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