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