A Transfer of Health: Jan Jekielek on DarkHorse

I have the distinct honor and pleasure of sitting this morning with Yanya Kellick, who is the senior editor of the Epok Times.

“He has written a book about organ harvesting in China, and this is going to be an exciting”

of difficult conversations, so Yama, that further do welcome to Dark Horse.

Brad, it's a real pleasure and an honor, and you know, you do quite amazing work on

this show, so I'm so glad to be here. Yes, I'm really glad you are here. I have of course been on your show, American Thought Leaders, an excellent show for those of you who have not yet discovered it. Our subject today is a tough one, and I don't think you know this, but I have a, let's

say, a professional interest in organ donation that goes back to at least 2003. My focus on it has been about the game theory surrounding the donation of organs. And anyway, so I find our interests here intersect. Now I don't have a hard copy of your book, and I've just gotten one of the galley proofs. I've done my best to go through it.

There's the book itself, imagine that. Just got it on Friday, the first copies were sent out. I mean, it comes out in a month to be fair, killed to order dot com shameless plug for where to get it, but I do have a print copy, actually, finally, first one.

“Yes, and if you're going to get a copy, which I recommend to everyone, you should also”

get a chair, so you can sit down while you read it, because you don't want to be stunned and fall over. Our first sponsor today is Massachusetts. Massa makes ridiculously delicious chips with simple, real, whole ingredients, organic, next-demolized corn, sea salt, and 100% grass-fed beeftallow.

Massa chips are made the way that all of our food used to be made. They're fried in 100% beeftallow, no seed oils ever. You can taste the difference and your body can feel the difference. America's health is declining fast. Chronic illnesses obesity, autoimmune diseases, have exploded.

What changed? One thing that changed is that all chips and fries used to be cooked in tallow. But in the 1990s, corporation switched to cheaper seed oils, which includes soybean, canola, safflower, and corn.

“Seed oils are often labeled vegetable oils, as if that makes them healthy, while in fact,”

seed oils are linked to metabolic health issues and inflammation. And today, seed oils make up 20% of the average American's daily calories. Big food companies also use artificial dyes, stabilizers, and other toxins. Massa chips, though, absolutely no seed oils are official dyes or additives ever.

Beeftallow is nutrient rich, nourishing, and makes food taste incredible.

Massa chips are crunchy and delicious, and after you eat them, you feel satisfied, saturated, and energetic. Massa also supports American farms and regenerative agriculture, choosing real food heals us and our environment, which in turn makes us even more healthy. These chips don't only avoid all the bad stuff, they taste incredible too.

There's a reason sprouts farmer's market pick them up nationwide. This is the real deal. Try Massa chips with salsa, or in nachos, or just eat them straight out of the bag. My favorite right now are their white chips made from their heirloom organic white corn, which gives a particularly light and flaky texture.

I also love Massa's blue chips, which have a deeper nutty or flavor and a serious crunch. They've also got hatched chili, Cabinero, lime, and original, and wait for it.

Corro, with cinnamon, they are all amazing.

Ready to give Massa a try, go to MassaChips.com/darkhorse, and use the code "Dark Horse" for 25% off your first order, or simply click the link in the video description for scan the QR code to claim this delicious offer. That's MassaChips.com/darkhorse, and use the code "Dark Horse" for 25% off your first order. Our second sponsor this week is Clear.

Clear is a nasal spray that supports respiratory health. It's widely available online and in stores, and both eat and the company that makes it are fantastic. It's Clear. That's X-L-E-A-R pronounced Clear.

Throughout history, improvements in sanitation and hygiene have had huge impacts on human longevity and quality of life, more so than traditional medical advances. For instance, when doctors started to wash their hands between the handling of cadavers and helping women give birth, the rate of maternal deaths went way down. Everything polluted air, drinking-tainted water, have hugely negative effects on human health.

Clean up the air and water, and people get healthier. Nazel hygiene often gets overlooked, but consider that the majority of bacteria and viruses that make a sick enter through our mouth and nose. It has become a cultural norm to wash our hands in order to stop the spread of disease from person to person, but it makes every bit as much sense to block the adhesion of bacteria

and viruses in the nose. Clear Clear Clear is a nasal spray that contains zylatol, five carbon sugar alcohol.

which are the backbone sugars in RNA and DNA respectively.

“While most of our dietary sugars have six carbons, sugars like glucose and fruit tests,”

zylatol is known to reduce how sticky bacteria and viruses are to our tissues. In the presence of zylatol, bacteria and viruses, including strep, SARS-CoV-2 and RSV, don't adhere to our airways as well, which helps our body's natural defense mechanisms easily flush them away. Clear is a simple nasal spray that you use morning and evening.

It takes just three seconds, it's fast and easy and decidedly healthy. If any of this sounds familiar, perhaps you listen to my conversation with Nathan Jones, founder of Clear, on the inside rail in November of 2024, or my conversation with Nate's father, Lawn Jones, osteopath and inventor of Clear, on how Zylatol interacts with respiratory viruses in May of 2025.

We recommend those conversations, and we highly recommend Clear, as a daily habit and prophylactic against respiratory illnesses. That's Clear, with an X, X-L-E-A-R, get Clear online, or at your pharmacy, grocery store, or natural products retailer, and start taking six seconds a day to improve your nasal hygiene and support your respiratory health.

So I'm trying to figure out how to approach this topic with you. One thing I think we should probably do at the top is address your connection to the subject matter. In the book, you describe the evidence for forced organ harvesting from fallen gung members. Actually, I don't know how to pronounce it.

“Maybe you should tell me how to pronounce it.”

So I mean, that's actually pretty darn close, Falun Gong, also sometimes known as Falun Daffa. It's actually, I could tell you a little bit more about it too, because I think it's relevant

to whenever there's sort of a mass atrocity that happens, everyone's always asked,

why do they do it? And the answers are never kind of satisfying because typically, when there's a mass atrocity, it's not because the people being subjected to it, I've done anything wrong. Well, we'll get there. I don't know how much you and I have talked about this, maybe not at all, but when I talk

about game theory, one of my fosai, in fact, since I was a college student, was the game theory surrounding genocide, and I actually think there is a very straightforward logic. It's a diabolical logic, but if there is a very straightforward logic that explains why these things happen, and the case that you present fits the pattern perfectly.

“But before we get there, you have a professional connection to Falun Gong, and I believe”

a personal one, that will of course be on the minds of any critic who wishes to argue that what you present is not believable because of that connection. So maybe we just ought to talk about what your two connections to it are, so that that's on the table. I love that, actually.

So, well, first of all, Epoch Times, the media that I've now worked with almost 21 years,

was founded by Falun Gong practitioners. They were actually students at Georgia Tech, a number of them who were students who had been part of the student movement in '89, if you recall, there was a big student movement across the country in China, a pro-democracy movement, right? There's a famous stat, the kind of goddess of democracy they had, paper, mashade in 10 men's

square, and the Chinese regime crushed that movement. Actually, a guy named Jeng Zemin, who was the dictator at the time when the Falun Gong persecution began, was kind of rose to power through participating in that's crushing that student movement. Okay, there was a massacre.

We don't know, our best guess is about 10,000 people were killed students, people say 5,000 people say more, you know, that's our best number is about 10,000 were murdered by the people's liberation army. But some of those students that were in sort of on the radar, they were able to get scholarships to other places like the US, like Georgia Tech and Atlanta, and our founders were actually

a group of kind of a rag tag group of students who were there. And when the Falun Gong persecution began, it was kind of a neat moment for them because

they felt, hey, we have the first amendment here.

There was very little credible good information about what was happening in China, and they thought they would just start a little website, you know, to talk about it. And that little website, thankfully there were some great tech people there, okay, among

during COVID, right, when there's a dearth of good information about anything, you know,

“wherever that happens, people go to the sources that actually present a bit of that.”

And this is sort of, so we were actually in a way, right, we were kind of born to challenge of really giant narrative that was coming out of China. What one of them was, of course, that the Falun Gong is somehow bad, again, that's justified to eradicate them to use the words of the dictator at the time, but the broader narrative actually was kind of what we would call the Kissinger Doctrine, okay.

The Kissinger Doctrine was roughly, and this is a little bit glib, but if we pump enough cash into China, right, if we get in bed with, if our elites get in bed with their elites, we're going to turn them into South Korea or Taiwan. They're going to reform, right, liberalize. And I remember, even in 2009, there were

op-eds in the New York Times about how, you know, it's basically a democracy, if they

just have a little rougher around the edges, right. And at this point, you know, I already knew that they were killing people to order for organs, you know, for profit, which is not a liberalizing situation. But so, so that's the connection. I just want to add this, you know, the core tenets of fell and gong are truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance, or tolerance. That last term is a little more difficult to translate, but a bit of like

“sort of a pain is a positive thing, and you should treat it that way, it can affits into”

that third term. But the truthfulness part is incredibly important, because we continue to this day to be inspired by that truthfulness element. And this is part of the reason why the fell and gong in China right now constitute, I think, probably the largest peaceful civil disobedience movement, maybe in the world. I don't want to argue with people about dimensions, but it's one of them, right, to this day. There's millions of people

every day exposing the realities of the Chinese Communist Party to their fellow man, okay. But, and we've benefited from it dramatically in that that truthfulness principle, right? We hear a lot about activist journalism these days, right? The Dean of Columbia Journalism School talks about activist journalism. They train their people that way, okay? Activist journalism, if I may, right, I think you would probably agree. It's just propaganda. It's

just a nice word for propaganda. What we do is truth-seeking journalism. It doesn't mean we have the truth. We have a license for the truth. We are the truth. We've heard that terminology before. It just means that we deeply care about the truth, and we're trying to get at it as best we can. And if we get it right, we celebrate, if we get it wrong, we fix it, right? And that's sort of a, so the fell and gong connection when it comes

to epoch times, in my view, is kind of like the blessing, not a problem, as some people might, you know, of course the Chinese regime would say, well, it's connected with fell and gong. Therefore, it's, you know, it's a legitimate. But that's, that's kind of what they say about anything they're looking to crush or anything that really stands in it in their face, so

“to see. How many people are members of this movement inside of China and then abroad?”

So the numbers right now are very hard to measure, okay, because there isn't like anyone really doing a census of any sort. But back in 1999, so this is actually quite interesting. Why? Like, so I'm going to touch on this. Why did they persecute the fell and gong, okay?

There were by government estimate in 1999, there were 70 to 100 million Chinese, 113 Chinese

was doing fell and gong, okay? And so that, you know, often I would use this, especially in the early years when I worked on China-related human rights issues, I would say, you know, it was bigger than the Communist Party, which was like 60 million, I believe, at the time, okay? So that's, and communist don't like competition, okay? So that's kind of a good reason. But there's something deeper here, okay? Because fell and gong is really, it doesn't fit into the categories that we,

we like, or we, we, we, we, we understand very well. It's a, even like people ask me, is it a religion? Right? And that's an, that's a very interesting question. Because it doesn't have, there's, there's a teacher or a master, his name is Lee Hong-je, some people don't like the term master, and he's written the luminous teachings. And a lot of it is about connection with divinity and connection to God and so forth. But there, there aren't a lot of rules in it. What we would

call rules, and there's no hierarchy, and that's, in fact, one of the rules, if a rule would be something that every fell and gong practitioner might agree on, okay? So there's no, there, there are no leaders in fell and gong, even the teacher or the master, right? Many practitioners might have a deep profound respect for him, but there's, one of the rules would be, there's no worship. Some of us, as human beings want to worship, right? And that's okay. That's, that's a

So, and, you know, you mentioned the personal connection, I'll explain to you my personal connection in a moment. But, so there's, what would be the rules? There's no enriching yourself from it, okay? You're not allowed to kind of collect money for the benefit of falling gong. There's no treasury or something like that, okay? There's no hierarchy, as I mentioned, there's no worship of the teacher or the master or anyone in the, in the sort of system.

Here's something really interesting, right? Let's say I'm, let's say Brett, you're a really good fell and gong practitioner. You're implementing truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance, or forbearance, extremely well, okay? And I, I, I might want to emulate you. I'll just say, and Brett is great. I really find him excellent at how he does this. I'm just going to copy Brett. I'm not allowed to do that, okay? I have to understand the teachings and figure out how to do it

“myself. That would be, I think, something else that's a rule, right? And another thing I'll just”

mention, I kind of a tell if someone is a fell and gong practitioner, actually, is that they're talking about falling gong and they'll say, well, I think, or in my understanding, this is what the teachings mean. Because one of the, sort of one of the teachings is actually that, for, in a lot of, in a lot of traditional, kind of, let's say, approaches or a lot of traditional writings or so forth, people would take those writings and sort of say that their interpretation of the writings was actually

what the message of the teachings or the writings was in the first place, which would actually

end up watering those things down, right? So the, the teaching basically is, don't change the teachings, keep them as they are. And if you aren't talking about the teachings, say, this is your understanding of the teachings or how you understand they work because that's, in fact, what it is. And if someone really wants to learn about it, they should actually, like, just read the actual

“teachings and then it'll figure it out. That would be the best way to understand, you know, what it is.”

So I'm, I'm trying to think if there's other, so hold on, let me, yeah, I want to pick up on a couple of your threads here. Yeah. One is sounded like, I forgot what date you put on it,

but that there were at one time something like a hundred million practitioners in China.

That right. Okay. So right order of magnitude. It sounds to me like it has a religiosity to it, but that it is decidedly and intentionally decentralized that getting individuals to interpret the teachings for themselves and, in fact, forbidding you from copying somebody else's interpretation is a way of moving the locus of the relationship between practitioners and the belief structure in the direction of the individual, which I suspect does not play well in the Chinese system,

which is obviously about hyper-centralization. So when we get to the question of why Falun Gong might be targeted, this would be one thing is that it is a competing source of a kind of authority, something, you know, you and I will both have experienced it in the medical freedom movement. There is a disproportionate number of believers. And I take that to be an indication that people who truly believe in a higher power more easily found the courage to confront tyranny during COVID,

then atheists. And so you can imagine trying to manage a country of something like a billion people

where central authority must have no competitors that something in which nearly 10% of the population is decentralizing authority and imagines that there is a structure more significant than the governmental structure, you can imagine how they would see that as threatening. Yeah, and I mean, in Falun Gong, there isn't even a roster like there's nothing to join. What defines you as a Falun Gong practitioner is living the teachings, not some kind of membership

“that you might have. And to your point, I think like this is what it took me about 15 years”

by the way, to kind of realize this, right? But I think it promotes an unusual level of agency and people. And it just, and in communist systems, and I actually explore this and kill to order quite a bit, right? In communist systems, the supremacy and the survival of the communist party is the paramount goal in the system. And you're expected to participate in that, whether through believing in it deeply for the purposes of your own power or simply performatively, right? If you did not

it should probably come later after we discuss the evidence in your book and the picture that it

paints. But I am looking forward to the place where we get to the game theory because I wonder what you'll make of it. My sense is that this is a story that is repeated again and again in human history and the superficial explanations change radically, but the underlying explanation doesn't and anyway, I'm curious what you'll make of that. All right, so you want to talk about your, it sounds

“like you are a practitioner, I think I know that from discussions that you and I have had, but do you”

want to just say what your personal relationship is? Absolutely. So I have to mention this, okay, because you're one of the very few people in the world who knows what nosy manga bay is, which is one of my favorite places in the world. I'm not even kidding, right? And you understand, I think you understand why I would say that. But it's a little island on the base of entongual bay in Madagascar where I was where I used to do my field work as an evolutionary biologist. And it turns

out that you, I learned from reading your wife's book from Heather's book that you guys are familiar with this exact little tiny island, which has both lemurs and I went there because I eyes this very rare, a lemur that doesn't like humans because humans tend to kill them can be seen, right? That's when I went there. And also there's humpback whales that kind of mate in the bay so you have like humpbacks breaching the whole, it's just like this magical wonderland. So why am I

mentioning this? Because I used that was my work before, but the last time that I ended up going back to Albite, I was at the University of Alberta, that was where my lab was. And I ended up getting very ill with something called a guionberry syndrome, which many people in the health free to movement will be familiar with. It's an autoimmune disease, it's your immune system attacking your peripheral nervous system. Of course, it's a syndrome, it's not a disease, right? So there could be many

“possible reasons for it. Actually, I think the J&J vaccine off the top of my head had guionberry”

listed as one of the possible side effects. But I don't actually think I got it from that or something like that. I think I had a parasitic worm infection, which I did, an askerid infection, I had mono. I was also in a really difficult relationship, let's just say at the time, I think the combination of that made my immune system go haywire and ended up with GB. And there wasn't really any treatment for it. It killed that whole career of mine, basically. And I started looking for

alternative therapies. But okay, listen, by the way, I have to, I will mention this to you talked about, you know, people that tend to have allegiance to a higher power being more resilient to mass propaganda or something like this. In the process of all this, I kind of, I was, I could call me an agnostic. Okay, I was, I was science was my, how I was approaching the world

and how I was seeking truth frankly, because I've always been a truth seeker. But I kind of made,

a lot of people do this when they're faced with their mortality. They say, well, God, just in case, just in case you're up there. So what I said was what I knew to say was, I'll dedicate my life to service, right? And that was my promise. And then so what happened was, a guy I knew at the University of Alberta introduced me to the fellow and gone exercises through a DVD. I didn't know anything about it. This was a guy I talked film with at a coffee shop. That was the nature of our

relationship, okay? But he had had chronic fatigue and he told me this had helped me. This helped

“me. You should try it, right? And so I did. And, you know, basically, with, I would say,”

within the, within a couple of months, I had my next appointment with my neurologist. Because I had

basically, I had been in the hospital for about a week. I was a very self-aware patient. It's a rare

disease. So they kept sending, you know, their residents to try to diagnose me, right? But I was like, look, I'm not dying exactly, right? I'm a little bit limited in my motion. I can't do certain fine things. I'm about to last my reflexes. I have double vision. I have all this kind of stuff. But I can kind of go home. I don't need to be in a hospital bed. It's a waste of one. And I'll call you if things go worse. I'll just give you a ring. You can pick me up and bring me back, right? So I

wasn't, I wasn't in the hospital. But, you know, I was just kind of, things weren't working properly. Okay, it would be the best way to describe it. I couldn't really do a lot. I even I love teaching, and I tried to teach, and even that, you know, let's just say it was very, I was very disappointed in

So anyway, within two months, I had my next appointment with my neurologist and she basically,

“and I knew I was starting to feel better as I started to learn these slow, fell-and-gong exercises,”

because that was the risk I continued it. It just made me feel a little better for the first time in a long time. So, okay, I'm going to keep trying this, right? And basically, within two months, I had, she told me that I was an absolute complete remission. I reflexes had come back. I hadn't tested them until she did. And she said, you know, this is actually a very funny thing for health freedom movement people. But she told me, I don't know what you're doing, but whatever it is,

keep doing it. But as my wife pointed out to me some years later, she never asked me what I was doing.

And this apparently is a very common thing in the health freedom movement. Like you, someone has this, you know, kind of, for me, it was, I mean, internally, I don't know if it was an actual miracle, but for me, internally, as in my life, it was a miracle, okay? Because I already knew

“I was feeling better, but this was kind of the final validation, if you will, or something, right?”

Where I got tested and it told, she said, look, everything is back. But the bizarre thing is apparently when people have these spontaneous missions, or they do alternative treatments, for something like I've remacked in for cancer. I know that's something that NIH is actually

investing in doing research on right now, right? But the doctors kind of just dismiss anything that

isn't part of the normal menu of possibilities for treatment, right? As something as spontaneous remission, and they don't even want to know. And that's just so weird, right? And I mean, it's anti-scientific. And the fact that it used to be the case that doctors were necessarily scientists. If you were a doctor on the frontier somewhere, you're faced with a community, an outbreak of something, you don't know what it is, you don't know what to do for these people.

So you take your best guess based on symptoms, you attempt something, you see what the impact of it is. You're visiting their homes, so you see if there's some condition that might explain the pattern that you're seeing. That scientific instinct of doctors has been decimated and they have become effectively like automotons who dispense best practices as a result of you are checking a certain number of boxes on a checklist. And it's alarming when you realize that they are

by their very nature, they are practitioners who are intervening in a complex system that they cannot possibly understand with the power of saving your life or bringing about your death. So to have these doctors not in touch with that scientific instinct is just dangerous beyond measure and actually the story in your book tells us what happens next when doctors lose touch with what

they're supposed to be doing. Well, if I may, with the exception of some incredible doctors,

some of whom both you and I know and love. Yes, well, there's quite a few. I mean, you know, I don't know what percentage it is across the population, but it's not zero. It's not zero, and it is amazing. It tells the entire story. If you think about it, how many of them have been thrown out of their prestigious jobs, had their licenses taken away.

“The fact is, if you did the job of a doctor, it was the route to being excommunicated by modern medicine,”

which is obviously intolerable among other things. It's also very stupid if you want. Doctors to get better. And these are the doctors you want to encourage. You know, it's head of the opposite of what you would want. No, and in fact, one of the upgrades of the COVID catastrophe is that I and I would imagine you have the best doctors in the world at our disposal because they've all been thrown out. We've become, you know, part of a small community of people fighting

this battle. And so yeah, I have all these people on speed dial. Something goes wrong, man. I've got, you know, the greatest pathologist. I've got a cardiologist. You know, all of these great doctors and they're completely open to the entire spectrum of things that may, in fact, have a positive value. And let me add something, and they're also all of them, without exception. Doctors that practice what we would call traditional hipocratic medicine, meaning I'm going to treat you as an

individual as a patient. And I'm going to do the best I can for you. We're going to try to understand your specific circumstances. And I'm going to figure out what's best for you. And whatever intervention

I'm going to make sure that that possible harm to you is minimized through the intervention that

I'm going to propose. And it's just shocked. So a central feature of the book, as you probably know, because it sounds like you've been reading it, which I really appreciate, is this distinction between a hipocratic medicine on one end, and utilitarian bioethics greatest good for the greatest number of medicine. And so because the book is not just about the organ industry, but it's also about how it explains the logic of communists or communist elites that run a society the way they do.

“Yes, which I think is a completely fascinating thread because so much of the horrifying picture”

that you paint actually in a subtle way follows from the logic of communism. And what's interesting is that it is corrupting of the West through mere contact, which we will get to. Again, this is what the game theory does. You say, you know, or somebody says, well, if our elites get in touch with the Chinese elites, their system will westernize, well, at one level it did, it's interface with the outside world certainly looks like ruthless capitalism. But in fact,

the question is, what flowed which way? Because there's an awful lot of totalitarianism that seems to be essentially contagious. And to your point about utilitarianism, I think I landed here, Robert Malone separately landed here, but there's something about utilitarianism that it has a problem, which is that it's right most of the time. It's rule of thumb level. You

“probably want to make policies that do the greatest good for the greatest number. But if you take it”

as more than a rule of thumb, it can literally justify anything, including slavery, genocide, it literally justifies anything. So if you're going to touch utilitarianism, you better know where the thou shalt noffs are, or you're going to end up manning a concentration camp. Our final sponsor this week is crowd health. Crowd health isn't health insurance. It's better. Health insurance in the United States is a mess to put it mildly. From overpriced premiums to

confusing fine print andless paperwork claims that don't get paid customer service that's unhelpful and hostile, these complicated systems aren't functional and they wear us down. We used to contend with this madness, but not anymore. There's a better way. You can stop playing the rigged insurance game. You can use crowd health instead. Crowd health is a community of people funding each other's medical bills directly. No middlemen, no networks, no nonsense.

With crowd health, you get health care for under $100 a month for your first three months,

including access to a team of health-building negotiators, low-cost prescription and lab testing tools and a database of low-cost high-quality doctors vetted by crowd health. And if something major happens, you pay the first $500 then the crowd steps in to help fund the rest. It feels like the options we used to have before Obamacare messed everything up. After we left our salary jobs as college professors, we spent years buying health insurance

in the marketplace. It was awful. Our family of four had health insurance for emergencies only and we were paying more than $1,500 a month for a policy with a $17,000 annual deductible to a company that was unresponsive and unhelpful. Tens of thousands of dollars paid out for no benefit whatsoever. Heather went looking for alternatives and she found crowd health. We have now had two sets of great experiences with crowd health. Our younger son Toby broke his

foot in the summer of 2024 and Heather slipped on wet concrete and split open her scalp a year later. Both times we went to the ER and got good but expensive treatment from the medical staff. In both cases, crowd health paid our bills with no hassle. Their app was simple and straightforward to use and the real people who work at crowd health were easy to reach, clear and communicative. With crowd health, you pay for little stuff out of pocket but for any event that cost more

than $500 a diagnosis that requires ongoing treatment, a pregnancy or an accident, you pay the

first 500 and pay the rest. Seriously, it's easy, affordable and so much better than health insurance.

We can still hardly believe it. The health insurance system is hoping you'll stay stuck in their same overpriced overcomplicated mess. Don't do it. This year, take your power back. Join crowd health to get started today for $99 a month for your first three months using the code

“Dark Horse at join crowdhealth.com. That's join crowdhealth.com code Dark Horse. Remember, crowd health”

is not insurance. Opt out. Take your power back. This is how we win. Join crowdhealth.com. Right, let me jump in here because I had so many like this book was writing this book was a magical experience because I was able to integrate so much of what I've learned over the last

shivers up my spine. Just thinking about it. I remember when it hit me, finally again,

these things sound so obvious once you say them, but it just never occurred to me, right?

The greatest good for the greatest number. You've heard this maximum in order to make an

“omelet. You have to break a few eggs, right? That's typically a scribe to stall in, but people tell”

me it might have actually been New York Times reporter and Soviet agent Walter Durante who had said it. I don't know for sure, but typically a scribe to stall in, but this is the personification of utilitarian bioethics because see, in communism, right? Utilitarian bioethics is basically the idea that you can sacrifice a few for the good of the many, for the greater good, right? And I love you're really how you describe a rule of thumb approach. This is actually kind of makes sense.

The way I describe it is, it only makes sense on the battlefield, okay? Like if you're a medic and you're on a battlefield and you see all this carnage and a bunch of these people are going to die and you're going to have to make some hard choices about who you're going to take back because, you know, if this person really looks like they're going to die in two minutes,

“you know, that's what you see people putting the X's on the forehead or whatever in the movies, right?”

That's a situation we have to do this triage and you have to make these decisions, but in a normal situation that this is not how we have to think. We have to think from the perspective of one doctor looking at that one patient and how can I best help them and how how can I make sure not to harm them, okay? Just back to greatest good for the greatest number and making an omelette. You have to break a few eggs in the communist system. And this I've known for a long time, right?

The highest value, okay? The principle around everything around which everything is organized, okay? Basically post the Lenin, right? This is the party, the survival of the party and the supremacy of the party is actually viewed as the greatest good, right? So this is why

whatever we have communism applied, you always have mass atrocities. Why? Because the

individual dignity of the human life doesn't have value, okay? And in fact, it's only about, it has some value because you don't want riots, you don't want someone to compromise your ability

“to rule if the Communist Party of the State and power. So you have to kind of playkate them a bit,”

right? But at the same time, you know, to make an omelette which is the supremacy of the party, right? You have to break a few eggs and that plays out in hundreds of millions of eggs. Yes, the way that you're playing, remind myself of this is I've slightly altered the effortism so that I never fail to see that implication. The way I said is if you're going to make an omelette, you have to break a few legs.

All right, that joke fell flat, but I like it so, you know? No, I'm going to, I'm going to remember it, but no, it's just, it's all these things, you know, that's what was fascinating about writing, killed to order, is that, I mean, I wouldn't have understood half of what I understood if I hadn't watched COVID play out, okay? And even after COVID, I found a book called Culture of Death by Wesley Smith, which if you haven't read, you absolutely have to read this

book and you will, you will thank me. I promise you about that because he wrote a book originally in 2000, I believe, and then updated in 2016, and he charted the development, he's the guy, the one guy apparently in the world, I guess, who's been charting the rise of this utilitarian bioethics approach to dealing with medicine and human issues and public health and so forth. So he was starting to see it in the academic journals, which is same with the, you know,

gender affirming care, gender ideology, all of it, it starts in the academic journals, and then kind of bursts on the scene, if you will, right? And so he's been tracking that all these years. If I had read Culture of Death, and I mean, he just kept, you know, he kept writing about it, no one really listened and he just kept being built into society, also as especially after we started having that deep engagement with Communist China as you pointed out, right, which

which direction did it actually happen, right? But, but if I had read Culture of Death before the pandemic, I would have understood everything that happened, okay? And he wasn't even thinking of it from any pandemic perspective. He's just writing about what people are writing about in the academic journals, about, you know, greater good public health and medicine, and he actually,

I first reached out to him about this medically assistant suicide that they do in Canada, right,

because he, he was one of the experts on it because it fits into his whole kind of thesis that this is a part of utilitarian bioethics that work. So part of the rant here, you will appreciate this book.

one at the moment, but, you know, he's been doing this for a very long time. And someone, if you're watching this podcast and you're interested in utilitarian bioethics, Wesley Smith needs people to

work with him, okay? He's an amazing, amazing researcher. Oh, that's great tip. I appreciate it. Well,

“I think it's time we could go on like this for a long time, but I think we've actually set the stage”

quite well to talk about the what you have on earth in your book. And many of these themes are going to pop right out, you know, from the authoritarianism, the logic of communism, the utilitarianism, all of these things will pop out. And then at the end, I will try to put some context, some game theory context to it. And I think it will make a very clear picture. But why don't you set the stage? What is the thesis of your book? And then tell us what the evidence that we have is.

And, you know, there's a lot of evidence we don't have because of the close nature of China.

But you you paint a very clear picture and you're very clear about what kinds of evidence we do have and what the implications are. So why don't you lay it out? So just to be clear, the thesis

“of my book actually is that this forced organ harvesting enterprise, which I'll describe in a moment,”

is actually a feature and not a bug of totalitarian communism, which is all communism, okay? And so I explore why that is like in a way, it's the perfect lens. If you wonder to stand how China works under communism, this is sort of a perfect lens to use to understand that. And that's a big

part of the exploration of the book. But let me explain to you what it is actually.

Can I say one thing before you do? Yeah. We have focused on Falun Gong because of your connection to it. I should point out that some years ago, I hypothesized that organ harvesting from weegers was likely taking place. I was focused on weegers because I knew there was a large population that was incarcerated. And you know, there were stories around the edges about these people being utilized for things like the bodies exhibit. And so anyway, my point was, oh, it's a logical

extension of communism and the totalitarianism that exists there and the oppression of the weegers, weegers being a fair to say in Muslim sect within China. So I was thinking about this in terms of weegers and hadn't yet gotten around to understanding what Falun Gong is. But your book is about all of the people who are being victimized in this way, weegers Falun Gong and political prisoners. They're all covered here. So anyway, let me just comment on that because this is an incredibly

“important in fact. Okay, and I'll explain to you what this atrocity is and how it works and what”

you need and why it's unique to China, this specific type of forced organ harvesting. But before I go there, right, they built it on the backs of the Falun Gong. Okay, prior to 2000 Falun Gong persecution starts in 1999. Okay, they put millions, again, we don't know the exact number, the incarcerate millions. And the whole Chinese transplant industry just grows geometrically for the next five years. By 2005, they've created thousands of hospitals for transplant exclusively

for transplantation or predominantly for transplantation with no known organs donor source. Okay, they're kind of like quietly they're telling people that they're using death row prisoners for it. Okay, and then it sort of stays at this, it reaches this level by the end of the 2000s of 60 to 90,000 transplants per year. Just to frame that a little bit, right, we're talking about 40,000 transplants in the US last year and that was a record. Okay, that in terms of the numbers.

So it starts on the Falun Gong and it trucks along like that. 2014, 2015, really no one has really done much about it and actually a lot of international organizations that should be charged with doing something about it, kind of run cover for them in effect, or just accept official explanations, which are like, you know, just not even remotely credible, like bizarrely non-credible, right? And you know, one of those organizations with the WHO,

which, you know, we don't need to go into too much detail. People will be familiar here how one is deeply captured by the Chinese Communist Party, you know, and, you know, the way it responded in COVID was the perfect example of that. What happens in 2014, 2015 is no one's done much,

million if not more of them. And, you know, there's Ethan Gottman, is my good friend. He's actually

“publishing a book fairly soon called the Xinjiang procedure on this how this specific organ harvesting”

of Uyghurs is working. And he's even documented situations where there is a hospital, there is a labor camp, and or concentration camp, and there's a crematorium, and they're all kind of situated side by side like this, right? As part of his, as part of his research, so it's basically they added the Uyghurs as another vulnerable group, right, to be used this way, and this is their particularly vulnerable, you know, there's only about 12 million of them if I recall the numbers

correctly, and they're in a military controlled zone, and per the U.S. government, many other governments around the world, they're subject genocide. And so, you know, that this term genocide is used so frivolously these days, but this actually has, it's a very extremely serious designation. It's supposed to be the worst thing that human beings do to each other, which is the attempted destruction and a whole of an or in part of an entire group of people. Now, I would argue that this

is actually being done to the felangong and the Tibetans as well. We could debate that, and I prefer not to, let's just call it all a human rights atrocity. Okay, our crime against humanity or something like that. But here, and today, we're in a situation where we see active demonizing incarceration and dehumanization of house church Christians. Okay, we have the Zion church, which was just wrapped up. It was one of the very successful churches that actually went online during COVID and saw,

you know, massive flourishing that happened. I just had the daughter of the lead pastor on the show. We're going to publish on American thought leaders. We're going to publish that episode fairly soon.

“But now, we also saw recently that Catholic clergy, and remember that it can actually”

has a strange partnership deal. It has with Communist China. It's bizarre to me that they still have it because the persecution of Christians actually increased. While they've had this deal, but basically Catholic clergy are even being put under control right now in a variety of ways. So I'm worried that we're going to see the same thing happen. It was built on the phoned on 15 years. No one really did anything. Then they added the oigers. Okay, now it's been another 10 years,

10 to 11 years. I'm worried they're going to add other groups like the Tibetans, like the house church Christians, to this mix. And I think at small numbers, they probably

have been used. But this is, it always works on a larger, on a larger group. So

let me explain how it works. I guess that's ultimately what you, what we want to do. And, well, let me just say I heard something of this, this worth noting. It started with death row prisoners. So let's imagine that there is some reason that people end up condemned to death. I'm not defending it. I don't know whether the system, I don't know whether these are, you know, mass murderers who deserve such a thing, or these are really cryptically political prisoners. But

the point is, you can understand the slippery slope of utilitarianism. If the answer is, well, that person is not going to live. And organs are best harvested from a healthy person under controlled conditions. So why not? Why shouldn't some person who has done nothing wrong benefit from the organs of this condemned person? It's the naturally, you know, greatest good for the greatest number.

That person's going to die either way. Why not save others with their organs? That's the first step

onto a slippery slope that then results in the picture you're about to paint.

“100% and that's why I'm not a fan of even having death row prisoners being used for organs”

for this, for the exact reason that you just described. But so the way it works is you need a state actor. Basically, you need someone who can is able to push massive power, coercive power through a system. Okay, you need to be able to dehumanize a group of people. And the reason you need to be able to do that is that, you know, most people, there's their psychopaths in our midst. Okay, there's people who have no conscience that have no problem, you know,

killing someone or hurting someone. There's no moral kind of quandary that they feel. There's no revulsion they feel. But that's not the most people. Okay, most people actually do feel bad about doing horrible things to people. Unless, and this is some kind of a weird trick of our mind, unless they start believing that these people are somehow less than human. Okay, and this, you know, we have textbook propaganda of this nature in the 1930s in Germany. Okay, against the

is used against the Falun Gong by the Communists in 1999 in 2000. They put like, I remember,

“you know, seeing like, literally like half a million individual pieces of mass media propaganda”

in this vein. I mean, to the point where they would say they eat their children, they burn themselves alive, like really extreme stuff, right? And in Falun Gong, you know, it's not violent, you know,

killing is not something. You know, you do never mind your own life, right? So, ladies,

it's just, and we just, the whole thing was was completely mad, but it's effective, right? Well, it is a feature of every genocide. And I have looked at many. It's a feature of every genocide that you dehumanize the people you will go after and it leads to, it is obviously triggering a primordial wiring that exists latent in people that there's something that you can believe about others that makes you feel entitled to eliminate them and makes you indifferent and sometimes

“beyond indifferent to their suffering. So, this is a feature of humans and what we see is the pattern”

of propaganda that reliably triggers it, right? The language of the disease, the language of the immorality of the people who are to be genocided. So, anyway, it's a feature of the landscape and it's no surprise at all that it would show up here. So, once you've dehumanized this group, right,

and this is they also incarcerated, again, a million, maybe two million fell and gone at the

beginning, okay? Now, here's the really interesting part, right? When James Amin said eradicate them, right? He didn't mean kill everybody necessarily. He meant get rid of it, brainwashed them, forced them to recant their faith, this kind of thing, but it actually turned out that this is they're unusually resilient to this. Like, they don't get brainwashed easily, they don't recant their faith easily. And to the point where there were rules which were set, unwritten rules set up in

the prisons and labor camps and forced labor camps, re-education in the labor camps, they have a mass incarceration system, okay? The rule was, all fell and gone deaths are going to be considered suicides. Basically, meaning you can work on these people whatever way to get to break them, to transform. And there were quotas. Can you imagine? There were quotas. Like, we didn't meet your quota on re-educating enough people. You were docked, you know, you got hurt somehow.

Hey, this was like the beginnings of the social credit system, and you were kind of being formed at this time, okay? So now we have this mass incarcerated, dehumanized population. Now they're starting to do blood typing, tissue typing, organ scans, okay? This is all documented from the victims themselves. Okay? They're doing these invasive tests. The victims at the time didn't even understand why they were being, why all this was being done to them, okay? But, and this is how

prior to 2006, there were actually ads online, right, on websites. We have archived versions of these, okay? That basically said, for a certain price, let's call it 150 or 200 grand, you can get yourself a new heart in two weeks scheduled, okay? Scheduled means you know exactly when someone's going to be dead.

“What they would tell you is it's a death row prisoner. That's how we know, okay? However,”

the reality was even if you took the most aggressive estimate of death row prisoners being killed, it was orders of magnitude greater the number of transplants that were actually being done. Yeah, let me say as a biologist, I know I'm talking to a fellow biologist, but as a biologist, the improbability of being able to schedule such a thing based on death row prisoners, even in a

country of a billion people is obvious, because what is going on, the reason that organs are so

difficult to acquire for transplant is that you have this elaborate system in which your tissues have a signature on them that allows your immune system to recognize you and not fight you. And what that means is that it recognizes just about every other human being as foreign, because it's built to recognize anything that isn't you that's inside your system and destroy it. So when they say death row prisoners, they are confessing more than the average person will

detect that the numbers cannot add up, so they have to have a much larger population to draw on

work, right, for that person for me to be able to answer that ad, pay my 200 grand and get that organs scheduled, transplant scheduled in China two weeks later, is that person is already blood type tissue type matched in a database to me. And then the moment I pay that money and arrive in China,

“that person is shipped through a military type network. That's how the best we've been able to”

clean and to be killed to order to give you that heart. So that person, that person is effectively living on a feedlot, waiting to be stable, waiting to be slaughtered, and if you, let's say that you were a person telling yourself whatever the best story was because you desperately needed a heart and you didn't want to die. Even the story they are telling you speaks to something unholy because what they're telling you, if they're saying, "Oh, we have enough deathro prisoners

that we can find you a tissue match," and then you schedule your surgery, they're telling you, "Oh, we'll kill this person for you." Even if it's a deathro prisoner who's going to die anyway, the point is you still understand that somebody is going to die for you because there's no other way it can work. You can't kill these people and put them on ice and transplant their organs. For the big organs, that's not going to work. So anyway, the idea that there is something being

covered even the story they're telling you is obviously the result of some deeply morally compromised structure. A hundred percent, and so I was first convinced that this was real back in 2006. I had heard some kind of rumblings of it a little bit earlier than that,

but I kind of dismissed it because I'm one of these people that always wants evidence,

actually. It's something I don't even like about myself in some ways. I'm just skeptical,

“overly skeptical about everything. In a way, it's kind of a sad life. You have to kind of”

always overcome your own internal skepticism to everything. But yeah, so here I was and there were actually two lines of evidence that came in that made me realize this is in 2006 that this was real near simultaneously, but completely independently. One was a woman named Annie, that's a pseudonym. She had a husband who was a transplant surgeon and or surgeon, and he had was having nightmares, and he confessed to her after she said, "I'm leaving unless you tell me what's going on,"

he confessed to her that he had removed 2,000 corneas from living people.

And she came out as a whistleblower, basically. At the same time, I mean, or slightly earlier,

actually, this was in late 2005, Yakublevee, who was once the head of the Israeli Transplant Association. He was the dean of Transplant Surgery at Tel Aviv University. He was a hard transplant specialist, and he was aware. He told me, actually, I remember, it was fascinating talking to him about this, but there were people going from Israel to China to get kidney transplants. And he didn't think much of it because with a kidney, someone, you can survive and often people do,

“right, so it's not, there isn't this obvious murder happening to get that organ, right?”

Because we have two kidneys, lots of people are actually, especially in a system like China, you could imagine that people are giving up one kidney for money or something, you know. Exactly. And I couldn't be not thrilled about that, but it's not killed to order. Right. And so, but he had a patient that told him, "I'm tired of waiting. I'm worried I'm going to die, right?" And they scheduled a transplant for me in China in two weeks.

And Yakub said that's impossible. There's no scenario where that happens, except that I went and got it done and came back, right? And so that's when Yakub became actually one of the, I would say, you know, there's a really a handful of people that have done incredible work on this, and he is really one of the one of the heroes of this whole, let's say, movement to try to stop this, because he actually got a law passed by 2008. Israel was the, I believe the earliest,

but one of the very, very few, I mean, to give you a comparison, right? The law was,

we will never pay, Israel will never pay for a China transplant. There was a second part to the

get one, you have to be able, ready to give one, because there were people in Israel who wanted to benefit from transplants, but we weren't putting themselves into the registry. So there's this, this law actually had two parts to it, okay? But what, you know, 2008 was the, you're the law was passed. And, and, and, for comparison, there's now six states that have passed laws of this nature, but that started in 2021. Like it took that long for America to kind of get in the game.

“And there's actually, there's a fet, Congressman Neal Dunn is actually retiring, I believe it”

before, at the midterms. He is, he has a, in committee, a law of this nature at the federal level, where Medicare and Medicaid and insurance wouldn't be allowed to pay for these transplants. This is one way to try to address stopping this, right? Like, because, because basically it just means that there are a whole bunch of people who would be recipients aren't going to be recipients anymore. All right, hold on. It's the wrong place for this, but since you mentioned it,

I'm going to do this here anyway. I want to read to you my letter to the editor of the New York Times published on November 16th, 2003. So well before the, uh, is really legislation you're talking about. This was in response to an op-ed by Marine Dowd in which he was describing somebody who had been saved by a transplant and begging all of us to register. So I wrote to the editor, regarding a lyrical gift by Marine Dowd. Most of us would like nothing better than for our

“organs to save other people when we die, yet many elect not to register as donors. Why?”

Because doctors are human and an allocating scarce time and resources, it would be remarkable

if they were never affected by the knowledge that a particular death might save five or more other

lives. Organ donors get little benefit for facing that uncertainty, and though the risk is presumably small, the negative consequences for an unlucky donor is potentially profound. But the trickle of organs could easily be turned to a flood. Eliminate the danger of conflicted medical interest by moving donor status out of one's wallet and into a controlled access database. Then give priority to individuals seeking to receive an organ based on their history as registered donors.

It would surely be an effective incentive and what could be more fair. So this idea that there actually doesn't need to be a death of organs, that there's an obvious way to solve this problem that does not lead to some sort of atrocity. And what it is, it just involves recognizing the game theory. I don't want to worry that a doctor is going to not do his best for me because he knows that I'm a donor and he knows other people will live. I want him not to know

whether I'm a donor. And I want people who aren't willing to give their own organs under those

“conditions, not to be eligible above me if I need one. So the point is, all you have to do is see”

the game theory. And what it does, if you recognize it, is avoids a ghastly scenario that you describe in your book. So anyway, you don't mean Brad, I'm going to have to ask Jacob if he may be read here. I think if it was, if that letter to the editor was published, it was, you know, well, it's quite, it's entirely possible he may have read it. I mean, this just something will have to find out. All right. I'm excited to find out. So go ahead and continue describing

what you just showed you on earth. Well, and I mean, so that was the beginning. Okay. And then

two amazing human rights lawyers, David made us and David Kilgor, me, he rest in peace,

you know, just to give you a picture of who these guys were. David made us, he was the Nybrith Council in Canada. He also was, he helped bring the last Nazi work criminal actually Ukrainian to justice in Canada. And so that was his kind of acumen. He was a human rights lawyer. Okay. And David Kilgor, unfortunately, passed during the COVID years, he was Canada's law. I believe Canada's longest serving parliament member at one point. He had actually switched

parties multiple times. I think he started conservative or we had a party called progressive conservative that back in the day. I know that that's probably sounds funny, but I bet I remember revealing myself as a Canadian here, right? And then liberal, and then he went independent. Basically,

the parties were always doing something he couldn't accept and he just left and ended up being

independent, but was very popular because because he was someone who was a very strong moral fiber, if you will. Okay. And he had also been a secretary of state at some point. So he brought some acumen and some international relationships into the picture. And they spent about, I think it

Jacob Levy's experience, including Annie's testimony, they, you know, interviewed them,

“having, you know, made us had interviewed lots of people for credibility right around around”

this sort of thing. And so they came up with originally it was 17 lines of evidence, then they were going to brew that into 33 lines of evidence. And they were able to find no lines of evidence that would suggest it wasn't happening. Okay. And they were able to find quite a few that suggested did. Now, why is it so kind of obscure, right? Why, like, that sounds weird. Like, I would challenge, tell me, tell me what the evidence is here, right? The problem with these atrocity

situations, right? Always is that the person doing them obviously doesn't want to be find out,

obviously is going to die them to the day they die, right, or close, right? They're completely uninterested in having them revealed, you know, for Annie's allegations, okay, back in the day, weeks after all this happened, they actually, China actually invited international observers to come view that a legit cap, right? And, you know, they've just found, hey, there's nothing here, everything looks perfectly reasonable, right? And it's like, well, okay, but couldn't, like,

a month ago, there have all this been happening. But for some reason, we say, oh, yeah, okay, that's fair, right? Like, it's, it's, there's a lot of this pretend can village type stuff happening. So, the way that we have to get at the evidence is frankly indirect, right? And, and here's the crazy part, okay, at the moment, we're about 26 years into this happening, and about 20 years into us

“knowing with, I think, compelling evidence that it's happening. And in 2020, there was a whole”

China Tribunal held with, with, with, with, with, Sergei Frienees, uh, who had prosecuted Slubbed Anne Malosevic, putting together an international people's tribunal with experts looking at all the evidence, very powerful body of evidence, okay? Uh, in all of this time, there's even a

survivor, I can tell you about him. It's an unbelievable story in itself. I never thought we'd

actually see when he came out in the, in the last few years. But the Chinese Communist Party has never provided any evidence to suggest it's not happening. That's credible, right? They pretended they started an organ donor registry, but then the data they provided was like a perfect quadratic equation in terms of growth. Obviously, the data, the data had been invented. I mean, there's a, I'm Matthew Robertson in this recent PhD thesis demonstrates that

the very convincingly, right? But they've just never provided a shred of evidence that it's not happening. It's not, wouldn't be hard. It wouldn't be hard to provide that evidence if it existed 26 years on. Well, right? And, yeah, again, the logic is a little bit subtle, but if there was a decent explanation for what they are doing, then the system that allows that decent, that decent level of transplantation to be happening would be apparent. In other words,

if they have a source that isn't these oppressed populations, then you would be able to provide that evidence. So, the lack of ability to provide that evidence, the apparent scale of the transplantation and the scheduled nature of those transplantations tells us there's a source population that we don't

know about. So, basically, all the evidence we have paints of very powerful, if circumstantial

case, that it must be these oppressed populations because who else would it be? If you're able to schedule those organ transplants, then you have these people available at will. Even if you had a massive, you know, even if you had every Chinese person registered and typed, the point is, people, there aren't enough of them to directly enough that you can guarantee somebody that on this date, you can have an organ. Yeah, not even close, like not even close, right? And, and there's all

sorts of, like, just kind of really bizarre anecdotes that we had verified also that, sort of,

“you know, kind of explain it as being the rule, like very early on, I remember when I first”

interviewed David Kilgore about his work, this probably was in '07 or maybe even late '06, I can't remember. But he had interviewed someone who literally had a rare blood condition and had gone to China from Taiwan and had the first trip he had four different kidneys fitted. Okay, the first kidney didn't work, got rejected, second one got triggered, third one got rejected, fourth one got rejected. You went back to Taiwan, got more dialysis, went back to China a few months afterwards,

get rejected. So imagine what you would need the system you would need to have to facilitate that.

“That was a, that was a verified case that David Kilgore observed by, you know, early, I would say”

2007 at the latest, okay? And there's multiple examples of this kind of a thing. There's a, you know, a double lung transplant that was done where there was a second double lung, it's waiting to be used in case the first one was rejected. That was fairly recent even, that was during COVID. Okay? So there's just all of these, the kind of, let's say anecdotal information that kind of proves the, the circumstantial evidence, the, the voluminous circumstantial evidence,

including, and this is the, the survivor is kind of the most amazing thing because I truly never

thought we'd ever find a transplant survivor of this because, you know, it's seeing as it's a crime against humanity. And, you know, the people kind of involved in it don't want to be tried

“for crimes against humanity. You imagine that they would, you know, kill someone if they're remotely”

surviving after this happens. But this guy actually is missing part of his liver and part of his lung. And, you know, near miraculously, he lived to tell the tale. He didn't even realize he had been harvested, okay? He just knew he woke up with a giant 14 inch gash in his side and had, like, just felt horrible inside. So wait, this is somebody who didn't have a liver or lung pathology and these are organs that you don't have to transplant the whole thing.

Well, the lung, it's not even clear why they took part of the lung. I like that part is a mystery, you know, but, but, yes, they, they, they took, basically didn't take a whole part of his liver. Yeah, exactly. And you can do partial, the Japanese actually pioneered this technique where you

take a partial liver, transplants are possible. Yes, actually the liver, the liver has such amazing

capacity to regrow that something like 10 percent of the liver can grow a whole liver. Yeah, exactly. And so, so it seems like, you know, it's funny because I actually asked David May David made us did the assessments of this survivor, right? And he, he finds him completely credible and, you know, he's kind of an odd odd, odd character himself. I mean, I'm talking about the, the chung painting, the, the survivor, but, you know, I asked, why, why would they do this? Like,

why would they take half of his liver when they could just kill him or something? And David says, well, you know, one of the theories I've heard is that that they were just experimenting on him

“to see if they could do partial transplants and have someone survive because, again, why not?”

We have these kind of disposable people. We can use for this purpose, but then David said

something very profound, which is stuck with me, okay? And he basically said, you know,

that, you know, this is what probably what it was, but, but the onus isn't on me to explain it. The onus is on them to explain it. They did it. Right. You know, why, why are they not providing it? So, so the crazy part is they actually, this is one of the rare examples where they tried to provide an explanation. And the, in the process of this, okay, in effect, they, they said that they had operated on him without as against as well. So we actually have an example. It's a kind

of a complicated example, which I could, I could relate to you in details all going to be in my book, but, but they've actually admitted to operating on someone against their will. They said they did it for a different reason, but based on Oregon scans, he's missing a big part of his liver, which is regenerated, and part of his lung, which is not. And they admit to have having done that. So that's a pretty substantive piece of evidence. Yeah, that is, that is compelling evidence.

All right. Before we get too far from it, I did want to say that the story you tell of people in who are incarcerated, having their blood tested, their tissues typed and not knowing what's going on is chillingly reminiscent of the famous train platform at Auschwitz, that effectively the Nazis were exterminating the Jews, but they were doing so in, frankly, a utilitarian and practical way. So the point is, they exterminated people immediately, who

were, who they deemed to be more costly than beneficial and the others they worked to death.

This is this is a question that, you know, only, only a mind that has grown comfortable with genocide could ask. But the idea that that, you know, there's no train platform involved here, but it's the same thing. You're looking at people, you say some were tested and some weren't. I would guess the ones who were tested were ones who were in good health, who would be a source

for a healthy organ, and people who were in compromised health were too old. The answer is,

well, that's not an organ that has any value. Why type it? Two things on this point, okay? So I made a film with my wife, a while back, called "Finding Mani." And that was about her father's journey during the Holocaust. He was a Holocaust. He had survived who can vault in a number of other camps. And so we did, it was kind of, it's a funny, it's an optimistic Holocaust documentary. We say that in quotes because he was a really remarkable person and, you know, in a way, didn't judge a lot of

people that he could have been very easily able to judge. But he, it's kind of a road trip film with whole family goes back to Poland and Germany. And it kind of, you know, it would explore as the whole thing. But one of the things we realized over there while we were in Germany is,

“you're often not taught this part that you pointed out, like how important the forced labor to”

death of the Jewish people by the Germans was to the Nazi war machine. I hadn't realized that at all, right? Well, maybe a little bit. And I, you know, I know more than the average person. I was

early, always been interested in crimes against humanity and countering them and things like

that just kind of a curiosity, right? But, but it was huge. I mean, just in the region where Mani had been, there had been, if small town really kind of, not small, let's see, a medium-sized city in Germany. There had been 500 camps, okay, if people doing forced labor, it was unbelievable to discover this. And so the second part is Matthew Robertson, who's been again, one of these heroes over the years of doing the empirical research around these issues, okay, is he actually coins this

in his recent PhD thesis, which is excellent. I would strongly recommend reading it,

extract of repression, okay? And this is the Germans did, right? And at that sorting station

in Auschwitz, right? You had, you know, if you had gold filling, you know, or I guess that happened after, where they were, they would pull those, right? But they would take all of their, you know, because people would come, they didn't realize they're going to their desk, they thought they're being relocated somewhere, so they'd bring all their possessions. And then all of those sort of possessions

“would go, I believe it was called the Canada, oddly, the Canada Pavilion. I can't remember.”

I think it was why they did. It was nicknamed Canada because Jews, found Jews who were not killed outright were given various jobs. And the ruthless logic of the camps involved Jews doing much of the ghastly work on threat of death if they didn't. So the extracting of fillings from cadavers and, and the like, you know, the emptying of gas chambers that this was done by people. Right. The Sundar Commando as the Sundar Commando, yeah, meaning special detail.

And those people were worked to death. And at the point that they were no longer productive because of the horrible conditions that they were working in, they were killed, often with cruelty, a special cruelty like the Sundar Commando were forced to race each other in foot race to see who was going to die and be replaced. And then the new newly recruited Sundar

“Commando, the worst job in the history of humanity, I think. Their first job was to deal with the”

body of their immediate predecessor so that they sort of experienced their own ultimate fate on their entry into this horrible thing. But the detail that sort had the belongings of the Jews who were exterminated was called Canada because it was a comparatively easy, it wasn't the network. It was, you know, sorting people's clothing and other worldly possessions. So anyway, I think Canada was like this mythological place in which it was nice. That was that was the idea

that you were a slave, but in Canada. Well, you know, one of the, with this extractive repression idea, it's actually really fascinating that another thing I realized in the process of writing

was actually a communist scholar originally who went into the countryside to see how communism could be applied in the countryside and came up with a bunch of conclusions that the ruling party didn't like. So he went to jail for a long time. You know, he's got one of these types of people who got to understand communism viscerally, you know, after having been liked it originally. And he ended up making it to the US and became a scholar at Stanford and he recently has published,

“I think it's 800 pages. I think a massive term called institutional genes and those institutional”

genes are the genes of communism. Okay. Like the, it's a, it's a fascinating work, which I haven't read in its entirety. It's, it's a very kind of a deep study of his life's work. One of the things he explains in there, which is absolutely fascinating is how what distinguishes Chinese communism from Soviet communism, which is allowed it to survive. Okay, longer. And he calls this phenomenon or this approach, right, regionally administered to tallitarianism. Okay. And this is fascinating

because it actually went, the moment he kind of explained his theory to me on American thought leaders, I saw directly how this would work with the organ industry. And so this actually featured in

close to played importantly into the book. Basically, you know, as you met, as we discussed earlier,

communism is, I, I like to describe it as, "absolutely hierarchical." Like we think we know hierarchy. No, the communists know hierarchy at a deeper level than, then almost anyone or maybe maybe there are others that I'm not aware of. Okay. And so, in a typical situation, it's literally like directives that are passed from the top all the way down, right. But the innovation, and this is a little bit simplified or glib here. Okay. But the Chinese innovation through this regionally

administered to tallitarianism was, "No, we're not going to do that. We're just going to set kind of the goals from the top." Okay. The approach from the top, for example, right, one of the top seven priorities that Xi Jinping has elevated. This is something for the national security people who are wearing their nationals here. That's military civil fusion is something that the CCP has been applying for years. But Xi Jinping elevated into the top seven national

priorities, which made it so it's almost impossible to find anything that's being done in China that doesn't have a military application that there isn't people involved in that industry or company or whatever trying to find it. Because they know they're going to be rewarded for having did for doing it, and they're going to be penalized for not doing it. Okay. Now, how does this

supply to our citizen area with the forced organ harvesting? Basically, what you're creating through

this is you're creating an away, a twisted market around implementing the goals of the Politburo Central Committee, of a very top. So if you are, and I actually theorize in the book, I think I make a strong case. In fact, if you understand the characters about who started this and how they started this. And but I think in one place, right, all you need it to happen because of this

“regionally is administered to authoritarianism, you need to have someone who thought to themselves,”

hey, wait a second. Okay. I can one get rid of the fell and gone. That's obviously a top priority of Zhang Zemin. It was one of his absolute top priorities. He was obsessed with it. The dictator at the time even gave Bill Clinton famously, or, you know, at least among the people in the know, famously, a whole book about it about why he's justified in doing this, right? And he was passing this book out to all sorts of world leaders and so forth. So one, number two, you know, make money.

It's always a big thing, right, to be rich, to be glorious. That was all the way back from dang

jumping, right? And the third part is, um, grow the transplant industry. And that was actually a, that was one of their priorities. That was a huge priority. Right. Right. And so, and so now, someone thought to themselves, wait a second, I can do all of this at once, right? And all that needed to happen is for them to actually implement that and show the proof of concept and show we're eradicating, filling on, we're making money. Of course, we get a nice graphed on the side

from that money I might add. That's something I didn't mention yet, right? And we're building

“the transplant industry. And that's how you get the geometric growth of the transplant”

industry at the beginning, because everybody that's watching this province now, right, landing, let's say, right? Everyone that's watching, that's my theory, right? Or, pardon me, that's my hypothesis. Bingo. You've, you've, you've brainwashed me successfully now. Okay. I have cleansed your brain of

that to be quote unquote working. And now everybody else either gets in on the game or gets penalized.

“Okay. And so that's, and that's how you achieve this geometric growth. It was because of this”

twisted, regionally administered child areas. It was such a profound revelation. I'm so glad Chen Gong, you know, through his years of study figured this out. All right. I got a bunch of things I got to add here. Um, I, um, persuaded that much of the failure in the world can be understood by virtue of the fact that we have lots of people who are expert in something highly complicated who are then put in charge of something complex and they don't understand that they've stepped into

a realm that functions by entirely different rules that complex systems have to be managed in a different

way because they're fundamentally unpredictable. And I think what you've just described is the innovation that keeps Chinese communism from collapsing the way Soviet communism did in less than a hundred years is the recognition that it has to be structured in a ironically decentralized way

“that you can centralize the objective, but you have to decentralize the administration. And that the”

mechanism for doing this is simultaneously incredibly insightful in the sense that actually that can work in a sense, but it's also a recipe for criminality and atrocity. And I would just point out that the structure is not unlike what happened at Enron, where the people at the top realized that all they had to do was tell the people below them, bring me a profit on paper. Don't tell me how you got it and I will make you rich. And if you don't, I'll fire you. And the point is everybody then starts innovating

the crimes below you. You don't necessarily know what's going on. You don't even want to know what's going on because you don't want to go to jail. And so the point is it gets the value accomplished in this case. In the case of Enron, the value was we want the stock price to go up. Right? We don't care if we're hollowing out the company to do it. We want the stock price to go up. And so whatever shenanigans you come up with, that's between you and you, just bring us a profit on paper.

So by saying, by basically outlining these priorities, you're guaranteeing that somebody is going to

figure out, hey, those people have no power. They do have organs. It's a priority to neutralize their power. It's basically begging for somebody to put those dots together in a way that will create a genocidal reaction. Yeah. I mean, I'll just, I'll just add one thing here. I don't think it can be successful in the long term because, you know, for the best that we can see or the best that I've been able to glean, the major reason why the ZZP continues to stay alive today

is massive infusion of US money, technology, IP, goodwill. I mean, it's still continuing to this day, although it's, you know, that that big structure is starting to shift, right, away from that, especially through these recent terror policies and so forth. But actually, I'm no authority on

“Chinese history, but I believe the following thing is true. One of the things that is allowed”

China, and I'm not talking about the Chinese Communist Party, I'm talking about China as a nation and as a culture. One of the things that allowed it to survive as long as it did was that it actually rejected the idea of being expansionist, that it became insular. And if I understand the history correctly, it actually intentionally destroyed a fleet of ships that might well have discovered the new world from the Pacific side. So there's a whole different history that might have happened,

but the point is the wisdom inside of China was to not plug into the rest of the world in ways that would endanger the country and what you're describing is that the CCP approach has actually plugged it into the rest of the world in a way that opens real questions about the sustainability of China as an entity. Well, it's the crazy thing about it is. I'll just, this is a brief commentary. You know, a topic perhaps for another show if you want. Sure. But the Chinese economy had a few

different prongs, okay, to it. And the major prong that we would have say in the West and Canada

economy in China. In fact, for a whole lot of reasons and it has to do with how the CCP has

“governed that country and significant part, okay, that there isn't a lot of that among a lot. There”

are very few people that do it a lot, right? But vast majority of the population are not involved in what we would consider consumption in the West. There was a huge real estate and development based economy, which is now collapsed for a whole lot of reasons mainly because it was unsustainable. It's sort of like building stuff you don't need. It grows your GDP, but then you got to pay the

pipe or down the down the line, okay, basically. And the third part is export. And that's essentially

the major part of the Chinese economy that's left, like major, I mean, like, I don't know what percent, but it's like a huge portion of it is export. So they're in the situation where they have to sell. They have to sell. And they're ready to sell it fire sell prices because they need the money now. Okay. And this is so as these terrible regimes came in, they started flooding Europe with with stuff and so forth. Again, it's a kind of, this is, it's a predatory mind frame, okay.

They do not believe in win-win. You know, I kind of joke that winning for the Chinese Communist Party and it's, you know, leaders is two wins for me. Okay. It's all, they literally have a concept called comprehensive national power where they rate every country that exists. I talk about this

a little bit in the book just to kind of, but add some color to how the system works. But they always

measured a U.S. is the top. So that's the kind of one and every other number is kind of lower. And they're always either trying to increase their number relative to the rest or lower yours, right? It's never like, let's both let the rising tide lifts all ships. That just, this is not, it's a very weird zero sum logic. And that's also why you get these catastrophic

“lockdowns that they implemented during COVID because that's a totalitarian mindset at play, right?”

How else are we going to control this? Well, of course, we're going to, you know, basically impose the most coercive measures we can to try to control things. They're don't, you know, and in fact, you know, obviously those were the worst things that you could actually do. Well, there is a, again, I do want to get to the game theory eventually here, but I will, I'm going to shamelessly lift up my book here. If I, if I may, I just realized I kind of

forgot to do this. I've been advised that it's important that people, you know, a kill to order.com. This is where if you're interested, if you're liking this conversation, I want to strongly encourage you to pre-order. Is it okay if I say that? Can I be a little bit commercial here? Sure. I will again advise people, get it with a pair. So, there's something about the logic of communism, the explicit logic of communism is from each according to his ability

to each according to his need. There is something about the particular story you tell about organ harvesting that is a perversion of this. It's a transfer of health rather than wealth. The idea is if you have a healthy organ, but we don't like you, and somebody else needs an organ,

and they have money that will enrich us and make us more powerful, then they are entitled to

the organ. It's the natural logic of things. So, you have this, you know, brutal, utilitarian logic in play underneath this system, but I would also point out, I don't want to give the West a pass here,

“because I think our elites feel the same way. They actually are quite willing to tyrannize us,”

and they, of course, would imagine that the organ is better spent on them, right? The purchaser of such an organ is going to make the same kind of calculation about its value, and while it's not exactly communist, it does have this element of, you know, while I'm entitled to it, because I need it, and I'm powerful, and therefore, what's the problem? Well, so the epitome of what you're talking about, I'm going to take it back to China for a moment, but I'm happily happy to explore here with you,

okay, is, you know, again, so many things I learned during the writing of this book. Do you remember there was this hot mic moment between Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong-un, walking in Tiananmen Square. Did you, did you catch that? If not, we can, you may want to pull it off. When was this? I'll explain this. I would say, I'm a terrible sense of the passage of time,

happens is, it's kind of, the whole thing is remarkable, and many Chinese don't believe it could possibly have been, you know, unintentional because everything is so controlled over there, okay, but basically what happens is, I mean, this is going to be a summary, okay? She says to Putin, today, for us, when you're 70, you're just a baby, okay? Putin says to Xi, through continual organ transplantation, perhaps we can achieve immortality, a little more than that, but that's the idea. She says back to

Putin, our target, again, you know, summary, our target is 150 years, and for me, first of all,

“my phone was ringing off the hook. They talked about Oregon, I'd like, anyway, you could imagine, right?”

But I realized something that was just in front of my face, but I hadn't seen until this exact moment, okay? That's so 150 years is kind of a code word in a way for them, because they have something, and they like to name their sort of projects with numbers. So project 981 is the elite longevity project. And indeed, Chinese elites live a lot longer than the average person, and, you know,

there could be many reasons why, but it had never occurred to me having looked at forced organ harvesting

for 20 years, that forced organ harvesting was a piece of that puzzle. And of course, it is, it's kind of an obvious piece, the moment that you hear it, right? And they literally just said it on live hot mic, right? And there's this 981 project, obviously organ transplantation is an element of that. And there's even, again, I was telling you, you get these sort of odd anecdotes that come up that are just kind of weird or unexpected that kind of validate the idea. But I remember someone

had sent me this weird eulogy that was written publicly about a Chinese super elite who had died, and someone was, you know, kind of, you, again, this sounds sort of weird in macabre, but they did it,

right? The eulogy talked about how amazing it was that this person had had multiple organs transplanted

before ultimately they passed away. So again, I was like, oh, yeah, now I understand what that was about, right? So anyway, just the oddest things. And when it comes to American or Western elites, you know, I, I don't know, I haven't been studying them as much as you have, perhaps, but my inclination isn't to believe that they are as monstrous as the Chinese elites have become under the rubric of this communist ideology, which essentially allows the ultimate utilitarianism.

I'm worried that this, you know, you were talking about this sort of transfer of ideology or reproach that happens through engagement. I'm worried that we've really adopted too much of that. This utilitarian bioethics to be fair has been growing in the West, not just purely through engagement with communist China, but I think it's fueled through it. And the thing is, and central piece, and I talk about this in the book quite a way of how the Chinese elites have

created power, power over us, leverage over us is by compromising us in various ways. I mean, the obvious ways are honeypots. And, you know, the United Front Work Department, which I have a considerable, I spent a considerable amount of time in the book talking about, I mean, the last I know it was a $40 billion budget to compromise people, like literally it's like a ministry

“of the Chinese government designed to do that, right? But the best way to do it is you get them”

in bed with you. Hey, I'll set up a transplant for you in two weeks. No problem. It'll be clean and good. And then, now you're on the hook for life because you know what you've done, right? So just giving you examples of how they operate. Yeah, I would also want to my notes to myself was that the system of incentives is insidious here because let's suppose that you begin to get an inkling from out here in the West, that this must be what's going on in light of what's on offer.

And then some part of you thinks, how do I know I'm not going to need an organ at some point? So you're incentive to blow the whistle on this, to do the investigative journalism, whatever it might be, is reduced because as soon as you understand this, it becomes like an

insurance policy. I had never, Brett, if I may jump in, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but honestly,

this had never occurred to me what you're describing and I'm feeling kind of horrible, horrible about

“what you're just telling me, but I think you must be right. No, I mean, you know, that's the”

thing about game theories. You've got to know where to stand to see it, but it's not, uh, it's not hard to understand once you do. So anyway, I think a lot of this functions in that way to your point

is that the global elites have a culture or two or three. I don't know how many it is, but the point is, when G and Putin are talking peer to peer, there is a way in which they are united, even though it is China and Russia, which are not historically united, they are part of a de facto, cabal of people who have power over others. And so my guess is that part of the transfer of, um, or part of the infusion of some of this insidious utilitarian ideology is coming through this narrow band of elites

that share above all else a sense of entitlement that they are powerful because they are entitled to

be and that that gives them, they are above all of the rules. And anyway, um, I hear you saying that

“you don't know if our elites are this corrupt and diabolical, I think we're finding out through the”

absteen file release that they absolutely are this diabolical, maybe different topics, but I would guess that the idea, you know, if you're in a strata that feels entitled to destroy children, then you're certainly in a strata that feels entitled to appropriate organs. Yeah, and you know, so this is actually an incredibly important point. I do just made me realize something else that I bring to light. You know, there's a little known book that was incredibly

important and it's a little bit obscurely written, so it might be difficult for a lot of people to read. The book is called "Political Ponderology," written by a guy named Andrey Wobachewski or

“Andrey, I don't know how to pronounce it in English pronunciation, but he was someone that”

watched, so what happened after the Iron Curtain came down, right, and after World War II, and Poland was the, you know, Russia, or we, in Poland, we viewed it. I'm, I'm most, my background's

Polish. We kind of viewed it as a Russian occupation because the Russians always liked to

talk. I folded. It wasn't a new thing. Okay, and, and so, but it really was Soviet, so Soviet occupation. And there was this kind of time period between, between sort of the war ending and the Iron Curtain fully coming down, where there was a little bit of freedom, and Andrey Wobachewski watched as, you know, this kind of the Soviet, the commissar type people started taking over in Poland. And he was at the Jagiellonian University studying psychology, and he had this commissar come in

and basically take over the classroom. And he described the whole situation. And this kind of launched him on this journey to try to understand communism. And he does it through this very interesting lens. He believes that communism is a pathocratic system, okay, that it, what it does isn't effect is much more so than any other system. It allows people who have these anti-social personality disorder or cluster B traits or whatever, to basically rise to the top, which is another

reason why you have this situation that you get mass atrocities always in communist systems,

aside from the utility of bioethics ideology, it's sort of like, a pathocracy plus utilitarian bioethics together leads to, you know, mass atrocity or something like that. Well, I wouldn't

“I would push back in one way. I think all power systems have this defect for a fairly simple reason.”

And the reason is because a moral people, people who have no moral compass, have at their disposal, every single tool that moral people have, they can behave morally when that's the productive thing to do, and they can defect it will. And moral people are constrained by moral stats, what moral are they are constraints against doing things that would be profitable. So all systems have this tendency for people who are unconstrained to rise above others. The only system that

corrects for this properly is a system with a strong democratic component where you actually are empowered to discover the criminality of the people who rule over you to throw them out and replace them with better people. How well does it work? Not well, but better than anything else. But the sad part is that our democracy has been hollowed out. It doesn't function like a democracy. And so the self-correcting aspect, even though it's crude to begin with, isn't even there, right? Well,

psychopaths who are joking over email about torturing children. How are we not revolting against

“the system that allowed that to happen? I agree. I agree. I agree in a sense. I think we've been”

pushed in that direction significantly, but here's what struck me. I was thinking about, you know,

when you're, you know, these loyal D.I. Loyalty else, I just had an H director, J.B. about a cherry on the show, and we're talking about how, like, literally any grand T needed to do this D.I. Loyalty else, just kind of incredibly insane stuff, right, for in a scientific community, right? But, okay. So, however, this is the thing that struck me about just these, I'll call it Marxian, you know, kind of woke different critical theories, just structures, okay? They're not particularly,

first of all, they're all very arcane, very difficult to read about in study. You know, this is why James Lindsay is so brilliant, because he can read, like, insane amounts of this kind of stuff, and kind of figure out what it actually means, and most of us would be banging your head against a

brick wall pretty quick, right? But it, it allows you, the logic of it is always very

relatively simple. It has to do, if you can, you know, sort of, performatively say you're on the side of whoever the oppressed is in the context, I mean, I'm being a little bit maybe over some

“finds lately, that is, that's what's going to, that's what's going to get you the laurels. That's what's”

going to make you an ally or whatever, okay? And when I was, I've been learned, I learned a little bit about psych, about stew and apparently, like, people that are psychopathic, right? They don't know how to, they don't have to, they don't deal with society normally. So they kind of, it's almost like they're play acting, right? And play acting like another, like, a normal person to be able to function and not be ostracized or whatever, right? So I do think there's a natural function of ostracizing

people who behave incredibly anti-social ways, naturally in society. And this is why I think this idea of communism function as a pathocracy has merit. But if you, if you're one of these people that is as anti-social personality disorder, as it's now called, and you're pantomiming whatever trying to live, the woke sort of structures are perfect for you in a way because you can, you know, pantomime crazy stuff and be, you know, with great conviction, everyone praises you and elevates you

for it, right? So like, and that, and as I understand, you know, I've never lived in a communist system

aside from a short stint when I was five and that's a whole, you know, discussion for, again,

“for another day. But, but it's, it's a really weird incentive structure, I think, that uniquely”

allows people who are willing to, you know, adhere to a kind of a crazy, makes no sense, ideological position and behave as if it were perfectly reasonable and, in fact, a great, right, that allows those people to rise to the top a lot faster when most people, right, you know, especially the working class I would say because people who actually have to face the consequences of their actions and their work every day would be like, this makes no sense, this is stupid.

I just know where I'm going along with this. Does that make sense? Yes, although, um, I don't know if we have time for it, but I have a kind of different version of this in which there's a cycle. I think we frankly give Marks too much credit for inventing communism. I think communism self-invents and it self-invents. I completely agree with you, I can't wait to hear what you're going to say. This is super interesting. So I would argue that a

market-based system has incredible capacity to be productive but that it tends to produce a large number of people who are ill-equipped to win, right, in our system we have people who are not well educated, they may be malformed because they've been exposed to chemicals in their developmental environment that reduce their IQ or distorted their bodies and that if you have a number of people who can correctly detect that they don't have the tools to win in a system where the whole idea

is supposed to be trying to win, then they don't have any investment in that system. So of course, the idea of ganging up on that system, destroying it and transferring the productivity of that system in your own direction is a natural and I will say that the outgrowth of that thought is those who favor the market system and I am among them. I believe that a market-based system

ask them what to do but how to do things they're brilliant at it. But in a market system we need to do

we need to do a good job of making sure that everybody is armed to compete and that the instinct to hobble your competitors so that they can't compete produces an overthrow that creates communism. So there's stinginess on the right and unwillingness to recognize our collective responsibility to take care of people to immunize them from truly bad luck. I don't want to immunize anybody from bad decisions but truly bad luck, medically bad luck or whatever it may be.

Those are things that we should collectively take care of because it's in our enlightened self-interest

“to do it. If you want to preserve the market economy, you have to preserve it against the communist”

overthrow that inevitably happens if too many people detect that they have no stake in the future this system. You know what's just jumping to my mind right is I think there's I've read a whole bunch of research over the last however many years that kind of helps us understand what those basic building blocks are of you know the success sequence I believe it's called for example right if you follow the success sequence in life you're it doesn't matter how poor you were at the beginning

you're likelihood of doing really well in life is very high. It's astonishing that that's the case to me it's actually I was kind of shocking right but it's a reality so I think we can you know as we try to you know have a good decent humane and at the same time you know a society that

“creates individual accountability because I think that is critical right for people to to have”

understand that their individual agency is critical to securing their well-being while giving them

the the core basic building blocks and I allow as many people as possible to have access to them. I think that's highly doable. I think we have the information we need to affect that right. I don't even I don't think there's a girth of that. I think the girth is that there's you know grifters there's crazy ideologies that people are pushing there's demagogues there's all sorts of stuff right that sort of pushing against that and people just you know sort of wanting to preserve

the status quo. Well there's a lot there's a lot of work being done by preserving the status quo. I would say that the driver here is largely that when you have succeeded in a competitive system sabotaging potential competitors who are not yet winners but have what it takes to win is a natural strategy. So when you look at something like the crappy state of public schools in America you say well there is power those with power do not want to be dislodged from power. So why

would they agree to a system that armed other people to become powerful? And the answer is they

wouldn't but they can't say that. So they say other things and we have these nonsense battles

“about you know what the best way to fix education is and we end up with you know a dystopia in”

our schools but that if we recognize that in the enlightened self-interest of those who think that capitalism is the best system involves making sure that it does not let powerful saboteurs hobble there would be competitors. The magic of capitalism is most magical when the largest number of people have access to the market so that they can create wealth and instead what we get is a system in which people become personally wealthy by destroying wealth right you make millions

by destroying billions and incredibly but that's very compelling and it also explains you know sort of the pernicious nature of this what I describe as the financial financialization economy that really emerged hard after a wait where people were making money I mean it of course it started before that but a lot of people were just making money just by manipulating money as opposed to making something that people it's actually useful to people at large right and so that makes no sense

to me because that you know it provides value to people who have access to massive amounts of capital i.e. elites right so of course they like that because they keep getting richer but they're not actually providing value at at at a level which would be consummate to the amount of profit they're getting to everybody else which is this kind of the set of structure that you would like to have right well let me I think in the waning minutes of this podcast in light of your point here let me just

China fits with a larger picture of genocidal impulses and the way they shift history and let me

just get your your take on it so it has to do with a system of frontiers one thing we don't do well in biology as we don't leverage pie charts we think of pie charts as something that exists in business typically we don't use them very much but we should use them because they properly deal with the question of resources and their distribution so one thing to realize is that your your people whoever they might be have a slice of the pie and the evolutionary objective is to

increase the slice of the pie that you have increase the absolute amount to it there are many ways

“to do that the best way is evolutionarily are to find what I call a frontier a frontier can be a”

continent that doesn't have any people on it so when the natives of the new world discovered it at the end of the last ice age there were no people in it and a population that was literally a few

thousand people at most grew into a population of something like 50 to 100 million people before

Cristobal Cologne rediscovered the new world from Europe so that's a massive growth in a population a huge increase in the slice of pie for that tiny little population that grew into 50 to 100 million that's a geographic frontier you can also do it on a technological frontier you can discover a way of extracting resources from the environment that's just vastly more efficient so you go

“from hunting and gathering to farming and your population goes from you know a thousand to a hundred”

dozen so those are the natural ways and what they do is they actually increase the size of the whole pot you discover farming the slice of the pie that your population has access to grows immensely but other people learn farming from you the whole pie grows we all get richer the last kind of frontier though is a transfer of resource frontier if the objective evolutionarily is to increase the slice of pie that your people have access to one way to do that is to find somebody who can't defend their slice of pie

and to come up with excuses the very rationalizations you were pointing to describing these people as unworthy or dangerous or diseased or all of the above and then liquidating whatever they have taking their land taking their stuff taking their organs as you point out and the point is this is not an activity that grows the size of the pie for planet earth it's growing this one slice at the expense of another slice it's a go-to strategy and it shows up again and again and again in history and

to the extent that we see an obvious analogy between what the Chinese seem to be doing with the weegers and the Falun Gong that looks like what the Nazis were doing with Jews and the Roma it looks like every case of genocide in human history and there's a reason which is it's a strategy it's under the surface and it gets rediscovered again and again I mean what's really fascinating about what you're saying is I think this is one of the there's two parts to this on the one

head I think it's a huge kind of flaw in communist thinking okay because this is and it's also part of the cell to people that are disenfranchised that you were described basically the cell right to get every communist regime that's ever gotten into power and to power to take power is it's those people that took stuff from you that's the reason they're rich right and it might be

“partially true in some cases that that's the case right but that's how they sell it there's no like”

there's no you know I'll tell you something funny right having been educated in you know biology

for 10 10 years in the higher education system and before I really was never taught where prosperity

comes from like literally I found out where prosperity comes from within the last five years of my life okay I'd never I'd never had to grapple with this question right but the prosperity comes like you know division of labor famously right innovation the point is that

increasing the pie every time someone gets rich it's because they took it from you now it's your

time to take it back you're the one that's oppressed you've achieved your critical consciousness

“and now take it back and that's how these monsters get into power and of course very quickly”

execute the true levers in that ideology because of course it doesn't make a ton of sense and it's kind of doesn't and it doesn't I get fit with their totalitarian designs once they have the power in the first place so I think it's very interesting what you're describing because it's also a fallacy what you're describing is is a way that people get resources but they they also use it they use as an explanation as to why they have to and the final thought I have here okay is that

I think we have this unbelievable capacity to self-brain wash okay this is something that dawned on me watching COVID happen right the Canadian truckers movement I think that was one of the most consequential moments during COVID I think they changed the world by getting the Canadian government to so overreact that they started freezing bank accounts and all this stuff and it was it whoa okay this is this is this is this is this is more totalitarian than we're ready for

“or something right but I think what happened was you know in Canada our media are very let's say”

financially dependent on the government not just the CBS not just the official state media right CBC and so I think that that that that in a way the government at the time told the media that they kind of wanted to believe that that the people who were like the most grassroots people you could imagine right people just like we don't want these mandates let's change things let's go to Ottawa I know people who are there I know people who were journalists had been embedded in there

it was astonishingly grassroots okay for better to any movement I've ever come across okay but they were compelled I think they told their media they kind of have this expectation to discover these are white some sort of white supremacists or far rightists they're coming to take Parliament Hill okay and then these media just kind of obliged them in a way you know by reporting that way despite the reality again they're not truth-seeking media many of them

they're these what what I described earlier as activist journalists right of what trying to

“push a certain vision and I think the Canadian government actually believed at this point after”

this cycle happened right that these far right people were coming to see Parliament Hill when in fact these were people who just wanted to get rid of these mandates which really kind of make no sense

for anybody and never did so um a crazy reality right so now if you're in a living in a communist

system there's some portion of people that are self brainwashing themselves into believing in this zero-sum view of the world which is obviously unbelievably destructive and can never lend itself ultimately to prosperity because well prosperity is a sum you can't achieve it in a zero-sum world all you can do is take it for people there's only so much whereas here you have people innovating here you have people who are creating this division of labor which again the rising rising tide

lifts all ships right um I think you and I have experienced as part of the health freedom of men exactly how the self delusion works we in the health freedom movement exited but as we exited the system we were demonized by others which meant that lots of people who hadn't taken a position could detect very well what their fate would be if they looked at you know a rarer malone or a pure cori or you or me and they once they realize well I could you know do my own research

and see what's there but what will my fate be it will not be good so the point is they can't stand the cognitive dissidents they don't want to lie because it doesn't feel good so the way to not lie is to accept the prepackaged nonsense that they were being fed because that explains their behavior so all they have to do is convince you that they believe it and then we don't see a moral compromise we see why are you so confused how are you not seeing the evidence it's right

in front of you but the answer is this isn't about the evidence this is about me trying to convince

you that I actually think this is true so that you will understand why I'm treating you like a crazy person fascinating I had never know I mean I've never thought of it that way Brad to be perfectly honest you know this is this is you know perhaps you know perhaps again a topic topic for another

fast and absolutely fascinating yeah well I look forward to a future discussion

“before we go you want to hold up your book when will be available again so March 17th but you know”

like I'm gonna how about I just be perfectly transparent about what my agenda is here okay and this by the way and thank you for inviting me it was a just I didn't know you I truly didn't actually know you were interested in this and I just loved getting the invite you know so thank you and I mean I didn't realize you've been thinking about organs all these years and I'm gonna be calling a Yacoblivi soon to find out you know if if your work has influenced them somehow but before you before you

go on let me just say all of the game theory and the particulars of the story of organ harvesting in China and the logic of genocide and pie charts and all of that take that lens and start looking at Canada with it's medically assisted suicide and you can figure out where this was going in a hurry right you're looking at the beginning of something utterly ghastly and you know it will it will have a particular Canadian flavor I'm in could just on this point right I'm incredibly concerned about this

because basically wherever it's it there's various types of this medically assistance suicide in

different places in the world including in the US I think there's another state that just passed it

“but it's where it's a medical billing code where it sort of explodes and that's what happened in”

Netherlands and in Canada it's a it's a it's a it's a very difficult I just checked okay and it's now become I I was saying it was the number five cause of death but I decided to fact check myself to make sure I wasn't leading someone astray as I was saying it it's actually the number four be given the the recent statistics as far as best as I can tell so that's crazy that's that's like you know we're talking about like heart disease and like these kind of like common

rentable things which which cause caused it cause death so and that's you know this medically assisted suicide so I'm very worried about that development I really I really I want to I hope that we can kind of come back from that in Canada we need to push back on these laws it can't keep going in that same direction cause it will lead to this sort of very extreme kill to order situation I completely think that you can you can just see it right oh you know on the one hand many of us believe you

“have a right not to suffer that nobody can force you to suffer if your life is unbearable but”

you know most people who commit suicide are taking a permanent solution to a temporary problem so the whole idea of turning this into a governmentally sanctioned phenomenon is frightening in its own right but once you have such a large number of people availing themselves of this

it inevitably leads to that same first step onto the slippery slope of the condemned person in

China well what's the harm if the person's gonna die anyway and then it gets to the question of what kind of incentives will be given to people and what kind of propaganda will induce them to think maybe if I die my organs will help people and people a hundred percent a hundred percent this is exactly what I was thinking about because you can imagine right especially with the breakdown of our family structures and that you know children not caring as much for the parents as they

once did historically in for since time immemorial right for for humanity you can imagine a situation where a parent you know is living older elderly parent living alone you know not having a lot of interaction and then is being given an advertising you know essentially propaganda that says hey listen you can actually make a difference like there's people that need organs you know you're not really making much of a difference now why don't you make a real difference and help

these people and it kind of almost sounds compelling doesn't it right yes and you can imagine the guilt that will be created in people who actually just want to live out their lives as they are fully entitled to do and you know thinking that they are being selfish in wanting to live their own life I mean it's this becomes ghastly so quickly the metaphor of slippery slope is apt because it is it takes almost nothing once you begin to go down this road for the utilitarianism

to lead you into madness hundred percent well okay so yeah my agenda yes my agenda I want to try you know the idea is this issue so it's so macabre and crazy like that for most of my life I I really couldn't even talk to people about it terribly effectively because people would just kind of clue out in the middle of the conversation like they didn't really want to know and I I I was sympathetic

COVID to be perfectly honest but possibly other things possibly Epstein files more recently I've been

“thinking about that a bit actually is that people seem to be now more ready than ever to understand”

that this is real that this is something that's happening and there's a whole lot of things that we can do to the very least stop our own complicity but even stops some of the scale of it that's of it it's happening in China right now from happening so my my goal is to make this thing a best seller

“you know get knock the pre-orders out of the park knock that you know just and and you know”

let millions more people realize that this is even real because that's been the hardest part of

these years it's just such a you know and of course the Chinese regime always says that this is just

all propaganda and you're against us and how dare you and and and as I mentioned before never

“provided any evidence at all that it's actually not happening I think we have to I just I think it's”

it's the perfect time and I want to encourage people to participate with us in and helping stop this yes well I think your book is gonna be a big success and I think the careful and sober way you approach it and your obvious decency is a person is going to is going to make a huge difference thank you for that so the book is killed to order you said it's out March 17th that's right available to be pre-ordered now and you yannia kelek are findable on American thought leaders

the podcast at the epoch times and anyway I hope people if they're not familiar with you will go check those things out and buy your book and maybe we can raise awareness and turn the situation around and my main social media is ex and they're at yannia kelek that's at jngake ielek and also the book you can get it you know the amazon link right away kill to order.com and Brett this has been just an absolutely wonderful conversation thank you so much for it I mean really

really wonderful yeah I have appreciated the conversation and great deal too and I always appreciate

your your insight and and humanity so yannia kelek thanks for joining me on our course