Badlands Media - The No Treason Podcast Ep. 27: Ether Physics, False Consensus & God's Fingerprint

Episode Date: April 20, 2026

What happens when you question not just the government, not just the media, but the very atoms they told you everything is made of? Jonathan Drake, Chris Paul, and Polymath kick off a brand new series on ether physics by doing what any good troublemaker does: refusing to start the conversation in the middle. This inaugural episode lays the philosophical and theological groundwork for why the ether is treasonous territory. They dig into collective belief induction, the punishment-reward structure of mainstream consensus, and why scientific materialism may be building its entire castle on sand. Spoiler: if you preclude God before you even start asking questions, don't be shocked when your answers are all wrong. A primer for those ready to peel back the layers of reality, one uncomfortable question at a time.

The badlands, what are the badlands? Explain those badlands. That's a hell of their name. Good evening and welcome to the No Treason Podcast. This is episode 27. Ladies and gentlemen, we are live this evening. You can see I'm joined by a couple different faces for the show. This is the first episode after the Great American Restoration Tour, Nashville edition.

I was just talking with Chris that I'm still kind of recovering from that whole experience. But welcome to the first episode in a new series on this show on ether physics. As I mentioned from the beginning, the name of this show, the No Treason podcast, is first an homage to Lysander Spooner's seminal essay, No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority, the discussion of which you can find in the first 10 episodes of this podcast. But it is also about finding and discussing topics which would be considered treasonous to, the central narrative. Spooner most certainly fits that category and this new series is no different. I'll save the bulk of the conversation on the history of the ether for some later episodes, but it wasn't that long ago that conceptualizing and theorizing about the world in the

context of a gaseous medium, as some would call it, or a luminiferous ether, or some other conception of some form of medium of reality that was commonplace in scientific circles. In fact, the men who are responsible for the discovery of technologies that have shaped our modern world, men like Nikola Tesla, Charles Proteostinements, and many others all wrote about the ether and believed that physical reality was best understood through that lens. With the official consensus forming around Einstein's atomist view and the insistence on quantifying reality leading to quantum theories that you hear discussed in today's world. Discussing the ether today is viewed at best as a quaint and primitive theory that we have

evolved and advanced out of, and at worst is a fast track to torpedoing your career as a researcher. There's some indication that that hardline is softening to some degree, but the ether is still very much treasonous today and as such is a perfect topic for this show. Joining me for this series is the inestimable polymathanon. He'll be my regular guest host for the initial episodes laying the groundwork. I don't know, maybe the next six weeks or so. We'll kind of see how it goes. We don't have a firm outline set up yet.

But then hopefully he'll be able to join me on a semi-regular basis, maybe once a month or so, to revisit the topic and explore new. depth. So welcome Polly to no treasin. Hey, everybody. How's it going? All right. Yeah. It is real. It's great to be here. And then for the inaugural episode, I thought it would be appropriate to have Chris Paul join us to help lay the philosophical foundation for why discussing treasonous concepts at all is worthwhile. And then provide his perspective on what sort of a mindset it would be beneficial to adopt moving forward. so that we can avoid falling into the same mental mistakes and maybe even spiritual mistakes

that have made these topics treasonous in the first place. So to Chris Paul, the man who can single-handedly stop what is coming, welcome to the No Treason Podcast. Thank you. Yeah. I didn't think that I could, but apparently people are worried about it. Well, you know, you're a dangerous man. So we all are dangerous collectively and individually, maybe in our own way.

So tonight, we're not really going to be, if people are tuning into the first episode and thinking, okay, we're going to find out everything there is to know about the ether. I am going to disappoint you right now by saying that we won't really be talking about the ether, although maybe we'll touch on some of it. But rather, I kind of look at this as being talking about, talking about the ether. But first, we have a word from River Bitcoin, stack sats with Rive. River, the Bitcoin-only platform built by Bitcoiners for Bitcoiners. Why River? Zero fee recurring buys. Stack Bitcoin effortlessly, hourly, daily, weekly, or monthly.

Three and a half percent Bitcoin interest on cash. That's FDISC insured. There's no minimums. You can withdraw any time. Expert U.S.-based support. Human help plus private client services for big buys, if you're loaded and have $100,000 to throw towards Bitcoin. business accounts boost your balance sheet with Bitcoin and earn 3.5% interest paid in Bitcoin.

They have a top tier wallet, send, receive, and manage Bitcoin securely. Unmatched security, they have full reserve of custody, multi-sig, cold storage, and proof of reserves. Join the Bitcoin Revolution at badlandsmedia.tv.4.4.R. slash river and earn real returns. That's BadlandsMedia.com. TV forward slash river. And anyone who has listened to this show knows that I am definitely a big fan of Bitcoin. And that also I utilize this next product, which is Treasurer.

Your crypto deserves the ultimate protection and Treasurer delivers just that. Treasurer offers a secure and user-friendly solution for managing your digital assets. It delivers on its promise of robust security, providing a crucial layer of protection against online threats and unauthorized access. Since 2014, over 2 million users have trusted Trezer, I'm one of them, the world's first hardware wallet to secure their Bitcoin, Ethereum, and over 9,000 other coins and tokens. The state-of-the-art encryption and offline storage, Treasor keeps your assets safe from hackers, malware, and exchange breaches. Its open source design ensures transparency, while the Treasurer Suite app makes managing your portfolio a breeze. Buy, sell, swap, and track with ease. Designed with simplicity in mind, Treasurer ensures that even those new to cryptocurrency can navigate its features with ease.

With Treasur, you can confidently manage your cryptocurrencies, knowing that your digital wealth is protected by industry-leading security protocols. Visit Badlandsmedia.tv. forward slash treasure treasure to get your treasurer and safeguard your crypto with confidence badlandsmedia. TV slash treasur and there is no way I can do that ad read within that ad length. That's just crazy. And then last but not least, we have the terrifying Maggie or Madge from soft disclosure. In a quiet town at where beards grow wild and lips dare to crack without permission. One woman has suffered.

Hi, I'm Margie, and I'm J. Treyat's mother. But the world would come to know her by another name. Madame Margie, the Moistureless. Jay came home with a lip-on. It's called Soft Disclosure. With one miraculous application, her power awakened. Within one day, my lips were healed. It was miraculous.

But salvation came at a cost. For in the shadowed lands known only as Badlands. You boys that the Adlands are so handsome. She saw potential. You're covering up your beautiful faces. And she made her demand. Shave them all off.

Or base the consequences. Beard oil will not save you now. And you'll look so much better. This summer, moisturize wisely and guard your beard. Because Madam Margie, the moistureless, is always watching. Margie, I got that wrong. Chris, have you ever heard what the consequences are if we don't shave our beards? I haven't heard that.

No. I don't plan. Even if the consequences are terrifying, I have zero plans of doing that. Although I have a restriction on how long I can grow my beard because my wife tells me she won't kiss me if I look like a wookie. There's go. I haven't seen my clean, shaven face in 15 years. Yeah. my dad when my dad I think was born with a mustache but then I don't know it was probably like

2000 or something like that he shaved it off and like you see those videos of kids reacting to their parents like or their dad that shade my my youngest brother just broke out crying like weeping it's like you're not my dad you don't have your mustache the cool thing about it and maybe this is uh you know something I can look forward to because he was like 45 I think when he did that he looked identical to his high school driver's license picture when he shaved off his mustache. So that's some good hereditary traits there. Okay. Well, I wanted to begin the discussion tonight by mentioning one of my favorite scenes from the movie Truman Show.

And Polly now we're talking about this before the show backstage that you and Burning Bright did Truman Show on Story Hour. was that like episode 16 you said? Episode 16, yeah. I love this scene because it's, I think, one of the most direct analogs to and telling critiques of our modern world. And I would play the clip, except for the fact I don't want to get dinged on YouTube.

But it's the scene where Truman is in class and he stands up and he says that he wants to be an explorer like the great Magellan. And as if she's prepared for that, the teacher immediately pulls down the map. He's like, oh, you're too late. there's really nothing left to explore. And there's a lot to impact there.

And obviously you and Burning Bright covered that back on that episode. But the perspective that I have with that is that it presents like there's this sense of finality or finiteness almost as opposed to an infiniteness of the world, which is something that I think we might be able to get into a little bit later. There's a sense of being born at the wrong time, which you can see analogs of that with the crazy transatlantic. transformers where not only you born the wrong time, but you're born in your wrong body. And so all that we're really left to do is be good little Truman's, except our fate and just the reality is that's presented to us, not question anything. Obviously, Chris, you talk about the party of false decorum and all the punishment or reward structure that there is for either towing the party line or pushing back against it.

And probably more disturbingly that even within the truth community, you know, there's the expression if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it probably is a duck. And it's disturbing to me to see that same mindset in the truth community where you're allowed to question a whole range of topics. But if you question some of these more core ideas, obviously at Gart, we had the panel on voting, that you're being subversive if you question too far. So with that is sort of the foundation and understanding that, you know, something like the ether is really a strong departure from the way we would view reality, the way we're

told to view reality. Just kind of set the table with that and kind of see where we go from there. So, Paul, any thoughts you've got on that, too? Feel free to jump in. All right. All right. I would say that the ether and the way that to think about it or describe it, it's a fundamental, I guess you would say like a complete separation from what we've been taught.

What has been through acumenachycia, through everything that you've been told in your entire life, is that everything is particle, everything is particle-based. It's all coming from the scientific materialists, the atomists, that the old, the only thing that is known and can be known are the cult of bumping particles and that anything outside of that, whether it be metaphysical or spiritual or anything else is completely verbatin. None of that has any basis in reality per them. And this is a field theory according to the ether and the understanding of it is the realization that it's not all just physical. It's physical.

It's spiritual. There's a lot of things involved in this. And it's not just, you know, in an empiricism base. There's a lot of things that are involved. involved in understanding reality and that you have to just kind of set aside what what you've been taught per se and back to thinking about what why is it that I think that way? Why is it that I believe that way and open your mind to other possibilities? Yeah, especially when it comes to something like metaphysics or spiritual stuff.

One of the things I remember struggling with even as a kid and thinking of the world, obviously, I wasn't thinking it in terms of a potential for a different explanation in something like the ether. But the spiritual side of reality, I always felt like I kind of had to force belief in that because when you're presented this physical world and there's all these physical processes and understandings that they can do just as well without God, it feels like. like you get pigeonholed into a way of thinking about reality that if you can't see, taste, touch, or smell it, that it's not real. And that's one of the things that I think most excited me about when I first came across the concept of the ether that God created everything. And so the spiritual realm is just as real. And this can explain sort of how.

And so obviously, we're not going to really work on defining terms tonight. But the struggle is that you have an entire system that is designed and structured to push back against that and to punish you for even wondering about those sorts of things. What are the things that I focus a lot of my time on, and especially now in the process of writing this book, I'm actually writing right now about what I perceive to be reality and kind of dealing with this concept of reality as we know. it like reality insofar as it's available to us. And as somebody who spent most of his adult life, certainly, as an atheist and scientific materialist, I was very much an empiricist. I thought that's what it meant to be real, that we could detect it. And it was because if we can't detect it and if no one can detect it, then we have no way of proving its existence. And I wanted hard and fast proof that I felt could be applied universally and convinced people upon seeing it, you know,

like you see the official document, you know, oh, well, it says right here that it happened or, you know, whatever scientific proof. I wanted proof of God. I wanted God to come and present himself and say, here I am. I'm God. And it took me the letting go of that belief system. And it's a belief system that's conditioned into us to be able to perceive God in the first place and when the order of things kind of got realigned and you know you're a you're far better at scripture than I am but the satanic inversion the flipping upside down of things I think the most important of those things is is reprioritizing the worldly above the godly like God has to come first and then the worldly is on a lower plane. And if you deny God, if you don't believe in God or whatever it is,

then well, the worldly makes sense as like this, this is the limit to what we can do, everything that we can do, everything that we should believe. All of that is contained within this space. And within this space, we should be able to detect these things. And so it was really just the coming to understand that we don't have the capacity to detect in that. In that, way everything that makes up our reality. We can't even detect everything here in the world through those methods. And so thinking that that's going to take us to a higher level and the rest of it than possible, it's at that point that I started questioning the science in particular, and that was provoked by 2020. And then once you get there, you realize that you kind of

have taken on this entire class of knowledge that is just totally. composed of things you don't know and that you can't actually directly prove yourself at all. And it's always just an appeal to authority, appeal to experts, appeal to whatever it might be, but nothing that you know yourself. And so I determined that I was just going to get rid of all that information. And upon doing that, one of the things you start questioning is your physical reality. You see that the way we interpret it is built on exactly the same processes that lie to us about everything else. And at that point,

you've really got to open your mind to what else is going on. Yeah, and I would say most people are probably not as mentally honest and rigorous as you were in that time. I think a lot of us are scared to,

which I imagine there's probably some trepidation in that. But I kind of get a sense from just conversations with you in other contexts. We're just listening to you over the number of years that you're there's like almost a sense like of being pissed off at being lied to that sort of fuels the the uh pushes you past the the trepidation to where you're willing to

go down roads that previously were untouchable well yeah there's definitely that i don't i don't know if it's so much pissed off anymore i think that that was probably the initial reaction sure i really don't like seeing people i care about lied to i know what uh the the kind of, I call it now collective belief induction. That's how I'm framing it. I know what that did to me. And, you know, I can't obviously blame it all on that. I'm not trying to remove my agency, my desire, my sinful nature, and the rest of it from the picture. But part of it was the collective belief induction that essentially will traumatize us as children and sexualize us as children into accepting this inversion because it is a convenient explanation for everything we see

and there's an incentive structure attached to it that if we want things in the material world thinking that that's all that exists we can easily access that incentive structure by kind of repeating the phrases that we learn from authority and that builds our reality and we act in correspondence with that and i mean all of these things depend on our choices at the end the day. But you can see, like, this evil hand at work trying to just pluck people out and use them for, for its own agenda. And I don't know, man, I think that that's, I think that's what evil is. And to the extent that we're capable of fighting it, I think that that's a good place to start. Sure. There's a, an angle that I've been pushing, and I mentioned this at

at Gart, but the, when it comes to natural law, like the political sphere, the angle I've been pushing is that if we hope to build a government or build a society that, that ends up being good, which I think we would all at least give lip service to that idea, using methods and using systems that inherently violate the way God intended human beings to relate with one another, we'll never achieve that outcome. And so applying that same mentality towards things like trying to study the physical world, if we start with that scientific materialist perspective that rejects the notion that God could have been involved in anything, there's no way we're going to end up with a proper

understanding of the world. There's no way that any technology that we create is going to end up being ultimately beneficial to the world. And we can see that with inherently godless people that are trying to create the surveillance state and trying to create these new technologies exploring worlds out there as opposed to trying to understand our world here. And the concern that I have is that if we do not, to your point about whatever agency we do have, if we do not make conscious choices, even just on an obviously all we have is our individual level. But if we are not doing that, then we are just kidding ourselves and thinking that we'll end up creating a golden age that's actually really golden. Because in the political realm or in the social realm or in any realm, if we do not acknowledge the way God actually created things, then we're screwed, basically. That's my thoughts on that.

Paul, you got anything? Yeah, absolutely. And thinking about what Chris was saying about inductively going into that aspect, what did you call it, Chris, you call it? Collective induction belief. Collective belief induction, yeah. Right, yeah, yeah. Which is actually, if you think about it from a philosophical perspective, it's actually going that path is opposite of what a first principle's approach would be. Yeah.

its first principles would be far more, well, you could say deductively, but it's definitely not the approach that is being used by these atomists, by the scientific materialist approach that is common throughout, and that it's drilled into our brains from the age of like three. moving on up. It's a formation of the way to think. It's it's a method of their both epistemology and you know, ontologically just the way that they frame how you think from a very early age and you just accept it because, you know, that's, well, that's the way it was taught. It's a way I've always, you know, formed my opinions and my beliefs.

So to think anything outside that realm is, you know, it's just verbatim. Yeah, there's a sense of like belief consensus is, that's how belief is formed is by consensus, which, you know, I've been quoting Spooner as saying that you're a right is your claim against the whole world. And that is the absolute antithesis of that idea that belief can, that consensus is the way we form beliefs. It's part of that, but there are higher truths that we can appeal to and they must be. Otherwise, we have no basis for any society at all.

You know, in your prior comments, I just wanted to add, if it turns out that God is the basis for reality, and I think that there's a very good case that that's true. If it turns out, that's true. And the scientific materialists are spending their time trying to find an explanation for all of these things that precludes God from the outset. Well, they're going to run into only wrong answers. And it turns out that's exactly what they have done. So to then take any of the big picture answers that are provided in, you know, from collective communications sources. whether it's like television or education, entertainment, politics, whatever it is that is

feeding a collective message looking for widespread belief in doing so, and then incentivizing it, using a punishment structure, forming consensus around it, or whatever, it guarantees that we are going down the wrong path because it has taken away the right answer before we get started and it forces an answer to be grounded in the material where it can't be correct. And so the idea that we have to hold on to all of these things. And the reason most people do it, by the way, is because they don't want to deal with the social opprobrium of telling people that they're wrong about these fundamental beliefs that, as Polly said, were formed when they were children and that they have no basis

upon which to back those beliefs up themselves. Like there's not a person. I would doubt that there's a person. I don't want somebody in there maybe has an amazing argument, but I would doubt that anyone in the chat or anyone that anyone in the chat knows how to back up most of what we are told about physics or biology or chemistry or, you know, space or virology. You can just go on down the list.

And it's just people repeating authoritative claims with no ability to back those claims up themselves, aside from appealing to more authority. It's not stuff that they like know internally. It's not stuff that they deduced from first principles. They can't explain it rationally under scrutiny. There's no direct experience. So how in the world do you pretend to know this stuff? It's actually opposite of a rational approach to think of it. that way. Absolutely. And opposite of the scientific method. Yes. Yes. Yeah, because you learn that

stuff in school and then you realize, well, actually, everyone is just quoting someone else. And no one is actually providing their own first principles, you know, description of that or of anything, really. An example of that is there's a guy I used to listen to in creation, evolution stuff back in high school. That was a topic. I was big in. into and he talked about collecting he liked to collect science textbooks from like high school textbooks just to kind of see what they were and he used to be a high school science teacher just to kind of see what you know things were being taught because Chris you've even mentioned how recently they've tried changing the age of the universe you know every they they just it now and

then because oh something came out that means there's no way it could be 14 billion years old it's actually 20 billion or it's 20 you know 20 oh no it actually it's 10 and you know you know 20 oh no it actually 10 and, you know, whatever. But so he liked to keep tabs on that. And one of the things that he highlighted in there that struck me as a kid was, uh, they would have a, you know,

a section in the, in the textbook where it was, uh, you know, here's the information you're learning. And then over here, there's a little box. It was a critical thinking.

And it was a series of questions to help you to critically think about the information that you're learning. And he showed a slide of it. And it was, do you think man is still evolving? It's like, that is, not critical thinking.

That is like, Chris, have you stopped beating your wife yet? If you answer yes, it means that you were and you finally stopped. If you answer no, it means, well,

you still are. But there's hopefully, clearly other options besides just the yes or no. And you think about a young person who is structured in that environment that,

oh, you're acting like a normal boy, here's some drugs, to calm you down. That environment is trying to narrow you into a set pattern of thinking. And this is critical thinking is basically just regurgitating the information rather than actually being like, well, I don't think man actually ever did evolve in the way you're describing evil. And then you get in trouble for, you know, pushing back on that sort of thing. And to the point you made probably about the fact that we, you know, are inundated with this stuff

from childhood that speaks to the strength of the consensus structure that they understand that they have to start that young because I am convinced that children are born not the gay libertarian not the gay party libertarian but I think children are born naturally a libertarian and the story that I tell with that is my daughter when we were up in Minnesota and I went to get a fishing license so that I could legally keep the fish that she caught and because the lake we were on had pretty absolutely. active game warden presence and I didn't want to get a, you know, pay a fine. And, um, and she was like, she was like six or seven. Why are we getting a fishing license? Well,

we need to get that in order to, you know, keep your fish. It's like, well, didn't God make the fish? Like, why do we need to get permission from someone to keep these fish? It's like, you know, that's a good question. I'm glad that's like, to me, that's the natural state that we're born into. And it, it, it takes that aggressive consensus forming structure to basically beat it out of us, which tying into, I was going to say this for a little later, but I'll go ahead and pull this up now, tying into the truth community, so-called, I think that we pride ourselves in being pattern recognitionists. And so I'm going to go ahead and pull this up here. So this is a Google search for the golden ratio.

in nature. And so we can, you know, this larger picture here, that's, that's the face of a sunflower seed. And you can see like over here, this is the, you know, the golden ratio, the Fibonacci spiral. So this is going to get a little bit into a little bit ether stuff. And we see this pattern everywhere in nature. Here you have, you know, the seashell. You've got flower petals are arranged in that spiral. I have a tattoo in my arm of a rose

because a rose pedal has that same spiral shape to it. Here you can see the top of a seashell has that spiral. So we see this pattern in nature. It's everywhere. And to me, this is how you sort of break out of that consensus paradigm

is you kind of go back to the first principle even of just your own observation. We can see these patterns. And as we do when it comes to geopolitics or anything else, you start to see patterns and you start to recognize a playbook, you start to recognize intentionality. You know, Chris, you talk about the different information ops that are out there and all of these influencers are suddenly talking about the same thing.

That's an indication that there's probably a commonality in the way that they're being trotted out to the public. So the point I have is that if there is a pattern in nature and we understand that this is God's creation, and this gets at the heart of really why the ether interests me. And then if we follow Paul's contention in Romans, which I don't have a slide for this, but this is Romans 1, 18 through 20. He writes, for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them. for his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. And what comes to my mind now is, you know, there's lots of things that can come to mind with that. But seeing this pattern in nature and then Paul telling us that God's invisible attributes can actually be perceived in nature, which goes back to the, you know, the comments earlier about,

the metaphysical and the spiritual side of things, always being sort of this ethereal out there sort of thing. We're talking about a spiritual being, God, can be clearly perceived in his creation. And when I really started to understand the concepts of the ether and realizing that something like the Fibonacci sequence, which is just our way of describing what we see in nature, that's doing what Paul is talking about doing

and clearly perceiving these things that God has literally put his, thumbprint as it were in nature. And we'll get into what actually is going on there on a physics level. But there is therefore then a sense in doing science, in studying nature, that it is actually a theological enterprise. It's not just, well, we're doing science. And it's not just figuring out how stuff works because, I mean, that is fun. But we are literally tuning into another avenue of learning about God.

And as I mentioned earlier, this is literally what Spooner was doing when he was recognizing patterns of justice in the nature of human interaction. And then he was attributing that to God being a divine lawgiver. And so when you're studying a phenomenon like magnetism, which that's what's tying in here with the spiral shape, which we'll get into a, in later episodes. It's not just dirt we're studying or a seashell we're studying. It's God's dirt.

It's God's seashell. And so when, you know, Paul is telling us that we can literally learn about God in studying nature. In doing science, you can literally learn about the invisible attributes of God, namely, as Paul says, his eternal power and divine nature. He even calls it plain to the point where God will hold mankind. accountable for not recognizing it. Contrast that then to the scientific materialist perspective that contends that no scientific

pursuit can have as its first principle in the beginning God and how that's a waste of time. If you're not going to start with that principle, then to your point, Chris, like you're not going to come out with anything positive. So there's an aspect to, I mean, without getting too spiritual into it, but there's an aspect we're literally doing science can be an act of worship. If you're going into it a perspective of, you know, I believe there's a God. I believe he created the world and his fingerprint can be seen in the world. And that's what excites me about getting into this topic as a whole. Yeah, I was going to give Polly a chance. But I would just say discovering logos and

discovering God's order and design in the world leads you closer to God. And if scientists were attempting to do that, maybe we would have a more productive. of science. But we don't have that. What we have is people innovating in the realm of fiction and then attempting to use their fictional innovations to explain what God has designed while precluding God from the answer. Yeah. It's tragic in my mind. It's because the outcome of that, Paul, later in that chapter, that sequence is, and this is like many sermon net, but if you don't acknowledge God, then God gives your, literally, according to Paul, God gives your mind over essentially to itself. And if you are not rooted in an understanding of God, you know, the scriptures

say that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. So if you're not starting there, then you're handed over to this downward spiral. I don't think that's connected to the Fibonashi spiral, but may as well be. But it's a downward spiral of just increasing gravity. And we can see that in in in in society the further we get removed from even having even just a a lip service to god the further just crazy our society gets and that that's exactly the pattern that plays out and is predicted by paul there in romans well it's it's like i can talk about it's rooted in the basis of uh the go ahead polly go ahead i was going to say the the the basis in this it's like uh as i heard, and I forget who it is, I heard them talk about this, whether it's from a scientific

materialist basis of the, of Adam versus Adam. You had the A-T-O-M-M-M-M-V-A-M-R-A-M-R-A-M of God's creation and how you would see axiomatically what you're building up from as ultimate the truth and without a good justification of true belief as, you know, just even, you know, platonically saying knowledge is justified true belief, you know, going from there, going from just a good ground up basis from first principles of understanding ultimate reality. then you're only going to build on top of a foundation that's it's ultimately built on sand. You have nothing to of concreteness to it. Yeah, for sure.

Another thing I kind of wanted to bring up was that there are layers of knowing things, because obviously with talking about epistemology, we're kind of figuring out what we know and how we know what we know. And obviously, Chris, you have a pretty rigorous methodology to that as far as approaching the geopolitical spectrum and all of that. There's a, in some sense, you could say it's layers all the way down. Because you think of a person, most people know how to drive a car. Most people probably don't think beyond that this pedal makes you go fast. This pedal makes you slow down.

This thing makes you go where you want to go. But you can understand that, you know, if you're, that's just. just like the user level, and then there's the mechanic level where he understands all the intricate systems and how they play together. There are layers then to understanding reality, and that's one of the things that excites me about the ether, because going back to my comments about how this also explains sort of the spiritual side of things, because at the end of the day, the spiritual world and the physical world, they share an interplay of concepts that really it took me a number of years of reading into this stuff before I started seeing the connections as far as how the ether works and all that.

And this is a perspective of the ether that Polly and I particularly hold to. It might be wrong and that's okay. But to me there's a lot of parallels to that. But layers that I was thinking about in terms of reality that, you know, people look and they see like, that's blue. Like there's blue light behind me. We can see that it's blue. We can agree unless it's burning bright. You can't see colors or whatever.

But then there's another layer. We understand light exists on a spectrum. And then a layer below that is what actually is light. And that's something that Paul and I will get into. Why does light manifest as colors? These are all questions that you start, you start peeling back the layers on you. And then you start trying to find answers in the current consensus. and you realize they just don't have any answers, really.

And they flat out admit it in a lot of cases. Like, we have no clue. So that's what excites me about this stuff, is that you can, as far down you want to peel, there's more to discover. Which going back to the Truman Show thing, there's a sense in which Truman's world is finite because its creator was finite.

We live in a world. If you start with the paradigm that we live in the world that was created by an infinite, God, then the levels of layer, the layers are infinite, and the levels of understanding are infinite. And to me, that that destroys the perspective that the final frontier is quote unquote space. Because I see that as another potential avenue of consensus building where we've already figured out everything down here.

And we need to go find a space rock to conquer. And that that's the ultimate, like, expression of human freedom and human exploration. and the reality is, man, we're just scratching the surface. We're at the learning how to drive phase. We haven't even gotten into mass airflow sensors and that aspect of things of analog to the natural world. Go ahead, Polly. I was just going to say, Jonathan, and what you were saying,

I wish I could remember the name of this Christian philosopher. I have his book up in my library. I can't remember his name, but he said something, the effect of, he said, empiricism will promise you the world in all reality, all it will do is create a prison for your mind. It will just ultimately lead to solipsism because there's nothing outside. There's no rational basis for this structure that is built upon. Yeah, that's good. Jonathan, I was going to say, I think describing reality and layers is the right way to do it.

I'm actually trying to build a model for that right now. And the way I have it right now is like that God is on the foundational layer. And, you know, the infinite nature of God, you can say that there are infinity layers there. But at that point, do you need infinity layers or can you just? say this is all the same layer. On top of that, I have like the human soul and consciousness created in the image of God. And then above that you have physical reality, reality as we know it, physical reality and conceptual reality. And then we have above that the layer that I call the abstraction, which is that kind of satanic inversion of that, which is on the conceptual and

physical reality, but also the phase of the phenomenon and the result of collective belief induction. So we have all these beliefs that are widespread across culture through these collective communications channels. They convince us of certain things. And because we are all convinced of these things, we want the comfort of consensus. We want to access the incentive structure. We accept the deal with the punishment structure.

and then we take the abstraction and create the world in the image of the abstraction, which kind of pushes the abstraction down into that reality as we know it layer. Nonetheless, everything that is from the abstraction in that physical and conceptual layer is dependent on collective belief in the element of the abstraction. Once collective belief drops away, even through something as saying, simple as boredom or passive disbelief, but we could also have active disbelief to use it intentionally, which I don't think is hard if you can simply disprove the things that they claim, which you can for all of them. But once that goes away, the abstraction and the reality built in the image of the abstraction that goes down into that more fundamental layer, both of those can drop away through collective disbelief.

And so what is gone, like what is left after that removal, that's like what I call reality prime. And the ether versus, you know, the consensus interpretations that we deal with now, those, whatever the answer there is, they still exist in the same layer of our reality. And it would then be a matter of expressions of the ether forming that collective consciousness that brings us to that spiritual leg. Paul, you got any thoughts on that? Yeah, Paul, you got any thoughts on that? Yeah, that's, I don't know how that was pretty, pretty in depth.

I'm not sure I'm going to add to that at the moment. Let me think of that about that for a second. All right. So, Chris, given the fact that you have done this on a regular basis, where you are not a mathematician, you are not an astrophysicist, you are not a line forgetting astronaut, or whatever that glitched out. How do you justify questioning those experts? Like what is your, for a person to push back against the party false decorum punishment and reward structure? what is your basis for aside from just deciding I'm going to start from scratch like is there a process in your mind for how you question those so-called experts well starting from scratch I think is important so I don't want to totally dismiss that but I want to be able to inquire and have my questions answered in a way that a normal person can understand and the idea that scientists are

or somehow they don't have to play on that level, that they can say, oh, well, you need this specialized knowledge in order to understand what I understand. And they can't explain it on a level that makes sense to normal people. Well, that's not good enough. You know, the idea that there are things about this world that you have to go to college for a certain number of years to be able to understand, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

And I'm not saying it's because the world's not complex. It certainly is. And years and years of study might not be enough to get answers. And again, that's kind of its own answer in itself. Some of this is on a level of mystery because we're not going to fully grasp God's creation. That's not something that's possible to do. And so when there are people telling me that they have grasped God's creation at that level and that I'm just not capable of questioning them in the right way, because I haven't already adopted the everything they take as a given in their field of study. I don't find that compelling. They should be able to answer questions from all comers. If they can't answer questions from novices and prove to a person like me that they actually know what they're talking about, well, what incentive would I ever have for believing it? And if they can only convince people who are already indoctrinated in most of what they believe and they are operating under the same incentive structure, well, why would I believe that

those questions are even worth asking? That's the way I think. Yeah. There's a sense, and obviously people will, in frustration, it seems like, will point out that, you know, withholding belief is a, there's kind of a, there's kind of a, point at which that becomes not worthwhile anymore because at some point you just stop believing everything. Is that something that you have any concerns about or what would your answer to be to something like that? Yeah, I don't, I don't that first of all, I'm not encouraging anybody to

stop believing in everything. And I actually, again, just wrote this recently. It was writing part of it while I was down in Nashville for guard. But you only, through the skeptical process, you only reach nihilism if you are already a nihilus. You can't just go through layer by layer taking away these layers and come to the conclusion that there is nothing. I mean, you can go to Descartes. He understands that because I am having these thoughts in the first place, because I am thinking, that indicates that there is a thinker thinking.

I am therefore real. And he understands there's a base layer under that and that's God. And so if you understand those two things, then you can build back up. Well, am I being deceived by God to believe that all of this is out there? Well, I might not understand what I'm looking at. That's possible. It doesn't mean that I've been deceived. And there are parts of our experiential reality and certainly stuff that we can infer and reason using sound logic from first principles.

There are, if you dismiss everything from reality, a whole bunch of things pop right back immediately. And I think that it's valuable to include those with what we understand. Because the furthest, we're not going to understand ultimate reality. We can understand reality as far as we can know it. And I think that that should be our goal rather than understanding ultimate reality. And at that point, we can understand that our ability allows us to grasp this much of reality. So that is how much we grasp. We can also see that aspects of this reality don't.

seem quite as real as others and so those we can be more skeptical about more dismissive of etc but certainly claims from a priestly class of dorks in their like i mean these people really are dorks though i'm not saying every single scientist is a dork but if you are totally removed from reality and studying um something that other people like you made up and you've devoted your entire life to that. And I mean, I use this example so often with the epidemiologists in the very deadly pandemic. Epidemiology is not a real science. It is applying mathematical models to a bunch of ways that scientists view humanity. So the people least likely to understand humanity, trying to do it through numbers, use mathematical models to estimate human behavior.

And then those models become like systems of government that govern human behavior. They always fail because all of the premises are bad. At some point, we have to start thinking that the way we are processing information and the way that we are building knowledge is the problem area. Yeah. Pauli can probably confirm this too that one of the ways that I have approached this is in listening to people who will raise

the in virology, for instance, go back and read the papers that describe the process by which a virus is supposedly isolated or with DNA, for instance, go back and actually read the process by which they so-called discover so-called DNA, don't even worry about trying to interpret scientific terminology or anything like that,

although it might help to have a definition, you know, a dictionary on hand just to understand some of their terminology. So you understand what you're reading. But just think through the logical process of that stuff. And it turns out that a lot of the things that we are presented as being these absolutely 100% confirmed These are truths of reality. They're not from just a, like a rudimentary basic logical level. And that when I started doing that, not through my own impetus, but through listening to others,

it was like glass shattered. Like, holy crap, there is nothing in this world that is, that's their world that withstands the slightest scrutiny. And that freeze that I don't. have to be an astrophysicist. I don't have to be a biologist. I'm not a biologist. I can't say what a man or woman is. I don't have to worry about credentials because at the end of the day, if it doesn't pass the basic logic sniff test, then it's probably bullshit. And I'm okay with saying that. And I know that's been Pauli's experience too, because he's been one of the ones to push me in that direction. Oh yeah, absolutely. Yeah. It's just a cursory.

search over these things and you'll see that it's just built on a like just a whole bunch of bullshit. Bullshit after bullshit looking at the their white papers or like even when you had said the you know in DNA go back and look at the Watson Creek paper that supposedly proved that process and you'll see that this is a house of cards. This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's rational, logical. That is an emboldening practice, and I would encourage everyone listening to try that for themselves, because then you realize that these guys that they get the media time, that get on Joe Rogan, that make the podcast circuit, that get put up on podiums and deified, essentially, they're not all that.

They're not really this ironclad operation the way they present themselves to be. And so when you're with your friends and you're discussing the nature of reality or something like that, you can be like, well, I've actually, have you read that paper? Because that was my experience way back in the day discussing things like vaccines with people. And I would use the line that I had never met anyone that had done even five minutes of research into the topic that came away thinking that vaccines were a good idea. And that was even before I even rejected the whole idea of viruses, just the way that they make vaccines. It takes 15 minutes, tops of digging into some of that stuff to realize, man, there's some problems here.

And most of the people that were the most hardcore ardent supporters of it, the only sources they could point to were, well, my doctor told me, he wouldn't lie to me. And you know, the TV told me they wouldn't. And you just realize, man, there's so much of our current reality that is structured on things that, are just not as solid as they pass themselves off to be. And so going forward into this ether discussion, obviously we're not getting into, you know, nitty gritty this tonight, but going forward,

the goal that Polly and I have is to even pulling, like the pictures of the spirals in nature. And then as we explain and even show and demonstrate things like magnetic fields and things like that, we can actually visually see these things and realize that that pattern exists on a metaphysical level as well that you can literally see on a physical side of things. And it's very exciting. And hopefully we can explain it in a way that people can at least have a cursory understanding. So as they're going forward, they, well, first of all, you shouldn't feel bad looking like an idiot to your friends because as you say, Chris, don't worry about being called retarded.

buy a bunch of retards. But we have, we're running out of time here. So there were a few Romo rants that came through. We have secrets for $20. This is the shit. I've waited to hear you guys talk about forever. Well done.

Unatio met her at Gart. Good to hear from you. She's got for 30 bucks. Said, God bless the three of you and your families. Love each of you. My brothers. Peace to you. Escape the Matrix, another fellow at Gart.

Ten bucks, great show, gents. Looking forward to getting into the ether. And yeah, me too. Pauly, do you have any closing thoughts? No. We kind of just skim the service about, you know, ideas of how to go about, you know, forward thinking about this topic, you know,

and reframing the basis for how you think. about it a little bit yeah um we didn't get into any of the uh substance so to speak but that's okay it needed a primer because the ether subject is so diametrically opposed to what is mainstream that it needed it yeah uh chris thanks so much for joining me have any closing thoughts or well i just wish you guys uh all the best in the series i look forward to finding out more about the ether because there's definitely something else going on. And I think that there's probably people who know that and are actively exploiting the fact that they have some knowledge that is cut off from other people.

And so I like to blast through those walls wherever possible. You mentioned the terminology in the academic papers. That terminology is there to make people believe that they cannot. understand what these people are doing. So, yeah, fuck those people. Hang into that. Last minute, RumbleRamp for $100. Thank you very much, AJC.

3. Thank you, man, blessings, everyone. PJ Corrigan jumped in there for $20. Bravo, gentlemen. Good to see you, brother. And then, as we're going to close out, and I'm going to remind everyone that this is the No Treason podcast,

named, as I mentioned at the beginning, as an homage to Lysander Spooner, which will explain my outro So thanks, everyone. Thanks, Chris. Thanks for Polly for joining me. We'll see you guys all next week. We will be recorded next week, so I'll be out of town. But I'll see you guys all later.

Cheers. Why a spoon, cousin? Why not a axe? Because it's dull, you twit. It'll hurt more. Thank you so much for joining us and don't forget to hit the thumbs up on this video. And a special thank you to all of our advertising partners. Please remember to shift your dollars to support those businesses that support Badlands Media.