realized there was scientific evidence that actually supported it. Then I had a major paradigm shift and then wrote my first book, it's called An End to Upside Down Thinking. 0 (46m 45s): And I realized that these various anomalies, these strange phenomena all centered around what you're talking about Candice, the the brain Consciousness connection, like what's the origin of Consciousness? And I realized that I had a worldview which is very much in alignment with the mainstream scientific perspective, which is that our capacity for experience, and we'll call that Consciousness, our subjective awareness, that Consciousness that we all have at this very moment comes from the brain, meaning there's a lot of chemical and electrical activity up in your brain and then Consciousness pops out of it. Somehow the the challenge with that perspective, and it's actually known as the hard problem of Consciousness Science magazine has called this the number two question remaining in all of science, which is that Consciousness is not a physical thing. 0 (47m 31s): Like I can't touch my Consciousness, I know I have it cuz I'm having an experience, but I can touch my chair. That's physical, my leg is physical, brain is physical, it's made out of matter. And yet Consciousness is not physical. And what scientists don't understand is how could something non-physical like Consciousness pop out of something physical like a brain? And that's what science magazine's number two question in all of science is getting to like, it's a really fundamental issue because we can't even ask the question unless we had a Consciousness to be able to to process this. So where I come out on it now, and this has really sparked my whole journey to then getting into these other topics, is that the assumption that the brain produces Consciousness is incorrect, that the brain doesn't produce it, but the brain processes Consciousness like an antenna receiver or I think more precisely like a filtering mechanism or we could even call the brain a blindfold where there's a broader reality and the Consciousness works through the body and the brain and the body's like a vessel. 0 (48m 27s): So another analogy that I've often used comes from Dr. Bernardo Castro, a philosopher who says that all reality could be likened to a stream of water where water is analogous to Consciousness. Each of us is like a whirlpool within that stream of Consciousness. So we're an individual within the Collective. So that's why we seem like we're individuals because at one level we're the whirlpool, but at another level we're the stream. So we're picking up the water, so to speak, of the broader stream. So stuff can get into our field, stuff can get into our Consciousness. So where I'm going with this is that if you believe this general framework that Consciousness is beyond the body and we're tapping into something like a cell phone almost tapping into the cloud. 0 (49m 8s): Then going back to the Whirlpool analogy, if some of the water from my whirlpool gets into your whirlpool, that's like a psychic or a telepathic ability. So this model of Consciousness would say, yeah, there should be psychic phenomena that's not paranormal. It's only paranormal if you think Consciousness is stuck in your skull. Another big implication is that let's say a whirlpool stops being a whirlpool within the stream, the water flows somewhere else. The analogy there is that if the physical body dies, Consciousness doesn't die. It simply transitions into a new state and in theory it could transition into, into the formation of a new whirlpool i e Reincarnation, right? So theoretically if you change the model of Consciousness to say Consciousness doesn't come from the brain, all of a sudden these paranormal things are normal. 0 (49m 52s): So what I explore in that book, An End to Upside, Down Thinking is not just this framework that I talked about but actually the idea that there's scientific evidence for it. 2 (49m 60s): Have you heard How Corals Spawn? No. At all? No. Okay. So this is really interesting. So when we so easily write off something as Telepathy, and I know a lot of people are gonna be like, that's woowoo, that's crazy. But if you see other species that seem to be doing something that for no other explanation seems to be Telepathy or some type of communication that's nonverbal nonphysical, then why wouldn't it be possible for humans? Because we do seem to be a lot more evolved than coral, which is one of the oldest living things. It's one of the least evolved things. So when coral is spawning dependent on the species, no matter where it is in the world, it will all Spawn at the exact same time. 2 (50m 41s): So if you take a piece of coral from Australia and you put it into a fish tank in London, they will both Spawn at the same time the exact same time, even though it's not in the ocean, even though it's in a totally different time zone. And it's the same for every other species. So they think that there's some kind of Telepathy that's happening between the coral. And then we also know that other sea animals tend to communicate, like there is communication between orcas, there's communication between dolphins and obviously not all of it is verbal or within like their their vocal chords for example. So if other animals are be able, are able to have like sonar, then why would we not have some kind of capability and why not study it? Because that's fucking fascinating. 0 (51m 23s): Yes. And in fact there are lots of scientists who have studied it, they're just under the radar or they're demeaned in the media in the same way that other non-mainstream mainstream people are demeaned. I'm on the board of an organization called the Institute of NOIC Sciences and that's been around for roughly 50 years, founded by Dr. Edgar Edgar Mitchell, an Apollo 14 astronaut who had a mystical experience himself and said, wow, we've gotta study Consciousness. So there's this independent organization among others that run studies on some of these phenomena like energy healing and Lucid, Dreaming and Telepathy. I'll give you an example of a classic Telepathy study that's been done and replicated over and over again. And there is strong statistical evidence and this is in humans, it's been done on animals as well. 0 (52m 5s): Dr. Rupert Creak has examined this and I interviewed him for my podcast. It's called Where Is My Mind? So if you wanna hear his voice talking about it, you can go there. But with humans, human Telepathy, the classic study is known as the Gons experiment where you put people in two different rooms, they're separated and one person is shown an image of something and we'll call that person Jane. And the experimenters tell Jane to try to mentally send with her mind the thing that she's being shown to the other person. We'll call that person Bob in the other room. So Bob doesn't know what Jane is looking at. So Bob is sitting in the room and, and they put him into a relaxed state because people theorize that being more in a meditative state makes you more receptive. 0 (52m 45s): So like psychically, after a while, Bob is taken out of that relaxed state and he's shown four images and the experimenters say, Bob, which of the four was Jane mentally sending to you? Now we would expect over many, many trials done by different experimenters that you would approach the person in Bob's room guessing correctly, one out of four times 25% because it should be totally random. He shouldn't have any knowledge that's transferred through the mind of Jane. Come on, that's crazy. But in fact what happens is that the person in Bob's room guesses correctly roughly 32% of the time. And statistically this is a massively significant effect, meaning that something is happening beyond what chance would predict even though it's not a 100% effect, it's something beyond chance. 0 (53m 30s): And it fits into the category of this Telepathy experiment is is one of six Sigma results. Dr. Dean Raden has collected these of not just Telepathy but also psychokinesis, which is mind impacting matter precognition, which is knowing or sensing the future before it happens remote viewing, which is seeing something with your mind. And the US government did this and their declassified documents. So all of those categories fall under six sigma. Six sigma means the odds against chance are more than a billion to one, meaning that there is statistical evidence that's been conducted by scientists. There are even peer reviewed papers on this one that was published in 2018 in American psychologists, which is the official peer reviewed academic journal of the American Psychological Association. 0 (54m 14s): It aggregated all the statistical data and they published the paper. So this is stuff that I had never heard of, maybe some of your audience members have never heard of. And the implications are massive, even if it's a small effect, there's something beyond chance happening that's an anomaly that we can't account for with our traditional scientific models. So to me this is massive and it it's a paradigm shift, not just about our own Consciousness but about the nature of reality itself. 2 (54m 38s): That's so fascinating because the common Narrative is that these studies haven't been able to be replicated at all and that you take these psychics and they all end up being charlatans. And none of this is is true, but I think we've all experienced some kind of, some kind of phenomenon. It's like you're thinking about someone and all of a sudden they call you or you or you're thinking of a song and all of a sudden it comes on like these like weird little happenings that happen or certain, I don't know, like if you get into like a flow state and everything just starts like happening for you, there's something metaphysical happening that's not exactly what we've been, I guess like taught to or prescribed to is like reality. Like there's something extra fun layer that's there. Are you familiar with any of The? 2 (55m 18s): Reincarnation Studies? Yes. 0 (55m 20s): Something Can you tell? 2 (55m 21s): Yeah, I wanna, I wanna know all the things because I'm, I've just started looking into it and like watching some podcasts and from what I know so far is basically the scientific community is taking it seriously. Like they are seeing some kids that will remember past lives and certain historic dates and it just like information that a kid shouldn't have. 0 (55m 43s): Yes. So let me first give you the context for why I even looked at this and the way I approached it in my book and end Upside down thinking and also in the podcast series, where is my mind where I interviewed Dr. Jim Tucker from the University of Virginia who studies Reincarnation in children and things like that. But my approach was I'm looking at this question of does the brain produce Consciousness? And if there is even one anomaly that we can't explain with the traditional model, then we can explain that anomaly much better by saying Consciousness doesn't come from the brain. So I looked at two categories, psychic abilities and survival of bodily death. So psychic abilities are Telepathy, psychokinesis, precognition, remote viewing and animal psychic abilities. So each of those is a chapter in my book. And then this category of survival of bodily death. That's the second category. 0 (56m 25s): The mediumship people who allege they can communicate with deceased beings and after death communications, near death experiences where a person is clinically dead in the most extreme cases and yet they have a Lucid Consciousness and they come back in their body and they describe what happened accurately. I e not hallucination. And then the third category is children who have previous memories of a previous life. And so my argument is if one thing is real changes the nature of reality altogether, but the implications for this stuff, it starts to get, I'm glad you went in this direction because it's like we re reincarnated and we don't remember it. That what does that mean? So the University of Virginia has a division, it's called the Division of Perceptual studies and it's been around for decades. It was founded by Dr. 0 (57m 5s): Ian Stevenson who was a traditional psychiatrist. And he started to come hear about these cases of young children who were describing in detail a life that was not their own. So usually the kids are between two and six years old, roughly, and they're talking about stuff they shouldn't, they shouldn't know in the strongest cases in this, you know, bundle of over 2,500 they've collected since Ian Stevenson's days. And now it's continued by Dr. Jim Tucker. There are some cases where the memories, what the child describes can be verified. So the researcher can go and find this very specific detail of what the kid was talking about. So there was an exam, a famous case of a, a World War II fighter pilot where he was in the plane by himself and he described what happened and he crashed and the little kid was saying, airplane crash on fire, little man can't get out. 0 (57m 53s): And he would like crash these airplanes into the wooden table. And Dr. Tucker said he could see the indentations from that. So the kid was traumatized talking about this life and the researchers were able to find someone that actually died in this manner. There's another case that Dr. Tuck Tucker talks about of a a Hollywood extra. So these are not, it's not like Cleopatra or some famous person. These are like kind of esoteric weird cases where the kid was able to point at like know these details of a person that was a Hollywood extra. So when you aggregate the data to me the, it's hard to explain all the stuff away. And, and Dr. Stevenson even said the, his best explanation that he could come up with was that it was actually Reincarnation. 0 (58m 34s): And, and one more point I wanna make on this that I I know many people find to be the most compelling is that sometimes the children have birthmarks or physical defects. So a physical physiological issue that aligns with how they died in the previous life. So it's not just a memory or a fear or a a preference that they have, it's something physical that they can tie in the strongest cases to a medical record where they find, oh yeah, the person did die and they've got a weird birthmark here, or they had this weird physical defect. And so how do you explain that sort of thing? I know some people have tried to say, well maybe the kids do have memories, but it's not from a past life, it's just that they're psychic and they're psychically tapping into something from the Collective. 0 (59m 15s): But when you start to get into the physical stuff, that to me seems like it's, if you go back to the whirlpool analogy, something from the initial whirlpool is being transferred both the memories and something physical and we don't understand how, but our Consciousness gets recycled. That's the implication. 2 (59m 30s): So why is it that people can only remember past lives and not future reincarnates? 0 (59m 37s): Some people claim that they do. 2 (59m 40s): Oh really in their 0 (59m 41s): Future lives. It's not something I looked into quite as much. So there's a field of past life regression where a person is put under hypnosis and it's supposed to unlock memories. And I know Dr. Stevenson from uva, he was skeptical of, of this process because you can get weird results and maybe the it's person's fabricating the memory or they're just, they're just coming up with something that's not real, not even intentionally or, or they come up with a memory that's actually not a past life. But he said there were some cases that he couldn't explain and there are some cases it's known as Xeno glossy, where the, the person starts speaking language. They've never learned very strange cases. And, and I mentioned this be, to give a caveat to the hypnosis work because I, I do think there probably is some good material there, but we shouldn't take all of it. 0 (1h 0m 25s): Just like not every psychic is real, even though some might be. And what comes up that people have talked about is that they are like regressed, not regressed. They're progressed into the future. And also you're reminding me of some, some of the cases in near death experiences again where the person's clinically dead or they're physiologically shut off, their brain is barely functioning or completely off and they have this elaborate experience that's realer than real. Sometimes they, they have flash forwards where they're shown things about the future even in their own life. So there is something strange about time with all of this that maybe Consciousness is beyond space and time and when our Consciousness is liberated from the brain, the brain actually restricts us. 0 (1h 1m 5s): Then we can go beyond space and time and have these memories of things that might be happening to some degree in a simultaneous fashion even though we perceive linear time through our body. 2 (1h 1m 15s): That's really interesting To get into more into Consciousness, do you consider Consciousness to be the same thing as a soul? 0 (1h 1m 22s): I would say the soul is part of Consciousness. My short answer would be yes. The longer answer would be it's a little more complicated. I would regard the soul as maybe a multidimensional whirlpool within the stream. So it's part of the stream, but to me Consciousness is the whole stream 2 (1h 1m 40s): S okay. So I recently had someone on and I, I always like asking this question when it comes to spirituality or soul or and personality and how all of these things are kind of entangled. So are you familiar with the Phineas Gage story? 0 (1h 1m 54s): No, not off the top of my head. 2 (1h 1m 56s): Okay. So he is a huge psychological talking point. Like if you take any psych class, they will go over Phineas Gage. So Phineas Gage was a rail road worker and he was said to be the most pleasant man. Great, always like happy to be around just like a great person. He suffers a horrible accident where a rod goes through the front of his skull, he ends up surviving it, but the person that shows up after is totally different. They're like, he's horrible, he's vulgar. He is like, it's a totally different person. So would you say that that is the same Consciousness or like what is the relation to biology and the physical realm when it comes to Consciousness? 2 (1h 2m 38s): Yeah, 0 (1h 2m 38s): That's a very important point. So the argument that I'm making, and again I'm, I'm really summarizing the arguments that many other people have made in the past is not that the brain is irrelevant but that it's not producing Consciousness. So if you alter the apparatus that's responsible for processing Consciousness, you'll get a different result in terms of how it's experienced. So if you change the brain, you do alter the way Consciousness is experienced. But so a as sta statisticians would say, correlation does not imply causation. So you could alter the part of the brain responsible for vision. The person has a corresponding change in vision and then someone says, oh there you go, the brain produces Consciousness cause we have a correlation. But it doesn't mean the brain produces it, it just might mean that in the same way that let's say your cell phone antenna breaks, you might not, your cell phone might not work because the apparatus responsible for processing the signal has been disrupted. 2 (1h 3m 30s): That's interesting. So it's kind of like your radio system in the car you could turn on the base or the treble or whatever it is and get a totally different sound. I never thought of it as more of a receiver. That makes a lot more sense to me. Yeah, 0 (1h 3m 43s): Or think about like a Play-Doh device a kid's play with, they stick the Play-Doh through the device and it comes out as spaghetti, but if you stick it through a different device then it will come out as a different shape. So it's like Consciousness is the Play-Doh and it's being processed in different ways and you can cover up some of the holes. So the essence, yeah, 2 (1h 3m 59s): Yeah, the essence of the thing is still the same, it's just how it's presenting. I like that answer. Cause the last one I got I was not happy with, the first one I got was, well there must be not be a soul if the the thing changes. I was like that's not right. And then the other one was a little bit of uncertainty and car karma's play and I'm like well that doesn't really answer the soul question. So this one actually that one resonates with me a lot more 0 (1h 4m 23s): And it also suggests that we need to pay attention to our bodies. Yes. And keep it in a form that's able to receive a pure signal, so to speak, to keep the analogy. And I think that's an important piece to this too, to keep our brain healthy, to keep our body healthy and then maybe we're embodying that stream of water so to speak. We're embodying the soul in a pure way. 2 (1h 4m 43s): So when these studies are being done, taking that into account, do you try to have the participants do a certain diet or do a digital cleanse or any kind of cleanse before they come in to get a more accurate read with like less feedback? 0 (1h 4m 59s): Yeah, I'm not sure if there are researchers that do that. One of the big challenges is that there is a, a lack of funding for this sort of thing. At most mainstream institutions you, you can't even, you won't get tenure. So I know a woman who studies precognition so where the body senses something before it actually is even presented and there's statistical evidence for this. She was told at a major institution, take this off your resume if you wanna get tenure, she had to leave to study this elsewhere. So because of that there's a limited, because there's a limited amount of money to study this stuff. You, you're looking for the basics in many ways. Hmm. So I, I don't know if that's a standard protocol. I think it's more of like is the effect real in most cases there might be some scientists who are trying these variables but like that's almost a second order question of are you more psychic if you have a certain diet? 0 (1h 5m 45s): Yeah. Whereas many people are just trying to show. Yeah. Is there a statistical effect for psychic phenomena first and foremost, 2 (1h 5m 50s): Do you think that there's gonna be a Wider Acceptance now that we are studying Psychedelics and we have very serious people studying Psychedelics and obviously a lot of spiritual experiences have been noted with those or now that we have, you know, CNN and Fox News talking about aliens coming, like all of these things that we used to kind of push people out for and say You're Looney Tunes, I can't take you seriously, now we have everyone kind of saying no this is something to pay attention to. Do you think the next thing is going to be these more spiritual phenomenon that are being studied? 0 (1h 6m 22s): I would hope so. I mean there is, there is progress for all the reasons you just described, but in some ways I've been discouraged. Like when, when my book came out and end Upside down thinking in 2018, then the podcast where's my mind in 2019? I, I was hoping that my work and then also a lot of other people were putting out work too. I'm like, there's so much stuff out here if you just wanna find it, you can see there's tons of evidence and people can have a paradigm shift and it just takes time. Cuz not everyone's looking at it. Not everyone even wants to look, even if you present them with the material, they'll just say no. And I know people like that, they'll reject it and say no, the studies must be off. It can't be true because the implications are so big. So I think paradigm shifts do take time and then if you wanna get more conspiratorial, I don't know if this is true or not, but it would make sense if you wanted to control people, there would be an incentive to suppress this information. 0 (1h 7m 9s): And there is an active suppression, no doubt of Consciousness science, whether it's a lack of funding, keeping people out of academia, calling them pseudo scientists. If you go to Dr. Rupert Cricks Wikipedia page, he calls him, he says he protects in pseudoscience and there's, it's like semi protected his page meaning there's a limitation in terms of how you can edit it. So if you're just a casual person, you click on it, okay this is, we don't need to go there, this is pseudoscience. And now you're reminding me also of Dr. Mario Beauregard who studies a lot of this stuff in Canada. And he said in an interview recently that at a mainstream neurological institute in Canada, he was told by the person who runs the institute, as long as I'm alive, you will never study the science of spiritual phenomena. 0 (1h 7m 52s): So there's something here that's holding back the essence of what we are or whatever evidence could get us to that essence. And we're gonna have to transcend that. I, I don't know how it's gonna happen because it seems to be systemic within our institutions. And also the media is very skeptical of this sort of thing and has been for a long time. So maybe it's gonna have to be grassroots where people listen to shows like yours or they read books and they come across stuff like I did, I heard a podcast, I read scientific papers and books and my whole life changed because this is life-changing stuff. 2 (1h 8m 21s): Yeah, I heard that Sometimes if you have a group of people that are doing a s like a psychedelic plant, whether it's like psilocybin or maybe something more intense that they can actually have a shared experience and these are strangers that don't know anything about each other, but they'll have the same trip essentially. So I would consider that to be some sort of like Telepathy or some kind of psychic exchanges happening there from total strangers. 0 (1h 8m 47s): Yes, those are the strongest cases. They're known as ver cases where you can verify a piece of knowledge that should not have been known by the person at the time. So one example is in the near death experience when the person claims to hover over his or her body and sees things or hears things from that vantage point and then they come in back in their body and they tell the doctor, I saw this, I saw the way you performed the resuscitation from that vantage point and it's accurate. Another case would be, it's called a vertical after death experience or after death encounter where a person has a dream about someone who's like a relative and the person's dead in that dream or in a near death experience they encounter that person's soul and they come back and they say, look, this person I encountered him, he or she's dead and it's a family member. 0 (1h 9m 28s): And people are like, yeah, that person just died. How did you know that? So it's, it's unexplainable by conventional means because the person didn't obtain that knowledge through anything that we can normally explain. And those cases are harder to explain away by some other explanation. 2 (1h 9m 44s): We had a really trippy experience. So we were in Sedona and some people say that if you're skeptical go to Sedona for a few weeks and you will have some kind of paranormal experience. Something's gonna happen because they say it's, it's just this portal for energy. So we go there, I was going there for like this brain training retreat and it's the first or second night we had our nanny with us and she comes upstairs and asks my husband, do you know anyone by this name? And she was saying this name and he's like, no, no I don't, I don't think so. And she went back downstairs, she comes back up and she's like, are you sure? Are you sure you don't know? And we'll just say, Susan, you don't know what Susan. 2 (1h 10m 25s): And he's like, oh, do you mean Sarah? Like it was super, super close. And she's like, yes, that's the name. And he's like, why? And she's like, well she's here. And she wanted me to tell you that she, she died by accident. It wasn't on purpose. My husband's one of his very close friends, his sister had died and she had died in a pretty traumatic way and people weren't sure if it was an accident or not and there were a lot of questions about it. The family was really upset, she was engaged, the fiance was going through it. So she's like, I just want you to tell him that it was an accident. Tell my fiance that I'm okay and that it's okay for him to move on. 2 (1h 11m 6s): And that I loved him. Like I'm getting goosebumps right now. All of these things. She didn't know his friend, I don't even know his sister Eric. My husband didn't really know the sister that well like, and we didn't tell the nanny that this person had passed. Like there was just like absolutely no way she would've known any bit of that. And then for the rest of the week we're like walking around the house like waiting to see something because it was just so trippy. So I mean I've had those kinds of experiences or been around those experiences where you just can't explain it. Like there, like without question she was tapped into something and she was talking to somebody and talking to his sister and there's just no argument there. Like no one will believe it. But I mean it was my nanny. She has no reason to lie. 0 (1h 11m 47s): Yeah, yeah, there, there are many of these cases that people have, it's not even an uncommon thing. Like everyone seems to have their story of something they can't explain. And what the skeptics will say is Candace, that's an anecdote and anecdotes don't count, which I don't understand how you can make that claim. I mean if someone goes into a doctor's office and says they have a headache, the doctor doesn't say that's an anecdote, don't like prove it. So there, there's value to the scientific method in controlling all the variables. But these phenomena are not always compatible with that because there's something unpredictable and ephemeral about it. And that's what people don't like. They wanna put everything into a box. So to me the power is in both the anecdotes and the controlled studies and you put it together and it's, it's almost unreasonable to try to dismiss everything. 0 (1h 12m 30s): Why would you dismiss all this evidence just to preserve a worldview? It's almost becomes a form of dogmatism. 2 (1h 12m 35s): And then how many an antidotes equate a statistic? Like how many do you need for it to officially be taken seriously Cuz there's a lot out there. 0 (1h 12m 42s): Exactly. So over 2,500 cases of young children claiming to remember a previous life, is there a threshold at which there's enough cases or near death experiences? Dr. Pi Ben Lamel published a famous paper in the Landset Medical Journal where he looked at people who had cardiac arrest. So this is like clinical death and wanted to see how many of them had this crazy near death experience where their Consciousness was in other dimensions and all this stuff. And roughly 20% of them had a near death experience. Not all of them, but based on our current neuroscience it should be 0%. How can you explain that? And people will just dismiss it and say it's not for whatever reason, it's not enough. 2 (1h 13m 20s): Yeah, those get really trippy when you get into those, those stories because again, if you're dead then how are you having an experience let alone having a memory of an experience which is even weirder because that incorporates, you know, the hard drive like you're involving your brain with the the recall on that. So yeah, that's fascinating. Before we wrap up, I have to get into aliens with you at least a little bit. I saw you on a few podcasts recently talking about that. So have you started watch that new documentary with, what's his name? I think I have it pulled up cause I, Graham Hancock? No, Steve Greer. Yes. So he has a new documentary on Amazon and I watched his first one and I was like on board cuz also I wanna believe in them. 2 (1h 14m 3s): So I was on board and he's showing all these pictures and I'm like, these must be real. And he has this meditation that's supposed to bring them. I don't know if you've seen that or if you're familiar with the meditation, if you've met anyone that's had any experience, whether it's like through Psychedelics or what have you. 0 (1h 14m 18s): I have not had a direct experience, at least not that I'm aware of. And I make that caveat because in many of the cases there seems to be a memory wipe or missing time where people can't account for what happened and then they go under hypnosis or then the memories are unlocked somehow. So I say that because maybe many of us, even some of your listeners might have had an experience and we just don't have access to that memory for whatever reason. So I've looked at a lot of these researchers. I mean my conclusion is that we're not alone, but the nature of that is, is still pretty unclear to me. So like in my book it's called an End to Upside down contact where I go through just so like all the different things that people have been talking about, I try to provide a survey of it and let the reader decide. 0 (1h 15m 0s): But there are phenomena of Consciousness, so not even talking about a U F O craft, let's say a near death experience or a psychedelic account like D M T or people who can channel where their whole body changes and they start speaking in a different language, not a different language, but a different tone. They use a different cadence where they claim they're being overtaken effectively by a being and they're speaking as that being. These are phenomena of Consciousness where it might be an ethereal or etheric being, so it's not a physical creature or it might be interdimensional or maybe they can be, appear to be physical and maybe they're not physical. People are talking about that. They're encountering beings near death experiences. There's so many of these cases they encounter deceased relatives, they encounter religious or mystical figures. 0 (1h 15m 44s): They encounter being of light. So some intelligence that's not a human on D M T. Dr. Rick Strassman from the University of New Mexico, he wrote a book called GMT, the Spirit Molecule. And there's a documentary he found to his surprise that when he was giving people D M T intravenously dimethyltryptamine, they were encountering entities and he actually stopped the study because he's like, ethically, what's going on here? Can I expose people to this stuff? And it was not always positive where they were having these types of encounters. And then there are U F O examples where people throughout history, I mean you can go way back to even the bible and the book, the Ezekiel's vision. I mean you could read that and construe it as a fiery chariot with creatures. 0 (1h 16m 27s): Where was that literal? Was he talking about encountering beings? Maybe it was in an altered state of Consciousness or not, but maybe he was encountering something. I mean there's case after case of this in addition to the U F O phenomena, which has been reported and documented really well. For example, by Richard Dolan, he wrote a book called UFOs in the National Security State. They're actually two volumes and they're like thick history books of all the U F O encounters. I mean some of 'em are documented in the 18 hundreds where we didn't have the flying technology that we're supposed to have at the time. So to me, all this raises questions about the Narrative that like human beings are the peak of of evolution and we're the most intelligent out there. To me there's a lot of evidence to challenge that idea. 2 (1h 17m 7s): I want them to be real so bad. Yeah, I've met a couple people and it's in Sedona, so you don't really know what you're getting. Some of it could just be a lot of people with very vivid imaginations. But I've met people that have said that they've had contact or some kind of interactions like why not me? I'm doing all the things, I'm watching all the shows. I'm waiting outside maybe one day. But Mark, this was amazing. I had a really broad and entertaining conversation with you. I hope the listeners did as well. Before you take off, can you tell the listeners where they can follow you, how they can support you and any projects that you're working on? 0 (1h 17m 43s): Sure. Well Candace, thank you so much for having me. I really enjoyed the conversation and appreciate your willingness to go in so many different areas. Your audience can find me at my website, which is Mark Gober dot com. M A R K G O B E r.com. I have five books out there all on Amazon and you can get them in hard copy, Kindle and Audible. And my podcast series, where is My Mind is available on Apple Podcast, Spotify and all the major players. In terms of my next project, I've been in this constant state of not knowing, so I w I made it to partner at my firm and in 2019 decided to leave and I was working in Silicon Valley, had previously worked in investment banking, but I decided to leave because I had already written one book and did a podcast series on this other stuff and just wanted to pursue it full-time. 0 (1h 18m 26s): So I said I, I'm gonna give myself some space, which many people would consider that a risky move because I was in a great position, great colleagues and interesting work, but I felt like I had to, I couldn't split my energy anymore. And at the time I didn't know I was gonna write anymore books. But then it's been four more books since the first one. So I'm in this phase right now. The Great Reset book just came out a few months ago and I'm still doing interviews around that topic and trying to get the word out and raise awareness for all this important stuff. But I don't know exactly what's next. I continue to research and often the research leads to a project before I even know that's the case. But I'm not sure what I'm gonna do. 2 (1h 19m 1s): Well, I wish you all of the success in the world and I hope that motivates some of the listeners to follow their gut, follow their dream because it's a lot, it's really beautiful on the other side. 0 (1h 19m 12s): That's a great message. Thank you Candace. 2 (1h 19m 13s): Thank you.