Scenarios. What they wanted the power lad in the West, we're already mapped
out that Hitler would lose to Stalin was the plan that the Western League had,
And that actually backs up with what Quickly said, because Quickly argues that
the Western Atlantis power leade wanted to destroy through the two World Wars their main
rivals in the twentieth century. So the Anglo American establishment in the First World
War destroys the Austra Hungarian Empire as a rival, and then in the Second
World War they destroyed Germany even further. And then in the Cold War it
becomes the exhausting and the destruction, destruction of Russia. But also a part
of that way that they would destroy Russia or even China was not nearly through
external warfare, but also through the exportation of toxic ideologies such as Leninism,
Trotskyism, Marxism, Maoism, all exported to those countries as technologies which you
can read Bertrand Russell himself, the famed Fabian socialist, in his early thirties
texts talking about how he was so happy that the experiments of Bolshevism and Sovietism
were having their sway and when we're succeeding as far as they were at that
time. So again, Royal society, British early power structure people absolutely on
board with Sovietism with the quote Marxist experiments in the other countries, because according
to for example, HD Wells and Huxley people, excuse me, hd Wells
and Russell people in the Western power structure, they were lauding this one because
they were experiments and technocratic governance. And they also believed that tiny mustache Man's
form of socialism was also an experiment in technocratic governance. But what happened when
the Germany lost World War Two was that that plan was discarded, and then
the Cold War ensues, and then after the Cold War, now what we're
getting is the perfect planned synthesis from what they planned and said they wanted one
hundred plus years ago, the same power structure. And I detailed this in
all the books that I lectured through. You can go back to H.
G. Wells, to the Milliner Fabian elites, to John Ruskin, to
all those characters are rolling in supernational affairs and they've had a long history of
promoting all forms of communism, fascism, socialism, capitalism, democracy. They
don't care whatever achieves the end goal of the best, and that doesn't have
to be the same plan everywhere. They can export a certain ideology to a
certain region. For example, one system of Marxism might work better in one
country as opposed to some other country. Maybe fascism would work better in a
different country. And this is precisely why David Rockefeller wrote multiple articles in the
New York Times praising and supporting Maoism. Why would the most powerful Western capitalist
industrialist man right gigantic editorials in New York Times in late seventies talking about how
great Maoism is again, over and over and over. We see that certain
people transcend the dialectic. But what everybody who wants to come argue with me
says, and my prediction will be that most of these people, maybe some
of them are most of them are not familiar with the source text that I've
talked about. But I will just simply argue that number one, the source
text that I've mentioned talk about what I talk about, not just from conspiracy
there. I only mentioned one conspiracy theorist in this whole talk, doctor Coleman.
The rest of them are mainline academic texts which are not foisting some conspiracy
but actually just trying to give the perspective of the power structure. That doesn't
mean it's true, doesn't mean that when I cite Brazinski, I think Brazinski's
a good man and that he's true. I'm siding him as a source for
how the Western power structure views dialectical philosophy. And in fact, Brazinski in
many places talks about the Cold War as a mannequean dialectic that results in a
technocratic synthesis. That's the whole point of his nineteen seventy between two Eights book.
So anyway, we'll open it up to people who want to come on
and make their point. I think there was a guy dming me. Let
me see if he's on here. He hasn't popped in here yet, So
I'll go to the next guy, American Marks Gotta. I'm what's up?
Hey? So I was reading your interaction with pause, right, And I'm
not as interested in like the whole Anthony Sutton history as I am with your
justification of Like isn't your whole thing about like like it's all Hegelianism or whatever?
Right? So my Thinggelianism. No I'm not, no, no,
no, no, no, you're not. I'm saying, like you think
like Nazism and like communism are the same because they're both Agilian. Right.
Well, I didn't make that argument, but I think that they rely in
part on Hegelian philosophy. I was making the point to him that he and
I would disagree over what facts and quote history, facts are and that would
probably relate to different world views. That's what I was trying to say.
So let me read. Okay, So let me read specifically what I wanted
to ask you about. So there's no such thing as non theory relating brute
facts in common sense that is self evident to appeal to. Aren't you a
proponent of materialism? Sounds like you just argue facts are just fearful. Okay,
So what do you mean by this again? I mean, I don't
know exactly his account of epistemology or what he's going to say about like what
a fact of history is. So I'm making the point that as a presubsitionalist
and as a religious thinker, I interpret the world from my paradigm, from
a certain world view, and that means that I'm going to read the facts
quote unquote with the world view that I have that incorporates things like spiritual realities
and the transcendent God's existence, the church, et cetera. His world view,
as I understand it, is a materialist sort of critical empiricist. That's
the Leninist view, right, right, So reality doesn't present to you actual
facts. I was making two different critiques. One is that I don't know
what he means by a fact of history, because it might be the Hegelian
sense where fact what you mean by fact of history is like pure like empirical
like data rather than like okay, first of all, yeah, that First
of all, I was saying that because I don't know what he means,
he might be subject to the Hegelian notion of history and facts, where history
and facts cannot like you don't know, like there's subjects like the famous Hegelian
dictum that if the facts contradict the system, the facts be damned, right,
which is yeah, But like he was specifically saying like he wanted to
debate like the empirical facts. Yeah, And I am saying that there's not
a thing is that doesn't exist. So so then what you're just talking about
for the past thirty minutes, because it's a difference between a question of empiricism
and the notion of justification. So if he's a materialist, then he's committed
to a certain epistemology and a certain metaphysic and that's going to be our more
fundamental contention. That's what I was saying to him. Yeah, but don't
facts matter in this regard, like you're trying to prove that the Bolsheviks and
the Nazis and and because it's Anthony Sutton, I think he also argues that
FDR was funded, which I'm not going to argue that as much, but
yeah, you know, you know. But the point is, have you
read have you read quickly? What have you read quickly? He has an
old chapter on that. Yes, and no, I'm aware of quickly.
You're saying you have read Doctor Pire quickly. I haven't read quickly. I've
written sudden, which is like the guy you Okay, right, but quickly.
It's more of a source than something. No, I know, but
I'm not sure that you do know that. But okay, I know about
him, but I haven't read him. Okay, But I'm just saying he
says the same thing about f the R. Yeah, no, I know,
but I was thinking. I wasn't making a point about that. The
point I was making was that to even makes such a clean don't you have
to at least dive into the empirical evidence in facts behind. Yeah, I
believe in empirical data, but I'm not an empiricist, and it's very easy
to demolish either. With Mark. Mark was not an empiricist, like you
know, just like we're not talking. Hold on, how how is he
not an empiricist? Mark? Well, if you want to get into the
whole, the whole like early Marks, later Marks thing, early Marx was
very into like the whole naturalism of Hegel right, and he wasn't necessarily a
full materialist. And actually, if you read Imperial Criticism and Materialism, Lennon
explicitly like differentiates between like Marxist materialism and like pure like mocky and as a
pure mocky and like empiricism. Okay, that's fine. I don't have a
problem with that, because it's critique that I would give it really pure mocking
impure. You're gonna let me finish, like okay, So my critique would
apply to any form of materialism or empiricism, I understand. But my point
was that pure MOCKI and empiricism like completely removes like ideology as a whole.
From Yeah, I don't from I don't believe that we're like Marxists like like
they do print, they print, they place precedence on the material world,
but they still like, but like, ideology is still a factor in Marxist
materialism. It's not like ideas do exist in Marxist materialism. And there's there's
even a term that Marxists used called vulgar materialism, which they often use against
each other, right, right, But then I believe that Marxism is a
philosophy of a bunch of contradictions. So I believe that Marx himself, as
he evolved, had no problem contradicting himself. And I think if you read
rot to his book, for example, there's a whole chapter where he charts
Marx's development and that Marx basically had no problem contradicting himself. So and even
Marxists admit this, right, like all who's there talked about early later Mars
Right, Okay, yeah, when I so, when I was at undergrad,
I was studying under a guy from who has studied under Frankfurt School under
Horror Moss. So one of the things, one of the first things we
learned about Marxism and critical theory is that you get this distinction and early and
later marx and then there are various strands and schisms schisms of the Marxists.
So there's histematic, there's diamat, there's a Frankfurt school and all that.
So so I'm aware of these distinctions, but I'm just going to make the
point that I really think none of that even matters when it comes to the
strict logical and philosophical argumentation about epistemology and justification of knowledge. So as far
as there's something else I wanted to address that you said in this whole talk,
and it was about the Fabian society, right, So we were talking
about how like the Fabian society, and this is the thing, like like
part of what you said was true about like, yes, the Fabians didn't
like Hi Melis in particular, didn't Meyer Sellen and didn't Meyer Hitler, but
maybe it wasn't for the reasons that people would like to believe. Like maybe
what I see in HD Wells is he's a liberal, right, and he's
committed to liberalism and he's committed to the British system, right. But then
he's he's hitler, like dismantle democracy and then like dismantle the bureaucratic state,
and like go full on, like we're going to repress anyone who disagrees with
us, right, and then he's stolen, like do his stuff, and
then he's like, Okay, why can't Western liberalism like adopt the methodology without
adopting the ideology of Nazism or Leninism. That's what I totally disagree, because
I think there's a consistent pattern throughout Huls's writings to where he had a front
of being a liberal. But when you read what he expects the technocratic plan
when it comes about to actually be, it's no different than any of the
other models. I mean, he's a radical proponent of massy population. He
says, most of the world's going to have to die for this technocratic government
to come in, and so he favors at mass and fantas side abortion,
total technocratic control. Most people are gonna have to die. I mean,
it's he's not a he's just wearing the cloak of being a liberal, and
in my view, the Fabians in Britain were the liberal front for the royal
society elites. And then you had some of the other royal society elites that
you know, openly funded and founded and like Hitler, like the Duke of
Kent, like you know, the King Edward, Sir Peter Vickers. I
mean, there's a bunch of these people that were more so fans of tiny
mustache Man. But there was also plenty of people in the Fabian society who
definitely preferred the Bolshevik, Troskyi and Soviet models. But I don't believe that
ht Wells, or bertand Russell were actually liberals. I think they had a
face of being quote liberal, but believed in a total one dystopian control model.
But then how do you explain Carl Popper, who was not related to
socialism or the Fabians or Marxism in any way, but he came to almost
the exact same conclusions as Popper is mentioned in Anglo American Establishment. If I
recall as one of the I can't remember if he says, and I think
he's one of the helpers. So he's one of the outer outer circle elite.
So if you look at quickly structure and anglimerical establishment. You have the
inner party elite, and then you have the outer party, who are the
academic helpers. And so he identifies Popper as one of those outer party helpers
who you know, he's a neoliberal. He's the you know, father the
open society. I don't again, I don't see open society as antithetical to
Fabianism, because Fabianism is all about adapting. Their whole model is let's work
with the fortune one hundred, let's work with the banking elite. And their
their argument was because classic Marxism failed, the only way to get this through
would be the Fabian adaptation model, or what they call reform Marxism. Yeah,
but the point is that Popper he doesn't want he doesn't even claim to
be a socialist. He's against socialism and he claims that. But yeah,
but I'm finding that doesn't matter. You can be you can have an ideological
difference as to what works the if you agree to the overall plans of For
example, I did a video called Ten Commandments of the Elite, and basically
all I was doing was just boiling down the ten things that you have to
kind of agree on to be in this club. So there's people in the
elite power structure, like if you go back to the Council and form relations.
For example, in the Cold War, there were members who want an
outright union with Stalin at that time, third Way proponents at that time in
the CFAR, but you also had neoliberal, neo conservative people in the CFAR
that did not want to do that. So there can be genuine disagreements amongst
the game plan without sacrificing identical end goals, which is what they all agree
on, but can't. This is my this is what I disagree with.
You are right, the Fabians and Popper, like I understand. I agree
that the Fabians and Popper have this relationship and that they are similar. What
I disagree with is the connection that people draw between Fabianism and Leninism slash Marxism,
because you know, Angles and Lenin and Trotsky like they completely opposed Fabianism,
and like the Bolsheviks, their whole orientation was anti Fabianism is about like
Fabianism is about, like winning the elites over to like their version of socialism,
right, it's not just playing them over, No, No, In
fact, relution that's not true. Beatrice and Sydney Webb wrote glowing letters back
and forth with Propskaya and Lenin, so their public statements are whatever works.
So it's it's not that they oppose revolution. Therefore whatever works, and they
didn't oppose the Bolshviks. I would disagree. I've read stuff by I've read
stuff by the Fabians from back then. I'm not talking today's Fabian, says
Fabians. But they're eighteen, they're they're the first crop of the Fabians.
And uh no, they wrote openly about how they loved They wrote letters to
crow Skyl. But then again, like the Fabians didn't like there were Fabians
that did have disagreements like okay, maybe Wells like Slent, but also Hi
Wells eventually left the Fabians and like Ahi, Wells was like very different.
Yeah I don't I don't think that. So again, just because people supposedly
leave a group, like for example, Russell was only amongst the Fabians I
think for like a year and then he's he publicly said I'm not involved in
that group anymore. But the ideology doesn't change. So what do he overall
wanted and called for? For example, if you read Impact of Science on
Society. That one's the later book I think, written in the forties or
fifties. So for example, so if we look at Scientific Outlook, which
is like nineteen thirty two, I think, and then you compare that to
about twenty years later and Impact of Science on Society, where he's post Fabian
society, like the game plan and the philosophy hasn't significantly changed, So it
doesn't really matter whether whether they're publicly part of this group or not is really
irrelevant to their overall ideology. But I hope you read like the first say
three chapters of Ratiu's book on the history of the Fabians. I think he
really shows that the idea that they were opposed to Bolsheviks and revolution is simply
not true. But like the Fabians, they first of all, I understand
that they like some of the mythodology the Bolsheviks. I guess my question then
is what ends do they serve for the British elites, Because clearly at some
point the British elites ended up being sanchily opposed to the Soviets. So I
understand wanting to copy the methodology, but anyone would want to copy the Nazi
or lenning this methodology if they were power hungry themselves, right, Yeah,
I think I think that the power lead in the West. You can look
at for example, Reinhard Heydrick. His methodology and approach was borrowed by Kurt
Lewin the first the first stages of Tavistock's research to set up the OSS.
So they utilize a lot of SS philosophy when they wanted to perfect the techniques
of the Tavistock Institute. That doesn't mean that Kurt Lewin was a Nazi,
no more than if the power structure in the UK borrows and adapts elements of
Sovietism and communism or communism or whatever, doesn't mean that they adopt the system
as a whole. So they're interested in research and development, adopting what works
doesn't mean that they adopt the system as a whole. But Fabianism serves the
British, the British elite in a lot of ways to again get the technocratic
agenda. And I think the Sovietism as Stalin deviated by not accepting the Marshall
Plan aid and the Cold War kicks off. There is a real opposition going
on there. I don't believe that it's all fake, But I don't think
that in the long run, they really saw the Soviet Empire as a as
much of a threat as they played it up to be. And that's another
thing quickly points out, which is that all of that Cold War intelligence whim
off too in his book, all that Cold War intelligence stuff that was coming
out of the National Security establishment by Keenan and the Containment doctrine, all that
that was all hyped up to have the Cold War. So then my question
is, how are you using your methodology? How would you explain multipolarity,
how would you explain bricks? And how would you explain modern Russia. That's
a really complex question and I don't honestly have the answer to all of that.
I mean, I know that Jackie Morgan Chase had a big role in
the early stages of Bricks, so I would be suspicious of that. But
I also know that the world is complex, and I'm not trying to reduce
everything to you know, simple Manichean dialectics or one or two one overwriting con
spiracy. I think that I think the world is more complex than that,
So I just try to go by what evidence I've seen and read and that
I can put together into a coherent thesis. I think when we're dealing with
history, we have to deal with THESS. We don't have, like you
know, infallible knowledge of all of these events. I do think that when
Putin kicked out a lot of those oligarchs, that he did genuinely anger a
lot of the Western establishment, because I think that the looting of Russia in
the nineteen nineties after the Soviet collapse. I think the Yeltsen was a Western
asset. He was a CIA guy. I think that he was there on
purpose to help the Harvard crew, Larry Summers and others loot Russia that was
actually congressionally in kore in the nineties. So that's pretty much pretty much fact.
So I think that when Putin came to power, he did legitimately kick
out and oppose a lot of Western corruption that was destroying Russia. But to
what degree Russia is is in some way sort of aligned with or compromise in
certain ways in the back door with the West, I don't know. I
don't have I'm not access or don't have access, or I'm not privy to
that. But I do think there's a legitimate war and operation going on on
the part of the Western Atlantis establishment to make sure that there could be no
legitimate contenders or rise in terms of their their global designs. So that would
include both Russia and China. And I don't think that's mutually exclusive to Russia
and China, uh, you know, being in certain ways aligned with and
embed with the West. I think that the nature of the complexities of the
modern world necessitate, you know, with payment systems, with the global economy,
with pipelines, energy, you know, the dollar, all of these
things necessitate to some degree every country having to be involved and connected and compromised.
You could say, so there's no totally rogue nation. But I do
think that you can have genuine opposition by people who come to power and fall
a foul of the elites. I think to a degree both Hitler and Stalin
did go off script, so there was a real opposition at real war.
But I still think that from the perspective the atlantisis elites. They think that
the end goals are assured, even if on the on the way to the
end goal to the winning the game, you know, there might be different
plays that if you think about like a football game. Right, there might
be different plays that are run, there might be different strategies, and they
might lose this or that, you know, kick off or whatever in the
kick in the football match, but they all have the same end goals.
So I don't think they're super worried about where it's going. So then you
know the guy you're engaging with. Hawes. His theory about capitalism is that
capitalism on a global level end of the nineteen twenty nine, with the introduction
at least in the United States, with the introduction of Yeah, basically with
the end of the gold standard, was the end of capitalism, right?
And what do you think of this? I would agree with Quigley's analysis that
there's different types of capitalism. You know, he gives the faith when he
goes through the history in the first say, two or three hundred pages of
Trajan Hope, he gives like the history of h I'm trying to think of
all the terms he uses, Like he talks about the cartel phase, cartel
capitalism, he talks about finance capitalism, and he talks about monopoly capitalism.
And so I think that if by capitalism you mean kind of that classical Enlightenment
idea of well he would believe, well, he would believe we just live
in socialism today. What he would believe we just live in socialism today,
but not socialism in the Leninist sense, but like more in the Fabian sense.
Yea, rich, So what I was saying, what I would say
is that what we think of as like austry in school Enlightenment free market las
fair economics that went away, Yeah, when when there was no hard currency
that you could peg the dollar two or you could argue the federal reserve,
and then you could argue also the removal of the gold standard and all that.
So yeah, I would agree with that in terms of what people think
of as like quote classic Enlightenment capitalism and free market lasa fair that ended at
that time, I would agree with that. I think quickly says that too.
And I would agree that what we live in is a kind of a
soft socialism, yeah, or a Fabian model. So let me get this
straight. So you agree that we live in the sort of Fabian socialism,
right, and you do understand that there are differences between like, yes,
even if the JP Morgan or whatever supported or some other or Goleman sects of
or mixing them up. But if any of those banks supported the Soviet Union
or Nazi Germany or even like the rise of modern Bricks and Russia are China,
that at some point they do defeat from the script, right, So
I think, I think, I guess yeah, so I guess. My
question is from your worldview, how would people like why do you think people
defeat from that script? Well, and there could be all kinds of reasons.
I mean, think about Gadaffi or Saddam. I mean both of those,
Both of those characters were at various times uh in bed with and allied
with the West. You know, for example, Saddam was actually trained by
can you it's really loud in the background. Saddam was trained by the CIA,
put in power by the CIA, and then you know, at a
certain point when Iraq, you know, stopped going along with what the CIA
wanted, then it was time for you know, Saddam to be dealt with.
I think a similar thing happened with Gadaffi, where at times he was
tempted to be in bed with the West, at times he opposed, they
asked uh, and eventually, you know, he ran a foul of the
West, and they said all right, you're you've expired time for you to
go. So there could be there could be different motivations for why a person
deviates in that way. I mean it could be it could be intelligence compromise,
It could be threats of no longer getting US AID. I mean us
AID is a huge way that they, you know, cajole and soft power
control these countries. So they might they could say, hey, you don't
want to do this, you don't get any more of our USAID aid money.
I'm'm talking about USAID, the Humanitarian Front organization, to my US monetary
like monetary aid, all of those could be they could align with a rogue
nation quote unquote that doesn't align with the West. I mean, any of
those could conceivably be reasons why the you know, the ten put dictator or
the tyrant or the you know whoever is taken out. So then what would
be your solution to all this, Like do you think those rogue like when
those countries go rogue, is that a good thing? Or do you not
support that? I think in geopolitics on an international scale, there's not good
guys and bad guys in any kind of like easy sense. So I just
I mean, I don't really have any I think the world is super complex
and there's I don't have any easy answers as to what the solutions are.
I mean, you know, I'm a religious person, so I think the
Orthodox Christianity is probably the best hope for opposing the global technocratic order. So
that's where I would lie. Yeah, I understand, so as an Orthodox
Christian. Then I know I already asked you about modern Russia, But what
direction do you see modern Russia heading in? Well, I mean I've never
been to Russia, so I don't know what it's like over there. I've
had friends that have gone over there many times and spend time there. So
I hope that, you know, the revival Orthodoxy becomes more and more of
a real sincere thing. I hope it's not just, you know, the
thing that the media talks about. It seems like they're building a lot of
churches. I don't know what church attendance is, so, you know,
I hope that it's a lot of figures. There's a there's a lot of
different statistics on sure, because because a lot of the ease off, like
wignat people they love to say that, like in response to like when any
of us say like, oh Christian orthodox Christianity is rising in Russia, they
always bring up like low church and they side the old statistics from the Soviet
period of higher work. Yeah, I know, and yeah, and I
have a hard time believing that in Russia in twenty twenty three that like church
attendance is like ten percent. I have a hard time believing there. I
know, make too many religious Russians for that to be true. Yeah,
that's a good question. I don't know a lot of those the realities of
contemporary Russia. But you know, I've had friends that went there and spent
time there and they all talked about it as positive experience, and you know
that there's a real hope for legitimate religious revival. But do you have anything
else before? I'm not trying to be rude, but there's a whole bunch
of people that want to probably come on and contend here. So to check
the other hands you have, that's all do what There's probably other people who
have their hands up, so just let them on. Okay, Yeah,
good questions, Mann, thank you for those welcome. H Let's see what's
I don't know where this one guy is. It was really talking smack.
He he said he was coming. I don't see him. Let's see where
he's at. I'm not that guy. Let's see Alexander Victory. Where you
at? Dude, thought you were coming. Let's see who's next? Is
what's tainters, I'm gonna, I'm mute. What's take is precious? When
you speak of fascist, is this specifically talking about the Italians or the Spanish.
I don't think there's much of a need to make a distinction between like
who was funding the access powers. I know that from what I've read.
Quickly, for example, talks a lot about Franco being aided by British intelligence,
and I think he was even flown out at one point by British intelligence.
So I know more about not Franco. Excuse me, Mussolini. Excuse
me, So Mussolini, I know more about than than Franco in terms of
like Western aid and support. Quickly It doesn't spend a whole lot of time
on Spain. I think he gives it one chapter. So, but I
think modes of the time, when people think of access funding and aid,
they're typically thinking of Hitler. But I couldn't really speak to Franco that I
don't know that much about it. No, I was just clarifying because national
socialism isn't the fascism. It's not the same. Okay, you got me
on that one. So what where am I wrong in what I'm saying?
Nothing? Knowledgeists clarifying for the title. So do you do you think that
it's not correct that when Mussolini defines it the way that everybody typically talks about
it as the merger between private and corporate power? Is that not correct?
No? That is correct, because so that is fascism. Yes, but
people get confused and they think fascism is referring to national socialism. Okay,
so as national socialism, not also the merger of private and corporate power.
Yes, but the okay, all right, you got me on that one.
Good job left against lockdown. Gonna mute. Sure, Hey, how
are you doing? Uh? Listen? So this bit about Marxists being agents
of oligarchs because they may have had some funding at some point from oligarchs,
are you aware that most of the founder founders of Enlightenment liberalism were at one
point funded by monarchies, in some cases absolute monarchies. Uh, you know,
Frederick of Prussia and Louis the sixteenth Benjamin Franklin. We don't really know
when he started getting his money from Louis the sixteenth. They were just funded,
they weren't They weren't just funded by certain elements of the nobility. They
were also funded by Protestants with and Jewish banking interests, right, But a
substantial part of it was from absolute monarchies. Does this mean that the anti
monarchists of the eighteenth century were in fact pro monarchist, or that both the
monarchies and the anti monarchists were controlled by a shadowy force in the background.
I think there's elements of the shadowy force even back at that time. I
don't think that those are mutually exclusive possibilities. I think that you could look
at it just from a practical perspective that if I had if I was a
king and I had a rival, you know, the person I was going
to go to war with another country, I might, in order to foster
destabilization, fund any movement in that rival government in that rival nation, right
wing and left wing as a way to destabilize. So it doesn't have to
be a single monolithic entity. It could be just power politics of you know,
one king funds the leftist group and another king's dominion to destabilize him.
Okay, but that doesn't mean that the local thi monarchists are nothing more than
useful idiots, or that they're insincere in being anti monarchy. That's simply the
standard game of triangulation that people do for their own interest, not for a
vast larger agenda. Well, I don't think that everybody in those movements is
stupid or insincere. I think there are people who are intelligent who can be
very sincere and committed to those ideologies. But you're down on the ideologies because
at the end of the day, they're just useful idiots. Well, it
seems like there's a repeat pattern of ideologies being used for other ends. I
mean, take for example, the rotovsky including liberalism, I mean including anti
monarchism in a completely counterproductive way. I think anti monarchist movements, for example,
many of them were coming from Freemason lodges, and I think Freemason utilizes
and dupes people absolutely. I think Albert Pike even talks about duping people in
his lodges. Right, But but that doesn't mean well, because it was
a secret society operating in a feudalist world, right, And now it's there
may be secret societies now that the bourgeoisie is running the world, but that
doesn't mean that every secret society is a freemason secret society, right, And
every revolutionary, every revolution society every year, that's a strong man. I
didn't say every revolutionary or every secret society. Person. Well, I'm glad
getting the opportunity to clarify it. Well, I mean, I'm clarifying what
you attributed to me, which was a strong man. So you committed Well,
it was an impression that I think you've left in certain people's minds.
I'm glad you could clarify it. Well, that's a mistake on your part,
not a mistake on my part. Well, I apologize for my mistake.
Well, I mean, you know, fallacies happened, So it's okay,
we all commit fallacies at times. But another fallacy I wanted to point
out, I think is you know he didn't point out a fallacy. Of
course, of course, so Anthy Sutton. I've been starting to go through
Anthy Sutton in his book on Wall Street and the Bolsheviks, and he claims
that Wood for Wilson personally approved Trotsky's passport back to Russian His source for that
is as neat as sort of this anti Semitic populist. I don't say that
as a judgment. This anti Semitic populist or neo confederate guy named Jennings c
Wise and I looked at his book because it's the entire thing is online.
And his evidence for that claim is that wood For Wilson in nineteen eleven,
when Trotsky wasn't in the country, advocated for all Jews to have all Russian
Jews to be able to go back and forth easier to Russia, not speciically
Trotsky, not specifically socialists, revolutionaries, all Jews in general. When Trotsky
wasn't in the country, and when there was no Russian revolution in fact,
the revolutionaries and Russia runs the retreat because World War One hadn't broken out yet.
Because kind of leaps on his own. So he uses multiple sources,
including congressional or presidential cables that were sent. So do you think those are
also bad sources? I haven't gone through every single one, but he claims
uncritically parroting uh Jennings Wise, that Woodrow Wilson personally assisted Trotsky assistant generally before
the revolution broke out. So you found one source that's dubious, okay,
find but he also sided the cables. Do you think the cables are dubious?
Uh? Try by the fact that it's that it's garbage, garbage sourcing
on something that he unequivocally claims. I would say, do you think do
you think that Brazensky saw Sutton as a garbage source? I don't know what
you're refering to. Well, I'm saying that A Sutton's research was so garbage
and ridiculous. Why would Brazinski site him in between two ages as a reliable
anti communists? For one thing, Brazski is not anti communists. He's at
he's anti Soviet, but he's not anti socialist, right in the same way
that David Rockefeller is. Right. What I'm saying is that is that I
don't think that the power structure in the West would They don't see Sutton as
a a faulty source, even if you have a situation where one of the
footnotes is a bad source, like I'm saying. He also cites, in
regard to Wilson, the actual cables that were sent supporting him, as well
as the history of the Swedish Bank or the whole left guy. I don't
have the Sutton Book with me right now, but there's a whole section on
an old left guy with the payments given. It wasn't the German government.
But you're not gonna all right, so you're gonna interrupt me. It's excuse
me. You've been talking for You've been talking for five minutes straight. You're
just bucker because you started attributing fallacies to me and now you're all you're all
salty. You go ahead, sir, So he's okay if I speak for
you know, I don't. I didn't, but it was well over two
minutes that you were talking, so equal time, would that be all you
left us? Are ridiculous? It's like this was every time every time I
like there, you're going there, you go, yeah, I mean you
attributed If you attributed a freaking fallacy to me, that's called lying. You
know what lying is? Where you said that I said all liberals are parts
of dude. I'm not interested in this personal bullshit with you, and you're
trying, frankly, trying to deflect you said that that you're using barbage you're
trying to deflect this into personal Okay, I be deferential. I hope everyone's
recording this that I can see how different going up. But it's your show.
I am your guest. I am your guest. So if I could
at least all time. Yeah, but you lied. You said I said
something I didn't say. When did I say that all? When did I
say all revolutionaries are part of secret societies? When did I said? When
did I said? You said? All? Right, now you're lying again,
that's what you said. It quite minutes ago you said you love people
without impression? Who a little bit more? Yeah, that's exactly what I
said. Yeah, that's what I said. So that's not my fault that
people have that impression if that's not what I said. Did I also apologize?
Okay? Cool, So we're on the same page. So you found
Okay, So so again I'm granting. Okay, so this really is about
not letting me speak. Okay, I'm granting you. I'm granting you that.
Okay. So he's got a bad source in that footnote, and I
said, he also cites the cables, So we're gonna go through all five
address The cable book is garbage. Because of a bad footnote. I'm saying
the book is not a quality source. No, I don't think because the
one I wouldn't and not just fing retort unbelievable. Jake brings something. What's
up? So I mean if one if they're I don't even grant that that
is a false source. Maybe it is. I don't have the Sutton book
in front of me, but I do remember in that section that he cites
the cables that were sent under Wilson to support that thesis. So there can
entirely be a footnote that was a bad source. It doesn't make the entire
book garbage. If one footnote makes the entire books garbage as a bad footnote,
then everybody's book is garbage. Anybody would know this if they've done any
research. Go ahead of dude, what's up? What's going on? Jay?
So I'm not going to take long man, because I'm not in opposition
to you on most fronts. So I'm gonna speak my peace scory back down.
But I think I can give some good insight on some of the communism
that we're seeing in the spaces on Twitter, because I've done a few debates
recently. By the way, I want to add, yeah, so you
can make those points. The book I was thinking of is uh, Sir
Robert Bruce Lockhart's book, Memoirs of a British Agent, which I have a
copy of it, and I've read the last chapter which talks about this,
and he is British intelligence ana to the Bolsheviks, and he according to Coleman,
and this is theory, this may not be true. Coleman theorises that
he's there Zinski's handler for British intelligence. That may or may not be true.
But regardless, Lockhart was not an in opposition to the Soviets and to
the Bolsheviks. And that's actually backed up in the Walls Shart Bulshart Revolution,
where he gets into the chapter about Lord Milner and Milner sending Lockhart to the
Bolsheviks as the operative of the Milner's circle. So you can go to quickly
or ascieing me two Sutton's page on that. I that is what got me
to get Lockhart's book, and that Lockhart's book does vindicate what Sutton says there.
Now you could say Lockhart's lying, okay, fine, says there.
Now you could say Lockhart's lying, okay, fine, Yes, So it's
entirely possible, yes, that everybody's memoirs that they include disinformation and lies.
But I'm saying, as far as we can tell from the evidence, what
Sutton's arguing there in terms of Millner Fabian circles, it seems to bear out.
And also the Rakoski interrogation bears it out as well because he talks about
Lockhart. Yeah, so I just should continue on what I was getting at.
I did a debate about a month ago with the has guy that you
were talking to in your common sections. It wasn't long, you know,
he was supposed to kind of getting muted, but I didn't even better debate
with just another you know they call themselves mega communists. Yeah, I've seen
him on Twitter. Sure, yes, I'm gonna be quick, man,
I'm gonna go down. But I think that's a contradiction in itself. But
it just seems like a way to prop up more Marxism. But basically,
I've sourced some of the things that you've sourced in here and that you do
on your channel that communism is inherently, you know, funded by those that
they call you know, the West or the capitalists and whatnot, and that
Sutton, and obviously, you know, the other Fabian socialists or international socialists
not only admit this, but there's the funding. And for every example of
funding of you know, basically Nazis, there's probably three for communists. It
basically in the debate, I went unanswered every time I sourced Banker intervention.
And I really just completely disagree, you know, with all the policies because
they all seemed very quite literally demonic. But anyways, I just came here
to say that even Sutton kind of is just a level one. And obviously
and other texts there they go into way more depth. Right, So let
me I'll give you an example of that. For examples, Sutton says that
he doesn't think Jacob Schiff was involved, but I've read where Jacob Shiff talks
of our I remember the shift or war. Everybody says that they weren't,
but other researchers point out, no, actually they were funding the Bolsheviks.
I went and found Warburg's diaries. Okay, so when I was research assistant,
we had a copy of Warburg's letters and diaries, and there's an entire
letter that he wrote. I don't remember who it was too, but he
talks about the support and aid and hope for the Bolsheviks to have success.
So and if I remember, that's also the case with Ship, but I
don't remember the reference the ship of it. Sutton has an appendix where he
says he doesn't think Shift was involved in this, and the argument is that
because Shifts supported anti communist causes. But in the same book, Sutton admits
that some of these people hedge their bets and supported both communists and anti communist
outlets too, you know, because they weren't sure exactly which way things would
go. So again, even though that's not antithetical to Western support, the
fact that one entity, again, it's very simple dialectical thinking. Oh well,
if Jacob Shift supports uh, you know, free market principles, there's
no way he could support or aid a Well, look at David Rockefeller.
David Rockefeller says, I love Harold Laski, the Fabian socialist economists, and
I love Fredrick Gonhayak. And so we can see somebody like David as a
you know, somebody to transcends that dialectic. I completely agree with all that
that, you know, nothing cleaned about it there now, just to reference
some higher even higher in my opinion than Quickly and Sutton. You know,
you got texts like the United Nations Exposed by William Jasper and then my favorite,
Uh well, that sounds like a conspiracy text. And so the reason
that I prefer Quickly and Sutton is that they're not primarily conspiratorial. I don't
I don't know. I'm not opposed to conspiracy books. It's just that in
the effectiveness of rhetoric, I think that primary sources from the establishment are better.
Now, Sutton is somebody that's a little bit in Queen because he's an
establishment academic who starts publishing on this stuff and then runs a foul of the
of the academy. So so maybe he's not the strongest. I think Quickly
again a stronger source than Sutton, But they're their theses line up, and
so I'm not opposed to you pointing out, you know this this person,
Jasper, guard whatever. But the title that book sounds like a conspiracy book,
which I don't have a problem with. Like I just read John Coleman's
book again, but that's a conspiracy book, right, So I think this
is you know fine too though, because I can make a critique of establishment
figures being someone that might still peddle some propaganda. Well, I agree,
I agree. I'm just saying that's why I said effectiveness for rep not effectiveness
in argumentation. I mean, you know, you can find a conspiracy like
the Ratio book is much more forceful in its argumentation and proof than because if
I read quickly, he's trying to convince me of why Western liberalism and democ
democratic capitalism or the hope of the world. That's the hope in tragic right,
so even apologist, but in terms of proving to today's dissenters, it's
a much more effective argument if I say, hey, the Western power will
lead themselves say this, so you know you can say they're lying, but
I mean, this is what they're admitting to, right. And then on
the line of something to not only did he write that trilogy, but then
he also came out with the Patriot Review where Miles's name was literally with the
Skilling Bones. So I tried to dip in. I mentioned that earlier,
were you in here when we talked about that when I gave the opening salvo.
The Yale Review has the whole publication saying that the Skilling Bones brought me
out of power. Yeah. Absolutely, yes, I mean I'm pretty aligned
with your work. You know, I've used it on several debates. But
then another nest to h Webster, I know it's conspiracy, but again,
I just want to finish by just saying this, I've read go ahead,
but I've read it. The problem is that she makes these kind of ridiculous
claims about talking to somebody who had a machine or some cursed object that could
talk to Satan. So I think that not always right either. I completely
agree with you, So I'm not saying that she shot herself in the foot
with that. Right, Well, are you talking about in secret societies and
subversive movements? Because I think that I wrote that whole book. Yes,
right, although there could be on what off topics that we're not talking about
things that we're wrong. Absolutely, but I think that when she basically describes
that communism basically is a front for the illuminating and other secret societies, that's
always got source where I completely agree with you that. You know, it's
just nobody who's going to find that. I think that a thesis is true,
but nobody's going to find that convincing. Because the first thing they're gonna
say, is, yeah, is, She's not a credible source. So
when I had I had two undergrad classes, one French Revolution. And I'm
just giving an example of how this played out. So I had two two
undergrad classes on this with French Revolution, and we had two for example,
pick I think eight sources to read on the French Revolution, and we picked
the kind of a variety. So we picked establishment books on it, and
then we also read, uh, you know, narratives that question and I
chose the nest To Webster book as a questioning narrative. I don't have my
library with me, so I don't remember all the titles of the establishment history.
But what was interesting was that many of the establishment histories of the French
Revolution did admit that the Jacobins were absolutely influenced by Bishop's illuminism. And of
course, most famously, Billington's Fire in the Minds of Men supports that thesis
as a mainline historian and supporter of revolution and philosopher. Yep. And so
I'm going to wrap up, because I mean, we clearly agree. I
just brought those sources in because I figured why not. I have many others,
But I'm just not by the rest of my books. So yeah,
again I'm not going to take too much your time, but just again unanswered
on all the examples of internationalists and what they call quote unquote capitalists that actually
aid and even train when you're talking about literally the pearls of New York City,
you have Warburg, you have these bankers meeting with what they called Loam
Bolshevich that actually went on that trip to Moscow as well with Leninists and laterally
did the revolution. Yeah, exactly right. American Red Cross funds them.
American Industrial Corporation is a big element of this one twenty Broadway. It's all
run out of New York and London, according to Sutton, and I think
that's correct. Thanks for yeah, good, good comments there. Now you'll
notice with the liberal guy that came in here, as we started fleshing it
out, I was actually agreeing with his points. But then he got all
salty because he said that I've left the impression in people's minds that every revolutionary
is part of a secret society. Never said, no idea where he's getting
that totally made up. That's that's a straw man, and that's a fallacy.
And so then he moves on and saying, well, but there's a
footnote that's a bad source in Sutton, okay, and every book will have
a bad footnote, doesn't mean the whole book's garbage. So he went from
a non sequit or to bad bad footnote. And I'm not even sure it
is a bad footnot because i't have to. I don't have the sunt book
in front of me, but I do remember he cites the actual cables it.
So unless you can demonstrate that the cables are fraudulent or he didn't actually
cite them, I mean, it's just and that's just one piece of data
regarding Woodrow Wilson specifically in regard to I think was it. I think it's
your Leonard oft Trotsky. But it's like there's dozens of other examples, so
are they all fraudulent? It's like he just picks one footnote thing tradition Europe.
What's up? I'm you, hey, Jay? How are you eving
today? Good? What's hey? I just had a bit of an inquiry
and possibly a little debate on the fashion queston and some of your views surrounding
it. Okay, you said that's fascism sort of originated because of the I
would say, like international capitalists and so on. I'm not sure exactly.
Well, I don't know. I don't know that's the direct origin per se
of that philosophy, but the rise of it is directly tied to banking and
industrial elites in the West. Yeah, because in my sources, I definitely
don't see that. Because if you read a very well renowned historian, his
name is Henry Ashby Turner, and it's a hold on I haven't in my
notes right now, it's German big business and the rise of mister h.
He says for Batum and quote big business support was virtually zero by the election
of nineteen thirty three. It reached a bit of a high point in the
spring of nineteen o two. Is this big? Is this big business in
Germany? Because I don't believe that the main support for tiny assessment with German,
Well, it includes like Germany. He has a focus on Germany,
but he also talks about others like Henry Ford and so on, and okay,
so what episode, So what about Schroderman. Well, in his assessment,
he's researched this pretty thoroughly. He went through archives and stuff and his
assessment was for things like Henry Ford and so on, that he received little
to no big business and he makes the assessment which I quote is only through
growth distortion can big businesses He afford it a crucial or even major role in
the downfall of the Republic. During his whole rise from nineteen twenty to nineteen
thirty three, he received little to no funding from any industrialists. Well,
there were two. One didn't really offer that much and the other one he
backed out in nineteen thirty two. I believe his name is Tishse or something
like that. I don't have it written down, but he was eventually because
he dropped his support when he actually got into power after the election of nineteen
thirty three, he got thrown into lake a labor comp Okay, So again
I'll read what quickly says on ten fifty nine. Dallas was partner in Schroeder
Bank since in London since nineteen o two, director of the Bank of England
nineteen twelve to forty five, as well as Lazar Brothers, Fray and the
Angelo Ray Ool Company. It would be recalled that Schroeder Bank in Cologne helped
to arrange Hitler's accession to power as chancellor in nineteen thirty three. So that's
just one example of a banking elite that funded the rise to power Hitler.
And so my argument would be that as an archivist to the CFR, he's
in a much better position to find out accurate information than the mainline academic that
you're citing. Well, he wasn't the only person to assess this also Susan
Poll as well, and who financed mister h It comes to the same conclusion
through But but you think that, so you don't think Quickly is in a
better position as a CFR archivist. In all fairness, Jay, I haven't
delved too much on Quickly, and I've read half of A. Sutton's book
on Okays Adventure so Quickly. So Quickly is the historian of the CFR.
So he's the archivist and historian for he is the elite historian par excellence twentieth
century. So the reason that this book is unique is that it's not written
from the perspective of the sort of the average academic at the you know,
public university level. But he's pulling from And this book was originally suppressed because
there was too much in it, so they tried to destroy the original plates.
But this was the book that was given out to the CIA station chiefs
in the nineteen seventies because a lot of second chiefs were saying, hey,
why are we funding communists? I thought we were anti communist and so they
would give him tragic hope to say, here's the explanation. So I think
that the Quigly has access to information even even better than Sutton was just a
mainline historian an economist, cut ferreting out some of this information from the archives,
but he didn't have access to what Quigly had access to. So yes,
I am presupposing that the CFR is one of the major arms of the
power elite in the West, and so therefore that's why this this has more
weight for me in terms of argumentation than the academics that you're sourcing. I'm
just not exactly sure. I would have to do more on quickly. But
I mean, he is he has a he's like from Yale University as well,
which is pretty prestigious university, and he's pretty well respected in his community,
and he's had contact with some archivists around Western Europe. Yeah, but
he's not he's not writing the Official History of the CFR. I mean,
do you think the Council Form Relations is a major power power power committee?
I mean, I guess you guess you're not even aware of the CFAR,
No, I said, I guess, so equait what you guess? So
what that is the major power structure? M Yeah. There's another book that
Sutton has which is a good appendix to this, which is his book with
Patrick Wood called Trilaterals over Washington, because there he's tracing the history of the
CFAR and the Trilateral Commission in the nineteen seventies, because they actually, if
you watch the live stream I did last night, there's a whole bunch of
stuff that was being pushed by Razinsky and Kissinger in the nineteen seventies, such
as the Global two thousand Austerity Report, which they really probably to get the
Carter administration to put in place, which is basically the Great Reset. It
relates to State Department Memorandum two hundred and the depopulation protocols that Kissinger wants to
employ, and it was in justust depopulation protocols for the Third World. The
Global two thousand Report was also concerned in for the entire West, and so
The point of aking is that when you get into the history this be at
far, this will be a big re orientation about how you approach history questions
because they are they are the power structure in the West. Yeah, I
can see that I would need to look in the quickly a little more.
But there's still not much of this would make sense as to why in nineteen
thirty three, after he gets in power, after he's said very controversial things
and going against Western powers, and you know, the typical fascist stance of
they control everything and if they don't like anyone to take him out. I
wouldn't understand how him declaring war against the British Empire and bankrupting like much of
their country and losing territorial and resource rich places and like eventually South Africa,
and any sense, especially when they already made perfect sense and perfect sense.
Because the game plan as quickly talks about there's two giant chap. I think
it's too at least one giant chapper might be too about the dual the dual
appeasement strategy of the British hat so they had a public policy of outcries against
Hitler, but they had a private policy of appeasement and support to get him
to invade Poland. The British elite wanted that. And so, by the
way, you know that there's a bunch of British elite that were openly pro
Hitler, right, like the King, the Duke of Kent. I'm aware
of that, and I'm okay. So so sort of supported the invasion of
Poland because they wanted him to take the full brunt of the force on its
communism for one thing. And I know the king was you know, Quickly's
thesis is that the Two World Wars were long term strategies of the Western Power
League to destroy their two main rivals, the Hungarian Empire, which is what
destroyed that rival in World War One and World War two, and then the
Cold War two exhaust and destroy Russia. So the thesis of trasy Know,
according to Quickly from the CFR perspective, is that the two World Wars exhaust,
deplete and destroyed the rivals of the Anglo American establishment. So that's why
they're even after Hitler invades, and even after Britain publicly has their policy.
There's a whole chapter where Quickly talks about the continued support from the West and
from the industrialists to keep the work the German war machine going. So again,
I know it might sound strange to you, but if you read the
chapters, it's around page seven hundred and quick and treasure. I'm looking at
it right now. What this did was also put Germany into war debt for
the next several decades. The banking elite wanted Germany in that generational debt which
the war necessitated. You had to have that war to have that, to
put them in perpetual Western control, which Germany is still under today. In
fact, it was the OSS that's set up to EU after World War Two,
precisely as the OSS and build Donovan plant. People think it was Hitler
that had a strategy for the EU. No, Hitler had his plan for
the EU, but if you re brought to his book, it was actually
Donovan and the OSS and Dollars that were the key figures in setting up the
European Union. None of that could have happened had they not had the justification
for it through Tiny Mustache Man. So there was a real war. But
the continued Western aide to Hitler, even after the invasion of Poland, I
think again proves this well, I haven't seen any evidence. There's like continued
Western aide during the invasion of chapters and quickly on and I'm telling you what
the evidence is. All right, I'll look at after. But to be
fair, this still seems a bit illogical because your premise is that the bankers
funded the Strength Revolution, which I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. I
agree with a lot what you have to say and all that. Okay,
so don't make sense because like Churchill as well, he was more of a
warmonger. He was like anti German versus like Chamberlain, who is more into
appeasing and Solan and Churchill and Stalin they kind of have a bit of a
history of being pals in the twenties. But that's just assuming that you think
those people are running the show. I don't think they are. It's the
Quiet, it's the Millner circles and the Cliveden said that are running the show.
Not those people. Yeah, sure, I definitely agree, but you're
expelled. Hold on page six. Listen page six thirty eight. Six thirty
nine. Hitler comes to power and begins his accession in his reign through UK
aide. This is the section on the dual appeasement strategy and planned. So
this is the dual policy. It starts on page sixty two of Quigley.
Page six forty three is how the UK continued to aid aid Hitler during the
time when he's began to invade. Then six forty four Quigly says, the
Bank of Inland England gave Phitler all of the check gold. The Bank of
England gave Hitler check gold. Then there's secret meetings still occurring during this time
period in late nineteen thirty nine, it says, between British elites and Hitler.
Okay, and they're telling him different things than they what they really want.
They're telling him, don't worry. We've got elites here that support you.
We got a bunch of nobility, we're all secret Nazis. We want
you go invade Poland. So he does it. The UK louns one billion
dollars to Hitler page six fifty. Then France continues to also aid Hitler after
the invasion. This is page six fifty of Quickly. Who was giving this
money? Quickly says the Millner, Fabian, Clived and set. Then he
says on page six fifty four, this was an Anglo American trap to get
Hitler to go to war. And so it wasn't that Hitler was like a
direct British agent, although there's one guy who thinks that that was the case.
They were basically just telling him, like lying from perfidious Albion Live to
him to get him to go to war, and the war was what they
wanted to have, the United Nations, So you understand that quickly says that
when World War One happened, the elite problem reaction solution was that the League
of Nations would be a new world governance. The League of Nations didn't it
didn't work. It failed. In fact, even US, the US Congress
rejected the US joining the League of Nations under the under the argument that it
would compromise US sovereignty. So what they did was they went back to the
drawing board. And again you can read H. G. Wells's book Shape
of Things to Come, where he predicts what world War it will be.
Now, he wasn't a prophet, he didn't have a he didn't have a
crystal ball, but he's in the circles that people planning the next war.
So that's how he knew what would happen in World War two in that prophetic
book. I think he wrote that in like thirty eight or thirty nine,
and so he's a few years off, maybe even early thirties if you're the
exact year of shape shape of things to come. But he's basically saying what
the next world war will be, and they'll be flying machines, dropping bombs
and you know, big bambs. He talks about kinds of crazy tech stuff.
Well, he knew this because he's in the circles of the people planning
the war, not because he's a prophet. So anyway, if you read
six thirty up through sixty is where and then the next chapter is Battle of
Poland September nineteen thirty nine. Then they keep giving aid to Hitler and get
this written, doesn't aid Poland. So they've told Hitler to invade. They
condemned the invasion. They keep aiding Hitler and not Poland. Why would they
do that if they If what you're saying, it's the case, well,
to me, interest seems very like sorry to me, it just seems like
pretty illogical at times because I know quickly says this, Why is it a
logical if it results in the Breton Woods bi as banking system. That's this's
is the Federal Reserve Bank, the central bank of central banks. And if
it results in the dollar as the world reserve currency as a result of all
this, and it results in the United Nations and all these entities being set
up that served a Western power lead, it's not illogical. It's perfect so
well to me that I mean, if we really looked at the history,
it doesn't really make sense because looking at what do you mean looking at pre
war and postwar? Pre war they already had Germany, they had the Weimar
Republic. And if Hitler was really getting all this money and he was being
like the inside guy, or you're not hear what I said, they wanted
a giant war to exhaust and destroy the potential allies of the potential opponents to
the West. It doesn't mean that Hitler was really gonna destroy the West or
be this real? I mean he Hitler may have thought that. He may
have thought, I could, you know, I can really flip the tables
on these guys, and you know, we can eventually just he didn't want
to bomb written originally, right, and I want to do that because he
had sympathies, and he thought they were like correct, good airning people or
whatever. But it makes perfect sense when we think about the economic slavery that
it would put Germany in in terms of debts, in terms of the Fiat
system if they have a giant war. So again, giant wars are planned
by these people, and they talk about it ahead of time. Again,
look at eight wells this shape of things to come. Well, there's the
things like I'm looking at it because of the result of the war. He
said. One of the things was to deplete the Soviet Union. By the
argument before with Antony Sutton is they already controlled the Soviet Union, so deplete
That's not what he said. It doesn't say they controlled it. He says,
they helped build it up. And so what did I just say earlier?
I said Stalin, No, that's the Bolsheviks, that's pre Stalin.
Stalin cleared out the Trotskyiks and the Bolsheviks when he came to power, and
so he wanted a merger of international socialism with Russian nationalism. And even Brazinski
says this is the every every geopolitical analyst says this. I mean, Dugan
says this, This is what Stalin achieved was the revival of nationalism, which
is why the Trotskyids called him bourgeois Soviet. They called him bourgeois socialism because
he wanted to revive Russian nationalism and make it an element, because they saw
how destructive Bolshevism and Trotskyism were to to the country. So he thought,
well, we got to bring back some of this, you know, facade
of Russian orthodoxy and Zarism, and I'll take that role. Uh, this
is Brazinski's analysis, this is Dugan's analysis. Plenty of people will say this,
So I don't think that's that controversial. That's why he filled the set
up doing the Bolshevik Menshevik plan of destroying all the churches. He just put
KGB bishops and all the bishop seats right or tried to right. So that
was the Stalin model, which deviated from the older Bolshevik Menshevik Trotskyite model.
So, but when he didn't accept Marshall plan aid, that's when the National
Security Memorandum goes into into play. From I think keenan right where they say
Stalin's building up, So that very moment is when they say Stalin is building
up his armaments. He's got all the nukes. He's gonna this becomes the
justification for Gladio Stalin's gonna invade Europe. We're gonna have to stay behind units.
We've got to recruit and use all the Galen tiny mustache man networks.
Right, Why do you think all the tiny mustache man networks so easily integrated
into the OSS. Well, they just want to use them because of their
intelligence and research, and they would comply easier with the Less than they with
the East because of mister ash. Yeah, but they had they actually had
a lot of sympathizers, not just amongst the British royals and elites, but
also amongst the os S and CI. Oh. Yeah, for sure.
I definitely don't doubt that. But I don't think like literally every single one
or there I did. There wasn't like mister as you know, well I
said the gay sorry what I said, Galen organ paper clip. I didn't
see all of the you know SS or the very mock or whatever. Oh
not the SS, but like the British Parliament and so on, because they're
genuine like sympathizing, they're not sympathizers. There was genuine people who are anti
mister h of course. Okay, look again, I'm just gonna say,
I think Quickly is a key text on here, and he will reorient your
I'm not calling you out and just saying I think he'll He's a key power
structure writer explaining from their perspective why the two World Wars were necessary and why
they were wanted. That does not mean that every person is controlled or every
event is completely controlled. It just simply means that as players in the Grand
chessboard game, they understand that the World Wars would have the effect of gigantic
debts. And this is another point that you didn't address, which is crucial
to why they do this, is that they put they put the giant wars,
put the nations for generations after that into perpetual generational debt that they can
never pay back. And that's what keeps them in part subservient to the Western
power structor. This is what the whole BIS I mean, just look at
the BIS. Quickly says that another one of the key reasons why World War
Two was wanted was the establishment of the Brightwood system in the Bank for National
Settlements. And they got that, and they got the UVN well, yeah,
my contention would be like if you took me and all that, he
would have just joined with the British instead and fought against the communists. And
another thing to address your to address your cross your debt point real quick,
if I could just for like most in a minute, The thing is with
because they needed a war against the communists and all that, and they wanted
to put them in debt or whatever, and then Germany needs to be in
generational debt. Was really that was the debt really worth more than losing like
basically the entire British Empire. They lost all of India, which was which
had rich resources. They lost Africa over the years. Yes, yes there's
like Bancus and stuff who technically still control they're not, they don't, they're
not concerned with Britain. Yeah, but it also bankrupts Britain as well.
In the US was it was pretty hard for them to get back on their
foot, but they and actually quickly covers the fact that all of this bankrupted
the British Empire. But it's not the British Empire that's a in my view
of the British empires have cut out for the raw channels basically, and so
they don't care about what happens to the British people. They can just reorganize
and re orient and that's exactly what happened when the Raw channels made their famous
alignment with the Rockefellers and the JP Morgan and the power structure in America.
Well, all right, I probably had one or two other things to say,
but right now it's skipping my head. I guess it was a good
It was a good discussion to appreciate your questions and push back. Yet I
would just again recommend definitely try to retraging hope or if not, you can
you know, I did a sixteen hour lecture through the whole thirteen hundred phases,
but good questions. Yeah, thank you for having one chairman, Shock,
what's up? Dude? You? Hey, what's weed? So?
I thought I was going to disagree, but I don't know. It's not
like you were saying that the West back to naz Season and you know,
incorporated them into this stuff like after World War Two, which I agree with.
Yeah, it's it's but it's specific very powerful families and corporate banking leads.
It's not the West as if like you know, America as a whole
supporter. It's not the people, it's not even the senators, and it's
it's very very wealthy families. Is who's quickly has a whole book just on
that's called Angle American Establishment, where he talks about how this was working at
the time of Cecil Rhodes and Rothchild and Milner. That's the Millner circles,
right, So you could look to people like John Ruskin and his model of
world socialism, how he would see it, where it's like a British,
British centric world socialism. So yeah, but I mean, so the thing
is, that's the one thing I think, you know, there was like
the CIA involvement, you mentioned Operation Gladiol and you know other things that it
wasn't just like I mean, you could argue that these elements that worked for
the more powerful, powerful people within the West and stuff, but the state
apparatus in and of itself, you know, has been constructed to kind of
push that like anti I would say, anti socialist, actually anti socialist,
anti communist, you know, in the Western like the rug the world.
Yeah, I think that the CIA definitely had a lot of people really who
were cold warriors, anti Communist Individuals. World Anti Communist League was set up
by the CIA. The CIA was training all the School of America's people.
They were running Gladiol. So this is not to say that there's not a
real opposition. There is, but there's people above the CIA. Okay,
there's people more more powerful, people from foundations, people to run. You
know, these giant foundations have more power hour than some CIA field operative who's
you know, trying to recruit Soviets or get them to defect. Okay,
that's not a very powerful role. You know, you're out you're out there
trying to compromise people or get them to be on your side. But that
doesn't mean that you know the big picture. Okay. So a Kissinger and
a Brazinski they're above that. And what I'm saying is that you know,
if you read, if you read Tragedy and Hope, you're getting a book
that was given to see IA people. And so the story is the nineteen
seventies because they were beginning to wonder, well, if we're fighting the cold,
where why are we aiding some of the Marxists in these different countries.
It doesn't make sense. So oh, here's your book. Read this this
will help you understand why we're doing it, because there's a bigger game plan
at work here. And I think that my thesis is just that the Fabian
model of a synthesis out of the dialectical oppositions is what some of these people
wanted. It doesn't mean everybody. I don't know if Alan Dallas himself knew
that there would be a long term technocratic agenda that would be that would be
successful through a third WAT synthesis. You had people in the CFR in the
nineteen seventies who were saying that they really wanted a third WAT synthesis at that
time in the sixties and seventies, but they didn't really get their sway.
That didn't happen at that time. But it looks to me like that's where
we're going because most of these institute entities and institutions that were set up that
I mentioned earlier, like the IMF World Bank VIIs that's Alkanesian, that's Fabian
socialist stuff. They Rockefeller are a big fan of both Austrian economics and Fabian
socialism by Harold Laski talks about this since memoirs. To me, it looks
like that's the overriding ideological game plan, which is again, as Brezenski says,
to produce the synthesis. So I think that Brazenski genuinely doesn't like Russia
and doesn't like Sovietism. That does not mean that the Western elite that are
anti Soviet are anti socialist or to fabian. So that's two different things.
So again, I do think there's a real Cold War dialectic going on between
the NKBED and the Soviets in the United States, even if certain industrialists are
helping to build up stalling because they want real war and real opposition, it's
not it's not all fake. I never said that, So some bile are
coming on her, so it's all think. No, I didn't say that,
I said. I'm just saying that we time and again we uncover information.
And this is how history works is that there will be you know,
new information is discovered, New declassified documents come about, you know, years
decades later. So this is why history can always be reformed and informed,
so to speak, in terms of the predominant narratives. So what I'm saying
is that more information comes out, you get more biographies coming out, you
get declassified documents showing, for example, Mark Hacker translates the KGB Colonels diaries
about Lord Victor Roche and what do we find out with Lord Victor? Well
he's is he British intelligence or is he a Soviet? Well he's playing both
sides. And to me, and I might be wrong about this, some
people disagree with me about this. It looked to me it looks like armand
Hammer is the same kind of a figure. And but then people said,
well, no, he's actually working for the CIA against the Soviets. I
mean maybe, but I'm saying we've got another big industrialist who's trying to play
both sides of this dialectic. I think I think Robert Maxwell is another figure
who appears to play both sides of this dialectic. I feel like they're not
playing both sides of the dialectic. And just you know, people, what
about the people, whether people are listed though or examples of people that were
right. But I feel like even then, like the dialectic is, you
know, between the working class and the capitalists, or so Marcus would see
it. This is why Fabianism is really just another I see what you're saying.
No, no, I'm talking about a bigger dialectic of East versus West,
what what Prezenski calls the global Mannequean dialectic. That's what I'm talking.
I'm not talking. I understand that Marxists, when do you think of dialectics,
they're typically thinking of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. I'm talking about the
global dialects. That's Sutton's thesis in the Scold Bones book, is that the
dialectic of the twentieth century. And you could say maybe even a trialectic is
Western capitalism versus you know, Eastern Eurasian Sovietism and communism, and you can
throw into fascism in there as well as part of that trialectic. I could
see that, but I would put the I mean because even if you look
at Mindcom was a fucking love letter to England and the imperialist which to your
point about why they didn't win to bomb them in the first place, like
they were doing with England and France that did over hundreds of years consolidated into
ten years, but didn't they weren't against the you know, capitalist system.
Well, if I remember, yeah, and I've read I read my many
many years ago. I don't know if I've finished it, but I read
at least half of it. If I remember. Early on, Hitler says
that he sees himself as basically the continuation of the Kaiser, and so he
actually points out that, for example, a lot of the eugenics work that
he believes in that he wants to continue. He says, I'm just doing
what the Kaiser was doing, and that's actually why the Rocketfellers named the Eugenics
a suit in America. The Kaiserville on the Institute. So I think Hitler
just saw himself as continuing that operation, and he probably genuinely didn't understand why
Britain would want to go to war with him, given the fact that so
many of the British elite were Malthusian New Jessie, I mean, he's got
a British imperial ideology. So I think you're absolutely bright theer. But I
think they played him. I think what they did was they got him to
go into Poland under the auspices of thinking that he would get Western support and
aid, just like they duped is it Hess? Remember the British intelligence trick
that they did with has where they got Crowley to go tell Rudolf Hess,
Oh, we secretly support you. Fly into Scotland and we'll have a secret
meeting because we're secretly gonna, you know, support you. And it was
all rus And as soon as Hess landed that they arrested him because they there
were briticially that genuinely believed in Tiny mustache Man. But it's not like they
were wetted to that, like they Okay, so he we're gonna We're gonna
use him. We don't have to. Our technocracy, the future is not
necessarily wedded to either Sovietism or Bolshevism or tiny mustache Man philosophy merch and Russell
calls them experiments, and so I don't want to oversimplify it as if you
know, nobody had these ideologies and it wasn't real. But from the atlantisist
perspective, those people didn't have a problem with exporting these ideologies as experiments in
these different nations to see how they work as control mechanisms. Would I would
agree with that, but I would push back into Sovietism because the difference between
them and him and the mustache Man. When the Soviets came to power,
they got invaded by you know, twelve or fourteen, I forget which one
European nations. Whereas when Hitler came to power, the New York Times said,
give him a bad give them most fashed man a change. You know.
He's actually not that bad, you know. And I think again,
there are there were many people in the power structure in America and in the
UK that we're already wedded to Malthusianism exactly. And by the way, I
agree that it. I mean, I'm not an expert on this, but
it looks like with the British double cross of Hitler in regard to Poland,
that's they basically put him in a position where he had to do that.
He had to go to war, he had to do this, he was
forced into this. I'm not saying he's a good guy. I think he's
a crazy sort of maniac. And I think that in the case of when
Stalin rejected the Marshall Plan eight, that that forced him into the Cold War.
So I think that the elites really did want the conflicts. I'm not
saying that they didn't. They didn't want They built up these countries to have
a conflict. They didn't build them up for nothing. So We're gonna build
up all your armaments and your industry just so you can have fun and have
a you know, have a prosperous future. No, it's to go to
war. I would, but you know, I agree with that. The
only thing is that I feel like the dialectic is the West and and the
you know, the must bash Man versus the Soviets, because again, like
they invaded the Soviets immediately and try to strangle them before they even got to
strangle the revolution and strangle the baby, you know, as soon as it
was delivered, basically, whereas they were looking forward to them the Germans going
over and crushing the Soviets and wiping out, you know, the idea of
Sovietism, and because it forced them to make concessions to their people. It's
like this idea of a fabianism as you mentioned, or you know, the
national health and then like the different social programs, which is really the same
powerful elements doubling out certain allowances the people to maintain the system that they already
had. They don't like that though, they ever since being created, they
try to fight in quarterback and pull back all of the concessions that they meet
and bring us back to a more feudal relation in my opinion. But well,
I definitely think that they want a feudal situation for sure. Yeah,
Like what the end goal of all of these people is a feudal system,
right, So whether it's Maury Strong, or whether it's David Rockefeller, or
whether it's Lord Rothschild, or whether it's any of these people who might disagree
on the game plan or or the you know, think about like a football
game, like we might have different strategies as coaches as what plays are going
to run, but the end goal is the same. So I don't think
that Sovietism was a I mean it this way, as you could debate to
what degree Sovietism was a real threat to the West. That's debatable. Sure,
you know, I'm not sure. I don't I'm not sure I have
an opinion on that. Parenti actually as a thing on YouTube Michael Parenti anti
Soviet, anti sovietism in the media, and he's this is like nineteen eighty
nine, and he said, you know, I just saw the State Department
released it says that there was never there's actually never a threat of Russia invading
Europe. And he says, this is crazy, I did that. That's
the I agree with that. Like, so that's what I'm saying about Gladio
and both wim Hoff and quickly admit that the Western assessment of Stalin was far
exaggerated because they wanted a Cold War. But that doesn't mean that Stalin didn't
have any power or any level threat or any you know in kBT agents around
the world obviously did. But the exact nature of what threat level Stalin really
was, I don't know. And I think we start we're seeing a similar
thing now, you know, where they're seeing, you know, Russia's going
to invade Europe. But it's the same kind of like news that they well,
I definitely yeah. And by the way, Mirror is exactly what when
Hitler was in Ukraine. It's the exact model. And by the way,
it quickly has a great section on that, and it's the seven hundreds and
so it's seven twenty one. He talks about Hitler's movements into Ukraine and that
this was his plan to take Leningrad, take Kiev and then he would make
Ukraine kind of a base of operations right to full on attack Russia. So
yeah, I think the model is the same that's why there's all this the
tiny must sashment followers in Ukraine. Now, it's because they've been there ever
since, and that's that's the Galen Order. There's a great article by Russian
historian that I've linked many times. He's actually traces the history of the people
sent from Galen spy network to train the not seas in Ukraine during this time
period. But you know, we wouldn't be real about it, like you
were saying, these powerful people, these powerful interests that existed beforehand. Right,
None of the things that I'm not going to say none, that's an
exaggeration, but a lot of the things that we're going on, they've happened
under the mustache man where things that they've been doing all over the fucking world,
all over you know, Asia, you look in in India, the
I don't know if it was under the roads. But in the are you
saying he's just doing what the British impart of yes, you know what I
mean, but we see it historically. It's like completely different. But as
you were saying, why why would he feel like they would attack? No?
I mean again, mauthusy and ideology is mauthless, right, that's seventeen
hundreds of Britain. That's Darwinian philosophy, racial supremacy of the Victorian era,
that Britain is the most evolved of all the people, so they have the
mandate of nature to impose civilization on the wrest world. That's the Victorian mythology,
right, So I totally agree with that. I'll give you a crazier
one. You know, when when what's his name the most age man came
up with? Was it Lieban Strong? The one? You know what I
mean? You know where I'm going with this, Like it was, you
know, the manifest Destiny was no different from that. But it's because they
were successful, as why we don't see it as like some kind of crazy,
you know, historical tragedy. For the most part, I understand that
that's how empires operate. Eric Wahlberg, who would say himself like a Soviet
he wrote a book called Postmodern Empire, and he basically says that this is
kind of the modus operandi of imperialism. Right. There's two sides to it.
There's the liberal democracy. But when they feel like their power is threatened
or you know, I feel like then it naturally goes to that side,
but there was no word for it when it was with I mean, Brazsky
calls it the American Empire, so exactly. It seems that the difference,
though, is that they figured out, you know, via I think a
lot of Kissinger the more I read about this than Kissinger plays a bigger role
than people think. I mean, he seems to really be heavy in the
whole gladiol P two thing. Kissinger is the devil. I think you could
argue that he more people than the last entry than any or yeah, that's
what I'm saying. Like he see, he seems to really be overlooked as
this you know, merchant of death and uh. And people say, you
know, when you read right wingers, they have all the silly narratives or
like Kissinger's a communist who's a commedy and then everybody else, all the boomers
will be like, no, oh, he fought the commedist Cold War.
Well, Kissinger is a great example of somebody who I believe is at that
you know, power player level above the dialectic. I think he's you know,
he recruited Brazinski put him in the role of triliteral commission. Uh,
you know, He's been there from the earliest days of when day Rockfeller recruited
him. So I think Kissinger's a key figure to again, another person that
transcends this dialectic who you know in his In his newest book, World Order,
the last chapter is Kissinger basically just saying that the future is gonna be
whoever controls the tech. So basically he says the technocracy is coming and the
gods of the future age are going to be whoever controls the tech. So
that the whole point is just the transhumanist orders coming. It's here, submit
to it, and whoever runs it's going to be running the future. So
again it basically just submits everything we've been talking about. The last chapter is
just technocracy. And you made a good point about the last thing about them
being willing to like use both sides, which are first one you said it
I kind of disagreed with because to me, like all these Western empires have
been like a vowidly, especially America, it's like a religion to be like
anti communist and anti Marxists. But at the same time, Kissinger, I
think he do work with like Paul Pott and then to but he would work
with anybody to especially them current exactly. So that was a good point that
you need, even though I would argue for a lot more scarce than than
moving to work with the other side. Well, I mean, yeah,
the logic of the cold bar would dictate that there wouldn't be after the Stalin
rejects the Marshall plan. Ai, Yeah, they're not gonna They're gonna be
working with communist movements less and less, unless perhaps it's to try to co
opt communist movements. For example. I think one of the examples that Quickly
gives that probably confounded many of the CIA people at this time was the support
I think for Tito. I think he says that the CIA in certain cases
aided Tito, which is odd, but it would fit into kind of the
thesis that I'm talking about. Let me yeah, because remember Tito, the
big grape between here it is, Yeah, so Quickly talks about that's a
page seven eighties seven eighty one, and so the CIA is aiding or the
OSS I guess it's aiding Tito, and he talks about that his page seven
eighty one. My guests would be, maybe you know, you can sway
people over to your site with AID. So it doesn't mean that they adopted
the ideology per se, but maybe they were just trying to you know,
I mean us AID, I don't mean the Humanitarian Front organization. I mean
us AID. Money is a key soft power tool of controlling and getting people
over on your side. So maybe it's literally the biggest grade between like Tito
is Tor Tito, and like the marks mnist at the time was that Tito
was like open to Yeah, let's start in. Let me here's what quickly
says. It's not very long seven eighty one. He says the contrast between
these underground movements was sharp, but to Churchill and Roosevelt, these differences were
largely nord in favor of the more immediate question of which was more willing to
fight the axis. The answer that question, at Churchill's opinion, was Tito.
For this reason, Churchill at Tehran made the faithful suggestion that the Allies
should support the supplies to Yugoslavia should be shifted from Mahalo Djovich to Tito,
and that Russia should send military and that Russia should send a military mission to
Tito to join the British military mission already there. This suggestion was accepted by
the Big Three without any clear idea of what this change in policy meant.
But it was a change that was filled with significance since it meant that Communists
would control Yugoslavia in the post war period. So they're basically saying, will
allow Tito to to come to power. There no under percent of you.
That's a good point. They do. They would side with them to undermine,
like, you know, the primary enemy, which was like the Soviets,
but then you know, later on they ended up siding with the Soviets
over the Chinese. Then they switched and it became you know, and since
then they sided with the Chinese over until the end of the collapse of the
USSR. Well what they were, Yeah, what what's your what's your take
on the mouth stuff that I mentioned? Oh I missed that part where someone
I first one would stayed before that. MAO was funded by you know,
the with if you could repeat. Well, So, so it was declassified
on the CIA website about eight years ago. It's not you can't find it
anymore, but they declassified Bill Donovan training mals A Gorillas. I have Bill
Donovan's biography, it's in there. He mentions it going in training Malagrilla.
He's setting up the Grilla network in China. Oss did. Then we have
Yale News putting out or somebody dug up in the archives the Yale Review with
the whole essay about Mao being a Yali, which is a special program called
Yale in China, and the article argues that mal could not have come to
power without Oss going bone support. So you know, again that fits into
this. Now. I don't even think quickly knew about that. He didn't
talk about that because I wasn't he classified until fairly late. But to me
it makes sense with the narrative that I'm talking about, and Sudden makes a
big use of that in his Skull and Bones book. I wonder how did
that is? Like, I mean, that was you know, pre cold
were obviously, but I think the reason why they did that was because of
the that they were at war with Japan and the UMG. Remember at firstly
that's the you're right, I mean, that's the justification was that when we
had to aid Malo to fight uh tiny mustache man. But by what I'm
saying is that this also includes the famous betrayal of chen Kai Shack, right,
so so they the trade Chin Kai Shack and allowed Mal to do all
this, which if we're supposed to believe the mainline narrative, like why would
why would they be doing this if they you know, if they wanted to
support Chinese nationalism and Chang Kai Shack, But they didn't. They betrayed him,
Malcolmes to power by the way, he was super corrupt. Understand that
Chang Kai Shack was super corrupt. But uh, but what I'm saying is
that is there a longer game? Is it not just to fight tiny mustache
man? Because the me why does David Rockefeller, you know, in nineteen
seventies, right, all these glowing editorials about malois, Oh, he's a
big fan of it. I think everyone is working in love with malis't at
that time? Well, you read but if you read David Rockelos memoirs,
he says that, well, the great thing about Maloison was that when everything
was consolidated, all I had to do is go, uh, make a
deal with who's the guy after Mal forget his name? Then yeah, he
said, all I had to do is fly over there and make a deal
with him. And he said, then Chase Bank is the only bank in
China. So they said it's great for me as a monopoly capitalist that I'm
the only legal bank now in China, and will I will be the only
bank to to to to read China. So my point is that I think
that's really why David Rockefeller was such a fan of communist socialist movements. I
mean, not just by the fact that he was studied under the Fabian Harold
Laski. But see, that's what I'm saying, Like Rocketfeller is a huge
fan of on Hiak supposedly the von Mesas Austrian economics, but he's also a
huge fan of Fabian economics and Harold Lawski and Milton Canes and all that stuff.
So and the Mustache Man, they didn't didn't they didn't even mention him
by name. In the Rockefeller's absolutely aided and funded the rise of Hitler,
absolutely, I think. Look, lastly, I think I agree with your
point with the Ding. I think maybe why they would appreciate it math with
them is if you've got to look before even when the Koman thing, we're
in power, they were going through the the Ooid crisis still like they were
picking up thousands of like dead bodies on the speak just on end the day
to day, you know. So I think to transform the country, regardless
of who did, was probably impressive to a lot of people. And I
think that the CIA, especially but in general, the defense forces, at
the end of the day, they're going to fund who is the best fighter.
He usually the same thing they did with the Mujahideen, which became Al
Qaida, and they planned for Alkaida to become the thing, but they just
funded who was the best fighter at that time. And Shinkai shik was getting
as by the Japanese at that time. You know, Oh, I disagree
there. I think that Brazinsky knew the older British strategy of using radical Islam
and the model of British intelligence which had long used the Rosin brotherhood. I
think that when Brazinski was, you know, saying let's use Mujadeen, he
didn't come up with that. He was just using what the old duld British
strategy, going back to John Saint John Hunt and E. Sat John Philby
a t. Lawrence that's old British and that that comes from people in the
royal in supernational affairs like Mark Curtis has an old book on that that's the
strategy that Brazinsky switched the CIA to do it, because before that they had
strategy of panner of nationalism that they were going to try to do to modernize
and industrialize the Arab nations. But they found them, according to Miles,
and they found them the bead to divisive and a really they do tribal So
a much better technique was to utilize the radical Islamic elements. That would right,
because that wasn't something Brazinski came up with. That's the old British intelligence
model. True, because remember when or the US when when the Swiss canale
Christis happened with with NASA in Egypt, the UF actually becked or they didn't
get it. They didn't intervene. They were on the side of Nasser as
some would you know. But I think at your point, like the way
that he kind of maneuvered after that then put him in opposition with the Wiston
and he ended up getting undermined. Yeah, exactly. And by the way,
Copeland talks about that being the CIA's kind of supposed quote consultant to NASA
during the whole period, and again you could say he's lying. Maybe he's
lying, but he basically just says that we were never really that concern with
with Nasser in a Cold war. We always had a way that we could
kind of maneuver him into not doing too much damage or being too far off
of a leash. But I'll read you what the regulars I've wrote in them
in his From a China Traveler, because and I think you wrote more than
one. I haven't found the other one, but the one that everybody refers
to From a China Traveler, he says, given China's vastness, it was
only due to the remarkable thoughtfulness of our hosts that the six members of our
Chase group were able to see an experience so much during the last few days
in Peking Siam, Shanghai, and Canton. In terms of simple simple geographic
expanse, a week and a half visited China is something equivalent to trying to
see New York City in a few minutes, blah blah blah. And he
goes on to say that Mao's experience himant was something that was amazing in terms
of economic growth and social organization for China, and it's and he seems to
speak of this like something he sees as a model. So you know he
doesn't he doesn't. He speaks glowingly of this is what I'm trying to say.
And uh, and it wasn't you know when kissing during Rockefeller are going
there meeting with Mao. I mean this tells you everything, right, I
don't think that that these are real threats. I mean to me, this
is just just pretty clear. But no, but remember that this is after
the signal Soviet split, so they were like giddy to work with the Chinese
to undermine you know, the Soviets at that time. Yeah, but what
I'm saying is that the reason that day Rockefeller talks about why he lights it,
and you could argue with those geo strategic reasons as well, but like
he talks about it like hey, one child policy, consolidating and all the
control to you know, the superstate. Uh, these are great things,
right because David Rockeflower is a technocrat. So and again he has personal interests
there because he's been allowed to set up Chase Bank as the only bank in
comedies China. So so I think there's multiple reasons why he likes it because
it's technocratic. Yeah, I appreciate that I'm gonna do more reading myself because
I always look at somebody. Somebody should find that, so look up.
They're from a China Traveler essay, which is the nineteen seventy nine New York
Times editorial here I haven't pulled up, but I can barely read it.
But there's also another. He wrote two or three, but I've never been
able to find the other ones. But anyway, Yeah, great comments,
good points there, Shaq, appreciate that. Let's see who else is on
here wants to speak? It's been waiting, Kingdom and joy Er, you've
been waking for a while. What's uthing? Hello? Hello? Hey?
Uh So that was weird. It was it like totally cut out and then
now I can talk. Uh So. My name is Mark uh and I've
been in the Infrared movement since the very beginning and recently over the past year
and a half. Now, after reading Dugan and then getting into reneguan On,
and then from reneguan On reading Father Sarah from Rose, I've decided to
become Orthodox, and so I am in Catechism at Saint John's at DC.
I've met I met Metropolitan Joe, and I've seen that you've done a bunch
of videos with him. Also, I also wanted to say that very very
thankful for you, You've You've been very influential to me as well. But
just have a few things to say about the infrared movement in general, and
then kind of a couple of questions about your opinions on it, sure so
recently. Uh well, okay, So the maga communism thing comes from uh
kant bought and logo data lists, which are kind of like they're too like
uh, I would say, like lead guys. We we did an lengthy
interview a couple of years ago, so from yeah, so so him and
this other guy logo data lists are kind of like the lead guys behind.
Yes, I think that insane. Oh absolutely yeah, late logo data lists
is absolutely insane. I been praying for him a lot, let's just say
that. But the it seems like there is uh those guys. I talked
to Logo on a Twitter space like a couple of days ago after he posted
that the war in Ukraine is over Orthodoxy versus Catholicism, and I talked to
him for about an hour and a half and I pretty much laid out how
I view his view and the infrared view as pretty much the perennialist Catholic viewpoint,
the running a list freemasonic Catholic viewpoint. Uh. And then the way
that in the way that they approach like Marxism is hold on, I want
old on. So I got one question here. So I thought that these
people were like empirico critical critical materialists like Lennin. So, how is that
perennialism? Yeah, well, that's that's something that I found super interesting about
this group, is they they're not actually like that they reject the militant atheism.
Uh, they tipped their hat towards religion. Hold On, I thought,
I thought has and he I thought has In Hinkles say that materialism is
compatible with what we I mean, I don't know what do you mean?
Is that not has In Hinkle's view? They yes, they see that materialism
is compatible with religion and has a material Isn't he a materialist? He says
that he is. Okay, So again I'm just how is that perennialism?
That's what I understand. Yeah, So, uh, it's not that that
is perennialism. It's the viewpoint that he expounds on in that he his his
view is like he's Muslim, right, and then Jackson tips his hat towards
orthodoxy. But then you're you're saying that he argues that these are all compatible.
Yes, okay, yes, yeah, so he like at the end
of the day, they like religious freedom. Uh, They're like, it's
it's funny because when you push, when you push their thinking to its conclusion,
it is very much just freemasonic liberalism, but more conservative than we have
today. And and so one of the things that I really like doing is
using Dugan's Dugan's critiques of perennialism and his critiques of Marxism in general against them,
because they really like Dugan and they use him as a source of inspiration
as well. And so one of the things that I found super interesting is
well hold on so and again I'm not disagreeing, it's just I haven't read
everything Dugan's written, but I didn't I didn't know Dugan was critical of perennialism.
Maybe he's critical of certain perennialists, but I always got the impression that
like he was kind of quasi perennialism. Uh. He could say that he
is on the surface, but underneath, well, I mean, like the
last chapter of fourth so a fourth political theory. The last chapter is just
the total defensive nasticism. So yeah, so yeah, yeah, I mean
that's kind of something that I've been trying to work through myself and understanding his
position. But from his article in the nineties called Counterinitiation, he talks about
how perennialism doesn't work because of contradictions within perennialism. Okay, and so I've
just uh in talking to logo data lists uh this past week, I've I
just have found that if once once pushed to uh to to uh the fullest
extent of their of their claims and their ideas, uh, they circle back
to very much like how reneg went on uh was working with the Catholics in
the forties and that yeah, and and and it's it's just fascinating to me.
Uh yeah, I don't know. But my my question to you is
more like along the lines of, so, if this is the case that
these people have these opinions that are in line with the thing that they're saying
that they oppose, my my question is do you think that they're naive or
do you think that they're they're conscious and are have some force behind them.
I don't know. I mean, I mean, I've I've seen maga communism
stuff popping up on Twitter, you know, the last year, off and
on here and there. I saw my buddies over at w NN shout out
to Conrad and OC. You know, I think I think they tried to
have a debate with Hayes. I watched about five minutes of it and didn't
find it that interesting. So I'm very suspicious when anything like this pops up
because and again I don't know these people, so I don't know their motives,
but I could definitely see something like what Hinkle's saying playing into the narrative
of what the you know, the establishment in the West wants to say,
Oh, look, here are all of the Russian infiltrators pushing you know,
Russian communism on Twitter, and we've now we're justified, and you know,
whenever actions we want to take so interesting. That's not to say that I
don't I'm not saying they're operatives. I don't have any evidence that I'm saying
that I can see it'd be used. And I'm always suspicious when stuff like
this just out of nowhere pops up on the YouTube Twitter scene or suddenly this
is everywhere. Suddenly there's all these people that are flooding like bots into you
know, my feed to challenge on the question. So, and I'm not
saying everybody's an agent. I don't know that. I'm just saying that I'm
always very suspicious when I see this. So I think that perennialists ideas are
always very useful to the establishment. A lot of the perennialists, if you
look into them, you know, they have a lot of ties to Oxford
and to British intelligence. So I'm always very suspicious of perennialism, sufism.
I know that Western intelligence has used Sufi's quite a bit. Uzz Bondi huzz
claims to be a Sufie. Oh there we go. Okay, So again
I'm not saying he's a Western intelligence opera iman knowledge of I'm just saying that
I'm suspicious of these kinds of things when they pop asolutely. But as to
the ideas themselves, to me, it seems preposterous to think that. I
mean, I could understand it as kind of like a larpie sort of trolling
PSI up to call it maget communism as a joke. But if if the
under underlying ideology is or strict materialism, I think it's pretty easy to refute.
Yeah. Absolutely. I think one one more thing I'd like to say
is in that in that interview with oc Cannonist and by the way I see
OC Cannons is in here, I really like your work and uh, if
you'd ever let me come on the show and talk about Oz talk shit about
Owes, I would love to. But anyways, in that, in that
debate that you had with him, in the end of it, he's claiming
that the Hostids are the Hostids are against like the or the the elites are
are against the Hassids, and that that kind of just was a gigantic red
flag for me. And then there's also there's also you're saying, you're saying
against Asidic judys. Yes, and specifically in Ukraine, because the Ukraine has
become a sort of Jewish state. There are parts of Ukraine where they have
people at the front of the entrance to towns, uh, checking people's passports
asking them if Christian, and if they're Christian, they'll turn them around.
So that was kind of a huge red flag for me. And then in
addition to that, there is a show runner from the Infrared community called mar
Joseph who has advocated killing homosexuals in the streets and is his dad. Mar
Joseph's dad is very much tied to the idea. So I just I see.
And so it looks like, in other words, they're allowed to call
over violence and nobody does anything. Is that right? Yeah? Yeah,
and it's it's very interesting. Yeah. I mean, if you're allowed to
call over violence and nobody gets in trouble and you can do this all the
time, and I mean, that's just come on, I completely agree with.
But yeah, I think it's very interesting because I think that one of
the things that people are seeing right now is that, or at least in
Marxist circles, they're seeing this, uh uh, that Orthodoxy is challenge,
is a challenge to the elites. It's not, it's it has been co
opted and it will be co opted again. But real Orthodoxy is a challenge
to the elite. Yeah, certain sectors of Orthodoxy are I mean certainly not
the Bartholome you Fordham University circles are not a challenge to the elite. They're
part of the power. Yeah, yeah, but yeah, it's it's bosting
to me, like the they seem to perceive this, but then but then
they don't want to push to its final conclusion. So they're kind of like
the way the way Gropers see traditional Catholicism as a political tool. Right,
So they're basically the pseudo Orthodox version of Gropers where they see the Orthodox Church
as a political tools that right. Precisely, Yeah, precisely, And uh,
I mean that's that's fishy to me as well, a big red flag.
But yeah, I mean it's it's fascinating, and uh, it's something
that I've been thinking about a lot recently with with that talk with Logo that
I did, and it's very interesting to me because his position is essentially,
uh, we are not the same as the Catholics because we're Protestant and we
make every man a pope. And it's yeah, it's very it's very interesting
because he's just what he's essentially saying is that my argument was you have the
same position as the Freemasons, and his argument is the Freemasons are controlled by
the pope. We're not the Freemasons because we made every manopope. He says,
the Freemasons are controlled by the pope. Yeah, well that I mean
that like he was following through that. Yeah, I mean he was following
my argument that the Freemasonic perennialism of Catholicism is the is the position that he
takes, and so he was kind of trying to combat that by saying,
no, we're we're Protestant. Every man is a pope. And it was
just it's a fact. It was a fascinating conversation. And the whole time
I was like, holy shit, this dude is just like objectively and and
uh, objectively what you kind of it was the time I was just like,
Wow, this guy's objectively elusiferian. Uh in that that guys would say
yeah, yeah, uh yeah, good questions. We're gonna move on.
Thank you for that. So we've answered a lot of we had some good
push back. Let's see who's been waiting for a while here. I don't
recognize it is now the guy who was talking about this fact that it originally
came he did out. So I don't know where he went, but he
was he's the one that really wanted to come do this and then he left.
Clayton, what's up Clayton. It just I'm you, Clayton, do
you want to I'm you, or we'll just move on. All right,
we'll move on, David. What's up, David, David, I'm you.
Hey, I'm gonna be the worst person to come into the space right
now because I actually just jumped in and I'm not sure what you guys are
talking about, but I've got high takes about anything, so uh yeah.
So basically, I'm defending the thesis that the two World Wars of the twentieth
century and the dialectic creative between the communist East and the capitalist West was a
in the final analysis, a confrontation and an opposition the establishment wanted. So
it was I agree with you right there. Okay, well so yeah,
no hot take on that one. Then we'll move on to the next person.
Clayton, did you want to come back and try trying to ham you
say, I'm you? Uh huh. I'll follow up with what I've got
you go ahead. I mean, I've I've stated kind of what my argument
is multiple times. Well, I did get here a little late, so
I might have missed some stuff. But first it's you know, it's nice
to get the chance to seeing a lot of your stuff and really respect what
you're doing. I grew up in the church, in the Baptist Church,
but I was one of those guys and who actually paid attention. And after
the war, I really had a fallen out and you know, had my
angry at got atheism years and I sort of come back more towards to the
side, you know, after the Iraq War. After the Iraq War,
that was okay what I participated in the Marine Corps. So so today's I'm
not trying to be rude to you. Today's discussion is whether the twentieth century
conflicts were engineered. Fascism, communism, capitalism isn't today's I get it,
but I'm I think I'm trying to bring it back to that which is in
my analysis. I'm trying. I continually come up against the Freemasonic networks,
especially the British Freemasonic networks, and I find a lot of validity. And
I was just going to some background for you know, but I find a
lot of validity and the sort of tarply Larusian understanding of Edward the Seventh being
the primary engineer of the world of the of the world wars, because I
mean, World War two was just an extension of World War One, and
if you look at all that foreign policy, it's it's huge Freemasonic British networks
and he died. I think thats part I think that was partially correct.
I don't think AdWords called well, he's not calling them, but I think
they the angle that they used was, oh, he was just a you
know, he was a playboy, Edward the caresser. That's not true.
He you know, the notes from Clemenceaux show that he was directly intervening and
the world affairs, and he was the primary person setting up the Triple Entente
and all the precursor entanglements that were part of that. So I would like
to know, you know what, what do you think about the British Freemasonic
networks being so heavily connected and across the world, even in America. I
see them everywhere amongst business people, and and I think that it really shows
that this is part of a much longer plan. And in British Freemasonry,
I think it's quite relevant that you know, they're so obsessed with uh,
with the Holy Land, you know, so it's there, it's like King
Solomon and this Temple and we're gonna and the balt for decoration and all that,
so this was definitely planned. What do you you know, do you
have any thoughts or I definitely agree that in the eighteen hundred nineteenth century the
British Masonic structure was very useful as basically a kind of intelligence apparatus. So
I think it was the intelligence network of the British Empire. I think that
with the waning of the British Empire, though it didn't it doesn't have as
much influence and power today as it did then. I do still think Freemasonry
is a an element in the in the global power structure, but it's not
I don't think it's at the top of the pyramid. I think that many
powerful people are Masons, but I don't think that everybody has to be a
Mason. I think we can just look to uh, you know, I
think the city of London is definitely a major player, but so as Washington,
So's New York, so it's the Vatican. I think all of these
entities are to some degree aligned with the coming technocratic government. So I don't
know if the definitely I think in you know, the eighteen hundreds the British
Masonic structure. There's even mainline history books on this, like Jessica Harland Jacobs's
book on Builders of Empire. Now, the British Masonic network was really their
their spy network. But I just don't know if today they have as much
power in these lodges as they did in eighteen hundreds. But I definitely think
Masonry exists as a kind of global network, which still I'm sure it is
involved in compromising people and controlling people and definitely has some degree of power.
But I think today people are much less interested in Masonry. I mean,
they've had to have these kind of like recruiting drives because people don't care about
it. I think that, you know, big tech has a lot more
power in influence maybe then Masonic lodges. I'm sure that some of the big
tech people are Masons. I don't doubt that. But I just think there's
some gaps in the LaRouche. I think they have a lot of great research.
I've read LaRouche and Executive Intelligence Reviews stuff for years. I think they
have a lot of great insights. I think there's some gaps though in their
in their thesis, Oh yeah, absolutely, But One of the things is
I don't see any other network or structure that actually is global. So one
of the things it's like I'll say, oh, it's not one single overarching
conspiracy that's worldwide. The Vaticans world on the back right, I'm saying,
but there are those are the two main structures, which are you know,
the esoteric of each of the monotheisms, you know, but they all basically
boiled down to Luciferianism in the first place. So it seems like to wait,
who whoo, who bolts down Mason. Well, I mean you've got,
you know, for for for Christianity. I mean, I understand that
Masonry is sort of non denominational, and you've got the London versus the French
school, but the Grand orient but within like Sufism for Islam, Cobbolism,
you know, in Babylonian Talmudism for Judaism. But they all basically more or
less boiled down to the same thing. So and including for the for the
you know, the Catholic Church, it's still that Saturnalia, Jupiter worship,
it's all those things merge. But when I look around, I do see
I don't I mean, like Georgetown you see the Jesuit influence, of course,
but what I actually see when I follow the evidence for who's the mover
and shaker today, I still catch the Freemasons more than any other organization.
All right, well, yeah, that's that's possible, so appreciate that.
Let's see who's next, Fletcher, what's up, gott I'm you, I'm
you if you want to come on Fletcher? Oh yeah, sorright. There
was a little bit of a delay when you hadn't met a speakers. So
anyway, I just a few weeks ago I finished reading Your Resistible Revolution,
and there was a part of the book right explains how when like the age
of kings ended, I think it was back some kind of hold on you.
You read one I could Irresistible Revolution. Who's that? I don't know.
It's a pretty recent book, I think, a pretty recently written book.
I can find the author for you, Okay, but it's uh talks
a lot about communism. But there's a part in the book when he mentions
that back and basically, when all the kingdoms all across Europe fell apart,
there was a I don't remember the time or the town, but it was
town in Germany where there was two secret societies that were formed. One of
them was the Freemasons, and then one of them called themselves some order of
the Illuminati, and they eventually that group eventually became communism. I was wondering,
I'm true about that. I mean, that's the main line. That's
I mean, that's in Billington, and that's in most history, like Bishop
to influenced, so it was Wanaratti and then Bishop influenced the Jacobins in France
to be the sort of the communists of the time. That's correct, was
that it seemed it sounded like it was around the time of the founding of
or like time of the American Revolution, and a lot of the people that
were part of those like that sounded like the Freemasons kind of went to America.
They had a different philosophy of like you know, independence and freedom and
stuff and the Aluminium. This is the Jacobins versus the Grandin's, and so
the American founding fathers, many of them were mainly influenced by the so called
conservative revolutionaries known as the Grandins. Jacobins are the radical communist. You know,
we share all share everything, we share wives, it's all communal Okay,
yeah, but now not some of the Founding fathers were also influenced by
Jacobins, like Thomas Jefferson and Franklin, so it's not exclusively Grandin. But
but yeah, that's correct. And then okay, well, do you remember
what year that was? Plenty chance when they when that happened. And it
just seemed kind of weird to me that all the French reb I mean French
revelers in seventeen eighty nine. So okay, I thought it was something earlier
than that that happened in Jermany. We'll go back and look it up.
So seventeen so you're probably talking about seventeen seventy six in terms of like by
shopped in Bavaria. Right, Yeah, maybe that was correct, but I
thought it was even just a little before that. Well, there's there's people,
I think one I think if you read Billington, he talks about one
A. Roadi as the first modern revolutionary of that time period. Okay,
and then let me see what let me see what year one A. Ruddy
was. Yeah, I'm not able to look it up right now, but
I just garious if you knew what you knew around that. And then also
I just started Witness by Whittaker Chambers, which is supposed to be pretty good,
and I don't know, so have you heard about that book at all?
Uh So, now bron won A Ruddy is the same time period,
late seventeen hundred, so I guess v shots would be prior to one road.
Okay, all right, well compare those with that. What I got
I was just garious. What you do about all that stuff? So all
right? Thanks? M Yeah, I mean they've always been people. I
mean, you can go back to Pythagoras. Pythagoras argument for communism. I
mean, that's if you read Bellington. He says that the Aluminus utilized the
Pythagoraean symbolism because Pythagoras was there, you know, one of their quote saints.
So let's see what exact years sub by Shopt is a little bit Malays
a little earlier than one already. Yeah, the part the part that's I'm
sorry I already hit. Patrick is the one to speakle at. Patrick makes
some points. What's up? Patrick? You're muted? Patrick? Oh hey,
Jay, Hey you doing? Yeah, greeting great space. I think
you kind of through the discussion of approved you know, on a global level
internationally to manage there's a manage dialectic there. I think one of the big
challenges maybe you could comment on this is uh is people struggling to define fascism
and Marxism too. But why this is important and I think I'd like to
put this in your on your with this ball in your court, is that
this dialectic is still used today to manage and steer politics, the rising of
candidates, the suppression of parties of populism by branding it fascist or you know,
et cetera. The same could be said in the other direction, but
you see it a lot now with the war and populism, especially conservative or
in France lapenne is you know, is presented by the mainstream media is if
you vote for them, you're voting for fascism, so you must vote for
Macron uh. And so it's still to this day this dialectic is used to
scalpe and shape contemporary politics. What are your general thoughts on this? It's
a great point in fact, you know, Klaus the other day was at
one of the Davos a summit. To might be an older clip, but
I re twittered the clip and Klaus said that for democracy to work, working
for a sustainable future based on equality. I'm not joking. You can scroll
down guys and see that the quote. He says, governments need to make
an alliance with private interests, and he calls upon the governments of the world
to align with his corporate representative interests. And this is what he defines a
stakeholder capitalism. So get this. His very definition of stakeholder capitalism is the
full cooperation and subordination of governments to private corporate interests. And he calls it
the public Oh you mean, in other words, the exact definition of fascism.
So they're actually literally saying fascism from the mouths of clouds recently at that
World Government summit, calling for all the sovereign governments to literally submit to Davos.
What is the definition of fashion? But at the same time, as
Patrick absolutely correctly pointed out, anybody that challenges the narratives is immediately branded a
fascist and a Nazi, which is completely ridiculous to call even Donald Trump or
any of the Libertarians or any of the main line just in any way if
you disagree, so and then that can be applied to people who are on
the left side of the spectrum Joe Rogan, Right Russell brand they're colluding and
they're fascist now, or you can be on the conservative right wing perspective right
Alice Jones, Donald Trump, fascists, Neo Nazis and so has. It's
completely divorced from history. Ironically, that usage of it, and yet the
very thing that is the definition of fascism. Klaus can literally call for total
collusion between public and private interests and no one bats an eye and no one
calls the fascism. It's just amazing things. So that's a great point that
all of these uh, these dialectical manipulation tools, which were you know,
really established, I guess you could say in the Cold War, they're still
there today, right, And so I guess we're just supposed to basically just
whatever the establishment says we have to submit to and obey or else we're fascists.
I mean that is that The worst part right now is it's like a
total it's a spectrum that's completely relative. So if you're branded as far right
or someone says, oh that's far right, then that's seen as the gateway
drug to fascism, which means it's the you know, early stages of hitlarianism,
so it immediately will get dismissed. And I've seen so many different candidates
just completely sidelined, uh you know, using these sort of uh this tactic
and we're still slaves to this dialectic in the twenty twenty three, which to
me is incredible considering a lot of people can't even agree on the definitions of
these words. When you really drill down into kind of intellectual debate. Well,
it's funny because you know, you can have Black Rocks CEO basically saying
that the corporations are going to align and collude with governments and they're going to
enforce and he says, well, we'll make you do this, so the
Black Rock guy can get in there and say that everybody will be forced to
submit to SDGs, d I all their acronyms, which is just I mean,
did Hitler and did any of the fascists actually go that far? And
like did they openly even speak this way? I mean it's like it's like
Clouds Can and Larry Think can literally just say, uh, yeah, we're
going to use the governments to force you to do what the corporations want,
and uh, you know this is for democracy. I mean just just insane,
right, just none of it makes any sense. But yeah, but
if you what, you want to have a business, you're that's now fascist.
If you want to have private properties, fascism. If you if you
don't want to you know, own nothing, if you don't want to eat
the bugs, you're fascist basically. And by the way, as I pointed
out that the Channel four I thought he was a BBC present the Channel Channel
four presenter can actually just like some of these you know, suspicious radical groups.
He can get on there and say it's time for illegal actions for climate
change. Not for me. But but if any of you out there want
to do the illegal actions, I support you, but I'm not going to
do it. But uh so, yeah, so you can call for violence
if you're the establishment figures, right, establishment, fake accountter revolutionary revolutionaries,
right, they can do whatever they want. They get they get a basically
a free pass. But if you're Russell Brand, if you're you know,
even if you're on leftist and you barely deviate right, you're immediately branded fascist.
As says just another quick when I was going to get your thoughts on
antifa, it's it is a kind of a global concept before it became the
kind of LARPing caricature of what it is now in Portland. But I used
to travel around the world and see you know, spray painted and graffiti antifa,
anti fascist. So there's a concept there that's very attractive to certain type
of socialist revolutionary for instance. So what is the vision in their head is
that they're opposing. Is it still Hitler? There has to be some kind
of a driving for some attraction there, and it's clearly it's become something completely
different. Now that's a good question, So my guests would be and I
don't know. I've been looked into the history of the anti fascist movements.
I do remember some of the if I recall, weren't weren't some of the
early quote antifa or anti fascist movements part of the what were they called the
like the the anti Hitler Rose movement. I think they would adopt that terminology
of being anti fascist. So you know, when there's a Hitler figure there,
I suppose it makes sense to have this kind of a movement. I
knew a girl in college who I think she was doing like her undergrad thesis
on on the the the anti Hitler Rose movement that people would know more about
that than I do. But that's why I'm thinking where the terminology arises from.
And then now it's co opted essentially to be an arm of you know,
basically like Ford Foundation, So Rose Foundation, like you know, it's
just a totally foundation run fake is it? Is it anarchist? I mean,
do they have like a statement of public we affirm public anarchy because I
can't understand any other ideological movement other than like we were against all forms of
order, and so now fascism is basic anti fascism basically equated with anarchism or
cynicalism. But I mean that's not what the history of the quote anti fascist
movement is. Anti Fascism historically is like that anti hitlarian movements in Europe,
isn't it. Yeah, there would be. They would all identify as progressive,
I would imagine, at least in America could say so. But so
they are pro structure, they're pro enforcing gender ideology and compelled speech, and
probably most of them vote Democrats. So I wouldn't necessarily call this lot anarchist.
But yeah, yeah, those are great points. I mean I would
say that that's definitely a controlled situation. Now Alexander, who wanted to debate,
came back. So what's up, elegent? Just I'm mute, m
ei there, h are you there? Can you hear me? Yeah?
You're on muted? Okay, right, I hope not to be the guy
that you were talking that was to start. Well, you took gets you
with with my comments that I didn't have any evidence. So, I mean,
we've been presenting a lot of evidence so far. So what what's your
disagreement? Yeah, just to explain, it was really weird because you told
me the time, but it was already in my path. I was thinking,
oh, that's funny. Yeah, I got you, no problem,
no problem, m hm okay, okay. By the way, just to
interrupt that, what I was trying to think of was Sophie Shoal And she
was the White Rose movement in Germany that opposed Hitler. So that's what I
was trying to remember. Go ahead, No, I've not talked to Hayes.
I've not m Well, I just first of all, I can't fathom
how Bolshevism wouldn't be funded and aided by the West. I mean, I
think there's abundance of evidence for that. And also I can't fathom how materialism
would be something you know that that's defensible. So I just don't understand,
like what. I'm not opposed to having a debate, but I just like,
to me, it seems like the pre suppositions of empirical critical materialism like
Lennon talks about. I mean that would be our point of departure about about
Lennen? Are you talking about how Okay? Correct? Thank you? And
you so you you think this is a completely organic thing. You don't think
there's anything at about it at all? M h. Well okay, but
the fact that you followed in two years ago doesn't have anything to do with
whether it's organic. Kay. So let's kind of the takes like are you
a materialist? Like a rot? Do you think materialism is true? Okay?
What I'm talking to you? So, like what are your views?
You agree with him? You know? Okay? Okay? Yeah, yeah,
okay, So let's go let's talk about material like materialism? How do
we why should we think materialism is correct? How do you know or give
an account or justification for that belief? Yeah? Are you saying hold on?
Are you saying me personally or everybody in the West. Okay, Okay,
so and so so so Sculling Bones was not involved in the rise of
mout Okay. So the pieces of evidence that I gave, what are those?
Where are there? Well? Then wait a minute, So if you
didn't catch most of the stream, how do you know those those evidences that
I gave her false? You just said, you just said it was wrong
wrong? What? Okay? I get multiple examples of MAO and Maoism being
aided by Sculling Bones in the West. Bill Donovan trained Maus guerrillas. Mau
was a Yali. This is in Yale Review. Those are examples that I
gave. I've presented that evidence mount countless times. It is well known.
So but what am I So? You're old? No, you're so you're
not even aware of that? So you're not even aware of the fact that
Donovan What No, Bill Donovan of the OSS famously trained Male's gorillas. You're
saying that's not true. Well, I mean it's publicly admitted, That's what
I'm trying to say. It's it's declassic. It's been Bill Donovan's autobiography.
It's declassified on the CIA website, it's in the Yale Review. I mean,
so is that all it is all fake? Right? Well, but
I mean I've been presenting and making these arguments for years, so I'll I'm
happy to give you those horses. We've already pulled them up and talked about
them today in the first few hours. So that's just one example. I
mean, why would David Rock, why would David Rock feel the right essays
in the New York Times about why you love Maoism and supported it well addressed
it. Now you said you wanted to debate. I mean, I could
keep piling on to evidences of what you're You're just saying that they don't exist
or what it's all fake? Oh well, so wait a minute. You
don't have a knowledge of these things. And how do you know that this
is all wrong? You said twice you are wrong, wrong. The evidence
that I'm wrong, that Maoism was funded, it can't be possible. Well
before that, though, my original question before you mentioned MAU was how do
you know materialism is true? And then you start talking about mal No,
that's what the question was. But I said, are you in materials like
has? You said yes? And then my question was how do you know
materialism is a case. And you said, let's talk about now Europe,
your philosophy. You and you guys are wanting you believe in materialism. Why
am I supposed to believe that materialism is true as a system as a philosophy?
Can you would draw me to position? Is that there's something that there's
definitely some evidence to be suspicious of the kind of organic nature or lack there
of, of the rise of fascism in Europe, possibly or maybe more specifically
than Hitler. I don't know if you can say, yeah, well no,
I'm saying I'm saying that for both for both Bolshevism and Hitler, and
so uh they couldn't have risen without Western the boort. Okay, I've heard
that before. Well, I never I've seen contradicting evidence, especially as it
comes to like the rise of the NSDAP, specifically who they were actually backed
by, like how they would get donations for example, so like how they
were actually got money, donations and funding, because I never understood what the
exact line of evidence was for that. Because right, so my chief source
for can you mute when I'm talking to it's going really bad? Yeah?
Yeah, So tonight we presented a lot of argumentation from Sutton and from Quigley.
I think Quickly is a stronger argument than Sutton. Sutton, I think
was a mainline academic that stumbled across a lot of this research, and he
makes a really strong case for the most part throughout his books. But I
think Quickly is a stronger case simply because Quickly as the CFR or sort of
historian, archivist, and so I've read multiple times to