Dr Andy Kaufman presents himself as one of the foremost rational thinkers of today. In his questioning of the pandemic narrative he went directly to the fundamentals and sought proof of the existence of the virus and the evidence for and against the predominant paradigm of germ theory in medicine. He followed in the footsteps of Nancy Turner Banks and others such as Stephan Lanka and picked up the thread of those questioning the existence of any HIV virus that allegedly causes AIDS. His scrupulous investigation and unceasing demand for evidence, that could not be produced, led him to the inevitable conclusion that there are no viruses. No one has ever shown a virus to exist by isolating it from all other organic matter in the proper dictionary definition of the term – separating from everything else. I commend his ruthlessly logical approach to this issue.
The implications of this are enormous. You have nothing to fear in ‘catching’ a disease from a virus. It means the Pandemic was a hoax, that vaccinations are a waste of time and no means to immunity. It means that wearing masks and locking people down is useless to prevent disease. In short it constitutes proof that we have all been lied to on this crucial medical issue! It highlights the facts that uncovering a lie, or discovering a false claim, has immense value in seeking truth.
Andy points out the necessity of using logic in your thinking process, and the importance of being aware of logical fallacies. These are apparent logical arguments (or reasons to believe something) that on closer inspection, or more considered thinking, turn out to be false and not reasons for anything at all.
I wanted to get philosophical with Andy because one of the core logical fallacies that is responsible for almost all modern illogical thinking is one identified by Ayn Rand. She called it the fallacy of the stolen concept. It is when you use a concept (or an idea) while implicitly contradicting or arguing against it by holding another idea to be true. Usually this fallacy is committed when people argue for or against an idea without knowing that they are implicitly contradicting another more fundamental concept (or idea) that they are already using. Its like inadvertently cutting off the branch you are standing on if you were climbing a tree.
examples of this fallacy include: championing freedom while standing against capitalism, championing freedom while holding that altruism and the code of self-sacrifice is a good thing, Believing that you can create your own reality while searching for truth, claiming to be a truth seeker while believing in a supernatural deity and other mystical ideas.
We covered a few logical fallacies but unfortunately I didn’t bring this one up. I was saddened to hear Andy say that it was logic that caused him to move away from atheism, since this is another logical fallacy. If one cannot find a rational (logical) explanation for any event or phenomena it is not rational (or logical) to reach for a non-logical one out of apparent ‘necessity’ of finding (or inventing) any kind of explanation. I went on to press him in my next interview — Episode 162 — and found that his thinking is inconsistent. He advocates one way of thinking for discerning the truth about viruses, and another (that contradicts the concept of truth) in so-called spiritual matters. This is very disappointing since he is currently placed at the forefront of a health/freedom movement. It is crucial to note that with this kind of mixed up thinking freedom cannot be achieved!
The key point that is absolutely crucial is that mystical ideas in supernatural beings or that consciousness creates matter all implicitly undermine the objective nature of reality. As soon as we abandon this idea, that reality is a firm fixed absolute unaltered by consciousness, then we have abandoned truth and any rational argument. When the idea of reality as an objective absolute is rejected, there is no stopping tyranny or any form of violent oppression because we will have lost our means to argue for anything! It doesn’t get more important than that!
Dr Kaufman is optimistic and pessimistic about the future. And we discussed the potential for tyranny and the likely need to forsake conveniences such as the using the internet and the SMART phone as dissenting voices under totalitarian global governance.
Dissenting voices are not tolerated in any tyranny, and so it is entirely logical to expect that voices of dissent will increasingly be silenced. We must acknowledge this, make appropriate preparations and act accordingly.
What will you do in the future? At what point will you shift from trying to affect change to realising that self preservation is a higher priority? These are real considerations for any rational person.
I hope you enjoy the conversation.