[music] What you are basically. [music] Deep, deep down, far, far in. [music] Is simply. [music] The fabric and structure of existence itself. [music] Peace for all men and women. Peace for all men and women. [music] Not merely peace in our time. [music] It's an all time. The fabric and structure of existence itself. [music] Peace for all men and women. Peace for all men and women. [music] Not merely peace in our time. [music] It's an all time. [music] The fabric and structure of existence itself. [music] Hi everybody, welcome to the parallel my podcast. I'm your host Mike. Thank you for joining us for this emergency podcast because I'm going to be joined tonight by Monica Perez to discuss the recent assassination attempt on Donald Trump. Now the reason I wanted to make this episode is because I would say this was one of the most bizarre televised events in history. Secret service purposely left so many holes in this one ensuring that everyone came away with a million conspiracies running around their mind. So Monica is one of the smartest people I know when it comes to the coding conspiracy. So I thought we'd get her on the show to have this conversation. So if you're looking for an honest, open and critical discussion around this, this is the place to be. Of course I welcome all takes. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I think it's very important to be very, very careful in descending drawing these moments in history. Yes, you are being led in many directions purposely. So I think it's really good to listen to all different takes and then come to our own conclusions and also of course to invite into our lives our intuition because we all have a compass towards truth. It's just the layers and layers of nonsense that is put upon that that usually tricks people into going down the wrong path. Of course, we'll be back next week with our usual episodes and next week is going to be a big week because we are back with Saturn's bankers, part number two, where we're going to be discussing the Venetians. So if you haven't listened to part number one yet, check that one out. It's a fantastic episode, but part number two is going to be a bombshell one. Members, please head over to parallomite.com to listen to the full episode. If you are not member yet, please consider joining us and supporting the content and also supporting free speech because over the last few days, I've been censored multiple times for having some discussions around this. So has Monica. Lots and lots of comments have been deleted on my YouTube. So that is why we have a private platform so we can remain truly independent. And truly free when it comes to thought and speech enclosing. I hope you are well, healthy and reasonably happy. Remember to take a break from all of this Hollywood nonsense. Get outside. Be with your loved ones. Thank you so much for listening and I'll see you all back here next week for Saturn's bankers, part number two. I'm going to hand it to you Monica. We've had time to digest what happened. In fact, I would say the more I digested it, the more my stomach felt themselves. It hasn't got better. And I don't think it's become any clearer. In fact, I think it's a sign up. Something else is happening here and I don't trust any of the media narratives. What about you? Yeah, I do. And I feel like, you know, the options that we've talked about, whether it was incompetence or an inside job or just straight up theater. I have to land on theater. I mean, for, for several reasons, one is, I mean, it's just like that we've discussed. It just doesn't, it doesn't look right. There are just too many weird details. And when you're watching it, that it just doesn't, it just doesn't look right. But I also feel like if they wanted him dead, he'd be dead. I think that the narrative of, oh, and the incompetence thing, which like tweaks the right because they're using like woke stuff about, you know, it's because of DEI or whatever. That has a political motive too. But when they talk about an inside job, it plays into the idea that the left and the right are really two separate things that the Democrats and the Republicans are fighting to the death for the presidency. And for me, like, that's ridiculous. Like, I don't even, I don't entertain that idea for a moment. So if it were an inside job, it would be a deep state takeout of this guy and it would have been effective. Yeah, I don't think you mess things like this up. And I certainly don't think that you'd leave it to a 20 year old tutor that you've just literally am killed to it. I don't think that's how these things work. I think you have backup plan upon backup plan to make sure it's done properly. But I also don't think you leave a massive piece of low hanging fruit, which is all of the blatant, purposeful errors to ensure people went immediately to the inside job narrative. I don't think you would do that. And the two interviews I saw of the two guys with the baseball hats and the t-shirts describing the guy on the roof that they saw before the shooting. One of which was a BBC interview, which, which one of my tweets pointed out, does the BBC send their oldest, fattest reporter to rural Pennsylvania for the smallest rally for a small Trump rally in July? Like, I mean, maybe he was there because he was there for the RNC, but that's Milwaukee, you know. So that seemed weird, but we would not have seen the video that told us that they saw it ahead of time. It's not an inside job or even possibly even Secret Service incompetence. There's no media control incompetence. I don't think anybody really seriously thinks that stuff gets in the media that isn't allowed to get in the media that the BBC is going to pop off and put this really unbelievable video up without asking somebody first. That's not believable to me. And so, and we see these things. And I also think like guys like that, you hear a lot of stories when things like that happen where people take action. I mean, I'd be surprised that they would have a bunch of Republican, rural people, you know, begging a cop to climb up that roof. You know, and being surprised when he's not effective. Like, I think somebody would have climbed up that roof. Yeah, that's a story that came out today that that building was actually being used by the police as a depot. So that building was filled with police where the shoot was on top of. I mean, every part of this just requires you to believe the unbelievable. And whenever that's happening, I take a step back and say to myself, that's not normal. That's not life. That's not how things work. Maybe one extra odd and everything happens, but two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. At that point, I think you've just been led down a path. And that's why they have redundancies. And it's also why I don't believe in all the Boeing, the airline stuff because there was this cute old show in California for many years ago called California's gold. And this guy, he'll house or from Tennessee's to go to all the cool things in California. I mean, one lady made a couch out of lint. Another thing was, you know, the wind farm that was new at the time. And he went to the Boeing factory. And I remember being amazed. He was like, how many people check and double check a bolt? Like they had triple redundancies, not only in the mechanisms, but in the construction, in the, in the people. And yes, they're saying now because of stuff like DEI and outsourcing or whatever, like it all fell apart. It completely fell apart and Boeing is terrible now. But I just, I don't believe that because until this, the whole airplane sci-op started, which I'd also predicted. I was like, this is not going to last. We have in the past 15 years, except for a couple of things that I considered to be fishy. There was no accident having a fatality involving a US run commercial jet in 15 years. That is not incompetence. That is what happens when you have triple redundancies. And I think these security is like that too. Same thing with like the Vegas shooting and stuff. Like that stuff just is not happening. It's not, it's not happening. And in either way, whether it's in protecting the president or having him killed, you know, either way, those guys are getting it done. Yeah, one thing that I'd say to people listing is you have to accept that they wanted you to think that the secret service allowed this to happen. There's no way to argue on this one that they try to cover up the secret service being involved. The only possible answer is that they wanted you to think that. Now, therefore you take a step back and say, why would they want me to think that? That's what I question. Why would they want me to think the secret service were involved? And then you see the response of Trump and you see his family and him thanking the secret service afterwards saying what a great job they did. Thanking the police for doing a great job. None of that adds up, none of that adds up. And also someone said to me today, if I was Donald Trump and I just survived an assassination attempt in which I got shot in the year, very dangerous. And my entire security team, my personal security team had failed me and clearly was in on it because he said, your personal security team, if you are Donald Trump must have been in on it too because they did nothing. They allowed this to happen. You wouldn't then go out the next day. You wouldn't allow your family to go anywhere. You'd lock yourself down. You'd say, we need to get this side. We need a new team immediately. Everything needs to be changed. Unless you scared. Unless they didn't fail. Yeah, right. No, I agree with that totally. But the narrative is going to be, he's sucking it up. He's putting his life on the line. The deep state's trying to kill him. He's going into the belly of the beast. It's going to be just, you know, a more cute stuff. He's going to appease them because he just wants to get in there and do what he can before they really take him out. And I'm actually not convinced that won't happen, that there won't be a second attempt. And they could do it the same way. They could say, we're going to stage this thing and then take them out. Like there was a chick at an Iranian protest named Nita and EDA. And there was actually footage of them, she was a worldwide story that she was shot to death at this Iranian protest. And you could see footage of somebody having a tube of blood and squirting it on her. But then I think she really did die. I think when they took her away in the ambulance, they actually did kill her. I don't know. But just because you're in on some of the scios doesn't mean they let you live. Like, I don't know if Jeffrey Epstein is alive or dead. Yeah, that's what I said to someone today. Someone said to me, well, if Donald Trump was playing along with this and allowed them to fake an assassination on him, that means that he accepted that people in the audience got killed. That means he okayed it. And I said, well, no, that's an assumption. That's also an assumption because how do you know at that level what he's even briefed on? They could just literally be tying him. This is what we're going to do. You do this when we tell you there's an earpiece in tying him. Get down, stand up, go for it. You just don't know. None of us actually know. Yes, it needs to know basis. Yeah, it needs to know. It's like a Ford factory, right? You only focus on one part, your part. Like the photographers, just because the photographers took these photos, does that mean that they knew? Of course not. You know, what about the police? Does that mean that all the police knew? Of course not. I think everyone has a role and they only know their specific part of the role. That's probably how it works. And they could very easily just tell Trump that the fireman was an actor, which he may or may not have been. But like they could. He could be so familiar with the fact that they staged things that he would believe that that too was staged. I mean, it goes round and round, you know? Yeah, he, you know, I guess if he's been involved in that world for this long, he was involved in Epstein. You know, this kind of, I would say, an artificial understanding what people have of how this all works. They see politics and they fall into the narratives and believe it really works like that. I don't think it works like how well position did at all. I think it works more like a mafia or anything. He's on the other side of that mafia. So he understands the mafia and not really businessmen who own Italian restaurants. They're actually in the back working people and kidnapping and doing all that stuff. And he's on that side of it. So he understands how it works for sure. You know, do you think that he must know that they kill people? You know, do you think that if he did know that they did take the fireman out and that he knew about that, he would accept that? Or do you think that he's insulated on that? I absolutely have no clue because I don't believe that you get any real reflection of who Donald Trump is. He's the character. I see the character, but how do I know what he's like behind the scenes in real life? Would he care? I don't know because, you know, to know somebody in their capacity for empathy, you have to see glimpses of the real person. I think he is always in character. He's very good at keeping character. Now, where it biding, I think he actually gives more of his true self because he loses control of his character. You see that because he gets angry. You know, he gets angry. He gets vengeful when somebody says something in the crowd. He can't control himself. But with Donald Trump, he's very cool. That's true. He's very egotistical. Yeah. Yeah. So I think Donald Trump, that's why he's more believable for people too because he's very good at maintaining this era of calm and cool. And he rarely shows himself to get flustered, which is a real skill in politics, right? Because the moment you get angry or upset, you show the west parts of yourself, but he is good at that. So I don't know, but I do think if you're talking about, you know, does he understand that behind the scenes, that they assassinate competition from different factions and that they're involved in all of those things, like political assassinations and all that, and getting blackmail and debt, like Epstein, of course. Yeah, he knows everything to do with that and he's a part of it. So I don't think he's, I don't think he's green to all this. And I think quite likely if he was told this is what has to happen, this is the way it has to be, you're doing this, whether you like it or not. Yeah. You just say, yeah, okay. It's my turn to step up. Yeah, that's true. Does that murder film? Yes. You know, how much blackmail materials on Donald Trump? Maybe he didn't want to do it, but does he get a choice at this point? I think the whole thing with him, first of all, he was not as rich as he said. Like, there was a, I read a book about him called Trump Nation, I think. And he sued the author for saying that he wasn't really that rich and then he withdrew the suit. So it never really was adjudicated, but I never thought he was super rich. I thought that the DC hotel that he got very kind of illegally was going to make him rich. And it got him a couple of hundred million dollars, but not enough. But this truth social thing, which is nothing is a shell is an empty. Nothing is worth billions and billions of dollars to him. And just when it was starting to tank, I don't know if you know about this, just when it was starting to tank. It rallied 30% yesterday. Are you aware of this? This whole, how he's getting started rallied massively because of this and. Yeah. And these guys have to get paid off. So Obama, I wondered how Obama went into the White House with there or never had a lot of money and then all of a sudden he had a ton of money. And it's because he kept selling millions of copies of his book. And I thought, Oh, they just make you write a book and then they buy the book. That's how they launder the money. But this with him, I think it's that truth social. And I think so. I think he's doing it for the money. And the thought occurred to me that he was also doing it. To legitimize. His family and that his family had some taint because starting with his father being, you know, a slum Lord and his own sketchy back story mafia. And I thought he might be doing this. He's getting old. Why would he do it for his family? And I just read today that Baron Trump announced that he plans on going into politics. So maybe it's all for Baron. Of course he is, of course he is. Okay, I've got a question for you. Is there anything that would make you change our thesis now and go to the idea that he was legitimately targeted is there any evidence that they could show you what you'd say. Actually, I completely reverse costs all the other weird stuff I'm going to have to put to one side because this to me changes everything. Or do you think it's just not even on the table? Well, two things. One, one is telling you earlier about the Kate Steinley shooting from when he first announced that he wanted to be president in 2015. It was very clearly a scyop, which made it very clear to me that he's an inside job and nothing will ever change my mind on that. If the question is, is this exact situation? Is there anything they could show me to make me think that it wasn't a staged thing. You can be inside sometimes and then get kicked out of out of the bed. That's definitely true. When they're tired of these people, they definitely take them out. I mean, there's no question about it. JFK and Reagan both had their deep state ties. Nixon too. And they were all taken out. I mean, Reagan survived a genuine, I think a genuine assassination attempt. JFK didn't. Nixon, it was a coup. Watergate. So they take insiders out. That's for sure. But just the logical problem, I mean, it can't be a lone gunman because of the security failures. And it can't be an inside job because of the amateurish attack. I just, I can't tell me something. Is there anything that, is there any thought that you could have? I mean, even if they had, he was trying to blackmail Biden. You know, even if he was doing that, like there was a guy, gal Luft, who's a real insider corrupt guy, whatever, he, I think he said something about a really corrupt Biden arrangement from 2019. And now he's indicted on something like they're going to put him in jail for some of the shit that he does, but he was like, they're only retaliating and I'm thinking, well, yes, they're retaliating, but you still did all this stuff. I mean, you still did the bad stuff, but you're right. So they, so everybody's a criminal, but they only charged the people who, and that's how they control it all. Everybody's dirty and then they can just charge you. So there's, I mean, there's definitely a scenario when I think they would take him out, but this thing, can you imagine a scenario when this thing as it is that you could add information to this and tell me it was real? Well, you know, I've said to quite a few people over the last few days that really you can cut away all of the fat on this. Don't worry about the other people in the audience. Don't worry about the secret service. But get about everything and just focus on one thing. There was three shots that sounded off by the third shot he was on the floor. The first shot he grabbed is a, that is the factual evidence. That's what we know. To prove that it was an assassination attempt, you just have to prove that one of those shots actually was directed at him. That's it. There's three shots. It takes space over about three seconds. That's it. The rest of the footage, everything else could be stagecraft. It could be misdirection and there'll be layers and layers of all of that stuff. So you need to separate yourself on that. So is there anything that could come out to prove to me that a shot actually went at him, drawing those three seconds? And the answer is no, because anything that they showed me would be their evidence. So it'd be some data that they've released to say, look, here's the line of the bullet. Oh, look, this happened. Oh, yes. So there's nothing that will actually make me change my opinion on that, because it just is too cookey. It's too cookey. That is easy. It didn't explode. Yes, that's true. That's something I've noticed before. And I noticed on January 6, so January 6, I saw a lot of footage like the next day on January 7, people who were there looked like a festival, looked like a music festival. There was nothing going on. There was somebody showed me a picture of like Alex Jones's guys climbing up a scaffolding that was like away from the action. Like it was just totally bizarre. What are they doing? Of course, they were, they were, you know, making it look like they were staging stuff. So then months later, there was a lot of video of like cops bleeding and having real altercations and maybe they were filmed that day, but I couldn't help but feel like they waited for the real events to shake out, see if they could have provoked something real, whatever. And when they had to go back and prove that had been a riot, they fabricated some stuff that would do that, but I felt like they didn't do it, not all of it anyway in advance. And I kind of felt like that's how they did maybe this innocent bystander who got shot, like, you know, I don't know how long it took them to come up with that, but like it just, I feel like they will come up with more stuff like you say. But once there's been a delay, I agree, I don't, that's what they do, that's how they do it. They want to see the reaction before they see what they need to give you, and they don't want to roll stuff out. That's why you never see stars from the moon on the moon landing. They didn't put stars up there because they really didn't know exactly what they would look like. So what would be the only thing you would do if you were on the moon and you were a scientist, take a picture of the stars, because you would all of a sudden for the first time in human history, have a stationary point. You know, not on earth to see what the stars look like in three dimensions, but you'd never see pictures of the stars in the sky. And I think it's because they knew that it could be disproven later because they really didn't know exactly what it would look like, but that kind of precision. So I feel like they wait and see what's going on and then they give you what they need to give you, but they don't want to give you too much because if they have to address a different issue, they want to make sure they didn't close off that path. Yeah, I think that's why that photo that the photographer Doug Mills took. So showing a bullet zooming past Trump's ear was so important because if you take away that piece of evidence, there is no evidence to show that any of the three shots that I discussed went towards Trump. They could have gone anywhere towards anyone. The only piece of evidence, at that point, if you take away the photograph is his ear, which for me isn't evidence because I don't see any of that's got a hole in it. I just see any of that's got something. But plus they could do that if they had to. If they have to, they will go in there and hurt him. They could have, but there's zero evidence that you got shot. Yeah, and for listeners that haven't seen the image that I just discussed of a bullet being fired behind him basically, that image was taken by the same guy who was with George Bush on 9/11 and actually took an iconic picture of George Bush being told Yes. About the best plane going into the twin towers, the very first plane. And he took the most iconic image. That same guy was the photographer who was photographing Donald Trump. And he took a picture that is supposedly a one in a million. I've called it a one in a billion because it apparently shows a speeding bullet behind him, which I did an article on for my patrons basically explaining that to get an image like that, you need a highly specialized camera. You need to be in laboratory like settings. Your camera has to be dialed in very specifically for a moving image that's going three, four thousand feet per second. You have to be static with a tripod. And even then you've got like a one in a 70,000 shot of getting it. And this guy did it running around with a weak camera shooting from the hip. To me, it's impossible shooting from it. But here's the kicker. Here's the kicker for people that want to say Donald Trump wasn't in on it. Why would the secret service and the government immediately put out a picture that verifies, you know, that verifies. Why would they put that image out to prove that I shoot a fight from that rooftop? Like it doesn't make sense that that image would come out immediately. It's a weird image anyway, you know, to have. And then this is a big problem that is an indication of just pervasive syops, in my opinion, is that they never ever ever show restraint. You know, without all sorts of details about shootings and shooting victims and feed the the perps, their day in the sun, publish their manifestos, even after they're dead and aren't going to do any more harm. And then stories change numbers change. I mean, there's the media has been so, it's so different from what it was, you know, when my parents were young, because I remember them saying things like why are they writing. They didn't respect salacious stuff. They were like, you should never write the name should never give a guy like that press somebody who's killing. We've disconnected journalism from its purpose so long ago that the audience doesn't even understand that this stuff is weird. So I'm just pretending to never ending Hollywood movie and gossip and I think the conspiracy mill needs to be changed constantly. And right now I think now that the initial best is gone and people are actually starting to look at what was, they're trying to layer on new things to drag people away from actually reflecting and thinking, wait a minute, what did I actually see? Yeah, in that strange, in that strange that he took this photo and that it went through shoes. Isn't it strange that he thanked the Secret Service rather than said that they tried to harm me. Isn't it all so strange, but instead we're being told, oh, maybe Iran was involved. Oh, we've got documents showing that Iran might have wanted to put it. Yeah, and now, oh, now there's another shooter apparently at the RNC convention. There was another man with a gun and they're just layering things on. Something else will come along entirely in about two weeks and just brush all of this out the way, and that's how it works now, I think. And the fact that the guy's name is Crooks means you'll really never be able to. If they don't want you to search it, you'll not be able to search it. I mean, you just can't. Because it's just a word. He has no online presence anyways. He's one of those. Yes, that's true. That's true. But I'm looking up images of bullets right now. And first of all, the picture you came up with from the Nikon Z9, that specific picture is on the first page. Like that's how rare it is to get that good, a picture of a speeding bullet. But all the other pictures of speeding bullets that have any kind of tail, you have to do something to get a tail like that. Either have the gunpowder, right? You know, the smoke coming out of the gun. And I question whether it would be that ramrod straight so far away. Like, I don't, would it? No, there would be no vapor. And every image of a bullet being fired out of a gun that exists is taken at the point of exit from the barrel. Right. So there's some vapor behind it. And it has to be that way, Monica, because it moves out thousands of feet per second. There's no way you're going to catch it any other way. There's literally no recorded image ever of someone catching a bullet in any of the circumstance then having a very specialized camera shooting at 132,000 right at the barrel of a gun, everything static, ready to go. That's the only time. People, people say you can do it with a video. But again, I would argue it's at the point of exit. Yeah, yeah, exactly. You can stick a video there that's recording and you can get the high definition and you can go away and do a lot of post editing. That's completely different to having a guy with a camera. That's very weak and it's set up to take images of a man. So anyone that's an amateur photographer will know you have to dial in your camera to the scene that you're on. If you are taking pictures of a human being in a photojournalist fashion, there is no way that that can also catch an image that requires a very specialized lens, a very specialized camera and a completely static setup. So it's just, you know, it's one of those impossible ones. But because people in the past have taken a photo of a moving bullet, they say, well, there you go. It's been done before. As far as possible. That means it did happen. I know. But have you ever, have you ever seen one before to prove a shooting? That's true. I mean, it's such a weird detail to come up with. Immediately as well. And the interesting thing as well, the camera that it was using was a Sony A9. Nobody has ever recorded a bullet in flight, even in a perfect setting with that camera because it's not got the capacity. And what about what about Trump? So that's a split second after he hit his ear, right? That picture was a split second after it hit. Well, they're not going to confirm that. They don't want to confirm it because people will say, well, where's the where's the spray coming off him? And he's here. So they've said, Oh, we don't know which bullet it was. We don't know which bullet it was. Well, I think you would be able to quite easily tell which bullet because you can see the exact frame that is in the motion. Right. So I think you can tell and it's the first bullet I would imagine. I'm just looking at the picture and I'm seeing his, I guess his hand is going up to his ear as the bullet whizzes past. Well, weird. He's grimacing. I mean, that's because that's instantaneous. I would say that you would instantaneously grimace. Yeah. And, you know, that could all be easily designed to make him flinch that could have been something that was there. Oh, I thought they would. When I first thought about it, I thought they put a little, like, squib on his ear and somebody just pressed the button because that would be so much more realistic. You'd make an ugly face. You would fall down. It would scare you. Yeah, that would make much more sense. The thing that I said to some of my patrons was, if you are going with the narrative and you are entitled to go with any narrative, of course, I think everyone should analyze this dispassionately and just, you know, allow your intuition to play a role as well because that will be telling you what's right. We've all got an internal compass towards truth. What happens is they overlay a lot of bullshit on top of that to try and send you down different paths. But if you believe that Donald Trump just had a miraculous escape from an assassination because for a bullet to miss you at that distance by the tiniest fragment so that your ear doesn't even get knocked off is a miracle. It's a literal miracle. It's a one in a, it's one in many millions chance. Yeah, there's too many of those. And if you believe that, then you also now are believing this photograph, which is another miracle. So you are believing two miracles happened simultaneously. The first one was Donald Trump not getting shot in the head and the second one was someone capturing a photo of the bullet that he just dodged two miracles at the exact same time. What a coincidence. And that's two miracles at once. That's crazy. Yeah, there's just too much. I don't believe it. I'm not buying it, but I'm taking your admonition seriously to take our conversation off of YouTube. I'm going to do that. Yeah, I think he showed because I think it'll risk the channel. Okay, Monica, I want us to discuss something before we leave. So I just want to leave a little bit of time for that. And that's where this goes next. Like, where do you think this goes next for America? What's your predictions now? Okay, so we're going to leave it there for part one. Everyone, I hope you enjoyed it. Members, please head over to paralomite.com to listen to the full episode. This is a shorter one today, but it's usually around two hours per episode. Some of them even longer. Next week, we are back with Saturn's Bank as part two. So I hope you enjoyed this one. I hope you found it interesting, useful. If you don't agree with the take, that's absolutely fine. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing. There's nothing wrong with having a completely different take. What we should never do is allow ourselves to be siloed into listening to just one take. So thank you so much for listening. Take care of yourselves. I look forward to seeing you all back here next week. Last members, I hope to see you over there on paralomite.com to listen to the second part of this discussion. On my time, thank you so much for listening. I hope you all are basic. Deep, deep down, far, far in, is simply the fabric and structure of existence itself. For all men and women, not merely peace in our time, this is an all time. On the sea, it's pressing yourself. Peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time, peace in all time. The fabric and structure of existence itself. [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] In the 17th shutrobes and look at the script, the kingdom of God is within man, not one man nor a group of men, but in all men. You, you, the people, have the power. Peace for all men and women, for all men and women. The fabric and structure of existence itself. Honestly, it's pressing yourself. [MUSIC PLAYING] Peace for all men and women, for all men and women, not merely peace in our time, not merely peace in our time, peace in all time. [MUSIC PLAYING]
