Speaker 1: Berg and the recent passing of two heavyweights and when
I say super heavyweights, actually David Rockefeller and a Big
New Brazinski. And our next guest is an author. He's
also the founder of Jay's Analysis dot com but also
the author of the recent release the book is called
Esoteric Hollywood. And Jay is also a regular on Alternate
Current Radio's Boiler Room, which are broadcast live every Thursday
on ACR, hosted by the One the Only Hesher also
hosted the Hessian Session, and Jay Dyer is going to
help us hopefully navigate a little bit through what was
the Big New Brazinski all about. He is definitely one
of the most influential geopolitical thinkers I think of the
last one hundred years, but his work also follows on
from other people before him. But welcome to the Sunday Wire, Jay,
Great to have you back.
Speaker 2: Thanks Patrick. I'm glad to be back. It's been probably
six or eight months since I was last on. And yeah,
we've seen the passing away of two, you know, within
the span of what a couple of months, both a
Rockfeller and Brazenski. And that's very interesting.
Speaker 1: I didn't think David was going to die Storry to interrupt.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, how many hearts is supposedly he had I
don't know if that's a true.
Speaker 1: Story, er no, but he had a state of the
art trauma or heart sort of hospital thing bolted to
his house with full time medical staff.
Speaker 2: And well, it's it's fitting because Brazanski, of course is
a kind of a protege of David Rockefeller, and there's
a lot of quotes where he spoke of him in
that way. So so you kind of have this passing
of the torch and then they're now both dead. So
you know, it's fitting as well that Builderberg is going
on because they're both obviously intimately tied into Bilderberg.
Speaker 1: And you know, Brazinski, uh really came on the scene
in a big way as Jimmy Carter's national security advisor
at a really pivotal time in history as well, in
the late nineteen seventies and mid nineteen seventies nineteen seventy
six actually, but a lot was going on there. Brazinski
has been credited with many things Jay, not least of
all the creation of al Qaeda or helping with that process,
but also at a time when you know, a pivotal
time in US Soviet relations as well. And this is
really coming to the latter stages of the Cold War,
and so just walk us through. You know, why is
Brazinski so important? Why was he so influential. We'll talk
about his books in a minute, but you know what
was it about? Why was Brazinski holding this sort of
grand plan and why others were not as influential. Why
was he so special?
Speaker 2: Well, it's partly because of his experience growing up. The
story at least is that because of Soviet occupation and Poland,
and because of his noble Polish descent, you know, the
family had to flee and they landed in Canada and
it's from there that Brazienski kind of rose into the
ranks of academia and the academic establishment. And then he
would go to McGill University, which is very interesting because
McGill is a very well connected deep state school. You
could say, because anyone who's done a lot of research
on the what's public in regard to the mk ulture program,
McGill was central to that. Many of the studies were
actually done there, as well as dozens of other universities.
And the reason I bring that up is not to
be over the conspiratorial but rather if you know what
in culture was really about, not so much, you know,
creating a mind control assassin, but rather social engineering. I
think that really informs his first nineteen seventy book, which is,
you know, between two Ages, and it's in between two
ages where you have the presentation of a lot of futurism,
technocratic managerial control, and this is what would catch the
eye of David Rockefeller. Many writers who've written on this
have discussed that that it was really the book that
impressed David Rockefeller, that kind of got him recruited into
the NGO complex. And really, in many ways, Brazenski is
kind of the godfather. I think you posted an article
showing him as a machiavellian character behind the Prince. I
think that's very accurate. He's really the father of this
whole NGO smart complex, soft power approach and technology that
we're seeing played out not only in Syria, but also
in the last several conflicts the last few decades, back
to as you mentioned nineteen seventy nine with Afghanistan and.
Speaker 1: So David Rocke. You talked about the synergy between Rockefeller
in Brazenski and how the book Between Two Ages by
his big new Brazinski, why that would have caught the
eye of David Rockefeller. And is it because underlying the
sort of the un idea, the one child policy in China,
population control, Underneath all this is the need for some
kind of technocratic expertise. And is this what Rockefeller saw
in Between Two Ages? Or because this book is yes,
it's kind of foreshadowing a lot of stuff that actually
has come to fruition.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I say it's the book is like HG. Wells
meets Carol Quiggly meets Bertrand Russell, and you can throw
out all of the friendly veneer of Carol Quigglely with
his pseudo Catholic approach. This is just the hardcore technocratic
skeletal remains of what you find in Quigley, with all
the excess baggage shed and it's just straight into the point.
And I think that was part of the reason that
David Rockefeller was prompted to actually call a Kissinger and
he said, you know, I've got a guy that I
want to set up as the chairman of a new
entity that will kind of, in a way supersede the CFR,
and so this is kind of a SUPERDFR if you
will well, which is Allateral Commission. It was founded by
Rockefeller and featured Brazinski as its first head in nineteen
seventy two slash three.
Speaker 1: And so so the Trilateral Commission Commission hugely influential, especially
on the Pacific RIM as well with the emerging China.
But also if you know the TAP, the transpecific partnership,
A lot of people believe that's the life's work of
the of the Trilateral Commission. So what other work was
involved in?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's very important, I think to understand all of
what I mean, there's so much that's in between two
ages that that it really it's really difficult to boil down.
But I mean, he talks about the death of ideology,
and along with the he lists three things. Basically, you
have the death of ideology, you have the death of religion,
you have the death of nationalism. And so these forces
have been replaced by consumerism and the international liberal market order.
But Brazinski is not really he doesn't buy into anything
like a capitalist socialist dialectic. He thinks that you know,
all of those ideologies are again part of that section
of things that have gone the old way. Their dinosaurs,
they're dead. We're moving into a new age, where the
hints the title between two ages. The new age that
we're moving into will be one that will have to
be dominated by some superpower. And at that time when
he was writing that in nineteen seventy, of course, it
was the United States, and he was arguing that, you
know that the Soviet Union could not be in any
way allowed to have supremacy. You know, he has that
virulent anti Russian stance going all the way back to
his childhood. And so that's really the amazing foresight in
that book is that he kind of foresaw the dismantling
of the soul Union. He also laid out many of
the plans and strategies to as to how to do that,
and that would come to fruition, you know, in the
nineteen ninety seven book Grand Chess Board. But again, what's
so crucial is not just the consumerism, not just the
the rejecting of any ideology or religion, but the explicit
statements of all of the techniques of technocracy, managerial controlled
by bureaucrats, moving this into a global sphere, dismantling the
older ideas of nation state and religion, and that you
could literally control the population, you could literally control mass communications,
and even beyond that into the spheres of you know,
exotic weapons with weather modification, electromagnetic pulse control through towers
that would actually target whole continents. I mean, you know,
he's really he's really the source for why so many
people who are derided as conspiracy theorists have a legitimate,
I think argument as to why weather modification and geoengineering
and all this stuff is very real. So you know,
when we hear all this stuff about climate change, you know,
how come nobody ever brings up the fact that Brazinski
said that weather modification could be used for this kind
of stuff, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's amazing that when this book was written, you know,
theoretically anyway, maybe this technology, some of the technology was around,
but it was way way before some of the trends
had sort of become clear.
Speaker 2: And give you one example, he even says that through
the net, and he's writing this again in nineteen seventy
the internet. He says that in the future will be
taking their university classes on the net. So that's how
that's how far ahead.
Speaker 1: He was, Yeah, so I mean, based on this Jay Is,
I'm what I'm the point I was trying to make
to some people a few weeks ago after we posted
the obituary of Brazinski, I said, you know, judgments aside.
This is my exact words, judgments aside. This is one
of the most influential thinkers of the last hundred years.
And do you think that's a fair assessment.
Speaker 2: I would say so, because he's he's one of these
A lot of people characterize him as the brains. You know,
you have the bankers, and then maybe the bloods, the
old money and then but they're not always necessarily engaged
in strategies and psychological warfare. You need guys who are
the brains to do that. And so you know, you
have the Kissingers, you have the Brazienskis, you have the Quiglies.
You know, these are the brains.
Speaker 1: So absolutely, and so following on from that, one of
his big seller's best sellers after that was The Grand
Chess Board. And so now we're getting into sort of
real politic geopolitical style, and so a lot of his
theories he's built on top of the Halford mckinder uh
you know, world island the heartland theory. You know, whoever,
whoever can capture that that precious patch of land known
as the Eurasian land bridge, you know around Georgia, Ukraine,
Crimea and the steps of the urals there, that is
the basically the person who's going to basically rule the world.
And that's kind of been true in the last few
hundred years. So many countries have fought, you know, to
win or to occupy that old Silk road route or
that Eurasian piece of midpoint between Europe and Asia as
or and so is this I know, this has dominated
geopolitical thought and strategy for pretty much the whole twentieth
century and still even you could argue into the twenty
first century. Uh, but did Brazilski or anybody see is
becoming secondary in the future. In other words, maybe technology
or fast air travel or something might eclipse the need
to basically rule that area in order to rule the
world absolutely.
Speaker 2: You know, this is, as he calls it, the geopolitical
pivot in that region, He argues, because of its resources,
because of its minerals, because of its population. You know,
seventy five percent of the population is in the Eurasian
land mass. All of this, Brazienski argues just flat out,
by the way, it's not a conspiracy theory. He just
specifically says this is in nineteen ninety seven at least
crucial for the Anglo American establishment to control, to maintain
American hegemony. And what's amazing also is that he says
that if the Western Empire, and he uses the terms
of imperialism, he says that if they don't control these vassals,
and if they don't actually cause the destabilization in a
lot of the former Soviet satellites, then the world will
fall into anarchy. So in other words, if I don't
cause anarchy, the world will fall into anarchy. Uh. It's
very again, Maketbellian. And that's why Brazinski, from the first
book all the way to his last book, Strategic Vision,
was consistently talking about Manichean dialectics, and he's always saying that, yes,
you've got to control both sides of the conflict. He says,
the internationalists will always have the upper hand precisely because
they're not caught up in ideology or left right or
you know, good guy bad guy there, they supersede that
and so they're able to kind of say above the
fray and therefore manage it. So he's kind of the
father of the modern hybrid warfare, you know, approach to
managing controlled chaos. And that's actually what he wrote as well.
In between two ages. It also mentions the possibilities of
exploiting religious, social class differences and tensions in any specific
region to exacerbate a political revolution or a coup or
a you know, replacing head of state. All of that,
you know, is laid out very clear in the old
old work, and then in the nineteen ninety seven book
it's kind of just an updated approach to really setting
the stage for the war on terror. You know, he
mentioned some of the same phraseology of the Project for
the American Century, where he talks about, you know, a
new pearl harbor could give the impression of the great
external threat, and then that great external threat could of
course always be a justification for any kind of foreign
policy ventures or domestic surveillance. You know. He again, Brazenski
is really the brainchild of a lot of the practice
of how the US is operated, not just since you know,
the sixties and Carter and trial otoral Commission, but also
since the nine to eleven in the War on Terror.
So I think Brazenski was a big thinker in sort
of formulating where the US would go further into this
and mindless, you know, expansionist perspective.
Speaker 1: So I can imagine him in the situation room, you know,
with any of these presents, basically saying He's telling them, look,
it's going it's going to blow eventually, so we're going
to make it blow, and this is how we're going
to manage the fallout, and this is how we're going
to benefit from that on the back end, you know,
just a full solution from beginning end. You know, we're
going to light the match, we're going to burn it,
and then we're going to put out the fire, and
then we're going to rebuild. I could see, I could
see where his sort of strategy. This guy, I mean,
if you look at him compared to other National Security Advisors,
Jay who I don't know much about, but I do know,
like Susan Rice, for instance, and I look at the
stuff that Brazinsky was putting out forty years ago, and
I'm like, this guy is very hardcore compared quite an
IQ deferential between Brazenski and these characters, not saying that
Brazenski was a virtuous man, but more so on the
cunning Machiavelian side.
Speaker 2: But definitely a great iq disparity there between these these
present day clowns. But you know, again to look at
an example of this, this fore planning foresight. You know,
in the Grand Chessboard, he talks about how Ukraine is
crucial to Russia. Fifty two million people he's running in
nineteen ninety seven, a lot of economic and power and
resource there, and Brazenski says that the US will have
to remove Ukraine from the sphere of Russia. So in
nineteen ninety seven, Brazenski is telegraphing to you what would
happen in twenty fourteen.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, Mike, this reminds me of like he was maybe
he was trained by the British or something. Where do
you get this where do you get this Machiavelian mindset from?
It's extraordinary though the track record from the nineteen six.
Speaker 2: He's also the father of Putin as Hitler, which is
not brought up very often, but that meme really comes
from Brazinski.
Speaker 3: Jay just uh, you talk about his foresight and so on,
and and his UH his concerns about Soviet influence in
the world and so on. But he while he was
in office, of course, he he helped normalize relationship with China,
and then later on he UH broke relations with China
over Taiwan and so on. So but what what did
he have to say about chain Did he foresee what
they influence of China was eventually going to have in
the world.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And that's interesting because the older Brazinski back during
the Cold War would write about China and Russia as threats,
and then as you move up into the nineties, he
warms up to China and again, you know, the main
force in Grand Chess board, that is the concern, is
what Patrick said, the perennial concern of the British Empire Russia,
you know, the the eternal enemy. But then by the
time of Strategic Vision, which was also written right around
the twenty thirteen or fourteen, right around the time actually
of the the Ukraine situation, he begins to actually warm
up to both and he's and he says, we can
move into an international order where we can actually work
with China, but Russia is still the main concern. So
I don't know in particular about the situation with Taiwan
as to whether that really was a big deal with
with Brazenski, because I think he's more of a long
term strategist. He's mainly concerned with the end goal, which
is how are we going to get to the international order.
I mean, this pretty much dominates all the books. It's
we've got to get the international order. This is one
of the reasons why Brazenski has a kind of pseudo
critic of the neocons and Bush is that that after
the big terror events, they he says, they don't to
the the international order the way it should be done.
They rely on this sort of you know, American imperial
model when it really needs to shift into into more
of the United Nations model. So by strategic vision, he's
arguing that we really need to, you know, look past
any of these kind of older divides of Russia or
Russian nationalism or any kind of nationalism. It's it's just
time to move past that and create the international order.
Speaker 1: And with some of these these characters Jay, you see
that later in life, sort of in their twilight years,
they do light lighten up to some degree in compared
to their hardcore form or selfs. Brazinski had a statement
that I that stuck in my head. He said that
the one thing that could threaten the world order, or
sort of our design of it, is some kind of
a global awakening brought on by some great wave of
political a way awareness or something. And I wasn't sure
if he was speaking about that as if it was
a threat to the world order, or if it was
going to be absorbed into the orders as possibly a
positive thing. It was hard. It was an ambivalent statement.
I don't know. Did you did you see that.
Speaker 2: This has dealt with in Strategic Vision the last book,
And what he talks about is he, you know, as
that strategist, he's not really putting a positive or negative
appraisal on it. He's basically looking at the facts and
he's saying, all right, this is going to happen. You're
going to have this mass awakening because of the move
of internationalism is obviously going to upset a lot of people.
You're gonna have reactions, and so what needs to happen
is that these reactionary movements have to be kind of
corralled and co opted. He actually talks about co opting
these things, and I think that's what the whole you know,
NNGO model is there to do in any of these
regions where you have reactions, Uh, you know, the soft
power model that we talked about the you and Vanessa
Bilia written so well about. You know that Brazenski has
been saying for decades that that's really the key to
containing the discontent that's going to happen as a result
of globalism. So, yes, he knows there's going to be
an awakening, he talks about it, but he definitely wants
to see it co opted and turned into the anti
American globalist model. And so that's where I think the
key to understanding Brezenski is that when he was arguing
for American imperialism back in nineteen ninety seven, that was
just as a tool. And so it's kind it's kind
of a cloak or a skelet, it's kind of a
costume that can be shed. And so once you get
the movement, once America has been demonized to a certain
degree that is actually part of the plan, you can
just kind of discard it for the new international order.
Oh that's here to fix us or to here to
fix the problems you know that America caused. Now I'm
very critical of America and American ideology, but I'm saying
that from the Brazinski Machiavellian standpoint, he doesn't have a
problem saying, Look, if we can use America for a
time period to create a global order, and this is
what he says, to extend consumerism, then we can shift
into the new phase of the technocratic global order that
doesn't need America and its baggage anymore. We can shed
that skin.
Speaker 1: That's very interesting. So, you know, I don't want to
get into comparing his vision to the present day, but
you know, do you think it's possible that some of
this is happening right now, that we are actually moving
into that phase or in the future.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think what he was arguing in nineteen seventy
was that the internet consumerism. This is another big point
that he talks about in between two ages, and then
into interviews that he would give in the nineteen nineties.
I read a whole bunch of those, and he was
saying that consumerism is key because it is going to
destroy the traditional ideologies. So you have this idea of
and this is why he's hard depend down on capitalism
or communism, and people can't figure out if Brazenski's a
socialist or a capitalist or he's more of it. He's
a he's a pragmatist, so he's he's interested in consumerism
destroying existing cultures, and this is what he says. Uh,
then you have an open field for moving these deracinated
people into something new, which will be the technocratic modus
operandi of the city state models like you talked about.
I think that's very much in line with with what
Brazenski would would like to see in the future. So
the global awakening, Yeah, he's he sees that and he
would like to see it co opted. So I think absolutely.
Speaker 1: And so let's look at you mentioned about the NGOs
and the color revolute as a kind of a tool
in order to shape or to maybe infiltrate, to destabilize,
to reform. So another so Brazinski, another character in right
Now who's still alive, roughly the same age as Brazinski,
also from Eastern Europe, coming from some similar time, similar
time frame point in history, very different background though in
terms of family, and I'm talking about George Soros, so
and they're two interesting characters because they're both playing they're
both playing a role I think in the same sort
of direction. They're working in the same direction, although they
do different jobs or they providing, they're playing a different
role in this story of this world order. Do you
see Brazinski and Soros were they Was there a symbiotic
relationship there in what the two were doing with their
life's work? You know it take a step back, how
do you compare and look at this?
Speaker 2: I think that you know, in the character Brazinski, you
have the appear rents at least of a statesman, an academic.
Uh And with the character of Soros, you have the
venture speculative capitalist. So in many ways they're they're very different.
But the models of strategy of psychological warfare and the
technology of how you can cause destabilization and control chaos,
they're absolutely in agreement there. So you know, they've they
have both been part of some of the same steering
committees and uh, these higher level Builderberg type groups that
you know, Bilderberg also has these kind of side groups
that they'll create International Crisis Group, which was spearheaded by
I believe Soros and Brazenski and Kissinger, and this this
was to deal with Serbia and how to how to
carve up Serbia after the Clinton bombings in the nineties
and all that. So so they definitely have worked together
at times. But and and definitely Brazinski with the National
Endowment of Democracy USAID model, that's all perfectly in line
with Soros. But it also reminds me of another thing.
That's there's a little bit of nuance here, because if
you look at something like Israel, Brazenski has not always
been a big proponent of Israel. In fact, he was
a supporter of the John Meerscheimer book that was a
critic criticism of Apak and Israeli foreign policy, Israeli influence
on American foreign policy, so resils. And again I think
that that kind of illustrates the point I was making
earlier about America is that back in the Cold War period,
you know, Brazenski probably saw Israel as some sort of
quote outpost for the defense of freedom and free market
in the Middle East. But when you read the later Brazinski,
he doesn't seem to have any care or concern for
Israel because he again believes in the death of ideology
in Nation States. So you know, that doesn't really jibe
well with Israeli nationalism or the lacut or any of
that stuff. So a lot of the Israeli right does not.
They're not big fans of Brazenski. So in terms of Soros,
you know, as far as I understand, I may be
wrong about this. I think Soros is a pretty big
patron of Israel. Is he not?
Speaker 1: I don't know. That's that's that's actually unknown, because a
lot of Israelis think that he's undermining Israel.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, maybe maybe he is more like Brezenski than
I thought.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know. That's kind of a
mystery actually what Soros's views on Israel are. I don't
know if there's anybody out there that can enlighten us
on that, but I've actually been looking for that for
quite some time, and it's not easy to find. Actually,
So he seems to be slightly atheistic in that way.
But Soros is is ultimately a strategist, and he's basically
a chess player and a gambler, So I would assume
that he's looking at Israel in the way that Brazinski
would as a sort of a tool or a piece
on the grand chessboard that can be moved, you store,
can be useful in some bigger scheme. That's how I
would see the way maybe that Soros looks at everything
actually not just.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, and it certainly it was Brazenski who again
back in I think March of two thousand and fourteen
or so, somewhere in there. It's actually Bazenski wrote Washington
Post editorial where he was the first to say that
the Hitler was excuse me, that Putin was Hitler. So
this was definitely promoted by Soros. So they have a
lot of common goals here. And my guess would be
that if there's any divergence, then it's of the same
level of the divergence between him and the neocons, which
is to say, not very much.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think there is some bad blood between some
Jews and Soros because of the story that he I
think that it was in his book. Actually we spoke
about this earlier in the week. I think he was young.
He was a young he was nine ten to eleven.
I can't remember working for his uncle under an assumed name,
so that they not using the Jewish name, and his
father had basically put him with his uncle and said, right,
you look after little George. I forgot what George's old
name was. But they went around liquidating the property of
Jews before they stuck them on box cars. And George
was pretty happy about this in his biography, saying that
this was the greatest time of his life and this
is really the thing that made him. And so it
was kind of very weird and kind of interesting but
slightly spooky story there from Sorous's past, and he didn't
boast about that, Mike. In that recent interview that we
featured on the news program, he left that part of
the story out. But what did he include in that story.
Speaker 3: Well, he absolutely said that this was a seminal influence
on his life, this period in his life, but he
didn't go quite as far as to describe that section
of the story.
Speaker 1: He talked about the need for nations to have the
right leadership at the right time to avoid catastrophe. I
think he was talking about Eastern Europe or Nazi Germany,
I guess World War two or Hungary in the Second
World War. So definitely shaped, hugely shaped by his past.
Both Brazinski and sours very anti Russian.
Speaker 3: Are we allowed to bring in another name here, which
I think is probably under present circumstances important to mention,
and that's Samuel Huntington.
Speaker 2: Ah. Yes, Braszinski's friend.
Speaker 3: Brazhinsky invited him onto the National Security Consul when he
was and of course Huntington also a Trilateral commission. And Jay,
I'm just sort of wondering if with any idea of
what Brazhinsky's thoughts were, because obviously Huntingdon's seminal work as
a class of civilizations, we seem to be saying that
type of doctrine being an act it in front of
our eyes. Did did Brazinski have any influence on that
or do we know?
Speaker 2: That's a good question. I know that it was actually
Bernard Lewis of the UK who pioneered the idea of
clash of civilization and that's who kind of instructed the
informed the Huntington approach. But yeah, perfectly, it perfectly lines
up because Brazinski says in many places, all the way
back in between two ages, that that the borders have
got to go, the borders have got to go. He's
one of the pioneers of this ideology and.
Speaker 1: White borders, right, yes, nation state borders got to go.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, And that's because nation states, just like religious ideologies,
are dead now because of the international market order and
consumerism and technology. By the way, tech tech is the
the great forces of mowing down ideology in Prasinski's mind.
So in regard to the clash of civilizations, I think
Brazinski fits perfectly into that model. That's why he was
so excuse me useful in nineteen seventy nine, because that
is exactly a clash of civilizations, you know, that the
Soviets supposed atheist model clashing with these proxy mujia hydene forces. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So that and that is still we're still feeling the
after effects of that time.
Speaker 2: Today, the or the against the bringing Soros right, the
Victoria Newland, Soros State Department funding of rights sector probably
sector in Ukraine. That fits perfectly in line with I mean,
it's not Islamic civilization, but it is a quote clash
of civilizations in a way, because it's a clash of
the far right of more or less Hilarian neo Nazi
period of Ukraine ramming up against the vestiges of the
Russian Empire. Of the Russian sphere of influence, and so
speaking of clash of civilizations.
Speaker 1: While we're on the subject, you know, the big talking
point right now in the UK is there's an avalanche
on Twitter after the London Bridge attacks. I thought I'd
just bring this in because it's a topical, but this
is this. I mean, the the anti Muslim rhetoric is
off the charts now and there's people demanding they're demanding detention, deportation,
close the borders and I think by tomorrow probably bombing
somewhere in the Middle East. So basically this is where
Britain is at right now. This is just mind you,
this is just on the internet, this is on Twitter.
But I do feel like these ideas have really taken
hold in the wake of these last three the sort
of the trifector of these three terrorist attacks. Westminster which
wasn't much of a terrorist attack but it was on
the capitol, and then Manchester which was a very high
profile and then last night with London Bridge. So a
complete transformation of the mindset. You talk about clash of civilizations,
I mean, like Mike said, we're watching it, We're seeing
it happen. It's just.
Speaker 2: If Brazenski is reading his Twitter feed from Hades at
this moment. He's elated because he's seeing exactly what he
knew would work. And a lot of people are confused
because they're they're going to fall into the false left
right dialectic over this, because they're going to assume ignorantly,
of course, that the entire Middle East and all all
people of Eurasian persuasion are are in some way radicals,
and that they're inimical to the completely now degenerate Western
values of Katy Perry and Miley Cyrus. So you know,
those those things are just not compatible with the more
traditional min mindset of these other cultures. And so Brazienski
knew all this, and he knew again that when you
have the removal of borders and large scale population migration
all again. This has been written about by many, many
scholars in academia. Kelly Greenhill, what you cause the decivilization
You move the peoples into a foreign region. This is
a kind of population warfare that causes tensions. And then
you just get some intelligence agencies to exacerbate that with
Patsy's and dukes and morons, and you have the exact
chemical reaction that you want. You see that. It really
is that simple. And Brazinski was a mastermind of that.
He really was. He's written about it, he's talked about
it for decades. That you can do this. It's a strategy.
It's not a conspiracy theory. So people who really want
to try to understand what's going on, I think you
have to see that bigger picture and you can see
it in Brazil's writings.
Speaker 1: And what would be the bye, what would be the
byproduct of that, the sort of desired effect from let's
say the globalist or Brazinski point of view. After you've
moved the populations, after you've exacerbated it, then what's next
is it? Is it a lockdown of society with a
technocracy and then more Oceania wars overseas? What's next?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a whole bunch of things. It's very useful.
So one thing it does is that it actually causes
people to view humans as the problem.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: And this may sound a little far fetched, but I
assure you that this is written of in white papers.
They'll talk about how the more that you can move
people into mass cosmopolitan areas and exacerbate those tensions this
actually promotes the idea of the need for depopulation, uh
and the only way that you can get that depopulation
is through bureaucracy and managerial control. There was a very
telling video that one of the UK think tanks put
out called Plannedopolis, and in that Plannedopolis video, they're projecting
the UK's day to day life, you know, in twenty
thirty or twenty fifty or something like that, and it's
a completely controlled, gentrified, smart city city states situation where
everything where there's carbon taxes. By the way, Brezenski pioneered
the carbon tax, all of that was out laid out
in Brazenski's model of how you can exacerbate these tensions.
So it leads to that bureaucratic womb to tomb government
surveillance and control of your life. Brezenski mentioned that too
in between two ages. He says that lifelong, continual education
from womb to tomb would be one of the keys
for the future generations to be merged into the technocracy.
So that's exactly how you do this. It's all. Yes,
you're absolutely spot on. That's how that's how you get
to the end goal.
Speaker 1: You know, it's interesting you said that humanity is the problem,
and Jay and Mike. So I was, I was watching
the twitter storm hashtag London Bridge all last night. I
probably went to bed about three, but I was. So
I saw one tweet by a young British girl and
this is what Jay, you just reminded me of this
when you said humanity is the problem getting people to
buy into this idea. This is her tweet here she said,
I hate this planet? Why are people still killing each other?
You see? So, if you're able to sort of control this, uh,
these events and this narrative, this is the bit. This
is the reaction you're gonna elicit from general population. I
mean literally desperation, despondency, you know, despondency underlined by desperation
gets you to that place, Jay, which you just talked about.
It's almost like it's like the priming of the population
to then from that point on you pretty much people
will accept any really form of technocratic management, suggestion or control.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the trauma And in fact, this is why I
think you could probably link Razinski's between two ages too.
My control is that there really was research done on
trauma based PTSD for example, that was actually pioneered out
of Tavistock Institute in the UK, and Tavistock was a
partner to the us MK ulture Plan. So when they
were studying shell shock and PTSD in British soldiers, they
realized that what would happen to people who had undergone
these kinds of traumas is that they would be much
more suggestible because trauma puts you into a catatonic state.
And so I think Brazenski is well aware of all that,
and he knows that the when you exacerbate these t
and cause destabilization, the public is more or less put
in that traumatized, catatonic type state and they will just
go with whatever their leaders, who grant stand say. So
I think, as Basil was pointing out the other day
on Boiler Room, I mean, it makes perfect sense that
this is part of uh you know, the this is
during the UK election season. Uh you know, I think
that's a big hint, hint, that's a big indicator.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's why I said. I actually said that on
the news last night. I said maybe the terrorist attacks
will will stop after the general election exactly with a
wink in or no. But I mean, Mike, do you
have any comment on this?
Speaker 3: Well, I was just thinking as Jay was speaking there
that that's quite a number of these ideas. Jay's expressing
of Bashinsky's echo a little bit with uh with Bresh
and Russell's as well. So definitely, I don't know whether
Russell was a direct influence, but but it seems like
could well be the kids.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I did want to say, I think when I
was describing how you characterize Brazinski, he's he's like bertrand
Russell meets h. G. Wells without any of the fun
So absolutely, yeah, you're spot on.
Speaker 3: Did he have anything to say about the role of
the media in all.
Speaker 2: This, Oh? Absolutely yeah. In fact, in between two ages,
it's mass communication that is going to be the key
to bringing in the global order. And so in other words,
when he's writing about the Internet, that is, for in
his mind back then, part of mass communications. They knew
back in nineteen seventy that the Internet would be kind
of the replacement for CBS, NBC and all that classical
satellite and TV cable stuff would be replaced by the
net quote unquote as he calls it. And yeah, I
would also mention too, you see, you said to Bertian Russell,
Russell was part of working with the Macy Group and
the Rockefeller Foundation for helping to import the Frankfurt School
ideology and formulate the culture creation process. That again, the
Rockfeller Foundation and the all their patronage of the so
called arts, the National Dowmo for the Arts and all that,
that was all a CIA slash frank for School slash
Bertrand Russell Rockefeller operation, and that's all declassified and know
now written even in mainstream news. Foreign Affairs has written
about it. So you're absolutely right to connect Bertrand Russell
to this because he's kind of along with H. G. Wells,
that the forefathers of technocracy, and this is an older
You can even go back to people like Saint Simon
and August Coompte who would write about technocracy. Saint just
you know that these these guys are very influential on
the Zeitgeist ideology and all that. That's perfectly in line
with Brezenski, there's no doubt.
Speaker 1: Yeah, some spectacular quotes by Bertrand Russell. I used to
have one on your website that was there and sort
of placed prominently for a couple of years, but kind
of frightening in the sort of accuracy of it describing
today's world. I thought it was amazing.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean, the one Russell book which stands out is
The Impact of Science and Society, which seems to gell
exactly with what Jay's describing.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Yeah, he wrote a couple of books that were
specifically treating of the technocracy, and of course he would
always try to write it under the veneer of being liberal.
But you know, at the same time, like fork tongue,
he's speaking out the other side of his mouth, adhering
to all these policies as the only way to save humanity.
And that's exactly what Brazenski would do. You know, he
has the liberal cover. That's why you see him in
the Carter and the Obama administrations. But then he's also
working in various Bush task forces, uh and talking about
that he's at times a warhawk. So again, much like
a Kissinger or a Macky Valley, he's he's beyond the
left right divide, and he's the liberal cover is a
completely a cloak.
Speaker 1: Final thoughts here, So we're going into I think we're
you know, coming into what six months uh soon into
the first six months of this president's administration. President Trump
uh in America. And so you know, how do you
see this administration uh gelling in terms of its place
in history within the context of what's going on? Trump
is a president. You know, who are there's who are
the Braziinskis of the Trump administration? Who are the Kissingers
or his kissinger still advising? Is he's still influential on geopolitics?
How are you looking at this scene as it unfolds
right now? Jay?
Speaker 2: Well, if I recall, yeah, I think what didn't Trump
early on say Kissingrew would be an advisor? Yeah, I'm
assuming that's still still the norm. But that's that's a
that is a great question. Who who's actually going to
take over to be a brain? I think that's probably
why Builderberg has been, you know, really trying to shift
over into the text stuff in the last three or
four years.
Speaker 1: That's frightened that. It's scary, Jay, because if if what
you say is true there, it means that we are
moving into full blown technocracy, whether Peter Thiels of the world.
Speaker 2: The Eric Schmidtz that's that's who's going to take over.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So it's no longer that so people will sort
of say, well, Brazinski's about as devilish as it gets.
But actually he's it's you've still got a human doing
the thinking, you know, as devilish as he is. You
know that's the devil. We know what is this with?
You know this we're going into full blown technocracy mode?
If you look maybe at howil as Bilderberg is a
kind of age I guess of you know where there
where the center of gravity is? Has it moved?
Speaker 2: We are?
Speaker 1: We sounds like we're moving into technocracy.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think you're absolutely right. It's going to be
people like Eric Schmidt. It's going to be people like
Righina Dugan uh formerly of DARPA now Google uh, Cast Sunstein,
Google NSA. Uh. You know maybe uh that's who it is.
You're absolutely right.
Speaker 1: I think that's that's frightening. Actually, especially the DARPA gal.
Is she the one that did that thing on wearables
beast tech.
Speaker 2: She's talking, Yeah, she's all kinds of just kind of
mind boggling talks. I've watched her ted talks and all
that stuff, and she's yeah, full blown transhumanism there.
Speaker 1: Wow. Well, we got a lot to a lot to
look forward to or not or a lot to to
to be fighting I think in the future hopefully, uh,
to retain some of our humanity. But uh, if the technocracy,
the technocrats could have their way. It's so funny because
the technocracy was way ahead of its time. I mean,
they had this thing, they launched this thing in the
nineteen twenty.
Speaker 2: Right right exactly.
Speaker 1: The technology wasn't there, you know, but and it was
sort of pooh poohed because it got associated with the
Nazis a little bit in mainstream Western culture right after.
It kind of dampened after the after the World War Two.
But now if it were to re emerge today, j
would it would it have the appeal or what? Could
it find a congregation as it were?
Speaker 2: Well, they're definitely pushing for that. I mean, that's part
of Hollywood's role is to push transhumanism through all these
big blockbuster sci fi movies and Marvel movies. So, you know,
I think they wanted they want to go for that.
But uh, you know, even Brazinski seemed a little bit
skeptical as to whether or not you could convince all
the people of some kind of tech religion. You know,
he didn't He himself seemed to be in search of
a replacement ideology, while admitting ideology was dead, he would
he would make comments like that, so.
Speaker 1: Ancient I don't know, aliens, Jay, ancient aliens.
Speaker 2: That fits perfectly and with scientism and transhumanism absolutely.
Speaker 1: Mike and I were talking about this the other night.
They were saying that, like if you if you flip
through the cable channels, there's like ten all the history channels.
Everything from pretty much nine p m Till till four am,
it's all ancient Aliens. It's just there's so much pro
everything goes. Even even any history program you start watching
it and they sort of bait you in with some
Egyptology and by the end of the thing they're at
ancient Aliens. Basically, it's like everywhere this might be the
new replacement religion.
Speaker 2: Jam, I wouldn't be surprised. There's all kinds of studies
and test communities and and things that that they'll put
out there to kind of see, you know, test audience
and stuff like that to see where they can go
with that kind of stuff. But I'm actually gonna have
to run. But thank you for having me on.
Speaker 1: Patrick now, it's been great. Jay Dyer, author of Jay's
Analysis and Sorry author vest Terry Hollywood and founder and
editor of Jay's Analysis dot com is links on the
show page right now. Thank you so much, Jay, Thank you,
take care in your travels and good luck with your work.
Thank you also to Mark Anderson from our segment down
there in Santilly, Virginia with Bilderberg, and also the Reverend
Andrew Ashdown. Three fantastic guests, and thank you my co
host in studio here, Mike Robinson, editor of the UK column.
Thank you again, Mike,