Speaker 1: Out there to join and look at our twenty first
Speaker 1: century Wire SoundCloud paget I don't know. We're approaching about
Speaker 1: thirty thousand listens and we've just put that up to
Speaker 1: very little fanfare only a couple of months ago. And
Speaker 1: all our top clips are up there, selected curated clips, rants,
Speaker 1: and all sorts of interviews up at our SoundCloud page
Speaker 1: twenty first Century Wire twenty one Wire SoundCloud. There's a
Speaker 1: link to it at the website as well. Now we're
Speaker 1: going to transition in a minute to our next guest,
Speaker 1: who is no stranger to this show or twenty first
Speaker 1: Century Wire. But before we do that, before we introduce
Speaker 1: our guest, Jay Dyer, I just wanted to get a
Speaker 1: few housekeeping items together with regards to the website and
Speaker 1: what's happening in the next coming months, So we are
Speaker 1: launching a membership drive for members subscriptions from May first.
Speaker 1: We just want to announce that now. The details are
Speaker 1: going to be forthcoming at the website and we've been
Speaker 1: working very carefully behind the scenes to try to get
Speaker 1: it right, and we hope we've got a program and
Speaker 1: a set of things that we'll be able to do
Speaker 1: and roll out in the next month and further afield too.
Speaker 1: Very exciting, a lot of work though, it's going to
Speaker 1: take a lot of work to do what we want
Speaker 1: to do, what we want to give the members in
Speaker 1: terms of a unique experience, some big add ons to
Speaker 1: what we're doing right now, and this is going to
Speaker 1: include video production as well. But we're going to need
Speaker 1: your help to make that happen. And so some of
Speaker 1: our supporters already already know about this. If you're on
Speaker 1: our mailing list of the people who supported our trip
Speaker 1: to Beirut, you'll already know about this announcement and you
Speaker 1: have a little more details for those supporters, But we'll
Speaker 1: tell everybody probably next week or probably the following or
Speaker 1: if not the following week. We'll announce it next week,
Speaker 1: but we'll give more details the following week. So we're
Speaker 1: going to be very very busy trying to make ends
Speaker 1: meet and keep the site improving as well at the
Speaker 1: same time increase and improve our news and analysis at
Speaker 1: twenty first century wire dot com. So that's something to
Speaker 1: look forward to. Now, there's a new shout poll up
Speaker 1: and if you go to twenty first Central wy dot com,
Speaker 1: you'll see our shout page there's a link on the
Speaker 1: show page and basically, this is our shout poll this
Speaker 1: week is the United States? Does it have a democracy
Speaker 1: or an autocracy? And that's the poll. We've already got
Speaker 1: a few voters already. You can comment in the poll.
Speaker 1: This is a unique technology we developed with a tech
Speaker 1: startup called square offs and it's an ultimate engagement and
Speaker 1: debate and voting all in one widget. So go ahead
Speaker 1: and have your shout. Is the US a democracy or
Speaker 1: an autocracy? And don't want to get into any arguments
Speaker 1: with anybody who will say, well, no, it's uh, it's
Speaker 1: an oligarchy, not in autocracy. Who cares? My point? Is
Speaker 1: not a democracy. So that's the main point of it.
Speaker 1: We want to get some lively debates going in there. Now.
Speaker 1: Our next guest, Uh. He is the author of the
Speaker 1: much anticipated upcoming uh probably eventually will be in my
Speaker 1: mind anyway, a bestseller s so Teric Hollywood from trendon
Speaker 1: Day Publishing, and he's also uh the editor and founder
Speaker 1: of Jay's Analysis uh dot com. There's a link to
Speaker 1: it on the show page and UH, you know this,
Speaker 1: I'm looking up at the stories at Jay's Analysis right
Speaker 1: now and it's just fascinating. Uh. We've also got you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to talk about Prince's death this week.
Speaker 1: We'll leave that off the uh So we're not going
Speaker 1: to talk about Prince and we're not going to play
Speaker 1: Dove's cry uh in the background like every single mainstream
Speaker 1: media outlet is doing. I don't know, have I got
Speaker 1: have I got that on the soundboard? I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm Badger. Can you hear Prince in the background there?
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if Badger's listening or not.
Speaker 2: But impersonation for you?
Speaker 1: Oh please don't.
Speaker 2: Uh So I had about ten print songs. I was
Speaker 2: going to sing the full full song here for you.
Speaker 1: Okay, now I'm just gonna cut that chase. We're not
Speaker 1: going to But anyway, Jay Dyer, thank you for joining
Speaker 1: us this week. I really appreciate it. I know you've
Speaker 1: been uber busy. Awesome articles from from Yours and Soul
Speaker 1: of the East on the Bolshevik one is really fascinating
Speaker 1: up at jasonalysis dot com. But you know, really good stuff,
Speaker 1: deep deep, deep thinking, uh for the everyday man. That's
Speaker 1: what jason Analysis provides, and so in short supply these days.
Speaker 1: But but so, how how's how's the book coming along.
Speaker 1: I just want to get that out the way first.
Speaker 1: I mean, you must be the pre orders I'm sure
Speaker 1: are coming in right.
Speaker 2: As I understand that he's gotten quite a few. So yeah,
Speaker 2: the book is finished. I finished it last week and
Speaker 2: it was pretty hllacious going back and putting in the footnotes.
Speaker 2: But I think it's going to be a great tool
Speaker 2: for giving to family members that you want to kind
Speaker 2: of wake them up right to the way the world
Speaker 2: really works is everybody likes movies. Not everybody's into your
Speaker 2: geopolitical peculiarities, but everybody likes movies. So give them my book,
Speaker 2: and I think it'll help to you know, people will
Speaker 2: see movies in a new way. And I ended up
Speaker 2: with four hundred and four footnotes. So many of those,
Speaker 2: by the way, are twenty first century wire articles, so
Speaker 2: you'll be happy to know that you're referenced in their
Speaker 2: Patrick as well as Sean Helton and the good Fellows
Speaker 2: over at Sold the East excellent.
Speaker 1: Oh, by the way, Sean is investigating Prince's untimely death,
Speaker 1: so that's a big warning for if there's any Shenanigans
Speaker 1: going on. I think Sean's probably going to dig it up.
Speaker 1: He's already he's already, he's already guys his request in
Speaker 1: for the toxicology reports. So it looks like another Michael
Speaker 1: Jackson circus. And we're not talking about Prince Jay today.
Speaker 1: This is not why we're here. The theme of the
Speaker 1: show Jay is glass temples, and it's a little bit abstract.
Speaker 1: And you know, we had a discussion the last hour
Speaker 1: with ken Stone about Palmyra, and I had some pretty
Speaker 1: stark experiences while I was over in the Middle East
Speaker 1: regarding archaeology, regarding heritage, regarding modernism, and I saw the
Speaker 1: real clash of civilizations. Jay. It's it's not the West
Speaker 1: versus the East, or the White Man versus the Arab
Speaker 1: To me, the real class of civilizations is much deeper,
Speaker 1: and it's much more profound than the geopolitical definitions. To me,
Speaker 1: it goes deep in to the heart of what you
Speaker 1: might call modernism and traditionalism. I think it's in this direction.
Speaker 1: I wanted to bring you on to talk about this
Speaker 1: because there's a lot of psychology as well behind here.
Speaker 1: We can psychologically profile different epochs, different times, different eras.
Speaker 1: There's a mindset that I think has been it is hereditary.
Speaker 1: I think it's carried on, it's carried over and taken
Speaker 1: different form from the past great civilizations to and fallen
Speaker 1: civilizations to today, which one day. You know, we're sitting
Speaker 1: pretty right now, but there are many civilizations right now
Speaker 1: on this planet that are running and functioning that will
Speaker 1: be fallen civilizations one day. And so that is I'm
Speaker 1: really concerned about this because my concern, Jay, isn't it
Speaker 1: It might be a frivolous concern. I think there's still
Speaker 1: a lot to learn from past civilizations. I still believe
Speaker 1: there's a lot of knowledge lost, a lot of wisdom,
Speaker 1: and I think there's a place for it in our
Speaker 1: everyday life now. Not everyone agrees with me on that.
Speaker 1: Modernists are like, no, just pave it over, forget about it.
Speaker 1: It's all about technology and transhumanism and big glass temples basically.
Speaker 1: So where do you stand on this?
Speaker 2: Initially, Well, I would start out by saying that I
Speaker 2: don't think we need to ever pause it any kind
Speaker 2: of a false dialectic between the idea of will you
Speaker 2: either choose modernism or you're some sort of blood heed
Speaker 2: obscurantists who's left in the past or left worshiping the past.
Speaker 2: Tradition as I see it, as I understand it is
Speaker 2: always a kind of dynamic, living process. It's never some
Speaker 2: sort of stultified museum piece. It's always something that's in process.
Speaker 2: But you can never be completely a historical you can
Speaker 2: never completely get away from it any kind of roots
Speaker 2: or lineage by the simple fact that all of us
Speaker 2: come from some family and some parents. And so if
Speaker 2: you think about the family, if we were fortunate enough
Speaker 2: to grow up in some sort of father mother household,
Speaker 2: and we're not raised by a test raising a test
Speaker 2: tube or something like that where we're going, then we
Speaker 2: know that we were given some kind of culture, some
Speaker 2: kind of tradition. Now that doesn't mean that it's necessarily correct,
Speaker 2: or that it didn't have flaws, or that things weren't wrong,
Speaker 2: perhaps about the tradition that we were given as a
Speaker 2: child and so forth, or the culture of the nation
Speaker 2: that we grew up in. But I think that the
Speaker 2: false ideology that is that undergirds modernity put in its
Speaker 2: successors and postmodernity, and what ultimately I think leads to nihilism.
Speaker 2: It's the idea that you can some now be completely
Speaker 2: free from anything that binds you to the past. And
Speaker 2: in terms of I think what you're getting at philosophically
Speaker 2: is this notion of radical individualism, which is the ideology
Speaker 2: that's been foisted upon I think the Western world. That's
Speaker 2: pretty much the Western ideology, especially if you look at
Speaker 2: say the Rand Corporation and their whole as one of
Speaker 2: the premiere think tanks of the last century. Their whole
Speaker 2: ideology is called rational choice theory. Now what is this, Well,
Speaker 2: this is the idea that the way to manipulate individuals
Speaker 2: is to appeal to the fact that they're going to
Speaker 2: choose as an individual for their own self interests. And
Speaker 2: so when we look at something like the Rand Corporation,
Speaker 2: which I think is a pre eminent example, this is
Speaker 2: this is what crafted the Cold War. This is what
Speaker 2: crafted the idea of mutually sure destruction, the nuke threat.
Speaker 2: It craft did the idea of the commies are going
Speaker 2: to get us. They're everywhere, they're infiltrating everything, And it
Speaker 2: crafted the idea of consumerism, the transition out of a
Speaker 2: production based economy into a completely service based economy. It
Speaker 2: sold us on things like Obamacare ultimately, and on top
Speaker 2: of that, it also marketed the first and second Operation
Speaker 2: Operation does at Storm, in Operation Iraqi Freedom. These are
Speaker 2: actually creations of the Rand Corporation. And what is the
Speaker 2: how did they do all this well? Because they have
Speaker 2: this idea that what we need to do is to
Speaker 2: sell everybody on the idea that their own personal, hedonistic
Speaker 2: desires are the only way that they can be quote free.
Speaker 2: And they say this explicitly in numerous corporation publications. So
Speaker 2: I would I would see that as a main ideological
Speaker 2: force in what crafted the modern American West as we
Speaker 2: know it. And I would say that obviously America and
Speaker 2: the ideology of America is what pretty much dominates the
Speaker 2: what we might call the atlantisys power block right, which
Speaker 2: would be US, UK, Israel, France and so forth. And
Speaker 2: so that whole ethos that then seeks to force the
Speaker 2: rest of the world into that ideology of necessity. It
Speaker 2: has to destroy any existing perhaps firewalls we might call them,
Speaker 2: and that would be anything from history, culture, tradition, family, nation, state,
Speaker 2: et cetera, et cetera. All those things have to go
Speaker 2: because there seem to be aspects of the old way
Speaker 2: of doing things and everything is now supposed to transition
Speaker 2: into a completely New World, and it's really the as
Speaker 2: you pointed out in your excellent article, the smart power
Speaker 2: industrial complex. That's the chief goal they have, right. So,
Speaker 2: in other words, the Rank corporation pretty much has a
Speaker 2: whole slew of offspring that are much like it insofar
Speaker 2: as they deal with safe foreign policy or think tanks
Speaker 2: dealing with a certain region like Middle East or whatever
Speaker 2: crisis groups. You know, there's myriad of these of these institutions,
Speaker 2: and what they do is essentially churn out constant white
Speaker 2: papers to reformulate and reorganize entire regions. And so you
Speaker 2: mentioned the Middle East, Well, we only need think of
Speaker 2: the Odinya non Plan, which was the Israeli plan from
Speaker 2: several decades ago regarding what would happen in the Middle
Speaker 2: East in our day, and we actually see the playing
Speaker 2: out of that presently, and that would include these situations
Speaker 2: in Libya in now Syria. And so this is how
Speaker 2: we can fit the events in our day into this
Speaker 2: larger scheme is by looking at some of these key
Speaker 2: white papers and policy papers and so forth that you
Speaker 2: outlined in your article and that I also outlined in
Speaker 2: an article I did called Isis Feminists and Thugs dupes
Speaker 2: of the foundations and think tanks, and so what do
Speaker 2: you see is across all of these movements, whether it
Speaker 2: be Air of Spring or whether it be the promotion
Speaker 2: of feminism and women's rights in other countries by the
Speaker 2: Rockefeller and Ford Foundation, what you see is a common
Speaker 2: theme of quote democracy, humanitarianism, individual liberty, and freedom from
Speaker 2: all constraints supposedly. But what those things actually are is
Speaker 2: as you called them accurately, they're called soft power. They're
Speaker 2: soft power techniques of swaying mass perception and opinion to
Speaker 2: get inboard with some power blocks strategy for the region.
Speaker 2: And that's I think the best way to sum it
Speaker 2: up is that it's really about duping peopleeople into buying
Speaker 2: into something that services another engender, namely Washington's foreign policy,
Speaker 2: mainly when you're talking about the Middle East and other
Speaker 2: regions Russia, Ukraine and so forth.
Speaker 1: So on one hand, they're building up this kind of
Speaker 1: identity politic or the sort of totems of identity politics
Speaker 1: like you animated in your article isis feminists and thugs.
Speaker 1: And then on the other hand, they're tearing down culture,
Speaker 1: identity in the same place at the same time, and
Speaker 1: this is to me the most extraordinary thing that it's
Speaker 1: kind of it's kind of you can see it when
Speaker 1: you go there, you can see it actually happening in
Speaker 1: front of your eyes. And and so what is is this?
Speaker 1: Because if you obliterate someone's cultural identity, then you really
Speaker 1: obliterate there is your cultural identity. And here's my question.
Speaker 1: Is your cultural identity your true political identity in many ways?
Speaker 1: And if you smash that, if you bliterate it, then
Speaker 1: you've really obliterated your political power as well.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, And that is you find that specifically spoken of
Speaker 2: in the white papers. So I think of Alex Eveya's
Speaker 2: book Soldiers of Reason about the Rank corporation, and he
Speaker 2: discusses this very point. He talks about how to Now.
Speaker 2: Sometimes I should add, sometimes radical say nationalism or radical
Speaker 2: left or radical right could be useful to global strategists
Speaker 2: and think tanks and so forth, So it's not always
Speaker 2: an either or. Sometimes those things could be useful for
Speaker 2: manipulation as well, like as you said, identity politics. But
Speaker 2: I think that if you look at the big, big scale,
Speaker 2: long term plans, it's ultimately about getting rid of all
Speaker 2: of those things. And that's why the Rank corporation, for example,
Speaker 2: deals with big scale philosophies, big scale ideologies, right, rational
Speaker 2: choice theory being how can we sell everybody on the
Speaker 2: idea that your individual hedonistic desires are the best way
Speaker 2: for you to be happy and free? And so rational
Speaker 2: choice theory dictates that whatever means, there might be a
Speaker 2: period where you want to promote radical identity politics and nationalism,
Speaker 2: but then down the road that transitions into something else. Right,
Speaker 2: And this is Alvin Toffler talks about this in Third Wave,
Speaker 2: where he says that we might need to promote things
Speaker 2: like veganism. We might need to promote certain things that
Speaker 2: can steer a movement of philosophy and ideology and identity
Speaker 2: in a certain direction for a time period in order
Speaker 2: to get to that final goal. And I think, I
Speaker 2: know I brought it up many times, but I bring
Speaker 2: it up because of such a great example. This is
Speaker 2: really what Aldo Sarcley says in the introduction of Brave
Speaker 2: New World, where he says, look, there was a whole
Speaker 2: bunch of revolutions right in the revolution, Scientific Revolution, French Revolution.
Speaker 2: I'm going to I'm telling you how all of those
Speaker 2: revolutions were stages in a process. Now I know that
Speaker 2: I'm gonna get a little esoteric here, but you can
Speaker 2: also look at Arthur Kessler who calls it alchemy. And
Speaker 2: so when he talks about the ghost in the machine,
Speaker 2: which is his naturalistic Darwinian materialistic statement about how the
Speaker 2: mind of man's the mind of man, consciousness and free will,
Speaker 2: along with Bertrand Russell saying this need to be stamped out.
Speaker 2: This is how we create a more controlled automaton cubicle
Speaker 2: being right, much much like the factory line process of
Speaker 2: streamlined products, so that the man himself becomes a factory
Speaker 2: streamline monoculture product. Right. And this is obviously you can
Speaker 2: see quite advantageous to the international mega corporations and conglomerates
Speaker 2: that pretty much run run the globe. So that's what
Speaker 2: it's all about. Yeah, you might have a time where
Speaker 2: people promote you an ideology that appeals to your ego. Right,
Speaker 2: I'm a feminist, I'm strong, and i want to be
Speaker 2: free from these two millennia of patriarchal tyranny. Now I'm
Speaker 2: free because I've adopted abortion, vaccines and micro loans that
Speaker 2: are not available to males.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: These are all strategies to break up existing things. And
Speaker 2: as I said, how is it alchemy, Well, you have
Speaker 2: the alchemical dictum of solving at coagula, which is the
Speaker 2: idea that you dissolve a thing and then you remake
Speaker 2: the thing into something new. And that is the essence
Speaker 2: of the alchemical process. And even though the globalists the
Speaker 2: elites think tanks types may not as a whole be
Speaker 2: occultists or esotericist or whatever I'm sure some of them are,
Speaker 2: it doesn't really matter because the essential game plan strategy
Speaker 2: is that it is you break a thing down before
Speaker 2: you build it back up, and you build it back
Speaker 2: up into what you want it to be. And that's
Speaker 2: what the purpose of all these thing tanks and in
Speaker 2: g o's and so forth is. They're the ones that
Speaker 2: are crafting the steering mechanisms.
Speaker 1: So you mentioned Alvin Toffler and the author of Future Shock,
Speaker 1: and he talked about veganism being a sort of a
Speaker 1: means to an end. This is the way I read
Speaker 1: what you said there is this is climate change, the
Speaker 1: same thing in the same used can that be used
Speaker 1: to created and this climate change movement and be used
Speaker 1: in the same way as that.
Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely, you go back to the seventies the Club
Speaker 2: of Rome produced the boat Limits to Growth, and then
Speaker 2: it republished that in the nineties and called it the
Speaker 2: First Global Revolution. And you look at the First Global Revolution,
Speaker 2: it discusses the fact that we need to create not
Speaker 2: just some localized revolutions, some French revolutions American we need
Speaker 2: a new revolution that's based on something that we can
Speaker 2: get everybody behind. And what's the one common factor that
Speaker 2: we all share it? Well, it's the environment. Everybody's in
Speaker 2: some way an aspect of the biosphere. So if we
Speaker 2: can sell people on the notion that it's in their
Speaker 2: individual best interest to be a part of this whatever
Speaker 2: it is, movement, then we can steer the globe into
Speaker 2: things like Agenda twenty one and United Nations UNESCO plans
Speaker 2: and gentrification zoning laws which are ultimately about creating smart
Speaker 2: cities and target cities and so forth, all these different
Speaker 2: communal reorganization methods for large scale social engineering. So all
Speaker 2: of this is outlined in that very book, First Global Revolution.
Speaker 2: You can find it's online, easy PDF download, and it
Speaker 2: discusses the fact that open I'm not making this up.
Speaker 2: It actually says what we need to do is events
Speaker 2: everyone that man himself is the problem. Right, So when
Speaker 2: they talk about CO two's being a problem carbon, that's
Speaker 2: they're talking about life. They're saying humans, we're carbon based life. Worms,
Speaker 2: They're saying.
Speaker 1: It's the all pervasive existential threat. In other words, it
Speaker 1: never switches off.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, the commedi threat's gone. And now I guess that,
Speaker 2: by the way, that was, as we said, trans created
Speaker 2: by the Rank Corporation. That Ran Corporation also crafted and marketed,
Speaker 2: pr sold the war on Terror, all right. That's why
Speaker 2: you'd see Fox News in these different channels branding it
Speaker 2: the War of Operation Freedom, the War on Terror. And
Speaker 2: then of course Desert Storm was the first fully televised
Speaker 2: so called war. How ridiculous is that?
Speaker 1: Desert Shield that then Desert Storm and then Desert Fox
Speaker 1: and yeah, and.
Speaker 2: Their PubL their reality shows twenty four to seven run,
Speaker 2: So you participate in this psychodrama, right, And so that
Speaker 2: was all Rank corporation strategies sold and exactly you know,
Speaker 2: how does that all tie into Well, Rank Corporation works
Speaker 2: on the same strategies of the United Nations plans for
Speaker 2: the environment. Rank Corporation crafts documents for how to go green.
Speaker 2: You know, how companies can implement green strategies and green
Speaker 2: healthcare and green thist all of that is a marketing tool.
Speaker 2: And when you look at the origins of the so
Speaker 2: called green movement, I don't doubt that there were many
Speaker 2: sincere environmentalists, you know, back in the day or whatever.
Speaker 2: But I look at earth Day. I mean, the founder
Speaker 2: of earth Day is this guy who killed his wife
Speaker 2: or his girlfriend, right, I mean, these are nasty people, right.
Speaker 2: The very fact that the Club of Rome's First Global
Speaker 2: Revolution says that the whole purpose is to convince human
Speaker 2: beings that they're the problem and that we need to then,
Speaker 2: of course, cut down on population. You need to go
Speaker 2: along with banker austerity and live inside a little bitty
Speaker 2: cubicle coffin.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: What we see in Jon Erowski's Holy Mountain, you actually
Speaker 2: see that where they sell to the elite. The idea
Speaker 2: of moving everybody into urban areas and putting them literally
Speaker 2: in coffins. That was predicted in the Joan Rowski's Holy
Speaker 2: Mountain film. That's what we're seeing implemented. That's what these
Speaker 2: zoning laws gentrification. That's about a longer strategy of getting
Speaker 2: everybody into urban areas to live inside agenda twenty one
Speaker 2: cubicle coffin type environment that can all be completely controlled.
Speaker 2: I know this sounds crazy. Target the corporation. They're making
Speaker 2: target cities where you're actually going to I was joking
Speaker 2: about that in talks and articles a couple of years ago.
Speaker 2: I had no idea that was real. Right, that's where
Speaker 2: they want to move everybody. And so when you're talking
Speaker 2: on the Middle East and these different regions, the so
Speaker 2: called democracy that the US is going to bring with
Speaker 2: its bombs and so forth, and sex education, that's ultimately
Speaker 2: about creating a whole bunch of new consumers.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so this is this is a good segue to
Speaker 1: the big con. This is what I So we've outlined
Speaker 1: the introduction now for the big con. Okay, the big
Speaker 1: con job is exactly as you just said, Jay, This
Speaker 1: is basically setting up a monopolistic environment, a completely crony capitalistic,
Speaker 1: monopolistic environment, where a selected few who consider themselves to
Speaker 1: be the rightful rulers of the planetary fiefdom, a corporate fiefdom.
Speaker 1: This is basically what it is. It's it's I think
Speaker 1: the con is to dupe society with it. Call it
Speaker 1: social justice, call it climate justice. Call it gender justice,
Speaker 1: call it all these things, call it modern justice. And
Speaker 1: it's it's to dupe you into a new environment that
Speaker 1: is even more controlled, that even is also more devoid
Speaker 1: of real choice and real unique experiences than before. And
Speaker 1: it's a con. It's a huge con.
Speaker 2: It's orwelly and it's everything that's in Orwell it's it's
Speaker 2: the whole idea of the party, the single party, bringing
Speaker 2: freedom to everyone. And that's why you only have victory cigarettes,
Speaker 2: victory gin, everything is victory products. Right, it's the exact
Speaker 2: same thing. It's all annoyed. I mean, I mean, I
Speaker 2: know we've heard about Orwell a million times, but that's
Speaker 2: exactly what you're saying. In the world, right, everything is
Speaker 2: it's a mono state. It's it's a monoculture. You have,
Speaker 2: you have the you've been told since youth that you
Speaker 2: were free, and you believe that you're free, even though
Speaker 2: everything in your daily experience contradicts that. You choose to
Speaker 2: believe it. And that's the great con, right, It's the
Speaker 2: double thing that is the great con believing what is
Speaker 2: completely contradictory to your your everyday experience. So yeah, I mean,
Speaker 2: what one only need look at the fact that if
Speaker 2: you can see where the place is, where America has gone,
Speaker 2: or the foreign policy ventures in the West and so forth,
Speaker 2: where are ethos is established, what comes with that, Well,
Speaker 2: what comes with that is the toxic garbage culture of America.
Speaker 2: You get all of that, all of that exported, you
Speaker 2: get the vaccines, you get the medical establishment there the
Speaker 2: So what I think is ultimately scammed to this Rockefeller
Speaker 2: medical establishment is expanded coke and pepsi right, all of
Speaker 2: that is brought to the rest of the world under
Speaker 2: the guise of humanitarian democracy and freedom. And that usually
Speaker 2: takes you know, regime change, color revolution, toppling of someone
Speaker 2: deemed undesirable, or running on some older program that the
Speaker 2: globalists instituted. Uh yeah, so it's just phase. Isn't a
Speaker 2: business plan, I guess is the best way to look
Speaker 2: at it.
Speaker 1: So so what I see what you know? And I
Speaker 1: saw this. I see this in the Middle East especially,
Speaker 1: I see time and time again, Jay, I see modernism
Speaker 1: is used by the the Tyrell corporations of the world,
Speaker 1: or the the you know, the the ruling oligarchy in
Speaker 1: some cases, the monarchs. It's used by these people, these individuals,
Speaker 1: these monopolists, I'll call them. And at the same time,
Speaker 1: and then with their other hand, they're using the primitive
Speaker 1: traditional uber traditionalists like the Wahabi hobbyists. And you know
Speaker 1: what we see in Isis and al Qaeda and Salafis terrorists.
Speaker 1: They they're so they're they're building this, They're they're thrusting
Speaker 1: modernism as their Islamic utopia on one hand, on the
Speaker 1: on on the backhand, they're using the primitive clerics to
Speaker 1: browbeat everybody into shape, basically, and I see the same
Speaker 1: in Israel. They're erasing history of Palestinian history to build
Speaker 1: these modern which looks like California, Orange County suburbs out
Speaker 1: and pushing out into other countries, basically guarded by the army,
Speaker 1: changing the names of all the streets, changing the removing
Speaker 1: archaeological finds, hiding them or destroying them. And and they're
Speaker 1: using the ultra orthodox Jewish settlers, they're pushing them out.
Speaker 1: They're all uber traditionalists. So they're they're playing both sides.
Speaker 1: You know, I see this in Saudi or Israel. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: they're playing both sides. They're using they're they're they're they're
Speaker 1: leveraging these two forces. If you will, and I think
Speaker 1: it's it's it's pretty obvious. You know. What the agenda
Speaker 1: then is to basically obliterate what is the real history
Speaker 1: what ken Stone in the last segment called the collective
Speaker 1: human cultural inheritance, where we could say collective human cultural experience.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so yeah, Walmart obliterates culture and history, right, So
Speaker 2: when a Walmart comes into a small town, it puts
Speaker 2: everything else out of business because it's the it's pretty
Speaker 2: much the company town model, right, everybody's going to so
Speaker 2: eventually we just move into the Walmart. But yeah, so
Speaker 2: think about the world as a big Walmart and think
Speaker 2: about you know how it works in a big corporation
Speaker 2: like that. You have a restructuring and reformatting of some
Speaker 2: section of the store. Oh, this was the autoparts section.
Speaker 2: Now we've got whole new displays. We need to change
Speaker 2: that out now, right, so that the Middle East might
Speaker 2: be like that, right, Like it's a certain way for
Speaker 2: a while, like the CIA supporting Arab nationalism in the forties,
Speaker 2: and then it transitions into oh, better game plan here.
Speaker 2: We want to smash this up through the support of
Speaker 2: the Jahad, which is what followed right after the Arab
Speaker 2: nationalist period. The CIA then shifted over to supporting the
Speaker 2: Jahad and all the different radical Islm's factions that you're
Speaker 2: speaking about, and that's a great tool for smashing things up.
Speaker 2: So it it reminds me of Maoism, Right. So if
Speaker 2: you think about Mao's cultural revolution and how that marshaled
Speaker 2: the energy and enthusiasm of idealistic youth, well, idealistic youth
Speaker 2: are idiots, They're not there. It's been very much the
Speaker 2: same with the idealistic zeal of the puritanical Islamic sex
Speaker 2: that you're talking about. You can marshal that power and
Speaker 2: energy into recrafting a certain region a certain way, depending
Speaker 2: on what your needs are. I make this point many
Speaker 2: times too. It's just like deregulation and privatization versus regulation
Speaker 2: and government authority. Right, So people fall on either side
Speaker 2: of this dialectic, when in actual fact, either of those
Speaker 2: strategies can be used at different time periods. Right. So,
Speaker 2: if you're retraging Hope, he says that FDR was working
Speaker 2: at the behest of the bankers. So all of these
Speaker 2: reforms that FDR did to save everybody from the depression
Speaker 2: actually caused another depression in nineteen thirty seven because he
Speaker 2: was printing money at the behest of the bankers. So
Speaker 2: you can't just pay for these things out of nowhere,
Speaker 2: that it's all foisted upon the population through inflation and
Speaker 2: putting everybody into debt to the bankers to fix the
Speaker 2: problem that the banker's cause, namely depression. Right, So the
Speaker 2: collectivization and socialization in that case was a solution from
Speaker 2: the bankers to the banker's problem of the depression. And
Speaker 2: it's the same. So you might think, oh, we'll see
Speaker 2: the collectivization, oh soo, then privatization is the solution. Well
Speaker 2: then you look at Greece, in these different countries or
Speaker 2: John Perkins's books Economic hit Man. That's where you can
Speaker 2: have cases where deregulation and privatization is ripping everybody off.
Speaker 2: So it's it's a strategy that can use either one
Speaker 2: depending on what the particular situation is. And it's exact
Speaker 2: same with the the radical sex that you're talking about.
Speaker 2: You can use those to smash an existing culture that
Speaker 2: might be a firewall to global of strategies or corporate
Speaker 2: corporate strategies, or you can then turn around and promote
Speaker 2: a far quote leftist quote progressive humanitarian agenda in a region. Right,
Speaker 2: So it's you're absolutely right, it's it's just it's the
Speaker 2: same as big old companies funding the green agenda.
Speaker 1: Mm.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's control both sides, right.
Speaker 1: So it's it's kind of extraordinary because if you look
Speaker 1: at I looked at the war and limpin On, I'm
Speaker 1: looking at the war in Syria, and what happened after
Speaker 1: the Long War in Lebanon was basically big golf money
Speaker 1: came in, big money and American money to basically build
Speaker 1: these giant skyscrapers half of them are empty, by the way,
Speaker 1: and destroying everything that was underneath it, which is basically
Speaker 1: five or six major civilizations and epochs, just completely obliterating it,
Speaker 1: walling it off, taking a jackhammer to it, and then
Speaker 1: building this you know, glass temple of luxury living. And
Speaker 1: you have European architects in their celebrity architects. We talked
Speaker 1: about this on previous shows. So in Syria we have
Speaker 1: whole cities destroyed and they are literally at the gates
Speaker 1: baying for the opportunity to come in and do the
Speaker 1: same in many of these places, and I think it's
Speaker 1: a strange mix. Jay is what I'm saying. It's there's
Speaker 1: a short term profit motive to this because you know,
Speaker 1: to build and to occupy land, to own land, to
Speaker 1: build on it is an expression of power. It projects power,
Speaker 1: and then then there's there's benefits in terms of taking
Speaker 1: money for that as well in that process, so order
Speaker 1: out of chaos essentially. But this is where it gets strange.
Speaker 1: After all the bombing, after all the destroying, after building
Speaker 1: these sort of soulless modern temples which are really Western inspired,
Speaker 1: completely bland, you know, monolithic creations everywhere you look at Dubai.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's and you have this, there's this kind
Speaker 1: of monarchical, tribalistic obsession, if you will, to this building,
Speaker 1: this clean, everything, clean and new. My question to you
Speaker 1: is where does this urge come from? Because it is
Speaker 1: a kind of a fetish in a way. So this
Speaker 1: kind of fetish comes in after you deal with the
Speaker 1: money and the power. But there's more to it than that,
Speaker 1: I think, and I'm trying to figure it out because
Speaker 1: it's almost like a religion in terms of those elites there.
Speaker 2: You're saying the fetish in terms of wrecking and then
Speaker 2: erecting the monuments to modernity.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, exactly.
Speaker 2: It is a fetish because I think, in my view,
Speaker 2: ultimately humans are in some form or fashion going to
Speaker 2: be religious, and even if they're a religious there's still
Speaker 2: going to be in some way operating on the belief
Speaker 2: and some sort of Even if you believe that you're
Speaker 2: you're your own God, you believe in some higher ideal
Speaker 2: or notion or principle, it's I think it's impossible to
Speaker 2: not function in that way. So it's going to be
Speaker 2: you're operating on some program or some belief system. And
Speaker 2: I think that what you see with the erection of
Speaker 2: these monuments, and you're absolutely right to point out that
Speaker 2: there's a reason for you know, if you look at
Speaker 2: the art and I'm not getting it to some goofy
Speaker 2: conspiracy thing, but if you think about the architecture of Washington,
Speaker 2: d C. It's all laid out to present a certain
Speaker 2: belief system, a certain meaning concerning the ideas of America.
Speaker 2: And it doesn't matter whether you think that's good or bad.
Speaker 2: That's what the architecture of DC is laid out to
Speaker 2: demonstrate to show, and architecture has always been this way.
Speaker 2: It encapsulates the spirit of a people the ideals of
Speaker 2: a people and so forth, and so to blast those
Speaker 2: things away and then erect anew is precisely you said,
Speaker 2: a projection of power. And I think that ultimately the
Speaker 2: spirit behind it is the spirit that's anti human. And
Speaker 2: that's why the modernist architecture is cold, angular box like
Speaker 2: you know, it's the slab from two thousand and one,
Speaker 2: from beyond right, it's the monolith. It's supposed to demonstrate
Speaker 2: that the new era, the new order, the new aon whatever.
Speaker 2: It is not going to be about man. It's going
Speaker 2: to be about going beyond man. Post That's the whole
Speaker 2: point of it. Is to be posthuman. And being posthuman
Speaker 2: means first and foremost, the erasing of any kind of groupings,
Speaker 2: collective groupings existing as a part of a gender, a tribe,
Speaker 2: a culture, whatever, religion. Throw all that away, and we
Speaker 2: are going to enter into the new. It's I call
Speaker 2: it the fetish of the new, which it's not really
Speaker 2: possible to be completely new. But that is the false gospel,
Speaker 2: so to speak, right, that the system is going to
Speaker 2: give you something completely new, a utopia. You know, all
Speaker 2: all of these platitudes that are poured forth, which ultimately
Speaker 2: as we see, and then, as many of them admit
Speaker 2: in their books, version else says ha ha ha. Ultimately,
Speaker 2: I'm going to stamp out your freedom, that's the I
Speaker 2: want to stamp out your consciousness, which, by the way,
Speaker 2: how are you going to stamp out consciousness if humans
Speaker 2: don't have consciousness? Right? I thought we were just matter, right,
Speaker 2: we're just animals yet, but yet they want to stamp
Speaker 2: out the human spirit, free will, and consciousness, which means
Speaker 2: that those things are real.
Speaker 1: So that that back to back to brave New World.
Speaker 1: So the the elite of the elite who are foisting this,
Speaker 1: you know, soulless, materialistic uh Dawkins ideology on the masses,
Speaker 1: they themselves don't even believe that. I don't think so, yeah, because.
Speaker 2: You'll see that in many of their people talk about
Speaker 2: the bloods and the brains. So you have the blue bloods,
Speaker 2: the old money families and so forth and so forth,
Speaker 2: and you have the brains, right, the Kissingers, the Brazenskis
Speaker 2: and so forth, and the birch and Russells. And they'll
Speaker 2: speak that way quite quite often. They'll say, you get
Speaker 2: the the impression that they don't really believe a lot
Speaker 2: of what they put out to the.
Speaker 1: Public, and so so this here, let's make a comparison here.
Speaker 1: So you have the the crystal cities of Dubai built
Speaker 1: with oil money by those monarchs, and and in Geda
Speaker 1: and Katar and Doha as well, and these these sort
Speaker 1: of monuments there these this hypochondriatic sort of society of
Speaker 1: everything's hermetically sealed and clean. Then we have on this
Speaker 1: sort of the extreme left wing in America. If you've
Speaker 1: seen this film Zeitgeist, at the at the end, it
Speaker 1: talks about this left wing utopia. Uh, this this I
Speaker 1: don't know what the Venus Project, I think it was called,
Speaker 1: and where there's no money and everything's perfect and everything's
Speaker 1: clean and no one gets sick and et cetera. To me,
Speaker 1: those are those are mirror images. You know, there's no
Speaker 1: difference that you know, So in the West and in
Speaker 1: the East, we still have these almost mirrored cults, if
Speaker 1: you will, and they're identical. I can hardly take that apart.
Speaker 1: When I look at some of the you know, the
Speaker 1: building promotional development videos from the GCC, and I look
Speaker 1: at the end of Zeitgeist, I see, you know, it's
Speaker 1: pretty much the words might be slightly different, but.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well that's right. Yeah, the zeitgeist socialist un model,
Speaker 2: and that is associated with the UN through Jaques Fresco.
Speaker 2: That is all one side of the dialectic where you
Speaker 2: might tie that into communism in the previous decades. And
Speaker 2: on the other side you have the Reagan Thatcher right
Speaker 2: wing so called pseudo conservative American neo conservative, free markets, liberty,
Speaker 2: blah blah blah. That's the other side of the dialect
Speaker 2: and I know, you know they're dialectic. One one good
Speaker 2: funny clue to this is that in Brave New World
Speaker 2: in the future, the characters aren't after Marx and Ford.
Speaker 2: It's the year of our Ford, not the year of
Speaker 2: our Lord. One of the central characters is Bernard Marx,
Speaker 2: and his point is that it's two rows that lead
Speaker 2: to the same destination, right, because what are they both about. Well,
Speaker 2: they're both about centralization of wealth, centralization of power, and
Speaker 2: the destruction of previous existing cultures. Right. And this is
Speaker 2: why even there was even a big meeting between the
Speaker 2: capitalist West and the so called communist East many times
Speaker 2: over throughout the period of the Cold War. One of
Speaker 2: those was in I think nineteen eighty eight, at Malta
Speaker 2: where Bush and Gorbachev met. And isn't it interesting too
Speaker 2: that's speaking of to tie all this in when you
Speaker 2: look at the nineties in Russia, well, that was just
Speaker 2: an IMF scam through Clinton, Larry Summers and others to
Speaker 2: loot Russia of billions of dollars. I think it was
Speaker 2: something like five hundred billion dollars where eluded up of
Speaker 2: Russia under the the I m F scam. That was
Speaker 2: all promoted through entities like the Carnegie Carnegie Endowment right
Speaker 2: in Moscow. Right, So you had all these NGOs, these
Speaker 2: think tanks soft power that you talked about that was
Speaker 2: all prepping and and seeding and moving people ideologically to
Speaker 2: you know, to accept the idea, oh, we've got to
Speaker 2: go with Yeltsin because he's gonna he's gonna set us free,
Speaker 2: he's going to bring liberty. And the country was looted.
Speaker 2: Then incomes imp and they say, oh, yeah, well we'll
Speaker 2: save you sign on to all of our Western plans. Right,
Speaker 2: And you see that exact same model everywhere.
Speaker 1: And so you know, there's so soft power and then
Speaker 1: there's hard power. And if you the two to two
Speaker 1: of the oldest continually habited cultures in cities in the world.
Speaker 1: One of them is Damascus and Syria, and the other
Speaker 1: and Aleppo, uh and and also Yemen, Okay, Iraq maybe
Speaker 1: before that to a lesser degree, completely obliterated and demolished.
Speaker 1: But look at Yemen, the continuously have inhabited buildings jay
Speaker 1: of some of the oldest that you could find in
Speaker 1: the world, and in Syria too, and look what's being destroyed.
Speaker 1: I think it's targeting is done intentionally. Is a lot
Speaker 1: of people overlook this and it might seem like an
Speaker 1: elementary point, people like, yeah, uh whatever, No, it's still
Speaker 1: an important point to underline. They're looking for these buildings,
Speaker 1: they're looking for these artifacts of heritage. Yeah, and these
Speaker 1: are the first targets.
Speaker 2: It's another great example that was in the Protestant Reformation
Speaker 2: with all of those when many of the Reformers were
Speaker 2: smashing monasteries in Catholic churches and so forth, that was
Speaker 2: not just an ideology, that was actually at the best
Speaker 2: of different princes and Protestant kings that supported that ideology
Speaker 2: because that allowed them to confiscate what was in those
Speaker 2: monasteries and churches. Right, So I mean this is just
Speaker 2: kind of common sense that you can dupe a bunch
Speaker 2: of people with an ideology and grab a bunch of money, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, that's part of it. But it also has
Speaker 2: the effect of destroying the symbolic structures that form part
Speaker 2: of the cohesive identity of peoples. So absolutely, that's This
Speaker 2: kind of iconicism, as it's called, is very useful at times.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like pulling the rug out from under
Speaker 1: a culture if you will, obliterate all of the reminders
Speaker 1: of their past greatness and not so greatness as well.
Speaker 1: But people don't just preserve the good stuff. People preserve
Speaker 1: the bad stuff too. I've seen as a reminder of
Speaker 1: maybe lessons learned and pass not to repeat and so forth.
Speaker 1: Those also get destroyed as well. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Bert and Russell says that you're not going to be
Speaker 2: reading Shakespeare in the New World Order. That'll be banned.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, Now whether you I mean, I'm not saying
Speaker 2: Shakespeare's ideal, but the I mean, there's things that are objectionable,
Speaker 2: that's not the point. The point is that it's about
Speaker 2: erasing the past, and that's two make you a citizen
Speaker 2: of the new Order, that's the whole point. And you can't.
Speaker 2: You can't be that if you have a past, heritage,
Speaker 2: a memory and so forth, and that has to all
Speaker 2: be wiped away.
Speaker 1: And can you stick around after we're going to take
Speaker 1: a short station break. Can can we can we hold
Speaker 1: on to you Jay for the next segment? Sure, Okay,
Speaker 1: We're gonna stick it with Jay Dyer. A great conversation.
Speaker 1: We're going to get into a little more of the
Speaker 1: detail after this break. Take a short station break with
Speaker 1: the Alternate Current Radio Network. I'm your host, Patrick Henningson.
Speaker 1: This is the sun Welcome back, Welcome back, ladies and
Speaker 1: gentlemen to the Sunday Wire. I'm your host, Patrick Henningson.
Speaker 1: We're streaming out live on the Alternate Current Radio Network
Speaker 1: and also at twenty first century wy dot com. And
Speaker 1: if you missed any of the live broadcast, you can
Speaker 1: go to iTunes and a number of other platforms after
Speaker 1: the show, but also at twenty first century Wire dot com.
Speaker 1: You can listen to it at your leisure and you
Speaker 1: can download it. We should have the track up minutes
Speaker 1: after the show. And the first segment with ken Stone
Speaker 1: was brilliant. Great to have a first hand account, and
Speaker 1: we're very privileged to get some of these people on
Speaker 1: the show to give us their take and firsthand experiences.
Speaker 1: It's always valuable, along with the great articles as well.
Speaker 1: Now we're going to get back to our guest, Jadarve,
Speaker 1: but before we do that, I just wanted to also
Speaker 1: mention that in this kind of dovetails with our conversation
Speaker 1: that we're going to have in this segment with Jay. Now,
Speaker 1: Vanessa Beiley published an article at twenty first Century Why,
Speaker 1: which is to me one of the must read articles
Speaker 1: in recent weeks. It's called George Soros the Anti Syria Impresario. Now,
Speaker 1: let me tell you, I'm not crying wolf or anything here.
Speaker 1: And I know there's a lot of alternative media talk
Speaker 1: show hosts and who constantly are trumpeting about how they've
Speaker 1: been hacked, attacked and everything. Listen, get we've been hacked,
Speaker 1: We've been attacked. I don't always talk about it, Okay. Now,
Speaker 1: I posted Vanessa's article on Facebook last two nights ago,
Speaker 1: and before I went to bed, it was flying. I
Speaker 1: was got like one hundred and ten shares. It was
Speaker 1: going clocking up quite a few views. Great article, full
Speaker 1: of what I call eye candy as well, nice charts
Speaker 1: and things like that when I woke up in the
Speaker 1: morning it was deleted from my personal page. I posted
Speaker 1: it and it made me think, who took this off
Speaker 1: of Facebook? Was Facebook's communitarian police or was it something else?
Speaker 1: And it was to me. Then I thought, well, this
Speaker 1: article is gold. It has some powerful information in it.
Speaker 1: I'm not exaggerating. Go look at that article. Read it.
Speaker 1: If you're not familiar with this material, tell me if
Speaker 1: your jaw isn't dropping. Okay, And this is timely as well.
Speaker 1: So this is the George Soros soft power industrial complex
Speaker 1: where if you've got the money to throw a to
Speaker 1: spread around, and if you've got the money and you
Speaker 1: have the ground teams, the street teams, and you've got
Speaker 1: the operators at the management level, you can do lots
Speaker 1: and lots of things, not always nice things around the world,
Speaker 1: all in the name of progress and freedom and democracy
Speaker 1: and open society. Okay, that's a hell of an open
Speaker 1: society when you're hacking in and deleting people's article. And
Speaker 1: it proves the point. Okay, and I'll let Jay jump
Speaker 1: in here. Sorry, I'm going to go on a rant,
Speaker 1: But it proves the point that all these people who
Speaker 1: are throwing their billions around to export freedom and democracy.
Speaker 1: They don't believe in a free press and much less
Speaker 1: a free speech, and that was proven to me this week. Okay,
Speaker 1: so it's all a big con hypocrites of the highest order. Okay,
Speaker 1: sorry for that rant. But I think I look at
Speaker 1: this situation, Jay, and I wonder, you know, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of people who are understanding this now, but you
Speaker 1: really don't understand it till you sort of get cuffed
Speaker 1: on the head or punched in the nose, and then
Speaker 1: you really realize that you're not dealing with In other words,
Speaker 1: they're not playing good cricket basically.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, I posted some stuff last night and it
Speaker 2: was immediately thronged by numerous comments ten twenty thirty within
Speaker 2: a few minutes from flat earth and neo Nazi troll accounts.
Speaker 2: So I know this is very real. Go post a
Speaker 2: video and say on YouTube and then within a few
Speaker 2: minutes you've got five ten twenty thumbs down and it's
Speaker 2: not even possible to have heard the discussion. They'll, you know,
Speaker 2: suppress your views on your site. They will run these
Speaker 2: bots and troll accounts that will you know, post all
Speaker 2: ridiculous comments that just immediately flood the page within no time.
Speaker 2: So yeah, that's all very real. And you know, you
Speaker 2: were actually saying this, you know, several weeks ago that
Speaker 2: we were talking and you pointed out that this is
Speaker 2: something to look for and expect. You know, we're going
Speaker 2: to start seeing more of this, especially on these centralized
Speaker 2: media platform social media platforms. What this does Twitter, Facebook,
Speaker 2: So this gives the establishment ultimately unfortunately the you know,
Speaker 2: the ability to really censor and erase things.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so centralized. So this, this is what's happening, and
Speaker 1: there's a very huge centralization of content and information. They're
Speaker 1: in the process of knocking out independent blogs and they're
Speaker 1: doing this by promoting Apple and some of the big players,
Speaker 1: promoting ad blocking and then getting you to basically you
Speaker 1: and I will have to go and join Apple's news app,
Speaker 1: Apple News exactly, and then we have to go. Then
Speaker 1: they make the money, and then we have to qualify.
Speaker 2: To be in their rules as to what can be posted. Yeah.
Speaker 2: You know, monetization through YouTube videos is of both a
Speaker 2: pro and a corn situation because I've had several instances
Speaker 2: where Google will just arbitrarily say that the content that
Speaker 2: you've uploaded is sensitive so you won't get any monetary
Speaker 2: accrument based on the ads because it's sensitive material. And
Speaker 2: who knows who decides what's sensitive, right, So if you
Speaker 2: talk about the Brussels attack, that's sensitive material.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I could have made Listen, I could have made
Speaker 1: thousands of dollars on YouTube. And for people who follow
Speaker 1: this website, who listen to this show, you'll notice one thing.
Speaker 1: I stopped posting videos on YouTube a couple of years ago.
Speaker 1: And we've I've produced television shows, I've done lots of
Speaker 1: different things, but I didn't want to be I didn't
Speaker 1: want to have to be looking over my shoulder with
Speaker 1: this kind of Nazi regime of communitarianism all the time,
Speaker 1: and so I just stopped making videos because it was
Speaker 1: just like it was a minefield. And yeah, I could
Speaker 1: have made a few thousand dollars here and there over
Speaker 1: that time, but the sort of rich content that I
Speaker 1: wanted to produce, and you know, and also bringing in
Speaker 1: material from pulling in stuff and doing sort of complex
Speaker 1: assembly of ideas and multimedia this this is very difficult
Speaker 1: to do with YouTube. You could be playing by the
Speaker 1: rules Jay, as you well know, and then someone in
Speaker 1: the communitarian world can go and file a complaint, which
Speaker 1: they do on Facebook and get rid of you. Yeah,
Speaker 1: knock you out. Basically, it's a bogus system. Basically, it's
Speaker 1: called communitarian Uh, it's corporate communitarianism basically, and it's a
Speaker 1: it's a de facto censorship in my mind. But it's
Speaker 1: either that or go and just turn on my webcam
Speaker 1: and and do these sort of mindless YouTube videos that
Speaker 1: that everybody's everyone's doing or you know, I won't mention
Speaker 1: any names, you know, but people who speak to camera
Speaker 1: and you know, pass themselves off as philosophers and and
Speaker 1: the great minds of our generation. I really don't want
Speaker 1: to be in that sort of scrum.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So but getting back, getting back to the core conversation, Jay,
Speaker 1: soft power. Now, first, first there was soft power. Now
Speaker 1: it's now it's smart power. Okay, So first comes hard
Speaker 1: you know, hard power, the hard hand force, then soft power,
Speaker 1: then smart power. Smart power is the NGO complex, and
Speaker 1: it's the human rights industry and uh this is done
Speaker 1: by stealth. Uh, it's international. It's been very effective up
Speaker 1: to a point. I'm getting the feeling Jay though, that
Speaker 1: this cell by date on this is fast approaching because
Speaker 1: people in't even developed the world, the so called Third World.
Speaker 1: They're now understanding this a lot fast her and I
Speaker 1: think in a way the jig is up, but it's
Speaker 1: you know, it's still there's in the West. I think
Speaker 1: it's more important on the West to be moved. You know,
Speaker 1: these institutions like the National Endowment for Democraty. Most people
Speaker 1: internationally will look at that as a total sham, you know,
Speaker 1: or the Open Society Instito. But in America, if you
Speaker 1: work for these organizations, you festoon and parade around like
Speaker 1: you're you know, bureaucratic royalty. Basically, you know, helping to
Speaker 1: make the world a better place.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I dated a girl who worked for the
Speaker 2: Rockefeller Ocean Foundation, their oceanography foundation. We went on a
Speaker 2: few dates, so I got to see how those functions,
Speaker 2: you know, firsthand from her. And that's You're absolutely right
Speaker 2: that the idea is that that I'm here basically saving
Speaker 2: the world. It's very much a Messiah complex. And I
Speaker 2: know a lot of these people, I think, as you
Speaker 2: point out in your piece, are well meaning, well intentioned,
Speaker 2: but but that's not you know, it's just it's naive.
Speaker 2: It's it's that reminds me of met a girl from
Speaker 2: Vanderbilt who's working with Doctors Without Borders. Look at Doctors
Speaker 2: without Borders. That was started by one of the heads
Speaker 2: of Builderberg, one of the big key players in Builderberg.
Speaker 2: And it's very much a cover, right, we see this
Speaker 2: quite often. It's a classic espionage cover for missionaries USA
Speaker 2: things like that. But it doesn't even have to be
Speaker 2: some sort of James Bond cover thing. It's really as
Speaker 2: you point out, the influence that these entities, these organizations
Speaker 2: try to inculcate in foreign in regions that under under
Speaker 2: false auspices, is what I'm trying to say. So, whether
Speaker 2: its USAID or these these different organizations open society. So
Speaker 2: they're there for quite obviously political reasons, right, it's not
Speaker 2: about humanitarian and agendas. And if we want to figure
Speaker 2: out why that is, we look at these different Institute
Speaker 2: for Strategic Studies, Chatham House Crisis Group, International Crisis Group, CFR,
Speaker 2: Brookings Institute, Group of thirty f Foundation for Defensive Democracy.
Speaker 2: I mean, there's just infinite numbers of these these They're
Speaker 2: always popping up. We look back to where does this
Speaker 2: come from? This goes back to the roundtable groups and
Speaker 2: the Roundtable Groups were formed to basically be the think
Speaker 2: tank for back in that time the British Empire, right
Speaker 2: with Cecil Rhads, Lord Milner, and so from the Oxford
Speaker 2: Roundtable Groups you get the Council on Formulations as the
Speaker 2: Western mirror to that institution, right for the American mirror
Speaker 2: to the British institution, the Chatham House and so forth.
Speaker 2: And these are the planning committees, right, this is the
Speaker 2: Planning st Edgy Committee. For example. A lot of the
Speaker 2: CFR are media persons, so people involved in media to
Speaker 2: be anywhere at the top of media pretty much requires
Speaker 2: some degree of seal of approval and stamp from the
Speaker 2: councilor Foreign Relations. And this is how this is how
Speaker 2: you had the CIA buying off back in the forties
Speaker 2: and fifties four hundred journalists and top editors under Operation Mockingbird. Now,
Speaker 2: if they were doing that in the forties and fifties,
Speaker 2: does anybody think that's ceased. No, So you're absolutely spot
Speaker 2: on when you point out that it's a tie in. Right,
Speaker 2: the mass the mainstream media works together with these kinds
Speaker 2: of organizations to promote political agendas, namely the agendas of Washington, London,
Speaker 2: Israel and so forth.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I just watched Speaking of media, I mean
Speaker 1: Farid Zakari from CNN is a classic case of this.
Speaker 1: He's got the Council on Foreign Relations Seal of approval.
Speaker 1: He often is featured as a writer there at Foreign
Speaker 1: Policy Magazine. And I'm not saying listen, there are actually
Speaker 1: some very good geopolitical minds who write for Foreign Policy Magazine.
Speaker 1: I can name a few. I'm sure people who follow
Speaker 1: it know there's some good ones and some really bad ones.
Speaker 1: But so but people like Zacharia and then they and
Speaker 1: also a new one in New Claire, j is Vice News. Yes. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't know if you're familiar with them. I've I've
Speaker 1: had my own personal, you know, brief experiences with that organization.
Speaker 1: And then it doesn't take a lot to go find
Speaker 1: to go see that Vice News. It's being marketed as
Speaker 1: this kind of off road global media for the Miln generation.
Speaker 1: They got their seed funding seventy dollars from News Corporation
Speaker 1: from Rupert Murdoch. So Rupert Murdoch is a charter owner
Speaker 1: of Vice News. So really cool for the millennials, isn't it.
Speaker 1: They're all people who say, I don't watch Fox, you know. Oh,
Speaker 1: I would never read the Sun or the you know whatever,
Speaker 1: the Daily New York Daily Post or whatever. The news
Speaker 1: corp rags are the tabloids, the conservative media, and these
Speaker 1: are their bank rolling Vice.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all you have to do is look at the stories.
Speaker 2: The Advice continually churns out, and it's always a pro Western,
Speaker 2: pro Washington targeted messages about things, you know, how evil
Speaker 2: Putin is. On top of that, I should mention, by
Speaker 2: the way, it's all it's a constant blaunch of degeneracy.
Speaker 2: I mean, Advice puts out some of the most disgusting,
Speaker 2: degenerate stuff.
Speaker 1: And it's also anti Chinese. I've noticed they covered China
Speaker 1: in a very bad way with all their roving reports too.
Speaker 1: So it's just like, you know, it's it's obvious how
Speaker 1: they spin it to the young to the young generation.
Speaker 1: So this is basically brainwashing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and this whole idea, I forget the term they
Speaker 2: use for with this radical lone wolf journalism where you
Speaker 2: go in bed with isis give me a break?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Anti. So they're anti Hizbala, they're anti Russia,
Speaker 1: anti Chinese, anti Syrian government. So all the things that
Speaker 1: align with the US and a NATO foreign policy is
Speaker 1: basically expressed through vice news papers.
Speaker 2: It's a kind of trolled the fake counterculture, the sort
Speaker 2: of fake journalism, you know. And you're not embedding with
Speaker 2: ISIS unless you're part of the establishment. That's pretty obvious.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's just call up ISIS and call the media
Speaker 1: person and al Hayette media whatever. Yeah, we've got a
Speaker 1: we're working on a little piece though. We want to
Speaker 1: get sort of a to day life in Raka, and
Speaker 1: uh we thought, would you mind if we invent one
Speaker 1: of our crews with you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like Anderson Cooper or whoever the CBS ABC
Speaker 2: going in interviewing Ben Laden or c i A the
Speaker 2: whole Pentagon. Nobody can find in Laden, but the CBS
Speaker 2: ABC reporters can go sit down and interview on and.
Speaker 1: They're like, Isis. By the way, we're bringing our own
Speaker 1: beer with us, and isis Is like yeah, that's cool,
Speaker 1: you know, cold cold beers after the day's filming. Yeah,
Speaker 1: for all ISIS of course, so let's go yeah so
Speaker 1: uh so so. But but it's also based on this
Speaker 1: soft power principle, so so they always harken back to
Speaker 1: the basically the same matrix of ideas, which is a
Speaker 1: human rights and uh they what else? Democracy? And and
Speaker 1: the glorification of color revolutions, even though they're apps proven
Speaker 1: to be completely engineered from outside of these countries, and
Speaker 1: to to great budgets as well, billions of dollars spent,
Speaker 1: including taxpayer money spent to generate some of these color
Speaker 1: revolutions in George Soros and so forth.
Speaker 2: Yeah, go ahead, Well, this is what was discovered in
Speaker 2: nineteen fifty two, fifty three, and fifty four with the
Speaker 2: Rece Committee. Now, I will grant that the Rice Committee
Speaker 2: was stacked in terms of kind of these McCarthy ie
Speaker 2: one side of the dialectic persons. But what they discovered
Speaker 2: they thought they were investigating communism, and what they found
Speaker 2: was that all of the leftist socialist communist movements at
Speaker 2: that time, which were actually just another tool of those foundations,
Speaker 2: they were all being funded by the Rockefeller, Carnegie and
Speaker 2: Ford Foundation. And so this aversive as they call it,
Speaker 2: and the Norman Dodd reports, the subversive movements that we're
Speaker 2: promoting both internationalism and moral relativism. That was the technique
Speaker 2: and strategy, weaponized plan for America at that time right,
Speaker 2: that was what was needed in America in the fifties.
Speaker 2: But at other times it might be a proxy force
Speaker 2: of radical as you're hot, like you're talking about, you know,
Speaker 2: with ISIS or previously al Qaeda, and these the tax
Speaker 2: refoundations are a main source of this soft power smart
Speaker 2: power that you're talking about. And they're a way for
Speaker 2: these oligarchs to on the one hand, hide money, right,
Speaker 2: you can hide money in a tax refoundation, and it's
Speaker 2: also a way to influence masses of populations through social engineering.
Speaker 2: And so the Race Committee found all that. They discovered
Speaker 2: all that, and then they realized, oh, actually it's not
Speaker 2: a bunch of you know, granola hippie tree hugging commies
Speaker 2: out on the street. Uh, it's actually these billionaire foundations.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, I lavish offices, huge expense accounts, flying business class.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you're really in the business of ending
Speaker 1: poverty or whatever, you I just don't think you would
Speaker 1: be flying on a private jet and your rider would
Speaker 1: include h I'm not I'm not picking on anyone like
Speaker 1: Bono or any of these other luminaries, but you know,
Speaker 1: your rider wouldn't include having a chef on board. You know,
Speaker 1: doing frog WI and whatnot.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's just kind of well, everybody who pushes
Speaker 3: as lives in a palace, so that should tell you. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 3: well uh jay, I'm gonna take a We're gonna take
Speaker 3: a short station break if you want to stick around.
Speaker 3: We're going to do the final lap here at the
Speaker 3: Sunday Wire into the over the Rising and the most
Speaker 3: glorious last half hour of the show is a cast.
Speaker 3: After the show, you can listen to the archive, which
Speaker 3: will be up minutes after the show on twenty first
Speaker 3: century Why dot com, and you can later in the day.
Speaker 3: We'll have the download link up and a podcast will
Speaker 3: be on iTunes and in some other places.
Speaker 1: Later on in the day. Now, this week's Shout Poll,
Speaker 1: which is available right now up at twenty first century
Speaker 1: WI dot com. And very interesting things are going on
Speaker 1: in the United States regarding the presidential election, and so
Speaker 1: this brings us to this week's shout poll, which is
Speaker 1: is the United States a democracy or an autocracy? That's
Speaker 1: the big question this week. Is the United States really
Speaker 1: a democracy or is it an autocracy?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 1: I want to get into a nitpicking argument about whether
Speaker 1: it's an autocracy or a oligarchy, or whether it should
Speaker 1: be a democracy, or whether it should be a constitutional republic.
Speaker 1: It could be all of those things. That really doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: What matters is the idea that we've been sold that
Speaker 1: we live in a democracy. Is the ideas being absolutely
Speaker 1: dismantled right in front of our eyes and for all
Speaker 1: you and I laugh in a way at the sort
Speaker 1: of your classic liberal left wing people that have pre
Speaker 1: trumpmatic stress disorder, who are totally afraid and scared and
Speaker 1: obsessed with Donald Trump. That all of you people who
Speaker 1: support Bernie Sanders, you should be thanking Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders. Trump supporters should be thanking Bernie Sanders, because
Speaker 1: both of these candidates are exposing the sham, the complete
Speaker 1: what I call the chitty chitty bang bang version of democracy.
Speaker 1: It's totally rigged, it's totally fixed. It's designed for one purpose.
Speaker 1: It's overly complex to keep any outsiders or insurgent, God forbid,
Speaker 1: anybody who's actually popular from breaking in to the houses
Speaker 1: of power in the United States. So this is our
Speaker 1: shout pole. I encourage you to go to twenty first
Speaker 1: Century Wire. There's a link on the show page. If
Speaker 1: you're listening right now at the Sunday Wire. Go ahead
Speaker 1: and vote at that shout pole. And we've got some
Speaker 1: interesting comments. There's an interesting debate which is already forming
Speaker 1: inside the poll, which is great. This is why we
Speaker 1: designed it this way, why we like it this way,
Speaker 1: because you don't just vote, but you can have a
Speaker 1: debate at the same time. And so back to Jay Dyer.
Speaker 1: He's our guest in this final half hour Overdrive. Jay,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna play you a clip. Okay, I'm gonna play
Speaker 1: you a clip of Donald Trump's son who was on
Speaker 1: CNN this morning. And basically I don't know if you'll
Speaker 1: be able to hear this clip. Jay, you might mute
Speaker 1: your microphone and listen online if you've got the browser open,
Speaker 1: or I'll just tell you Donald Trump Junior is basically
Speaker 1: calling out the whole delegate process, contested convention sham, basically
Speaker 1: for what it is being able to buy off delegates.
Speaker 1: Listen to this. I mean this is a kind of
Speaker 1: an important rant. It's one of the most authentic. You know,
Speaker 1: sometimes you can tell if someone's authentic or not. I
Speaker 1: don't know what your ideas on this are, J, but
Speaker 1: you can tell if someone's talking from their heart, or
Speaker 1: if they're just reading off a political script. And I
Speaker 1: don't know if you've heard, if you heard his son
Speaker 1: talk at all, not know, he's interesting guy. I mean
Speaker 1: he might may may or not may not have a
Speaker 1: career in politics later. But I'll play this rant right now.
Speaker 1: This is Donald Trump Junior this morning on CNN. Get
Speaker 1: a load of this. Been in at some point in
Speaker 1: your adult life, you've you've been in a bathroom or
Speaker 1: with a trans a transvestite or so called transgender person.
Speaker 1: I mean, they tend to be in big cities and
Speaker 1: it's like whatever, you know, you know, people going to
Speaker 1: the bathrooms to do their business and then they leave. Basically,
Speaker 1: it's but it's a rare it's a rare occurrence unless
Speaker 1: you're hanging out in certain unless you're living in Soho
Speaker 1: or something. You know. It's just kind of a pointless
Speaker 1: debate in my opinion.
Speaker 2: But well, I think that in those kinds of situations
Speaker 2: and in terms of this political bantering back and forth
Speaker 2: about it, it's pretty points. But I think that when
Speaker 2: you look at, for example, the the Nordic countries, uh,
Speaker 2: the oligarchs are explicitly pushing that to now they're they're
Speaker 2: talking about giving children the right to choose their gender.
Speaker 2: So I don't think on one in one level, on
Speaker 2: one level, it is a pointless debate, and then on
Speaker 2: another level it is it is for a reason. It
Speaker 2: is not being talked about for no reason.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I heard. I sorry to interrupt you, but
Speaker 1: I heard one MSNBC commentator. I did watch it for
Speaker 1: a little while. I couldn't take much much of it,
Speaker 1: but I did watch it, and she was she was
Speaker 1: referring to people who who basically, it's just bizarre. Jay.
Speaker 1: They're they're calling people like say that like you, me
Speaker 1: and ninety nine point nine nine nine nine nine nine
Speaker 1: nine rest of the population as cis gender, like almost like, oh,
Speaker 1: they're the ones, those cis gender people, they're the ones
Speaker 1: who have nominated to use the gender on their birth certificate.
Speaker 1: And I'm thinking to myself, no, I'm just a male. Yeah,
Speaker 1: well you know, or you're just a female. I mean,
Speaker 1: why you what's with the term cis gender? It's beyond
Speaker 1: you know, Well.
Speaker 2: There's an easy way to deconstruct this because on the
Speaker 2: one hand, these are the people who say that gender
Speaker 2: is a social construct, and then they turn around and
Speaker 2: believe that you can reassign your gender, that you can
Speaker 2: change genders, So gender cannot both be a social construct
Speaker 2: and something that you convert to at the same time.
Speaker 2: Those are those are contradictory things. To change your gender
Speaker 2: presumes that gender is real, but they also say that
Speaker 2: gender is a social construct, not real. So it's it's
Speaker 2: not sensical.
Speaker 1: So the whole, the whole social enterprise there is a
Speaker 1: total fallacy. It is.
Speaker 2: But I think that the point of that clip that
Speaker 2: you played that Trump's son made was excellent in the
Speaker 2: sense of it shows that the Republican Party, the GOP,
Speaker 2: is not real. It's not as some entity that exists
Speaker 2: to so called to be a preserve so called traditional
Speaker 2: culture quote conservative about all. That's meaningless in the very
Speaker 2: fact that they would Now I don't put a lot
Speaker 2: of stock into politics anyway. I think it's largely theater.
Speaker 2: It's pretty much WWF. But it is illustrative that clip
Speaker 2: in showing the fact that the two party system is
Speaker 2: a scam because they would rather have, especially the neo
Speaker 2: conservative ideology that dominates the GOP for the most part,
Speaker 2: They would rather have Hillary because hillary ismenable to that
Speaker 2: than the at least the rhetoric of Donald Trump regarding
Speaker 2: things like NATO or Putin and borders and so forth.
Speaker 2: All of that rhetoric from Trump is contrary to the
Speaker 2: false two party systems game plan.
Speaker 1: Yeah, ttp T tip globalization. These are all things that
Speaker 1: Trump speaks against. So like love them or hate him.
Speaker 1: So in this sense, Jay Trump and Bernie Sanders share
Speaker 1: a lot of common political ground.
Speaker 2: Actually, well, they are reflections of the population. There were
Speaker 2: a reflection of populism. Regardless of how sincere or realistic
Speaker 2: they are, and whatever they're promoting, the rhetoric obviously reflects
Speaker 2: the majority of the opinion of the American population.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. The Koch brothers just came out today, one
Speaker 1: of the Koch brothers, I don't know who's who. There's
Speaker 1: two of them, I think, and they just endorsed Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: Can you believe it, Well, yeah I can't. They were
Speaker 1: longtime Democratic donors back in the day, in the eighties
Speaker 1: and nineties, I believe, And so yeah, they're very hip
Speaker 1: to the two party scam game. They've been a part
Speaker 1: of that for many decades. And it's another example what
Speaker 1: we were talking about the previous hour of Once you
Speaker 1: kind of get to that level you figure out, you
Speaker 1: know that it's a scam. And at a certain time,
Speaker 1: the Koch brothers promote libertarianism because it's I have intageous
Speaker 1: to whatever their business interests might be. And in another
Speaker 1: time you want to promote collectivism, socialism, leftism, progressive at
Speaker 1: whatever terms, all of which is essentially meaningless because it's
Speaker 1: all the same game plan. It's the same game plan,
Speaker 1: but it's a different rhetoric that they all speak during
Speaker 1: the campaign season and they go and vote for all
Speaker 1: the same gobbledygoot oligarchy.
Speaker 2: That's all that it is. And Plato said a long
Speaker 2: time ago quote democracy is the mask for oligarchy.
Speaker 1: Wow, there you go, So you I know how you'd
Speaker 1: vote in our shout pull, which is up in twenty
Speaker 1: first century. While go ahead and vote, let's get some
Speaker 1: activity on that debate. I voted autocracy. Basically, Jay, I
Speaker 1: said that the US is an autocracy.
Speaker 2: The only solution, you know, the only solution out of
Speaker 2: this is a global empire with me as the philosopher king.
Speaker 1: Ah, the benevolent philosopher king. It's a great solution, Jay,
Speaker 1: if you can just find the right philosopher king right, Well.
Speaker 2: Me, God Emperor of Dune and if I could just
Speaker 2: get some you know, some good guys in a think
Speaker 2: tank to sell that ideology across the internet.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, you know, there's hope for you, Jay, There's
Speaker 1: always hope. There's always there's always a future for great minds. Now,
Speaker 1: I want to know what you have to say about
Speaker 1: this story that's out. This will be the last story
Speaker 1: we cover today this week. This is basically all over
Speaker 1: the news. Personally, I think it's a red herring. This
Speaker 1: so called redacted twenty eight pages of intelligence reports from
Speaker 1: the nine to eleven Commission report and Saudi Arabia losing
Speaker 1: its immunity if you will, for lawsuits from the nine
Speaker 1: to eleven victims families and somehow insinuating that Saudi Arabia
Speaker 1: is behind the tax of nine to eleven. Now, what
Speaker 1: do you mean this first, Well, it's.
Speaker 2: Funny because this shows the amnesia of the public and media,
Speaker 2: because this is not news. That this was known. People
Speaker 2: were talking about this in two thousand and four, Saudi
Speaker 2: Arabia involvement, and there were infinite endless articles back at
Speaker 2: that time that dealt with it. I remember reading them
Speaker 2: back in the day, and this is all nonsense, red
Speaker 2: herring distraction. This is a PC conspiracy theory. Nobody cares
Speaker 2: about fingering a bunch of Saudis as involved in it,
Speaker 2: which is, who knows what's true in that regard? I
Speaker 2: mean some of it at the time of nine to eleven,
Speaker 2: right after the BBC reported that some of these people
Speaker 2: were completely fake. The BBC still has that story up
Speaker 2: of the completely manufactured hijacker. Now what does that indicate
Speaker 2: to us, not just that, but this whole hubbub of
Speaker 2: this twenty eight pages redacted nonsense. Well, again, it's a
Speaker 2: PC conspiracy theory. It wasn't the Saudis that told Norrad
Speaker 2: to stand down. It wasn't the Saudis that were running
Speaker 2: US military drills up until nine to eleven, including Vigilant Guardian.
Speaker 2: It wasn't Saudi's that were offering the PENAC document, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, this is how ridiculous is this?
Speaker 1: Right? Uh?
Speaker 2: Again, it's it's this is this is a distraction in
Speaker 2: the It's a it's a way to corral nine to
Speaker 2: eleven focus into non non event, a non thing.
Speaker 1: Yes, it's to heard. It's to heard the public down
Speaker 1: another rabbit hole which is eventually going to be a
Speaker 1: dead end. Yeah, none of the.
Speaker 2: Gill coons are going to go to jail over this,
Speaker 2: None of the people who authored PENAC, who were the
Speaker 2: most obvious candidates and suspects. Right, this is going to
Speaker 2: point to some amorphous faction of rat call Saudis or
Speaker 2: something like that, which is just nonsense.
Speaker 1: And the so called you know conservatives or usual establishment
Speaker 1: Republican suspects will grandstand now appearing to look tough against
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia. And so I think what's happened here, it's
Speaker 1: the Saudis have been duped. And I think this goes
Speaker 1: back to the earlier part of our conversation Jay, where
Speaker 1: you know, the the the sort of Anglo Atlanticist Anglo
Speaker 1: American internationalists and will use certain periods and apply different
Speaker 1: techniques and tools, and use certain regimes. And in this case,
Speaker 1: the Saudi Arabians have been useful in the last just
Speaker 1: fifty or sixty years.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like Saddam or Goadafi.
Speaker 1: And so they set them up basically, and now it's
Speaker 1: basically this is leverage for some sort of diplomatic or
Speaker 1: commercial blackmail to move to basically power nudging, if you will,
Speaker 1: to nudge Saudi Arabia into another position which the West
Speaker 1: wants it to do, and they felt they basically fell
Speaker 1: for it. They had their man, Prince Bandar Ben Sultan.
Speaker 1: He was a member of the Carlisle Group and embedded
Speaker 1: with the Bushes quite deeply, and he drew Saudi Arabia
Speaker 1: in many ways and their intelligence apparatus into this maze
Speaker 1: that was nine to eleven, the planning of it and
Speaker 1: the execution of it. And so right now there's sort
Speaker 1: of you know, compromised in public opinion because of that.
Speaker 2: And this was all PC conspiracy theory back to Michael
Speaker 2: Moore's Fahrenheit nine to eleven, which pointed out all all
Speaker 2: of these Carlisle Group Saudi connections, which you know, none
Speaker 2: of that still couched in the idea of blowback, right, which, yeah,
Speaker 2: which blowback is ridiculous when you look at how all
Speaker 2: the all of the drills and so forth that perfectly
Speaker 2: match up of the events of nine to eleven. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and the whole narrative itself is ridiculous. So you have
Speaker 2: the movies that come along later Flight ninety three or
Speaker 2: whatever that's supposed to fill in the gaps. And I
Speaker 2: think that for the mass public. That's what the Hollywood
Speaker 2: functions to do, as Chris has pointed out many times Poxbusters,
Speaker 2: is to fill in the gaps of people's interpretation of
Speaker 2: the news nuggets that they got.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I saw that movie, and that showed how
Speaker 2: the you know, how the hijackers got their box cutters
Speaker 2: and took over the plane and all this nonsense. And
Speaker 2: then when you you know, you think about Operation Northwoods
Speaker 2: that talked about completely stage news, completely fake plane bombs,
Speaker 2: faked persons coming on the news and telling fake stories
Speaker 2: in that instance in regard to Cuba. But it's the
Speaker 2: same sort of model, right, drone planes, faked stuff, pulls flag.
Speaker 1: And then Nicholas Cage. Nicholas Cage even did a nine
Speaker 1: to eleven film, didn't he It was like he wasn't.
Speaker 2: A World Trade movie. I was a Yes, it was
Speaker 2: a Stone film, but I actually never saw that I got.
Speaker 2: I remember going to see Flight ninety three and walking
Speaker 2: out of the theater.
Speaker 1: It was so wow, you walked out? I did?
Speaker 2: It was so bad.
Speaker 1: I almost did. In Zero Doc thirty, I almost walked
Speaker 1: out in the first minute. And I was with my
Speaker 1: girlfriend at the time, so I didn't want her to
Speaker 1: you know, waste the ten pounds or whatever we paid
Speaker 1: each to get in. But so I stand and I
Speaker 1: stayed through the whole film, and I looked at the
Speaker 1: propaganda aspect of it. But it was really hard. I mean,
Speaker 1: the first how long did you did it take you
Speaker 1: to walk out of the theater on flight ninety three?
Speaker 2: Thirty forty minutes?
Speaker 1: I think thirty? Oh you did good, you did really good.
Speaker 1: Is that the one where they said let's roll. I
Speaker 1: think it was let's roll.
Speaker 2: Yeah, A bunch of shaky planes, sequences and guys's box
Speaker 2: cutters taken over the plane, and all of which is
Speaker 2: a nonsense, made up, you know, Hollywood stories, and that's
Speaker 2: you know, that's where Hollywood comes into all this, as
Speaker 2: they function to tell the story that the mainstream media
Speaker 2: makes up to begin with, and then Hollywood fills in
Speaker 2: the rest of the tall tale. So but yeah, I mean,
Speaker 2: it's just I'm not sure what the signals in terms
Speaker 2: of Saudi Arabia, in terms of geopolitics. Some people say, well,
Speaker 2: this is the establishment signaling that they're going to dump
Speaker 2: the Saudi. I don't think that's true. They're not going
Speaker 2: to dump the Saudis or anything.
Speaker 1: No, they won't, but they'll they'll apply pressure on them
Speaker 1: from different directions in order to get them to do
Speaker 1: what they want basically. And they've also Saudi Arabia has
Speaker 1: been led into Yemen as well, encouraged by the Pentagon,
Speaker 1: by Washington. And this is also going to further compromise
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia's standing because all the news about what they've
Speaker 1: done in Yemen, the massacres, is starting to come out
Speaker 1: now now that Syria has calmed down a little bit,
Speaker 1: so again more more compromised.
Speaker 2: Yeah, kind of function like in the same way that presidents,
Speaker 2: you know, over their four year terms will take all
Speaker 2: the heat for the bogus policies that they enact. You know,
Speaker 2: they're they're pat season away in a sense of you know,
Speaker 2: it's okay for the media to to go after that
Speaker 2: when they're really just league gates of the the Atlantis's
Speaker 2: establishment anyway, who are never going to receive the heat.
Speaker 1: So one of the legates the gets is a former
Speaker 1: Senator Graham up Bob Graham I think his name is,
Speaker 1: and so he I think I think he's one of
Speaker 1: these key Panac type people. I mean, he does like
Speaker 1: McCain and some of these others. Does fashion himself as
Speaker 1: an outsider, a maverick, but I think he's an absolute
Speaker 1: part of the uh uh lablishment, if you will. This
Speaker 1: is him this morning on I think it was Meet
Speaker 1: the Press. Here he is, This is Senator Graham. This
Speaker 1: is an interesting clip, so you might want to listen
Speaker 1: to this. It's extraordinary. Actually, I don't believe your word
Speaker 1: that this guy is saying. Basically more of that Jay.
Speaker 1: So this Senator Graham a total insider, he's gatekeeping. Chuck
Speaker 1: Todd is so called journalist, is totally clueless about the
Speaker 1: line of bully that he's being spun on. And so
Speaker 1: this guy sits there in one hand, he makes sense.
Speaker 1: He starts out by saying, Jay, he says this, the
Speaker 1: hijackers couldn't have done this alone. Yeah right, okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: duh of course. And then at the same then he
Speaker 1: goes and says that Saudi Arabia started al Qaeda. Now
Speaker 1: that's a little bit of an oversimplification. And so then
Speaker 1: he says that you know that, so basically, no US involvement,
Speaker 1: no CIA involvement in al kaya To, no handling, no
Speaker 1: Israeli intelligence involvement in the handling of some of these hijackers,
Speaker 1: as is easily proven just look at some of the
Speaker 1: work by Peterdale, Scott and others. It's obvious. Okay, So
Speaker 1: this guy is here to divert and to create a
Speaker 1: kind of a goose wild goose chase for the for
Speaker 1: the press who basically don't know there, you know what
Speaker 1: from their elbow exactly on any issue, much less the
Speaker 1: maze that is nine to eleven basically.
Speaker 2: So yeah, yeah, how ridiculous is it to finger these
Speaker 2: You can look at these nations as almost kind of
Speaker 2: front So I guess you could say in terms of
Speaker 2: the Western power establishment. I mean, I mean, what is
Speaker 2: Washington is kind of just another front for the you know,
Speaker 2: the the banking families that run this whole, this whole game.
Speaker 2: And so in the same way, you know what this does.
Speaker 2: It always allows you to, oh, point the finger over there,
Speaker 2: Oh Saudi's there, did it. Oh this, you know, Saddam
Speaker 2: over there, he did it. Oh this. So it's a
Speaker 2: never ending, like you said, a maze. It's a labyrinth
Speaker 2: that you'll never ever get to the bottom of. And
Speaker 2: that's because the most obvious culprits are the establishment itself,
Speaker 2: and it's and it really is that simple. You know.
Speaker 2: You just look at the panat documents, You look at
Speaker 2: all the people who were talking about the the the
Speaker 2: drills and the so forth that led up to nine
Speaker 2: to eleven Richard Clark. You know, these big security so
Speaker 2: called experts, they're all neo conservatives, they're all they're all
Speaker 2: part of the same gang, the same gaggle.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: And yeah, they're never ever going to be fingered and
Speaker 2: put into any kind of trial or jail or whatever.
Speaker 2: You know, that's who stacked the nine to eleven report.
Speaker 2: It was all the people involved in in the in
Speaker 2: the cover up, uh, you know, all the all these people,
Speaker 2: uh work for the oligarchs. And so it's yeah, we've
Speaker 2: seen this so many times where the blame is put
Speaker 2: upon some group that may have had some minor involvement.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: It's kind of like the same in the drug war,
Speaker 2: where it's oh, we're going to bust this cartel over here,
Speaker 2: but you know, the CIA running the drugs is never mentioned,
Speaker 2: or the CIA helping those cartels, it's never mentioned. Right,
Speaker 2: But you can finger the middle man, the lower man,
Speaker 2: you know. So if there was any.
Speaker 1: If there was any reality to any of these charges.
Speaker 1: I mean, if Saudi Arabia did nine to eleven, I'm
Speaker 1: sure it wouldn't have taken fifteen years to figure that out.
Speaker 1: But if there was any reality, you know, they've they've
Speaker 1: slapped full sanctions on Syria, on the government, you know,
Speaker 1: media organizations in Syria, state TV stations, they can't import
Speaker 1: any cameras, any electrical, any broadcast equipment. There's a full
Speaker 1: lockdown on that country. What did Syria do to the
Speaker 1: United States? Nothing? What did Syria do to anybody? Pretty much? Nothing? Okay?
Speaker 1: So and then full sanctions Russia, full sanctions for what
Speaker 1: was meant to be MH seventeen, the downing of MH
Speaker 1: seventeen European sanctions. So if Saudi, if they had this
Speaker 1: evidence that Saudi Arabia did nine to eleven, there would
Speaker 1: be massive sanctions drop down on that country. I mean,
Speaker 1: they come and go as they please throughout the United States.
Speaker 1: That's a joke.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's not going to happen because of the situation
Speaker 2: that was organized with Opek via Builderberg. So the seventies
Speaker 2: oil crisis situation, m hmm, that was organized by Builderberg
Speaker 2: and I think it was William F. Ingdahl details that
Speaker 2: in his book pretty well. And so what that did
Speaker 2: was allow the Saudis to be, of course the chief
Speaker 2: oil that's who got the oil contract, so to speak, right,
Speaker 2: and so they're the cheap oil producer, suppliers and so forth.
Speaker 2: And that's never going to stop.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, speaking of speaking of coughing, speaking of coughing.
Speaker 1: If if anyone believes that nine to eleven was Saudi blowback,
Speaker 1: I think you've been doing too many back blowback hits
Speaker 1: on on the bong. Basically, it's just not feasible.
Speaker 2: I'm not coughing from a bong, by the way.
Speaker 1: I know you're not. I know you're not. I know,
Speaker 1: but it is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it does require the establishment's story is the most
Speaker 2: fantastical conspiracy there.
Speaker 1: It's wild. Yeah, it's absolutely wild.
Speaker 2: So I don't I don't want to get into physics.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean a nine to eleven has become the
Speaker 1: sort of hermetic work of the alternative media, or the
Speaker 1: sacred hermetic work, you know, like the jfk assassination. The
Speaker 1: reason I don't get into it, Jay, into detail, is
Speaker 1: because there's a lot of people who I would call
Speaker 1: specialists who have you know, dedicated most of their life
Speaker 1: to those stories and niches. So I just look at
Speaker 1: their research and look at their findings. I don't feel
Speaker 1: compelled to do a lot of that myself because I'm
Speaker 1: doing a whole broad range of other topics and areas
Speaker 1: so well.
Speaker 2: And I'll have to do is focus on the big,
Speaker 2: the big picture and the big the big pieces of evidence,
Speaker 2: you know, Norad standing down the drills, the drills event
Speaker 2: to the event, past drills like Operation Northwoods that are
Speaker 2: the same, very much like the MG seventeen scenario, very
Speaker 2: much like that.
Speaker 1: That's very north Woods actually MH seventeen.
Speaker 2: In Panac And who stood to gain? You know that?
Speaker 2: What else do you need, really.
Speaker 1: Key bono? Who benefits? Yeah, a little bit of Latin.
Speaker 1: So that is going to be it for this week's
Speaker 1: edition of the Sunday Wire. I do thank everybody for
Speaker 1: joining us. Jay Dyer, thank you for holding on with us.
Speaker 2: Yes, and for this I could please let me I
Speaker 2: would like to encourage listeners. If you like the material
Speaker 2: that I presented, help me out by subscribing to Jay's analysis.
Speaker 2: You get my talks and lectures for four ninety five
Speaker 2: a month. The PayPal link and You can also pre
Speaker 2: order my book So so Tery Hollywood. You'll see the
Speaker 2: links there at Jay's analysis as well as Jamie Hanshaw's
Speaker 2: book Sooteric Colley. I mean, excuse me, Hollywood, my control.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's going to be a big seller. Jay. The
Speaker 1: book's coming out in June, right it is. Yep, it's
Speaker 1: going to be a bit. It's already a big seller
Speaker 1: because I know, I've seen I've seen the links, the
Speaker 1: clicks through. There's a lot of interest in this book, Jay,
Speaker 1: because I think it's totally unique. There's no one who's
Speaker 1: done it before. So yeah, it's going to be.
Speaker 2: A Hollywood scandal book. I want to point that out.
Speaker 2: You might be thinking from the title, oh, this is
Speaker 2: just another one of those you know, who did Marilyn
Speaker 2: Monroe sleep with? No, no, No, it's not that at all.
Speaker 2: It's something completely different.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So Esoteric Hollywood. That's going to be the must
Speaker 1: have item this summer. Author is Jay Dyer. And also
Speaker 1: thank you to Ken Stone, our earlier guests, and everybody
Speaker 1: our listeners at twenty first Century Wire Sunday War all
Speaker 1: our supporters, We thank you, and we will be making
Speaker 1: some big announcements next week. So do stay tuned. I've
Speaker 1: got a fantastic segment lined up next week. I've got
Speaker 1: a guest, one of the best geopolitical analysts in my opinion, around,
Speaker 1: He's going to be joining us for a two hour segment.
Speaker 1: We're going to hit Africa, We're gonna hit everything in
Speaker 1: that segment. It's going to be definitely one not to miss.
Speaker 1: I'm Patrick Kennings and your host. Have a good day
Speaker 1: and we'll see you next week.