Speaker 1: The book is a godless crusade, the aggressive campaign to
Speaker 1: rid the world of religion. I guess, any religion except theirs.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining us. And of course,
Speaker 1: doctor Richard Crayden is a psychologist and a psychoanalyst, and
Speaker 1: I'm not really sure what the difference is between this two.
Speaker 1: He is Professor Emeritis from Harvard Medical School. We won't
Speaker 1: hold that against you, sorry, but give us an idea
Speaker 1: of what you see as a problem with the left,
Speaker 1: and you'd say, I diagnose it as a psychological disorder.
Speaker 1: I think we can all see elements of it. But
Speaker 1: give us your take on it as a psychoanalyst.
Speaker 2: You know, I think one of the problems that we
Speaker 2: have with understanding the left is understanding the version of reality.
Speaker 2: The diagnosis of a mental disorder really revolves around a
Speaker 2: certain consensual understanding of what reality is. And if you're
Speaker 2: dealing with a group that has a separate reality, or
Speaker 2: it has a whole different set of tenets that make
Speaker 2: up their reality, then it's almost impossible to use the
Speaker 2: usual diagnostic approach to understanding what they're about. So from
Speaker 2: the perspective of the conservative mind, the left is clearly
Speaker 2: at some level mentally disturbed. On the other hand, they're
Speaker 2: not playing by the same rules that we are, and
Speaker 2: so if you can't get a consensual agreement about what
Speaker 2: the rules are, then it's impossible to really even define
Speaker 2: what mental disorder is.
Speaker 1: That's right. They constantly tell us that they've got their
Speaker 1: own truth, they've got their own reality. Right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, this is what the neo Marxist post modern
Speaker 2: philosophies are about. They're about the idea that there is
Speaker 2: no true there's moral relativism. And again, I think it
Speaker 2: speaks to what I've been listening to you talking about
Speaker 2: the whole idea of promoting conflict. Yes, and the conflict
Speaker 2: is persistent and there's a result, there's no possibility of
Speaker 2: producing a coherent society, which is how they intend to
Speaker 2: transform the society by undermining it.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, and the conflict is key. How did these
Speaker 1: people get in charge of everything? Have people ask me
Speaker 1: that all the time, And it's like, you know, as
Speaker 1: you point out, they've infiltrated the universities, they've infiltrated politics,
Speaker 1: even churches, corporations and so forth. How did they get
Speaker 1: in charge of all this stuff?
Speaker 2: Well? I think I'm old enough to realize where it began,
Speaker 2: at least from my perspective, and that was probably back
Speaker 2: in the sixties, and the idea of a violent revolution
Speaker 2: was not seen as something that was likely to be
Speaker 2: workable in the United States or in the West, and
Speaker 2: so the approach was instead to infiltrate the institutions and
Speaker 2: to produce this conflict around race in particular and around
Speaker 2: any other any other division that they could inject into society.
Speaker 2: And as a result, rather than being active on the streets,
Speaker 2: the activists entered the institutions. They entered higher education in particular,
Speaker 2: and from there they just moved on to all positions
Speaker 2: of leadership. And so at this point again virtually all
Speaker 2: of the institutions have been markedly infiltrated by this type
Speaker 2: of thought.
Speaker 1: I agree, I think it really is. You know, the
Speaker 1: educational institutions are really seminal in this. They act as
Speaker 1: seminaries of this type of thing. And I always think
Speaker 1: back to Bill Ayers. Do you see that as part
Speaker 1: you mentioned how they switched from kind of a class
Speaker 1: based struggle which marx issues in Europe, to a race
Speaker 1: based struggle, and they were the ones who really kind
Speaker 1: of popularized I think somebody else came up with the
Speaker 1: term white skin privilege. They just shortened it to white privilege.
Speaker 1: And Bill Ayers and his group there stopped bombing buildings
Speaker 1: and they decided they would start bombing minds, and they
Speaker 1: got involved in education, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Herbert Marcus, who was part of the Frankfurt School
Speaker 2: coming over from Europe back in the sixties, became prominent
Speaker 2: in the educational system in California. Angela Davis was one
Speaker 2: of his students. Bill As again of the same mindset
Speaker 2: and Barack Obama. You know, it really is just a
Speaker 2: generation removed from that. And so again this has been
Speaker 2: a systematic infiltration of the institutions, and I think unfortunately
Speaker 2: most Americans have been naive and probably good natured enough
Speaker 2: not to believe that this is truly happening.
Speaker 1: That's right. People don't want to believe that this is
Speaker 1: They don't want to believe the worst of people, and
Speaker 1: we typically will project our values under them. I remember
Speaker 1: at the end of Barack Obama's administration. I think it
Speaker 1: was Harry Belafonte, I believe, who would support him, who
Speaker 1: was very leftist, and he said, I don't know who
Speaker 1: this guy is. We just projected our values on him,
Speaker 1: and of course he was disappointed that Obama had not
Speaker 1: been radical enough. But I think we all wind up
Speaker 1: doing that to some degree. We can't believe that somebody
Speaker 1: would do the types of things that people will do
Speaker 1: out there. But how do you see this happening with
Speaker 1: the various adoptions that are happening right now with gen Z.
Speaker 1: You've got a stat in your book forty two percent
Speaker 1: of gen Z is struggling with depression, which is double
Speaker 1: the rate of older adults.
Speaker 2: What is causing that, Well, there's a number of causes. Clearly,
Speaker 2: the Internet and social media and the iPhone has played
Speaker 2: a role, and you can look at the statistics and
Speaker 2: you can see that as people spend more time on
Speaker 2: their screens, so they become more and more anxious and
Speaker 2: more depressed. But in addition, again the loss of a
Speaker 2: commonly held set of religious values, moral values, I think
Speaker 2: has left most young people with the sense that there's
Speaker 2: no meaning in their life, and so they can't look
Speaker 2: to any defined sort of meaning. And as a result,
Speaker 2: you know, the human psyche is essentially conservative, and it's
Speaker 2: unable to keep up with some of the technological advances
Speaker 2: that have been made over the last twenty thirty years,
Speaker 2: and so as a result, you know, we're seeing a
Speaker 2: kind of revolt of the mind that really can't absorb
Speaker 2: what the technological changes are that have been occurring.
Speaker 1: And it's really going to accelerate with artificial intelligence, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. I think that's going to be a huge problem.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we look at you know, this generation that is
Speaker 1: constantly online, as you point out, you know, on social media.
Speaker 1: It's making them anxious. They've lost a moral foundation, they
Speaker 1: don't have a framework of what's right or wrong, you know,
Speaker 1: and they're just kind of a drift. And then we
Speaker 1: bring into this mix, this this tool that can be used.
Speaker 1: It's not necessarily you know that it's going to do
Speaker 1: its own thing, but it is being wielded by people.
Speaker 1: They have people who are setting a bias into this thing.
Speaker 2: And yet people I mean, I've done this, I've done
Speaker 2: some recent searches on AI just to see whether or
Speaker 2: not there it is a clearly artificially induced bias within
Speaker 2: the system. And there's no doubt about it. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 2: you get questions that really just mimic the propaganda of
Speaker 2: the left. When you get an.
Speaker 1: Answer yes, and they pay people to do that. I mean,
Speaker 1: it is a deliberate thing. What I find so dangerous
Speaker 1: about it is that it operates under the veneer that
Speaker 1: it is objective when it is anything other than that.
Speaker 1: As an engineer, we would constantly be warned by our
Speaker 1: professors garbage and garbage out right, don't take this as
Speaker 1: something that is objective fact simply because you've got a
Speaker 1: computer print out. And yet people will do that with
Speaker 1: artificial intelligence. It sounds very intelligent, it sounds very authoritative.
Speaker 2: Well, unfortunately, most people will treade almost anything for comfort
Speaker 2: and ease. Yeah, and so if it's easy, if it
Speaker 2: helps them write their papers, helps them do their studies,
Speaker 2: help them helps them with whatever they're trying to do,
Speaker 2: they'll defer to that and without being critical about what
Speaker 2: you know, they're absorbing.
Speaker 1: Let's talk a little bit about the corporations, because we've
Speaker 1: just had Cracker Barrel update this. First, they changed the
Speaker 1: logo and I saw that and I thought, yeah, but
Speaker 1: are they going to still change the interior of the
Speaker 1: buildings because that's not what the customers want. And now
Speaker 1: the Cracker barrels CEO has tapped out and said, we're
Speaker 1: not going to spend all this money, remodeling, all these things.
Speaker 1: But there's a lot of corporations that maybe they've learned
Speaker 1: from what bud Light and some of the others did.
Speaker 1: What do you think is going on with this? Over
Speaker 1: and over again we see corporations counter programming and going
Speaker 1: head to head with the perspectives and the cultures and
Speaker 1: the opinions of their own base. We see that, especially
Speaker 1: like with NASCAR, for example, Well are they doing.
Speaker 2: With two sometimes conflicting motivations for the corporations. One, obviously
Speaker 2: is the profit motive, which one would think would be
Speaker 2: the driving force, and I think underlying it from most
Speaker 2: corporations it actually is. But the other issue, I think
Speaker 2: is that you're seeing that the people who come to
Speaker 2: head the corporations have gone through the institutions and they've
Speaker 2: actually absorbed, you know, this, left this propaganda and left
Speaker 2: this ideology as their way of being in the world,
Speaker 2: and so they're really out of touch with the consumer
Speaker 2: in many cases such as Cracker Barrel above Light. But
Speaker 2: you know, they're so isolated and insulated from the rest
Speaker 2: of the world that you know, they don't see that
Speaker 2: as an issue. But ultimately, again I think for people
Speaker 2: like the Zuckerbergs and the Cooks. You know that they
Speaker 2: realized that the bottom line is, you know, they need
Speaker 2: to make money, and they've got a globalist agenda with
Speaker 2: respective money. Corporations basically run the West. They run this country,
Speaker 2: they run the countries in the West. I mean, there's
Speaker 2: nothing new there, it's just become more over.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's something that I saw. We had video stores
Speaker 1: about thirty years ago, more than thirty years ago, and
Speaker 1: we would see this with Hollywood. You know, they would
Speaker 1: increasingly make films that would not do well, and they
Speaker 1: seemed to revel in offending people and the same stuff
Speaker 1: that you see coming out of bud Light or Nascar
Speaker 1: or whatever. These movie studios loved to offend people, or
Speaker 1: at least the directors that were there loved to do it.
Speaker 1: And as you point out, they're true believers in this stuff.
Speaker 1: But there's also this peer pressure. They wanted to be
Speaker 1: respected by their peers in the industry, and the way
Speaker 1: that they would be respected by their peers in an
Speaker 1: industry is just to show how awful the middle classes
Speaker 1: and how awful religion is, and to deconstruct all these
Speaker 1: things in a very Marxist way. And the audience. Even
Speaker 1: if they didn't analyze it along those kinds of lines,
Speaker 1: still could understand that they hated them. You know, it's
Speaker 1: pretty obvious that they hated their audience and their audience
Speaker 1: didn't like their films either, But they wouldn't change even
Speaker 1: when you talk to them and say, you know, we'd
Speaker 1: make more money if you would make movies that were
Speaker 1: not combative with your audience, but they just continue to
Speaker 1: go down that route because it was as you point out,
Speaker 1: it's like a religion. I like the analogy that you
Speaker 1: had about the religious aspects of this.
Speaker 2: It's most definitely a religion. And the most cynical aspect
Speaker 2: of it is that this neo Marxist ideology, which again
Speaker 2: is a secular humanist religion, has adopted many of the
Speaker 2: Judeo Christian elements of social justice as their goal without
Speaker 2: crediting a traditional religion for but that's where it's coming from.
Speaker 2: But it's a very cynical adaptation, if you will, because
Speaker 2: it really has nothing to do with social justice as
Speaker 2: it was understood in traditional religious mode.
Speaker 1: So let me ask you, what do we do to
Speaker 1: reclaim a religious foundation in this thing? How do we
Speaker 1: how do we get that old time religion, you know,
Speaker 1: is it based on what we do in terms of education?
Speaker 1: I think that is fundamental. But how do you see it?
Speaker 2: You know, I really can say that I know the
Speaker 2: answer to that. I think one of the things that
Speaker 2: I tend to believe is that the ideas coming out
Speaker 2: of the wokelift at this point are so bizarre and
Speaker 2: so unnatural, if you will, that it may reach the
Speaker 2: point where the minds of people will just rebel against
Speaker 2: it and seek another form of meaning. And to find
Speaker 2: that meaning, they're going to have to go back to
Speaker 2: traditional religion because in the West and Western civilization, that's
Speaker 2: where it comes from. I can't you can't find anyone
Speaker 2: who has real moral values that won't trace them at
Speaker 2: some level back to traditional religion. So I'm hoping that
Speaker 2: at some point, and maybe it's beginning to occur. There's
Speaker 2: some evidence perhaps that it is that people are just
Speaker 2: getting fed up with this nonsense because it makes no sense,
Speaker 2: it's not improving their life, and they will begin to
Speaker 2: seek other modes of meaning.
Speaker 1: It seems like the danger is that as people realize
Speaker 1: that this moral relativism, that this humanism, that this transhumanism whatever,
Speaker 1: you know, all these different elements don't make any sense
Speaker 1: that they can't produce anything that anyone wants. There's no
Speaker 1: good to be found in them. That they'll start seeking
Speaker 1: around for other failed modes. You know, we might wind
Speaker 1: up with a religion of the state or something like that.
Speaker 1: And so that's the key thing when I look at it,
Speaker 1: doctor Craydon. I think that so often, you know, we
Speaker 1: want to make a major change in our life, and
Speaker 1: we take off all these different things that we want
Speaker 1: to do, and we try to do them all at once.
Speaker 1: And I think, you know, the wise people have said,
Speaker 1: you pick one of these things that you want to
Speaker 1: change in your life, focus on that one at a time.
Speaker 1: And I think that when we look at society there
Speaker 1: is this big, nebulous thing. I don't think anybody can
Speaker 1: change society. It's like trying to move this gigantic ship
Speaker 1: that has massive momentumcy with a little tiny boat or something.
Speaker 1: But I think that we can make a change if
Speaker 1: we accept that we're going to do the small things
Speaker 1: and fix those one on one in people's lives. I
Speaker 1: think that is maybe the perspective that we need to have.
Speaker 1: We can't fix society, but we can fix maybe one
Speaker 1: person here, another person there, or maybe a family here
Speaker 1: and a family there, And as you point out, that
Speaker 1: is going to be with a foundation that has a
Speaker 1: moral foundation, that is rooted, most likely in a religious belief.
Speaker 2: Well, I think if there's one thing that probably needs
Speaker 2: to be done, and it's a small thing, but it's
Speaker 2: at the same time a huge thing, and that is
Speaker 2: to focus on the education of our children. Yes, because
Speaker 2: they are the future, and if they're not educated properly,
Speaker 2: we're going to go down the wrong path in the future.
Speaker 1: I agree.
Speaker 2: So either changing the public educational system or pulling one's
Speaker 2: children out of the public educational system and educating them
Speaker 2: either at home or in the religious schools, I think
Speaker 2: is probably an important task and something that needs to
Speaker 2: be seriously considered by most parents at this point.
Speaker 1: I absolutely agree with you, and I think we can
Speaker 1: see that the other side agrees of that as well,
Speaker 1: because that's where they began. You know, they look to you,
Speaker 1: look at some of the utopian societies in the middle
Speaker 1: eighteen hundreds and they said, well, you know, this society
Speaker 1: that we're trying to set up here failed because we
Speaker 1: didn't get to the kids early enough. And they were
Speaker 1: entrenched with the values of their parents, which are anathetical
Speaker 1: to this utopian society that we're trying to set up,
Speaker 1: typically socialists, and so they began in the educational system.
Speaker 1: And I think that we're going to have to begin
Speaker 1: there as well, and we're going to have to gradually
Speaker 1: enroll that. As you said, family by family, they're going
Speaker 1: to have to have the determination that they are going
Speaker 1: to take control of their children's education. Maybe that's going
Speaker 1: to be homeschool, or if they want to create some
Speaker 1: other structure in conjunction with other people that you know,
Speaker 1: they want to have some kind of a charter school
Speaker 1: or something that's not as formal. And I think a
Speaker 1: key issue with all that is going to be it's
Speaker 1: going to have to be the kind of mindset where
Speaker 1: people don't place money first. In other words, if they
Speaker 1: go begging for financial support from the government, it's doomed
Speaker 1: to failure because the government's going to then drag them
Speaker 1: right back into some frame of reference that it's going
Speaker 1: to be antithetical to what they're trying to do. What
Speaker 1: do you think about that?
Speaker 2: Well, I agree with you, and again, you know, the
Speaker 2: educational system is one critical part of this, But the
Speaker 2: other critical part is what takes place in the home.
Speaker 2: You know, what values are the parents actually conveying to
Speaker 2: their children. And it's not clear to me that even
Speaker 2: conservatives these days have really adhered to the proper morality
Speaker 2: to instill in their children. I mean, they've given a
Speaker 2: lot over to the left and the propaganda of the left,
Speaker 2: and the acceptance of homosexuality, same sex marriage, or all
Speaker 2: of these types of things. They're all problematic. Yes, you know,
Speaker 2: even the homosexual population, which again I think almost everyone
Speaker 2: will look will kind of agree, is kind of accepted
Speaker 2: as normal these days or even celebrated. Uh, there are
Speaker 2: problems with the homosexual population. I've treated many homosexuals in
Speaker 2: my practice and they all virtually all have major psychological issues.
Speaker 2: And much of the what's detrimental to the morality in
Speaker 2: society today is coming from the LGBT community, not just
Speaker 2: a transgender community, but the homosexual community.
Speaker 1: Yes, I agree, I agree. So you know, when we
Speaker 1: look at what is happening, You've talked about what may
Speaker 1: be happening and the blowback as we see these people
Speaker 1: who have been gas lit as young children are teenagers
Speaker 1: into mutilating themselves We're starting to see people as they
Speaker 1: grow up as I say, wait a minute, you did
Speaker 1: this to me and I was taken advantage of. We've
Speaker 1: even seen that from a former Navy seal who they
Speaker 1: convinced to transition as an adult, and he came out
Speaker 1: against that and attacking the people who push in that
Speaker 1: direction and speaking about how if they can do that
Speaker 1: to me as an adult Navy seal, imagine what they
Speaker 1: can do to children. What do you think is going
Speaker 1: to happen in that guard in terms of how that's
Speaker 1: going to blow back against the institutions, both educational and
Speaker 1: even medical.
Speaker 2: The transsexual transgender community is a community that suffers from
Speaker 2: severe mental disorder, and this was generally accepted by the
Speaker 2: psychiatric community until it was infiltrated as well and taken
Speaker 2: over by leftist ideology. And again, it links directly to
Speaker 2: the acceptance of homosexuality back in the nineteen seventies, when
Speaker 2: it also was considered a normal lifestyle instead of a
Speaker 2: neurotic type of disorder. The fact that people can even
Speaker 2: accept the idea of transgender as a transsexuality is just
Speaker 2: shows how far gone we are as a community, as
Speaker 2: a society, and even entertaining the idea. Yes, and I
Speaker 2: blame the mental health profession and large measure for this,
Speaker 2: because the mental health profession has really taken on the
Speaker 2: role of the Nazi doctors, you know back in Germany,
Speaker 2: who were working for the state without any concern for
Speaker 2: the welfare of their patients or individuals. Yes, so that
Speaker 2: transgenders are treated in any way other than with some
Speaker 2: type of psychological support is abhorred. Frankly. Yeah, to be blowback, absolutely,
Speaker 2: there's going to be blowed back, but we want to
Speaker 2: be careful that the blowback doesn't take the form of
Speaker 2: another element of victimization within society, because we have enough
Speaker 2: of that.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, that's right. It's kind of interesting, you know,
Speaker 1: all this stuff started. Used to play clips of a
Speaker 1: corporal Clinger from Mash all the time because he was
Speaker 1: deliberately dressing up in a woman's outfit as a cross
Speaker 1: dressing so that he could get a Section eight, meaning
Speaker 1: that he would be declared insane and kicked out of
Speaker 1: the military because he wanted to get out of the
Speaker 1: Korean War and go home. And that was the running
Speaker 1: joke with him. And they didn't do it because they
Speaker 1: all knew it was an act, and so it's kind
Speaker 1: of it's kind of funny that we see this coming
Speaker 1: back in that way. We know that, you know, it
Speaker 1: is an act by the people who are running the
Speaker 1: institutions now rather than the individual who wants to get
Speaker 1: out of the institution. They're trying to institutionalize them. But
Speaker 1: it was always, as you point out, it was a
Speaker 1: mental disorder and it still is quite frankly, it is
Speaker 1: making the people. As we've seen the violence that's been
Speaker 1: done recently again targeting religion and the transgender shootings that
Speaker 1: we had in Nashville and the other one that was
Speaker 1: up in Minneapolis. Do you want to come in on that.
Speaker 2: Well, once again, as I said, you know, this population
Speaker 2: is seriously mentally disturbed and they're very angry. It generally
Speaker 2: goes along with serious mental illness. It's not unusual for
Speaker 2: seriously mentally ill individuals to be extremely angry and paranoid.
Speaker 2: And I think it's the paranoia that you're seeing in
Speaker 2: this population. You know, when they feel that they're being
Speaker 2: threatened in some way, you know, again artificially, but being
Speaker 2: threatened by conservatives or being threatened by traditional religious ideas,
Speaker 2: then they lash out. I mean they see this is
Speaker 2: self defense on their part. So again, it's just indicative
Speaker 2: of how mentally disturbed these individuals are and how in
Speaker 2: need they are of treatment, and how abominable it is
Speaker 2: that the mental health profession has gone along with this
Speaker 2: idea that this is essentially a lifestyle choice.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, that was something that really surprised when that
Speaker 1: began about a decade ago. And then five years ago
Speaker 1: what we saw was the informed consent attack, how the
Speaker 1: government started using medicine as a weapon where they remove
Speaker 1: people's informed consent. Talk about that and the damage that
Speaker 1: that's done to the institutions and how do we pull
Speaker 1: that back? How do we? You know? R. F. K.
Speaker 1: Junior said that his mission was to restore confidence in
Speaker 1: the HHS and by extension, I guess the CDC and
Speaker 1: FDA and others underneath the umbrella. But uh, how do
Speaker 1: they get that kind of confidence back? We have to
Speaker 1: see some real change, don't we.
Speaker 2: Absolutely?
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: I've written two other books, one dedicated to this whole
Speaker 2: issue of what's taking place in the mental health profession
Speaker 2: and the other in terms of what's going on in
Speaker 2: the general medical profession. Because, in addition to being a psychotherapist.
Speaker 2: I am actually a pullmonologist. I'm a lung doctor.
Speaker 1: Oh wow, what do you think? What do you think
Speaker 1: of the ventilators of the ventilators. The ventilator is being
Speaker 1: pushed for people who had respiratory issues. At the beginning
Speaker 1: of the lockdown, there was a big push for ventilators,
Speaker 1: and I've been told that they had a very very
Speaker 1: high casualty rate. What do you think of ventilators, I'd
Speaker 1: seen one Pomonologosi said, We've never done that type of
Speaker 1: thing typically.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, I forgive a lot of the confusion
Speaker 2: that occurred at the beginning of the pandemic, because I
Speaker 2: think when you face with a serious disease and with
Speaker 2: people dying at an increased rate, it's easy to make mistakes.
Speaker 2: Ventilated is are absolutely life saving when they're used properly
Speaker 2: and when they're used in the right for the right populations.
Speaker 2: When they're not used properly and overused or used with
Speaker 2: the incorrect settings, which is often the case, then they
Speaker 2: can produce increased lung injury and they can produce death.
Speaker 2: So again, I don't know exactly how to evaluate each
Speaker 2: and every case. You'd have to look at the specifics
Speaker 2: of that, but certainly what the medical profession did with
Speaker 2: respect to the COVID epidemic again is another abomination, and
Speaker 2: it just speaks to how readily that particular profession, and
Speaker 2: maybe the population in general, is to just conform to
Speaker 2: what is expected of them. But the decisions that were
Speaker 2: made were obviously contrary to general scientific thought. The idea
Speaker 2: that the quiet immunity was not effective for virus is
Speaker 2: something that I never heard of. I mean, it was
Speaker 2: very obvious, I think to some of us that what
Speaker 2: was going on with COVID was just the scientific decisions,
Speaker 2: which is totally incorrect, the masking, the distancing, the lack
Speaker 2: of isolation of the people were sick, and mandating vaccines
Speaker 2: or a vaccine that you had to take endless numbers
Speaker 2: of times. I mean, no one had ever seen anything
Speaker 2: like that, and the fact that the medical profession was
Speaker 2: on board with that is just extraordinary.
Speaker 1: Yes, But if you read anybody, anybody who questioned the
Speaker 1: safety of the efficacy or why they would roll something
Speaker 1: out without sufficient testing of it in a very radically
Speaker 1: different approach, they were vilified and canceled.
Speaker 2: Well, they were uilified not only by the government but
Speaker 2: by the medical profession itself, by the professional society. You
Speaker 2: know the fact that they were threatening cancelation of one's
Speaker 2: licensure if you prescribed. I've met in. It's just nonsense
Speaker 2: and nothing that we'd ever seen before. And so the
Speaker 2: medical profession. If you read the medical journalists these days,
Speaker 2: half of the articles are about DEI in medicine. They're
Speaker 2: no longer about medical issues. They're all about, you know,
Speaker 2: distributing care equitably to minority populations. So I mean, the whole,
Speaker 2: the whole profession has been co opted by progressive thought.
Speaker 2: It's a travesty. And Kennedy is doing. What Robert Kennedy
Speaker 2: is doing is extremely important. He may not be right
Speaker 2: on every issue, but he's certainly right in terms of
Speaker 2: realizing that what we're doing and prescribing for people has
Speaker 2: no scientific basis anymore. And you know, much of this
Speaker 2: has been because it's been co opted again by money.
Speaker 2: It's been corrupted and corrupted largely by the influences of
Speaker 2: foreign governments, particularly China. When I worked at Harvard, you know,
Speaker 2: most of the people who were working in the laboratories
Speaker 2: were Chinese. The Americans no longer wanted to work in
Speaker 2: the laboratories. There wasn't enough money in it for them.
Speaker 2: So the Chinese Communist Party was sending people over here
Speaker 2: and they were filling up the laboratories. So the researchers
Speaker 2: were perfectly happy to have these people here, but they
Speaker 2: were taking the information and sending you back to China,
Speaker 2: you know, and so the money it was coming from
Speaker 2: other places, and it just corrupted the whole institution.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, we were talking about the the insanity
Speaker 1: of the left and especially of transgenderism, but it really
Speaker 1: was truly insane. I mean, even with the virology paradigm,
Speaker 1: the purpose of a vaccine was to train your immune system.
Speaker 1: So how in the world can they say that according
Speaker 1: to that paradigm that if you have actually been exposed
Speaker 1: to a thing that they're trying to protect you from
Speaker 1: and you've recovered, how has your immune system not been
Speaker 1: trained by that? That's the whole idea of natural immunity.
Speaker 1: So do we have to go back and rethink the
Speaker 1: whole field of virology now with these people or is
Speaker 1: it was it clearly a case that they had a
Speaker 1: political agenda that had nothing to do with any of
Speaker 1: their scientific beliefs or teachings.
Speaker 2: It's the latter. Yeah, I mean I'm trained also, isn't them?
Speaker 2: You knowlogists, and you know I did research for many
Speaker 2: years in respiratory immunology. Immunologists understand how the immune system works,
Speaker 2: and it doesn't work the way that the people were
Speaker 2: telling us that worked during the COVID epidemic. So who
Speaker 2: is clearly political, It was clearly ideological. It was clearly
Speaker 2: being driven by the drug companies and the corruption within
Speaker 2: the NIH with doctor Fauci and others. Yes, So I
Speaker 2: mean again, it's just a travesty, and I don't know
Speaker 2: what it's going to take to restore America's faith in
Speaker 2: the health profession.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think when you go back and we look
Speaker 1: at it, you know, people began to look more closely
Speaker 1: at what was happening with the pediatricians and the vaccine
Speaker 1: schedule and other things like that. I was really surprised
Speaker 1: at how they wanted to do multiple boosters with the
Speaker 1: COVID thing. I said, you know, what is up with that?
Speaker 1: But when I went back and looked at the standard
Speaker 1: vaccine schedule for children, you see the same vaccines being
Speaker 1: given over and over and over and over again, sometimes
Speaker 1: multiple times a year. For these childhood diseases, and that
Speaker 1: begins to raise questions as to whether or not what
Speaker 1: the real motivation is for this, and whether or not
Speaker 1: these things are have any efficacy at all. I think
Speaker 1: that's another reasons why people are looking at the vaccine schedule.
Speaker 2: Well, two things along those lines. First of all, the children,
Speaker 2: for the most part, virtually none of them developed any
Speaker 2: lethal disorder from COVID, so to keep vaccinating them was
Speaker 2: just improper. Second of all, the mRNA vaccination by itself,
Speaker 2: it was clearly experimental. It had never been used, it
Speaker 2: has never been used on people, and so to use
Speaker 2: the entire world as a guinea pig to see whether
Speaker 2: or not this vaccine worked without any knowledge whatsoever as
Speaker 2: to its efficacy or the complications that might ensue just extraordinary.
Speaker 2: And the globalist will along with that is just you know,
Speaker 2: it just tells you what it's about.
Speaker 1: I agree, Yes, Yeah, Moderna had been around for a
Speaker 1: decade and they had never been able to get past
Speaker 1: any safety testing, so with this they just skipped it.
Speaker 1: But now we're in the situation where and you've got
Speaker 1: a lot of people in the current administration who were
Speaker 1: trying to remove all of the concerns about AI and
Speaker 1: Russia as quickly as possible. Peter Thiel says that he's
Speaker 1: trying to tie it into Christian eschatology and saying that
Speaker 1: if you try to regulate AI, you're going to have
Speaker 1: to do it with the global government, which is going
Speaker 1: to actually be the beast itself, not the AI, but
Speaker 1: the global government. And so there's a move to get
Speaker 1: rid of any oversight of AI, and there's also a
Speaker 1: move to get rid of oversight of mRNA, and you've
Speaker 1: got people who are rushing to apply this in a
Speaker 1: lot of places. Trump's very first event that he had
Speaker 1: was Stargate, where they wanted to use AI to design mRNA,
Speaker 1: and it's like, who, you know, I could possibly go
Speaker 1: wrong with this? Uh?
Speaker 2: Well, I think people need to begin to reevaluate what
Speaker 2: progress actually means. Progress is not solely some advance in technology.
Speaker 2: Progress needs to have some evaluation with respect to whether
Speaker 2: or not it improves, you know, the welfare of society.
Speaker 2: And if it doesn't do that, then that's not necessarily progress.
Speaker 2: I mean Justinton wrote about that, you know, years ago,
Speaker 2: and so I think people need to get beyond their
Speaker 2: individual comforts and ease and really see, you know, is
Speaker 2: what's being introduced into my life, into this society, improving
Speaker 2: it or not?
Speaker 1: I agree? I agree, Yes, the book is a godless crusade,
Speaker 1: the progressive campaign to rid the world of religion. We're
Speaker 1: talking about doctor Richard Craton. That's k R A D
Speaker 1: I N. Do you have a website that you sell
Speaker 1: that or can people find this on Amazon only?
Speaker 2: You can find it on Amazon and bonds and normal.
Speaker 1: Okay, great, great, Well it's a fascinating book, and I
Speaker 1: think it is important for us to keep pointing back
Speaker 1: to the foundation that we must have. We are a
Speaker 1: society that is cut adrift and we're being tossed about
Speaker 1: by every new wave of ideas or technology that come in.
Speaker 1: We're going to have to have an anchor somewhere, and
Speaker 1: that has always been religion. You're right about that, and
Speaker 1: I think an anchorless society is a very dangerous society.
Speaker 1: And I think we're approaching a very dangerous time and
Speaker 1: people need to start looking at what is really going
Speaker 1: to be necessary for us to move forward and all this.
Speaker 1: I agree. I thank you so much for focusing that
Speaker 1: on that, and I think it's very important that you
Speaker 1: see it for what it is, I think, and that
Speaker 1: is a crusade. It really is the religion, and they
Speaker 1: really are on crusade with it, and they seem to
Speaker 1: be even though they deny any objective truth and their
Speaker 1: moral relativism, they hold that if you want to call
Speaker 1: it a truth, that truth is totally absolute, and a
Speaker 1: few other things that they push out there, and they
Speaker 1: seem to have a greater conviction unfortunately, in this religious
Speaker 1: lack of religion or lack of any moral beliefs, they
Speaker 1: have more of a conviction to that religion than the
Speaker 1: people who profess to have a connection to religion too.
Speaker 1: I think that's one of the reasons why we're losing
Speaker 1: the battle. So thank you so much for picking that
Speaker 1: up and pointing out the different aspects of that. And
Speaker 1: one of the things that you talked about was the
Speaker 1: narcissism of the left and the woke technology. Talk a
Speaker 1: little bit about that. From a psychological standpoint, I think
Speaker 1: people are very fascinated by narcissism. It's kind of hard
Speaker 1: to get our heads around it. But just briefly, what
Speaker 1: do you what do you think as we're almost out
Speaker 1: of time. As a parting thing here, where do you
Speaker 1: see the narcissism of the left. How does it manifest itself?
Speaker 2: You know, one of the basic tenets of virtually all
Speaker 2: traditional religions is an abhorrence of narcissism. That is, you know,
Speaker 2: the idea that one is egotistic, prideful things that you know,
Speaker 2: things revolve around oneself and totally involved engage with oneself.
Speaker 2: That was one of the messages with critical messages of religion.
Speaker 2: As religion is basically ignored, narcissism emerges and replaces it.
Speaker 2: And you know, Christopher lash wrote about this back in
Speaker 2: the seventies that we've become a culture of narcissism. And
Speaker 2: I don't think there's any question about it. All you
Speaker 2: need to do is see people out on the street,
Speaker 2: or see what's on socialcial media, on the TV screens
Speaker 2: or in the movies. It's all about self absorbed self absorption. Yes,
Speaker 2: so again, in the absence of religion, of religious ideas
Speaker 2: that counted, that one comes up. One comes to a
Speaker 2: society where individuals just are completely self absorbed and not
Speaker 2: particularly concerned about the welfare of others. So, I mean,
Speaker 2: that's really what narcissism is.
Speaker 1: I think exactly right, We end an interview on a
Speaker 1: very important insight. I think you know, we see that
Speaker 1: in Christianity, we see the pride of Satan from the
Speaker 1: very beginning, and we're told that in the last days
Speaker 1: people will become lovers of themselves, and that we now
Speaker 1: call that narcissism. But that's that's exactly what it is,
Speaker 1: lovers of themselves more than they love God or each
Speaker 1: other or anything else. And that really is where we are.
Speaker 1: So thank you very much. Again. In the book is
Speaker 1: a Let's cusay the Progressive Campaign read The World of
Speaker 1: Religion by doctor Richard Cradon. Thank you so much, sir
Speaker 1: for joining us. Thank you today and all of you,
Speaker 1: thank you for joining us, and have a good day.
Speaker 1: Hopefully we'll see you tomorrow. The common man, they created
Speaker 1: common Core and dumbed down our children. They created common
Speaker 1: past track and control us. They're Commons project to make
Speaker 1: sure the commoners own nothing in the communist future. They
Speaker 1: see the common man as simple, a sophisticated ordinary. But
Speaker 1: each of us has worth and dignity created in the
Speaker 1: image of God. That is what we have in common.
Speaker 1: That is what they want to take away. Their most
Speaker 1: powerful weapons are deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything
Speaker 1: about us, while they hide everything from us. It's time
Speaker 1: to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
Speaker 1: Please share the information and links you'll find at the
Speaker 1: Davidnightshow dot com. Thank you for listening, Thank you for sharing.
Speaker 1: If you can't support us financially, please keep us in
Speaker 1: your prayers. Ddavidnightshow dot com