Speaker 1: Welcome another episode of our Interesting Times. Is my pleasure
to have Jay Dyer back on the show. Of course,
Jay is the proprietor of the recently resurrected Jays Analysis
Jays Analysis dot com. Right, so you kept that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, everything the same, It's just it's a lot better now.
Speaker 1: So okay, that's back up, and yes, i've it is good.
I'm accessing the site taking in some of the information there.
And of course you are the author of Esoteric Hollywood
Sex Calls and Symbols in Film and also they're soon
to be released as Esoteric Hollywood too.
Speaker 3: Right, correct, early mid December early, don't have a don't
have an exact date yet, but as soon as I
get a date, everybody will know.
Speaker 1: So this is just in time for Christmas?
Speaker 2: Correct?
Speaker 1: That was the same thing a couple of years ago,
wasn't it? Wasn't it around Christmas time the book came out?
Or am I mistaken it was?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right, it was right before twenty seventeen.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 1: Now, if they order directly from your website, are you
still doing the signing thing?
Speaker 2: Can little bit? Correct?
Speaker 1: Okay? Cool? Good look out for that then. Okay, so
we will look look very much. Look forward to that
in the coming month. I know I'll get my copy
at least of course, at jaysnowsis dot com you can subscribe.
It's four ninety five a month, sixty dollars a.
Speaker 2: Year, it is. Yeah, and the I think the renovated site.
Speaker 3: Has has helped the subscribers. So that's increased things that
are looking on the up and yeah, we've got, you know,
pretty substantial archive. The only thing that still isn't fixed
on the site is a lot of the old essays
that I wrote, which there was a lot of those.
Some of those are still broken links and kind of missing.
So I still have a lot of old stuff to fix,
which I do plan to do. But it's basically all
up and running.
Speaker 1: So okay, that's good. Pretty much up and running. I
guess you irritated somebody or something and yeh, yeah the AI,
I don't know the AI censor. I don't know who's
doing this.
Speaker 3: Well, there were certain topics, yeah, that pressure was put
on WordPress to no longer be champions of free speech
for yeah.
Speaker 1: So yeah, it seems like all across the board line
of these and yeah, don't.
Speaker 3: I won't go too deep into it. But basically it
was an event that a recent event, a big event,
you know, one of those kinds.
Speaker 1: Of oh yeah, even yeah, I'm not.
Speaker 2: Allowed, You're not no longer allowed to post on that.
Speaker 1: It's strange. It is strange because I had a couple
videos on those events where it was either talked about
or you know, just yes, and there are two three
years old and they were pulled. So there. I mean,
that is strange just just because that topic. I just
you know, it begs the question, it really, right. So anyway,
well tonight, you you recently did a couple of videos
reviewing some books that you have read, and well recently
you did a video called cold War Propaganda and CIA's
doc kind of warfare program using churches, and you brought
it in this discussion. An article you sent me a
while back, and I looked at it briefly this afternoon
about some of the intrigues and manipulating divisions within the
Orthodox Church, particularly with Greece and the Ukraine, and this
is sort of perhaps geopolitical maneuvering against Russia. And then
I guess this's maybe this got you thinking about some
of this other material that you've been reading, particularly David
Wimhof's book The Catholic Church, and well, I'll let you
take it from there about the sort of manipulation this
divide and conquered within Religion's also manipulation within the churches,
the doctrinal corruption of these churches through the intelligence agency, agencies, magazines, media,
these things of the West. So go ahead, So what
do we got here?
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, I think also to another article that came
out maybe a week or two ago, was written by
Neil Clark, who's a he writes for RT and Patrick
sent me a really good article he wrote about the
death of John Paul the First and the Cold War,
and it was it was really insightful. It was an
interesting angle that doesn't really fit into the normative, you know,
Cold War style narrative of the death of John Paul
that we usually hear and even Western conspiracy or into books.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: I tended to paint that as some sort of KGB
Cold War plot, but as Neil Clark argues in his
his excellent RT op ed piece.
Speaker 2: That really only benefited the West.
Speaker 3: And I think if you look at it from that angle,
that article harmonizes very well with with Whatson Weimhow's book
and some of the arguments that I was making in
my talk and stuff that I was seeing and coming
across just in my own experience, you know, in the
world of Orthodoxy, and you know, this is a very
difficult Harry subject in the twentieth century, particularly with the
the whole history of you know, the emigrats, the white
Russians being.
Speaker 2: You know, given.
Speaker 3: The solace in the West, you know, if they leave
the Bolsheviks, they were given and there were different periods
when the white Russians and others who fled the Bolsheviks
were allowed to.
Speaker 2: Come to the West.
Speaker 3: And so one of the problems that this created was
the idea that, oh, well, since the Bolsheviks are bad,
that must then mean that you know, the CIA and
m I six and these people that are inviting.
Speaker 2: Russian refugees. I guess you could say to the West,
that must make them the good guys.
Speaker 3: And so there's a similar story than between what happened
with my argument, or what I'm starting to see is
a similar pattern, a similar story between the subversion of
the Catholic Church in the twentieth century through the means
and methods of what Wimhoff describes and what we're seeing
in Orthodoxy as well. So certainly we agree that the
Cold War was was was on one level bad news,
but at a higher level dialectical manipulation. And certainly that
doesn't mean any of the countries that persecuted uh you know,
religious institutions were good, and there are plenty of martyrs,
plenty of people that were that were put to death
by communism.
Speaker 2: So we're not I'm not at all trying to vindicate that.
Speaker 3: But what we were sold was this story which which again,
you know, when you were giving your analysis of NATO
and the paper that I think you said you'd written
on NATO, you know, you came to see that the
the justifications of NATO really ran their course, and they didn't.
It no longer served its purpose, but yet it continued
to have this this offensive, this this uh forward moving
operation against Russia, and even after the Cold War, even
after when it's it supposedly ran its course, it's still
you know, it's still surrounding Russia's still making these moves.
And as many people have noticed it, even Michael Jones,
people who you know, don't have the same views as me,
people have independently kind of come to a lot of
the same conclusions that wait a minute, what we were
sold by these neocons in the Cold War, what we
were told by these people who ran in corporation, who's
essentially the masterminds of the Cold War, has really led
now to a situation where if you're not promoting Globo
tranny everywhere, right, you're an enemy of freedom. And so
when I was really getting deeper and deeper into gy
of politics background twenty twelve thirteen fourteen, I was watching
Color Revolutions and I was, you know, pretty pretty heavily
steeped in geopolitical issues by twenty fourteen when the coup
happened in the Ukraine. And I remember I just linked
up with Patrick and was writing for twenty first Century Wire,
and I was noticing, yeah, I think he had Marek
Hacker on. That was before actually New Market the Times,
right around the time I met Mark. But I noticed
that what he was, what Mark was saying about the
Ukraine really lined up with what we see with the
Color Revolutions and all the other countries where they've been promoted,
especially the you know, the former Eastern Bloc countries. And again,
you know, what do we get with these color revolutions.
What we get the introduction of all the toxicity of
Western countries, particularly of the US, the US Anglo American
Zio Empire, essentially spreading you know, trainees and porn and
disgusting new generacy into all these countries that ironically had
been in a way kind of guarded through through the
you know, the Eastern Bloc through communism in a weird way,
because they had they had opposed a lot of Western
so called freedoms. So there's just this really weird turn
about the homosexuality being such a key issue in so
called freedom.
Speaker 2: And we know that, you know, you and I know,
we know that this comes out of like.
Speaker 3: The Cold War, the culture of Congress, of the cultural freedom,
the idea of promoting the freedom and the arts and
all this nonsense, and that somehow that's connected with you know,
freedom and gender expression, freedom and sexual expression, supposedly. And
the reason I say all that is to say that
so when we look at the means of subversion of
the twentieth century through the big Oligarchic families, one need
to look no further than the authorized biography of the
rock Fillers by Colder and Horowitz, which I read extensively
about ten years ago, which was a big wake up
call for me because I started realizing, wait a minute,
you know this book is authorized. It's you know, you
got the big neocon Horowitz in there. He's writing from
the rock Fillers authorized papers and history, and he's talking
about how they funded the Acumenist movement for all these years,
not because they really cared about religion, but to use
it as a tool. And he talks about how, yeah,
they set up the Council on Formulations in America, you know,
in league with the Rhodes Millner around table groups. In
the UK, they set up the UN, They set up
all these institutions that promote you know, globalism, so called
free enterprise, so called free trade, and they're big promoters
of all of this JAPPYMML Berylson type stuff. So you
start noticing these patterns and then you realize that now
the subversion of American Protestantism. And I knew this because
even before I had any kind of exposure.
Speaker 2: Or knowledge of geopolitics.
Speaker 3: And I'm not not at all claiming to be an expert,
but even back when I was just interested in the
religious realm and in theology, I learned as a Protestant
that the Rockefellers and wealthy families had been putting a
lot of money into certain seminaries like Union Seminary, certain
schools like Chicago University, and that was because they had
an ideological bent. They really wanted to promote higher criticism, liberalism,
et cetera, et cetera. So what you noticed, what I
noticed back in my early twenties was that even some
of the traditional what are called Orthodox Presbyterians. There was
a famous guy named Jay Grisham Machen and he left
the mainline Presbyterian church I want to say in the twenties,
somewhere in there, but he wrote a book about liberalism,
and he pointed out some of this stuff in his famous,
somewhat famous Protestant book on liberalism, saying, look, it's these
big seminaries, it's it's the money that's going to these
seminaries from these foundations. And so that was kind of
my initial introduction to that idea. And then you started
I started realizing when I would meet, you know, people
from Lutheran churches or from Methodist churches, and most of
those mainline Protestant churches have kind of split off more
conservative versions of them, and you would meet the people
from those different conservatives split off groups, and they would
talk about, oh yeah, the seminaries got liberalized involved. So
you started hearing the same stories over and over and over,
and it just became evident. So that's what's going on here.
There's very powerful people. It's not just an organic thing
of oh, we're we're all just liberal. I mean, there
is a kind of cultural feedback loop there that does
happen with people growing up in a liberal society. But
there's also the top down, moneyed families putting certain people
into certain seminaries. Fosdick, if I recall, is the guy
who the Rockefellers put in place in the Presbyterian seminaries,
because I think one of the Rockfellers was Presbyterian or something,
and one of them was that the Daddy rock Filler's Baptist,
I think.
Speaker 2: So essentially what they did was they created this idea
of the social Gospel. So a lot of people say, oh.
Speaker 3: The Jesuits became commies and they taught the social Gospel.
Speaker 2: That's not exactly right.
Speaker 3: Actually, the Rockefellers came up with the social Gospel, they
promoted it in all of these seminaries, and it spread
to Catholicism in the same way it spread to all
the other churches. So the crux here is that there's
a pattern, and the pattern is the same for all
the churches, respective of what denomination you come from. And
that's why Wimpoff's book is so good is that this
is the hard, straight up documentation from how this was
done in the Catholic Church, and we're seeing the exact
same thing being done.
Speaker 2: In the Orthodox Church basically.
Speaker 3: So that's the crux of the whole point is that
what you saw on the in the Ukraine. To tie
this to the reason I brought up to in the
Ukraine is that in twenty fourteen when they annexed it,
you know, from Russia, and they basically set up the
CIA puppet there. It was geopolitics, it was money, it
was all that kind of stuff out of you know,
Cold War strategy or excuse me, World War two strategies,
because that was actually hitler strategy in the Ukraine was
to essentially set up its own little nation state there,
and that's why they've had the sort of neo fascist
bent there. But it was also religious. So in order
to wrest it from Russian influence. It's not just a
matter of politics. It's also a matter of religion, church
and state. So I was naive, you know, back in
twenty thirteen or fourteen, when I was just looking at
the geopolitical aspect of it, and I didn't think about
the fact that, well, they're going to do the exact
same thing in terms of the religious realm.
Speaker 2: They're going to want to.
Speaker 3: Remove the canonical Church that's under the Moscow patriarchy. They're
going to want to also wrest that from the control
of Moscow as well, because a sizeable Orthodox population there
obviously has to also be removed from not just political
but also religious influence from Moscow.
Speaker 2: That's the main point I'm trying to make here.
Speaker 3: So the way that relates to the US is basically
that the Moscow Patriarchate essentially severed communion with Patriarch Bartholemew,
who is the patriarch of Constantinople. He but Bartholemew has
been bad news for a long time. Actually, a sizable
portion of the church, the Orthodox world, has been very
leery of him. Many believe that he is in fact
a heretic, and that has only been made more and
more evident, especially in the last few months given the
situation in Ukraine, with Bartholomew essentially saying that the puppet
patriarch in the Ukraine named Filorette, who was basically installed
as a puppet, who is known as a puppet, he's
not canonical, nobody's ever thought he was canonical.
Speaker 2: And suddenly Bartholomew essentially says, oh, he's the one there,
he's the good guy. We're going to go with that.
Speaker 3: This made it evident to the entire world of Orthodoxy
that Bartholomew was a stooge of NATO and the CIA.
And so now we know why Joe Biden was meeting
with Bartholomew, and and now we know why both Brotholomew
a couple of years ago was giving Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: Awards involved lucrative gas.
Speaker 3: And the gas do exactly now we know what and
uh so it was all that, and it was all
planning what just happened. So basically there's now uh a
giant rift is widening in the midst of the professing
or the orthodox world, to the degree now that even
Russian Orthodox Christians are those under the influence of the
Moscow patriarch, and essentially all the other Orthodox patriarchs agreed.
I don't think anybody has cited in any of the
major churches have sided with Bartholomew. The only people who've
decided who have sided with Bartholomew are the Greeks in America,
who are also directly under influence. So yeah, so that's
essentially what's going on. If you kind of know the basics,
it's not hard to figure it out. It's all pretty clear.
That's why John McCain was flying over there and meeting
with the puppet patriarch Filourette, who by the way, was
a Soviet defector. His name is Disinc Dasinco I think
is his name, and he defected to the West, and
magically he's he's the essentially the CI puppet there in
the Ukraine. So that's that's what's going on in simple terms.
And I actually talked about some of this stuff. I
was I wasn't fully aware of all the all the
geopolitical stuff, but I knew that some of these guys
are bad news. And I think really the last few
months has has been indicated, has vindicated my analysis of
the whole scenario.
Speaker 2: So long story short, that's why this is all connected.
Speaker 3: It's the and the subversion is happening because some of
my analyzes of these of these things over the last
few months and years made a lot of people mad.
They didn't know what they thought. I was being crazy conspiratorial,
and the reaction of certain people was to say, well,
there's no such thing as foundations and institutions influencing the church,
which is utterly preposterous, documented in multiple books. So I
pointed out the fact that well Fordham University has a
famous Eastern Orthodox studies institute there and they just received
a grant from some foundation in the UK to study
gay and lesbian issues and Orthodox churches. So on top
of that, Harvard has appointed social justice warrior trans people
to spy on the Orthodox world and to report who
are the radical right wing extremists and Orthodoxy on and
on on. So to say that this has nothing to
do with foundations of petition money is utterly absurd and ignorant.
In fact, some of the people who claim this actually
retweet the people from the Foundations for him, namely this
mister demopopolist I think his name is George Demicopolis, who
is the head of Fordham's Eastern Studies department.
Speaker 2: Uh. Yeah, so that's that's what's going on. And to
think that this has.
Speaker 3: No connection to you know, the CIA and that kind
of stuff, it would be very naive. So that's essentially
the essence of what's going on here.
Speaker 1: Very interesting, Yeah, because well Bartholomewill is over there in Constantinople,
you know, which is Turkey if I have my geography correct.
Speaker 2: Right, it is correct.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so it's a NATO country. He's also there's not
much of a of a of an Orthodox population there anymore,
so he's largely relying on the you know, diaspor and Greeks,
but also Western World Council Church ifim I understand, and
exact funding. So yeah, he has no independent base and
so he's being used. I also understood there's some sort
of intrigue regarding this reconstruction of an Orthodox church pre
Orthodox Church in Manhattan and the embezzlement of certain funds,
and the US government is backing off investigation, and this
just could be the the sort of the leverage they
have perhaps over some of these people.
Speaker 2: Right, that was very likely.
Speaker 3: But I've also been told Rummant Whisper intelligence is that
people in those circles are compromised.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well that's again that's uh wouldn't be uh surprising.
It's powerful course yes, uh and obviously yeah, this is
a way that can put create a wedge to get
in there. And this is another way of tearing you
tearing Ukraine away from Russia and fully into Nata and
using using the church the same way perhaps the coldor
was used to uh suborn or manipulate the Catholic Church.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 1: Of course. The book you're referring to by David Wemmoff
is John Courtney Murray Time Life in the American Proposition,
How the CIA is Doctrinal Warfare program changed to Catholic
Church and essential but probably the most important books I've
ever read understanding the modern world that's going on. And
it's sort of fundamentally, at least fundamentally changes, but it
it answers certain questions about what was going on in
the nineteen sixties in the Catholic Church and what's happened
since then.
Speaker 3: So right, and of course, you know, the deeper you
get into these kind of things, the less aware you
are of how everyone else is not aware of these things.
Speaker 1: Yes, so that's it's. Yeah, you start talking about it,
no one is aware of it, and.
Speaker 2: They're like, what are you talking about? You sound insane?
Speaker 3: And then you then you point out, well, hey, wait,
you know the government itself has actually investigated this, right,
And then you point out the Rice Committee. Yes, hey,
well do you think the Race Committee findings that was
only for that time period like that never happened beyond that, Oh,
we're going to quit now, or like gam Kaldrow, Well
you investigate us, so well, okay, we'll stop.
Speaker 2: We're not gonna do that anymore.
Speaker 1: Well, of course, yeah, that's one thing is I'm also
just started a book called I Will Be Done. This
is about the Rockefellers and missionary in Latin America, and
the tone is kind of lefty but still important in
the boot least. I haven't gotten too far in the book,
but it talks about fastic and the use of missionary
work and for securing the resources of you know, particularly oil,
but other natural resources of in Brazil and the Amazon
rainforests and these things, and using these missionary groups as
a as a as sort of as proxy soldiers, even
unwittingly in many cases.
Speaker 3: Well it's funny you said that because I was at
an Orthodox church a couple of weeks ago. I won't
say which one. And I was very disheartened by the
homily because there's student of our priests are once kind
of younger guy, and he usually gets pretty good, solid homilies,
but the older priest it is like a completely boomer
tear and the oakon. And I was really distressed by
this homily because it was a basically because it was
Veterans Day. So he was talking about how you know,
America basically guards world freedom. It's basically four Freedoms of
FDR into a sermon, and then he was talking about
right after that, he started talking about asking for money
for some mission, and I was thinking, he was like,
I had a friend who you know, this guy, he
was a doctor and he's given up everything to be
a missionary. I'm thinking, oh, yeah, right, he's probably he's
probably working for somebody else.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean, I hate to be that cynical, but you know,
that's the mindset that you tend to think when you hear,
you know, a homily that sounds like FDRs for freedoms,
and then then I hear about a missionary needing money.
I'm thinking, yeah, right, you're right, but yeah, that's the
sad state that we're in. And I'm trying to impress people.
I'm trying to impress the point to people that this
is cross denominational. Because the oligarchs is the elite, the establishment,
they're going to do what works. And if this has
worked for decades now to subvert religious institutions, to turn
them basically into organs of you know, the corporate state,
which is what it is, then they're going to keep
doing it. They're not gonna stop doing it. And the
reason it works is that people don't figure it out.
They don't people aren't aware that this is this is
how religions are used. They're brought into institutions like you mentioned,
like the National Council churches, World Council churches, which are
essentially Rockefeller institutions. And again you'll you'll get people who
will analyze those things and they'll talk about, well, there
was a lot of KGB at those institutions, and that's true,
there were KGB that were installed in those but it's
the same. It's it's like talking about Gorbachev. You know,
who does Gorbachev end up lauding and praising and working
for Rockefeller institutions. And so again you have to understand
that the big money to oliguards are not at cross
purposes with Sovietism or the KGB or Maoism or anything
like that.
Speaker 2: They love it.
Speaker 3: They love those you know, control systems, those top down
control systems, whatever titles you want to give them, fascism, communism,
they all kind of achieve the same goal. There might
be different flavors, you know what I mean, Like fascism,
I might not be as degenerate, or something like Bolshevism,
But in the end I would say that even fascism,
you know, is problematic because it basically deifies the state.
Speaker 2: And so what we in my view, what we tend
to see.
Speaker 3: And in fact I was as I was reading through
wim Hoff, I'm simultaneously reading a book by I think
his name is Papiya Natzev.
Speaker 2: He's a it's a written in the eighteen nineties, and.
Speaker 3: It's memoir reflections of a Russian statesman, and he was
critiquing from the eighteen nineties Russian statesman view, you know,
writing prior to bulsh of Revolution. He's critiquing Western liberal
democracy from a Russian Orthodox perspective, and he's saying the
exact same thing that the anti Americanists are saying in
Weimhoff's book. Right, So the arguments of even the you know,
Pope Leo or writings like the Syllabus of Errors or
Quantikiro or or you know Father Leonard Feeni.
Speaker 2: Or father I think there's a guy in Webmou's book named.
Speaker 3: Father Tapping or something like that, whether there's a significant
section of an essay that sounds just exact same argumentation
that the pubby knots of is giving about democracy, and
how both of them in fact make the point that
when you try to have separation of church and state,
you don't actually get that.
Speaker 2: What you get is a state control church.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: That's the irony here is that everybody who all of
these people who are purveyors of separation church and state,
they're always acting like making this argument as if you're
going to get the freedom that you really really want
if you just let us set up the secular you know,
divide and put us set up to secular situation, it's
going to be freedom for you, we promise. Think of
all the tyranny that you've had for all these centuries,
and then what you get is this monstrosity that's just
another shadow controlled, you know, church state.
Speaker 1: That's what we have in America, the managerial state, the bureaucracy.
And back I did an interview, we were talking, oh,
and the gentleman made the point that in eighteen late
nineteenth century there were more bureaucrats in Paris than they
were all throughout the Russian Empire. Yet the Russian Empire
is called autocratic and teran. You know, well, simply they
didn't have the officials to do this, so practically speaking
it couldn't be because you had mediating institutions and these
things really governed society. And yeah, but that's the false
claim of liberalism and democracy because even at the end
of the day, I think I've made this point to you,
to you, to you directly in other people, is that
we have these paper constitutions, but they don't follow them anyway.
They don't even live up to their own claims exactly.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Should There's there's another little book that I think his
name is Trevor Goodson, I think, but it's a history
of central banking, and he goes he goes into that
point in terms of the Russian government as well about
about what was really going on, and you know, questions
of the usury and that kind of stuff. But the
point being is it's just that I'm trying to say
that we we think of America as separation church and state,
but actually the religions in America are essentially organs of
the state.
Speaker 1: Is what it all amounts to, which is what these
dated Wemuff makes the point in is book that was
the original plan was to make it. You know, you
create this pluralistic society and it has their own religion.
They can go to church on Sunday and then to
become you know, productive, you know, economically driven robots for
the rest of the week, and it doesn't really make
much of a difference.
Speaker 3: Yes, And one of the problems with that is the
Enlightenment assumption of what's called neutrality. So in the Rema
philosophy have this question of philosophical or ideological neutrality, and
is that really possible.
Speaker 2: I don't believe that it is.
Speaker 3: So for example, I think it really quickly breaks down
because we start asking questions like, well, how can the
state be neutral on something like abortion? How can it
be neutral on the question of marriage. Those are institutions
that relate directly to human society. So how can the
state have no position or be neutral on those things.
It's it's really retarded and quite fact childish to think
that it could. And yet that is the the inheritance
that we have from the enlightenment is the assumption that
not just in science that you can be quote neutral,
but then in fact, in all areas of life, there's
this this magical position of neutrality that you don't have
to take a position, or that you can allow some
sort of libertarian freedom in and in fact it's just
simply not the case.
Speaker 2: There.
Speaker 3: There's there's no point that in in the world, or
or in reality or or human life that is that
is neutral. Nothing is if you, if you, if you,
if you stop and think about it. But of course
that's not the pragmatic approach is to stop, is not
to stop and reflect or to to even consider something
like that. But you know, whether it's you know, Sunday
laws right there used to be Sunday laws, Whether it's
you know, the days of the week, you're right, I mean,
whether it's questions of usury, whether it's questions of morals, abortion, murder.
You know, none of these things can be can be neutral,
and it doesn't. I mean, certainly there's such a thing
as crazy bureaucracy, but at the same time, there's no
such thing as like, you know, a state that doesn't
legislate morality that's utterly.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm I'm personally opposed.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well that's what That's what it does is that
I think wem Hoff and a kind of passing point,
actually makes a brilliant argument there that well, isn't that
what's necessary for commerce? I mean, in other words, to
maximize commerce, you need to play down religious laws and
distinctions because it's not good for commerce. Yes, And that's
that's a key point here, is that the real god
in the system is Mammon is the market god.
Speaker 1: And that doesn't you really you get to the essential
questions what constitutes are good and just society? And sometimes
but that gets that's not a pragmatic.
Speaker 2: Question, that's philosophical, and that's no longer pragmatic.
Speaker 1: America. We like to get things done, you know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and whim Off you know, makes those points right away,
and early on in the book he says that essentially
America is the pragmatic country. I also pretty appreciated the
chapter two he discusses at length. You know that the
quickly like there's a whole chapter on the roads round
table group. Quickly, Lionel curtisis Commonwealth of God, you know,
becomes the idea of the American styleship.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and the whole idea that this the American century
we designed, would be designed by various banker elites who
control the media. These are a handful of men for
the most part, who are just who are creating an
economic system which it's called economic freedom, but benef it's
the empire.
Speaker 3: And the same people that designed the Fourteen Points. It's
the same class that designed the Four Freedoms. And they're
the same ones that said that this needs to be
sold to the entire world. And guess what, they're all
bankers and they drew up all the debts after war
war war.
Speaker 1: And another false prom It's just like the way the
liberal constitutions of false promises, because the Four Freedoms and
the fourteen Points, well, one thing it didn't apply to
defeated Germany in nineteen eighteen, but later on it didn't
apply to Mussadec in Iran or Guatemala fifty you know
under our Benz or Chile in these things, right, because
the moment you got fast freedoms.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the freedoms, you know, they're arbitrarily doled out and
taken away.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know it's it's again just freedom. That sounds great,
you know, but they don't live up there.
Speaker 2: What about freedom from usury?
Speaker 1: Yeah, freedom from usury to become institutionalized. You know, it's
but it's what you talk about the use of well
foundations NGOs. You could say, these organizations you don't really
consider governmental h e. Michael Jones in his book, well
in several books, but particularly in the Slaughter of Cities.
And also he would a biography of John Cardinal Kroll
in the Cultural Revolution, which actually predates the Slaughter of Cities.
I read it actually in reverse. Wasn't aware of the
Cardinal crole biography, but he says there was a basis.
It was his research to Cardinal Krowell lived a slaughter
of cities and sort of again we have a situation.
This is done in the middle part of the twentieth century. Uh,
because America is a funny situation. Marits. I've heard America
described as sort of a Masonic Frankenstein monster. It's it
was up until the twentieth century was largely decentralized and
at least in the outside of the South, very ethnic
and sort of compartmentalized ethnically, these ethnic conclaves and these things.
But this had to be sort of homogenized for the
American century and this really began a were one, but
really began an earnest during World War II under the
pretext of war measures to bring you know, black sharecroppers
up from the South to fill the war factories. Because
of the war mobilization, twelve million men went off to fight.
You had this labor shortage that was a need that
had to be met, but it was also used as
a pretext to sort of weaken the unions at the
same time also break up these ethnic neighborhoods that people
like Paul blanchetsaw as being suspect loyalty for the war.
You know, even the Polish Catholics or Irish Catholic wasn't
just Germans or Italians that he targeted. Because these these
Catholic enclaves are ethnic communities, were sort of a stumbling
block to the post war plans. I think they were
already set in motion. But the use of the use
of the foundations like the Ford Foundation, and the use
of after well, one thing later on you should a
head to the sixties. The use of governmental agencies like
the Office Economic Opportunity to UH fund criminal gangs to
sort of proxy soldiers to chase the whites out. This
is very similar to what we see like in the
Middle East.
Speaker 4: With you with some of these you know, with Isis,
so called ISIS of these groups where these these proxy
forces are used to create mayhem to well some sort
of a demographic eive executive perhaps.
Speaker 3: Guess what the same thing is happening to the ethnic
communities of the Orthodox world. It's no different and UH
for example, I was reading article the other day about
I think it was in UH one of the Eurasian
publications journal Ineo or whatever, but I think I shared
it online. It's it's a it's a good article talking
about the banker's destruction of Greece.
Speaker 2: Now we all know that this has happened over the
last several years.
Speaker 3: But the leftist government that was supposedly going to stop
and oppose the IMF, oh, well, magically, guess what they
just happened to be people from the IMF and from
uh yeah, Alexi, Cyprus or whatever. And guess what he
wants more mosques in Greece. Now, the Greeks, who of
course fought Muslims at different points in history, and even
the Greek bishops in Greece, who are not as bad,
by the way as the American Greek bishops who are
the worst. They're mad, they don't want more mosques, and
they're saying, we want borders, we do not want more
and more Islamic influx. But guess what that's to destroy?
Greece's to destroy what's there. It's by design, and it's
Muslims there, and it's migrant caravans here. It's exactly it's
the exact same models. And it's and what you're talking
about with the ethnic enclaves, with Catholics, it's the exact
same thing. Yeah, or with or with Southerners, it's exact
same thing.
Speaker 1: And achieve you can achieve a lot of rejectives. One
of things you create, you create white America, right, the
post war white suburbia, which they could be subjected to
the culture Revolution, to the mass media. And this is
all spelled out like you said in various white papers
and think tanks, the creation of suburbia. But the one
example is the efforts for the federal government of promoting
birth control in the nineteen sixties. It had been defeated
in nineteen thirties because of these ethnic these Catholic ethnic neighborhoods,
and the Catholic Church were strong because of these ethnic
neighborhood neighborhoods. But by the nineteen sixties that they asper
in the suburbia had been you know, had had had
had had happened, and so again you had that loss
of ethnic identity. But one one focal point of his
battle was actually was in Philadelphia where the it was
the the blessed most Blested Sacrament Parish. I think it is, yeah,
most Blessed Sacon in Mbia, NBA, most bested Sacrament parish.
It was like one hundred city blocks, very dense, these
dense Philadelphia homes, all Catholic, Okay, and it was the
largest Catholic school in the country. Yeah, and provided the
most priest in these things. But it also elected a senator,
Martin Mullen, and that senator was I think controlled the
purse during of the state budget, and he held the
pass against the state of Pennsylvania promoting birth control. And
what they did is they gradually integrated his neighborhood and
he lost his district because of that, and they in
the Catholic ethnic Catholics left for suburbia. And the problem,
but the problem with the archdiocese didn't really didn't have
the sophistications what was going on. They didn't seem the care.
They just thought integration was good, you know, as that
was sort of the zeitgeist, the spirit of the age.
If you were progressive, you had had to put an integration,
as you were a racist if you didn't. But they
didn' understand that this parish was being destroyed, which is
the backbone of the influence of the church from the
standpoint of the archdiocese was the people will just goore
out to suburbia, but they are still members of the archdiocese,
but they're no longer part of a cohesive, tight knit community,
and there goes there goes the cultural influence of the church.
Therefore its political power. Once they're these you know, these
ethics going in the suburb and they become whites, you know,
with you know, watching TV, all they have in common.
And that's and it was very sophisticated, but it was done.
And how this was done was the employment of foundations,
Quaker organizations, UH, the Catholic inter racial councils, shoot people withinside.
The liberals withinside the church either understood this or didn't care.
They just wanted to be good liberals. But this again
you use ethnic warfare. And superficially it looks good because
everyone supporting integration, but really from a route from a
political science and sociological standpoint, just sort of creating the
homogenization of society and destroying groups that might present some
check on the Uh. The objectives of the empire, which
one of the thing was was, of course, was depopulation
and birth control, and the courts were there with Griswold
of the Connecticut ninet sixty five to legalize it. What
happened was once the court's r it was right, a
privacy right, governments can now go out and actively promoted.
Before that they couldn't promote this thing, and they started
promoting it. And I think it was William Ball, who
was a Catholic lawyer working for the archdioces, made the
argument that well if it's a right to privacy, and
the government's not right even promoting because you're invading someone's
privacy by promoting it. But that's just My point is
just that is kind of a micro example of the
importance of these ethnic neighborhoods and how you can achieve
a much larger political objective just by demographic warfare. And
it's indirect, so it isn't isn't particularly noticed. And the
point is is the Foundations are key to this.
Speaker 2: Yes, there are maybe an analogous example.
Speaker 3: Orthodoxy in America is kind of confusing because there's a
lot of different jurisdictions. And the reason for that is
because in Orthodoxy there's no position higher than a bishop.
If if say the Russian Orthodox Church extends missions to America,
if it sets up a mission church, then that church
has unless it's granted autocephalis status.
Speaker 2: It's usually in some.
Speaker 3: Way connected to, you know, a Russian bishop or something
like that. If the Greeks set up a mission church,
the same situation happens, and so there's been a move
for example, amongst I would argue, I used to think
it sounded like a good idea to have all of
the jurisdictions of orthodox in America United. But now that
I understand the way that this stuff actually works, that
would be a bad thing because what would happen is
it would all probably they would try to put it
under one single American jurisdiction that would be completely controlled.
So that would actually be a nightmare. So it's actually
good that we have different parishes, Russian churches, Serbian churches,
Romania Orthodox, all these different types, because that's much more
difficult to try to force everybody into the acceptance of
one giant, so called canonical thing that's run by you know,
foundations and a bunch of stooges.
Speaker 1: When you end up with a rainbow flag outside the church, anyway.
Speaker 2: You will you'll have to.
Speaker 3: And yeah, and and I remember, you know, ten years
ago I started looking at Orthodoxy, and I remember people
talking about, well, we need to have all the jurisdictions united,
we need to have one jurisdiction for North America.
Speaker 2: And and ideally, normally that would be the case.
Speaker 3: But nowadays, given the way I have a I think
a better picture of how you know, subversion works, that
sounds like a nightmare.
Speaker 2: We would not want that.
Speaker 3: But but yeah, and and that would play into ethnic
uh of subversion as well. So you're absolutely right. So yeah,
and there's two there's there's different errors here, Like there's
the there's the focusing too much on the ethnicity, which
happens at times of Orthodoxy, and it causes problems. But
at the same time that can also be a positive,
it can be a firewall. So so there's no easy
answers to this because the system that you know, that
we are opposed to is a system that utilizes Mammon
to essentially destroy man. And and that's the problem is
that people don't see that. And I always again I
come back to, you know, think about the Godfather, right,
and I think Weimhoff has a section where he talks
about this that that's that's an emblem of the destruction
of the people group.
Speaker 2: You see.
Speaker 3: The same idea in Scarface is you have these people
who would have been would have been more traditionally minded
in their religious views. And the same would apply to
any person who comes to America, you know, to make
his way from whatever religious background. The same ideas there
is that the kind of system that America is is
a system that entices you on the basis of material prosperity.
And I thought the chapter that Weimhoff had about Walter
Litmann was especially because the jibes perfectly with what we've covered,
for example, at my site in Miles Copeland, because Miles
Copeland said, we wanted to sell Hollywood and Americanism, or
we wanted to sell Americanism in Egypt, so we just
sent them Hollywood movies because that made them all think that,
you know, living the good life is essentially you know,
climbing up the ladder, and you see that that's what
it's about. That's what the enticement that why do all
these third world people want to come here when they
want to have a better life, they want to make money,
but they don't understand that three generations from now, that's
to turn their offspring into goblins.
Speaker 1: Basically, yeah, yeah, And that's a good example of that
is a lot of the people from Mexico who migrate
north exactly once they get away from like our lated Guadalupe,
they lose their Catholicism, especially Mexican form of Catholicism. That's
how they identify with it, and it's very it's not
very strong up here. And what they become again, these
you know, like you said goblins.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean it's not like it's not like it's
only white people that are going to be promoted with
the trainee stuff.
Speaker 2: It's everybody. Yeah, yeah, and the school the schools are
pushing that.
Speaker 3: And now you know, Canada has legalized BC reality, so
that that's completely legal to have BC reality, you know,
So it's not just I mean, it's like every degeneracy
is going to be pushed out and promoted and it's
going to be basically a completely satanic order, is what
it is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, mhm. And Chris this, you know, Chase a lot
of these countries, the Latin America, Mexico, you know, they've
invade Americans, America's Freemasonic project in Mexico and uprooting the
traditional state there in the nineteenth century.
Speaker 2: And America it was fostered by Mason's.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Masons, and uh again there's a context here that
you know America's had played has played. It has played
a large role in keeping these countries poor and destabilized.
And this is a model here, because you do that,
you create an endless supply, virtually in the supply of
not only caravans of people who can come up and
create social disruption and just create sort of a strategy tension,
but also cheap labor, you know, cheap labor. That's the
coincides with the so called free trade and these things.
They've always leveraged the enslaved or exploited you know, wretched
masses of the of the colonies of the empire for
labor and call that free trade. And that's something that
British Empire did the Germany in the nineteenth century.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's a great point, and people don't think about
it being studied at that level. But there was in
fact a UN paper from a couple of years. The
paper was from early two thousands, I think, but somebody
had it was going around the alt media a few
months ago, maybe a few weeks ago for you what
it was. But basically, this UN paper was about population
projections for different regions and they were giving scenarios. It
was like eight different scenarios, and one of those scenarios
was the basically the displacement of the normative Caucasian population
by large amounts of Latin South American, Mexican you know,
population moving into moving into the US. By I think
they had something like twenty fifty. So in other words,
and now it was presented in this this particular un
paper as just one of the many scenarios, right like.
Speaker 2: Oh but but no, that's never used as a game plan.
They would never use that as like an actual strategy.
Speaker 3: No, even though there's books by countless academics like Weapons
and Mass Migration, they would never actually use that, right.
Speaker 2: It's just it's just an objective.
Speaker 3: Analysis, you know, even though even though the bankers say
we want to you know, Peter sutherlandless flood these countries
with even though you know Wesley Clarks, it's time for
all this to go away.
Speaker 2: No, they would never do that.
Speaker 1: It's just it's just how does the millions that end
up in Minnesota.
Speaker 3: Or Tennessee or in natural I met a guy at
a bookstore and he was a leftist guy. He ran
one of the bookstores that closed down, the old bookstore downtown.
And he saw me looking through the geopolitics section one
day and he was, what are you There's not many
people buy those books.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: It was like I was looking for anything to do
with I think I said something like cold war and
he was like, oh, well, blah blah blah. He said, yeah,
I've always been anti war and all this stuff, and
he had these kind of like you know, oh yeah,
there's a you know, a deep state cabal and this
kind of stuff, and they you that's who killed JFK.
Speaker 2: And then he's like, yeah, I gotta go, because so
I gotta go.
Speaker 3: I volunteer at one of the refugee centers where we
were receiving all the sommelions.
Speaker 2: In Nashville. There's all these aliens coming in.
Speaker 1: Yeah, why and who's paying for it? Mm hm agency yeah, yeah,
Soros organizations. But yeah, yeah, and they're making money hands
of a fist doing it too.
Speaker 3: That was another big key too that I think Jesse
Russell pointed out one of your interviews, and I she
I looked this up after he mentioned it, and that
was a thing I missed too, was all the virtue
signaling about the stuff by these retarded churches.
Speaker 2: And by the way, it's all of them.
Speaker 3: There's Orthodox or virtue signaling. The mainline Greeks were Protestant churches,
the liberal ones obviously, and the Roman Catholic bishops. They
were virtue signaling over this because they're getting money for
these refugees.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is where the brick and mortar. Meant, you know,
as Michael Jenny's called it, they're busy establishing their churches,
but not not keen to the psychological worf are being
waged against their flock. And as he said, so they're
you're they're bringing knives and gunfights and they have no understanding.
In some cases, I think it might be actually it
might be more sinister than that. Oh yeah, you know
someone like a Cardinal Bernard.
Speaker 2: Bernardine Bernardin or Mahoney.
Speaker 1: He was involved with what's his name in Chicago Ago.
You know, the guy who was for radicals, Solinski. Yeah,
he's working he's working with Sololensky. I'm like, okay. And
everywhere it goes as a trail of you know, reports
of abused children. So you know, you know, whatever thing,
you know, whatever you want for from that. But with uh,
you in the talk you were I think you opened
it up with this thirty six year interview with Norman Dodd,
which is very important, but it's one of these things.
Were Norman Dodd, who was the chief investigator for the
Reesky men you mentioned earlier, and you alluded to this
early is at one point there's a there was a
very serious creationial investigation or the role of the Foundations
when a wormser wrote a book called Foundations in Their
Power and he details us. But there was a very
serious investigation of what they were doing, un American activities
and what Norman Dodd describes as Unemarrian activities, just using
unconstitutional methods to change the government or society, which I
thought was a pretty fair, you know, explanation of something
as vague as un American people, you know. But he
he uh, I mean, actually I'll let you you I
mean you you well, I mean the.
Speaker 2: People who are doing this are committed americanness.
Speaker 3: Uh. And they knew no better, right, I mean, they
were they they operated on the basis of the light
that was given to them, so uh, you know, they
didn't know any better. But it's it's just like the
I heard some story about the guy who founded the
Birch Society. I forget he was some general or something,
and you.
Speaker 1: Know, he.
Speaker 3: Was well intentioned, but supposedly he got blown away by
the fact that he realized that it was these big Foundations.
It wasn't just commies. It was like, you know, very
wealthy people supporting all this stuff in America. Right, So
the same principle year is that if you look, for example,
at the things that they list that the various foundations Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie,
blah blah, it was ideas like relativism, moral relativism, culture relativism, socialism,
this kind of stuff.
Speaker 2: And that makes perfect sense because if.
Speaker 3: We think about, you know, Uri Besmanov, the endlessly cited
Defector interview, and I think it's Gward Griffin, it's g
Edward Griffin that's interviewing Norman Dodd.
Speaker 2: Is she Edward Griffin that interviews Uri Bezmov.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And what's interesting is that that in the Besmanov
lecture he doesn't ever he says he talks about things
that are real subversive techniques. So all that stuff that
he says is correct, but I don't think he gives
a full story fee's behind it. But if you look
at what the findings of the recent committee are, that's
who it is.
Speaker 2: It's those people.
Speaker 3: It's Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, you know, the big bankers, all
these families, That's who it is.
Speaker 1: In the interview, Norman Dodd talks about when he was
like thirty years old at the time of the Great
crash nineteen twenty nine, but he was told to investigate
it by about banking reform. I think other quote, it's
very interesting, he is when I was thirty. I was
thirty at the time. I had no more right to
you go. Much of my surprise, my superiors, in the
middle of the panic in which they were immersed, confronted me,
and I was confronted with the question, Norm, what do
we do now? I was thirty at the time. I
had no more right to have an answer to that
question than the man on the moon. However, I did
manage to say to my superiors, gentlemen, you take this
experience as proof of something that you do not know
about banking, and you better go find out what that
something isn't act accordingly, four days later, I was confronted
by the same superiors with a statement to the effect
that Norm, you go find out. And I really was,
and I really was a full enough to accept the assignment,
because it meant that you were going out to search
for something. He could tell you what you were looking for.
I felt so strongly on the subject that I consented
to it. I was really vulnerable duties I'll paraphrase here.
And he went out and he did investigated and basically
came back with the report, I guess promoting sound banking.
That's the solution. Uh, where is this? Here go?
Speaker 2: Here go?
Speaker 1: So I rendered such a report, and as a result
of the report I rendered, I was told the following
norm what you're saying is we should return to sound banking.
And I said, yes, in essence, that's exactly what is
that I am saying. Whereupon I got my first shock
was the statement from them to this effect, we will
never see sound banking in the United States again, and
they cited chapter verse to support that statement. But they
decided was as followed. Since the end of World War One,
we have been responsible for what they call the institutionalization
of conflicting interest and they're so prevalent inside this country
they can never be resolved. This came to me as
an extraordinary shock because these men who had made this
statement were the men who deemed redeemed the most prominent
bankers in the country. The bank of which I was
a part of was spoken of a Morgan bank. Coming
from the men of that caliber, statement of that kind
made a tremendous impression on me. Now, what he's saying
from that is that the banking system, of financial system
is made purposely unstable to create occasional shocks for the
purpose of I think, well, I would say, and so
he's being told that the system is made to be
intentionally unstable. They want this is strategy of tension, you know,
just to create a crisis. And this is since you
would occurred with the Great Depression and the and the
and the other panic. But yeah, I mean that's I mean,
that was an interesting part of that interview. But he
he says, uh, with the Reese Committee, he does this
investigation and he goes up there, I think since Katherine
Casey have to investigate the minutes of the Carnagian Down
for Peace and discovers and she discovers a conspiracy to
drag the country into war for the purposes of collectivization
of the country. The fundamentally change. Basically, there's no better
way to fundamentally change a culture or country than to
drag it into war. And also the subsequent plan to
after plans to extend the First World War, to extend
the crisis to I guess, create more damage to society,
trauma and then all things possible and take measures to
avoid a reversion to normal times for peace time, and
we call that the twentieth century, right, I mean, that's.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 3: And the people at the Rhodes Rothschild Society, the elect
group that we've covered, that's the one that's who cooked
all this up. And they're the ones who cooked up
the need to bring America into the wars, to be
the engine for this, to not only create instability and
to have the villains like Hitler, but to also they're
also smart enough and devious enough that they know that
the wars will exhaust certain countries, it will exhaust their enemies,
and they even talked about that. In fact, there's a
chapter where Quickly talks about that with Italy.
Speaker 2: He says that.
Speaker 3: What Mussolini did was actually advantageous for the West. Mussolini
basically exhausted Italy. They had nothing they could do after
the war. Not that Italy was necessarily that that great
of a war power, but the point is that the
Axis powers couldn't. It's Germany really was the main problem.
As you know, Quickly, any Michael Jones and every Stratford Freeman,
sure everybody agrees that that's what the Royal Society did,
was they came up with a plan to basically wreck
Germany and it worked, and then they did the same
thing with Russia.
Speaker 2: We know we've covered that, But the point is that
that the people who have these.
Speaker 3: Big, big picture strategy analyzes done, they're smart enough to know.
Speaker 2: How to play a big game, That's what I'm trying
to say.
Speaker 3: So they know the stuff about migration movements, population movements,
how to di wrect cultures through that that we talked
about a few minutes ago, And they know the same
strategies with economy, how to sink and cycle economies through
different means. That was covered excellently. One of the crucial
chapters in Tragedy, and hope that people miss as the
FDR chapter because if you if you just see FDRs
a socialist or e commy, you miss that, You miss it,
you miss the whole thing. Because even Wimhaw points out
that FDRs for freedoms, that's perfectly in line with the
spirit of American capitalism, even though he was a collectivist,
and the promotion of collectivism in this regard is not
contrary to monopoly capitalism at all. And when you see
the cycles. This was the quickly chapter on FDR that's
so crucial that the cycles are intentional to have a
period of prosperity and propatization that then transitions into a
cycle of austerity and collectivization. And they and the bankers
are smart enough that they know that and they can
plan that and that What that does, as we said,
was it collectivises the debt, the future energy of your
children are basically already down payments on future debts.
Speaker 2: That's how they do it.
Speaker 3: And they keep you in slavery, not just your generation,
but generation after generation of generation generation. And they can
even cycle the economy through different phases of boom and bust.
That's how it's done. So it's not a free market.
It's a rigged, rigged economy, even though it's sold as
a free market.
Speaker 2: It's it's it's.
Speaker 3: Basically just scam within scam within scam. It's like onion
layers of scams. I know, we talked about that before.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the whole bank financial system and insurance, even healthcare insurance,
the debt model and these things all it's all designed
for extraction.
Speaker 3: Harvesting exactly, harvesting energy basically energy parasites basically.
Speaker 1: Now, I mean you you talked a lot about Who's book.
I think it would be fair we talk about that.
And because we talk about this dark kryning of warfare
and he in the book.
Speaker 2: By the way, real quick, can I add something?
Speaker 1: Sure?
Speaker 3: Do you remember when you and I were talking about
the funny chapter in Quickly where he talks about the
Bank of England and the secret thenorage vaults and stuff.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the the Doctor Evil's gold orders.
Speaker 3: Did you see did you see the article that I
found that I put up in James Bond taught where
the queen is walking in the secret vaults looking at
her two hundred and sixty billion dollars in gold.
Speaker 1: Yeah, anyway, and they know she's she's goldfinger.
Speaker 2: I was gonna say, yeah, it's like her and Lord
Rothschild or like gold Hanger together.
Speaker 1: The trying of warfare program. Because this kind of this,
this is this kind of spells out what you're talking.
Speaker 3: By the way, by the way, if you have that
much of the gold I mean, if you remember goldfigures plot.
I'm sorry, i mean interrupt you a bit, but I
think this plays into I'm theorizing here, conspiracy theorizing this
plays into manipulation of the gold market. I mean if
you have like the control like a giant chunk of
the world, then aren't gold markets manipulated? I mean Paul
Greg Roberts has been arguing this for a long time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so this you can't even rely on a gold
standard right right now, fiat currency, because what you're dealing
with this hot this level of criminality, that faith, there's
no This goes back to there's no economic model that
can compensate for sus criminality.
Speaker 2: And yes, that's a great point. Yeah, I mean it gives.
Speaker 1: Back to basically has to assistant, has to have a
certain agivement tag Greene, honor to and it doesn't. It
just collapses And there's no model that can protect you
from because I really because if you have honorable people
running the printing press, even if currency we're working was
backed by economic production, there's no you know.
Speaker 2: But the.
Speaker 1: Walhof book Sites is docturnal warfare program. It was documental
psb D thirty three with annexes which basically the program
was to target intellectuals, business leaders, and clerics and a
number of different societies with the goal of having them
improve the American ideology and principle. Psychological warfare is defined
further in this interview. Two key aspects of American theology
my book proposals are I'm reading from wormhaw summation so
called separation of church and state, along the conception of
religious liberty with the means that there is not a
state established church and their religion is not a form
not to form the basis of public policy. And the
freedom of a press, which effectively puts culture and real
power over the minds of the citizenry in the hands
of private concerns like six corporations. We now have to that, wow,
interlocked corporations. And we see this today because now a
lot of Catholics, even the Pope, the current pope, has
internalized the American ideology. I think it was in September
of twenty fifteen he talked about the separation church of
state is the model and the integral or confessional state
simply doesn't work, which is a contradiction right, Yeah, of
church teachings.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I think you could argue that the on the start
of the papacy Benedict the fifteenth the beginning of the
craps because he supported the League of Nations, and of
course successors to him were less less amicable to this
kind of a thing. But yeah, I don't think there's
there's not much debate that you know, from John the
twenty third on you essentially get this line of thinking.
Speaker 2: I mean, I've read a large portion.
Speaker 3: Of the encyclicals of all of the popes after well,
I've read a lot of the twenty century and cyclicals,
but I've read John twenty third, I've read Paul the
six I've read you know, many of John, Paul the Seconds,
and Benedict, and they all are in unison there about
the confessional state's basically done.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's a relic.
Speaker 1: See, that's it's like because again, as Americans, you know,
we grew up in a you know, in a again
a society where there is no state church, right.
Speaker 3: And ironically, for me, I never questioned that until I
became a Calvinist, and it was it was ironically Calvinists
of all people that got me questioning that. Not because
they so much adhere to a confessional state, but in
certain strands of Calvinism, you have the idea that the
moral law of God has to apply to the civil sphere.
It doesn't make any sense and it's not coherent to
try to you that you know God has all the
attributes that you believe he has, like like omnipresence and omniscience,
and that you know all areas of life are essentially
under his.
Speaker 2: His providence and sovereignty.
Speaker 3: Well, then it only logically follows that the moral law
also extends into all areas of life. And if that
is true, which obviously is, then that applies to the
civil seris as well. And you know, as a Calvinist,
I was pretty ignorant of church history. But then when
I deeper, I doubt into church history, you've learned that, well,
this is the normative view of the Church. The Church,
even the early church fathers prior to the Christian Christianization
of the Kingdom, supported the death penalty.
Speaker 2: They supported uh, the the the the theory of just war,
on and on and on. And they did that because
of their view of scriptures. They saw a.
Speaker 3: Unity between the Old and the New Testaments. They didn't
teach Marsianism.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 3: And when you read the history of the Church and
you see countless kings converted to Christianity and then essentially
setting up Christianity as the confessional religion, that's the norm
and everybody knows this from countless examples in church history.
I was just watching a documentary on Byzantium and Empress
Theodora built a giant church to to to patron saints
of the Byzantine Army. The army had patron saints. That
is not the how far as night and day from
what we're talking about with the idea of essentially the
secular atheist state. And by the way, I am going
to do eventually firing the minds of Ment, and I've
read not a lot of I've read about five chapters
of fire the Minds of Ment, and and already we're
coming to see that the Billington is honest in his
and he's an apologist like he's pro you know, revolutionary America.
He's saying, basically what Wimhoff is saying is that the
spirit of seventeen seventy six is the spirit of I mean,
he doesn't talk about Vatican too, but he's saying that
that is the logical end result of the Spirit of
seventeen seventy six is essentially complete religious freedom.
Speaker 2: God doesn't have anything to do with the civil sphere.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 3: But again, whether you're Roman Catholic or whether you're Orthodox,
everybody knows that the double headed eagle is the ancient
symbol of the church.
Speaker 2: And that's because it represents church and state under God symphony, right.
Speaker 3: Right, which even the I mean, it's the same principle
in Catholicism too. I mean the austral Hungarian in parts
symbol is double headed eagle.
Speaker 1: So now with it, of course, America itself is different.
It's it's the first state that was established that that
what did have this non establishment church, you know, the
separation church the state, which really isn't in the constitution
Thomas Jefferson.
Speaker 3: Right, it's Jefferson and Roger Williams and the Baptist Schooboles.
Speaker 1: So really, I mean, obviously you really can't have that.
It's not reason. It's an excuse to sort of purged
religious and it's from the public square and inject secular
humanism or ideology or some secular ideology. And there's because
nature abhors a vacuums, someone's values will indeed prevail. It's
a question of who's Yeah.
Speaker 3: You know, however, I don't buy I used to try
to argue that you could read the documents as Christian.
But I more and more don't really think you can,
because let me just think about the conglomeration of people
that came together to draw them up.
Speaker 2: I mean it's essentially ecumenical.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, yeah, Let's get a bunch of Baptists and
Congregationalists and Atheists and Satanists and Daists and Masons and
Episcopalians together and come up with an idea of government.
Speaker 1: But nevertheless, the Catholic Church.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: And this the woman writes about this, this book is
is the allure of America I think you alluded to early,
is that it offers material prosperity, a lot of goodies,
a lot of babbles and things that, you know, gagulating
and things like that, and so tradition we've always been.
I mean, obviously you can't make them not have two masters?
What does it profit?
Speaker 2: Mean?
Speaker 1: And loses us? You know, if he gains the whole world,
loses the soul. There's a acknowledgment in traditional Christianity about
this temptation, even Jesus in the desert, in these things
being offered, all the principalities and powers Domitian over them,
and him rejecting it. But the what am I getting
at here here the idea that well, the corruption of
the of American of Americanism, uh vis via the Cavioch Church.
This why Americanism pervades the Catholic Church, not just Vatican
cub Long before the answered David Wemhoff writes about is
that life in America a relative like maybe life in
Ireland or even you know, Germany in the mid nineteenth
century was very nice. Catholic Catholics come here, there are restrictions,
but they prospered, that did well relative to their cousins
back in the old country. So they gained a certain
amount of loyalty to America based on their on their
financial prosperity, on their material prosperity. So they became dire
loyal to that. And this was the sort is their
material comfort again is what makes them Americanists. And so
they have to become loyal to the state. And so
they start to come to believe that the state being
ideal as opposed to the Catholic Church. Prior to the
sixties saw the situation in America sort of the Catholic
Church having a practical relationship to what the state was.
The fact that Catholic Church always had this, always took
a practical approach to what government was in power at
the time, right, and so it said, okay, this is
the state, the current situation, the way it is. It
was somewhat ameliorated by the fact that America was so decentralized.
And again we talked about these ethnic neighborhoods in the north,
in the Midwest and these things. So that had an
effect or of amiliorating these things. America wasn't quite the
empire yet. It became more of a problem when she
became an empire in the latter half of the twenty
you know, after the Second War, going leading into the
Second World War. But you have the Catholic Church relation
to traditional states like Spain or Portugal, where the Church
became internally hostile to like Franco Spain or sal Salzov's Portugal,
or what happened in Italy in the nineteen forties. And
then of course this was Henry LUs because Hendy Lus's
wife was the ambassador to Italy, and you talk about
it wasn't just Henry Luce there. There was Notre Dame
here in America who was the pining for Rockefeller funds,
but also this outfit but pro Dare University in Italy.
Speaker 2: Yes, the CIA set up yeah university. Right.
Speaker 1: But the point is that the that the the Church
of sof became hostile to confessional or intego estates like
Franco Spain in the name of democracy.
Speaker 2: Right, And everybody knows that that is the norm and
the history of the church. The Church is not.
Speaker 3: And there's a thousand different lies and and made up
nonsense that people try to use to justify this. They'll
talk about, Oh, but the early Church, well, the early
Church was busy christianizing the empire and dying to make
the imperium you know, christian Right, So you can't look
to you know, martyrs as if as if that is
the goal. No, the goal, as the prophets predicted many
times over throughout the Psalms, throughout major minor prophets, is
that the nations and the kings of the earth would
convert to Christ.
Speaker 2: And they did.
Speaker 3: And that's that's one of the reasons we know Christianity
is true. Is all these prophecies in the Law and
the Prophets and the Psalms predict the fact that the
kings of the nations will convert to Christ. And they did,
and by the way, their kingdoms converted. And it's only
they understood properly and correctly that you can't banish God
from the civil sphere. Once you do that, as many
wise men have noticed, you get a new God. You
don't get secular state. You get a new God. And
this is interesting because many of these esotericis and occultists
and degenerates, they're more than happy to put a new
God into place because you fell for that. You fell
for the goofy lie that you would get you know,
no god, you would get neutrality. No, you get a
new you get a new master. Right, no man can
serve two masters, which assumes that you're serving one or
the other one. There's no neutrality, you're not. Jesus has
no neutrality in that equation. There so anyway, but yes,
uh uh, it's it's again. It seems so far fetched
anybody who grew up in America the idea of the
confessional state. But you know, it's just a fact. That's
the reality of the history of the Church. It's not
an aberration of the early Church that itself, which is
what many Protestants, many americanists rely on is simply not true.
Speaker 2: That's a mythology that they could.
Speaker 3: That that Baptists and so of the Avidists really popularize
this idea that Constantine fundamentally changed the constitution of the
Church into something that it wasn't before, and that's simply
not true. You can you can read countless hundreds of
pages of church fathers prior to to Constantine, who taught
the exact same thing as the Church fathers after. They
didn't fundamentally change anything. The liturgies were the same, The
views of the Doctor of the Church are the same.
The views of the legality of the state. You know,
Paul and rome As thirteen says the state has the
sword as a minister of God. Now Paul doesn't. He's
not saying the state is God. And by the mere
fact that he lost his head as a martyr by
the state shows that he didn't believe that the state
could do anything. No, it's limited by the law of God, obviously,
and so you know, the early Church had the same view,
but they also at the same time recognized the legitimacy
of the state to wage just war and to punish
evil doers. As Paul says, that's what the sword is.
It's the death penalty. This has been This is another
element that a lot of people miss too, is pacifism,
the pacification the same problems, by the way, in Catholicism
and in Orthodoxy. So what goes along with a lot
of this Americanism is also magically the promotion of aism.
Now they'll talk about how the New Catechism does this,
although oddly enough the New Catechism for Catholics still retains
I think some weird statement about how it is the
traditional position, but the death penalty is no longer needed
with you know, all the modern inventions that we have,
or something to that effect. And of course, you know,
Joppo the second was a huge crusader against the death penalty.
And now a lot of people don't see this as
that big of a deal. I do, because it's a
clear example of one of these cases where we can
see the banishment of God from the civil sphere as
a as a clear departure from traditional teaching. So, whether
you're Orthodox or whether you're you're a Roman Catholic, the
entire history of the Church is affirm the death penalty.
Speaker 2: It's never been doubted except for you. There might have
been some.
Speaker 3: Rigorous church fathers, you know, early on, who, by the way,
probably weren't saying to somebody like Tertolian or some like that,
who's not not a saint, by the way, who might
have doubted it, some of the some of the aesthetics
might have doubted it. But the normative conciliar canonical view
is that the imperium, it's in the code of Justinian,
by the way, who is a saint in orthodoxy, you know,
the death penalty is there. Uh, it's it's in canon
law in certain cases has been mentioned.
Speaker 1: I think it applies to pediass priests.
Speaker 3: It used to absolutely, Yeah, I think even Justinian's code
has Pederasti has a death penalty.
Speaker 2: So yes.
Speaker 3: So in other words, one of the things, by the way,
that that leftists talked about to alter culture, and I'll
give you an example in the Globalist book series, ah
she Wells says this. He says, promote pacifism and the
removal of the death penalty.
Speaker 2: Why would why would that be?
Speaker 3: Well, because that is a an anti patriarchal, anti masculine,
anti it's a it's an alteration in the civil society
which ends up basically rewarding criminals, because what happens is
criminals get basically put up in prison, and society then
pays for the criminals.
Speaker 1: The original concept of outlaw was, you know, one guy
protection from the law. It wasn't so much you were
just outside the law. Acting outside law is that you
were no longer protected by the law. There was a
form of extreme ostracism, and then you were no longer
and then we can do anything they wanted to you.
Speaker 3: Well, that might be, I would probably be better than
than than the idea of a giant, private, for profit
pedal system by which people can commit heinous crimes and
then taxpayers are punished by having to pay for this guy,
which is preposterous. Now, you know, yes, I understand that
our system is corrupt. So I'm not saying that we
should give all of these evil people in America, you know,
like free reigns to just kill everybody. But what I'm
saying is that just just simply speaking, the not in
terms of every single case, but just considering the doctrine itself,
the doctrine of the death penalty.
Speaker 1: Everything everything comes commodified or yes, in the United States,
even crime, because now you have Correctional Corporation of America
trades on Wall Street.
Speaker 2: Yes, but it's right, right, right, and that makes the
issue a little more complex.
Speaker 3: But just on the question of the legality or normativity
of the death penalty, in terms of traditional theology, there's
no question. And it's crucial to understand that the twentieth
century liberal theologians, well, I guess it would kind of
begin with the higher critics, but it becomes popularized along
with social Gospel and by the socialists and by the Communists,
by the Marxists, by the leftists, and by the pastifist
capitalist democracy promoters. They all want to get rid of
the death penalty. And that's a big piece that a
lot of people people miss because it has the effect
of essentially.
Speaker 2: Creating a completely different.
Speaker 3: It's it's just part and Parson the idea that God
is not involved in the civil sphere, that you have
a public agreed upon, you know, ecumenical view, and then
you have your own practical lige.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's almost like I've taken a non spiritual, non
religious example or analogy would be like the right to
bear arms, where practically speaking, know it's going to raise
arms against the state, but nevertheless, there's something to be
said about uh, expecting every man to be armed, to
be able to protect himself against marauders or criminals. This
creates sort of a massaculine manly attitude, and it sort
of creates a stronger community, and this which adds to
self government. And so there's something it's sort of it's
it's it's it's well. At times it could be rather
practical if someone's breaking your house, but it's more it's
also very symbolic, which is why the towns people who
defend the death penalty and gun rights tend to be
more of a heartier sort, if you know what I mean,
and the people who want his neighbors.
Speaker 3: And when you you can go through the history of
theological texts over the last two thousand years and eat meat,
and they do, Yeah, they're not vegan, soy boys. In
many cases you'll find that the sources for why you
can defend yourself, which again is an application of the
debt faulty, by the way, is Exodus, because I think
it's Exodus twenty to twenty two specifically mentions the right
of self defense. And so the normative view of the
history of the church was not that. Oh, well that's
an old Tusman. Doesn't matter. No, it doesn't matter because
it's a principal moral law that you have right to
self defense.
Speaker 1: But back to David WebM Offfice, I was I don't
know if there's in the book or is an interview.
I think it was an interview because of the context
of what he was talking about. He was talking about, well,
Catholics in America, Catholics who do well in America, who
climb up the totem pole, who kind of worked a
way up the slimy political grease poll in teen power.
They all have to shed their genuine Catholicism to retain
power or success within the American system. So it says,
you speak it cannot be really be a successful Catholic
and be genuinely Catholic in America. You have to compromise yourself.
And one example he talks about was when I think
it was Amy who was that judicial Amy Barrett was
her name. The judicial points ce, uh, she's Catholic, and
I think Senator Feinstein was worried about her dogma. Yeah, now,
of course, no Jewish appoint he ever gets that questioned
about the tal mood and does the Talmud affect your
Jewish prudence? These things, this is the double standard we
always we get. Catholics are always confronted with this question
by liberal Jewish senators on the Jujitsiary Committee confirmation, and
no one ever questions them about their dogma the doctor,
which is abortion in pornography. But there's whole other issue.
But the uh he says, you know, she got a
lot of flak for that. And the typical people like
Donna who you know, Donaho, the Catholic you know what's
his outfit?
Speaker 2: Uh yea some of the organization. Yeah, it's like a
watchdog thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, you're you're you're bigger than against cathoxs blah
blah blahs is. But his point was, in a way,
the senator was correct. There is something about essential or
true Catholic doctrine that is inconsistent with the American system.
And of course, and so Catholics in a way, even
American Catholics, their proper role in America is not to
have a place at the table. It's there to be
outside and maybe wagging a finger at the very least
exerting some sort of influence. But the moment they try
to succeed in America, they lose their identity and what
essentially makes some Catholic. And we see that with Americanism.
Would wouldn't you agree?
Speaker 2: Of course?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean people don't get that anymore because you know,
we see every Catholic politician is a sellout, right, I
mean a one deg or another, even Sheldon Nagelson.
Speaker 3: You know, it's like, you know, power in America requires money,
and yeah, money requires you to give up principles.
Speaker 1: So the relative poverty and yeah, but this is that
good life again, this is what one talks about the
selection of America is the good life, and you can
do well here. And because of that, even priests with
their brick and mortar oper that's what they worry about.
The bishops, they worry about their operations and as long
as they don't lose their tax status, they won't be militant. Well,
the church is a militant it's nothing.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, And it was a long time scam two
which a lot of people don't know.
Speaker 3: But that was a way for the government to trap
churches into not having political speech.
Speaker 1: I think that was the Johnson administration that when that
was great and forget that correct, you know, but.
Speaker 2: But but but but.
Speaker 3: Going along with the five o' one C three tax
exempt status also means you're accepting Americanism because you're accepting
that I'm not going to apply my theology to the
civil spirit.
Speaker 1: Yes, but they but they can apply their their theology
and they will to everything. And witness how Obamacare makes
the Catholic Church. You know, everyone's worried about freedom of religion,
and you know the sept because Obamacare is going to
make the Catholic Church, you know, uh, subsidized abortion and
birth control and what they describe is preproo. Well yeah,
I mean productive health.
Speaker 2: Like taxpayer is gonna be paying for trainees. So yeah,
you thought you thought more morality won't.
Speaker 3: Be legislated, but uh no, it will be legislated, and
you'll be you'll be supporting the most satanic stuff imaginable.
Speaker 1: Now, they are the role of foundations. I'm gonna bear
with Mary. I'm gonna read this and picture commentaries. Yeah,
this is aing you Michael Jones. Brook John called Kroll
and the Culture Revolution. This was a great sort of
a just sort of a synopsis or summation of how
foundation he says, foundation is really constant what he calls
a secret government undermine real government. In here, I'll read it, it,
says Renee Worms, a Recent's legal assistant. Throughout the hearings
documented in a book published in nineteen fifty seven, not
only the dangers posed by foundations to the institutions of
the Republic, but also they influenced those foundations and their
political allies were bringing to bear on the nation's cultural institutions.
The great Foundations, Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie were for the most
part founded as a result of the New Deal, as
an attempt to prevent the flow of family money into
the coffers of the federal government under the tax policies
instituted by Roosevelt. Created from the wealth of this country's
major capitalists. The foundations soon applied the techniques of cartel
of the cartel rather and the Trust to the flow
of information and reconfiguration of culture. The foundations would put
up money which would serve as venture capital in the
politics of change. Foundations like those run by the Rockefeller
brothers would fund projects like Kinsey Sex Surveys, which would
which would been otherwise impossible to support given the constraints
of democratically elected government, or the simple satisfying of market forces.
The Foundations would fund research which they found congenial and
almost invariably involved instigating social change away from a position
of congruity with the moral law. They involved more than
often than not, as the Kinsian studies did, the substitution
of scientific data for moral principle, and then when the
project had received a modicum of public acceptance, the Foundations
would turned the funding of the projects over to the government.
This was by and large the mechanism of cultural revolution
in this country. The Foundations would fund the undermining of
some law, generally having to do with sex, the family, morals,
or religion. The courts would remove any legal roadblocks, and
the press would proselytize for whatever social change entailed, given
widespread dissemination of the scientific surveys which the Foundations funded,
and eventually the government would set up programs based on
what the Foundations proposed, funded by government money. Of course,
the government's involvement in the contraception is one of the
instances of general rule that we will examine and greater
detail later. But I thought that there was a great
description of sort this closed loop that appears sort of
dynamic and free, but really just thought it's all closed system.
Speaker 2: It is.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it reminds me of not too long ago, a
couple of years ago, flipping through NPR. I don't ever
listen to it, but I just happened, you know, after
like never listening to the NPR, just one day randomly
flipping to it and I hear this ad for vaccines
and it was talking about how.
Speaker 2: It was something like just kind of mind blowing.
Speaker 3: I don't remember exactly what the ad was with something like,
you know, be sure to get vaccines because you know,
we're trying to really help the world's population to stabilize.
Speaker 2: And I'm not joking.
Speaker 1: I was like Bill Gates.
Speaker 3: And it was said paid for by the Kids Foundation,
and so it was like a two minute blurb about
how everybody giving vaccines will help world population to stabilize.
And you know, we of course we know Bill Gates
says that, you know, in his Ted talks he's talked
about at point before that the vaccines are intended to
do this, but this was not geared towards the Third World.
It was geared towards domestic population. He's saying, you guys
in America, please get your vaccines. Uh, you know, and
he you know, he talks about the death pedals and
all that. So again not surprising, but it was just
interesting to just randomly turn on MPR and hear that,
and then hear the Gates Foundation paying for this ad.
Speaker 2: And what was it?
Speaker 3: Somebody said something about Oprah and oh, Oprah, Oprah having a.
Speaker 2: Abortion parties.
Speaker 3: So what she's what Oprah's trying to promote is this
is instead of women feeling shame for getting abortions, having
abortion parties. You can't make this up. Oprah is promoting
women having abortion parties. Like like you were having like
a baby shower.
Speaker 1: What gift do you bring to that, like an empty
pair of shoes or something.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's some of the very something, very macabre obviously.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: But the reason I bring that up is because Oprah. Yeah,
and there's a hashtag for a shower your abortion or something.
But Oprah, she attends one of those yearly meetings with
Rockefeller and Bill Gates and all that about you know,
third world and depopulation and all that. So the reason
I'm the point I'm saying is that that that, yes,
that they will even openly say that this is done
to you know, it's done under the cough, but it's
done a plain sight. But the Foundations are able to
subvert the normal channels of government because they're not under
government perview.
Speaker 2: So and that's been the case, you know, a long time, all.
Speaker 1: The way back. They also fund the educationist in the
colleges universities. Even Norman daw talked about that way back.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's what.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's why I was bringing that into Fordham University
and then trying to you know, influence doors our churches
on on their sexual morals.
Speaker 1: And everything is like apparently you're you're you're a tyrannical
evil if you don't support the big gay agenda.
Speaker 2: Mm hm.
Speaker 1: That seems to be the big push. Everything is just
gay gay gay gay everywhere.
Speaker 2: You're a big yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it's uh, you know, just not that the flags.
But if you go headlines and news stories that are
selected in these things, you know, even celebrities and reports
of celebrity lifestyles, because celebrities always been used to degrade
and promote the general behavior.
Speaker 3: Well, but what you were reading from from em Michael
Jones there that drives very well with with McGowan. So,
you know, Den mcgawan's talking about kind of like the
Pentagon intelligence angle of it, and he's talking about the
foundations driving the counterculture, and makes perfect sense because it's
the same people you know, controlling the Pentagon you're in
who are in these these foundations.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and of course they're the ones that fled of
the country with LSD exactly, which is how common knowledge.
People still don't make that connection, you know. You know
there's a documentary called Berkeley in the sixties. Yeah, it
talks about the free speech movement in Berkeley sixty four
sixty five, and it's kind of all clean cut and everything,
but by nineteen sixty nine everyone was just these you know,
zombifie hippies and they're interviewing the people and all their
memories are of all the sex they had and that's it.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: So a serious sort of sober anti war movement that
could shine some light and criticism on the on the
system was again destabilized or destroyed by by, of course,
degenerate sex, you know, which is.
Speaker 3: Like, oh, yes, that reminds me too. Since we've talked,
I covered Bowart's book in total. Did you hear those
Yes I did.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Walter Buch Yes, and he backs up all that too.
Speaker 3: He actually talks about the tim Larry essentially being commissioned
to create a cult, create the Timilary cult, and Leary
was able to sell his nonsense through saying it was
a right. Mm hm, you have a right to this,
the exact same thing the way abortion was sold. This
is your right and the man is keeping you down. Yeah,
it's in other words, even once again there's another testament
to counterculture being essentially establishment driven, you know, in the
in the that's the overall thrust of the Bowart book
is is to back up the thesis.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's sort of this the big anti natalist push,
which is not done so you know, directly through forced
abortions like in China where they could get away with
it and one child honestly, but just through the cultural change,
you know, sort of the culture, the different the change
expectations where again women are supposed to just presume that
women a woman who goes to college and doesn't want
to get married, she wants to have a career, Well
to what end?
Speaker 2: To what end?
Speaker 3: You know, right, which is the idea of the creation
of the narcissistic individual, which is again another psychological warfare
technique to create the completely you know, self centered kind
of sociopathic, psychopathic individual, which is a big part of
what social media is now doing. You know, you have
even the I'm sure you've heard this, or the executives
coming out saying, oops, sorry, we created a giant narcissism,
a machine that destroys society.
Speaker 2: Sorry about the oops the way.
Speaker 1: It's oops, you created a drug culture. Oops.
Speaker 2: Oops. Yeah, sorry, we didn't do that.
Speaker 1: Vietnam was a mistake.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Oops, you know, we dropped two and fifty tons of
bombs on Cambodia. Oops. It's like, we're just so stupid, Kim, Kim,
we do. But yeah, I mean it's one of these
things where, uh, you know, once uh again you ask yourself,
what what cost the good society? And the count's come out.
I mean, I was just thinking about the other day.
I'm you know, all these corporately owned daycare centers there
probably are owned by corporations that are traded on Waltz
on the stock market, and people there are people who
invest in these things in there for in their you know,
four o one ks and they may even be kind
of against that, but they're investing in these corporations that
they are making money on dysfunctional or family you know,
family dissolution. But it's become corporatized, become a profit because
the culture has been changed where this is so prevalent
now that you can have corporations that are based on
on you know, dysfunctional or warehouse children and it just
feeds itself. It's the same way that you know, corporations
are capitalized by by the by the drug money it's
been flown into you know that that's being smuggled into
the communities. But Katherine Alston fits talks.
Speaker 2: About right, right, right, Yeah, I want get to.
Speaker 3: The John Cloyd book, mcloy book The Politics of Herolin eventually,
which which deals with all that. But yeah, you start
to realize that that there's a scientific technique to all
these areas. Yeah, I mean, it really is a full
spectrum system. Like Ingdahl talks about, it's it's every one
of these areas has a.
Speaker 2: A very specific well.
Speaker 3: The reason that they're able to do that is I
don't know if you saw in one of the talks
that I think it was in the talk that you're
talking about they're the subversion.
Speaker 2: You know, I showed you that. I showed that graph
that shows all the media people.
Speaker 3: That's a really helpful graph because people have a hard
time with understanding this kind of stuff if they're new
to it or if they're you know, well, what do
you what's this Builderberg group? How does it relate to
the CFR, How does that relate to the role society whatever?
What's all the same people in different groups, different steering committees?
And if you look at the fact that all the
heads of every major media corporation that's the mainstream media,
it's all the same people in the Builderberger and it's
all the same people in the CFR who were also
Tryateral Commission. They're all in the exact same circles. I mean,
that was a brilliant thing that whoever put that together.
Speaker 1: But is there a conspiracy and you say, well, they're
meeting here, I mean they're coordinating. Okay, let's call this
is they're not conspiring to coordinating?
Speaker 2: Is that?
Speaker 1: Is that a better word for you? Has the CIA
ruined that term yet?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 1: But even you said I talking about to talk about
conspiracy theory, but then they're they're official conspiracy theories that
are marketed, you know, I don't know, like.
Speaker 2: The Cold War, yeah, George Keen right and Henry LUs
mister x. I mean they.
Speaker 3: Christened the the new conspiracy, which would be the Cold
War and the Dalls.
Speaker 1: Brothers, right, Usama bin Laden al Qaeda, that's conspiracy theory.
Speaker 2: Yes, Not eleven is a conspiracy.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 3: What's more, there was another one that was more recent
than Not eleven that was an official con Oh, Russia Gate. Yeah,
Russia Gates.
Speaker 2: An official condoned conspiracy theory, you know.
Speaker 1: So you know, so again there're one you can believe
in some some of the more I guess some conspiracy
theories theories are more equal than others.
Speaker 3: In UFOs Aliens, that's a government condoned conspiracy theory that.
Speaker 1: It's actually well, it's actually yeah, actually been been uh
promoted by.
Speaker 2: The government exactly.
Speaker 1: Absolutely we know about going in and deceiving people about that.
Speaker 3: To get that go, I think I'll put that quote
in the book to that great Brookings Institute quote about
UFOs basically seeing if that would be a way to
move people away from from christian Yeah, that ethos.
Speaker 2: I think I did step that in.
Speaker 1: The book and it does because people again it's almost like,
you know what they call it's the second Coming. Their
idea is what disclosure?
Speaker 2: I guess, yeah, yeah, it would fit very well into
a lot of new age.
Speaker 3: And and and as we pointed out that I've said,
you know, we're seeing a lot of the former new
atheists now that that new atheism is kind of dying
in popularity, a lot of those people are moving into
you know, the ideas of the metaphysical right, Oh, maybe
Dawkin Sew's aliens put us here, right, maybe Penn's for me,
So you can you can see how people can be
transitioned out of materialism because it's not you know, the
human heart is going to worship something that always will.
It doesn't do very well with rank materialism. So, you know, materialism,
we're like a phase to get people out of, uh,
you know, more traditional religious beliefs. And then they're then
they're willing to they're they're primed, their their their putty
for the acceptance of some you know, new garbage.
Speaker 1: And what's funny is is frist gets trashed with with
when you when traditional religion gets marginalized is objective morality,
which again is a side black to the oligarchs.
Speaker 3: Then, however, you you suddenly get a extremely objective morality
about trainees and gays. Funny how you you know, we
were supposed to not have objective reality that now we're
dogmatically commanded you know on all these Yeah, yeah, moral points.
Speaker 2: M hm, we talked about that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But the thing is that the culture is it's
very hard to sort of reverse these things because when
you start pointing out things like the I don't know,
the normalization of daycare to two earning families, if the
families are still intact, uh, these things is you're stepping
a lot of people's toes, their lifestyle, their expectations and
what they what they should be, and they take offense.
That's so it's hard to talk about it. They don't
want to consider the fact perhaps they're they've they've themselves
been engineered to manipulated.
Speaker 2: You know, the normalization of gay care.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well yeah, it's no thing is it's going to
be well it will because they'll that'll be infested and
if it hasn't already, reports about you know, the Pentagon's
daycare center and these things. What's going on Presidio again?
You you you wear house kids, and it's what do
you what do you? Yeah, you wear house kids easy
to social engineer them and subject them to these things
that you know, even schooling with vaccinations. We just we
just take for granted how we were all schools growing up,
these large, you know, centralized buildings where you know, we're
we're subjected to this nonsense. You know, is this normal?
You know, is this really healthy? And you realize who
designed the school system? Right?
Speaker 2: I mean it's like, yeah, well it's it's Prussian model
and Skinner.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Skinner, Padlov and uh, you know Dewey, these people
who were malevolent. So well, Jay, you know, coming up
an hour of forty minutes? Anything else? Do you want
to cover anything else? Do you miss anything?
Speaker 2: Or no?
Speaker 3: That was good talk, I think, uh, you know, the
essence of uh, the thrust of the of the point
was just that what we're seeing in the Ukraine and
in the Orthodox world is the same pattern of subversion
that went Moff talks about and thoseism that's happened in
all the churches. And that's crucial to understand because you know,
we talked a lot in alternative media about you know,
politics or geopolitics or we talk about subversion of culture,
talksic culture, but we have to understand that it also
applies from the controllers advantage point to churches.
Speaker 2: That's a big part of it too.
Speaker 1: Yeah, a lot of people who are into this type
of research sort of don't, well, they don't consider the
importance of the churches exact right exactly, you know, the
fact they you know, some people think they should just
go away and and they're they're actually part of the tyranny.
It's much more they're infiltrated and manipulated. So it's a
bit more complicated than that, right. I really did understand
what the role the attican plays. Now I couldn't give
you a clear answer.
Speaker 3: Well, and also too, I'd like to add that that
might dishearten some people because they might say, well, if
the churches are bad too, then let's just what's the
point who cares about?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 3: Keep in mind that throughout the history of the Church,
there have many there have been many, many state actors
that have attempted to control the Church and failed. One
of the things that I point out about orthodoxy is
that in the history of the emperors, many of them
were heretical, many of them attempted to completely change the
doctor of the Church. And the fact that the Church
did not lose its doctrine of the diminutive Christ and
the nice and crete, you know, the basics of the
nice and crete, I think shows that, you know, the
protection of God like. If it was just a human,
human social institution, it would have been.
Speaker 2: Turned bad long long ago.
Speaker 3: You know, when you had basically, for example, iconoclass emperors.
Right before the Seventh Council, you had emperors basically trying
to remove all the icons from all the churches and
enact the kind of Islamic style doctrine or something iconoclasm.
And you know, that didn't win. It's amazing it didn't
went out. You had Arianism, you know, in the fourth
century when almost the entire empire was in our semi
area except for Saint Athanasius and a few bishops, and
they ended up winning. So just because you know, you
have the minority opinion, or because the state is trying
to control the church, you know, that's not a reason
for being disheartened, is what I'm trying to say. Because
there are many, many, many cases in church history in
the state did not win.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's an account in the Bible that E. Michael
Jones reference when he was presented with that very question
about the problems within the church is to count when
Jesus is on a boat with the apostles on the
sea and the storm comes and this the waters, you know, churning,
the boat's about to trip over, and Jesus is sleeping.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a good point.
Speaker 1: Finally wake come up with Master here why as you're sleeping,
and then he calms the waters. But the whole point
is that right now we're in the middle of the store. Absolutely,
you know, and so it seems that way and maybe
from our own standpoint, you know, this is people there
have been martyrs and this you know this to a
certain extent, this is because they had people have to
suffer for their faith, for their beliefs, for their for
their principles. And so it isn't always going to be
easy to stand up to what you think is right,
what you what you know is right, and you know,
for whatever the case, so it'd be easy.
Speaker 2: It isn't right.
Speaker 3: Right, Well, the Christianization of the Empire took three centuries
at martyrs, so absolutely, and uh, one other thing I
would add too, is you know, we can we can
draw a lot of insight from the Old Testament as well.
A clear parallel would be the very degenerate history of
Israel when the when Jeroboam had basically set up a
giant state run sex goal uh, the the worship at
Dan and Bethel, which which which was the state erected
cult that was set up as a way for him
to control the northern kingdoms of Israel, as opposed to
the legitimate worship which was in Judah in the southern
kingdom where it was supposed to be at the temp Well, Uh,
there's there's a lot of wisdom in that because his
state runs sex cult, you know, pretty much took over uh.
And you know, if you know the history of Israel,
this is what led to the Assyrian captivity in the
north and then the battle on captivity in the south.
So the point is is that it leads you into bondage, uh.
And the the chastisement of the period of bondage is
but of course purge that away and you know it
leads to a better state down the road.
Speaker 2: So yeah, don't lease heart.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well Jay, thank you so much, thank you Tom.
Of course it's J J J. Dire Jason Analysis Jasonnalysis
dot com, author of Esoteric Hollywood, six Cults and Sibilis
and film and also they soon to be released as
Esoteric Hollywood two uh sometime next month.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 1: Yep, thank you, thank you so much. Jay. I'll let
you go and I'll post as soon I do. I'll
send you I'll send you the leak, all right, Tim,
I have a good night, good night, than thanks so much,
bye bye,