None. Stephen Young, thank you for joining me in the trenches. You're very welcome, good to be here again. I chatted recently to Jeff Berwick and he said trenches, What trenches? What information war? Really. He's like, I'm not part of any information war, I'm not in any trenches. Well, that's not how I feel, I guess. Shots fired at me like on the regular, like I feel, I feel it. Yeah, you're definitely in the trenches, aren't you? Yeah, yeah.
I mean, it's, you know, I mean, I was, I honestly didn't like conflict. I was an artist, so I would avoid conflict at all costs because I just wanted to get on with creating. And conflict just kind of slows you down and bogs you down. So I was not into conflict. But then after I've reached my book, of course, I start getting
a lot of conflict. And I've just kind of gotten used to. I started going to the gym and stuff, and that kind of pumps me up in the morning and makes me sort of ready to deal with any heavy lifting I have to do during the day in terms of, you know, comments and attacks by e-mail and stuff. But yeah, it's fine. It's just part of life now. I'm quite a fan of the gym.
I actually set up my own gym at my home so that I don't have to go to the gym and wait for, you know, the bench press or the squat rack to become available that are starting to get very annoying. Yeah, yeah, that's a good idea. I mean, I go between 8:00 and 9:00 in the morning, which is the quietest time, but if you go outside those hours at all, then it's so busy that it's kind of annoying. What do you do at the gym? Well, I just do.
I like, I like the boxing, you know, I hit the bag quite a lot. I'll do, you know, various different weights and work on
different muscles and stuff. But it was kind of a new thing for me. I never really until like, you know, earlier this year, I wasn't really a gym guy, but I just got into it. And I think where it helps is, you know, in dealing with online conflict, because you know, when you when you lift the heavy weights in the morning, it's in a way that's the most resistance you're going to face for the
whole day. And so if you get resistance online, it actually just seems like really small compared to all the, the weight you've been lifting that morning. And so it's sort of easy to deal with. But if I haven't done that, then I start getting this resistance coming in. It's like it feels like heavy lifting, you know what I mean? But very importantly though, what is playing in your in your playlist while you are lifting? Actually I don't listen to music at the gym, but maybe I should.
I just do it sometimes because it pumps me up. Well, I've heard this, yeah. And it makes sense. And I probably should take some headphones to the gym. I'll probably get a better workout. But yeah, they usually have like old school dance music playing in the in the gym. So. So it takes me back to my youth. It's always the same thing on repeat. Yeah, yeah. It doesn't matter where where in the world it is. All gyms are the same. It seems like yeah, yeah.
I find that a bit of metal or or some some Hard Rock or or or like drummer bass or something or break beat or something that's got like a huge amount of like bottom end that that kind of psychs me. All right, that's it. I'm taking my headphones to the gym next time. But you're a musician, right? I am, but you know, I want to say I spent so much time like immersed in music and working on it all day every day and going to gigs every weekend, everything. But actually now I hardly listen
to music at all. I'm, I'm sort of like, my tolerance is worn thin. My fascination with it, you know, I'm not, I'm not so easily entranced by it anymore. But whereas I used to be so fascinated by music, I would just get sucked into it all, all the time. But now it doesn't work on me as much as it used to. But, you know, and you know, yeah, it's just I hired it too much, you know, but. But that's also not what you actually do. You're a nuclear physicist.
Yeah, so before I became a full time music producer, I did a degree and APHD in theoretical physics, specializing in nuclear physics. Yeah, and it was, I was five year, so I did that until that was 2005. I graduated with a PhD and I did five years work in industry. And then 2010 I actually quit my job and just went fully into music. It's something I've been into
since I was a kid. You know, I've been a DJ since I was like 1213 years old and I just really sensed an opportunity to just put everything into it and and run with it. So yeah, I did that for 10 years until 2020. And then, yeah, it kind of all kind of, well, it didn't all come to an end. I mean, I've still made music since 2020, but I haven't, you know, my career hasn't recovered from COVID. I was like out the club and yeah, I don't, I don't really
get the gigs anymore so but. It's fine. I can totally see, I can totally see the the connection from nuclear physics to DJ ING are. You being sarcastic? No, I'm never sarcastic. Well, I mean, there is a connection in that actually when you start doing physics, then real physics, like making calculations, it's all based in wave theory. It's all wave equations. And actually the, the, the synthesizer is, you know, a
device for manipulating waves. And so I got really into synthesizers and making electronic music. It felt like an application of all the theory that I'd been learning, you know, even though it's nothing to do with quantum or nuclear or whatever, it was music. But music is actually something that people enjoy. It's something that they buy. It's something that rings forever. You know, once you've made a good piece of music, it's good forever.
And it just seemed that music was so much more valuable to humanity than any of the stuff I was doing in physics. But it translated because of the vibration harmonic theory and stuff which is built built into physics. So. So yeah, there was a connection there, though it's maybe not obvious from the outside. I. Remember when you and I last chatted, you basically dust so much of of theoretical science. Yeah, and I'm only just getting started as well. What is it? Quantum, Quantum physics, I
think you you mocked. There were a few things actually that you said. Basically it's just all sort of like, what's the word intellectual masturbation, really. Yeah, our sophistry. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, I used to love it. Don't get me wrong. I'm at the time and you know, I have no, I have no beef with my teachers or lecturers or anything. I mean, I had a good experience at uni and, you know, my teachers were were cool and
everything. So this isn't like some personal beef, but it's like 20 years of growth and research since I did that. That's a lot of time to test the things that I've been taught and to see if it actually holds up on the world stage. And my view is it doesn't. And actually the more you look into it, the more wacky it gets.
And I believe just to, you know, as a sort of conclusion, I've come to the conclusion that quantum theory is kind of a military intelligence operation to hide secretive technologies. So instead of when you go to university, you get the good grades you want to learn about how the world really works or how you know the fundamental reality works.
And instead they give you all this theory like masses and masses of complex theory about things that you can't see and nobody can, you know, verify or isolate or falsify. And I feel like it's. Just. Yeah, like atoms. Yeah. And it just channels. I mean, you know, this is a 120 page PhD thesis on nuclear theory. And I mean, you know, nobody in the world is going to check this work, right? I bet, you know, nobody will ever on the Internet go through this and verify everything I did
in here. And the reason is because it would take years and it would take funding. And even if you did go through all of that and verify it, what good would it do? You wouldn't be any better off because it's fruitless, right? It's, it's pedagogical, it's designed for teaching purposes, not for the purposes of application in the real world. And you know, and so, you know, fair play. If, if the purpose of school is to train your brain through solving really difficult
problems, then that's fine. Nuclear physics and quantum physics will do that. But if you expect it to apply to reality when you leave university, then you, you've got it wrong. It, it doesn't, you know, it's not a useful skill that, that, that you can be employed to use in any real world capacity. And I, I stand by that. And the more I look into it, the just the more true it gets. A virus has never been isolated and therefore observed.
Has an atom ever been isolated and therefore observed? No. So an atom is, well, so they say a virus is 1000 times smaller than a bacterium. Well, a, an atom is probably a million times smaller than a virus. So if you think, you know, if you can't isolate viruses, then you know, can they isolate atoms? And then what about electrons, of course, which is even smaller than an atom.
And they talk about electrons all the time as if they're, you know, like in the room with us. But of course, those have never been isolated either. So. So, yeah, I, I, you know, I'm highly critical of the model of the atom and yeah, a lot of modern theoretical. Hold on. But then how did they arrive at that? I mean, it's it's standard
vernacular. Well, I mean, it's, you know, historically we're only talking like 100 years or maybe like 120 years or so since the electron was coined, like the term was coined. It might be a bit older, like late 1800s. And then the other particles
came along afterwards. And, you know, the models have been built up. But you know, The thing is, it's sold to us as if it is these brilliant, you know, noble scientists who were just investigating the structure of matter and energy and came up with these great theories to help us understand it. But when you actually look into it, who these people were, they were all tied up in the nuclear bomb narrative. They were all involved in it in
some capacity or another. And the whole goal of quantum theory was to build a nook. I didn't. That wasn't why I studied quantum theory. I was seeking fundamental understanding. I'm not thinking about nukes or anything. But then I ended up, I followed that path. And where did I end up? I ended up doing a PhD in nuclear physics, but even after a PhD in nuclear physics, I couldn't. I couldn't tell you how to how a bomb works or how a nuclear power station works.
And yeah, I could tell you what they told us. I could, I could tell you what they told us, how those things work. But it's not a true understanding. And I've come to, I've come to realize this as the years have gone on. I was like, I wasn't given a true understanding of how these technologies work or a true understanding of how nature works. But if we can't see something, can we conclude that it doesn't exist? I mean, there are lots of things that we can't see.
True. Well, what they do when they so how do when they're modeling this stuff, the way they test it is by just firing light at matter. OK, So you have a piece of matter that I was studying lithium. So if you imagine you got like a lump of lithium and then you've got a laser beam which you fire at the lithium, right? So when the light interacts with the matter, it will disperse off. It'll, you know, go off in different directions. And you know, essentially that's what I was doing.
So I was creating a model for what would happen when a light beam hits a piece of lithium. Create a model for how the light goes off, what directions it's, it goes off in, and it's all done with vibration, like modelling using sine waves or something called the Fourier's theorem. And you know, we do this in, in, in music. So you can make any sound like absolutely any sound you can imagine by adding sine waves together. Well, similarly, you can model any substance by adding sine
waves together. And that's what they do. And it's so that that aspect of it is mathematical modelling, right? It's actually not quantum theory. It's it's like it's mathematical modeling using harmonics, using vibration. And that's a very good science that actually works. But the theories of the particles and you know, the particles zoo, as they call it, it just just doesn't stand up.
Because if particles are meant to be solid things like solid objects, and if they're solid, then you should be able to hold them in your hand or, you know, create a bucket, you know, or put them in a bottle or something like that. You know, there should be a way to isolate them, but but there isn't because they exist in a dimension that's beyond, well, they are said to exist in a dimension that's beyond our reach and will forever be beyond our reach.
Does the same apply to DNA? DNA, yeah, the the double Helix structure, I don't think there's any evidence of that existing as a molecule. So it's a kind of a hypothetical molecule of the soul because it's said to contain all the the information like the blueprint of of your soul and the the double Helix structure is a model of what that molecule
would look like. But I would say that the the information about your soul would be contained in the structures of the water in your body, not actually wound up in this physical double Helix molecule. You told me earlier that you watched my conversation with Michael Palmer, who was on my UK column show a few months ago in which he, I think, quite convincingly argued against the idea that atomic bombs were dropped on Japan.
Yes, absolutely. So, you know, I, I was skeptical of the bombs, but I was coming at it from a different angle to Michael Palmer. So I listened to him on, on you and I listened to him also on Crow 777. And, you know, one of the things he said when he started, he said I'm only qualified to talk on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He said that at the start of his conversation with Crow and not not anything else. Oh, that's Max Egan. Sorry. That's Max Egan isn't it? Crow, 7777. I don't think so.
No, I don't. It's not Max Egan. I've met Max Egan as someone else but. Oh no, I think he's a Crow house or something. OK, nevermind. Anyway. Yeah. Anyway, so there was an interview with Michael Palmer and I listened to them both like and, and yeah, so he said he was only qualified to talk on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and, and nothing kind of outside of that. And I thought it was interesting. And then so he's very thoroughly debunked this and we can go into
some of his points if you want. But what I thought was interesting was he's, he then said that, but he actually still believes in nukes and he, he believes in nuclear physics completely. So he, he thinks they actually just hadn't finished working on the nukes. So they had to, they had to fake it. And there was other reasons why they faked it as well. But then that shortly after the war, they then did develop nukes and then they've been testing nukes ever since.
And I thought that was, that was quite an interesting twist, of course, because like, he is the guy for debunking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but he still believes in, in nuclear physics and everything. So I I thought this was a good opportunity for me to to come at it from the other side. Yeah, I mean, isn't there a difference there between a bomb and creating energy? Well, yes, actually. So as it turns out, they're only connected by name.
So they use the same term, nuclear, to describe the bombs and to describe the power plants. But there's actually not really a similarity. I mean, as Michael Palmer pointed out, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they used napalm and mustard gas, which are chemical weapons. So chemical weapons were banned, of course. So they they kind of had to. So the thing with nuclear is it was a clever way of circumventing the chemical weapons ban.
So they were able to use chemical weapons, but claim that it were non chemical because it was a new type of combustion fuel called nuclear. You see, because under the, the Chemical Weapons Convention, you, you're allowed to blow people up with combustible fuels, but you're not allowed to poison them or burn them with chemicals, right?
So it's, it's crazy. So, so because they were using napalm and mustard gas, which are chemical poisons that burn people, they had to spin it as being a new type of combustible fuel. And so they, they came up with this nuclear thing, but actually nuclear power stations, they use a system that's, you know, quite, quite clever way of, of generating electricity. It has nothing to do with napalm
or mustard gas. So the two are only connected by the name nuclear, which is, you know, as you know, it's quite a powerful word that they use to to scare people. OK, but just for clarity, I mean for you it's obvious, but the for the rest of us who aren't scientists, what is meant by the term nuclear or a nuclear bomb or nuclear energy? OK, so the etymology of the word nuclear actually comes from nuke, meaning nut, nut or seed or or kernel.
So when you talk about the nucleus of something, you're actually talking about the seed in the middle of the thing. And so the idea of nuclear is that matter contains a nut at the at the very center, the smallest, you know, dimension this of matter, There's there's a nut to seed of, of that matter. And that's the nucleus. Because in, in the atomic theory, they say you've got neutrons and protons in the in the nucleus, and then you've got
electrons around the outside. But the electrons don't define the substance, right? It's the, the nucle, the nucleus, the neutrons and protons, the number of neutrons and protons that define the character of the substance, not the electrons. So the nucleus is the nut, but so that's what nuclear means. And but it's it's it's kind of because it became all about this quest for the biggest bomb
that's ever been made. Now the word has just become associated with war, fear, threat, destruction, all this kind of stuff. It's a real like military power word that they can use to assert military dominance. You know whenever they throw this this idea around. But in reality, Stephen, that's exactly what they do. They throw around the term everybody talks about nuclear war. Yeah, yeah.
No, it's a threat. And, you know, it's politically convenient because it establishes a kind of military dominance like to if, if you have the enemy thinks that you have the biggest bomb ever, right? That's like a, it's like a psychological warfare technique. And, you know, when it comes to nuclear bombs, all we have is videos, videos of mushroom clouds. That's it. And as Michael Palmer points out, a mushroom cloud is not evidence of nuclear, right?
That's a, that's a myth. People think they if they see a mushroom cloud, it must be nuclear. It's like, no, any explosion above a certain magnitude will produce a mushroom cloud. You don't need to have nuclear fuel to do that. And yeah, it's really interesting. I mean, the stuff you found out about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you know, there was like people like 50 meters away, you know, eyewitnesses like 50 meters away
who survived and stuff. And we've got this idea that it's like this massive blast that's like blasted away like thousands of people destroying a whole city. And it was a fire bombing. It destroyed part of a city. And, you know, there were people as close as 50 meters who saw it happen. It's like it just doesn't add up to the the scale. You know, the scale was exaggerated and then there was no reporting, right?
So the first journalist to get in to Japan was four weeks after the event and they had all their work confiscated by the US military. Guy Weller wrote 25,000 words on what he saw. It was all confiscated. Another guy went in and took a load of pictures, all confiscated. So it was very controlled. They didn't want us to see or know what happened there, but they told the whole world it was like this huge nuclear thing
but. It wasn't. Meanwhile, Dresden and Tokyo were fire bombed and they looked pretty much the same as Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Exactly. Yeah. So Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not the first cities to be destroyed by fire. It's happened many, many times throughout history. But we're supposed to believe that this was just like the biggest, most, you know, worst destruction of a city that's ever happened.
And, and of course, in nuclear physics, you're expected to believe there'll be thousands of years of nuclear fallout where all the atoms will be decaying and nothing can grow, and they'll be like mutants and all this kind of stuff. But actually, the city's just built right back after, you know, they just got back to business after the explosion. So it just none of it really adds up. If you walked right into Chernobyl itself, what do you
think will happen? Well, you know, it kept operating for 14 years after the, the, the accident that there's, there was another plant like right next to it like 100 meters away that kept operating and people kept working there and stuff for like 14 years. But so when you're asking a question about radioactivity and whether that is real and whether it's dangerous, and I think it's just a subtle point on this is that with radioactivity, they tell us there's three kinds,
alpha, beta, and gamma. And they tell us that alpha and beta are particles. So that's solid objects that are being spat out from the source. But gamma is frequency vibration, radiation or light. And I just, I'm of the opinion that alpha and beta are actually just light as well. They're not particles. It's like alpha, beta, gamma are is a classification of radiation by penetration depth. So the gamma rays have got strong penetration. They can go through a lot a long way through matter.
But the beta can only penetrate, you know, not so far. And alpha can only penetrate a little bit, right. So it's radiation graduation by penetration depth. Now radiation can be dangerous. It depends on the quality of the radiation and your dosage of it and how close you are to the source. And I think the best way to think about it is just like sound. OK, so music can be beautiful and healing.
It can make you feel good. But if you go right up close to a loudspeaker, you could damage your ears. A lot of things happen when you go up close to the speaker. You can no longer hear the bass very well because the bass needs a lot of space to to open up right. But the high frequencies are like super loud when you're like close to the speaker. So the, the, the, the whole, the
spectrum becomes tilted. You have high frequencies are too high, bass frequencies are turned down and that becomes dangerous, right? Even though it's the same music that you're enjoying a few meters back from the speaker is now dangerous to your ears when you're close to the speaker and the high frequencies are boosted and the bass are turned down, right? So it's like that with
radiation, right? Your closeness to the source and the frequency or energetic spectrum of the radiation, it all depends on that, like how how dangerous it is.
But generally it gets less dangerous the further away you get from it. And I think even with things like Wi-Fi routers and stuff like that, it's like, you know, it's probably not that dangerous when you're sitting around at a distance from it. But if you were to sit right next, like holding your Wi-Fi router all day, then you're a lot closer to it and the high frequencies will will kind of get into you more so. But that's kind of how I see it. It's just all radiation, it's all vibration.
There's no particles. I don't, I don't believe they've been adequately, you know, proven to exist. OK, but then if you are not convinced that nuclear power is a thing, what was Chernobyl? Well, so nuclear power is is a thing in the sense that, you know, these power stations exist, right? So nuclear bombs are just videos. These are videos and claims. Yeah, so, but nuclear power stations, obviously they're dotted around the place and they, they are, we only do
exist. But the question is, are they nuclear? Is it, is it justified to use the term nuclear to describe what they're doing there? And I've done a deep dive on this actually just this week. I've just, I've just finished a new presentation on nuclear power, which I'm going to put out this weekend on YouTube and Substack. So what it what they do there is it's, you know, the basic idea of how it works is they say it's like a kettle. It just works like a kettle.
So you've got a heating element in some water and then the heat goes into the water, the water turns to steam and the steam drives the turbines, right. So that's the basic kind of engineering schematic of a nuclear power plant. But how do they heat the water? Well, they tell you that they use uranium, a nuclear fuel called uranium, and that it heats the water by this exotic nuclear energy called neutrons.
And so I started looking into this and the first thing you notice is they don't actually use uranium in the reactor, so they use something called yellow cake. Have you heard of this yellow cake? No. Yeah. So nuclear fuel is called yellow cake. It's a bright yellow powder. It looks virtually identical to sulphur and they call it uranium dioxide. Now, is it uranium dioxide or isn't it, or is that just the name they call it? It looks virtually identical to
sulphur, as I say. And sulphur is a very fiery
compound. So yeah, it's a, it's a bright yellow powder and they get it from an ore called pitch blend, which, you know, is extracted from this ore and then they enrich it through just, you know, basic processes again, uranium or they call it uranium enrichment, but it's actually yellow cake enrichment and they, they purify it and kind of distill it essentially to get the like the, the lightest components out of it. Like with distillation, they use
something called gaseous diffusion and centrifugal separation to enrich it, and then they put it in these little pellets. So you get these zirconium pellets, they're about this size and they pack them with the yellow cake fuel. Now then using, they then ignite the yellow cake by heating it to a certain critical temperature. And then what happens is like if you were to just ignite the yellow cake, normally it would just explode, right?
Boom, it's an explosive. But when it's inside these little pellets, it can't explode. There's nowhere for it to go. There's no oxygen in the pellet, so it can't burn because you need oxygen to burn. It also can't produce any sound because there's no it can't produce any light. There's nowhere for it to go. So what happens is all the energy comes out of the pellet as heat. And so the pellets like slowly heat the water, which produces the steam.
It's actually pretty clever. And you know, I think it's, you know, people say it's like nuclear, right? NEW clear nuclear energy actually makes more sense because it is newer than the coal burning stations we used to have. And it's clearer. So it doesn't produce any smoke. It produces steam instead.
And the downside of that is if you have nuclear power plants everywhere, you might end up with a lot of rain because, you know, they are essentially just pulling water out of the river, turning it into steam and blasting it into the sky, right? So we went with a very rainy environment if there was nuclear power everywhere. But you know that that's
essentially how it works. But there's it's dressed up in all this jargon about the the fuel and that the fuel is this really dangerous stuff called uranium. And you know, it heats the water by neutrons and stuff. But man, if you want to boil water, you need heat. You don't need neutrons. Like, you know, it's just, it's ludicrous. It's like it's, it's, it's the water is boiled by the process of heat, not by the process of
neutrons. It just that just dresses it up in a very jargony way that hides the simple thermal mechanical processes that are going on. Why though? Why would there be this quote UN quote cover up? Because it's all tied in with secretive military technologies that they, they don't want you having. I mean, look, they don't want us generating our own power for a
start. So if everyone was taught the secret of how to, you know, build nuclear power, then we, we could all just start building our own power, power devices. They don't want that. And, you know, tied up, of course, with the bomb narrative as well. And, you know, well, the way I put it is I, I realized this after my PhD was that, you know, if they really did have the secret of world destroying power, are they going to teach it to just any old Tom, Dick and Harry who got good grades in
school? You know what I mean? All all you need is like, you know, bees in maths and physics and you can go to school and learn the secret of how to destroy the world with yellow cake. I mean, it's just ludicrous. So they, they don't actually teach you how these things work. And they, it's what they, they look at very abstract ways of like modelling the nucleus and, you know, all this kind of thing. But they don't actually just teach you how to build a power
generator or a bomb. And you know, probably good reason for that, you know, but. So the evidence for atomic bombs on Japan is remarkably flimsy, and you're saying so is the evidence for nuclear power or any type of nuclear weaponry? Yes, yeah. So the the the bombs don't even use the nuclear fuel. I mean, that's that's what Michael Palmer has shown the. Can I, can I interrupt you? I used the word or the phrase atomic bomb. What is the difference between a nuclear bomb and an atomic bomb?
I I think there it's just terminology, you know, the terminology changed because it's like the atomic nucleus, right? So it's, they're, they're sort of interchangeable anyway, that's how I always understood that you can call them atomic, call them nuclear. It's basically the same thing. Yeah, just, well, just coming back to the, the nuclear power thing. So it's obviously there's a real power generation happening and it is actually quite clever and
really good engineering. And you know, it doesn't produce smoke. So it is clear. And you know, I'm not, I'm not even against it honestly. I think actually the main reason people are against nuclear power is because they bought into the whole radioactivity narrative, right? So they think that this is a potential source of danger that is going to blow up one day and release all this radioactivity, and then we're all going to be living in nuclear fallout and stuff like that.
So there's a lot of fear around nuclear power plants, which is derived from the fear around the the nuclear bomb and the dangers of nuclear fuel. And I just think it's actually unjustified and perhaps it was done to keep people away from the technology, right? Because with the radioactivity, the idea is that the matter is spitting out little particles at you, like little bullets, right? And so if you're, you're probably, well, I'm going to go near that stuff, right?
It's probably the first thing you think I ain't going near that stuff because it's dangerous. It's going to spit out radioactivity at me. And I think that was probably the idea was that they wanted ordinary people to be like, I'm not going to go near that stuff. I don't want to go close to it. And so it's all dressed up in like heavy, like safety regulations as well. So Galen Windsor, you know his story. Yeah. Didn't he drink nuclear
something? I don't know, he drank something that was toxic or radioactive or whatever. Yeah, he would drink the water from the from the nuclear core, but I mean, it's just water coming in from the river. Do you know, it's like, it's like big deal, you're drinking river water. So what? But I mean, you know, what he said was that he when when he started, he was head of nuclear fuel inventory for the US government. And they all loved their jobs.
They were handling the fuel, handling the waste like they had a good crew, good operation running. No one was sick. People loved their jobs. It was good. And then one day the government came down and was like, oh, you can't touch this stuff. You, you got to stay, you got to keep your distance, you got to wear protective gear. You can only have 10 minutes
exposure a day and all this. And he said it actually just made everyone's job a complete misery and kind of ruined the operation, you know, But the fact that they were doing it all without safety gloves, without quite happily for a lot of years, you know, that shows you that it was never dangerous to begin with. It was all about control. He actually said that nuclear weapons don't exist. Yeah, and I, I would. And he said that.
Radiation fear, yeah. And he also, I think he said radiation fear was mostly just about exactly that, the fear. Yeah, yeah, hysteria and yeah, just a fear to kind of keep you away from powerful substances, essentially. I mean, you know, this is an explosive substance like the the yellow cake and you know, they they. If you think about it, Steven Fear is a great way to get a
compliant group of people. 100%, man, I mean, look at all the stuff that's been done in the name of nuclear as well, you know, like the children, you know, duck, duck and cover drills. I mean, I thought that was very reminiscent of the masking, you know, masking children, making them sit in like plastic boxes and everything to protect them
from the deadly virus. It was very reminiscent of, like, get under your desk and, you know, duck and cover in the event of a nuclear blast and all this, like it, you know, traumatic, you know, terrifying things to consider for a child. You've got a book called The Fool's Wisdom, and part of it is what you call the Secret Art of Alchemy. What is that? Yes, well, alchemy is ancient science and you know, it's, it's a science which is based in
fire, earth, air and water. So it's actually common to all ancient civilizations because obviously all civilizations were familiar with fire, earth, air and water. They're like the, the, the true elements of life. And so it's kind of a science that kind of reframes things in terms of fire, earth, air and water instead of in terms of atoms and protons and neutrons and stuff. So the atomic theory was not around at that time. So alchemists, they invented chemistry, they did all kinds of
great science. And you know what, what the ancient architecture, the cathedrals and, you know, stained glass windows and all this stuff. Like alchemists were involved in all of that. And it was all they did it all without any knowledge of atoms. And so when I started to look into alchemy, I started to realize it actually can provide a superior explanation of anything because it explains it in terms of real elements, fire,
earth, air and water. So it actually helped me to understand technology better, like, like understanding the how a nuclear power station works, right? It's actually, I would say it's an alchemical engine. It uses alchemical processes and techniques like the, the, the yellow cake in the pellets. You know, that's like, it's what they call the secret fire in alchemy, which is when you heat something without oxygen. It's also known as pyrolysis.
So when you heat something in the absence of oxygen, it doesn't burn. It actually it, it transforms in a, in a positive way, right? It's like, but if, if, if there's oxygen present, it will burn, it will explode, right?
It will, it will go on fire. And so, you know, they are actually using alchemical techniques and processes in these nuclear power stations, but the schools and the universities and the media and all that, they just don't teach us exactly how this stuff works for whatever reason. Are you of the opinion that science is quite broken?
Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, since COVID, you know, most science people, if you like science gurus, professors and all that, have no legitimacy whatsoever because of how they responded to COVID. You know, it's like they, if they promote it, if they went along with it, they promote it is like they've lost all scientific legitimacy because they've shown they don't have the discernment. And they've also promoted poison to masses of people, right?
And you know, if I was running a company and my staff were promoting poison on social media, they'd be fired, you know what I mean? And I might even call the police, right? But of course, now it's completely normalized. So many people promoted the poison, right? And most of them have gotten promotions and, you know, bonuses and knighthoods and all this kind of stuff, right? So, but, but for anyone with discernment, it's like you can't trust these scientists ever
again, right? Unless, unless they were, you know, unless they were humble and they came forward and say, you know what? Look, I was, I was actually totally wrong about that. I was misled and I was afraid. And, you know, I said some things I regret and everything. Then you start to get some legitimacy again. But you you've got the wrong side on COVID. You haven't repented for what you've done. No legitimacy whatsoever. Oh, that just. Sounds like a cult. What's that the?
Scientism. I love this this the sentence that you use. Just scientism is the troll that guards the gates to the fountain of alchemical truth. Alchemical. Alchemical. How do you say that alchemical? Alchemical truth. Let me just say that statement again because I've completely butchered it. Because that's so beautiful. Scientism is the troll that guards the gates to the fountain of alchemical truth. Yeah, it is like this kind of troll. I mean, you talk about
gatekeepers, right? So we have these. It's like a priestly class of scientists, you know? You know the ones. I'm not going to mention their names, but there's, you know, certain signs you just see again and again, they're always in the mainstream. Even if you don't follow them, you still see them, right? Which is a sign that you're being programmed. If you, if you, you know, if you see things without having to dig for them, you're being programmed.
And so when you, when you see all this, the sign is that they are programming you. They always have the same spin on everything. And, you know, they're impious, right? You know what I mean by that? Impious. Like they, they have no reverence or respect for the divine at all. And I, I've never, you know, seen a scientist in any of these fields who actually has, you know, some respect or, or reverence for the divine. They are atheists.
They're impious. And they have a priestly sort of status in society where they just get to say all this stuff unchallenged and everyone goes, wow, you know, isn't that fascinating? Isn't that awesome? And it's like a spell. Trust the science. Yeah, trust the science no more. Yeah, you lost your, you lost your trust privileges during COVID, I'm afraid. You refer to it as a scientific materialism. Yeah, so this is the idea that there's nothing except matter.
So there's, you know, we're made of matter, but in between the atoms of matter there's just nothing like void vacuum. So there's matter and nothing. And this is materialism because in alchemy there's something called the ether. And the ether is not nothing. The ether is a fluid that fills all space and it's, you know, it's living, it's dynamic, it's like the root of consciousness and, and all this stuff. So alchemy provides a bridge between science and
spirituality. But in materialism they've taken ether and thrown it out. So they've left no space for spirituality. It's left us like trapped in matter, as it were. And that is a materialist is one who is trapped in matter because they there is, there's still a spirit, right? You're a spirit in matter, but you believe there's no spirit and it's only matter. So you're kind of you're trapped in there.
And so, but part of the great work of alchemy is actually to help people out of materialism to actually open and become more, more spiritually aware. And, and that because that's a transformational process and, and that that is part of alchemy as well. It's like the transformation of yourself, your soul, as you, as you go through this journey from materialist to, you know, spiritually aware.
And what you're saying also does ring true because if you, if you listen to space scientists, you know, talking, they end up in so many wood salads, they end up going in strange into strange mental gymnastics to make things work. You know, 70% of the universe is dark matter. We don't know what it is, but we know it's there. And then you've got black holes and, and, and and The Big Bang and everything came out of nothing. And now it's expanding into itself.
I mean the the absurdity becomes like a Monty Python sketch. Yeah, yeah. And, you know, I used to be so, like, fascinated and sucked in by all that stuff. But yeah, when now I look at it, it's just like an absolute clown show. Like the problems we have in the world now, the things that need done, the things that need to fix, the improvements that need to be made to the world. And they're talking about black holes in some Galaxy far, far away. It's just like, yeah,
absolutely. Yeah. What happens if you go through it and, and, and you end up somewhere else and can you teleport? And I mean, it's just, it's insane. Yeah, I sometimes think that the outer space stuff is actually designed to, like, take your attention away from what's going on down here. You know what I mean? It's like it takes your attention so far out into, you know, La La land that you end up blissfully unaware of what's actually happening on the Earth, like, right in front of you, you
know? Yeah. I think it was you who said to me a while back that astrophysics is just nonsense. Well, have you ever needed an astrophysicist for anything? Well, let me call one up. I've got a problem with the plumbing. Yeah, so astrophysics is actually nuclear physics as well, because the the theory is that all the stars in the sky are actually nuclear reactors. You know, so we're told the sun is a giant nuclear fireball and that all the stars are of that
nature. So what they do with nuclear physics then is they take like the model of the cosmos and then they apply like nuclear physics to the stars, and then they model the stars in that way. And, you know, again, very complex years and years of time could be spent, like looking into all this stuff, but what can you actually do with it when you come out? Not nothing at all, really. And I think, yeah, I mean, I thought I started studying
astrophysics. That was a, you know, for the first two years of my degree, that's what I was studying. And, you know, I thought it would get me into space to, you know, I was like 18 years old or whatever. I'm like, you know, if I have a degree in astrophysics that maybe one day I can go either go to the moon or go to Mars or something. But then, you know, you come out and you realize, no, that's actually, you don't even need to know anything about astrophysics to be an astronaut.
You just have to be a essentially A brainwashed soldier to be an astronaut, right? It's a, you have to go through military psychological brainwashing in order to do that. And I'm just like, yeah, no, I'm not doing that. A number of years ago, my wife and I visited a very this very big telescope that's here in South Africa. It's and sort of the middle of the, well, not really in the middle of the country, but it's out in the middle of nowhere where there's no light pollution.
And we were taken on a private tour and my wife asks the one, what do you, what do you call? But what is he an astronomer, I suppose. And she, she asked him, what do you do? And he says, well, I observe the stars and whatever the sun, etcetera. She's never OK, but what do you actually do?
Yeah, yeah. When I was doing nuclear physics, that if people ask me what is it you actually do is it's tough, You know, you're just like, well, I'm, I'm, you know, start probing the, you know, structure of matter using, you know, mathematical models and everything. It's just like, yeah. Yes, but can you parallel park? Can you unblock a sink? Yeah. Nope. You know, whatever it is.
Yeah, it says so, yeah. You miss out on a lot of practical education, you know, doing a PhD and something like this. It's because you're, you're sort of formative years from like, you know, 16 through to like 25 when, you know, you could be learning all these like basic skills and how to run a business and how to fix things and do all that stuff. You're you're just sat in lecture theaters and libraries, you know, looking at equations
and, and things like that. So, yeah, so I came out of uni like pretty, you know, unskilled and totally out of touch with reality, like just, you know, business and industry and, you know, all these things. I was so out of touch with all that. And it was, you know, it was a rough landing, you know, coming out of uni for sure. So basically what you're saying is that it's just all academic wankery? Yeah, academic.
You know, I, I don't want, again, I don't want to be too harsh on the training aspect of it because it was, you know, very rigorous mental training, right? It's like it wasn't easy. It was like I had to do real hard, you know, mental gymnastics and it was very rigorously checked and tested and stuff. But as I say, it's like a sandbox. You create a sandbox by setting some limits and assumptions that you start with and then you do all your science within those
limits and assumptions. And so you may be doing rigorous science that's very complex and very time consuming, but it doesn't translate to the real world because it was just all taking place within this sandbox, you know, with mathematical proofs and stuff. I mean, again, it's like, what are the fruits? You know, that's, that's how, that's what got me into this to begin with. I'm looking at like, what are the actual fruits of the
theories? It's like, you know, theories just like a seed, like an idea what what's actually what grows out of it and into into the real world. Music is a good example of this. So music is a theory as well, you know, music theory and it's the theory of vibration and chords and notes and everything. And actually the theory is so good that it can produce infinite music from that. That one theory of music you infinitely different songs.
Every time someone makes a piece of music is different from another. They're always unique. It's, you know, the music theory has produced uncountable infinite fruits for humanity. Well, what are the fruits of nuclear theory? And they'll be like, well, nuclear bombs, nuclear power stations. And then so you look into those and you're like, but actually I can explain those without any nuclear theory whatsoever. So let me ask you again, what are the fruits of nuclear
theory? And now there's none, you know, and it's like, OK, so you actually don't do anything. So when I ask you, what you do is nothing. There's nothing. And yeah, I again, I was, when I was writing the book, I was first starting to wake up to this stuff. But now like 3-4 years down the line, I'm like, it just gets more and more obvious the more I look into it that this stuff doesn't add up. Do you think there's a problem? Too much specialization, yes.
Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. I mean, you know, probably be interested to just have a look into some of the crazier topics that people have done PhDs in, you know, just like how we like specialized and just like out there. And, you know, it would probably blow, blow our minds just to, to, to look into that. I mean, you know, my, my, the topic of my PhD was a pie on photo production as a probe for studying Halo nuclei. So that was incredibly specific. Incredibly.
Specific and without. Any applications in the real world? Of course but but I mean no, but I mean on a. You know, on a in, on a day-to-day basis, hyper specialization seems to be creating a lot of stupid people. Because what happens now is that you have the whole stay in your lane scenario becoming very apparent where you can't comment on anything because it's not your field. Yeah, So you so someone will
say, are you a virologist? Well, no, but if I'm going to ask about the existence of viruses, I'm not going to ask a virologist. Yeah, because. Because by default. A virologist. Has subscribed to that narrative. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Yeah, the whole stay in your lane thing. I kind of broke out of that with the book because, well, because when I looked into alchemy, what I realized was that all the sciences unite in the ancient
world, right? So they've become fractured in recent years with all these different specializations. But when you trace it back through history, it all goes back to natural philosophy and alchemy. And so, you know, alchemy, as I said, they, they invented chemistry. They were the first medicine makers. You know, they were making the metals, you know, making machines and, you know, so alchemy is the foundation of everything. So I, I sort of broke out that in my book.
I I criticize physics, I criticize chemistry, I criticize medicine, you know, criticize politics and you know, everything. I just like, broke out of my lane, as it were, and just went for all of it. But Steven Science. Traditionally. Or historically. Was open source, no. Yeah, I mean, you can be a scientist just. You know, off off your own back, of course, I mean depends what what you're doing, how much funding you need.
I mean, like for me at the moment, I, you know, I don't need funding to do my work as I'm doing what you might call secondary research, right. So I'm not building machines or running experiments. I'm just pouring over all the literature and the writings and the research that others have done and trying to make sense of it and, you know, distill it into like, what are the, what are the golden Nuggets? And, and what's the stuff that we can just throw away?
So, and then that's kind of an alchemical process in itself, right? That's part of alchemy. Separation is like taking what's good and throwing away what you don't need. And I'm just trying to do that with science in general. So, you know, medicine, chemistry, physics, all of it. What's good, Keep it what we
what isn't good. Chuck it, You know, because it feels like we're at that stage in the world now where we, you know, we really need to look at everything and be like, you know, let's save what we can, but check out the rest that doesn't work, you know. Yeah, But I mean the phrase. Scientist these days really only means getting funding or having access to laboratory. Yeah, I mean.
Yeah, people would say that, yeah, that you're, you know, because I'm not working in a lab, I'm not a professional scientist. But then, you know, people will say I'm a nuclear physicist even though I never worked in a, a nuclear power station or a, or a nuclear bomb, you know, facility or whatever. I just, you know, science. But that's not what I'm saying. That's not what I'm saying. I mean. Obviously, if you work in a, if you study in a particular field, you have every right to to label
yourself that afterwards. What I'm what I'm saying is that the field, the greater macro field of science, doesn't require a scientist. No, Yeah, I because ultimately, ultimately it's critical thinking. So like Leonardo da Vinci was, he was multiple things. He he opened up human bodies and he drew pictures and he sculpted and, you know, all sorts of things. Yeah, absolutely. So the curiosity. You know, logical thinking and, you know, questioning your own
assumptions and beliefs. I think this is unfortunately what the, I guess the kind of scientist you're talking about, right? The trained scientist, the university educated sign that this is the problem we have with them as they don't question their own conditioning and beliefs, especially not if there's a paycheck involved, right. So that's the difference with me is that I, I don't, I don't get paid for science, right?
So I've no, I don't have to, yeah, I don't have to believe everything that I was taught anymore. But if I was working in university, I, I would, you know, I can see it. It's like you wouldn't end up just like tearing up all the assumptions that everybody around you is like taking, you know, you're just going to start ripping all that up. You just lose your job. This is an interesting. Anecdote, yeah.
So a number of years ago there was an expose done on this here in South Africa. There was a surgeon who had spent, I don't know, I think 11 or 12 years working in a hospital and he had a very successful history. All right. He didn't, I think like he's, the mortality rate was like 2 or 3%, which is exceptionally good, you know, if you're a surgeon. It turned out that he. Had never qualified. As as a doctor, he, he, he dropped out in the final year or something to that effect.
And you know, he scammed his way in and of course it became a big, big, big sort of legal thing. But he was a surgeon nonetheless. And his patients who were interviewed said I I'm happy with the results, yeah. So he was, well, you know, a lot of the best people leave university or whatever. You know, a lot of great people like skip out of college or university halfway through because they maybe they know what they, they want to do or, or they're like, you know, this
is bullshit. You know, they, they have an awakening or whatever. But yeah, people can be good at what they do without getting the qualification for for sure. But then also people can get their qualification and be useless at the same time. So correct. I mean just give it a deal at COVID. COVID again. Yes, because I was. Always in two minds about using doctor before my name, right, because of which I'm entitled to do. I am a doctor, but I don't always use it right.
And you know, and, and after, after COVID, I thought I was like, damn, I was like being a doctor. Having a PhD now means nothing because we've just had all these doctors and PhDs like supporting COVID. But then at the same time, and I started looking into the definition of it, doctor, really Dockery, it means to teach doctor is like one who's like qualified to teach on a certain subject. And then philosophy, doctorate philosophy is love of wisdom, philosophia.
So and I realized it's actually one who loves wisdom and is able to teach people wisdom and help people attain wisdom. And I thought, you know what, actually, I like that. And you know, I'm going to start taking it more seriously. That's that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to study wisdom, which is like the highest knowledge that's been passed down through the generations and, and try to, you know, teach people about wisdom because that's what
philosopher does. And that's what my qualification, that's what my doctorate is, Philosophy, doctorate, PhD. Yeah. I mean, I think you should use the title. Because you need to reclaim it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I. I I agree. I mean, it was just, you know, it just felt, yeah, during COVID, it felt like it was just meaningless now, like everyone's qualifications are just meaningless if they're going to, you know, peddle, peddle this nonsense. I mean, what?
Fauci is also a doctor, but I mean, he's. Destroyed. He's destroyed that title, and I think that people who are doctors like yourself should reclaim it. Yeah. Yeah. Well, thank you. Yeah. So. I'm, I'm trying to use it more like, I mean, I didn't even put it on the front of my book, for example, which I would have, you know, you would think I would do, but I thought I'd just put my nail, I put doctor on the back of the book.
But yeah, it was just, you know, it's just because of how I was feeling about the whole institution of education. I was, I was feeling so down about it all during COVID and like it like really let us down, you know, in a, in a big, big way. How can my audience follow your work? OK, well I've got a YouTube channel. Stephen A Young and I also have a Patreon and a sub stack and my homepage is stephenyoung.uk and that's Stephen with AV and you can find everything on there.
Basically Stephen Young with AV. Thank you for joining me in the. Trenches, you're very welcome. Thanks for having me back.