Speaker 1: Like I was saying, if you've been paying attention, if
you've been paying attention to social media reports, because mainstream
media is absolutely useless, it would be clear to see
that we are at the point where Western governments are
genuflecting before migrant communities and things like that, the other
kind of special interests to form mollifying coalitions against citizens
who are all you know, almost out of peaceful options
to save their way of life, or at least they
feel like this is the only way that they can
get on out there now. And one person who has
spent a lot of time analyzing the plans for the
times of which we live is Jay Dyer Jaysanalysis dot com.
Tonight we talk about the Milner Fabian conspiracy.
Speaker 2: Jay, how the hell you doing?
Speaker 3: Man?
Speaker 1: It's this is the first time we've spoken all the
year since since The Godfather last year.
Speaker 3: Oh man, it seems like yesterday. But at the same time,
it's been a long time, So it's crazy.
Speaker 1: It's nuts, It really is, because that's what I feel.
I know, the whole year goes by like this. But
then again, I think it's just because we're going through
what we thought would we would be right now, But Hey,
this particular situation in Europe, this is what I want
to jump into. It's always was going to pop off
this way. But even if this did settle down, it's
not gonna last very much. That the peace won't last.
Your approach, though, in explaining what we are seeing, has
been to reintroduce internet audiences to the Milner Fabian Conspiracy.
So I would like to clear the floor and let
you set this up for people, because there's plenty of
places we.
Speaker 2: Can go from there.
Speaker 1: How does this this coalition explain twenty twenty four in Europe.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a good, good point. I was familiar with
the whole circles of Lord Ralph Child and Cecil Rhodes
and Milner and Ruskin and all those characters a long,
long time ago, but I didn't really understand the operating
system that they had with this idea of what you
could call imperial socialism or what's eventually called Fabian socialism.
So somebody, I think it was last year, put up
a recommendation that I read this obscure, hard to find
book called the Millner Fabian Conspiracy. And it turns out
that the Romanian historian who wrote this book had delved
really deeply into not just Carol Quickly's Tragedy and Hope
and Anglin American Establishment, but also a lot of the
texts that deal with the history of the British Intelligence services,
the formation of the OSS and CI buy those same people.
And so that really impressed me when I read this
book that not only are we dealing with like people
who read Tragian Hope and know this fundamental source material,
but that when I was reading this text, the Fabian
socialists had had planned one hundred years ago or more
to his long homicize the UK and Europe by design.
And so it didn't surprise me at all when I
saw a lot of this popping off, because first of all,
we saw Claus not too long ago saying that it
would be a much angrier word, you know, he said
this a few years ago after the koof and all that.
So this is by design, and it's not just it's
not just the EU or the UK. The isomsization was
all planned in the same way that they would create
a continental union there. They want to do the same
thing with all the continents, to kind of smush everything
together and create these federal world socialist continental unions, and
to do that, you bring in these other ideologies, these
other populations, to clash with the existing population and ultimately
to create a new volatile scenario.
Speaker 1: Okay, see, you know there's a lot there. I've we've
talked about in the past. I've talked about it on
this show actually not too long ago, a couple of
weeks ago.
Speaker 2: I've even brought up.
Speaker 1: The the one of the most obnoxious videos on the
on the planet. That is, people like Barbara learn respector
talking about the need to make Europe multicultural, which is
ridiculous because it already is. And to essentially say that
you need to destroy Europe to save Europe and that
Jews are going to be in the.
Speaker 2: Forefront of that.
Speaker 1: That was a very It's always been very odd to me,
even before I took any interest into that. And there's
also the whole Colergy uh plan that people debate whether
or not it's real or not. But the one question,
no matter what Jay is why Islam? Because what was
the point of making a city like London the Islamic
capital of England. The authorities and the media downplay all
kinds of atrocity out of fear of backlash. If you're
a central authority, why put yourself in a position that
diminishes your ability to, you know, I don't know, take
control of a situation. It's a completely uncontrollable breakaway civilization
living within your borders.
Speaker 3: Now, Well, all the Fabian socialist elites and the elites
of the UK at that time, in the eighteen nineties
and the early nineteen hundreds, they actually wrote about why
they liked Islam. And some of them were Arabis, and
some of them were you know, like Lord Balfour or
Lord Rothschild, very pro zones. Is that the ones that
helped set up the Israeli statement. That doesn't necessarily mean
that they're opposed to the idea of bringing in this
group into London or into the UK, or into Europe,
because that's part of this again, this plan to deracinate
and create a new kind of hobgoblin population that they
can control. So that's how they see it. It's entirely
possible that they might not always be able to control
it down the road, there might be some Collie or something.
Who knows, But I think that the British Empire always
thought that if you could control Mecca, if you could
control the Middle East, divide it up, create essentially that
the nations that we know of today as in the Middle
East are all creations of the British Empire ac Israel.
They all are sort of given this mandate. The famous
British spies went and set up and created the Middle East.
T Lawrence, Lawrence of Arabia, Philby Hunt, all those Saint
John Hunt, excuse me, St John Philby, Kim Philby, his son,
the famous Cambridge trader spy who was a Soviet. His
dad was the guy who went and you know, helped
set up and carve up the Middle East as a
British spy, and he became a Muslim supposedly. So however,
many of these people actually convert to Islam or are
doing it because they're spies, It's hard to know. But again,
think of it as just strategy. So why would they
bring Islam in? Well, if you want to change the
existing people group and their their ideology and their who
they are, you only have a limited number of options
nearby that you could use. So the closest easiest thing
to do is to use large Muslim populations by design
to do this. So yeah, it's not really mysterious if
you actually just read. For example, you know, since you
and I talked last, I've covered new writings of the
global elite that I'd never seen before, one of which
was Jacquottali's book Millennium, which he actually wrote in nineteen ninety,
many many years before his other book that I had
covered that he wrote in two thousand and six called
Brief History of the Future. In nineteen ninety, he was
writing this book because he was tasked with being in
charge of the largest European bank that would reconst reconstitute
and restructure the former Soviet bloc countries to bring them
into Western neoliberal economics and into the EU. And he
wrote in this book, this book right after the fall
of the Soviet Empire, that the real goal would be
to like Colergia and others have said, and Clergy has
a book. You can go buy the book about it's
called Practical Idealism, where he writes about how to do
this to Europe. Doctor talks about how that plan was
accepted by the royal society and the elite. So it's
not a conspiracy theory and it's in the actual books.
People just say it's a conspiracy theory because they don't
know what history is all about. But anyway, so atalisas
in this nineteen ninety book that yeah, they would do
this to Europe. So this has been a long term
plan because again, you have to get rid of nation
states to have internationalism, and they want international socialism. And
you do that but by destroying the nation state. And
you can do that not just in terms of like
literal bombs or whatever, but you destroy it by essentially
bringing in foreign populations and then buying off and controlling
the leadership such that the nation state isn't really a
thing anymore. It's really just run by a bunch of
goons who are subservient to the international elite.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, and I guess the more you talk
about it, the more Oukham's razor it becomes for me.
Where all right, well, if you want to stabilize a nation,
how would you destabilize Germany by just bringing in a
whole bunch of Belgians? You know, it's it's like you're
you'd have to bring something in that is so allergic
to your way of life. Even if there are cultural
differences between Belgians and Germans, which there are, uh, still
we're talking about Western European democratic societies that that believe
in the vote and you know liberalized uh, you know,
liberalized ways of life and all that stuff, whereas this
that that wouldn't be that much of a disruptor. It
wouldn't be you'd have these tiny Belgian diazepores that you know,
popping up here and there. But I guess it makes
a lot of sense there it really. So that's been so,
that has been it from the beginning. Then, so when
you say Milner Fabian, uh, did these people ever come
into contact with each other? Or is this just a
did there's that book based on somebody's you know, analysis
of two groups of people that never came together, but
they can see how both uh both of their outlooks
on the world of Because I never really read anything
about Milner and Fabian getting together. I don't think we
were alive at the same time.
Speaker 3: Let us know, well, Lord Milner was one of the
key architects of the New World Order. Basically with the
other members of the Royal Society that we've been talking about,
the Royal and super International Affairs. This is essentially the Cecil,
Roads and Rothschild circles that set up what would become
the structure of how the British Empire was governed as
it was sort of waning. So in the eighteen nineties
early nineteen hundred, Cecil Roads, the Diamond Magnate, who was
working as sort of the attache for Lord Rothschild, they
came up with this plan to reconstitute the British Empire
into what they call the Commonwealth of God, which would
be a world socialist republic. And they weren't able to
immediately do that with the British Empire, but then they thought, well,
we can re establish something with the rise of America, right,
So you get the Pax Americana when America rises to
power as the British Empire wanes. And that's why they
were so intent on setting up our oss and CIA,
which is the breakaway national security deep state that actually
runs things. It was set up by these people explicitly
on record. This is what all of Quigley's books are about.
Fabian was a ancient Roman general and he had this
idea about if you've ever seen a bundle of sticks
kind of wrapped together, that's the Fabian symbol, or the
fascias sometimes call it. That's the fascist symbol, but the
same idea as present that it's a form of socialism
where instead of we do things overtly and quickly, we
do it very slow and methodically over time. So it
was a war strategy by a Roman general that gets
adopted by these people as a philosophy about how to
bring about global technocracy when Marxism failed to bring about
the workers revolution. This is what Marx originally said. He
said that you would have the workers rising up, they
would seize the means of production, and they would overthrow
the bourgeoisie, and then you would have some phases before
ultimate libertarian Marxism. That's the Marxist original plan. The workers
didn't rise up, and so some Marxists and socialists thought,
we got to sort of revise Marxism. It's missing, something's
off here, and they're called reformed Marxists or Fabian socialists.
Their idea was, let's use the strategy of Fabian the
Roman general to gradually bring about socialism and technocracy through
all kinds of means, including aligning with monopoly capitalism. So
this is why it's different from classical Marxism is that
supposedly classical Marxists would want to fight the bourgeoisie, but
this failed, and so they decided to align with monopoly capital.
And this is why the famous Fabian socialists like Beatrice
in Sydney Webb, they wrote tracts and books and articles
that eventually influenced people like Henry Ford and others to
become more and more socialist in their ideology. They were
supported by Lord Milner with monetary aid and support from
the Rothschild Rhads Milner group. So they're sort of like
the frontist piece that publishes and pushes a lot of
the propaganda for this inner clique of Rothchald's Rhades Milner
that was running the British Empire. So eventually the idea
is John Ruskin is another one of these characters. It's
called imperial socialism, and it's more of a refined, more
of a methodical, scientific approach to socialism than classical, bloody
revolutionary Marxism. So they don't have any problem aligning with
the wealthiest people to push socialism. This is why this
is not a dead old old thing. I mean, Tony
Blair was a public known Fabian socialist. He was an
open member of their idea in the nineteen nineties, Bill
Clinton was pushing the same stuff. It was called the
Third Way the nineteen nineties. It's the same ideology. In fact,
the Fabian's just won something like some guy was putting
on Twitter that what number. It was like, they just
won tons of seats in the in the British government.
So that was not some old thing.
Speaker 1: This is like right now, this was the first the
first time I heard this this being used.
Speaker 2: This was this was years ago. Now everything was years ago.
Speaker 1: But the first time I heard fabian a Fabian socialists
being labeled that was Obama and I read into it
and said, okay, well, this is an interesting way.
Speaker 3: What is that one and forty four Fabian members in
in the MP and the MPs in the British government British.
Speaker 1: So this is an actual they have an actual party designation.
Speaker 3: Yeah, a lot of the Labor for the most part
Labor Party or Fabian Socialists, but a lot of the
right wingers are fake and they basically just do the
same thing. It's the same thing as like the Democrats
and the Republican the Rhinos in the US, it's the
same strategy. I mean, people in America don't necessarily know
this system, but it's what's coming into play. And if
you don't understand how that's the case, well, all of
the institutions that you've probably heard about that we know
run the world, like the Aspen Institute, the CFR, the
Trilateral Commission, the IMF, the World Bank, Keynesian economics, Milton
Kynes was a Fabian, So all of these institutions were
explicitly set up by Fabian socialist ideologists ideologues, and even
British Intelligence was set up by Fabian socialists. So they're
they're they're pretty much the mindset of the entire world.
In fact, even David Rockefeller, who was at one point
a student of on Hiek and did his dissertation under
von Hygen, and then when he went on to your
later work he studied underheard the famous Fabian socialist Harold Laski.
So this explains, for example, why David Rockflower was such
a fan of socialism and wrote these glowing editorials about
how Mao was a great ruler Maus at all, and
that is and even West Germany, for example, in the
Eastern and Westernman conflict, the West German government was actually
Fabian socialist. It wasn't quote Western you know, free markets
or whatever. The founders of the EU, people like Jan Smutz.
All of these people are Fabian social They all have
the same ideology. It's just that most people in America
especially don't know what this ideology is. Yeah, but this
is really the operating system of the technocracy.
Speaker 2: Well it was.
Speaker 1: It's interesting to have you really color it all in
like that, because when I had to, I had to
go and research. So why why are some people describing
Barack Obama as a Fabian socialist? You know, I'm you said,
all the nomenclature socialist, communist, whatever.
Speaker 2: What is this Fabian designation?
Speaker 1: And most of what I brought up with was that
you know, slow and steady wins the race kind of
a of a mentality instead of just going for it
all at once. But you bringing in more so of
the the economic alignments and and uh, and that's that
it makes a whole lot more sense.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, like Saidie Kahn, for example, the mayor is
a Fabian. He's a member of the Fabian society. If
we go back to the people that you've heard me,
you and I we've lectured through uh, you know, texts
related to Bertrand Russell H G. Wells, guess what Fabians. Yeah,
members of the Fabane Society. Now there might be some differentiation,
like supposedly, you know, uh, Bertrand Russell is a member
of them for a while, and then he says, oh,
I want to be more of a democrat. That really
means nothing because the essents, you're all pushing the same
ideology anyway, H G. Wells, he's a member of the
Fabane Society, but then he wants to be more of
a democrat. But then he's a Marxist socialist. So whether
or not they're members of the group per se doesn't
really matter because they're all pushing the same stuff. And again,
to give you an idea what we're talking about, I
mean all of these institutions League of Nations, United Nations, International,
Labor International Court, International, it's going to be British Commonwealth Society,
Christian Socialist League, the World Bank, the Aspen Institute, the IMF,
the World Council of Churches, NATO. NATO was actually set
up by Fabian socialists. People don't know that NATO was
never there to destroy communism. It was against the Soviets.
So there is a difference between Fabian Socialism and Sovietism.
But eventually even that is not that big of a
deal because a lot of the Fabians were fans of
Bolshevism and Trotsky And then when Stalin started doing things
against the West that kicked off the Cold War, a
lot of the Fabian socialist didn't like Stalin. But that
doesn't make Stalin a good guy, just means that they
weren't really interested in his type of you know, dictatorship.
They wanted more of this technocratic Western style degeneracy that's
what we see today. In fact, the Fabians were the
first in the eighteen nineties to start using degenerate art
to further their cause. They were doing like what we
think of as like degenerate art nowadays by you know,
weird artists, doing performance performance art, and you know, you
can think of the things I'm thinking about, right, like
Abramovitch type stuff. They were doing that in the eighteen nineties.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean that really led the way the Bolsheviks
did that in Weimar Republic. Of course, it was it
was a crazy that actually was a transvestit capital of
the world in the nineteen twenties.
Speaker 2: Wymar, Germany.
Speaker 1: It was it's just nuts to see these patterns in
these cycles all over the place. And you know what,
that's really That's really why over the weekend when I
commented on your post, that's where a lot of my
confusion came from, because we talked about Cecil Roads quite
a bit, you and I and I had to go
back into one of my books and I pulled out
a quote that was in my mind when I commented
on your tweet, and it was from his Confession of
Faith that he had published, and he said, the idea
gleaming and dancing before one's eyes is like a will
of the wisp. But the last frames itself into a plan.
Why should we not form a secret society with but
one object the further into the British Empire and the
bringing of the whole uncivilized world under British rule, for
the recovery of the United States, and for making the
Anglo Saxon race but one empire. And so that's why
I asked that question to you about you know, what's
the stated intent. There's a stated intent to try to
keep a Anglo Saxon British empire together. But now here
we are in twenty twenty four. It seems like another
plan was kicked into place, an alternative route, because now
they're destroying London itself.
Speaker 3: Yeah, at that time, in the eight nineties nineteen hundred,
the original thought was because the British impart wasn't gone yet,
they thought, we really need to bring this back revamp.
You know, America is an issue. How can we bring
America back under the fold. They did have those discussions
at that time in the Royal Society. But then after
the war, after World War One, Britain started having problems.
They had more problems after World War two, and as
quickly details they started going bankrupt, and so England went
bankrupt at what a certain point, and they couldn't really
keep up with the manufacturing power and the wealth of America.
And they were also worried about Germany as a rising
power and a challenge to them as well. So they
did leave this idea of British imperialism. They realized that
wasn't going to go anywhere. And there was a key
book written by Lord Lionel Curtis, who's another one of
these characters in this group. And so they basically restrategized
and said we need more of something akin to a
world socialist system, and this is where they switch over
into technocracy and socialism. So you know, Cecil Rhoads is
not a technocrat, he's piece prior to that. He doesn't
know about that yet. That hasn't really come about yet.
But as we get into the nineteen ten, twenties thirties,
the Bank of England suffers these really big panics because
they're basically it's a scam that bayed system, just like
ours is. And so they figure that they're going to
have to reintegrate in some way with America, and so
they do that by setting up this deep state that
we know of today, and that's where we get British
intelligence literally coming over here and under FDR setting up
what we have is the deep state.
Speaker 1: Now, what about is there anything published as far as
when it's time to clean house? If there is, if
there is a time, is there anything published on what
happens when the native populations of whatever continents they're going
after are successfully undercut through immigration. Like I said before,
the people that are being brought in are a especially
over here in the Western hemisphere, extremely dependent dead weight.
But right now we're still trying to manufacture consent that
can't be overdone legislatively or I should say, in a
civic nature on elections. They just want to be able
to have a permanent underclass of dependent people who are
willing just to sign on the dotted line and vote, vote, vote,
and make sure that nobody can outvote them. But what
happens when consent, or at least the illusion to consent
is not necessary anymore. And now you're just dealing with
a bunch of dependents, and especially in the Eastern hemisphere,
when you're drawing from North Africa in the Middle East,
a bunch of disobedient new arrivals who don't care anything
about assimilation into a once you know, Christian continent. You know,
is there anything about what happened after they achieve their goals.
Speaker 3: I think that the plan is the greater and greater
degradation of the existing populations and then integration into some
future technocratic society fifteen minute cities or whatever. So, you know,
I don't know how they exactly intend to get to
that goal, Like in terms of what crises they intend
to roll out, I don't know. It could be economic,
could be war. I mean, they could roll out all
kinds of things to bring about something that tries to
force people into you know, the coffin apartments in the
fifteen minute cities. But I think right now they're intent
on just mainly doing what Whether it's George Bernard Shaw,
the famous satanic Fabian socialists, or whether it's Jacques Attalie,
I mean, they pretty much have all said that the
main goal is to destroy the existing European nation states.
That's the only way to create the EU. I mean
they have an EU, but an EU with more with
less nation state firewall, so to speak. So I mean
it's just amazing because it's in all of these books,
and then if you talk about this, it's like, oh,
that's a crazy conspiracy. It's like all right about it.
I mean, even General Wesley Clark famously said because he
was at NATO, people have forgotten that he said that
the part of the goal is to destroy the European
nation states.
Speaker 1: You know, and even I forget that part there too,
because when we when we bring up Wesley Clark, we
talk about the the nation hopping and that that they
wanted to do across Africa, in the in the Middle
East after nine to eleven.
Speaker 2: And but that's it.
Speaker 1: Just it really is incredible there, and of course it's
it's hard to comprehend because so many of us, we
we like to look at the world as a as
a beautiful place that is so reflective of a great,
great number of years of human developed mint and architecture,
and and it's an exciting thing to even to even
have an opportunity to go out there and explore. And
there are people who are just hell bent on steamrolling it.
It makes no sense. That's why it's always such a
confusing thing to discuss.
Speaker 3: You and I both did. We did Brave New World.
And we know nineteen eighty four, you know when or
when Blair was writing about Ingsock. That's the Fabians. Ingsock
is English socialism, which is the Fabian socialism explicitly.
Speaker 1: Jeez, okay, that makes a lot of sense. I have
to I have to read nineteen eighty four again. Maybe
that's what we'd Hey, you want to do that next March.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it'd be great. In fact, it would go well
with Brave New World because again, you know, Huxley's talking
about the exact same circles. That's wh who's he who
he's involved with? You know, the book is about what
their plan is, and that's why it's a world federalist
socialist technocracy. Right. I remember in Brave New World, Mustapham
on the creepy you know peed o that we that
we analyzed when we did that book. He is a
one of I think they say in the novel something
like one of ten world socialist controllers. So the idea
would be that you know, you have like I forget
how it's how it's structured in the book, but it's
basically like continental unions, right in the same way in
nineteen eighty four you have Eurasia, Oceania. It's not England,
it's Oceania and Eurasia. So it's like continental unions. And
people think erroneously that tiny mustache man is the creator
of the EU. He's not. He had a plan for
continental unions as well, but his plan for continental union
was different. It was teutonic based. I'm sure everybody knows
that this is not that this is based on supposed
scientific technocracy. It's nothing to do with any specific r acee.
But it's more of a but for example. But Georgie
Bernard Shaw says that when the technocracy is in place,
he says, you will have to come to them to
justify why you should be let live, why you should
be allowed to live. He says, that's the that's what
we really want. The technocracy, when it's in place, will
have total power of life and death. And if they
decide you're a non essential worker, you won't be alive.
So that's what they want, and that's that's what all
of these books have been talking about that we've that
we've been reading for so long.
Speaker 1: I mean, well, that's another thing that you and I
have chronicled over time, not even just the mechanization of reproduction.
Because there's one thing to ask permission and to state
your case as to why you should be allowed to live.
It's another thing to of course go out there and
want to start a family and.
Speaker 2: Brave new world.
Speaker 1: That that's just that's really you're talking about completely state controlled,
laboratory controlled, you know, reproduction as well. But as far
as that will, I mean, I remember when the the
ACA was passed and everybody's like, this is going to
create death panels in the United States because you're you're
forcing the government to actually manage everybody in a in
a flow chart of what can be of what can
be allotted for certain people. And you know what, if
you're old and infirmed and you can't go out there
and produce, there's no way that you're going to be
prioritized as.
Speaker 3: A Remember that Bill Gates quote where he says that
thatly just to the death panel. But I was supposed
to have that conversation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I know.
Speaker 1: And then of course you have in in Canada with
the with the MADE program, you have people who are
not even terminally ill that are just poor.
Speaker 3: You're already and have you did you see the Swedish
the Swedish pod.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, I mean Vermont right now, I think is
the first Vermont or New Hampshire. I don't know if
it's if it's passed already, but they're they're getting close
to being the first, like death tourism state or you
can go there to have yourself killed. And I mean
it's where we're devaluating. It's becoming very clear. You want
to talk about Fabian man, man, we'll see that the
pieces fallen every day. It's actually happening too fast to
be Fabian. If you ask me, well, I think you're
right that well.
Speaker 3: Speaking of another person who talked about unveiling this plan
at the right time. Madam Blebotski was a Fabian socialist.
So once again you have this individual who was in
the circles of Rathschild and Milner and in these people,
and she seems to go out as if she's this
ante establishment person. She was expected for being a spy
by the British other people in the British government. In fact,
I just read a whole Cambridge companion to Western Mysticism
and her Meticism. We did a bunch of lectures on
that book. You may have heard me mentioning it in
the fourth hours that I did. And the chapter on
Madam Bolbovski was really interesting because even the Cambridge a
scholar that wrote in that book, I've been from Cambridge,
but I don't know who it was, but even that
guy was saying it seems like Madam Blevaskue was some
kind of spy. Well, I interviewed doctor Richards Spent some
years back. He's the academic that wrote the book about
Crowley being a spy for British intelligence, and he has
another essay that's really good about Bolovatski also being a spy.
And she seems to have this interesting relationship with a
lot of people in the Soviet Union, and she seems
to have this close relationship with the Milner Rothschild circles. Well,
I think that that makes perfect sense because Milner Rothschild,
these people, they weren't against the Soviets or the Bolsheviks,
I should say they They might not like Stalin himself,
but they didn't have a real problem with Marxism, Communism
and even elements of socialism or Sovietism. So I know
she probably was a liason going back and forth between
people like Nicholas Rorick, who I think she had meetings with.
And so doctor Spence theorizes that Madam Bolbatski's ascended masters
that she would go to meet with were actually just
her handlers and other spy meetings that she had with
people in other countries. So he has a really good
article on that. I think that makes sense. And again
even the mainline academics and the Cambridge companion are like that.
Seems like Blevaski was some kind of spy or espionage operative.
And I think that's a key here to whether we
look at somebody like Armin Hammer or whether we look
at somebody like just Lane's Dad, Robert Maxwell, Lord Victor Rothchild,
who is during the Cold War, not Rothschild senior. When
we look at these characters, they seem to be playing
both sides during the Cold War famously, and that's because
I think they they're above the dialectic of the Cold
War and they understand that the long term plan was
always the synthesis of the dialectic. If you read the
Rakowsky interrogation, when the KBD is interrogating the socialist president
who is a trotsky I of Bulgaria or Christian Rokovski,
he says all of this to his is NKVD interogator,
because I remember Stalin didn't like the trotsky guys. He says, well,
what you don't understand as this, you know, low tier
Stalin believer. He says, you're necessary to capitalism, like capitalism
and communism and Sovietism, they're necessary dialectics. And he says
the plan was always to have both until there's this
clash and then we'll get the ultimate after you know,
a global bloody coup or whatever, we'll get this final synthesis.
So remember it's always about dialectics and Marxism and socialism.
So that was going to clash these things together because
they believe that that's part of the process which is necessary
to produce the synthesis. The synthesis is always this future
technocracy that we're moving to.
Speaker 1: Is it purely technical? Is there anything spiritual about it?
I know what there's a we're dealing with a lot of.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, they're Satanists that they believe like Geneorge
of BNOs I was a Satanist. I mean, like some
of them believed like straight up saytany Luciferian stuff. Yeah.
There's also that, you know, transhumanist a side to this
as well. So I think some of them are transhumanists.
Some of them may just be atheist nihilists. For example,
I could never find anything occult with David Rockefeller himself,
so you know, he was probably just an atheist. I
don't know, but that would imagine for some of these people.
They they you know, we've covered those satanic types before, so.
Speaker 1: Then they are I guess that really does explain where
we are right now, because I never really understood where
Islam Islam came into the mix. I didn't know if
it was just you know, some some other some other
group coming in that didn't care about really mopping up
Europe and all that stuff in some kind of a way,
or locking up Europe politically in some other kind of way.
It just seems so destructive for anybody to actually who
actually cares about acquiring land and power and influence to
to actually poison themselves. It sounds like it feels like
they're they're swallowing this poison to bring this in. But
then at the same time, the way that you've described it,
it makes perfect sense, like what else could what else
out there could seriously be a state destabilizing agent aside
from you know, any of the other Tavistock, you know,
cultural revolution kind of things. I mean, there's there's been
plenty of non Islamic cultural destabilizers that we went through,
especially in the sixties and the seventies over here, So
I guess there's that more on a psychological end, But hell,
it's nuts. Is there anything else about all of this
that you believe is really key to understanding going forward
that nobody's really talking about outside of the headlines and
the gas lighting from the British government about the dangers
of social media and this is really not about there
being a real civic threat that is inlaid in their populations.
Speaker 2: Is there anything else that you want.
Speaker 1: To put out there before I ask a little bit
more of a generalized question as we start wrapping up tonight.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I think really what's missing in a
lot of the analyzes is that this happens when people
groups leave their theistic and traditional theological roots. So, you know,
England left authentic Christianity a long time ago, and it's
constantly moved away from it further and further into the
Church of England as a joke. So you know, it's
not surprising that if you go that far into apostasy,
you know you're going to be overrun by Muslims. I mean,
that's just that's just what happens, and it has happened
a lot of times in the history of Europe when
when they become weak and when they become degenerate, Muslims
come in and take over. So I think the difference
is that nowadays it's more of a technocratic, studied, scientific
approach by the elites. In the old old days, it
probably was more of just straight up you know, kinetic
warfare and rival you know, countries or whatever. Today it's
a lot more sophisticated, and you know, we're dealing with
a power structure that's pretty open and pretty clear about
what their plans are. And you know, whether it's AHG.
Wells or whether it's Huxley or whoever, like, they're all
pretty explicit that Christianity is a thing that stands in
the way. In fact, you know, Ratia has multiple excellent
chapters on how the Fabians and the Labor Party and
all these people understood that they would have to create
essentially a fake right wing, a fake conservatism that would
never really do anything against them, and a lot of
the pavement socialist started funding right wing causes and sort
of creating fake right wing movements to always kind of
play the defensive and just kind of like give more
and more ground. It's exact same thing we see in America,
fake right, the fake you know, GOP or whatever. They
do exact same things. So and that happens because people
don't have any principles, they're not rooted in anything, they're
not rooted in orthodox Christianity. They're just kind of listless
and blown about by the winds.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, you know, in many ways, that's that's
what and I know you and I I have some
ideas that we can we talk about some theological questions
that I had that that were that were brought up
around the time of the Olympics opening ceremonies because as
I was sitting there watching them, but to your point
right here, as I'm sitting there watching this stuff go
down just by happenstance, I was watching at the time
that the the Last Supper slash Bacchanalia, uh you know
thing was going on there, and I'm looking at it
and I'm you know, inside, There's so many thoughts I had,
but one resounding thought was, like, you know, the First
Crusade was born out of France. It's like, you know,
to think about where France, how France was, uh you know, so,
you know, so willing to fight for God, for faith,
all that stuff, and at this point you had this
opening ceremony which was just so weak, even if it
had nothing to do with being uh you know, confrontational
or antagonistic toward Christian faith, and it really was truly
just uh uh celebrating pagan roots, even though that would
have to go so far beyond uh Christian uh establishments
in Europe. It was just so crazy to have that
weak production, limp wristed, strange kind of you know, weird,
otherworldly production going on while outside of the Olympic village
in Paris, is is this this this really really heavy
Muslim population that has just been brought in that in
the the you know, putting pitting that up against each other.
That's just that that dichotomy was just so odd because,
like you said, you keep making contrary, you any kind
of any kind of a I don't know, you give
a little bit of ground here, a little bit of
ground there, then suddenly you're here. But it just seems
like all of it was outright chosen. This was not
just a series of mistakes or bad deals and all
that stuff. It's all been set up and it just
the dichotomy is just sickening. It makes no sense, and
it makes me wonder how the dam is even holding
at this point. Like I expected what's going on in
the UK to have started happening a long time ago,
and I mean, the crime rates have been this way
since like two thousand and eight, and so I just
don't understand how it's held off. But there's just I
guess people holding out hope that the judicial system, that
the elections are there to actually have some kind of reforms,
but whatever the hell they vote for, they don't get it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean the political class, as Ratia talks about
in his book in the UK, was essentially emasculated a
long time ago. So I mean there's no parties that
are ever allowed to exist or emerge that can even
do anything. That's all by design. I mean, they're way
further down the rabbit hole than than we are. But
I think in the US we're probably I don't know,
ten twenty years behind things that happened in well, so
the Middle America is like ten twenty years behind what
happens in New York and LA, and then New York
in LA, or maybe five years ten years behind what
happens in the UK, except that it is probably not
going to be Islam. It's you know, in the US
they bring in the law of the Latin America and
South American populations to do the same thing, so it's
the same strategist, it's just not Islam, although we will
continue to see Islam. In fact, I drove across most
of the US a few months ago to do my
event in Las Vegas and so I got to see
driving there a lot of the US that I haven't
seen in many, many years, and one thing I noticed
was quite a few more mosques everywhere. In fact, even
when I was driving through Indian reservations, there's mosques on
Indian reservations now. So I'm sure that Islam will continue
to expand in the US. But that's because Islam is
again just another kind of a chess piece on the
chessboard for the global elite. They're not really believers in Islam.
In fact, the Fabian Socialists believe that Islam would be
a great thing for the UK because they, for whatever reason,
they saw Muhammad as a proto democratic socialist, which is
kind of stupid, but that's how the Fabian Socialists saw him,
and they thought that he would be great, that Islam
would be great to literally de christianize the UK. So
the reason that they wanted so many Muslims coming to
London into the UK was to de christianize it. They
explicitly said this. So they brought in for the Milner Circles,
brought in people to Oxford Cambridge to bring Islam to
the UK to start preaching and teaching it. Some of
the lords started writing books about Islam. One of the
famous British elite lords wrote a book pushing Islam. And
that's not anti thatt to you know, z io Nism,
because they don't have any problem with Islam in other countries.
So they might not like you know, hamas and that
kind of stuff, but they don't have any problem with
it somewhere else.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: It's and it just also as a testament to their
their belief in the in the end result that they
would they would plant these seeds eighty one hundred and
one hundred and fifty years ago and just say like
all right, well, uh do me well and then they
just die off.
Speaker 2: It's just fine.
Speaker 1: The fact that they don't care about being around for
the payoff and it becomes such a multi generational passing
of the baton, that's that's something in itself. It's it's crazy,
and that's why you have to you have to expect
a lot of this to be very inbred and very
familial in its an execution, because how the hell can
you remain so devoted to it if you don't have
some sort.
Speaker 2: Of like a blood relation to it.
Speaker 1: But let me ask you this, as we wrap up here.
And as I've said before, or I've enjoyed your work
so much of over the years, you know, just because
on the merits of how of how interesting it is,
but mainly because you're very, very apolitical. And I seriously,
I've said this before, I don't I don't know how
you have voted in the past. I don't know if
you how you will or if you even vote at all.
I think that's pretty cool about about watching your analysis.
But how do you see if you were forced to
wager an entire bitcoin? How do you see this year ending?
If you had to, you had to put a bitcoin
down on an outcome.
Speaker 2: What do you do? You know, I would never do that,
but I understand that.
Speaker 1: But if you if you and just keeping your desires
out out of it, how do you see all this going?
Because we still got two and a half months until
the the election, things are going nuts.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we just had that Democrat guy saying that anything
must be done to make sure that But if Trump's elected, rasking, yeah,
take out Trump at all costs. I mean, I think
they're going to try again, probably for another attempt on Trump.
I can't imagine that they'll allow any kind of I
mean to pull out all the tricks. So I don't know.
I mean we might have economic collapse, we might have war,
I don't know. All those things are on the table,
so I think they're gonna definitely pull out all the stops.
It's gonna get even crazier, that's my prediction.
Speaker 1: Well, well, we're going to have to talk again before
the before the fall hits. That's for damn sure. Jay,
Is there anything big you got coming up next? Any
any big releases, You're working on, a book, anything else?
Speaker 2: Let people know how.
Speaker 1: To find you and what is new and exciting in
your world.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I do have. I've been spending a lot of
time writing, so I have about two hundred and fifty
sixty pages written for us to tart cally with three.
So it's been five or six years since the last
Esotery Hollywood, so it's time to roll out the completion
of the trilogy. Hopefully it'll be done the next couple
months and then I can get it to the publisher
and have it out as soon as possible. It's kind
of a longer arduous task than I expected. Forgot how
long it takes to do footnotes and like because I
haven't written a book in you know, several years, so
it's just a lot of like grinding at footnotes which
push you to sleep. But anyway, it's going to be great.
There's gonna be a lot of good footnotes, a lot
of keys, a lot of codes to decode if you
pay attention to what footnotes I'm putting in there. But
it's a different type of book. It's going to be
a little different setup and style than the previous two.
The first two books were very long essays on particular movies,
and that fit well with those films. But this time around,
I wanted to include more films, so they're shorter essays,
they're shorter analyzes, but way more movies. So I'm hoping
to get, you know, to squeeze a lot more uh
films into this one to be decoded. And uh, it's like,
I'm pretty good so far. I'm happy with what we've got,
but we've got a lot more writing to do. Anyway.
That'll be out in the next couple of months. And
then what have I got going? Uh, just a fourth
hour every Friday of Lord Baltimore, what else? Just churning
away live streams and doing all the stuff I usually do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, man, getting around it's been good, and I always
end up listening. I know, Fridays you're hanging out. Uh,
what time is the the fourth Hour starting Friday on
in fours two.
Speaker 3: To three Central, so three to four Eastern.
Speaker 2: That that talk stream live app. I'm like, it's like a.
Speaker 1: Yeah, man, I still listen to a lot of stuff
on that, even even old reruns of things. It's it's good.
But that damn the esoteric Hollywood number two. That's that's
when we That's when I reached out to you the
first Oh yeah, but when you reached out yeah, ye,
I think.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, so that was like twenty eighteen. I think
so that is that when I first I.
Speaker 1: Don't know if that maybe maybe twenty eighteen nineteen. Damn,
we've already known each other for five six years five here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah man, that's that's great. I appreciate that. Yeah,
people want the part one in part two, you can
go to my website and get the signed copies in
the shop. But yeah, the third one's gonna be out.
It's gonna be a banger, all right.
Speaker 1: I can't wait for that because you know anything, it
sounds like it's gonna be a little more encyclopedic and
I want to have a lot of those movies profiled
and stuff. Anyway, let us know when you have updates.
Love to have you back on soon, and thanks again.
Speaker 2: For the time.
Speaker 3: Jay, aytme, dude, appreciate it.
Speaker 2: All right, there he goes Jay Dyer. Jay's analysis. We're
gonna take a really quick.
Speaker 1: Break when we come back, taking your calls, your super chats.
We're gonna crack jokes about Tim Waltz and that'll be
That'll be what we do until I end this around
eight fifty.
Speaker 2: So we got about forty.
Speaker 1: Minutes because then I have to get on with Matt
Christiansen on ten Media, so you can have overtime with
me over there.
Speaker 2: All right, we'll be right back. Don't go anywhere, are.
Speaker 4: You, Grammy. You're fucking fucking You're you're fucking fucking you
bloody bloddy, you bloody bostard, bit you baddy, fuck you,
bloody fucking mother, bloody fuck bitch, bitch you fuck you,
you're fucking.
Speaker 2: Bloody bossard, you bentchured, blurdy.
Speaker 4: You blunder But why bloody no, Hi, bloody fucking accident then,
but you are why fuck me, I fucked you. Blurdy.
Speaker 3: It's informssion time folks, time off.