 The tide is turning against us in Washington. Our movement didn't start in Washington. It's not gonna be stopped by it. That's a clip from the Netflix series, Mrs. America, a fictionalized account of Gloria Steinem's role in the women's movement. This is a topic I've touched on a couple times in this show and I probably way overdid it in this episode with the very excellent Dr. Gale Kimball. But I think this idea of being able to understand how psyops might change the way we look at everything, including our current understanding of consciousness needs to be the starting point for so many of the conversations we have on Skeptico. Here's a clip from the upcoming interview. So if you're asking me, do I think there's a Psyop, all I can say is I don't have enough information to know. I can't tell you, yes, I believe in it because I don't know who it is that these mysterious manipulators are. I'm inviting you to push back as hard as you can on this. Destroy the narrative that I just laid out. Destroy the narrative that Gloria Steinem was a lifetime CIA player because the answer you gave me in the email, Gale, it was so completely inadequate. It was the opposite of everything we should have been about because what you said was, I don't care because she did a lot of good things. We must never succumb to, I don't care about the manipulators. I don't care how I'm being controlled. I only could care about what they give me at the end. We must never succumb to that. We must always be about the truth. Welcome to Skeptico where we explore controversial science and spirituality with leading researchers, thinkers, and their critics. I'm your host, Alex Sekaris, and today we welcome Dr. Gale Kimball to Skeptico. Gale is a professor emeriti from UC Chico and was the first coordinator of their Women's Studies program. She's also a Nautilus award-winning author. We're gonna talk about some of her great books today. And, you know, one of the great things about Gale is she is familiar with the Skeptico drill. Did you know, do you remember that I interviewed you from my YouTube channel last year? So I'm very familiar. I do and I really appreciate it. I think we had a good chat. And I really look forward to having that kind of chat again today because, you know, as I just mentioned, you have these books that are really right up our alley here at Skeptico and the kind of stuff that, you know, we talk about and that you're passionate about too in terms of materialism, reality, consciousness, and all the rest of that. So let's start then by at least describing these books, talk about what they're about, mysteries of reality, mysteries of knowledge beyond our senses and mysteries of healing, the mysteries trilogy, but it's really quite an accomplishment and the list of people that you've interviewed for this, for these books is super impressive and will be known to a lot of people who listen to this show will immediately recognize so many of the folks that you've talked to. So tell us about this project, how you got started on it and what people are gonna find when they go to these books. The way it started is I do energy work and I was trained to do clairvoyant and healing work with techniques from the Berkeley Psychic Institute and it's all with intention and visualization and it's not hands-on. And so I wanted something as part of my personal practice that involved the body in a more specific way. So I was really drawn to the energy psychologies where you tap on acupressure points and work with the meridians and that kind of thing. So I went to the Canadian Energy Psychology Conference in Toronto in November of 2018. And I've been to all kinds of those conferences before the science and consciousness kind of conferences but it just struck me. Here are these people with PhDs and MDs who are doing distant healing and it's so unusual in terms of the dominant materialist paradigm of how scientists and graduate school educated people are in their belief system. I thought, I've gotta talk to these people. I need to explore more how you can have the courage to oppose the dominant paradigm that says doing research in Psy phenomena is like why would you wanna study can pigs fly? Alcon and Reber, obviously we don't study pigs flying because they don't fly. They have the same attitudes towards Psy phenomena. So it takes a lot of guts to do this kind of research and writing. So I wanted to find out personally why they have that kind of courage because most academics I would say don't. And I wanted to see what they could tell us about what's real. And I think you and I share a quest that we assume a lot of people do that maybe they don't as to why are we here? What's the meaning of life? How does reality work? What's real? And so I had those two goals in mind. Who are they as people that they have this kind of courage? And what can they tell us about what's real? Let me ask you this because even in what you're saying there you're kind of playing with a very, very central theme to this whole project that I've been about in that you're talking about the bravery of these scientists to go against the dominant paradigm. And I think what's implied in that is this understanding that we have, that you have, that I have. And for me it's come about really through a lot of interviews, a lot of time. I've railed against this idea. Could this really be wrong, this dominant paradigm? And I think you've come to the same conclusion. So what do you think about that? What's going through your mind at that conference? When you're talking about bravery, it sounds like you've settled on the idea that that dominant paradigm is flawed, right? Is that true? I think we can just stick in the realm of science and quantum physicists have said from the beginning of the last century that the reality as we know it doesn't exist. It's all vibrational, it's frequencies. There could be 11 dimensions, there's multi-worlds. Atoms don't really exist. They just exist in potentiality, maybe in many worlds of potentiality. So quantum physicists were telling us that, that you think that time is linear, there's no such thing as precognition or retro causality. No, quantum physics tells it is. So everything we know about time, space, future, past, what's real, what's material, quantum physicists just blew it up in our faces. So we don't have to go into metaphysics. We can just stick with them. And Einstein said imagination is what counts. He was a very spiritual person. Right, and maybe you wanna tell folks a little bit about how you approach that in your books, in these three books you're talking about, because really when we talk about quantum physics, it immediately throws people off. It's like you're reaching for some kind of woo-woo science. What I think you do in the book through your many interviews with, and you maybe wanna mention some of these top researchers, is take it in all the different ways that this paradigm is really, I don't wanna say destroyed or falsified, but it is. And I would go back and say that the whole thing is really, it was so absurd from the beginning, it almost doesn't do it right to kind of prop it up and try and meticulously tear it apart. Yet that's what we have to do. That's what you do in the books and piling on this data. Yes, I'm thinking of a Nobel Prize winner in physics for quantum tunneling, Brian Josephson. He's one of the people that I interviewed in the book. And he talks about consensus science. So he faults science today for only sticking to what's the party line. Just we agree that everything is material. There's the hard problem of consciousness, but we don't get into that. We just shut up and calculate because we are in a dogma, our blinders say, the only thing that exists is material. So Josephson says, no, that's ridiculous. Science leaves out so many phenomena and ignores it like parapsychology or the memory of water or the systems that exist in all of nature. So we don't have to go very far to find outstanding award-winning scientists who critique the dominant paradigm. But he's been really punished for it because Josephson said in our interview in his chapter that his graduate students are advised not to work with him. So his research has been really slowed because he doesn't have the brain power of graduate students to help him. So his hand has been slapped in many ways for critiquing consensus science. Boy, oh boy, you've just kind of led me into one of the central themes I wanted to talk about in our conversation today. Because again, you know the skeptical drill and I like kind of getting to that level three analysis of things and it's taken me a long time to get here. I mean, I've been at this for over 10 years, hundreds and hundreds of interviews, just going down the lines that you're going down. Go talk to the best scientists, go talk to the people that oppose them and try and sort this out. But I'll tell you what, Gail, after doing that for years, I really have to wonder if there isn't something more going on and if that more part isn't really central to what's going on. I want to play for you a clip I did from an interview with David Eich. Do you know who David Eich is? Right, the reptile guy. The good, the reptile guy. Well, he's more than the reptile guy. He's also someone who has recently banned on YouTube and Facebook for advocating free speech, free thought, advocating love your enemy. One of the things that he recommends doing to the people who oppose him is not respond to them with anger or any of the negative energy they bring, but just to respond to them with love because that's what consciousness is all about. So let me play this clip from David Eich in my interview with him that I think will tee up exactly what we were just talking about. You were one of the first people to really blow the whistle on this fake scientific understanding of consciousness and its insistence that we are biological robots in a meaningless universe and we should accept our empty lives and just get on with it. What you've just described is the foundation to mass human control without which mass human control cannot happen because if you know that you are in your true eye an expression of consciousness, a point of attention within an infinite flow of consciousness then there's no way that a handful of psychopaths and idiots which is basically the combination that runs the world can impose themselves on your life in the way that you will acquiesce to whatever they tell you. You won't do it because you know you are consciousness. You know you are an infinite expression of consciousness and that will never allow itself to be subjugated and intimidated into submission. Okay, so Gail, what do you think? Is this biological robot meaningless universe materialism that we're talking about? Is it part of a mind control meme? Is it a sci-op? Is it a psychological operation? Or is it just boys gone wild, science boys just oh my gosh, they fumbled that one again. They can't seem to understand the double slit experiment. Oh golly gee, what do you think? Sci-op or just, you know? Bernardo Kastrup is one of the people in the book who's really well known now writing articles for Scientific American about the paradigm shift. He says that the masses of people walk around in a kind of haze. And it's kind of like being in a trance state. Those aren't his exact words. So he and others say that yes, the effect of materialism is to negate ethics or morality or self-responsibility. In some ways it negates free will to say we're only the result of our chemical processes. So yes, I think the masses of people are kind of stupefied in drinking beer and watching Fox News and whatever ways they self-medicate from their pain. But your question is itself, is it social engineered as you call it? Or is it just people being resistant to change? Well, a lot of people think that the wealthy elite have engineered the system in a way that they're dominant. And we know that society globally has gotten more and more unequal. There's more and more hunger. There's more and more autocrats. So some people think it's deliberately, intelligently engineered and others don't. I think what matters is that we resist it and don't accept that we are those kind of robots who don't think and question and have responsibility for our actions. Gail, if we don't come down with a decision as to whether or not it's a psi-op, how would we resist it? What would we be resisting if we don't understand that this is some kind of engineered plan to make us feel hopeless, afraid, make us feel meaningless, make us feel less powerful? If that is somehow being engineered as part of a social engineering project, then I think we would respond one way. If it's just a genuine misunderstanding by some guys who interpreted the data the wrong way, I think we would respond in a completely different way. Wouldn't you agree? No, because I think that the issue is that we follow real science, not consensus science, but real science that looks at evidence, looks at facts, says if you have thousands of double-blind studies that are repeated as in Dean Raiden's work, then you pay attention to it. So I think sticking to science can solve the problem because it's hard to prove that it's socially engineered except that I'm thinking we know, I think it's proven that commercials, media manipulates us to feel inadequate. So if I wanna be more feminine, I'll buy this lipstick and if you wanna be more masculine, you'll buy this sports car. So definitely media, I think that's proven, manipulates us to feel insecure and inadequate so we'll buy their products. So I think that's evident. It's not as evident that there's a small elite keeping us dumb down so they can rule the world. Well, backing up on the small elite rule the world thing, well, let's back off of that and just return to the idea of science. And because if you're saying that science can get us out of this mess, again, I'd kinda have to push back and say, well, really if we're to understand it as a PSYOP, as a psychological mind control, control the people, control the outcome that we want in order to better run our society. I can't see how we would not, that wouldn't force us to approach it from a different perspective because then we would look at the tools of science in the way that it's working in the system as being part of the problem. I actually think that's what your work in your books that we're talking about, your mysteries trilogy reveals. And even your story about Josephson definitely reveals that. It's been systematized, it's in the institution. It's when you break out, you lose your funding, you lose your associates, you lose your interns. So- You don't get promoted. If you're a professor- You don't get promoted, you don't get hired, you don't get tenure, you don't get all the rest of that. So at what point do you feel comfortable kinda saying, okay, there is something more to this than just gosh, John, boys gone wild kind of thing? Who exactly do you think is doing this social engineering? Do you believe with Ikea that it's reptilians who are ETs or who are these Luminati or who are these Kabal people that are manipulating us in your opinion? This is a great question. I love when people turn around and ask me questions. And I'd say there's a good science principle here that needs to come into play. You're the one who talked about reptilians and Luminati. I never brought up those topics, but the science thing that is at play is that in order to falsify a theory, I'm not required to replace it with another theory. In order to falsify the idea that materialism, biological robot, meaningless universe meme is engineered, all I have to do is show evidence like we're talking about here that one that kind of stuff does happen, social engineering is in play and we're on board with that. You talked about advertising and all the rest of that. And then I can lay out the evidence for why we think, why I think it's in play here like we just did with Joseph Sun or we could talk about the intentional deception that Rupert Sheldrick ran into or the laugh in your face absurdity of Dean Radins multiply replicated experiments across many labs across the world that doesn't deserve the attention. So I could pile up like I have over the years, evidence upon evidence upon evidence like you have in your mysteries book. And at some point I would maintain that then the burden of proof shifts over to someone else to say, okay, I've laid out the case that this is a sigh up. The burden proof is now on you to show that it isn't. I'm thinking of some of my psychiatrists who are in the healing book and therapists discovered that there are entities who are negative and this ties in with your interest in evil and your book that's coming out in October about evil. So they didn't initially believe in this kind of thing but they could see evidence in aura photos like one of the psychiatrists did. And so they concluded that there are these evil higher power or lower power entities out there that want evil for us. So it's hard to get your rational left brain mind around that kind of thing, but they have experienced them work with them, talk with them. Robert Alcott psychiatrist says some of them he thinks are fallen angels who can be convinced to fall away from their evil masters and kind of come back to the light again. And you use that expression, the light versus the dark. So again, so it's hard for your left brain common sense mind to grasp it or it is for mine, but it does look like there are evil forces out there. Okay, now you're coming into my wheelhouse and why evil matters. I appreciate you mentioning that, but I'm gonna return us to this idea of the sigh up question because we don't know if it's true or not, but is biologic robot meaningless universe materialism? Is it a sigh up? I think that is such a central question. And you know, David Ike the reptilian guy, as you call them, in my opinion, the guy is one of the bravest thinkers of our time. And that's why he was banned of course, because he's brave and he just says stuff and then people go, you can't say that, you're not allowed to say that, we gotta take you off of YouTube because you said that. But what he said so succinctly, I feel like I was inadequate in spending all those years banging against, you know, all these skeptics and trying to challenge him and all that because if it is engineered in some way, then it's really a different game. So you know where I'm going with this Gail because you are so nice and open. And I do wanna make sure that we don't go too far afield without returning people to these books cause we haven't even talked about them. And you're such a gracious guest, you don't try and push us back to the books. So I'm the one who's gonna tell folks, you do have to check out these books because all the people that Gail is mentioning, Dr. Kimball has interviewed and put those interviews in the book. So Dean Raiden, Bernardo Castro, let's keep going. Is Josephson in there? Yes. Josephson, what are some of the other big name jump off the page kind of people that you have in these books that people are gonna find and that they can check out? Famous ones, I would say Larry Dossy. Larry Dossy has been doing, is really one of the leaders in healing he's a doctor at an MD in Texas who has gone against the system for the longest time and has compiled an incredible amount of very, very compelling evidence. He's not somebody you wanna mess with cause he knows his stuff. Who else? You know who I think is one of the most interesting I don't know how well known he is. He's a sociology professor in New York and that's William Benston. Have you had him on? Benston healing, phenomenal, unbelievable. Again, we have had him on in the experiment that he did. If anyone doesn't know about it, he's a professor so he ran into this hands-on healing thing that he was kind of stumbled into. You can read it from his book or you can listen to the Skepticoke interview and it's amazing what he personally experienced and documented and did with a lab at New York University, no joke kind of stuff but an incredible healing story, yes. You know what's interesting about Benston is he found that for people who don't know his work he has the healers who are skeptics. He only uses skeptics. He doesn't want any believers. He doesn't want anybody thinks they're a healer. He uses students and other people who are skeptics and they put hands around the mice cage. The mice are injected with breast cancer cells and ordinarily they would die in about 27 days. Full stop right there. I'm not sure how any of us feel about that but we do that and we did that in this case but injecting animals who have consciousness with cancer so we can predictably see that they die so we can, I have mixed feelings about that. I understand both sides of it but I don't want to just blow past that because then we make it sound like we're totally sure that that's a good thing to do and I'm not. Well, I tell you I kill rats in my house so I have been known to be an animal killer. I appreciate you saying that too because there's a realness to that in terms of how we operate in this world. So I'm not coming down one way or another. I just always, you get where I'm coming from too is not sure how to play that. Okay, so Benston, what he did is he found that the rats who were healed lived their normal two year cycle and then what he's doing now is he's duplicating the frequency in the room where healers in his method are working on the mice and he thinks that can be a cure for cancer so you could can, so to speak, the frequencies and send it around the world. You wouldn't have to have a human healer present and what's interesting to me, I was really interested in this because he needs to replicate it in other labs and no one will do it. So I said, okay, I'm gonna try. So I talked to people at California State University, Chico in the biology and the nursing said, will you do this? This is, he's cured cancer. This will be very exciting to see if we can replicate it here. No, so last I heard he was trying to find a lab in Japan but that's another example of the materialist paradigm, a cure for cancer and they don't wanna explore it. Very telling, that's a great little inside story. I love that. Who else, who else should we mention that people will be excited to hear about in the books? You know what was really interesting to me is Susan Blackmore because she's a skeptic and I tried very hard to get skeptical voices as part of the books because I wanted to hear what their criticisms were and see how we could respond to them and that kind of thing. And all the skeptics that I approached said no but Susan Blackmore. So she's interesting to me because she has the courage of her convictions and she's well known for writing about consciousness and had her own experiences with out of body travel while smoking hash and whatever when she was an undergrad. But her point of view is that everything can be explained by our brain functions that certain parts of our brains are triggered in such and such a way. So she was interesting to me because I felt she was very sincere and spoke up for what she believed in. You know, I'm glad you brought her up because she came up as part of an interview that I did. I think just the last one that was published it may not be the last one that comes out in the sequence that I gradually get things things out. And she's gonna be a perfect segue into talking about this next topic that I wanna talk about. I don't think she's sincere at all. I think she's a player in some sense, an agent in some sense. And I'll tell you why because I had an interview with her, a direct interview with her. And I was able to hold her feet to the fire on near-death experience science because she was making a bunch of claims that were just not true. And I got her to admit that, anyone can go back and listen to the interview, but she says, Alex, I haven't stayed on top of the research in near-death experience. Yeah, she told me that too. The next month she went out and gave a presentation on near-death experience science. And she maintained her position that is all brain-based. It's similar to this very distorted, strange position that this Buddhist atheism vein has arisen. Whenever you hear someone say, the Buddhism and atheists are somehow compatible, that's like a tip-off of some meme that just doesn't fit because we all know that the Buddha was into karma, the Buddha was into reincarnation. Not into it, I guess I shouldn't say. It was fundamental to the belief system that they lived in. It was fundamental to everything they believed. So to suggest that that is somehow compatible with this materialistic biological robot meaningless universe of meme is a complete distortion. And I would suggest because Dr. Blackmore, she is a doctor, right? Yes. The fact that she has been told this repeatedly and yet she continues to not address it and just continue her party line like she did for you. And she's very charming and she's very apple-bull and she comes across and she has the cool hair and all the rest of that stuff. It is a play. It's an act. It's just like it was with me where, I mean, I really thought after my interview with her, I thought, wow, how brave for someone to admit, I'm wrong, you know what? I haven't stayed up on the research. Well, that's what she said. But the next month, she has never changed her position. She has never publicly said, as an intellectual who speaks on these topics of consciousness, I have now reviewed the research on near-death experience. And I've come to the conclusion that every prominent near-death experiencer has come to. And that is that consciousness survives death, survives brain death. She has never done that. The way she gets around it, like looking at even Alexander's experiences, who by the way is in the book, is that there's a little bit of memory still functioning. So the part of the brain that has memory capacity is there. But then even Alexander says, no, his memory parts of his brain, which people don't even know where that is, were completely destroyed. His brain was pussed. So there's no way that the physical brain could remember all those astral experiences he had. So he really debunks her whole theory, but she debunks his. Well, Gail, you're just kind of, it's almost like we rehearsed this because you're like feeding me to the next point that I was gonna make. That's because I do psychic work. That's right. You're a clairvoyant and that is coming into play. How wonderful. I didn't even, I didn't make that connection. See, I'm not clairvoyant. I'm not psychic in any way. I think all humans are. Well, we probably are. And that's what Dean Raiden's experiment shows. Whether we like it or not, our body is psychic. So here's the point that we were kind of playing around within the email exchange, which I think is absolutely central to this whole thing and is so rarely explored. I love your openness and your ability to hold onto these ideas loosely. So I'm gonna push you in some areas here. I have a deep appreciation for the kind of work that you're doing here. I also have deep appreciation for environmentalism, which is something that is important to you and it is to me, but also for social justice issues. And that topic has been completely distorted by what goes on today. I think it's anything but that in the way that it's playing out in our society. But true social justice issues are super important to me, including the rights of women, the rights of people to express their sexuality in whatever way they want. And certainly the issue of race is absurd that we even have to talk about race as if there is such a thing as race, right? As if we aren't all some jumble of genes and races and all this ridiculous stuff. But here's the point that I really wanted to get to. We have to understand the sci-op. And just like when I pushed you on the, is materialism a sci-op? You were very open about that, but you couldn't kind of come down one way or another. So in the email exchange we had, I pointed out to you how Gloria Steinem, who is this figure who is now raised to this exalted level and she's on, she's new in the news now. She's on Netflix and all this and she's out doing it. She is a lifetime CIA player. She's an agent from the beginning. And this is like super well documented, but it's super important that people understand how both can be true, how they can see in Gloria Steinem an advancement of social issues, social agendas that they were in favor of. Because back in the 50s for my mother, she didn't have any opportunities. A society had been built up that completely excluded her in so many ways. And that needed to change. But the fact that that change agent came in the form of someone who was being directed and manipulated, not even directed and manipulated, who was being employed and was in cahoots with, the CIA is something that I think should trouble us a lot more than it seemed to trouble you in the email. Let me play a couple of clips and then I'll let you respond to that long rant. We're for the CIA, then a private organization. That's right. And the reason I think that comes as a surprise is it did to me at the time. I had the conventional liberals view of the CIA as a right wing incendiary group. And I was amazed to discover that this was far from the case, that they were enlightened, liberal, nonpartisan activists of the sort who characterized the Kennedy administration, for instance. You have not been working now for the CIA since 1962. You're still criticized. You were down there in Washington? Yes, when the story broke that I had once. That's a complete lie. We'll expose that later. She continued to work for the CIA, was a lifetime player in the CIA. And even as recent as 2012 was working for the CIA in their operation in Syria with a totally fake contrived attempt to oppose Syria in favor of ISIS. Grasp that for a second. She came out with a position that was directly in line with the CIA's position that Syria should be admonished for not honoring women's rights. This is Syria, the most progressive state in the Middle East at the time. In favor of ISIS, who was going into villages and chopping off the hands of women who weren't wearing their burqa or who were exposing any parts of their body. This is a complete lie. And that Gloria Steinem, if we really look at her history, it didn't start with feminism. Her history with the CIA started back with the student movement. And she was her bosses. We have memos released from her bosses that say she was the rising star in the CIA. She was an agent they could go in and totally put under cover to bulk these kids into believing what they could. Let me play one more clip from here and then I'll let you respond. Well, one of the things they told me was that he was at the house one night and he would talk and he started laughing. He said, Aaron, what do you think women's liberation was about? And I said, I'm pretty conventional thinking about it at that point. I said, things about women having the right to work, getting equal pay with men, just like they want the right to vote. And he started to laugh. I said, you're an idiot. And I said, why am I an idiot? He said, let me tell you what that was about. We, the Rockefellers, funded that. We funded women's lib, you know? And we're the ones who got all over the newspapers and television, the Rockefeller Foundation. He says, and you wanna know why? He says, there were two primary reasons. And there were one reason was we couldn't tax half the population before women's lib. And the second reason was now we get the kids in school at an early age. We can indoctrinate the kids how to think. This breaks up their family. The kids start looking at the state as the family, as the school, as the officials, as their family, not as the parents teaching them. And so those are the two primary reasons for women's lib, which I thought up to that point was a noble thing. When I saw their intentions behind it, where they were coming from and they created it, the thought of it, I saw the evil behind what I thought was a noble adventure. Okay, so, and you understand where I'm framing this up. I'm framing it up as if we don't understand the Psiop, if we're not able to at least consider whether or not there is a Psiop, whether it's Susan Blackmore or Neil deGrasse Tyson, whether it's you're a biological robot in a meaningless universe. So don't even think about your connection to a higher consciousness. If we can't identify that Psiop, then we don't know how to respond to it. So if you're asking me, do I think there's a Psiop, all I can say is I don't have enough information to know. I can't tell you, yes, I believe in it because I don't know who it is that these mysterious manipulators are. So I can't say I believe in something that it has no face or no name. I just don't have that. No, I can't let you off the hook that easy. You were the founding coordinator of the women's studies movement at UC Chico. It's at CSU Chico. I'm sorry, at CSU Chico. Known here in California as the party school. Formally, formally. Or formally, they're trying to get rid of that reputation. Hey, isn't that a problem? I went to Western Illinois University. That was the party school in Illinois. It was a great, well-rounded experience. You had the educational experience and you also had the broader part of that experience. But you are well-versed in women's studies. So you are welcome. I'm inviting you to push back as hard as you can on this. Destroy the narrative that I just laid out. Destroy the narrative that Gloria Steinem was a lifetime CIA player. Because the answer you gave me in the email, Gail, it was so completely inadequate. It was the opposite of everything we should have been about because what you said was, I don't care because she did a lot of good things. We must never succumb to, I don't care about the manipulators. I don't care how I'm being controlled. I only could care about what they give me at the end. We must never succumb to that. We must always be about the truth. Yeah, I agree. But I also agree that human beings aren't just angels or devils. So think of Martin Luther King. I think you would agree that he did a lot of good. He fought for noble principles. And he also had a woman in various cities. He was an adulterer, smoker, drinker, accused of plagiarism and with his thesis. So he was a flawed human being, but he did a great deal of good. Let's say that Gloria Steinem was a total CIA agent, which is people will have different points of view. Some say she was, some say she wasn't. Some say it was just like she went to a few Russian summer camps for youth, so it's debated. No, it's not. I mean, give me the debate. I don't see any credible debate on the other side. It's like saying Susan Blackmore is debatable. I just gave you the evidence so you can contradict that evidence or then you have to accept the hypothesis. Same with Gloria Steinem in this case. Bring forth the evidence that she wasn't a lifetime player. Okay, let's say that she was. So what, as I said to you in the email, if she does good and the CIA has certainly been flawed, run drugs, killed, assassinated leaders. It's been a very mixed institution, but do you wanna get rid of the CIA? Don't we need an intelligence agency to protect our country? So are you saying you only give credence to people who are pure and you have to be either 100% pure or we throw you out, the baby out with the backwater? I appreciate, number one, I appreciate you engaging in this because that really is the kind of dialogue that I wanted to have. And I think you are articulating a lot of views that a lot of people have and they need to be addressed because they're important and they're reasonable in a lot of ways. So two things, two points I'd like to make in response to that. First is that individuals are flawed. I'm very flawed. I can remind it of that every day. Anyone who's married and has kids, you're reminded of that by your spouse and you're reminded of that by your kids and I certainly fall in that category. But the other way that I'm reminded of it is by the show, I make mistakes all the time and I have to retract and go back and even if, you know, do another interview to kind of make it right. But I think there's a difference between those individual personal battles with being congruent with who they are and the institutional control. And I think we all understand that. And what I'm really trying to get at is the institutional part of this because that's troubling to all of us. Name those institutions. Name those institutions. Well, in this case, we're talking about the CIA. But I think the CIA is just really kind of a holding place for an intelligence control apparatus. I mean, would we leave the NSA out of there? Or would you leave some other, you know, DIA out of there? I mean, the CIA is kind of a catch-all that we have. But the idea is that if we have someone who's being propped up as this person that is all about feminism, Gloria Steinem, and they are somehow being manipulated as part of a larger plan that I think we have to know about that. So the first point is the individual frailties or lack of, you know, perfectness that we all get to versus the institutional thing I think is different. And the second point that you made was the so what point. And I think the so what point is so important and I'd address it in two ways. First is that everything that we think is worthy, worthwhile, important about what we have here as the United States and the ideals with which it was established and which we try and move it forward. You know, your whole efforts in the social sciences at Chico with the women's studies movement was towards this ideal of who we should be, what standard we hold ourselves to. And so what is where we hold that standard? We are a democracy. We don't allow secret organizations to make plans about how we should be governed without that being part of the public discourse. That is exactly the opposite of what we do. And the powers that we give them, we are in control of those powers. That's how it is supposed to work. So none of us are comfortable with the idea of Jeffrey Epstein and his buddies sitting around a hot tub in some island deciding what the public agenda will be. So so what is do you want this to be a public discourse in a democracy? Or do you want to just say, go ahead, Jeffrey, whoever is the next Jeffrey Epstein, Brownstone, controlling political, you know, extortion of political officials, go ahead, you guys just get together and you know, rape little kids and tell us what we should do next. Right, of course no one can excuse that, but I still haven't been able to hear from you who exactly is doing the social engineering. Well, in this case I gave example after example where the CIA was doing social engineering, right? Right, right. So we can just start with there, the CIA hires, I'll pull it up on the, here, let me pull it up on the screen. So here I've pulled up this website, people can read this, it's really quite good, there's the URL, it's titled Black Feminism, the CIA in Gloria Steinem. It shows how she undermined not only feminism, but the black empowerment movement, the black feminist movement. It's listed, if people can see it here, facts and facts and facts, names names of her CIA organizer, names names of, you know, I love when they, her boss calls her a whiz kid, because she's able to infiltrate student festivals. Right, so this has nothing to do with feminism. This is before that, back when she's a student, she's able to infiltrate these student festivals and she's a whiz kid, so what is her next assignment? Feminism, let's get her on that. And what's her assignment in 2012? Well, go attack Syria because there are target now. So you wanted the evidence, here's the evidence, anyone can come in and I'm laying on here, I'm saying fact after fact after fact, maybe they're wrong, maybe we need a fact checker to tell us where we're wrong. But if it's right, if the feminist, the real feminist from the Red Stockings, who first outed Gloria Steinem as a CIA agent, if she's incorrect, but we already know it's not correct because we've already, she spun that back the other way as we saw on the YouTube. So she was outed. You know, the other thing that's interesting here, Steinem never came out and said, I work for the CIA, until she was outed by the Red Stockings Feminist and they went and dug up the docs and got it and proved it. And then she said, well, yeah, I did work for the CIA, but you know what? She said it, what she said on the YouTube. They were really a great organization and they were bipartisan. It's like, are you kidding? They overthrew at this point in her career, they had overthrown every government in Central and South America. They had committed incredible crimes against humanity in terms of torturing people, killing people, overthrowing governments. Oh no, they were bipartisan. I really found them to be great, great guys. Lifetime player. But I don't think you give that much credit to the CIA that they have turned the whole world, that they have access to the zombies, right? It's gotta be more than the CIA. They're a small player, I would think, in the social engineering scheme of things. Right, but let's not go too far down the David Ike path, because remember, the way I'm tying this all back here. The real point is that you have to understand social engineering in terms in order to fight it. So I think that- That is not my point. That is not my point. My point is we have to be able to identify and understand the means. So my point is, in reference to your excellent books, the mysteries, trilogies that you've written, which are outstanding, and they're important data points. I wanna emphasize that. These books are great data points. They're reference points. For anyone who needs to bolster their opinion that this biological robot meaningless universe game is just a game and it isn't supported by the data. But what I'm suggesting is, until we get to the next level, we haven't really gotten anywhere. And the next level is to answer the David Ike challenge, which says, well, of course. Of course that's been like that because that would be your first go-to in controlling people. Have them think that they're nothing. Have them think that their life is meaningless. Have them think that they are just these biological out of control, no free will. Of course you would engineer that into the system. So you have the data. I'm offering an interpretation of the data. And then I'm saying that until we understand the nature of PSYOP, we can't really get past the, oh, he's the reptilian guy. You asked about interesting people in the book and who comes to my mind right now is Gary Schwartz, University of Arizona. Do you know about his Soul Phone experiments? I have an interview coming up. That is not gonna be a good interview. That's gonna be another one off. Why is the Soul Phone talking to Michael Jackson? I asked him that too. I'm not sure that's the guy I'd wanna be talking to. And the other thing about the Soul Phone is God needs our help. Okay, okay, Gary, I get it. I love Gary Schwartz. I mean, you talk about really, I think his experiment with the Soul Phone, he's misunderstood it because what it does is it completely puts the nail in the coffin of materialism, right? It is another instance of the double slit experiment that now becomes undeniable. But to take it where he's taken it with the quote unquote Soul Phone is problematic because I don't know, I don't know. Well, for people who are listening who don't know about the double slit experiment, it's simply that if like laser beams are observed, it changes how they manifest. So the idea is that our focused attention creates impact. And that's what all the Psy research shows. It's small, but if there's any deviance from chance, it shows that thoughts have power. And that's really profound. So there's thousands of experiments that show that our intention creates physical change. And the Soul Phone and the work with mediums that Gary's doing and Rindbridge and Trisholdi and Italy, to me that shows that our view, the materialist view that there's just this plane is false. And it's amazing to think that we could communicate with grandma on the other side through this Soul Phone. And Gary's also had experiences with angels. His angels named Sophia. And so maybe it's the old Christian tradition and Jewish tradition of angels are actually true. They're not just metaphors or archetypes or something. There are these evolved beings. And that's really fun to think about. It is fun to think about. Tell folks, Gail, where people can get these books. Are they out now? And where else can they learn about them on your website and elsewhere? Yeah, they could go to www.gailkimble.info and there's a bookstore where the books are listed and they can get knowledge and healing from book babies, book shop and reality won't be out until March of 2021. Are you intentionally leaving out Amazon? Are these on Amazon? They are on Amazon and I'd rather people not use them if they can help it. Why? Because Jeff Buzos has so many billions and his workers complain about the conditions in the working sites. Oh, don't listen to those people. Don't listen to those workers. Jeff is gonna get us to that next level. He's gonna help us get everyone organized. He's gonna get everyone scanned in, vaccinated, all that thing. So Jeff is our go-to guy and I own a bunch of Amazon stock. So please buy from Amazon if you can. Are you kidding? Not kidding about owning Amazon stock but I'm being facetious about the evil of Jeff Buzos but I do own the stock. It's done very well, what can we say? Then you can use his money for good, see? So sometimes things can be gray. I didn't think of that, money for good. That's a heck of an idea. So Gail, this has been a project that you put a lot of time into. Do you have any other plans for what you're going to do with this series or are you gonna keep doing it? Are you continuing to interview other leading scientists and thought leaders? I have a new book out called Calm, How to Thrive in Challenging Times and parents, excuse me, calm parents and children. So there are very specific hands-on techniques, how to stay centered and grounded when things are chaotic. So I wanted the principles of the mysteries book to be applied to how can I use this in my daily life? And I want listeners to know that they can see the interviews with a lot of my visionary scientists on my YouTube channel so that you can actually see them and hear them. And also I'm almost finished with a book where I've interviewed girl Gen Z climate activists. So they're girls who are fighting to save our world and they're amazing. They're so young and so smart and so brave. So they're kind of like the visionary scientists in their courage to take on the establishment. Well, that's excellent. I just think you've done great work here. I'm so glad you contacted me while over a year ago and I've really been excited to follow along in what you've done and I think these books and the YouTubes that you've put out are great. We can't get enough of these terrific thinkers. So you're to be congratulated and I appreciate you playing along with my rants and all the rest of that. I wasn't playing along. I'm thinking and my brain is digesting what you're saying. So I appreciate you're making me think. Okay, Gail. Well, thanks again for joining me on Skeptico and let's stay in touch. Great, thank you. Thanks again to Dr. Gail Kimball for joining me today on Skeptico. Please check out her excellent books. I did talk a lot in this one, partly because there's some stuff here I wanted to get into my new book and part of the thing is you gotta say it so you can get it transcribed. So I don't have to write it in the book. I can just include in the transcripts and edit them. Anyways, that's my game now revealed to you. But I do have one question to tee up. It is the central question. How are we to understand, deal with process, a scion that moves things in the direction that we want them to go anyway? The women's movement was a quote unquote good thing. There were valid social injustices that needed to be corrected. Are these kind of social movements always a mixed bag? Always a combination of social engineering and public will? So I think you get the idea. Let me know your thoughts. Love to hear you over on the Skeptico forum or drop me an email. I have a lot of great shows coming up. Stick with me for all of that. Until next time, take care. Bye for now.