Speaker 1: Decides to do it, and we are live. It is
Speaker 1: eighth one a m. Maybe some will argue it's atoh
Speaker 1: three whatever, And it's nine twenty five, twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: and I'm here with Diego Garcia of bulletproofpub dot Com.
Speaker 2: Yes, sir, how's the gun budy? Having me right glad
Speaker 2: to be here. This is an opportunity where I can
Speaker 2: just let all of the outside issues just dissipate away.
Speaker 2: And uh no, no place I'd rather be than here
Speaker 2: right now with you, Daniel.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Uh, if you don't mind, I've got a
Speaker 1: short little clip here. Sure it may or may not. Wow,
Speaker 1: that's weird. Okay, I got distracted by a pine squid.
Speaker 1: That's kind of strange. But I want to I want
Speaker 1: to share this video. And I'm not advocating that Sharon
Speaker 1: Tenpenny is anybody that I trust at all, but this
Speaker 1: information isn't isn't a lie. So let me just share
Speaker 1: this real quick and then we can get started.
Speaker 2: Oops.
Speaker 1: Put us on the corner here. It's worthy of note.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Michael Burgess. I think that's just I think
Speaker 1: that's who sends it to me. Yeah, Michael Burgess did
Speaker 1: all right, so here, let's play that real quick. It's
Speaker 1: not that long, idiot, everyone.
Speaker 3: This is doctor Sherry Tenpenny and I want to do
Speaker 3: a quick update about a document that got passed by
Speaker 3: the United Nations this weekend called the Pact of the
Speaker 3: Future document. It's two parts, one on science and technology
Speaker 3: and one about the youth and future generations. It is
Speaker 3: quite egregious and it was done by a procedure called
Speaker 3: the silence procedure, which makes it a packed and if
Speaker 3: no one objected, it is automatically adopted and put into
Speaker 3: the record as being completely adopted.
Speaker 1: This is, if the General Assembly or the Security Council
Speaker 1: passes something, it is obligatory by all members nations to
Speaker 1: adopt it, which means they have to either ignore, abolish,
Speaker 1: or amend any existing laws that contradict it.
Speaker 3: The World Health Organizations run around since or end around,
Speaker 3: since they were not able to get the World Health
Speaker 3: Organization Treaty passed, they decided to take it to the
Speaker 3: General Assembly, and it is even more egregious than what
Speaker 3: the World Health Organization was wanting to get passed. Let
Speaker 3: me just read you something really quickly about what is
Speaker 3: inside of this pact that is now being accepted by
Speaker 3: one hundred and ninety three nations around the world, and
Speaker 3: equally open armed accepted by our current administration.
Speaker 1: They don't have a choice, but they're in conjunction with them,
Speaker 1: so it's not like they're fighting it everyone.
Speaker 3: It says that this is the power structure, fully digital
Speaker 3: and maximized for the control of the masses. Everyone will
Speaker 3: be expected to have a biometric digital ID that marks
Speaker 3: them not just as citizens of an individual country, but
Speaker 3: as a global citizen. So anytime you hear global citizen,
Speaker 3: or anytime you hear sustainability, think that this is an
Speaker 3: egregious thing that's happening at the level of the World
Speaker 3: Health Organization and the United Nations. Anyone that has a
Speaker 3: dissonant opinion will be labeled as misinformation, disinformation or malinformation
Speaker 3: and memory hold. Perpetators for unimproved information will be fact
Speaker 3: checked and punished by the system, which will be operated
Speaker 3: and enforced by artificial intelligence. Punishments will include being locked
Speaker 3: out of one's bank account, being unable to make certain purchases,
Speaker 3: unable to get on an airplane, on a subway, drive
Speaker 3: on public roads. This is the future, according to the
Speaker 3: world's self appointed overlords at the United Nations. These are
Speaker 3: unelected bureaucrats that are making decisions about our country, our
Speaker 3: sovereignty around the world. Nothing could be more important at
Speaker 3: this point in time than to get prepared, have water, food,
Speaker 3: digital access, flashlights, a way to communicate with family and friends.
Speaker 3: Now is really the time to get involved and get
Speaker 3: prepared because this is what's coming. Our Congress is sitting
Speaker 3: on its hands. There was a press conference on the
Speaker 3: seventeenth about this, and no further action has been taken.
Speaker 3: So it's up to us to mobilize and to go forward,
Speaker 3: particularly with your local sheriffs, to get your constitutional sheriffs
Speaker 3: to say this isn't going to be allowed in my county.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Take act.
Speaker 1: Okay, we get it.
Speaker 2: So, yeah, yeah, that's very interesting, right, it's a we're
Speaker 2: talking about how they impose our slavery through law and legislation.
Speaker 2: And what was the title of this silence something? So
Speaker 2: is it your compliant in your own silence even if
Speaker 2: you don't know that it's going on, therefore you comply?
Speaker 2: Is that what they're implying.
Speaker 1: I don't know what it said.
Speaker 2: It was a silence clause or something. She said right
Speaker 2: at the beginning.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, yeah, no, like yeah, there wasn't a well,
Speaker 1: like I was saying about the Security Council and the
Speaker 1: and the General Assembly, by them not making any like
Speaker 1: you said, silence consent. Those are the people who don't
Speaker 1: want to have their names dragged into it. But if
Speaker 1: they don't, if they don't impose during those meetings and
Speaker 1: it's going through. But you know, it's all a Jew
Speaker 1: run run run, a Jew run run.
Speaker 2: So after the unitinations, well that's fitting because that's really
Speaker 2: what we want to talk about today, is our system
Speaker 2: of law. So as she was talking there, it reminded
Speaker 2: me of brand Eyes. Again. This kind of all goes
Speaker 2: back to brand Eyes.
Speaker 1: Uh, that's a big freeze. You are suspended animation, sir.
Speaker 1: My connection looks pretty solid, so I wouldn't think that
Speaker 1: it's probably on your side if you want to jump
Speaker 1: out and jump back in or he really think you
Speaker 1: want to do that. I am here in my ore
Speaker 1: in this silent period here. Let me just point out
Speaker 1: that these are corporations with the armies of one hundred
Speaker 1: and ninety three nations at their disposal at the UN
Speaker 1: and the Welcome Trust, by the way, had their hands
Speaker 1: in the whole AIDS thing. Hands in the epidemic of
Speaker 1: the past was recent one, and the WF is basically
Speaker 1: just a think tank of a bunch of corporate heads
Speaker 1: that are deciding the fate of the pandemics to cold
Speaker 1: the population, and of course local trust is always there.
Speaker 2: HP.
Speaker 1: How can we don't I just put you in. It's
Speaker 1: showing you hold on, there you go.
Speaker 2: This is getting a little annoying. That was I just
Speaker 2: got booted right off the internet. This happened with the
Speaker 2: last broadcast too. This tends to happen. I mean, we
Speaker 2: refreshed our modem all the time, right before shows, and
Speaker 2: as I'm starting to talk, it does that. And I'm
Speaker 2: not saying anything. I'm not suggesting or implaying anything. We're
Speaker 2: going to move forward. I don't know where I was
Speaker 2: stopped there, but as I was listening to her, finds
Speaker 2: me a brandize and then right, and it's a drinking
Speaker 2: game now. Every time we mentioned brandeis we need to
Speaker 2: take a shot because he is everywhere. And so this
Speaker 2: week we've been talking to a lot of people about
Speaker 2: a lot of things, including Article five Convention, but also
Speaker 2: you know, constitutional avoidance. This is something else that brandeis
Speaker 2: created right way back.
Speaker 1: In the day constitutional avoidance.
Speaker 2: Yeah, quite the term. So this is their way to
Speaker 2: get around the Constitution, and he's established it.
Speaker 1: So we may not see the same hand and everything.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but I'm getting tired of this whole. It's this,
Speaker 1: that and the other thing, and it's the politicians, and
Speaker 1: we just need to let shot. No, we are under
Speaker 1: the control of Bolshevik jay Zionists, period. And until we
Speaker 1: address that and understand that the Federal Reserve is an
Speaker 1: evil entity in our presence, that the UN should not
Speaker 1: be in New York, and that the CFR and the
Speaker 1: UN need to be leveled, we're not going to get anywhere.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would agree that. You know, there are certain
Speaker 2: institutions like education that we need to rethink, not destroy,
Speaker 2: or you know, take entirely down, because that is an
Speaker 2: important aspect to a healthy society. No, pardon the Department
Speaker 2: of Education can go yes, and so I got no
Speaker 2: use for the UN. We can tear that down and
Speaker 2: forget it happened as far as I'm concerned. So it's
Speaker 2: fitting that you started with that, because it's important to
Speaker 2: understand how our society is really being steered through the
Speaker 2: system of law. You know, they said that there are
Speaker 2: founders of our American system of law said that it
Speaker 2: was the most efficient engine of social control. And so
Speaker 2: this is a realization I had through my research. It
Speaker 2: made me sit back in my chair and really contemplate
Speaker 2: what that meant, because I'd never really wrapped my head
Speaker 2: around how the system of law is of course a
Speaker 2: system of control, and of course, like labor, they're going
Speaker 2: to be all around it. And so that's what we see.
Speaker 2: And so if you don't mind, that's kind of where
Speaker 2: I want to take this today, how we got here
Speaker 2: through our systems of law. So there's two articles that
Speaker 2: I present on bulletproofpub dot com. One is the science
Speaker 2: of law and the other is the philosophy of law,
Speaker 2: and we're going to try to go through those as
Speaker 2: quickly as we can today. And then I also want
Speaker 2: to talk about I've got a short little video on communitarianism,
Speaker 2: and then if we have time, I want to show
Speaker 2: how this kind of infiltrated China too, through Mao Zedong.
Speaker 2: So these are a ton of conversations that we're having
Speaker 2: this week, and everybody's giving me more information and I'm
Speaker 2: working hard behind the scenes and trying to wrap my
Speaker 2: head around the whole picture. And at this point I'm
Speaker 2: coming to the same conclusion as you are, that we are.
Speaker 2: Once you identify this group of people, we're seeing the
Speaker 2: same hands behind everything, and they're at the controls, at
Speaker 2: the faucets. So they may not make up the whole
Speaker 2: population of the board members, but they're the ones that
Speaker 2: are the chairmen.
Speaker 1: Right, and they're the Yeah. The other ones are the
Speaker 1: fellow travelers, the fellow brothers in societies, it might meaning
Speaker 1: they're but yeah, they're they're working for their agenda. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that one agenda.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I want to shout out to Lurk in
Speaker 2: Texas here today because we've been working and talking a
Speaker 2: lot this week about communitarianism. He's trying to get me
Speaker 2: to wrap my head around it. I think I've got
Speaker 2: it to a point where I understand that this is
Speaker 2: also another socio political philosophy or school of thought that
Speaker 2: is steering us towards communism, what we call communism, which really,
Speaker 2: in my mind is internationalism. This is why I want
Speaker 2: to get rid of the UN. So we'll start with
Speaker 2: this video. It's just under even three minutes and it's
Speaker 2: on communitarian law, and so we're hoping that this can
Speaker 2: start to make some connections to people. And I just
Speaker 2: wanted to shout out to your viewers. A lot of
Speaker 2: them have been reaching out to me and requesting me
Speaker 2: and saying a lot of nice things, including Michael Burgess.
Speaker 2: I don't want to publicly just say I appreciate all
Speaker 2: of your kind words, and so we are moving forward nice.
Speaker 2: So I'm just going to let this play. If you
Speaker 2: want me to stop anywhere along the way, I will,
Speaker 2: and we can discuss certain points here. This is a
Speaker 2: little cartoon rendition, but it's you know, it's simple, and
Speaker 2: it sort of lays in one's mind this system, and
Speaker 2: then we'll get into the Brandis's involvement.
Speaker 4: What is communitarianism?
Speaker 2: Can you hear that? Yes?
Speaker 4: Perfect Broadly construed, communitarianism refers to a social and political
Speaker 4: philosophy which puts emphasis on the importance of community in
Speaker 4: the functioning of political life, as well as in the
Speaker 4: analysis an evaluation of political institutions, and an understanding human
Speaker 4: well being and identity. In ticular, communitarianism emphasizes the dynamic
Speaker 4: connection between persons and the community. This explains why at
Speaker 4: the core of the doctrine of communitarianism is belief that
Speaker 4: a person's social identity and personality are largely shaped and
Speaker 4: influenced by community relations. It is important to note that
Speaker 4: although a family is a community in itself, communitarianism, viewed
Speaker 4: in a wider and philosophical sense, is a collection of
Speaker 4: interactions among a community of people in a given place,
Speaker 4: or among a community who share an interest or who
Speaker 4: share history. In this way, communitarianism usually opposes extreme individualism
Speaker 4: and rejects extreme laisse faire policies that deprioratize the stability
Speaker 4: of the overall community. Historically speaking, communitarianism emerged in the
Speaker 4: nineteen eighties as a critique of too prominent philosophical schools,
Speaker 4: namely contemporary liberalism, which seeks to protect and enhance personal
Speaker 4: autonomy and individual rights in part through the activity of government,
Speaker 4: and libertarianism, a form of liberalism that aims to protect
Speaker 4: individual rights, especially the rights to liberty and property, through
Speaker 4: strict limits on governmental power.
Speaker 2: Okay, so I just want to make a comment here
Speaker 2: on this. The two definitions here that she'd mentioned were
Speaker 2: of liberalism. Well, the bottom one that you can see
Speaker 2: is libertarianism, not liberalism. So when you look at the definitions,
Speaker 2: a contemporary contemporary liberalism seeks to protect and enhance personal
Speaker 2: autonomy and individual rights in parts through the activity of government.
Speaker 2: Now that isn't necessarily classic liberalism, right, This classic liberalism
Speaker 2: has its emphasis on our rights to speak and think
Speaker 2: freely and the minimization of government. So it's fairly close
Speaker 2: to the classic liberal definition. But at the bottom, this
Speaker 2: is really a form of liberalism, liberalism that aims to
Speaker 2: protect individual rights. Now that's closer to what classic liberalism means.
Speaker 2: Am I still on? Yeah, you're on, okay. So then
Speaker 2: the top one is steering people in this definition of
Speaker 2: liberalism towards more government, so it's more closely associated with neoliberalism, progressivism,
Speaker 2: and the building up of the administrative states. So there's
Speaker 2: a little bit of a misunderstanding there, I'll let it finish.
Speaker 2: And also the tackle on laissez faire and extreme liberalism
Speaker 2: is which they call it. And I've always maintained that
Speaker 2: a well developed individual is a perfect antidote to a
Speaker 2: tyrannical government. So you can see that they're attacking all
Speaker 2: of these things that are directly opposed to their movement,
Speaker 2: and it's community they are making the family unit subservient
Speaker 2: to the community. So we see these things said today
Speaker 2: it takes a village to raise children, right, and so
Speaker 2: we see our K through twelve education system simply has
Speaker 2: removed the family from our education.
Speaker 1: It takes it takes. It takes a village of families
Speaker 1: to protect and raise a child, right, because we don't
Speaker 1: want them involved with people who suck. Yes, but I
Speaker 1: anything that say here can it be is going to
Speaker 1: be whatever these definitions are inverted. Yes, So it doesn't
Speaker 1: even matter if it sounds good, because this is going
Speaker 1: to be the exact thing that they attack.
Speaker 2: Yep. And as we've shown through our work on progressivism,
Speaker 2: this is how they do it through nice sounding words.
Speaker 2: And Sherry Tenpenny even talked about the words that they use.
Speaker 2: There was sustainability in another word. Well, it's the same
Speaker 2: thing you're seeing community in their communitarianism. This is a
Speaker 2: you know, they're stepping us towards communism, or at least
Speaker 2: the school of thought that we almost be equal. Nobody's
Speaker 2: heads must rise above the other and total brimant control.
Speaker 1: Yeah, World citizen is yes.
Speaker 2: Global citizen was the other one, right, So look at that.
Speaker 2: You can see the similarities already, and you can see
Speaker 2: that communitarianism is a global movement.
Speaker 4: Was coined in eighteen forty one by John Goodwin Bombie,
Speaker 4: a leader of the British Chartist movement, who used it
Speaker 4: in referring to utopian socialists and other idealists who experimented
Speaker 4: with communal.
Speaker 1: Styles of life.
Speaker 4: But then again, it was not until the nineteen eighties
Speaker 4: that the term communitarianism gained currency through association with the
Speaker 4: work of a small group of political philosophers. Their application
Speaker 4: of the label communitarian was controvert.
Speaker 1: Sorry, oh I just said, there you go. When you
Speaker 1: have a little think tank of little little shit birds.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and so this actually is a direct connection. As
Speaker 2: you can see. It says that John Goodwin Barnby, the
Speaker 2: guy that coined the term communitarianism, did so while referring
Speaker 2: to the Utopian socialists. So if anybody is familiar with
Speaker 2: our work, and we are going to get into this
Speaker 2: today for those that aren't familiar this movement, you know,
Speaker 2: the Fabian Socialists combination with the American progressives is all
Speaker 2: inspired by the Utopian socialists. So you can see that
Speaker 2: communitarianism is most certainly involved here as a degenerative school
Speaker 2: of thought to las a fair, free market, Western capitalist
Speaker 2: sort of ideas.
Speaker 4: Okay, schure, even among communitarians, because in the West the
Speaker 4: term evokes associations with the ideologists of socialism and collectivism.
Speaker 4: There you go, So public leaders and some of the
Speaker 4: academics who champion this school of thought usually avoid the
Speaker 4: term communitarian while still advocating and advancing the ideas of communitarianism.
Speaker 2: Now, that is very parallel with progressivism, because very rarely
Speaker 2: are you going to hear politicians say progressivism. Yeah, that
Speaker 2: is largely steering our world today.
Speaker 1: And there's people out there that say that libertarianism is
Speaker 1: just a mask for socialism too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I would say, you know, when I point
Speaker 2: people back to the nineteen thirty eight Walter Lippmann colloquium
Speaker 2: in Paris where Friedrich von Hayeken Ludwig von Mises are
Speaker 2: there and coining the term neoliberalism, so you can see
Speaker 2: it's a framework still even if you are a libertarian,
Speaker 2: even if you are an anarchist, you are still within
Speaker 2: the system and that must be it. Okay. So that's
Speaker 2: a quick sort of summation. I felt like that really
Speaker 2: helped me sort of wrap my head around communitarianism. So
Speaker 2: going forward, just sort of keep that in the back
Speaker 2: of your mind because you're going to see parallels to
Speaker 2: what we've uncovered. So then I'm going to go to
Speaker 2: this other one. This a wiki page that's called if
Speaker 2: I can find it. That's good.
Speaker 1: We lost all of our comments. They're not popping up
Speaker 1: like one of them disappeared. Oh well, I can't pull
Speaker 1: it up on the screen, but let me just read
Speaker 1: it real quick.
Speaker 2: Sure.
Speaker 1: Skydriver sixty nine said, good morning. Your forensic historical journalism
Speaker 1: is empowering. It is the cornerstone to the building stage
Speaker 1: when exposing presently the thing's not right, going on, confirming
Speaker 1: and empowering.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I really agree with that. I think that
Speaker 2: if we don't know our history, we're just gonna we're
Speaker 2: destined to repeat it, are we not? Exactly?
Speaker 1: So now up, how funny is that? Now it's there?
Speaker 2: There's gremlins following me everywhere, my friend.
Speaker 1: Wow, like four more videos in.
Speaker 2: Real life online everywhere. I am surrounded by narcissism. This uh, this, this,
Speaker 2: I want to say, a malady or a sickness of
Speaker 2: the mind that has been imposed on us through this
Speaker 2: reliance on the expert opinion that you know, we see
Speaker 2: it all the time when we're trying to talk to people,
Speaker 2: especially the television watchers. They don't have any time to
Speaker 2: listen to you. They think that you're crazy. They are
Speaker 2: exhibiting narcissistic behavior, and so really we need It's not
Speaker 2: about waking up anymore. It's about treating each other with
Speaker 2: respect and being honest and good with our word. Go
Speaker 2: figure that this is really what's going to save us
Speaker 2: as we all take responsibility for our beliefs and action,
Speaker 2: step up and start acting like it. That is waking
Speaker 2: up people. That's what I see. If you want to,
Speaker 2: if you want the opinion, excuse me of somebody sort
Speaker 2: of at the bottom of the rabbit hole. This is
Speaker 2: what I'm seeing. Man. I'm pushing as hard as I can,
Speaker 2: and I'm just giving you some feedback. Okay, wake up,
Speaker 2: Man up, and be a noble. Noble that's right, that's right.
Speaker 2: Be good with your word, don't make assumptions, try not
Speaker 2: to take anything personal. A great book for this is
Speaker 2: The Four Agreements, So the Sociology of Law. My conversation
Speaker 2: with Larkin, Texas, this guy I really admire. I appreciate him.
Speaker 2: He's taken a lot of time out in his life,
Speaker 2: long before I even knew any of this, and he's
Speaker 2: invested time in me to make sure that I understand
Speaker 2: all of this. And so as I've been researching, I've
Speaker 2: come across some of these things, like these terms like
Speaker 2: sociology of law. Okay, and I'm just going to be
Speaker 2: quick here that it is actually, you know, sociology of
Speaker 2: law is a school of thought too, and it has
Speaker 2: sort of traveled through our history and time just like
Speaker 2: everything else. Okay. Intellectual origins is Max Weber. And if
Speaker 2: you're familiar with our work, this all goes back to
Speaker 2: the German historical school and who is he but the
Speaker 2: modern incontation of German historical school.
Speaker 1: Okay, and we say German, it's just the region. You
Speaker 1: know who you know who ran on the main?
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, and it's really Prussian. It was the word
Speaker 2: used back then. Here's a meal dirkhim. He wrote the
Speaker 2: Division of Labor in society. Okay, So we're going back
Speaker 2: to all these people that are totally directly opposed to individualism.
Speaker 2: This is what the division of labor did. It broke
Speaker 2: the individual down.
Speaker 1: It's extreme hard, doesn't he?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Right, they've all had way too much time on
Speaker 2: their hands to think, as far as I'm concerned, and
Speaker 2: and you know, and the individual, especially the well developed one,
Speaker 2: has been the target. Okay, so here they go into
Speaker 2: law and society. I invite everybody to sort of take
Speaker 2: this all in, but look at what shows up. Sociological jurisprudence.
Speaker 2: This is a term that anybody that's been reading my
Speaker 2: work familiar with Louis Brandeis and Roscoe Pound, thirty third
Speaker 2: degree master mason at the Massachusetts Lodge, the largest in
Speaker 2: the Western hemisphere, the guy that created our system of law.
Speaker 2: It's called sociological jurisprudence. So you start to see similarities,
Speaker 2: parallels in the languages.
Speaker 1: You see that though, like at the very core of
Speaker 1: our law, who do we have master masons?
Speaker 2: Yes, for those that are doubting it, we are going
Speaker 2: to show you indefutable evidences. Okay, just stick with us.
Speaker 2: So the sociology of law is usually distinguished from sociological
Speaker 2: jurisprudence as a form of jurisprudence. The latter is not
Speaker 2: primarily concerned with contributing directly to social science, and instead
Speaker 2: engages directly with juristic debates. Involving legal practice and legal theory.
Speaker 2: Sociological jurisprudence focuses juristic attention on variation in legal institutions
Speaker 2: and practices. This is the wiki sort of summary of
Speaker 2: it all, but it's really the combination of social sciences, sociology,
Speaker 2: and the collection of stats and facts to argue law.
Speaker 2: So out goes any arguments of law and incomes the
Speaker 2: use of statistics and facts. Now, why this is important
Speaker 2: to understand is because both of those can be used
Speaker 2: in a multiple of different ways to create completely different perspectives.
Speaker 1: Out to liab with statistics, facts.
Speaker 2: Are not infallible. This is one of the things I see.
Speaker 2: Even grown men that say that or women that say
Speaker 2: that they are awake, they are still using this word
Speaker 2: facts and stats as if it is irrefutable. So it's
Speaker 2: sort of a misdefinition. We need to use the word
Speaker 2: the truth. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Facts based on statistics that are manipulated are not facts.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it's very easy to see that this is
Speaker 2: how they've been manipulating us. Look at COVID. They use
Speaker 2: mathematical models and speculation to lock us in our homes,
Speaker 2: and people believed it because why they're totally engrossed and
Speaker 2: invested in the opinion of the scientific expert. I'd rather
Speaker 2: listen to somebody with a PhD than you google doctor. Right,
Speaker 2: this is what we hear. So I'm just showing that
Speaker 2: there's in trying to wrap our heads around communitarianism in geology,
Speaker 2: social sciences, law. I'm just trying to show that there's
Speaker 2: a commonality to it all.
Speaker 1: Why are using your five senses? They already told us what's.
Speaker 2: Going to happen. Yeah, I'm in a I actually shut
Speaker 2: down a thread yesterday that was pushing toward pushing the
Speaker 2: narrative that we shouldn't be doing our own research, and
Speaker 2: I said, well, I went and did my own research
Speaker 2: and found out that Albert Borla, the head of the
Speaker 2: CEO and chairman of Pfizer, is actually only in a
Speaker 2: credited veterinarian who created improvaca chemical castration vaccine to control
Speaker 2: big populations. That's all. I went and did my own
Speaker 2: research and found out the Spanish flu didn't start in Spain.
Speaker 2: It started in Kansas at a military base after an
Speaker 2: inoculation program by the Rockefellers. And so what happened was
Speaker 2: that guy got so mad at me that he shut
Speaker 2: down the whole threat. Now, that is how you work
Speaker 2: in the court of public opinion. People, that's how your
Speaker 2: ideas win. And he came back at me through my
Speaker 2: private message and called me an ass hat and all
Speaker 2: kinds of things, and I made him angry. And I
Speaker 2: tell people that I don't want to make you angry.
Speaker 2: I'm not here to make you angry. I'm not taking
Speaker 2: any enjoyment in any of that.
Speaker 1: You go up so that the parts that are in
Speaker 1: your head fit back together the way they're supposed to,
Speaker 1: that's all, and then you're on your way, you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And I'm in the middle of a conversation right
Speaker 2: now on Facebook. I've declared that there's no there's no
Speaker 2: time limit on this conversation. We can take our time
Speaker 2: and understand these things. But I am talking to a
Speaker 2: devoted leftist who is blaming everybody on the right, this
Speaker 2: sort of old cliche that has been going on forever,
Speaker 2: that both sides are totally brainwashed with that they think
Speaker 2: that it's the other side that's the problem. So this
Speaker 2: is a dialectic the social engineer controllers have created so
Speaker 2: that we fight each other, not the true enemy.
Speaker 1: Right, And so it's soap opera, it's like WWF.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I'm trying to reason and be calm and
Speaker 2: de escalate. So I've asked to not use labels and
Speaker 2: blame Trump and MAGA and blame left hards and all
Speaker 2: of these things, because you know what.
Speaker 1: A lot out for sure.
Speaker 2: Well, they don't understand progressivism, they don't understand the history.
Speaker 2: So they're actually they're not oriented in the correct way
Speaker 2: to do their greatest service to our cause, you understand.
Speaker 2: So until you get properly oriented with your boat and
Speaker 2: you point to the proper place on the horizon, you
Speaker 2: could be at anywhere other any of the other three
Speaker 2: hundred and fifty nine degrees. So how are you so
Speaker 2: sure that you are in the right direction without knowing
Speaker 2: your history? Young men?
Speaker 1: And that's why people who are already on a faulty
Speaker 1: foundation like that when they start speculating in rumors. This
Speaker 1: is what Bill Cooper hated. Yeah, you're stuck in an
Speaker 1: Eddie current, chasing your own tail spin into that little
Speaker 1: Eddie current.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that is actually a term. Brother. I'm not
Speaker 2: even kidding you man that this eddie thought that you
Speaker 2: just came up with. This is an actual term that
Speaker 2: they use the Paul Felix Lazarfeld and his partner Merton
Speaker 2: that people that have been following my work are familiar with.
Speaker 2: They wrote mass Communications, Social Taste and whatever it is.
Speaker 2: But in there they coin the term two step form
Speaker 2: of communication, the hypodermic needle model, and they use the
Speaker 2: term eddy in that they want to inundate the public
Speaker 2: with so many conflicting messages that they're paralyzed and narcotized
Speaker 2: into dysfunction. And they use that term the swirling of
Speaker 2: water where you're not going anywhere yet there's a lot
Speaker 2: of activity and you think you're actually contributing, but you're not.
Speaker 2: You're just going around in circles. This is what they
Speaker 2: create it as the.
Speaker 1: Main thing goes forward without any restriction, without any resistance.
Speaker 1: It's funny too, the two step forward. They should have
Speaker 1: renamed it the Paula Abdual effects, right.
Speaker 2: And so that's what it is, that the two step
Speaker 2: flow of communication is when the media, the media's message
Speaker 2: goes through people like Oprah or Mark Zuperberg, right. And
Speaker 2: then the hypodermic needle model, the one step flow of
Speaker 2: communication is a direct infusion of information from the media
Speaker 2: to the people. So that's just when you're watching the
Speaker 2: news and what comes to logical fallacies people, and.
Speaker 1: What comes from a hypodermic needle to everybody poison because
Speaker 1: I have to if it has to bypassword, gut, you
Speaker 1: shouldn't have it in you that doesn't care what the
Speaker 1: hell it is. Maybe insulin is the one freaking exception. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but I don't know about that either.
Speaker 2: Okay, so do you see that? There you go? Didn't
Speaker 2: so off to BP. This is really the life preserver
Speaker 2: for many people right now. All of this information was
Speaker 2: a life preserver for me and allowed me to actually
Speaker 2: have strong footing moving forward. And everything that I've found
Speaker 2: since has only amplified, underlined and highlighted everything that I've
Speaker 2: said here. So BP is where you go bulletproofpub dot com.
Speaker 2: For those that haven't been here before, we've we did
Speaker 2: a previous ten part series on the Rise of the
Speaker 2: Expert and how Brandeis is involved, and so we went
Speaker 2: into part six. Here is the science of law. This
Speaker 2: is what we're going to cover today. Okay, Now, there's
Speaker 2: podcasts down here, plenty of them where we go into
Speaker 2: all of this stuff. I have, actually, I've probably got
Speaker 2: two or three that I still need to add, including
Speaker 2: the last couples that you and I have done. But
Speaker 2: let's get into the science of law here real quick,
Speaker 2: because this is where we get into the story of
Speaker 2: how the Freemasons, Nathan Roscoe Pound are deeply involved the
Speaker 2: origins of social sciences, being sociology. Here's a picture of
Speaker 2: brand I surrounded by the founders of sociology and Lester
Speaker 2: frank Ward, who is who the father of the welfare state.
Speaker 2: What is that? The administrative state the brand Eyes helped
Speaker 2: create through the creation of the Federal Reserve and the
Speaker 2: Federal Trade Commission. Those are the two main bookends to
Speaker 2: the administrative state.
Speaker 1: Oh and look, the Russell Trust or the Russell Stage
Speaker 1: Foundation back then, this is the Russell Trust. That's the
Speaker 1: same thing that created good old fashioned skull and Bones
Speaker 1: that Daniel Gilman all over again. And they're talking about
Speaker 1: a guy who literally was Illuminati sent here to do
Speaker 1: what he did. Koy Gildman he was, and again all
Speaker 1: Rothschild's agents. And that's always back to the eighties when
Speaker 1: the Freemasonic qorders were infiltrated by not only Francis but Jesuits.
Speaker 1: The match made in Heaven both clandestine operations. None of
Speaker 1: them ever, they're spies. They're there. That's that's how a
Speaker 1: crypto is. Is there being something on the outside that
Speaker 1: they aren't inside. If that doesn't depict a spy, I
Speaker 1: don't know what the hell does. And here we are, Frank,
Speaker 1: that they completely turned over the at least somewhat less evil,
Speaker 1: you know, you know, structure of the Masonic Order into
Speaker 1: something completely subversive. And we who were in the Order
Speaker 1: at that time, like John Robison writes about the change
Speaker 1: and how it became very very anti government, very very
Speaker 1: you know, riling people up to stir up chaos.
Speaker 2: Yep. And you know Russell Sage the executive arm to
Speaker 2: skull and Bones, like you say, well, skull and Bones
Speaker 2: is invented by Alfonso Taft, and he's the father of
Speaker 2: William Howard Taft, who who's from whose administration all of
Speaker 2: this comes. And in fact, the House of Truth is
Speaker 2: directly born out of Taft's administration. And this House of Truth,
Speaker 2: the political slan one mile from the White House, is
Speaker 2: where they designed, devised this whole agenda to overthrow America
Speaker 2: through progressivism and the altering of the definition of liberalism.
Speaker 2: And I'm in the middle of conversations with all kinds
Speaker 2: of people on the left, Democrats that can't even define
Speaker 2: who they are. When I ask them, hey, what's your
Speaker 2: definition of liberalism? I have to ask eight to ten
Speaker 2: times and they'll throw all kinds of things back at me. Maga,
Speaker 2: this Trump. That they just don't quite understand the role
Speaker 2: that they're playing. They actually think that the left has
Speaker 2: never done anything wrong, and just to think in an
Speaker 2: absolute like that is a mistake.
Speaker 1: It's so funny that when you don't agree with them,
Speaker 1: you're maga. It doesn't matter if you oppose that as well.
Speaker 1: Same thing, if you say something critical about Trump, you're
Speaker 1: a liberal, remember, because there can't be anything but those
Speaker 1: two things. It's right, that's the limit of their comprehension.
Speaker 2: And guess what sneaks right up in between both of
Speaker 2: them without anybody ever knowing progressivism right right. So Brandei's
Speaker 2: sociological jurisprudence and the Harvard Law School, So I talk
Speaker 2: about jurists. Jurists are these intellectuals that think and contemplate law.
Speaker 2: They're not necessarily the jurists that we think of today.
Speaker 2: So at the close of the nineteenth century, experts in
Speaker 2: written law jurists. Okay, we're talking about experts.
Speaker 1: And how old is Harvard again? Sixteen forties or something like.
Speaker 2: That, way older than America? Yeah, yeah, sixteen something I've
Speaker 2: had here.
Speaker 1: I don't remember exactly what he won, but I could
Speaker 1: be off.
Speaker 2: No, Harvard, Yale and William Mary College. And people will say, well,
Speaker 2: what's so important about William and Mary College. Well, that's
Speaker 2: where Phi beta Kappa comes from. And these guys are
Speaker 2: all Phi beta Kappa, and they are all very much
Speaker 2: older than America itself. So you can see that this
Speaker 2: whole design America is a result of all of this thinking.
Speaker 1: And if you really want to get into the sticks
Speaker 1: on that, they're hand gestures for these types of Greek
Speaker 1: letter sororities and for cernities that filters into Masonic candshakes. Yep,
Speaker 1: whichever one you know, whichever way you want to say,
Speaker 1: one influenced the other. But also gang symbols.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I wonder who.
Speaker 1: I wonder who developed that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, and so who's the famous rapper? I take pride
Speaker 2: that I can't remember his name, jay Z. Yeah, he
Speaker 2: was with uh He's ninety nine problems and the bitch
Speaker 2: ain't one guy? Well, what's the name of his record company,
Speaker 2: rock Pilla.
Speaker 1: Yeah, just might as well call it out and then
Speaker 1: and then we're do with that wheeltshirt too.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And so we're seeing a funneling. You know, you
Speaker 2: talk about the hand gestures of Phi beta Kappas and
Speaker 2: all that, and this is a funneling of the most
Speaker 2: best and brightest that they found, the ones that are
Speaker 2: most eager to regurgitate and repeat. And they take those.
Speaker 1: People right, best and brightest, not the wisest, and certainly without.
Speaker 2: A captain right. And this is what now you see
Speaker 2: the arrogance of doctors. They think that they are the
Speaker 2: best and brightest, and they've been in filled their mind
Speaker 2: has been filled with this myth. Because if you ever
Speaker 2: got in depth conversation with the doctor about natural remedies,
Speaker 2: they wouldn't be able to tell you very much. I mean,
Speaker 2: I was just in the doctor the other day asking
Speaker 2: there he's he's giving me a prescription, he's writing on
Speaker 2: a piece of paper. I says, well, what about natural remedies?
Speaker 2: And I started suggesting someone. He's like, yep, yep, yep.
Speaker 2: But he's not telling me that unless I somebody that's
Speaker 2: somewhat informed on things actually brings it up. Otherwise, I'm
Speaker 2: going off to the pharmacy and getting something that's probably
Speaker 2: not good for me.
Speaker 1: You know, that's funny that he said yep, and didn't
Speaker 1: just like slam a table or something like that, and
Speaker 1: means that he's actually probably a little bit cool. I'm
Speaker 1: probably happy that I don't know, maybe he's got something
Speaker 1: going on.
Speaker 2: And upstairs, well, doctor also means to doctor documents and
Speaker 2: to trick right and deceive. But I will tell you this,
Speaker 2: I've never met I've never met a doctor that I
Speaker 2: didn't like, you know, like a family doctor or whatever.
Speaker 2: They this is why they're there. It's because they're they're amicable,
Speaker 2: they're friendly, they're they're funny. This is why they're there.
Speaker 1: The three things that are codified in Latin so that
Speaker 1: the layman don't the general public doesn't understand it, sadly enough,
Speaker 1: the religion, the law, and the medical practice. And that
Speaker 1: happened after the flex and report, I believe is when
Speaker 1: they start that.
Speaker 2: And it's all the same people doing it, so it's
Speaker 2: not hard to chain reasoning together. This is one of
Speaker 2: the things they don't want you doing. This is why
Speaker 2: they removed Latin and Greek and the liberal arts from
Speaker 2: our education because they didn't want you chaining reasonings together,
Speaker 2: calling them out on their lives.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a dead language. Why because we killed it?
Speaker 2: This is a great This is a great point, Daniel,
Speaker 2: that everybody you talk to, they'll tell you that Latin
Speaker 2: is dead, like God is dead, like truth is dead.
Speaker 2: But Latin makes up eighty percent of our language today.
Speaker 2: Some of that has been misdefined and Latin today looked
Speaker 2: at very negatively. Well, guess what, It's an empowering piece
Speaker 2: of knowledge. These guys use Latin. I mean, this is
Speaker 2: you know, a lot of our logical fallacies. Argumentum add
Speaker 2: octra tatum, argumentum ad verraicundium. This is Latin. I mean,
Speaker 2: you couldn't speak English without Latin. And they try to
Speaker 2: tell you that it's dead.
Speaker 1: He can't get through maritime law and come out on
Speaker 1: either side if you don't know it, because he gets you.
Speaker 1: This is just a child preasator on the screen here right.
Speaker 2: This is Nathan Roscoe Pound. This is a thirty third
Speaker 2: degree Master Mason. And here I've taken a quote from
Speaker 2: his book. We're just gonna go to the bottom here
Speaker 2: because I want to show everybody. Here's sources. So Harvard
Speaker 2: Law Review, number eight June and nineteen eleven, The Scope
Speaker 2: and Purpose of Sociological Jurisprudence. This is written by him,
Speaker 2: Nathan Roscoe Pound. He states, a holy new creed is
Speaker 2: framing to bring these formally divergent schools into something like
Speaker 2: a cord. We should expect a new school to arise
Speaker 2: from this breakdown of the older schools, and there are
Speaker 2: many signs that such an event has taken place. Jurists
Speaker 2: are coming together upon a new ground from different starting points.
Speaker 2: The rising and still formative school to which we may
Speaker 2: look chiefly henceforth for advancing jurists jurist state thought may
Speaker 2: be styled the sociological school. So we were showing you
Speaker 2: this is why I wanted to show you the sociology
Speaker 2: of law that he's saying, here's the coming together of
Speaker 2: a bunch of schools, and so it's the coming together
Speaker 2: a bunch of a bunch of schools of thought as well,
Speaker 2: and they're combining it all in ends and means. We
Speaker 2: may not agree on all of the means to get there,
Speaker 2: but the ends certainly has agreed upon, and that is
Speaker 2: total population control.
Speaker 1: You heard him mention that buzzword that you have pointed
Speaker 1: out in the past, new, the two words young and
Speaker 1: new yep or signatures.
Speaker 2: These are defining characteristics of progressivism. And we've stated and
Speaker 2: shown that in nineteen fourteen, all of these founders of progressivism,
Speaker 2: they all published books with the word new in front
Speaker 2: of very important words that we shouldn't just discard and
Speaker 2: scroll past, like the new Democracy, the new freedom, the
Speaker 2: new republic.
Speaker 1: Look what was wrong with the constitutional republic?
Speaker 2: Right and right.
Speaker 1: So these are the guys, that's for sure.
Speaker 2: They're inventing terms like constitutional avoidance, and so they are
Speaker 2: openly experimenting on the constitution, creating a living law. Then
Speaker 2: they can move immovable objects like the Constitution. And we
Speaker 2: all living today those listening to my words right now,
Speaker 2: we live in an incredibly important era in history, and
Speaker 2: all of us that know this stuff are carrying with
Speaker 2: them a responsibility so important right now that it can't
Speaker 2: be understated the importance of understanding all of this and
Speaker 2: so that we can engage in conversations and be responsible
Speaker 2: and not escalate and inflame things by using terminology that's
Speaker 2: that's offensive.
Speaker 1: And so you know what's funny too, is you know,
Speaker 1: you have the room in hand and all this. You
Speaker 1: have Roman law, you have British maritime. So two places
Speaker 1: that are decimated by and controlled by this same group,
Speaker 1: the same family for the most part. But in the
Speaker 1: in the past with Rome, I mean it eroded from
Speaker 1: the inside because of an influence. I call it the
Speaker 1: priest craft. Sometimes we can call it disease. Now if
Speaker 1: we want to the z's not disease. It's kind of
Speaker 1: the same, yeah, right, But I mean it's one of
Speaker 1: those things that it's a common thread. But if we
Speaker 1: ever want to get to the oh, how can the
Speaker 1: Holy see or how can the Roman Catholic Empire and
Speaker 1: these Jesuits all be you know, working in conjunction. Well,
Speaker 1: who gave them the religion? Who was the first who
Speaker 1: were the first Christians? Was Paul a European man? You
Speaker 1: know what I mean? Who do you think has the
Speaker 1: most control and most say and how that works and
Speaker 1: how that operates over there in Rome?
Speaker 2: Yep. The groundwork, the framework, the foundations were established long
Speaker 2: before I think that we all have fully understood.
Speaker 1: And Rothschilds in the past have been painted and photographed
Speaker 1: with what looks like either the star of Saint Sylvester,
Speaker 1: a Cross of Saint Sylvester, which would be an accolade
Speaker 1: that you give somebody who's done service to the Rome.
Speaker 1: Or they're actually the Maltese cross, that's Knights of Malta.
Speaker 2: Oh that's very interesting. Yeah. So the second source here
Speaker 2: is from a Brandeis biographer. Melvin Eurofsky. Holmes and later
Speaker 2: Roscoe Pound would be the great theorists of sociological jurisprudence,
Speaker 2: but Lewis Brandeis would be its great practitioner. In nineteen
Speaker 2: oh eight, when he submitted his path breaking brief in
Speaker 2: Muller Versus organ he put into practice the theory he
Speaker 2: had heard Holmes talk about more than a quarter century earlier.
Speaker 2: This is the Brandeis Brief. This changed law forever. They
Speaker 2: still use it today. So Brandeis lectured at Harvard after
Speaker 2: graduation and founded both the Harvard Law School Association in
Speaker 2: eighteen eighty six, which puts him in control of the
Speaker 2: direction of the Harvard Law School itself and the Harvard
Speaker 2: Law Review. So when we know about the two pillars
Speaker 2: of propaganda brick and mortar buildings and information a periodical,
Speaker 2: so institutions and information working together create propaganda because you
Speaker 2: have a place to congregate and then a place from
Speaker 2: which to propagate. So look at Brandis. He's creating the
Speaker 2: Harvard Law School Association, directing Harvard Law Review, or the
Speaker 2: Harvard Law School itself, and then a year later creates
Speaker 2: the Periodical.
Speaker 1: And so I hope people out there listening to this
Speaker 1: don't think that this was an evolution of thought, an
Speaker 1: idea progressing mankind forward. This was a direct assault to
Speaker 1: weaken the structure that was already in place. It didn't
Speaker 1: need all of these improvements quote unquote, because they weren't improvements.
Speaker 1: This was to eliminate the power of the people, eliminate
Speaker 1: the freedom of the people slowly over time, by injecting
Speaker 1: it with this poison and this idea. That this the
Speaker 1: fact that this actually rolled out as it did and
Speaker 1: wasn't stopped by violence early on shows who was complicit
Speaker 1: in it. That would be the heads of state, the
Speaker 1: top of the people. They were all in the same
Speaker 1: brotherhoods yea.
Speaker 2: And when you read their literature, I have endless sources
Speaker 2: that show the infiltrators where they admit that the US
Speaker 2: Constitution was their greatest obstacle. This is why they created
Speaker 2: the international labor organization, the League of Nations. When that
Speaker 2: was happening at the Paris Peace Conference or before it,
Speaker 2: they said that the United States was going to be
Speaker 2: the main objector because they have a constitution. And what happened,
Speaker 2: That's exactly what happened. When Woodrow Wilson brought it back
Speaker 2: and put it in front of the Congress, they denied it.
Speaker 2: And who was the main force in denying it but
Speaker 2: the Conservative And it's not a.
Speaker 1: Coincidence that all this stuff started rolling out after the
Speaker 1: outcome of the Civil War, right, because that's when the
Speaker 1: spirit of America was finally broken.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and we're showing through work that our friend nick
Speaker 2: A Dimas is doing that this goes back to Lincoln,
Speaker 2: and it goes through Lincoln, and it goes all the
Speaker 2: way back. So we have to reevaluate all of the
Speaker 2: leaders that have been here that you know, we consider
Speaker 2: hallowed founders of our Western life.
Speaker 1: Andrew Jackson last real president in my opinion.
Speaker 2: Okay, So Brandei's regularly correspond with the dean and faculty members,
Speaker 2: offering suggestions for courses and advice on schools management. He
Speaker 2: provided both advice towards the creation of the Harvard Law Review,
Speaker 2: served as its first treasurer, and was a trustee until
Speaker 2: his appointment to the Supreme Court. Brande's also served as
Speaker 2: a member of the Law Schools Visiting Committee, appointed by
Speaker 2: the Board of Overseers. The Board of Overseers like the regulators.
Speaker 1: Sounds like overloords it to me. Yeah, yep.
Speaker 2: And so there's a source that I've I screenshoted and
Speaker 2: pulled right off of the Harvard Law School Association eighteen eighty.
Speaker 2: Now I got some blowback only from PhDs and those
Speaker 2: that are educated in our higher institutions of education. They disagree.
Speaker 2: They don't think the brand Eye was that involved. Well,
Speaker 2: there you go. And I'm not here to take pleasure
Speaker 2: in informing you you've been living an illusion in your
Speaker 2: entire life. But it is necessary for us to all
Speaker 2: come to these realizations. So here is Holmes Junior being
Speaker 2: guided down the street by Brandeis. And now that picture
Speaker 2: can tell a thousand words. So Frankfurter or to become
Speaker 2: brandeis a surrogate, fulfilling jurists urged to be an activist.
Speaker 2: This is really where we get judges being social activists.
Speaker 1: If you betack, then sorry, they dress better back then.
Speaker 2: I agree, I agree, I would love to. I mean,
Speaker 2: you can see through my facial hair that I admire
Speaker 2: this time period and I would love to be able
Speaker 2: to dress like some of these guys. So there again,
Speaker 2: just more sources pointing to the Brandeis Brief as a
Speaker 2: major contributing factor. Okay, so Nathan Roscoe Pound, let's learn
Speaker 2: a little bit about this thirty third degree Mason. And
Speaker 2: you can see in the background. I've also put the
Speaker 2: scope and purpose of sociological jurisprudence the actual front page
Speaker 2: of the book, just to show that it is reality
Speaker 2: that we're talking about, not theory. So Roscoe Pound is
Speaker 2: one is the one most attributed with founding sociological jurisprudence
Speaker 2: in America. Pound studied Roman law, receiving his BA in
Speaker 2: eighteen eighty eight and his Master of Arts in eighteen
Speaker 2: eighty nine at Nebraska University. In nineteen oh three, Pound
Speaker 2: became the dean of the University of Nebraska College of Law,
Speaker 2: and in nineteen oh eight he was a founding editor
Speaker 2: of the Annual Bulletin of the American Bar Association. So
Speaker 2: he's way high up in determining, you know, grand narratives,
Speaker 2: not just you know, state by state or regional, but
Speaker 2: he's talking about the imposition of grand narratives. So in
Speaker 2: nineteen oh nine he taught at University of Chicago Law School,
Speaker 2: and in nineteen eleven Pound moved to Harvard, first as
Speaker 2: a professor of law, and then from nineteen sixteen until
Speaker 2: nineteen thirty six, twenty years, Pound was the dean of
Speaker 2: the Harvard Law School. Pound stating in his foundational Harvard
Speaker 2: Law Review article Sociological Jurisprudence, its Scope and Purpose of
Speaker 2: which we've been pulling quotes already from that lawyers are
Speaker 2: nothing less than social engineers who use their knowledge and
Speaker 2: experience of the law to deliberately create the framework for
Speaker 2: a better society. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And you know that these people are positioned there because
Speaker 1: they are brothers of the Hidden Hand.
Speaker 2: Yes for sure, yep, and we're going to get there.
Speaker 2: So the other great theorists of sociological jurisprudence mentioned in
Speaker 2: the above quote was Oliver Wendell Holmes Junior. And I've
Speaker 2: had some great conversations this week with somebody that's looking
Speaker 2: into the life of Oliver Wendell Holmes and had never
Speaker 2: heard of the House of Truth. So he's busy looking
Speaker 2: at my work there, hopefully and gaining knowledge as to
Speaker 2: how we got here, because this is important, Probably the
Speaker 2: most important exercise we could do right now is to
Speaker 2: learn how we got here. WHOA, I'm real wise interview.
Speaker 1: But this is crazy what they're about to say. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's just fucked.
Speaker 2: This is to tell you everything right here, Okay, So
Speaker 2: I'm going to just continue from where I left off here.
Speaker 2: Oliver Wendel Holmes nominated it's a Supreme Court justice in
Speaker 2: nineteen oh two. Holmes held the position for the next
Speaker 2: thirty years. So you can see that they've there's an
Speaker 2: ominous continuity, and this is how they do it. One
Speaker 2: of the most cited justices in American history. Homes is
Speaker 2: homes of Harvard Law alum as well. And actually he
Speaker 2: was paid by brand Eyes and I think the Warburgs
Speaker 2: and all of those guys for him to go to
Speaker 2: Harvard Law. This is what they did for Frankfurter. Frankfurter
Speaker 2: leaves the House of Truth and becomes a professor at
Speaker 2: Harvard Law School, and he's funded by the Warburgs, by
Speaker 2: brand Eyes and several of these other usual suspects, and
Speaker 2: I think I'm moving towards saying that Frankfurt and Warburg
Speaker 2: are actually relatives. They may be cousins. So Harvard law
Speaker 2: alum stood defiantly against natural law. This is what they say,
Speaker 2: they don't want natural law, and was famous for his
Speaker 2: prediction theory, believing that crime, especially recidivism like the continued crime. Right,
Speaker 2: you go and rob a house and then you go
Speaker 2: and rob it again two weeks later, this is recidivism.
Speaker 2: It's just a falling back of the criminal into his
Speaker 2: nefarious ways, or the repeating of criminal offenses. Like I
Speaker 2: just said, there can be predicted and then prevent it.
Speaker 2: So now we're getting into predictive law, yes, thought crimes,
Speaker 2: and starting to sort of think about something like minority report.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, That's what I was going with that too.
Speaker 1: But the whole natural law thing, how did that fly?
Speaker 1: You're saying that's that's directly opposing the Constitution and the
Speaker 1: rights of the people. This could only have happened post
Speaker 1: rules a civil war. It's the only way it would
Speaker 1: have happened.
Speaker 2: Well, if the Industrial Revolution itself served as the dialectic.
Speaker 2: This is why they said, it's like, look at how
Speaker 2: unequal our society is. Now we've got a rich or,
Speaker 2: a halves and a have not. So now we must
Speaker 2: make radical social reform to to rectify that. Well, we've
Speaker 2: got one hundred years of hindsight to say it hasn't happened.
Speaker 1: If he did that, If he did that one hundred
Speaker 1: years prior, he would have been strung up on a tree.
Speaker 2: Yep, yep. And and it's because they've been working on
Speaker 2: us slowly and deliberately over generations.
Speaker 1: This is what.
Speaker 2: Is.
Speaker 1: Everybody would have pitched in to help that out too,
Speaker 1: And that's that's crazy.
Speaker 2: So in the intro to his Social Control through Law,
Speaker 2: Pound define Pound defines law as a highly specialized form
Speaker 2: of social control. That's actually I don't think that that's
Speaker 2: his book. It is somebody that's done a analyzation of
Speaker 2: this history and have determined themselves that Pound defined law
Speaker 2: is a highly specialized form of social control. So there
Speaker 2: you go. And I've got more sources showing that. Okay,
Speaker 2: So Pound was the Grand Representative of Nebraska and made
Speaker 2: the orator of the Nebraska Grand Lodge in nineteen oh seven.
Speaker 2: I've got a little number four there that's in brandeis
Speaker 2: personal letter to Felix Warburg esquire treasurer American Jewish Relief Committee.
Speaker 2: Now we've already talked about all of that.
Speaker 1: So they had a Jewish Relief Committee prior to prior
Speaker 1: to World War Two.
Speaker 2: Yes, this is the Joint Distribution Committee. This is where
Speaker 2: they targeted three separate aspects of Jewish life and asked
Speaker 2: them to donate to the cause of a Jewish homeland
Speaker 2: in Palestine.
Speaker 1: You know, it really helped set out is an event
Speaker 1: to garner sympathy and victimhood.
Speaker 2: Of the catastrophic type. Oh yeah, yeah, right, so it's.
Speaker 1: Really good for fundraising.
Speaker 2: Yeah. He was crowned thirty third degree in nineteen thirteen
Speaker 2: as the past master of Lancaster Lodge Number fifty four,
Speaker 2: Ancient Free and Accepted Masons in Lincoln, Nebraska, Lincoln in
Speaker 2: When he left the Cornfields for Boston, he didn't leave
Speaker 2: his apron behind. Pound was made Deputy Grand Master for
Speaker 2: the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, almost as if his promotion
Speaker 2: as a Mason was the main catalyst for his move
Speaker 2: to Harvard. Either way, they happened simultaneously, and according to
Speaker 2: Gould's History of Freemasonry throughout the World, the Grand Lodge
Speaker 2: of Mason's in Massachusetts is not only the senior Grand Lodge,
Speaker 2: but also the senior Masonic body of any kind now
Speaker 2: functioning in the Western hemisphere. Okay, so you want to
Speaker 2: talk about the overthrow of Western society through Freemasonry. There
Speaker 2: you go. There it is, okay, And I've got the
Speaker 2: Gould's history of Freemasonry throughout the world, the entire set
Speaker 2: behind me. I paid good money for that about this
Speaker 2: time last year. We're going to go back to that
Speaker 2: same bookstore next in about three weeks. And that guy's
Speaker 2: you know, he loves me coming in there because I
Speaker 2: put down good money and I find these books, Okay,
Speaker 2: and so that's cool. I'm very much looking forward to
Speaker 2: my four day vacation I get and that's where I
Speaker 2: spend it in these dusty, old incredibly informative just I mean,
Speaker 2: he's he's old himself, and so this place isn't going
Speaker 2: to be around long. And I encourage everybody, if you
Speaker 2: aren't collecting the actual physical books right now, go and
Speaker 2: do so. We've got an October book sale that comes
Speaker 2: here through the Friends of Colonna Library. You can find
Speaker 2: incredible books. I found a brave new World and Heaven
Speaker 2: and Hell, a two part that I could sell for
Speaker 2: fifty bucks right now, and I got for less than
Speaker 2: a dollar because these people don't know what they're looking at.
Speaker 1: Yes, I sometimes myself in the past, nothing or valuable
Speaker 1: to others, but definitely intriguing to me.
Speaker 2: So well, if you remind me at the end, I
Speaker 2: can show you some of the books that I've found
Speaker 2: cool through these trunk sales. We have one.
Speaker 1: We have one an independent like old bookstore here, and
Speaker 1: the guy is old and he's sick a lot, so
Speaker 1: it's not been open a lot lately, but I always
Speaker 1: drive by a look and to see if it's open
Speaker 1: so I can go in there. He's got an ash
Speaker 1: tray filled this much that he's never done probably twenty years.
Speaker 1: I can't imagine why his health is bad.
Speaker 2: Well, he's doing great work there by preserving these books,
Speaker 2: because if they're all memory hold, I'm not sure how
Speaker 2: the chances that we have any longer a victory.
Speaker 1: I got Kennedy's book there, That's what that's one is
Speaker 1: like a Kennedy's Heroes. I forgot the name of the book, but.
Speaker 2: So here I just again took a screenshot. This is
Speaker 2: from the Harvard Law or the Harvard Lodge Ancient, Free
Speaker 2: and Accepted Masons. Okay, so I invite you to go there,
Speaker 2: and we've done on this website. When I contribute, I
Speaker 2: should probably block out these phone numbers and such, but
Speaker 2: I don't really care. But I just want you to
Speaker 2: see that website. Yeah, we've put in high quality pictures
Speaker 2: so you can actually zoom in and read yourself. This
Speaker 2: is really what I want to encourage, is that the
Speaker 2: do your own research they have despite what the mainstream
Speaker 2: television is telling you, by all means, do your own research.
Speaker 1: So is that is that the same? Is that a
Speaker 1: different moniker for the Massachusetts Lodge or is that separate
Speaker 1: an additional lodge.
Speaker 2: Well, what I'm showing there is that there's Masonic lodges
Speaker 2: on Harvard campus.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's that's nuts.
Speaker 2: That's that in itself is nuts And it is the
Speaker 2: same thing as far as I'm concerned. It says the
Speaker 2: Harvard Lodge Ancient Free and Accepted Masons.
Speaker 1: Imagine if you're at Top day you get accepted into
Speaker 1: there instead of the sorority of the fraternity.
Speaker 2: Right, It's like, Yeah, and in previous work, in the
Speaker 2: previous episodes, we've shown that the Zionis Secret Societies were
Speaker 2: also created on the Harvard campus and guests who put
Speaker 2: them there, Brandee and his key right hand man, Horace W. Klin.
Speaker 2: And what are they the Parashieme and the Minora societies?
Speaker 2: What is the Parashieme the Pharisees. Okay, So after completing
Speaker 2: postgraduate work in Germany, the founders of sociology, those men
Speaker 2: that I showed you at the very beginning on the cover,
Speaker 2: surrounding brand Eyes, of whom we're going to get into
Speaker 2: here now, all returned directly to America by design, where
Speaker 2: each would make significant pioneering contributions to the burgeoning field
Speaker 2: of sociology. Now that is the name for all social
Speaker 2: sciences up until this point. So when they use the
Speaker 2: word sociology, they are talking social sciences. There's a grammerical
Speaker 2: mistake there. I'm just going to move on the three
Speaker 2: professors of sociology demonstrating a profound collective influence on Pound
Speaker 2: while at Nebraska, this is where this all was hatched.
Speaker 2: Pound became I'm a member of the American Sociological Society,
Speaker 2: even though he wasn't a sociologist, but because of his importance.
Speaker 2: They put him there, serving on several of their committees,
Speaker 2: even contributing several articles. It's here at the University of Nebraska,
Speaker 2: surrounded by sociologists of the Prussian Historical School, the Pound
Speaker 2: first formulates his revolutionary sociological approach to law. Okay, now
Speaker 2: we're going to get to into more sources showing that
Speaker 2: he is indeed thirty third degree Mason. Here is Masonic
Speaker 2: jurisprudence lectures on and they've identified Roscoe Pound as a
Speaker 2: thirty third degree Mason. And here is why I say
Speaker 2: that he is from the past. He is the past
Speaker 2: master of Lancaster Lodge number fifty four. Okay, it's all
Speaker 2: right there. I'm not making any of this shit up
Speaker 2: because you couldn't so. Pound, as we've shown, the founder
Speaker 2: of the Harvard Lodge af and Am, and it was
Speaker 2: prolific contributed to the Harvard chapter of the Acacia Fraternity
Speaker 2: giving lectures on Masonic jurisprudence. Oh there's a major connection. Okay,
Speaker 2: for all of you out there that are rightly stating
Speaker 2: that it's all kind of moved by masonry, yeah, because
Speaker 2: within masonry is the liberal arts and the Kabbala. This
Speaker 2: is the common ground with the higher echelons of universities.
Speaker 2: As we've shown, this is where they came together.
Speaker 1: That's not pro America by any means.
Speaker 2: The association either, Yeah, the Association of American Universities is
Speaker 2: just as integral as Kabbala and the Freemasons in creating
Speaker 2: a society governed by the scientific technical expert. So you
Speaker 2: can see he's also a member of other Masonic clubs there.
Speaker 1: So there's the use of the word acacia is also
Speaker 1: very interesting, I think, is it. Can you elaborate on that, uh,
Speaker 1: the acacia tree. I mean, there's there's a symbol in there.
Speaker 1: I'll get back to you on that.
Speaker 2: But okay, fair enough, fair enough. I would like to
Speaker 2: know more. And I think I put that in there
Speaker 2: because of something that I've found with the word a casey.
Speaker 1: I just you know, it's a plan, not a trace. Sorry,
Speaker 1: but okay.
Speaker 2: So this completely true, yet far less acceptable view, revealing
Speaker 2: significant connections to both the Phi Beta Kappa Society and Freemasonry.
Speaker 2: Pound not only a grand master, but his being chosen
Speaker 2: to pioneer new expansion into Ivy League Academia reveals a
Speaker 2: type of Masonic long view and trusted only to a
Speaker 2: thirty third degree master Mason. So there's a picture of
Speaker 2: our little pedophile or whatever he is. I should probably
Speaker 2: not say that because I can't prove that. I don't
Speaker 2: really want to get into subjectivity. But who knows. I
Speaker 2: wouldn't put it past them. And you know, Brande's a Frankest.
Speaker 2: A lot of these guys frankests, right, So there is
Speaker 2: reason why I would speculate there. It's not wild.
Speaker 1: So the Arc of the Covenant, the Book of Exodist
Speaker 1: states that the arc of the Covenant was made from
Speaker 1: shiham wood also known as akasha. Would not instructed Moses
Speaker 1: arc while he was on Mountseai and I the Shitta tree,
Speaker 1: it's really spelled that way. It's not refers to trees
Speaker 1: in the general and the genera vacalia whatever, blah blah blah,
Speaker 1: as shitta trees, which were previously classified as acacia trees.
Speaker 1: Acacia tree is also known as the friend the Bedowin's
Speaker 1: friend because it provides food, shade, and medicine nomadic tribe
Speaker 1: that has lived in the desert since before King David's time.
Speaker 1: The leaves of the infantry are a food source for camels,
Speaker 1: and there's more to it than that. The Acacia comes
Speaker 1: up in Masonic lore as well.
Speaker 2: Well. That's very interesting because that is empowering knowledge that
Speaker 2: not everybody would have. And so you can start to
Speaker 2: see why they would call it or name it after
Speaker 2: this tree because it's an all encompassing uh help to
Speaker 2: you know, the progress of humanity.
Speaker 1: So in a freemasonry it is symbolic of immortality, resilience, initiates.
Speaker 1: That's a big one remembrance, and it's a holy plant
Speaker 1: ay that's beautiful.
Speaker 2: And the use of the word covenant too, we see
Speaker 2: right protocol and these all go back to a certain demographic.
Speaker 2: So here's an important pivot point. Okay. So the sociological school,
Speaker 2: theorized by Pound and Holmes Junior and practiced by Brandeis
Speaker 2: was first brought to America through the Sociological Department of
Speaker 2: the University of Nebraska. This is the Midwest. This is
Speaker 2: where they targeted on Rothschild orders. So while Pound was
Speaker 2: professor of Law professor from eighteen ninety nine to nineteen
Speaker 2: oh seven, Dean of Nebraska University College of Law from
Speaker 2: nineteen oh three till nineteen eleven, Roscoe Pound was close
Speaker 2: friends with the founders of sociology in America through their
Speaker 2: shared leadership of the American Sociological Association. This is these
Speaker 2: associations that they created to control society. Edward Alsworth Ross
Speaker 2: is a very important name to now know, as are
Speaker 2: George Elliott Howard Albion Woodbury Small and they were all
Speaker 2: former presidents of that association. They all took turns being
Speaker 2: the president. Not coincidentally, all three men, after graduating from
Speaker 2: American state colleges, traveled abroad for at least a two
Speaker 2: year postgraduate program involving a more specialized something that they
Speaker 2: couldn't get in the United States. Social science based education
Speaker 2: not found in America. So there, I just include these
Speaker 2: names because we're going to get into them. Niece, Blunchie,
Speaker 2: Ratzenhofer and Wilhelm Won't. Who is a direct we make
Speaker 2: a direct connection, or at least I haven't been able
Speaker 2: to make you know that, but there is a substantial
Speaker 2: rumor or a belief that Wilhelm Won't. The first experimental
Speaker 2: psychologist is Illuminati.
Speaker 1: So do you.
Speaker 2: Can see here? What's important and why I included this
Speaker 2: picture is because he's still very highly regarded at this
Speaker 2: point in his life. Right he was looked like a
Speaker 2: little child in that first picture. Here he is a
Speaker 2: very mature man, near closer to the end of his
Speaker 2: life than the beginning of it. And here he is
Speaker 2: in robe. And I think that's just law robes. It's
Speaker 2: nothing to do with freemasonry. Although this here may be
Speaker 2: interesting to zoom me in on, but we don't need
Speaker 2: to prove that anymore. They've all admitted it is documented,
Speaker 2: historical fact and self evident that the thirty third degree
Speaker 2: Master Mason's involved here. So let's get to these founders
Speaker 2: of sociology, Edward Olsworth Ross being one of the most important. Okay,
Speaker 2: so sociologist professor having difficulty now it's been a little
Speaker 2: bit funny. Sociologists. Professor at NU from nineteen oh one
Speaker 2: until nineteen oh six first studied theology. There's another common pattern.
Speaker 2: They're all coming from religion and the liberal arts at
Speaker 2: co College in the US and before attending the University
Speaker 2: of Berlin. Now, one of the prerequisites that the German
Speaker 2: Historical School stated that if you in America are going
Speaker 2: to start sending us these guys that we need to train,
Speaker 2: don't send them to us unless they have a Liberal
Speaker 2: arts degree and a Master of Arts or a Bachelor
Speaker 2: of Arts at least. Okay, so that's grammar logic rhetorics.
Speaker 2: So they know how to speak, they have a style,
Speaker 2: and they're very persuasive coming out of co College. And
Speaker 2: they also understand life at a higher level, much like
Speaker 2: knowledge of the Acacia tree. They've got sacred geometry in
Speaker 2: their minds, the magic of mathematics and the truth of
Speaker 2: astronomy not astrology, Okay, two different words.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And by this time in history, when we're referring
Speaker 1: to the Kabalas, we're not talking about any past rendition
Speaker 1: of it. We're talking about the lyric Kabala, which is
Speaker 1: where Zionism and Frankism comes straight out of Yes, have
Speaker 1: a team Frankism.
Speaker 2: And so this is a direct connection to the trivium too,
Speaker 2: because understanding knowledge wisdom is grammar logic rhetoric in the trivium.
Speaker 2: And I've got an amazing picture. Actually, I'm going to
Speaker 2: just write this down so I can remember it. That
Speaker 2: shows the connection. Okay, So where was I? Ross returns
Speaker 2: to the States landing at Johns Hopkins. This is another
Speaker 2: realization that Johns Hopkins University and Chicago University are sort
Speaker 2: of the the taking off points and the landing points.
Speaker 2: For anybody going to the German historical school. These are
Speaker 2: German schools. When you look at their logos symbols, they
Speaker 2: invote an honor to back to this German historical school.
Speaker 1: So Johns hops Johns Hopkins University should be viewed by
Speaker 1: the people as an enemy of the people.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely, This is where the Manhattan Project started. The
Speaker 2: leader of the inquiry, Isaiah Bowman, was the president of
Speaker 2: Johns Hopkins at that point. So he gained a doctorate
Speaker 2: degree under Richard T. Ely. This is another guy that's
Speaker 2: very important to understand. He's a father of progressivism and
Speaker 2: he's he's an economist, so he's a social scientist as well.
Speaker 2: Because the economy, or like history or anthropology, economics is
Speaker 2: a social science. The study of human beings is the
Speaker 2: underlying current that combines at all. So Ross is said
Speaker 2: to be the most responsible for introducing roscal pound to
Speaker 2: a sociological jurisprudence and a major influence in the development
Speaker 2: of early criminology, writing, you know.
Speaker 1: What's funny about that, the study of the human in
Speaker 1: their mind and their thoughts. Yeah, it's almost as if
Speaker 1: they're alien to that because they don't have the same
Speaker 1: types of conscience. Yeah, you know, they don't have the
Speaker 1: same type of empathy or sympathy. So they have to
Speaker 1: study human in order to understand how to manipulate human
Speaker 1: because they're not quite all that human, you know what
Speaker 1: It's like. It's funny how they put an emphasis on,
Speaker 1: you know, understanding us so that they can manipulate us.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and those that are directing, men like Edward Alsworth
Speaker 2: roth Ross, use words like disinterestedness, and they wanted to
Speaker 2: create a level of disinterestedness in the clinician and the
Speaker 2: studier of man, just as they wanted to do in
Speaker 2: the general society. So this is where we get apathy,
Speaker 2: blissful ignorance, and this is really ripping apart or deteriorating
Speaker 2: our Western culture from the inside. And each person that
Speaker 2: has sort of signed on to a lifestyle of blissful
Speaker 2: ignorance is doing their part in tearing down Western society
Speaker 2: by not doing your own research.
Speaker 1: By not holding your away in the fight either. And
Speaker 1: it's funny that the sociologists would be promoting and generating
Speaker 1: sociopaths because yeah, talking about when you're talking about the
Speaker 1: ad absolutely, great point.
Speaker 2: Great point. That's what they all are. There. I use
Speaker 2: the word a lot narcissists because they all exhibit the
Speaker 2: same behavior of narcissists. Now I've gone and looked into
Speaker 2: the definition and studied narcissism. I'm not just throwing that
Speaker 2: word around. I'm using it because people are familiar with it.
Speaker 2: It's just another word that people will throw around that
Speaker 2: they're not entirely sure of what the definition is. But
Speaker 2: when you start to see people that are like not
Speaker 2: willing to admit that they were wrong, not willing to
Speaker 2: admit that you were right, not being able to say
Speaker 2: I'm sorry or thank you, these are narcissistic traits. And
Speaker 2: when you see people using other people as a means
Speaker 2: to their own ends, that's a dead giveaway. You're a narcissist.
Speaker 2: We're supposed to be looking We're supposed to be looking
Speaker 2: for relationships where we can have a win win, exactly
Speaker 2: like the relationship you and I have, Daniel. This is
Speaker 2: a win win. I'm not using you, you aren't using me.
Speaker 2: We are together going towards the truth in a philosophical
Speaker 2: journey like normal people, Like normal people.
Speaker 1: Even though even though that's the the exception to the rule.
Speaker 2: Lately, it's unfortunate, right, And this is why it's so
Speaker 2: important to hold onto these values and traditions, and why
Speaker 2: it's so important that people like us that are actually
Speaker 2: putting importance on our moral and ethical compasses and making
Speaker 2: sure that we don't deviate. And so anybody that's that's
Speaker 2: going at it like that and for those reasons, with
Speaker 2: those motivations, those are the people we need to be
Speaker 2: listening to and following and supporting, not not these.
Speaker 1: Others scrutinizing everything, of course, fact texting everybody, yes, with
Speaker 1: not fact, tacking with the with the skewed facts from
Speaker 1: the statistics. Right, so history book says you're wrong, right,
Speaker 1: ain't not good enough?
Speaker 2: That's not good enough. So Edward Olsworth Ross married the
Speaker 2: niece of his personal and professional men tour, the founder
Speaker 2: of the welfare state. Lamb chops, Yeah, Lester frank Ward.
Speaker 2: Why do I say lamb chops? Well, I'm pretty sure
Speaker 2: everybody noticed. Yeah, I mean, what is going on there?
Speaker 1: Handlebars?
Speaker 2: What are you doing? You know what I mean. I'm
Speaker 2: gonna make you a household name, Lester frank Ward, all
Speaker 2: of you. That's our mission to make these guys household names,
Speaker 2: and at this point Brandeis isn't even a household name.
Speaker 2: So I think.
Speaker 1: He hasn't been for anybody unless he's been watching this
Speaker 1: show or the ones that you've been on.
Speaker 2: Right, right, So he's writing books called Social Control, Survey
Speaker 2: of the Foundations of Order nineteen oh one, Changing America,
Speaker 2: Studies in Contemporary History nineteen twelve, The Old World in
Speaker 2: the New nineteen fourteen, and in nineteen nineteen, What is America?
Speaker 2: So a little further down, page ninety three from Social Control,
Speaker 2: Edward also worth Raw states law the most most formidable
Speaker 2: engine of control employed by society. Page one oh sixty
Speaker 2: states the law the most specialized and highly finished engine
Speaker 2: of control employed by society. I think there's another quote.
Speaker 2: Largely due to the work of Roscoe Pound, the concept
Speaker 2: of social engineering through law has been popular in the
Speaker 2: jurisprudence sociology of law. This is where we started our
Speaker 2: conversation today. The sociology of law and political science of
Speaker 2: the Western Countries. Okay, so number seven, that is from
Speaker 2: page one seventy seven of Human Organization, Law and Sociology
Speaker 2: or Social engineering Storry from Adam Podgorreki University of Poland. Hey,
Speaker 2: just pointing some things out, not pointing fingers. So here's
Speaker 2: another one from our eighths. For a few golden years,
Speaker 2: Nebraska laid full time claim to the intellectual skills of
Speaker 2: three of the nation's most talented social scientists, Ross, Howard,
Speaker 2: and Pound. The next quote from Social Control, of which
Speaker 2: we've already cited once turning next to the sociological components
Speaker 2: of Pound's jurisprudence, it is widely recognized that they were
Speaker 2: derived largely from the writings of Lester Frank Ward, Albion Small,
Speaker 2: and most especially E. A. Ross, who was a colleague
Speaker 2: of Pounds at the University of Nebraska. This is the
Speaker 2: real history, people, Okay, So George Eliot Howard, as at
Speaker 2: least as as close to what we can devise or
Speaker 2: to discern. Okay. I know that there is a degree
Speaker 2: of fallibility here that we must consider, but we've done
Speaker 2: our best, through primary sources and forensic history and investigative
Speaker 2: journalism to get to the truth. And I'll trust this
Speaker 2: information here that we've found far longer and with more
Speaker 2: loyalty than any other that I've seen out there, Because
Speaker 2: when you take this all in in its totality, Daniel.
Speaker 2: You know, it starts to answer a lot of questions
Speaker 2: you have, starts to put pieces together, and there's about
Speaker 2: one hundred aha moments in this work. So another one
Speaker 2: of these founders, Georgia Elliot Howard, graduated per Peru State College.
Speaker 2: So here is again state colleges infusing within these guys
Speaker 2: the liberal arts. So he has a BA. So there's
Speaker 2: a Bachelor of Arts and then a higher Master of Arts.
Speaker 2: But they're saying, Okay, he's got a Bachelor of Arts,
Speaker 2: he can come over. He's the founder of institutional sociology
Speaker 2: and the author of the groundbreaking A History of Matrimonial Institutions,
Speaker 2: so he gets into the idea of marriage. So Howard
Speaker 2: went to Ludwig Maximilian's Universitids in Munich, where he studied
Speaker 2: political science, history, and Roman law. Howard returned to the
Speaker 2: States two years later, earning his MA. Howard was appointed
Speaker 2: professor of political science and sociology, the very first professor
Speaker 2: of history, while also teaching public law with Pound at
Speaker 2: the University of Nebraska. So in eighteen ninety four Howard
Speaker 2: received his PhD. And so this is a this is
Speaker 2: a system that was derived in Germany in Prussia. This
Speaker 2: is an aspect of the Prussian Reformation. So PhDs don't
Speaker 2: come from America. But these are the first Americans, or
Speaker 2: if the first foreigners ever to receive the PhD. And
Speaker 2: what do they do. They go back to the founders
Speaker 2: of r K through twelve. They go back to America
Speaker 2: and be the heads of major institutions of control. Not
Speaker 2: just in psychology. Now we're showing in the law influence.
Speaker 2: So in eighteen ninety four Howard received his PhD. In
Speaker 2: nineteen oh one, travel to Stanford and was one of
Speaker 2: their original faculty members before resigning under controversy. Now this
Speaker 2: is another pattern we see with these progressives. They're all
Speaker 2: resigning under controversy because they're trying to create it. They
Speaker 2: are trying to infiltrate our Western colleges with this idea
Speaker 2: of social control. And so that's another sort of aspect
Speaker 2: of this history I'd love to get into. But John
Speaker 2: Dewey is another one. Charles Beard at Columbia. You know,
Speaker 2: when they brought in the Frankfort School into Columbia, it
Speaker 2: raised a lot of hell. So for two years he
Speaker 2: lectured at Chicago University before returning to NU in nineteen
Speaker 2: oh three, named the head of the Department of Political
Speaker 2: Science and Sociology and Professor of Institutional History. Howard remained
Speaker 2: at NU until his death nearly twenty years later. So
Speaker 2: this is what we see. This is why Henry Kissinger
Speaker 2: lives to one hundred so Pound, Howard and Ross all
Speaker 2: were members of the University of Nebraska Graduate Club and
Speaker 2: met regularly at each other's homes to present and discuss
Speaker 2: papers and direction interdisciplinary political salon. It's kind of what
Speaker 2: I think here. They were members of a smaller, more
Speaker 2: intimate group, a dinner club known as the Congenial Ten.
Speaker 2: This is definitely a political salan, like the House of Truth,
Speaker 2: and like what we see in Los Angeles Infiltration of Hollywood.
Speaker 2: There are political slanes in which Huxley and the founders
Speaker 2: of Critical Theory are sitting in the same room discussing
Speaker 2: how they're going to take over America through film noir
Speaker 2: and horror. So there they discussed the pressing sociological issues
Speaker 2: of society and both quote, Ross and Pound were social
Speaker 2: and intellectual spark plugs who drew people together and got
Speaker 2: them talking. End quote.
Speaker 1: Look at the books too, changing America. Yes, this is
Speaker 1: why I included it, right, like why social Control Changing America?
Speaker 1: I mean, just the titles alone are offensive.
Speaker 2: Pioneer and Pathfinder in the Study of Society to my master,
Speaker 2: to my master, Yeah, you're straight up the founder in
Speaker 2: the both club the welfare State.
Speaker 1: Okay, to my master.
Speaker 2: And now what's I want to add to here the tuck. Yeah.
Speaker 2: What's incredible is that all these books can be found
Speaker 2: on archive dot org for the time being because they're
Speaker 2: all out of print. So you can take those titles,
Speaker 2: put it into an Internet search, put archive at the
Speaker 2: end of it, and you're going to get these books
Speaker 2: so you can go through them and you can word search.
Speaker 1: They've already educated people to be mostly Marxist through the
Speaker 1: public schooling, so this just doesn't sound horrible to them, right,
Speaker 1: you know.
Speaker 2: Right, because they're using words like community progress.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: People, most colloquially, I would say, generally people think progress
Speaker 2: is a good thing.
Speaker 1: It is when it's used in the proper term. Yeah,
Speaker 1: meaning yes.
Speaker 2: And this is another discussion I'm having with a friend
Speaker 2: of mine on Facebook right now as to this fine
Speaker 2: line that we have to walk with progress. We can't
Speaker 2: just say that progress is a good thing. We need
Speaker 2: to have a more sophisticated perspective, not perception. So in
Speaker 2: his book, he is showing the origins of community, the
Speaker 2: origins of the city. Here, okay, so I'm going to
Speaker 2: show you over the next four or five pages just
Speaker 2: what they were thinking and in the creation of a
Speaker 2: distributive network across America. So it starts with the farm,
Speaker 2: and obviously they've picked a place near a river, and
Speaker 2: they've decided that this is the first settlement. And then
Speaker 2: we see as it evolves, it becomes the rural group.
Speaker 2: There's an evolution of humanity and a progress and now
Speaker 2: all of a sudden, we have the village. The farms
Speaker 2: are now on the outskirts, and now we have highly
Speaker 2: regimented city. And these cities in this urbanization is a
Speaker 2: major problem as far as I'm concerned. And and you know, honestly.
Speaker 1: Pardon, where'd the farm go?
Speaker 2: Right? And as a farmer myself.
Speaker 1: All I see as a fairgrounds, a little tiny.
Speaker 2: You got a great eye because I never really realized
Speaker 2: that that the elimination of the farm is there. Also,
Speaker 2: so I've been a farmer with my wife for seven
Speaker 2: years and that that offends me more than anything else.
Speaker 1: With the little boxes, little cubicals.
Speaker 2: And so here's our friend George Elliott Howard. He looks friendly.
Speaker 2: So I just go into their relationships. As president, he
Speaker 2: e a Ross sponsored ass sessions. This is the American
Speaker 2: Sociological Society. They changed it to the American Sociological Association
Speaker 2: for obvious reasons, because they are ass hats.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they came up at what are the books I
Speaker 1: was reading too? I think it was transhumanism the right.
Speaker 2: Yes, because we are tracing all of transhumanism, singularity, all
Speaker 2: of this right back to the efficiency movement of the
Speaker 2: progressive era, the technocracy, the cybernetics revolution, all starts here,
Speaker 2: the rudimentary first baby steps.
Speaker 1: They want to text so they can control you better.
Speaker 2: Yep. Yes, this is another realization I had that everybod
Speaker 2: what he needs to wrap their head around is that
Speaker 2: the socialists and the communists are at the cutting edge
Speaker 2: of technology. Right, is not the democrats or the left
Speaker 2: or the right, No.
Speaker 1: Or the scientists who are just or the scientists being
Speaker 1: manipulated to create the world so that they can do
Speaker 1: you know, you know who I'm talking about, can terraform
Speaker 1: it to whoever way they see fit.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So This guy here is worth looking at too.
Speaker 2: He's a very key guy. Albion Woodbury Small was born
Speaker 2: to Reverend Keith Paris Small and Thankful Lincoln Woodbury Small.
Speaker 2: Albion studied as a young boy at the Newton Theological Institute,
Speaker 2: but was never ordained, instead choosing to focus on the
Speaker 2: social sciences being taught out of the German historical school.
Speaker 2: A centralized, bureaucratic, administrative, progressive government increasingly more reliant on
Speaker 2: quantitative data with an aspect of social responsibility. Small quote
Speaker 2: clung tightly to the tenants end quote of quote, especially
Speaker 2: the social gospel end quote. Now, I don't remember what
Speaker 2: chapter I get into the Evangelicals.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was gonna say that gospel. Yeah, and that
Speaker 1: comes out of Frankism too. That's all the rest.
Speaker 2: Yes, And this is a connection directly to the origins
Speaker 2: of social science now and the aspect of law in
Speaker 2: our society. Same. We're seeing the same names come up,
Speaker 2: and we know Brandeis is deeply involved in that and
Speaker 2: influencing the Evangelical Christians into promoting a Jewish homeland in Palestine,
Speaker 2: and the father of social Gospel. Mary's Louis Brandeis's daughter
Speaker 2: and today their offspring is the president of the inter
Speaker 2: Faith Alliance.
Speaker 1: Yeah that what are the major proponents for the Jewish
Speaker 1: state was a was a qu quote unquote Christian Christian Zionists.
Speaker 2: The important thing here to also understand, Daniel, is that
Speaker 2: these are all out the control of our most like
Speaker 2: the moorings that we've stood with and held on to.
Speaker 2: They can see that. Okay, for us to move these people,
Speaker 2: we're gonna have to detach them from their value system too.
Speaker 2: And first and foremost is that's really what we have
Speaker 2: to do, is we have to start to detach them
Speaker 2: from their belief systems in order to impose different belief
Speaker 2: systems and change their culture and and what's important to them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, kind of like a parasite, you know, into their brain.
Speaker 1: Totally such process.
Speaker 2: Another cover of one of Ross's books, Social Psychology.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's another weapon of the Marxists, Bolsheviks, whatever you
Speaker 1: want to call them now, just call them Zionists. But yeah,
Speaker 1: sociology plays a part in it to to you know,
Speaker 1: to basically till the field. But the psychology, the psychiatry
Speaker 1: is to get rid of dissenters. It's a it's a
Speaker 1: problem you have a mental disorder that we need to
Speaker 1: drug you to death with if you are a nationalist
Speaker 1: or a patriot, or don't like it when your children
Speaker 1: are being forced into CRT and you stand up in
Speaker 1: front of a PTA meeting and now you're now not
Speaker 1: only are you, according to the FBI, a domestic terrorist,
Speaker 1: but you ask makeological problems and then we'll take your
Speaker 1: children away because the state should own them anyway.
Speaker 2: And isn't that what Sharon Tenpenny said to start this podcast.
Speaker 2: It's exactly it. They're going to vilify anybody that dissents,
Speaker 2: that doesn't comply that it's a contrarian. They're going to
Speaker 2: label things and they're gonna memory hole at all.
Speaker 1: They're going to take children from partners and then hopefully
Speaker 1: that's when the war breaks out because there shouldn't be.
Speaker 1: I don't understand how I can sit back and let
Speaker 1: their child get it vaccinated in front of them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, yeah, incredible, Right, So how much time
Speaker 2: do you think we got today? We're an hour and
Speaker 2: a half in.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we keep god A'll all you on.
Speaker 2: So I'm gonna conclude this one and we're going to
Speaker 2: try to get to the philosophy of law, because there's
Speaker 2: a great conclusion to make, and those that have watched
Speaker 2: my work know where I'm headed. So this William Graham Sumner,
Speaker 2: another key guy. He is Phi Beta Kappa, Skull and Bones.
Speaker 2: He's following the same exact path. He's a feel He's
Speaker 2: into theology early in his life and heads to Germany
Speaker 2: to get his extra education. And here's the first mention
Speaker 2: of August Compty. So August Compty is the founder of positivism.
Speaker 2: And this is this is the elimination of the break
Speaker 2: of progress. So in today's world, those that are critical
Speaker 2: of the theory or hypothesis of global warming, we are
Speaker 2: told to be quiet. The science is settled, we're moving on.
Speaker 2: That is August Compty's positivism. It allows the wheel to
Speaker 2: never be stopped. And August Compty said that we needed
Speaker 2: before he could impose positivism, they had to have a
Speaker 2: belief that human endeavor always is moving forward and that
Speaker 2: we evolve.
Speaker 1: Not thinking as you're going, because that takes too much time.
Speaker 2: And so this is where where you're going.
Speaker 1: Either not only that, but not thinking where you're going.
Speaker 1: And I guarantee you they would put the brakes on
Speaker 1: if by some stroke of luck or miracle. The settled
Speaker 1: science wasn't something that they themselves had manipulated. They would
Speaker 1: they was they would they would put that thing in
Speaker 1: a halt real quick and redirect it to where they
Speaker 1: wanted to be.
Speaker 2: And so he states in his own work that they
Speaker 2: needed this theory of evolution and before he could impose
Speaker 2: this positivism. So this is really where the theory of
Speaker 2: evolution comes from. This is what Darwinism's purpose was. This
Speaker 2: is why it's still a theory because it's full of shit. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and so I'm sure that your viewers and listeners right
Speaker 2: now are familiar with.
Speaker 1: The thing it's built into, and then transhumanism after that.
Speaker 1: It's only if evolution is replacing creation created, you know,
Speaker 1: a God, a sense of a spirit, anything that has
Speaker 1: anything to do with those things that cannot be measured
Speaker 1: in the material of the world. You have to have
Speaker 1: the you have to have the theory of evolution first
Speaker 1: to give science its own church.
Speaker 2: Yes and exactly. And so then your viewers and listeners
Speaker 2: are familiar with Herbert Spencer. Yeah, this is the guy
Speaker 2: that humanizes that theory into our culture. And brand Eyes
Speaker 2: involved in the eugenics movement in that he signs into
Speaker 2: law forced or mandatory mandatory sterilization of feeble minded yep. Okay,
Speaker 2: So I'm going to get to the bottom here. Now
Speaker 2: we've gone through these.
Speaker 1: Have a lot of sexual attraction to other people. That
Speaker 1: kind of cancels itself out, doesn't it. So you're not
Speaker 1: going to get up what mates, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: alcohol involved. I mean, if you're at a ditty party,
Speaker 1: maybe anything can happen.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Usually that type of sex doesn't involve childbirth. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: So here's here's Lamb Chops. I go into him, into
Speaker 2: his life. Okay. At this point, you really just need
Speaker 2: to know that he is the father of our welfare state,
Speaker 2: and he was, as the quote number eleven States was
Speaker 2: largely influenced by August Komfty, Herbert Spencer, and many other evolutionists.
Speaker 2: So I point people to the pilt down man. This
Speaker 2: is a hoax where they buried a human skull with
Speaker 2: the mandible of an ape. I think they poured coffee
Speaker 2: on it, stained it. De jar Ten is a key
Speaker 2: guy here to know, and they dug it up and
Speaker 2: they stated this is the missing link, and so that
Speaker 2: skull was on display for over fifty years before somebody
Speaker 2: came along and did a test on it and said, hey,
Speaker 2: this is fake. It's a hoax. And so that was
Speaker 2: the only time that somebody had actually shown a missing link.
Speaker 2: And this is why it's not the law of evolution
Speaker 2: and still a theory today in the year twenty twenty four,
Speaker 2: because they haven't been able to prove it.
Speaker 1: What was the name of the female one? And it
Speaker 1: ended up being like a part of like a pig.
Speaker 2: Oh, I don't know, I've never heard of that one.
Speaker 1: I don't think they did it again. I forgot the
Speaker 1: name of the it's a female name. I forgot what
Speaker 1: it was.
Speaker 2: Okay, So philosophical architect here's one of the words that
Speaker 2: they use in describing him. Franklin Henry Gettings is another one.
Speaker 2: I invite everybody to read this full article. There's all
Speaker 2: kinds of incredible information in there that we're not covering
Speaker 2: here as we go, because I'm going to skip to
Speaker 2: the bottom. I think we're at a place now where
Speaker 2: you can really appreciate this diagram. Okay. On the left
Speaker 2: is the family function, and on the right is the
Speaker 2: great vast environment in which we are entangled. So you
Speaker 2: can see from the necessaries to keep a family functioning properly,
Speaker 2: they have proposed that we're going to need all of
Speaker 2: this administration.
Speaker 1: Right because we weren't just doing it on a run
Speaker 1: without all of this bullshit before. This is to manipulate
Speaker 1: and take your family over.
Speaker 2: Now, this should take your breath away, right. This is
Speaker 2: in his book. Go go look.
Speaker 1: I strongly encourage you to, because it's happened so way
Speaker 1: you resist.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure entirely it's going to be around the
Speaker 2: turn of the century. This is signed the Seven Functions
Speaker 2: of Society, and we talk about the importance of the
Speaker 2: seven functions of society and the changing image as a man,
Speaker 2: and so you can see that they're infiltrating all of
Speaker 2: them right here. It's it wasn't even necessarily Huxley in
Speaker 2: a Brave New World. They were already onto this. Huxley
Speaker 2: is the uh, the grandson of Thomas Huxley, Darwin's bulldog. Right.
Speaker 2: So Huxley's oldest and his brother Julian are just fulfilling
Speaker 2: roles that were already meant for them, much like Brandey's.
Speaker 1: Okay, so Lucy was the name. I just had it.
Speaker 2: I had to know Lucy. Yes, okay, yep, I remember
Speaker 2: that vaguely, and here I referenced Paul Felix lauserfeld Meyer,
Speaker 2: Robert Scholnick. Okay, uh, I'm not sure what year, but
Speaker 2: it's it's right in the wheelhouse. It's right around the
Speaker 2: turn of this century.
Speaker 1: We could have we could have titled this whole entire
Speaker 1: thing the small hat effect. It would have been accurate,
Speaker 1: the small head effect, the small hat effect.
Speaker 2: Oh, small hat effect.
Speaker 1: Yeah, why Yeahmacha's bud.
Speaker 2: Oh yes, So well you can see that a lot
Speaker 2: of these people aren't wearing yamakas because well, they're not
Speaker 2: the background, but they're being steered by it, for sure.
Speaker 1: If you're if they're Masonic, they're they're following the Cabala.
Speaker 1: They're influenced by Francis who aren't going to be outwardly
Speaker 1: what they appear to be, you know, with what they're
Speaker 1: not going to appear outwardly what they appear to what
Speaker 1: they are inwardly. Sorry, I can't say that for some reason.
Speaker 1: And they're going to be Jesuits too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so okay, we're gonna if there's anything you want
Speaker 2: to say there, go ahead. I'm going to move to
Speaker 2: the philosophy of law.
Speaker 1: Are you pulling up another thing?
Speaker 2: I am okay.
Speaker 1: I have to just step away for like a half
Speaker 1: a second. I hear something, so let me go ahead
Speaker 1: and y no, go ahead and put it up and
Speaker 1: I'll do it and then I'll run back. Unless you
Speaker 1: wanted to speak first, I can put you on your
Speaker 1: own screen. I just realized I can do this, So
Speaker 1: check this out. I can be like this boom solo layout.
Speaker 1: Look at you.
Speaker 2: Hey, okay, so hang on.
Speaker 1: You want that or you want to you want to
Speaker 1: put it?
Speaker 2: Okay, you go do what you need to do. I'm okay.
Speaker 2: I think that you know, our friends here are okay
Speaker 2: with me taking a minute here, because this is technology
Speaker 2: I'm not completely familiar with. So we're gonna bring up
Speaker 2: I'm very pack yep, I'm gonna bring up my bulletproof
Speaker 2: pub dot com. Just everybody be patient with me here, okay,
Speaker 2: And we're going to get to the philosophy of law,
Speaker 2: because this is going to bring everything back together for
Speaker 2: everybody in an most amazing way. We were just touching
Speaker 2: on the idea of crime prevention. This is one of
Speaker 2: the things that Oliver Wendell Holmes stated is that the
Speaker 2: only way that we're actually going to be able to
Speaker 2: be successful using law is if we can actually predict
Speaker 2: it to stop it. So this invokes memories of the
Speaker 2: nineties or whenever a Minority Report came out. So I
Speaker 2: just want to make sure that this is actually on
Speaker 2: the screen, So give me one second, okay. The philosophy
Speaker 2: of law invokes the idea of Jeremy Bentham and we
Speaker 2: get deeper into the idea of philosophy of law. So
Speaker 2: I am sharing it. I'm not sure if you guys
Speaker 2: are seeing that. Maybe we wait until Daniel gets back,
Speaker 2: because I don't think that that's actually showing up. But
Speaker 2: we are showing that those same men that were surrounding
Speaker 2: brand Eyes on the first cover this science of law
Speaker 2: now combine with more philosophers and the Prussian German historical
Speaker 2: school again to pursue this idea of crime prevention. And
Speaker 2: I think that Minority Report is will be You know
Speaker 2: what their dream was way back in the day, and
Speaker 2: this is their imagination stretched out to its fullest and
Speaker 2: the most modern sort of rendition and the ends to
Speaker 2: all of their means. So until Daniel gets back, I'm
Speaker 2: going to just start with this first paragraph. So if
Speaker 2: we're familiar with structuralism, this is the founding of experimental psychology.
Speaker 2: William James was a hallowed name in Harvard Law or
Speaker 2: Harvard University. He's one of the key guys that helps
Speaker 2: groom Walter Littman into a political philosopher what we call
Speaker 2: social influencers today like Joe Rogan. And we've already shown
Speaker 2: that Walter Lippman is really the first pioneering political philosopher.
Speaker 2: But he's also the first ever it's a big new
Speaker 2: Zinsky Henry Kissinger in that he is the sole founding, founding,
Speaker 2: lifetime member of the Council on Foreign Relations. What is
Speaker 2: the Council on Foreign Relations? But what Hillary Clinton even admits,
Speaker 2: this is the think tank, the non governmental organization, these
Speaker 2: lobbyists that pass money behind closed doors to influence our politicians.
Speaker 2: We're all very familiar with this idea. This is the
Speaker 2: Council on Foreign Relations is routinely at the top of
Speaker 2: you know, the world ratings as far as most powerful
Speaker 2: think tanks, and.
Speaker 1: For the illuminati acting in this country, they created the
Speaker 1: United Nations. Well that's where wootswater. But this is all
Speaker 1: again you could go right back to what we were
Speaker 1: talking about before. Who actually is that? It's these people here, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's people that are problem. It's the same Rothschild hands,
Speaker 1: same Rothschild agents. And you can apply that to who's
Speaker 1: in Israel ifing to dance around the chosen people's topic.
Speaker 1: I don't think. I don't know. So a lot of
Speaker 1: things happening lately with social media. I don't know how.
Speaker 1: I think I've already condemned myself to a slow death.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yep, And so we just push forward. I'm not
Speaker 2: going to allow any of that to affect me, because
Speaker 2: if I did, we're in trouble. We're going to keep
Speaker 2: pushing forward. This is the truth, after all. And there
Speaker 2: are seventy seven branches of Semitic speaking people in the region,
Speaker 2: the largest population of Semitic speaking people being the Arab
Speaker 2: at nearly half a billion.
Speaker 1: So who's in really anti Stemit exactly?
Speaker 2: So when you preface everything that you do with that definition,
Speaker 2: the proper definition of Semitic, we hope that this helps
Speaker 2: insulate and protect us from being called an anti Semiti, okay,
Speaker 2: for just merely pointing out history of us, or for
Speaker 2: criticizing is ralely foreign policy or just for merely saying
Speaker 2: the word Jew.
Speaker 1: They project everything. You know, they murdered a bunch of Germans,
Speaker 1: say that Germans killed them. It's all everything, like the
Speaker 1: Bolsheviks did tore through Russia, murdering people at will and
Speaker 1: starving millions to death. But let's not look at that,
Speaker 1: Let's not even consider that in our history because Uncle Joe,
Speaker 1: it was Uncle Joe he hung out with are another
Speaker 1: socialist communists?
Speaker 2: Yeah, they'll point to FDR, They'll point to Woodrow Wilson,
Speaker 2: they'll point to Oliver Wendell Holmes, and what are they
Speaker 2: all but just normal white people. But nobody talks about
Speaker 2: the fact that Brandais Lipmann and Frankfurter were key presidential
Speaker 2: advisors to both Woodrow Wilson and they essentially created FDR's
Speaker 2: brain trust presidents later. Did you say Bernard Brook too, Yeah,
Speaker 2: Bernard Brook's another key Phi Beta Kappa. He's the chairman
Speaker 2: of the War Industry's board. He brings in fascism into America.
Speaker 1: His papa was a doctor.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and he's got brothers and they all do the
Speaker 2: same thing as the Warburgs and the Rothschilds. They have
Speaker 2: brothers and they go off and they infiltrate different institutions.
Speaker 2: Like you mentioned him earlier, the founder of our American
Speaker 2: Medical Association. He's got brothers too.
Speaker 1: Oh are you talking much?
Speaker 2: Yeah, the Fleximent Report, right, this is the founding of
Speaker 2: our modern pharmaceutical industry. And so he has brothers that
Speaker 2: are influential in other aspects of our life. So are
Speaker 2: you looking at the cover of Branney's Part seven? Okay,
Speaker 2: So these are the characters, and I'm just depicting an
Speaker 2: open air prison that is a Panopticon that is in
Speaker 2: the background, and there's a city escaping behind.
Speaker 1: We're all free range chickens. We just think color.
Speaker 2: And it's important to understand this idea of the panopticon
Speaker 2: because the founder of the Panopticon is Jeremy Bentham. Jeremy
Speaker 2: Bentham is really the coiner of utilitarianism, this use for
Speaker 2: every human being, using human beings as a means to
Speaker 2: an ends. And he's also, you know, a great pusher
Speaker 2: of this the greater good narrative. So we were all
Speaker 2: very familiar with that phrase during COVID, and so we're
Speaker 2: going to show the origins of that.
Speaker 1: When you said that they're there there are white people.
Speaker 1: FDR was a thirty third degree Freemason though, yeah, right,
Speaker 1: brother of them. He was a fellow traveler.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I'm not giving any of these people, you know, uh,
Speaker 2: a way out or an excuse.
Speaker 1: They're all deeper in there, and they're in they're actively
Speaker 1: pursuing the same goal. They're just as guilty.
Speaker 2: Well, Woodrow, Wilson, and FDR didn't do their own research,
Speaker 2: did they.
Speaker 1: I don't think they cared.
Speaker 2: Okay, So I'll try to be as concise as I
Speaker 2: can lay this up. But we need to start with
Speaker 2: functionalism and structuralism because this is the founding of experimental
Speaker 2: psychology in America, and William James had the first one
Speaker 2: and Wilhelm Won't. At the same time was creating the
Speaker 2: same thing in Prussia. And this is who all of
Speaker 2: our first PhDs went to. So the founding fathers of
Speaker 2: our Western education, Horace Mann, Edward Everett, Granville, Stanley Hall,
Speaker 2: these guys all went to Prussia studied under Wilhelm Wood,
Speaker 2: the founder of psych experimental psychology, came back to America
Speaker 2: to form our education system through legislation and law, first
Speaker 2: place being Massachusetts. Okay, so that's basically what I'm stating there.
Speaker 2: And so at the very beginning of the Science of Law,
Speaker 2: Nathan Roscoe Pound talks about bringing together of three schools
Speaker 2: or several schools, and so I just break down this
Speaker 2: other aspect to it, the older school, the younger school,
Speaker 2: and the youngest school. This is all about the German
Speaker 2: historical school. And we're just showing that there's an ominous continuity.
Speaker 2: You can see the youngest school involves Max Weber.
Speaker 1: So people who are still hot foggy on there, hazy
Speaker 1: on the idea of you're looking at parts of Poland,
Speaker 1: parts of Germany, you have a very high concentration of
Speaker 1: the same type of people there. And when I say that,
Speaker 1: I mean Jacob Frank spent some time in Poland also
Speaker 1: in Offenbach. And you're going to see that there's a
Speaker 1: pattern here of where these places are and where these
Speaker 1: hotspots are and it's all the same.
Speaker 2: Yeah people, Yeah, regardless of borders. It's all going back
Speaker 2: to the same region, including the founders of Hollywood and
Speaker 2: brand Eyes comes from a place called brand Eyes on
Speaker 2: the elb just north of Prague, YEP. So they're all
Speaker 2: coming from the same place and to sort of clarify,
Speaker 2: the idea of Prussia, our k through twelve education system
Speaker 2: comes from the Prussian Reformation. The Prussian Reformation comes from,
Speaker 2: you know, their defeat at the of Napoleon. Napoleon goes
Speaker 2: in and overthrows the Prussian government and it's all about
Speaker 2: to destroy the last of the Roman Empire. This is
Speaker 2: sort of the mainstream narrative of it all. And so
Speaker 2: because they had lost to Napoleon, they decided that they
Speaker 2: had to reform their entire society through radical social reform. Okay,
Speaker 2: so it's very similar to today here in the West.
Speaker 2: And it was through radical social reform that they overthrew
Speaker 2: their military to become a defense and a protection against
Speaker 2: foreign threats, and they promoted patriotism, not necessarily nationalism.
Speaker 1: You're going to find a lot of things coming from
Speaker 1: Vienna too, because the Austrian Empire is basically the reformation
Speaker 1: of the of the Roman Empire. That was all first
Speaker 1: Emperor two.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's just an anecdotal example. Is the previous
Speaker 2: mentioned Paul Felix lasars Felt. He's the guy that authors
Speaker 2: mass communication and the two step flow of communication hypodermic needle.
Speaker 2: This idea of the Eddy narcotizing dysfunction. He comes from
Speaker 2: Vienna University, uh and funded by Rockefeller to come over.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of Jesuits activity in the.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we would we would be remiss not to mention
Speaker 2: the Jesuits because they're deeply involved. I mean, the whole
Speaker 2: dialectic of the Paris Peace Conference is really instituted by
Speaker 2: the Vatican's letter to all belligerents to form a peace
Speaker 2: peace conference and the imposition of an international order rather
Speaker 2: than a material force of arms and killing each other
Speaker 2: in an ugly way.
Speaker 1: Yeah, do it in more. Yeah, you could still kill people,
Speaker 1: just don't do it in such a press. That's so
Speaker 1: you don't want to see all the vials. You want
Speaker 1: to hit it under like a medical institution or something.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So here's Edward Everett. I look nice hand right,
Speaker 2: and they all got it. Phi Beta Kappa the first,
Speaker 2: the very first American PhD. He's the president of Harvard
Speaker 2: and Secretary of State.
Speaker 1: Man and John Hopkins came on the scene late in
Speaker 1: comparison to Harvard.
Speaker 2: Yep, but still considered a part of the Association of
Speaker 2: American Universities and the last one to join. Brandeis so
Speaker 2: the case investigated here is the rise and decline of
Speaker 2: the German Historical school of social science in the United
Speaker 2: States between the founding of the Johns Hopkins University in
Speaker 2: eighteen seventy six and the outbreak of war in Europe
Speaker 2: in nineteen fourteen. Now they're saying the rise and fall,
Speaker 2: but it's very much still permeating our culture today.
Speaker 1: Absolutely so.
Speaker 2: By the German Historical school of social science in America,
Speaker 2: I mean those men in university departments of history, political science, economics,
Speaker 2: and sociology, including all social sciences there who had been
Speaker 2: trained in Germany and who regarded themselves as disciples of
Speaker 2: the German historical school. My concern has been with what
Speaker 2: these scholars discovered in Germany that they deemed worthy of
Speaker 2: introduction into American higher education. So this is uh we
Speaker 2: find these kinds of admissions in dissertations. You can go
Speaker 2: online and find people's dissertations. When you you internet search
Speaker 2: some of these names and put in German Historical school,
Speaker 2: you'll find dissertations at the highest levels of education. This
Speaker 2: is why the liberal arts are there.
Speaker 1: What are you general experts in Roman law. Yeah, it
Speaker 1: didn't have something to do with the continuation of the
Speaker 1: Roman Catholic Holy See Empire. Yeah, you know, so we
Speaker 1: see in planting that into it. And and and what
Speaker 1: is what is the Lincoln Monument A bunch of freaking
Speaker 1: Roman tillers right all around the area.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And underneath each hand is a fascis. And over
Speaker 2: the entrance into the Oval Office of fascies on either
Speaker 2: side of the stage, in the House of Congress, fascies
Speaker 2: at the Forgotten Soldier, the Unknown Soldier thing in Washington,
Speaker 2: fascis everywhere.
Speaker 1: The laurels that they show around the like the wealth,
Speaker 1: health organizations, nations. Right, that's a crown that you're given,
Speaker 1: Like if you were in a chariot race or something
Speaker 1: like that and you did well, and you and you
Speaker 1: did Rome proud. That's that you're subjugated to Rome by
Speaker 1: having that around you and you put it around the world.
Speaker 1: They're saying that they owned the world.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And what is fascism but a public private partnership corporatism.
Speaker 2: And who's at the chair of the War Industry Board
Speaker 2: bringing public, the government and private enterprise together to build
Speaker 2: war machines. Bernard Baruch Pi Beta Kappa close friends with
Speaker 2: all of these guys, Uh honored guest at the House
Speaker 2: of Truth, living just blocks away, within walking distance. He
Speaker 2: could walk his dog if he had a dog, which
Speaker 2: I highly doubt it because these people just aren't like that,
Speaker 2: but they could walk.
Speaker 1: His name is wi Woodrow Wilson. They have pictures of him.
Speaker 2: Oh my goodness, that is such a great freaking uh
Speaker 2: thing to say, because this is this is what FDR's
Speaker 2: grandson said about him, was that Woodrow Wilson was being
Speaker 2: led around Wall Street like a poppy on a string
Speaker 2: by Bernard Barouche.
Speaker 1: And somebody made a cartoon of yeah.
Speaker 2: And if anybody wants the sources for that, I got him.
Speaker 2: That's what he states. I don't remember the book, but
Speaker 2: it's there. I've got it in my files.
Speaker 1: One of the one of the Michael S. King books
Speaker 1: has it in there too. He has one that specifically
Speaker 1: on Woodrow Wilson, but he has one about the World
Speaker 1: Wars too, and that pops up again there.
Speaker 2: Right, Okay, So I go into the founder of the
Speaker 2: German Historical School and offer author of the most consequential
Speaker 2: methodological reflection in the German historical School, and this is
Speaker 2: Carlnes Johann Casper Blunchley, Okay, this is where we see
Speaker 2: other philosophers in Western society coming here to go to school.
Speaker 2: I think CS Elliott. You know, some of these black reformers,
Speaker 2: the most important ones Booker T. Washington and the other
Speaker 2: one especially studied at the German Historical School, like Richard T.
Speaker 2: E Ley, who then you know, became a key teacher
Speaker 2: at Columbia and was a disciple of the German Historical School.
Speaker 2: But then you know of W. E. D eb the
Speaker 2: Boys is the guy that I'm talking.
Speaker 1: About, and you know that there's a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: it's funny how they can hide things within a name.
Speaker 1: Because you see a German name, you see, oh they're
Speaker 1: from Germany, and you're like, yeah, but were there because
Speaker 1: I'm an American, But that doesn't say that I am
Speaker 1: not Italian or Irish or German. So what exactly what
Speaker 1: are these people here? Right? And it's funny that that
Speaker 1: guy looks an awful lot like Jacob Schiff, knowing what
Speaker 1: of the tribes that he is. Yeah, it's a yeah,
Speaker 1: he's German. Yeah, let's let's blame the Germans. Let's vilify
Speaker 1: the Germans. Similar Yeah.
Speaker 2: So here's another really artable aha, moment. There's a picture
Speaker 2: of will Heelm Won't, which we mentioned earlier. Many people
Speaker 2: believe is a direct connection to the Illuminati. He's considered
Speaker 2: the father of experimental psychology or scientific psychology, a leader
Speaker 2: in the new psychology. So there's that word new again.
Speaker 2: He founded the first experimental psychology laboratory at Leipzig around
Speaker 2: the time William James he was doing the same thing.
Speaker 2: Won't awarding the first ever PhDs to foreigners to a
Speaker 2: number of American pioneers, of which we've already discussed. So
Speaker 2: both Richard T. Ely and James McKean Cattel, pioneers in
Speaker 2: psychology and economics, respectively, were taught by will Helm Won't.
Speaker 2: Other notable students of Wunt's experimental laboratories include pioneers in psychology, psychiatry,
Speaker 2: and sociology in America. James Mark Baldwin. Emil Durkheim is
Speaker 2: a member of the German historical School. We showed just
Speaker 2: a disciple of all of this. G Stanley Hall, Granville
Speaker 2: Stanley Hall, Walter Dill, Scott, light Lightner, Witmer, Charles Hubbard, Judd,
Speaker 2: August Kershman, George Herbert Meade, Hugo Munsterberg, Edward Titchener, Wilhelm Worth. Now,
Speaker 2: if anybody knows anything about philosophy and psychology in America,
Speaker 2: those are really major names, including Hugo Munsterberg. He might
Speaker 2: be the most cited one of all. Now what I
Speaker 2: found was in the American Sociological Review. We see the
Speaker 2: ominous continuity written right out in black and white. We
Speaker 2: see the disciples of Wilhelm Won't being the men that
Speaker 2: we just mentioned in eighteen eighty. This is the establishment
Speaker 2: of these ideas in Western society. And then they too
Speaker 2: have disciples that go on to elaborate their ideas, expand them,
Speaker 2: and broaden them across the nation and then across the Commonwealth.
Speaker 1: Do you even if those judge in Baldwin's have anything
Speaker 1: to do with our entertainment?
Speaker 2: I wouldn't bet against it, tell you that.
Speaker 1: Or look at the boltons. You got boltons in politics, right?
Speaker 2: Yeah. So you see William James here I put in blue.
Speaker 2: We're just showing the paths that they've created. He's inspired
Speaker 2: by Wilhelm Won. He knows very much all about him.
Speaker 2: And you can see E. L. Thorndyke and JB. Watson.
Speaker 2: You know these are Watson is the guy that holds
Speaker 2: hammers above the heads of babies and does all kinds
Speaker 2: of crazy experiments on babies.
Speaker 1: What the hell?
Speaker 2: Uh you know we're talking. Pavlov is influenced by all
Speaker 2: of this too.
Speaker 1: And that's where Pavlov gets this from, from a guy
Speaker 1: who says.
Speaker 2: Well, from it's all an extension of Wilhelm Woond and
Speaker 2: his work, and so he was doing work on dogs
Speaker 2: and it's.
Speaker 1: All combined and then he this is so up the
Speaker 1: alley of what's his name, fucking uh, our little jesuit
Speaker 1: friend there? Why can I think of his goddamn name now?
Speaker 1: Fouche fauci, thank you God, damn right?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so who leading who is the leading face during.
Speaker 1: COVID you saw dogs in the in the fleas, right
Speaker 1: or whatever kind of like bug that they had to
Speaker 1: eat in the dog's face while they had him sedated.
Speaker 1: No coins on the face. Yeah, he tortured dogs for
Speaker 1: he's a sort of discussing experiment.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and this is where the idea of connecting animals
Speaker 2: to humans comes from. And a lot of these guys
Speaker 2: are zoologists, you know, the founder of.
Speaker 1: Our because they have to perpetuate the lie of evolution,
Speaker 1: so they have to be in there in order to
Speaker 1: do that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, even Huxley as well as Alfred Kinsey. We're experimenting
Speaker 2: on insects and then attributing those behaviors to controlling humanity.
Speaker 2: So you see the line there in Green Granville, Stanley
Speaker 2: Hall has his disciples, Okay, and lam Urnman is the
Speaker 2: name that I want everybody to sort of remember here
Speaker 2: because we're going to talk about him right there, I think.
Speaker 1: So I hope people realize who are on the side
Speaker 1: that they think is going to be, you know, the
Speaker 1: winning team. You guys out there in Israel and other places.
Speaker 1: This the majority of the propaganda that occurs and Israel
Speaker 1: is to propagandae Israelis and the stuff that they're going
Speaker 1: to do isn't going to include you at the end
Speaker 1: of the day. Either. It would be useful to a point,
Speaker 1: and then you're going to be gone as well. It's
Speaker 1: not going to be anybody but a couple of upper uppers,
Speaker 1: and you're you're going to be just as sacrificed as
Speaker 1: everybody else is going to be. So just it's that
Speaker 1: in mind when you're acting smug yep, no matter how
Speaker 1: I even know. I mean there's also that that category too.
Speaker 1: They just don't know.
Speaker 2: After all is said and done, you are a genteel.
Speaker 2: So the vast majority of the men on the facing
Speaker 2: page are you genesists. That's that diagram that I just
Speaker 2: showed you. It's in adlockting with arms and their followers
Speaker 2: of Herbert Spencer's Survival of the Fittest and social Darwinism followers, sorry.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, as a social social douralism. Yes, right, the
Speaker 1: importance of that, yeah yeah, you take his name out
Speaker 1: of there.
Speaker 2: What do you got? Socialism? Mh so followers of experimental
Speaker 2: psychology as a general industry wide philosophy. So Jostro's wife,
Speaker 2: the sister of the founder of Hadassa, Henrietta Zold. If
Speaker 2: you have looked at our work, it's her husband that's
Speaker 2: working directly with Brandeis and creating the Palestine Economic Corporation
Speaker 2: in the first Settlements, at least in our modern time
Speaker 2: of the twentieth century. Rothschild goes back to the eighteen eighties,
Speaker 2: but we see Brandeis combining with the House of Rothschild's PICA,
Speaker 2: the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association, in establishing the first agricultural
Speaker 2: and irrigation infrastructure for the first settlement. That's Hadassa Henry
Speaker 2: yet his old's husband. She's the founder scholar. What is
Speaker 2: HIDASA but the women's version of Zionist Organization of America.
Speaker 2: That's nice, Okay. So his son or his father a
Speaker 2: Talmud scholar, and so Urmin the name that I asked
Speaker 2: everybody to remember. Urman's son invents Silicon Valley, Thorndyke, Inspires, Watson,
Speaker 2: Pavlov and BF Skinner.
Speaker 1: They're behind all the technology.
Speaker 2: Okay. And here's a this helps also try to straighten
Speaker 2: this all out. Is just to show that there's a
Speaker 2: flow going on that combined connects all of it, from structuralism,
Speaker 2: the first ever experimental psychology, to William James's functionalism, which
Speaker 2: is a sort of attaching pragmatism.
Speaker 1: And odds on the on the right hand side. Here
Speaker 1: the important contributors also, especially Sigmuda and Young. Sorry guys,
Speaker 1: Young is too miste.
Speaker 2: Behaviorism cognitive and so if you were to follow this,
Speaker 2: there's also the cybernetics right. This is the continued deeper
Speaker 2: investigation into human behavior.
Speaker 1: Behavior ism that yeah, the max Plain Institute of human behavior, right,
Speaker 1: and cognition going on there too.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So there's a picture of Richard T.
Speaker 1: Ely.
Speaker 2: It's this scrolling has given me a hard time, Okay.
Speaker 2: So the biological sociology is largely beginning with Darwin's theory
Speaker 2: of evolution as it relates to the animal kingdom and
Speaker 2: the Herbert Spencer's appropriation of Darwin's theories upon that of
Speaker 2: the human being and to the larger idea of society
Speaker 2: in general. Because human relations are bound together in marvelous complexity,
Speaker 2: parallels were being drawn to the similar, similarly complex biological
Speaker 2: relations being presented in Darwin's theory of evolution. What if
Speaker 2: these biological relations should turn out to be the pattern
Speaker 2: of human relations. So this is why they went in there.
Speaker 2: They were seeing if they could attribute the behaviors of
Speaker 2: insects and animals to that of the human being. They
Speaker 2: found that they could, although I believe that that is
Speaker 2: a faulty assumption or conclusion to make, because I don't
Speaker 2: believe that we are animals that they define us.
Speaker 1: Right, they've alreay subtracted the soul, They already subtracted God spirit,
Speaker 1: the medical establishment that they created in this time period too,
Speaker 1: already eliminated the idea of intelligent design and an intelligent
Speaker 1: body that knows how to handle its own affairs. Even
Speaker 1: though it created itself out of a single cell, it
Speaker 1: doesn't know what it's doing. It needs an invention, right,
Speaker 1: all of that to make everything material? So why not
Speaker 1: attribute falsely the attributes? And then you know, when you
Speaker 1: treat something accordingly, you and you convince somebody of something,
Speaker 1: though it seems usually more likely than not that the
Speaker 1: behavior of the of this subject follows the impression that
Speaker 1: you're giving it right.
Speaker 2: So we're at just over two hours, Daniel, I can
Speaker 2: need probably another maximum half an hour to fully thresh
Speaker 2: all of this out. Is that okay with you? Yeah? Okay, beautiful.
Speaker 2: I don't want to leave people hanging here. I want
Speaker 2: to actually finish this to a conclusion in which people
Speaker 2: go all wow, okay. So social science has brought into
Speaker 2: unity once abstract and disconnected studies of the human experience
Speaker 2: into a cohesive, interdisciplinary, nearly living organism. So this is
Speaker 2: the founding of the cybernetics revolution. This is what that was.
Speaker 2: Was the first real meetings of interdisciplinary studies or specialties.
Speaker 2: So they had you know, sciences scientists of all types
Speaker 2: getting together, and who were the first invitees. Who are
Speaker 2: the among the first handful of invitees less than six
Speaker 2: but Margaret Meade and her husband's CIA agent, Gregory bates
Speaker 2: who did all kinds of work with LSD in the
Speaker 2: subjugation of society. Gregory Bateson also stated that the Treaty
Speaker 2: of Versailles was one of the greatest travesties of inhuman history.
Speaker 2: Who said that, Gregory Bateson, And if you want to
Speaker 2: know what that's some true? Sure yep. And so Gregory
Speaker 2: Bateson's daughter now a leader in this movement still to
Speaker 2: this day, so much like Brandeis's great grandson is the
Speaker 2: head of the Interfaith Alliance steering Christians into believing Jewish
Speaker 2: homeland in Palestine. We see all of these men, sons
Speaker 2: of men, and their sons and daughters continue on to
Speaker 2: our modern day. In the year twenty twenty four, Gregory
Speaker 2: Bateson's son, or sorry, Gregory Bateson's father, William is the
Speaker 2: founder of genetics. Gregory Bateson named after greg Or Mendel,
Speaker 2: who everybody considers the founder of addicts. And how does
Speaker 2: he make the connection through his studying of peas in
Speaker 2: a pod, so they you know, they want to make
Speaker 2: us all peas in the pod. I mean that's a
Speaker 2: generalization and it may be a little bit amateur. Was
Speaker 2: he inpostigated, but I'm just speculating her. Was he a
Speaker 2: pop singer?
Speaker 1: Yeah? You know, like.
Speaker 2: Right. I just found it interesting that it's through his
Speaker 2: study of peas in a pod that genetics comes from.
Speaker 2: And William James is the founder and when they open
Speaker 2: up the John Innis Horticultural Society, the first brick and
Speaker 2: mortar to push propaganda and the.
Speaker 1: William go along. Dude. It's like that's how it is.
Speaker 1: But when you're the authority and you're the quote unquote experts,
Speaker 1: they can say any nonsense yes, and then it stick it.
Speaker 1: Everybody else follows suits. So faulty foundation, bullshit science stacked
Speaker 1: on top.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and here we are, yeap. So it's Gregory Bateson's father,
Speaker 2: William that establishes the first brick and mortar through the
Speaker 2: John Innis Horticultural Society. But guess what, he's also the
Speaker 2: founder of the Genetics Journal. So you got the two
Speaker 2: main pillars of propaganda, brick and mortar and a periodical
Speaker 2: information and institutions. So it's not necessarily the institutions that
Speaker 2: we need to tear down, but it's the information that's
Speaker 2: being you know, it's pervading from them, it's being disseminated
Speaker 2: out from these institutions. It's the wrong ideas, the wrong history.
Speaker 1: Right, the core foundation of where every other idea has
Speaker 1: come from. That has to be challenged on a very
Speaker 1: public level, which means we would have to wrestle back
Speaker 1: control of universities, public schools, or get rid of public
Speaker 1: schools and making private I don't know, whatever you gotta do.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But and then also the media, because you're not going
Speaker 1: to get anybody to budge unless they hear it from
Speaker 1: all directions, like they hear their propaganda from. It has
Speaker 1: to come from all directions in order for them to
Speaker 1: question the foundation because at that point then new ideas
Speaker 1: that actually makes sense can be firmly set a top
Speaker 1: truth and facts, not bullshit that they then well, based
Speaker 1: off of that guy, this, based off of that guy. This.
Speaker 1: It's like it's like what they do with the law,
Speaker 1: with the precedents, Yeah, well this guy has already established
Speaker 1: that settled science. So therefore I'm going to base my
Speaker 1: theory off of that it's just further down the tangent
Speaker 1: that doesn't go anywhere.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: So meanwhile, they know all the real science themselves. That's
Speaker 1: not something that we look at.
Speaker 2: This.
Speaker 1: This is the This is the the nations, or the
Speaker 1: or the or the goy science right right.
Speaker 2: So on the screen there we should have Horseman's first
Speaker 2: normal school, and prominently displayed on the window above the
Speaker 2: entrance door is the Masonic square and compass that still exists.
Speaker 1: And that huge shape is something too, because then the
Speaker 1: Williams eras a You're almost at the at the freaking
Speaker 1: Grand Canyon, right Williams. Isn't that far away? We stayed there.
Speaker 1: There's a big brick building with no windows. It's a
Speaker 1: Masonic lodge. I took a little video on my own.
Speaker 2: Well, one of the first buildings that will ever be
Speaker 2: established is when you're taking a small community and building
Speaker 2: it into a village, is going to be the Masonic
Speaker 2: the house, you know, the lodge, the Masonic lodge. Even
Speaker 2: in my hometown in Vernon and here in Colona, even
Speaker 2: the smallest little cities they've got a Masonic lodge to start.
Speaker 2: It's a it's spread of a distributive network.
Speaker 1: Has that salt Palace, which is symbolic as ship all
Speaker 1: over the place, huge, massive place. I was there for
Speaker 1: that Red Pill expo and they had I walked down
Speaker 1: the street. They have the beehive.
Speaker 2: They have the.
Speaker 1: Beehive in the in the you know, pressed into the sidewalk.
Speaker 1: Oh wow bank, which is a big cube right down
Speaker 1: the right across the street from where I was walking.
Speaker 1: I'm like, okay, this is this is interesting. And then
Speaker 1: you go back to the uh you walk back into
Speaker 1: the what do you call it the stal palace, and
Speaker 1: if you're going into pretty much any of the entrances,
Speaker 1: you'll see the plaque that's the you know, the stone
Speaker 1: in the in the foundation there that's uh carved etched
Speaker 1: with the big huge square and compass on it.
Speaker 2: Wow you have did you document that?
Speaker 1: I don't remember if I took pictures. It was almost
Speaker 1: it was two years ago.
Speaker 2: So wow, that's incredible.
Speaker 1: I took pictures somewhere. I just kind of find them.
Speaker 1: The behive.
Speaker 2: So when they poured the concrete, they had a form
Speaker 2: that made it appear like bees.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's like it's like the the the honey beehive.
Speaker 1: But they also sell honey there and all that stuffing.
Speaker 1: But I mean it's it's the symbol of the Masonic
Speaker 1: quorder too, and the hive mind, that's yeah.
Speaker 2: Which is liberal. They wanted a leftist liberal mind. This
Speaker 2: is what they stated in the Paris Peace Conference in
Speaker 2: nineteen nineteen. That was the major that was their major goal.
Speaker 1: They came ann said it because they already won.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So get this. If anybody's ever heard of the Cameralists,
Speaker 2: I hadn't until I went into researching the scientific expert
Speaker 2: and the founding of where this comes from. But this
Speaker 2: is an important understanding as we lead to the conclusion
Speaker 2: of our podcast today, that the Cameralists were practitioners of
Speaker 2: the German science of public administration of the eighteenth and
Speaker 2: early nineteenth century Prussia and Sweden. So they were the
Speaker 2: pioneers and economic, environmental and an administrative knowledge and technology
Speaker 2: the centralization of the state through the collection and interpretation
Speaker 2: of statistical and quantitative data or what we call today metadata.
Speaker 2: And we already went over the brand Eye DARPA program
Speaker 2: and what is he collecting but metadata and what.
Speaker 1: They are doing with it and what's you're doing to
Speaker 1: help AI.
Speaker 2: Long term economic state planning. So camera in this definition
Speaker 2: meaning a private legislation or judicial chamber, as in a
Speaker 2: room full of advisors or scientific experts behind closed doors.
Speaker 1: United Nations.
Speaker 2: Yes, like lobbyists in our think tanks making decisions. The
Speaker 2: rise of the expert where I got the idea. So interesting.
Speaker 2: Also to note here that camera in the Latin root
Speaker 2: means private. Well to us, camera and private have a
Speaker 2: very opposite definition. The too nearly antonyms.
Speaker 1: Not because they invert anything at all.
Speaker 2: Okay, So there's James McKean, Cattel. He's an important guy
Speaker 2: to understand here in America and his role. But he's
Speaker 2: an experimental psychologist. He's a disciple of Won't. He studied there.
Speaker 2: He was actually like Littmann was to George Santiana. He
Speaker 2: was an assistant to Wilhelm Won't. So that's significant.
Speaker 1: The men you're talking about, the journalists, right, yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is in the in the grooming of Walter Lipman,
Speaker 2: the modern the founder of modern well modern journalism, he
Speaker 2: was groomed. He was sandwiched between George Santiana and William James.
Speaker 2: That might be literal too, You do not, right, Yeah,
Speaker 2: you don't know how much influence the franc has have there.
Speaker 2: And going back about five minutes, we were talking about education,
Speaker 2: and I just want to state that, you know, I
Speaker 2: have in my mind and in my opinion, the answer
Speaker 2: to our Western education. We talk about removal of the
Speaker 2: ideas or the school of thought that's in the institution,
Speaker 2: and not necessarily the institution itself. We need to impose
Speaker 2: the proper knowledge. And so I would say to fix
Speaker 2: our modern day education, we just need to take the
Speaker 2: liberal arts. And I know there's confusion out there about
Speaker 2: the involvement of the word liberal, but this really means
Speaker 2: to liberalize the you know, the true definition of liberal
Speaker 2: means to liberate the human mind by educating in informing
Speaker 2: it with proper, true knowledge. So this is why the
Speaker 2: liberal arts now were taken out of the education system,
Speaker 2: of course, and put only at the highest achalons, and
Speaker 2: the K through twelve became just a system in which
Speaker 2: the cream rise to the top. And they would you know,
Speaker 2: the smartest little kids, child proteges are those that were
Speaker 2: just so keen on repeating everything. They would be identified
Speaker 2: and put into managerial roles. They would be fast tracked
Speaker 2: master of arts degrees.
Speaker 1: It's called imperial knowledge. Yeah, they don't, but they crush individualism.
Speaker 1: And currently in present day, last generation or two, they
Speaker 1: what do you call it, they de incentivize I guess
Speaker 1: as a way they they kind of try to shame
Speaker 1: you from being exceptional, showing that you're because you have
Speaker 1: to keep everything equal. You got to be at the
Speaker 1: same level and learn at the same levels as the
Speaker 1: slowest kid in class. And you don't want to make
Speaker 1: them feel uncomfortable. So don't show your don't show your brilliance. Yeah,
Speaker 1: squash that, stop your creativity, stopping an individual.
Speaker 2: Yes, the intelligent creatives are the main target, and that's
Speaker 2: across the board. Anybody that's out there being an intelligent creative,
Speaker 2: they want to either corral to put under their control,
Speaker 2: much like the publishing houses will do with songwriters like
Speaker 2: Chris Cornell from Soundgard an incredible songwriter. Well what happened
Speaker 2: to him? They just corralled him and started directing him.
Speaker 2: I can show you interviews of the engineers and the
Speaker 2: producers that were around him when they were writing some
Speaker 2: of their greatest music, and he was completely controlled. And
Speaker 2: I think that he had served his purpose and that's
Speaker 2: why he's gone. I don't blow your narrative there at all.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he and Chester Bennington were looking into something that
Speaker 1: had to do with children and they both ended up swinging.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so it was the science of good government. We're
Speaker 2: going back to the Cameralists born out of the Renaissance,
Speaker 2: So it goes back that far. This this is really
Speaker 2: the war of science against God in many ways, and
Speaker 2: it's turned into human man made synthetic bullshit against natural law,
Speaker 2: human nature, anything with that word involved. They actually the
Speaker 2: the you know, Ray Kurzwell and all these guys that
Speaker 2: are pursuing singularity, They are in interviews saying I hate nature.
Speaker 2: Why because they can't predict it?
Speaker 1: Hey, do you think you you'd be prepared to do
Speaker 1: a talk like this sometime, you know, kind of connecting
Speaker 1: the dots with like somebody like John and Tony Podesta.
Speaker 1: The reason why I ask is because when I brought
Speaker 1: up Chester Bennington, that's the first thing I topped my
Speaker 1: mind afterwards, the fact that they look almost identical.
Speaker 2: And then yeah, I mean we're into speculation here, but
Speaker 2: really I'm like ninety eight percent sure that that was
Speaker 2: the son of John Podesta. And when you look into
Speaker 2: all of that makes sense. I mean, I don't know
Speaker 2: too much about that, but it's all connected. Yeah, you know.
Speaker 2: So combining the utilitarian agenda of enlightened absolutism with these
Speaker 2: new ideas in the social sciences, Cameralism consisted of three
Speaker 2: sub fields, camera economy and polite and overall economy, consisting
Speaker 2: of everything that makes up the relationship between the state
Speaker 2: and society. Its primary concern was the management of the
Speaker 2: finances of the state with a goal of certain social incomes.
Speaker 2: So this is why pharmaceutical doesn't give a shit about
Speaker 2: your health. They're just trying to make money off you,
Speaker 2: because it.
Speaker 1: In the system of allopathy is deliberately genics pass meant
Speaker 1: to kill you. The end result of any of the
Speaker 1: drugs or treatments isn't to fix anything, is to make
Speaker 1: you not think about it. Well, well, it's progressively getting worse.
Speaker 2: Yes, and so to make efficient in the state's ability
Speaker 2: to draw from its labor. So I just think of
Speaker 2: Neo in that pod surrounded by gel awakening and seeing
Speaker 2: that he's just another pod in the overall game.
Speaker 1: Who knew that they were also you know, they were
Speaker 1: symbolizing a diddy party with all that gel.
Speaker 2: Right, lubed. Yeah, so the idea of state craft is born,
Speaker 2: so efficiency of state preparedness against threats of neighboring countries,
Speaker 2: to make everyone a utility of the state, to use
Speaker 2: each and every citizen in a pragmatic means to an
Speaker 2: end the ultimate in disrespect as far as I'm concerned,
Speaker 2: the very definition of using people. This is why I
Speaker 2: stated at the beginning, Waking Up is just treating people
Speaker 2: respectfully even if they don't agree with you.
Speaker 1: So this is straight up slavery, and it's worked to death. Slavery. Yeah,
Speaker 1: no longer useful. Like when we have a technological age
Speaker 1: and we have you know, automation, then you don't have
Speaker 1: any place. So it's very dangerous.
Speaker 2: I mean.
Speaker 1: And again, this would not have been this would not
Speaker 1: have flown prior to the Civil War. There would have
Speaker 1: been people swinging.
Speaker 2: And this is the final thing I want to say
Speaker 2: on the education that I brought up a minute ago,
Speaker 2: is that part of the trivia, grammar, logic, rhetoric, this
Speaker 2: liberal arts that was in our everyday education up until
Speaker 2: they removed it. The part of one of the chapters
Speaker 2: is logical fallacy. So if you're well versed in logical fallacy,
Speaker 2: you know when you're being lied to. So this would
Speaker 2: have never been able to happen if we were all
Speaker 2: well educated, not only in logical fallacy, but Greek classics,
Speaker 2: so we could look at life through metaphor and analogy.
Speaker 1: And you know why we're not Yeah, and you know
Speaker 1: why we're not, you know, privy to Greek classics and
Speaker 1: pre dating Hellenistic period stuff is because a lot of
Speaker 1: the Torah was ripped off from that. That's right, right,
Speaker 1: We don't want to accidentally find that out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, beautiful, right, So they made it a carrot that
Speaker 2: only the most loyal and devoted to the new world
Speaker 2: order and working against their own self interest were privy to.
Speaker 2: So John Dewey, very famous name in education, but he's
Speaker 2: also a founder of progressivism. Guess what he was Phi
Speaker 2: Beta Kappa. He attended JOHNS Hopkins learning the progressive ways
Speaker 2: of Prussian intellectuals.
Speaker 1: And I hope people understand that these fraternities are no
Speaker 1: different than any other secret society. They have a loyalty
Speaker 1: for life, they help each other out through and it's
Speaker 1: the same thing as and most of them end up
Speaker 1: in for general orders after the fact. Even if it's
Speaker 1: not mentioned. They are tied to the main one always,
Speaker 1: any of these any of these these Greek litters.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and we see a larger, a larger sort of
Speaker 2: veil of these private secret societies in the Pilgrim Society
Speaker 2: or the Century Association. This is where the Bohemian Club
Speaker 2: comes from. So they're all connected there too. And you know,
Speaker 2: the Queen is a Pilgrim Society member. The King the
Speaker 2: Crown Royalty, they are members of that, along with JP Morgan, Carnegie, right,
Speaker 2: and all of these men. And you know the nineteen
Speaker 2: twelve election, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taff
Speaker 2: they were all members of the Century Association, a Century
Speaker 2: club in New York in Washington. So that's where public policy,
Speaker 2: both foreign and domestic are really created, you know, in
Speaker 2: these smoky rooms where these rich people are just sitting comfortably,
Speaker 2: you know, out of the public purview. And so a
Speaker 2: lot of the public stuff is just display. This is
Speaker 2: why we call it a puppet show. They're all puppets.
Speaker 2: In the whole world is a stage. This is why
Speaker 2: we state those things. Yeah, So the masses motivated by
Speaker 2: nice sounding catchphrases and the promised improvement of education through
Speaker 2: increased standardization. This is really Wilhelm or Johann gotlib Ficta,
Speaker 2: the guy that really establishes the K through twelve. He
Speaker 2: states that they want to remove the free will of
Speaker 2: the student in the soil before it even sprouts. You
Speaker 2: see that this is where it comes from. And we
Speaker 2: see evidences of this as I state here in twenty
Speaker 2: fifteen the Every Student Succeeds Act the Next No Child
Speaker 2: Left Behind as the progressive standard of education in America.
Speaker 2: And so what Fish has stated was that this was
Speaker 2: going to remove poverty, homelessness, and crime. This new K
Speaker 2: through twelve education of removing free will and the soil. Well,
Speaker 2: we're two hundred plus years from there to evaluate and
Speaker 2: judge the decisions. While we don't see the elimination of crime, homelessness, poverty,
Speaker 2: they're actually exponentially worse.
Speaker 1: Industrial Nation treated the majority of that because when people
Speaker 1: worked on land, they were self sufficient. This is a
Speaker 1: complete and total lie. They weren't living in places where
Speaker 1: all the water that they had had industrial chemicals and
Speaker 1: human fecal matter in it to where they all started
Speaker 1: getting diseases either and then started getting shots for it. Right,
Speaker 1: you know that was all that was all part of
Speaker 1: the industrial revolution, pulling people into the cities. They've done this.
Speaker 1: They do this repetitive. It's a cycle. It's yep, evolving things.
Speaker 2: So August Company's positivism early attempts to interpret the unique
Speaker 2: unity of human experience may be reduced to three species,
Speaker 2: the sentimental, the mathematical, and the biological.
Speaker 1: He has to be segmented, right, They can't have a
Speaker 1: variety of all three.
Speaker 2: Yeah. The sentimental species of sociologists ranged from Fourier's the
Speaker 2: utopian socialists. Okay, we're going to get there with his
Speaker 2: harmony of the human passions and his scheme of standardizing
Speaker 2: human society and blocks of sixteen hundred persons in Robert
Speaker 2: Owen another utopian socialists, or at least in that continuity
Speaker 2: of thought with his cooperative factories. We're getting closer to
Speaker 2: communitarianism here. The mathematical sociologists, typified by August Coompty Compty
Speaker 2: thought of the universe and all it contained as a
Speaker 2: unity of two complementary systems of mechanism, namely celestial physics
Speaker 2: and terrestrial physics. Human life, in his rendering, was a
Speaker 2: vast machine. Social sciences. To Compty, he's the founder of
Speaker 2: social sciences. This is what they will state was a
Speaker 2: technology of social machinery, a handbook of the solist forces
Speaker 2: which turned the wheels of the agis. So the universal
Speaker 2: reciprocity between the parts of human experience which made life
Speaker 2: some sort of system of interconnections. In common with sociology,
Speaker 2: sociological jurisprudence has its origin in the positivist philosophers, in
Speaker 2: the sense that each subject has a continuous development from
Speaker 2: company's positive philosophy, of course, because they are changing it.
Speaker 2: And what it allows is no time to ask questions.
Speaker 2: So you can see company study directly under founding utopian
Speaker 2: socialists on Rees Saint Simon, this is the founding of communitarianism. Positivism,
Speaker 2: or the scientific study of society, was what Compty referred
Speaker 2: to as the religion of humanity. He named sociology the
Speaker 2: queen of all sciences, and its practitioners scientists, priests, you
Speaker 2: want to talk priestcraft. M Roscoe Pound, describing Compty's social
Speaker 2: philosophy as a technology of social machinery or handbook representing
Speaker 2: the wheels of ages of our stated that but you
Speaker 2: can chase that source it's real.
Speaker 1: It's there, science, religion, and what was the other one.
Speaker 1: I was thinking, oh, law, yes, all that was always
Speaker 1: part of the priests, grass, crass, wheelhouse.
Speaker 2: Yeah, soulless forces. This is the disinterested clinician and the
Speaker 2: blissfully ignorant general public. So I steer people towards the
Speaker 2: full name there Isidora, august Mary, Francois Xavier Compty.
Speaker 1: That's a long name on back then and ever.
Speaker 2: So Compty's positivism, developed as an answer to the social
Speaker 2: disorder resulting from the French Revolution, also found fertile ground
Speaker 2: with the founders of pragmatism. This pragmatism needs to be
Speaker 2: delved into deeper too, because it's really a faulty concept
Speaker 2: as well. They state, you know, if it works, then
Speaker 2: it's true. But this is really where utilitarianism finds its
Speaker 2: foothold in our modern society. And so we're talking about
Speaker 2: William James, Charles Sanders, Pierce, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and John
Speaker 2: Dewey Earl, part of the Metaphysical Club. This is the
Speaker 2: introduction of ideas and philosophy in America just before the
Speaker 2: House of Truth.
Speaker 1: So I hope, I hope Throughout this people understand that
Speaker 1: things like Darwin and like these ideas that people take
Speaker 1: for granted, and we're taught in school, this is part
Speaker 1: of the deception. This is what leads to all these
Speaker 1: other things. This is what tills the ground to make
Speaker 1: these poisoned plants grow great amountze. And it's it's not
Speaker 1: it's not a small point, because that is the deviation
Speaker 1: from natural order and natural law and everything else that
Speaker 1: we've come to believe as facts. It's not the case.
Speaker 1: Darwinism is a perfect example of a very controlled and
Speaker 1: deliberate hand of an agenda.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just just like the network that's spread around to
Speaker 2: the Commonwealth of Carnegie purchased built libraries. It's just you know,
Speaker 2: a book. It's health can contain your mind because there's
Speaker 2: only a certain amount of ideas in there.
Speaker 1: And if it's in a book, you assume most people
Speaker 1: do that it's sort of been vetted, right.
Speaker 2: So it's here at this time we begin to see
Speaker 2: now the first signs of real social transformation in our
Speaker 2: modern day, away from the farm and homestead to the
Speaker 2: steel city scapes of our industrial modern world, factories and
Speaker 2: machines turning wheels, forging guns, and swords from plowshares and
Speaker 2: the stainless steel Promise of a new American Dream. Herbert Crowley,
Speaker 2: one of the founding fathers of progressivism, writes the Progressive Manifesto,
Speaker 2: and it is called the Promise of the American Life.
Speaker 1: Everything was working so horribly before these assholes came right, right, right.
Speaker 2: And this is one of the misbeliefs I see even
Speaker 2: in some of the awake that we can't go back.
Speaker 2: Why not, Well, we're going to have to free e
Speaker 2: value A.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's more of like that we think that it's
Speaker 1: going to make us weaker, or that we're going to
Speaker 1: be isolationists, which isn't a bad thing. And this is
Speaker 1: everybody else alone. That sounds like they have nothing to
Speaker 1: hate you for if you do that.
Speaker 2: And it's a faulty idea because just because it's new
Speaker 2: doesn't make it better. This is a logical fallacy. So
Speaker 2: the wheels of and as is taking everything from tradition.
Speaker 2: It's a logical fallacy too. We must be more sophisticated,
Speaker 2: the binary thinking black and white. We've got to raise
Speaker 2: ourselves into understanding this better. And why can't we because
Speaker 2: we don't know grammar logic rhetoric. It was taken from
Speaker 2: our education.
Speaker 1: We're wormentalized as part of our education, and we definitely did,
Speaker 1: like I did a whole video of the forty one
Speaker 1: that I that I know over logical fallacies, and I
Speaker 1: should I should refresh that.
Speaker 2: Oh and we could go through that too later in
Speaker 2: maybe we're curious. Let's let's start offering solutions those that
Speaker 2: haven't heard a logical fallacy by all means go and look.
Speaker 2: The most used is the appeal or the argumentum ad hominem.
Speaker 2: We've heard the phrase ad home ad hominem. It's just
Speaker 2: a personal attack on the person, not his argument. So
Speaker 2: it's a distraction. It's actually literally changing the subject in
Speaker 2: a sentence.
Speaker 1: You should have you know what you should do. You
Speaker 1: should put some classes behind a paywall.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, and many people tell me.
Speaker 1: That a video you know, at least then people you
Speaker 1: know who appreciate it will Yeah.
Speaker 2: I agree. I agree. I am going to get a
Speaker 2: book out on brand Eyes and the makers of our
Speaker 2: modern day social contract, but I would love to at
Speaker 2: the same time be able to do courses and classes
Speaker 2: on this incredibly important Yeah.
Speaker 1: A Patreon involved me and I'll put it on my patreo.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I am my wife and I right now
Speaker 2: are in the middle of getting Patreon accounts for me
Speaker 2: and paypals and e transfers. We've never done this before.
Speaker 2: I've never asked for any support. I've made two hundred
Speaker 2: dollars in over fifteen years of work. It's never been
Speaker 2: about that for me. But now with the state of
Speaker 2: our farm and where we're at with nowhere to grow
Speaker 2: next year, at this moment, something happens, we're going to
Speaker 2: be forced to. And I hope that this information resonates
Speaker 2: with people to the point where they understand the importance
Speaker 2: of it and support people like you and me that
Speaker 2: are actually putting our neck out there and refusing to
Speaker 2: be affected by the propagaina and showing you the real
Speaker 2: truth at the expense of possibly my life and I
Speaker 2: don't care.
Speaker 1: And what people have to understand. I think most people
Speaker 1: with comments understand this perfectly because they're probably exercising this
Speaker 1: activity in their own life. This philosophy is that when
Speaker 1: you see all the things that are threatening your current
Speaker 1: way of providing for yourself and your family, you put
Speaker 1: another couple irons in the fire and try to build
Speaker 1: those up so that if something takes away one of them,
Speaker 1: you have something else that doesn't leave you homeless and
Speaker 1: starving to death.
Speaker 2: Yes, and by all means, everybody support Daniel in his work.
Speaker 2: And if you want to support us now, you can
Speaker 2: support us at bulletproofpub dot com. Just go down to
Speaker 2: the bottom and follow the white Rabbit, click on the
Speaker 2: link and offer some support. That money goes directly to
Speaker 2: the living trust of my partners, Sledgehammer, Yo hands Sole,
Speaker 2: and he's done some incredible work and allowing us to
Speaker 2: have a website like this in which we can go
Speaker 2: through and start spreading the world. So this man is
Speaker 2: incredibly important to me and I owe him money for
Speaker 2: what he's done, and I would appreciate it if everybody
Speaker 2: gave him some. You know, he's got a beautiful young
Speaker 2: family and they support him and they know, you know,
Speaker 2: they may not fully understand what he's doing. They might
Speaker 2: think he's a little crazy at times, but he's got it.
Speaker 2: And I strongly encourage everybody to go support Bulletproof pub
Speaker 2: dot com. That money doesn't go directly to me. I'm
Speaker 2: letting that fundy on as much as I can for now.
Speaker 2: And this is why we're going to open up some
Speaker 2: Patreon accounts so that you can actually donate directly to us.
Speaker 2: So the background image drawn by Joseph Remi a depiction
Speaker 2: of Union College in Schenectady, New Jersey. The Union College
Speaker 2: a liberal arts in sixteen New Jersey too.
Speaker 1: What, there's a Schenectady in New Jersey.
Speaker 2: Too, Yeah, this is the only one I know.
Speaker 1: It's connected in New York is where the I worked
Speaker 1: at it. It was the very first Edison General Electric.
Speaker 2: Oh well, it's all connected, most certainly when you look
Speaker 2: into Schenectady. So the Union College a liberal arts institution,
Speaker 2: and it's general said, and it is generally said that
Speaker 2: it is the second oldest institution of higher learning in
Speaker 2: the United States, behind King's College, Columbia, although Harvard sixteen
Speaker 2: thirty six, there's your date, William and Mary sixteen ninety
Speaker 2: three and Yale seventeen oh one sixty not only predate
Speaker 2: both Kings and Union College but predate the founding of
Speaker 2: America itself.
Speaker 1: What the hell was even here in sixteen thirty six. Well,
Speaker 1: I will tell you you probably a whole lot of
Speaker 1: Tatarian buildings that they had a level in a bunch
Speaker 1: of mounds, so they couldn't show that there was a
Speaker 1: real society here prior to it.
Speaker 2: But other than that, Native Indians, Native Indians living a
Speaker 2: life of well balanced and giving back to nature. Yeah,
Speaker 2: understanding that if you took too much from nature it
Speaker 2: would have consequences on humanity.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's pretty sad concept, right. If you killed what
Speaker 1: did you do? You don't having more eggs, you don't
Speaker 1: have more chickens, you know?
Speaker 2: Yeah, what did we do? We murdered them all in
Speaker 2: the name of the Association of American Universities. That's a fact.
Speaker 2: Is where they come from, the Marile Acts of eighteen
Speaker 2: sixty two and eighteen ninety.
Speaker 1: Spirits that killed them too, taking with their culture and
Speaker 1: providing them yea religion.
Speaker 2: Yea. They claimed that the diseases that came along with
Speaker 2: the white men were accidentally transferred through blankets and all
Speaker 2: of that. But I'm still in speculation mode.
Speaker 1: I would no, I would suggest it was deliberate.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So it has been said that comfee sociology was
Speaker 2: a technology of social machinery. I had book of the
Speaker 2: Soul of Forces which turned the wheels of the ages.
Speaker 2: I've got that quote in here. Three times, brother, and
Speaker 2: I guess I'm gonna leave them because it's important to understand.
Speaker 2: So Compty most remembered as a mathematician, which should help
Speaker 2: one better understand how law operates in society today. Are
Speaker 2: modern times defined by mathematical modeling, artificial intelligence, and facial
Speaker 2: recognition concepts first conceived nearly two hundred years ago in
Speaker 2: the wildest dreams of men like Compty, Bentham, Saint Simone Sydney,
Speaker 2: and Beatrice Webb. A plan of social control, now well
Speaker 2: into the twenty first century, nearing completion into the foreground
Speaker 2: steps nothing less than the fullest realization of the welfare state,
Speaker 2: and we living today have been afforded the hindsight necessary
Speaker 2: for a critical judgment of actions taken over one hundred
Speaker 2: years ago. We agree with Josephine Goldmark.
Speaker 1: Lieutenant liberation through liberation through dependency right right, and doesn't
Speaker 1: make any sense.
Speaker 2: So we agree with Josephine Goldmark, who is one of
Speaker 2: the key lieutenants to Brandeis in the National Consumers League
Speaker 2: and the legislation of social reform that created the Brandeis
Speaker 2: brief that those who have come after are those who
Speaker 2: do bear truest witness we are those with the final
Speaker 2: say she states in her forward of Pilgrims of forty eight.
Speaker 2: But the days that come after bear truest witness. That's us.
Speaker 2: That's the responsibility that's lying on our shoulders now to
Speaker 2: make sure that we don't allow the progressive revolution to continue.
Speaker 2: As Nooem Chomsky states, he only sees one but the
Speaker 2: truth revolution, and this, whatever you want to call it,
Speaker 2: that we're a part of, this is the one that
Speaker 2: needs to win. This is the one that needs to
Speaker 2: take precedent. This is the one that needs to influence
Speaker 2: the minds of men and women and enlighten us into
Speaker 2: the true history and our reality that we live in
Speaker 2: an open air prison. And now we get to that.
Speaker 2: So men's minds were fascinated by the idea of laws,
Speaker 2: mathematically demonstrable control the operations of nature, and for a
Speaker 2: season they took, as it were, a mathematical view. They
Speaker 2: sought to find mathematical or mechanical laws according to which
Speaker 2: all things came into existence and were governed in their
Speaker 2: course of existence. This type of thinking is to be
Speaker 2: seen in the first positive philosophies of law and the
Speaker 2: first stages of sociological jurisprudence connected to the sociology of
Speaker 2: law connected to communitarianism. Okay, And if Lark is listening
Speaker 2: to this or ends up listening to this, I'm sure
Speaker 2: he's saying, Okay, this kid is starting to get it.
Speaker 2: So I appreciate all your efforts, Lark. So turning next
Speaker 2: to the sociological components of pounds jurisprudence, it is widely
Speaker 2: recognized that they were derived largely from the writings of
Speaker 2: Lester F. Ward Elbian Small University of Morasca. We've already
Speaker 2: talked about that. We've talked about the relationships between Oliver
Speaker 2: Wendelholmes Junior, Pound, Brandeis. These are all you know. Pound
Speaker 2: becomes the dean of Harvard Law School, so he's working
Speaker 2: directly with these guys. This is how Oliver Wendeholmes does
Speaker 2: one year in Harvard Law as a professor, because Pound
Speaker 2: and Brandeis are at the Helm. So Holmes Junior, opposed
Speaker 2: to natural law, stated that men make their own laws,
Speaker 2: that these laws do not flow from some mysterious omnipresence
Speaker 2: in the sky, and that judges are not independent mouth
Speaker 2: pieces of the infinite compty. Stating the same in French
Speaker 2: know in order to predict and foresee, in order to
Speaker 2: be able compty studied once again, we will state under
Speaker 2: utopian socialist Henri Saint Simon, which is where communitarianism gets
Speaker 2: its founding sociological movement. Quote remembered for the crucial ideological
Speaker 2: support it gave the progressive criticism of the courts and
Speaker 2: to the expansion of state intervention in the economy. So
Speaker 2: law reigns supreme as the most specialized and highly finished
Speaker 2: engine of control employed by society. Page ninety eight Social
Speaker 2: control the survey of foundations of order, and we get
Speaker 2: to this man as we conclude this podcast. Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism,
Speaker 2: just as pounds sociological jurisprudence, was the next step within
Speaker 2: a long line of continuous development emerging from Company's positivism.
Speaker 2: So too, we can say the compety study of society
Speaker 2: was largely derived from Jeremy Bentham and the larger and
Speaker 2: longer historical philosophy of utilitarianism, a pragmatic theory of society
Speaker 2: that determines right from wrong from outcomes and holds that
Speaker 2: the most ethical moral choice is the one that will
Speaker 2: produce the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people,
Speaker 2: and also the elimination of pain. So we're talking about
Speaker 2: pleasure and pain we see and outcomes. We see this
Speaker 2: very prominent in our world today. You know, administrations of
Speaker 2: government are determined on equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.
Speaker 2: This is an inversion or throwing upside down of how
Speaker 2: we're supposed to be doing things.
Speaker 1: They don't understand human emotion. They turn it into a
Speaker 1: mechanical process.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's not important how you feel to them, and right,
Speaker 2: this is how they look at it.
Speaker 1: Even the whole pleasure painting. Is that how you sess
Speaker 1: what's good?
Speaker 2: Because oh, exactly, yeah, and so we get it right,
Speaker 2: and so this is you see it in commercials, you
Speaker 2: see it in do what you want to do, Go
Speaker 2: where you want to go. This goes back to the sixties.
Speaker 1: That's the moment without wilt in a different way.
Speaker 2: Yes, exactly, this is the point I want to make
Speaker 2: that that is directly out of Alistair Crowley's do what
Speaker 2: Thou Wilt? So you can see I used to say
Speaker 2: a long time ago that our world is largely Satanic.
Speaker 2: You know, maybe I don't use that word today, but
Speaker 2: it is largely frankased. It is largely demoralized. We you know,
Speaker 2: we're so fixated on the material pleasures. The maximizing of
Speaker 2: pleasure and the elimination of pain steers our society today
Speaker 2: like no other forces. And where do we get this
Speaker 2: Jeremy Bentham's donic calculus.
Speaker 1: Yeah, hedonism, there you go.
Speaker 2: Okay, this is a great connection here that as well. Yeah.
Speaker 2: And when I made this final connection here that we're
Speaker 2: gonna make for everybody, I just about fainted. Okay. So
Speaker 2: here again we have large philosophical ideas asking us to
Speaker 2: focus on the ends and to ignore the means. This
Speaker 2: is very progressive like today and tomorrow, and let's not
Speaker 2: talk about yesterday. Well Maaola Harris says, we are not
Speaker 2: going back.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and the ends being what matter, not how you
Speaker 1: get there. Right, So if you have to trample over
Speaker 1: a few children bodies, whatever, all the better, right, Israel yep.
Speaker 2: And you have Company's positivism to thank for that, because
Speaker 2: we're just gonna move forward. And if you're gonna question us,
Speaker 2: you are a luddite, You are behind the times, You
Speaker 2: are backwards in your thinking. Right, So to look over
Speaker 2: here rather than over there, to look at an image
Speaker 2: of pseudoreality, which is what Walter Lippman stated that they
Speaker 2: wanted to create a pseudo environment through the news rather
Speaker 2: than the real thing. Like many of the others in
Speaker 2: this study, Bentham referred to natural law as nonsense. There
Speaker 2: existed no rights without the existence of government, and that
Speaker 2: since natural rights do not emanate from government itself, they
Speaker 2: are by definition illegitimate.
Speaker 1: That is a complete inversion of real. Yep, Absolutely they got,
Speaker 1: they succeeded.
Speaker 2: And a major reason why the world is largely sick today.
Speaker 2: And even my parents, who really don't want to talk
Speaker 2: to me ever again in their lives, would agree. They
Speaker 2: have stickers that talk about, you know, the six society,
Speaker 2: so they don't quite understand that they are living immersed
Speaker 2: in it, and you know, the prevailing governments don't want
Speaker 2: you to understand this. So how the conception of politics
Speaker 2: change in England can be traced through the lives and
Speaker 2: work of for writers David Hume, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill,
Speaker 2: Beatrice Web. Each represents a distinctive way of looking at
Speaker 2: politics which has become intertwined with others and obscured in
Speaker 2: political practice, and yet remains a vital part of the
Speaker 2: political traditions in England. Nevertheless, each writer contributed to a
Speaker 2: transformed outlook on the nature of politics. It was first
Speaker 2: suggested by Jeremy Bentham, its shape was defined by John
Speaker 2: Stuart Mill, and the finished product appears in the work
Speaker 2: of Beatrice Webb. She's the wife of the founder of
Speaker 2: the Fabian Society, Sydney Webb, who chaired the Inner Allied
Speaker 2: Conferences leading to the Paris piece Conference that establishes the
Speaker 2: leage of nations NATO the UN. And you see this
Speaker 2: ominous continuity between the ethical socialists of the Fabians all
Speaker 2: the way back to these utopians. So we see a
Speaker 2: direct link for communitarianism. So what makes differences among the
Speaker 2: four writers especially impressive is that in a way they
Speaker 2: all owe allegiance in the same intellectual tradition. The name
Speaker 2: utilitarian most readily comes to mind. They have all been
Speaker 2: called utilitarians, and they themselves have claimed some such kinship
Speaker 2: with one another. Bentham said he had discovered the idea
Speaker 2: of utility, and Hume Mill, who first made utilitarianism a
Speaker 2: popular name, was tutored by Bentham himself as well as
Speaker 2: by Bentham's chief disciple James Mill and the webs often
Speaker 2: like to describe themselves and other Fabians as latter day Utilitarians.
Speaker 2: In fact, the name is misleading because it suggests that
Speaker 2: they all shared a common philosophy, but it does point
Speaker 2: to certain common sympathies. All these writers praised a common sense,
Speaker 2: matter of fact, concrete, experimental approach to human affairs. Now
Speaker 2: I would say that there is most definitely a common
Speaker 2: philosophy there, and what is it but progressivism, communitarianism, but
Speaker 2: you know, social control. The ends are no different. And
Speaker 2: that was taken from page two, The Pursuit of Certainty.
Speaker 2: This is an incredible book. Shirley Robin Letwin, University of Chicago,
Speaker 2: wall places London School of Economics, which is invented by
Speaker 2: the Fabians, which is a student of Friedrich Hayek Okay,
Speaker 2: not a primary source, but a reputable, dependable one. So
Speaker 2: Bentham today considered the father of utilitarianism, and we see
Speaker 2: his philosophy of his law as the main underlying foundational
Speaker 2: girders of our modern day society. There is an undeniable
Speaker 2: continuity of form and function connecting Bentham to Compty, Honray,
Speaker 2: Saint Simone and the utopian socialists in the early nineteenth
Speaker 2: century to the ethical socialist movement led by the British
Speaker 2: Fabians and the American Progressives. We are showing the twentieth century.
Speaker 2: The American Progressives joined with the Fabians. Lippmann's close personal
Speaker 2: friends with Graham Wallace, who writes The Great Society, and
Speaker 2: that concept in that book is the same as all
Speaker 2: of these other guys. So history shows Roscoe Pound, Oliver
Speaker 2: Wende Holmes, Lewis Brandei's Felix Frankfurter as an extension of
Speaker 2: Bentham's Panopticon. It's open air prison and a utilitarian approach
Speaker 2: to social control. The early answers to recidivism were mechanical
Speaker 2: and crude, paralleling the early structuralist attempts at experimental psychology,
Speaker 2: both under William James at Harvard and Wilhelm Wound at Life's.
Speaker 2: Their only answer, given the resources at hand, was to
Speaker 2: remove the offenders from society and have as a main
Speaker 2: exercise of their detainment rehabilitation with possibility of reintegration. This
Speaker 2: was the idea of Bentham's Panopticon. We don't see it
Speaker 2: very popular today, yet I argue that that's really what
Speaker 2: all prisons are. They say, rehabilitation. But is it so?
Speaker 2: The problem is not merely how lawmaking in law admin
Speaker 2: administering functions are exercised, but also how they may be
Speaker 2: exercised so as best to achieve their purpose, and what
Speaker 2: conception of these functions by those who perform them will
Speaker 2: conduce best there too. Here, certainly the pragmatic criterion has sound.
Speaker 2: If it works, therefore it is true the true juristic theory,
Speaker 2: the true juristic method is the one that brings forth
Speaker 2: good works. That's pragmatic. Harvard Law Reviews, sociological jurisprudence. It's
Speaker 2: scope and purpose, that's roscille Pound.
Speaker 1: How many people have said before that they're pragmatic and
Speaker 1: thought that there was a positive thing, right, Not the
Speaker 1: way that they use it.
Speaker 2: Right. Okay, Now here's the part that should bring it
Speaker 2: all home for everybody. The hodonic calculator. This is a
Speaker 2: thing he's in his writings, and I'm about to show that. Okay. So,
Speaker 2: by utility is meant that property in any object whereby
Speaker 2: it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good or happiness,
Speaker 2: or to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or
Speaker 2: unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered. If that
Speaker 2: party be the community in general, then the happiness of
Speaker 2: the community. If a particular individual, then the happiness of
Speaker 2: that individual. Okay, Now he breaks that down into two aspects.
Speaker 2: So pleasures, then, and the avoidance of pains are the
Speaker 2: ends which the legislator has in view. It behooves him,
Speaker 2: therefore to understand their value. Pleasures and pains are the
Speaker 2: instruments he has to work with. It behoves him therefore
Speaker 2: to understand their force, which is again, in other words,
Speaker 2: their value to a person considered by himself. The value
Speaker 2: of pleasure or pain considered itself will be greater or
Speaker 2: less according to the four following circumstances. The intensity of
Speaker 2: that pleasure, the duration, its certainty or uncertainty, and its
Speaker 2: appropriate inquity or remoteness. Now, when we're talking about the
Speaker 2: greater good the community at large and not the individual,
Speaker 2: he adds some it's intensity, it's duration, certainty and uncertainty,
Speaker 2: propinquity or remoteness. But also forcundity, is that how you
Speaker 2: pronounce it, fertility or propagation, its ability to spread, its purity,
Speaker 2: and its extent. So the hedonic calculator leading us all
Speaker 2: into this life of do what thou wilt.
Speaker 1: And again, this is all very mechanical because it's the
Speaker 1: absence of that spirit body of common in sense of
Speaker 1: you know, just sensing and deducing. It has to be
Speaker 1: all laid out in some kind of mathematical dead formula.
Speaker 2: Yes, so everybody put their seatbelt on Bentham's pleasure calculator,
Speaker 2: leading to hedonism and a society largely immersed in instant gratification,
Speaker 2: while science shows delaying gratification is a prominent personality trade
Speaker 2: of the successful. So they don't want you successful if
Speaker 2: they're telling you that instant gratification is the way to
Speaker 2: go when it actually delaying gratification is a prominent personality
Speaker 2: trade of the successful. And I've proven that in my
Speaker 2: own life.
Speaker 1: That the short term goal is ever going to be
Speaker 1: as good as the one that you work alonger for.
Speaker 1: That's absolutely true. And this idea here is exactly what
Speaker 1: society is.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: TikTok flash flash flash light, side lights, stimuli, stimuli, stimuli, Yep,
Speaker 1: the three second attention span that we now have, well,
Speaker 1: not all of us, but a lot of us.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. This is why I like long form podcasts
Speaker 2: like we are having right now. Because this helps open
Speaker 2: the mind, help people conquer the obstructions that we put
Speaker 2: in our own way. Well say, a lot of people
Speaker 2: will say, well that's too long to read. Okay, that
Speaker 2: is the propaganda, that is the brainwash. You can't determine something,
Speaker 2: the truth of something, in how long it takes to
Speaker 2: read it. That's the avoidance of pain and the and
Speaker 2: the you know.
Speaker 1: I kept my book under five hundred pages because I
Speaker 1: was afraid of that was going to be an issue.
Speaker 2: Right right. I just told my wife last night, I'm
Speaker 2: going to try to keep this book under two hundred pages.
Speaker 2: I'm not even sure if that's possible. So it's a
Speaker 2: warm up. Yeah. So Bentham didn't stop at the designing
Speaker 2: utility into the penitentiary. He looked into the brutalist design
Speaker 2: of the Panopticon. This is brutalism is a architectural form
Speaker 2: of which we see most in our government. Administrative buildings
Speaker 2: go figure like the Federal Reserve, so as ideal for
Speaker 2: the housing of poor, hospitals, schools, factories, asylums, and sanitariums.
Speaker 2: So you see the same sort of thing going on,
Speaker 2: not just for prisons. So as I have hopefully demonstrated
Speaker 2: here the theory of predictive criminology isn't just a modern
Speaker 2: day dystopian Hollywood plot line. There has been a move
Speaker 2: towards crime prediction for longer than any of us have
Speaker 2: been alive. In fact, it has been the primary motivation
Speaker 2: of men searching for the perfected modes of social control
Speaker 2: for well over two hundred years and more. It's really
Speaker 2: their holy grail to prevent crime before it happens.
Speaker 1: And by crime they mean crime against them. Now that
Speaker 1: they don't care if you kill your ch other, ok.
Speaker 1: They don't care if people are raping a mischeting people
Speaker 1: in the streets when they send in a bunch of immigrants,
Speaker 1: that's not what they mean by a crime.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I would say that it allows them then
Speaker 2: to determine and stop whoever they want claim crime is happening.
Speaker 2: And that is exactly the problem with the movie Minority
Speaker 2: pro part. This is the crux of the entire thing.
Speaker 1: Sorry, I mean the cut you out, that's okay. The
Speaker 1: guy that was allegedly well he was at the sixth
Speaker 1: hole more a lago that they thought who had the rifle. Now,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden they found child porn on his
Speaker 1: son's computer. Now, that might all be very organic, or
Speaker 1: it may be very federal agent. Who knows. But as
Speaker 1: far as you know, criminalizing anybody that they feel free
Speaker 1: and want to it's not hard for them with all
Speaker 1: the tech.
Speaker 2: Right, So I ask the reader, are we not looking
Speaker 2: at reasons behind the plot of Philip K. Dick's psychic
Speaker 2: precogs laying in a vegetative state inside the heart of
Speaker 2: the Special pre Crime Division fused by flash to the
Speaker 2: omniscient black universe of negative human intention. This is where
Speaker 2: they derived all of their crime prevention was from these
Speaker 2: half human entities floating in this gel that are connected
Speaker 2: somehow to the overall universe that are able to foresee crime.
Speaker 1: Philip K. Dick is quite an individual too. Yes, it's
Speaker 1: interesting the thing to travel down there.
Speaker 2: Yes, so Minority Report was preconditioning us to an idea
Speaker 2: once thought ridiculous, yet an idea that has spanned the
Speaker 2: millennia in his setting roots today was Orwell creating? Was
Speaker 2: Orwell created to pre condition us to our inevitable future today.
Speaker 2: There may not be a more referenced book when pointing
Speaker 2: out the oppressive nature of Western society Orwell's thought Police
Speaker 2: investigating thought crimes are a thing of the present and
Speaker 2: new speak relentless today in their subordination of nations through
Speaker 2: the creation of a wildly fantastic pseudo environment. Thank you
Speaker 2: Walter Lippman and the founder of our modern day journalism. So,
Speaker 2: how is what we've uncovered here? Not our social contract?
Speaker 2: How is what we are talking about not exactly what
Speaker 2: Morpheus talked about when first meeting Neo. Here is a
Speaker 2: picture of Jeremy Bentham today. The brain of Bentham Jesus
Speaker 2: was at one point on his body, but it, after
Speaker 2: all these years, decomposed to the point where they remove
Speaker 2: the body and now there's just Jeremy Bentham's brain. Now,
Speaker 2: I ask you, are they not going to try to
Speaker 2: wire this guy in like they've preserved Ted Williams, you know,
Speaker 2: in some cryogenic sort of situation where they figure maybe
Speaker 2: they can tap in and have Jeremy Bentham as these
Speaker 2: living in jail, omniscient, connected to the universe, predicting crime.
Speaker 2: I speculate that this is why they've kept him around.
Speaker 2: Mind blowing.
Speaker 1: Okay, it's funny that we lost David Rockefeller and Lord
Speaker 1: Jacob Rothschild recently, and I don't think they're gone gone.
Speaker 1: They're probably uploaded a metaverse. They're probably infused in some
Speaker 1: other organic body that they created walking around younger. Who
Speaker 1: the hell knows with the tech that they have.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm sure, but transhumanism, singularity, this is the pursuit
Speaker 2: of they want to live forever. Yeah, this is the
Speaker 2: whole idea. They don't want us living forever, but they
Speaker 2: want to try to find a way to get out
Speaker 2: of this agreement we've made where that nobody gets out alive.
Speaker 2: They're trying to cheat this entire system.
Speaker 1: So we create the world that they want because we
Speaker 1: have to be the ones to invent stuff. And then
Speaker 1: once we get to the point that they want, well
Speaker 1: we don't need you anymore.
Speaker 2: So I end this broadcast just under three hours with
Speaker 2: a quote from the Matrix itself. Let me tell you
Speaker 2: why you're here. You are here because you know something.
Speaker 2: What you know you can't explain, but you feel it.
Speaker 2: You felt it your entire life. You don't know what
Speaker 2: it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind,
Speaker 2: driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought
Speaker 2: you to me. Do you know what I am talking about?
Speaker 2: Neo State's the matrix, Marphius says, do you want to
Speaker 2: know what it is? Marphus says, the matrix is everywhere.
Speaker 2: It is all around us, even now in this very room.
Speaker 2: You can see it when you look out your window,
Speaker 2: or when you turn on your television. You can feel
Speaker 2: it when you go to work, when you go to church,
Speaker 2: when you pay your taxes. It is the world that
Speaker 2: has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from
Speaker 2: the truth. And Neo asks what truth? Morpheus says that
Speaker 2: you are a slave. Neo, like everyone else, you were
Speaker 2: born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot
Speaker 2: smell or taste or touch, a prison for your mind. Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: no one can be told what the matrix is. You
Speaker 2: have to see it for yourself. Now, we are showing
Speaker 2: you the literal matrix. Now, that is the value of
Speaker 2: our work, he says. Unfortunately, nobody can be told. Well,
Speaker 2: we're showing you the makers of our matrix, and it
Speaker 2: involves these founders of sociology, the founders of social sciences
Speaker 2: coming from the German historical school, the creators of our
Speaker 2: modern day social contract, led by men like Nathan Roscoe Pound,
Speaker 2: Louis D. Brandeis, and American progressives, Fabian socialists, all on
Speaker 2: this modern day or this school of thought of communitarianism, progressivism.
Speaker 2: The quality of outcome very much that we're all very
Speaker 2: much familiar with today. So I appreciate it for everybody
Speaker 2: that's still there. I appreciate your time and effort, Daniel.
Speaker 2: I appreciate you having me on. This has been a
Speaker 2: great episode, and I always value the ability to just
Speaker 2: be able to speak all of this out and put
Speaker 2: it out there in a way that people can understand.
Speaker 2: So I hope everybody's got some value.
Speaker 1: Well, I think I think the big takeaway here is
Speaker 1: to just call it what they called it. Forget about
Speaker 1: using the word the matrix, called the panopticon, the open air.
Speaker 2: Yep, that's what it is. We're all living in an
Speaker 2: opticon and until we realize this, we won't break it.
Speaker 2: So I want to just finish mentioning a couple of things.
Speaker 1: Yeah, man, I have have very much. Sign you want, man.
Speaker 2: Okay, So somebody brought up to my the what is
Speaker 2: it called Article five Constitutional Convention? Are you familiar with this?
Speaker 1: The constitutional Convention?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Article number five. Oh, I've never heard of it before.
Speaker 2: But he is stating that this is a way that
Speaker 2: we can actually fight back, and so I encourage everybody
Speaker 2: to look into this. I'm not sure exactly I've looked
Speaker 2: into it a little bit to see that there is
Speaker 2: something there worth considering and looking into. And I just
Speaker 2: wanted to thank everybody that I've been talking to this
Speaker 2: week revealing or you know, providing me with links and
Speaker 2: showing me and helping me develop more of a sort
Speaker 2: of macro vision as to what's going on. So my
Speaker 2: thanks goes out to a lot of people. I'm not
Speaker 2: going to start mentioning names because I'm going to forget some,
Speaker 2: but man, we're starting to see there's a building up,
Speaker 2: and thanks to your show for a lot of this,
Speaker 2: we're starting to build up a lot of people that
Speaker 2: are seeing what we're doing, they're valuing what we're saying,
Speaker 2: and they're supporting us further by offering more information and
Speaker 2: helping us get to the bottom of all of this
Speaker 2: of how we got here.
Speaker 1: Right And just so you guys know too, while you're
Speaker 1: while you're watching, if you want to in the chat,
Speaker 1: there's that little little button there, the little green button
Speaker 1: that works that they call it a rumble rant. I
Speaker 1: like the name but it's the same as a super
Speaker 1: chat right right, and you can you know, I'll read
Speaker 1: your question and or your or your statement and they'll
Speaker 1: help out the show as well. Or you can go
Speaker 1: to the gifts and go dot com backslash ball Busters,
Speaker 1: which is in the description. I just want to mention
Speaker 1: that real quick.
Speaker 2: Cool, yep, support Daniel. He needs a new computer. We
Speaker 2: need to get there, We need to you know, we're
Speaker 2: using the technology of progressivism to try to fight back
Speaker 2: or to create a beautiful argument against it. So that's
Speaker 2: where we're at right now. I want to also state
Speaker 2: that this Sunday we are reconnecting with Andy Rose for
Speaker 2: there and we're going to do now with open ended
Speaker 2: See I'm not sure it's going to be ten, but
Speaker 2: it's going to be at least four or five in
Speaker 2: which we're going to get into the crisis of the expert.
Speaker 2: Now going through the twenty twenty two Walter Littmann conference
Speaker 2: that happened at the Columbia School of Journalism, and they
Speaker 2: were talking about how no matter what side of the
Speaker 2: political aisle you were on, everybody hates Anthony Fauci. So
Speaker 2: they were talking and so.
Speaker 1: Because they can isolate everything that's happened, and you use
Speaker 1: one guy as a scapegoat, Right, that's another way of
Speaker 1: diverting from everything else. It's the system itself that allowed
Speaker 1: that's to happen and people involved in it, not the
Speaker 1: one guy who was just pulling the levers.
Speaker 2: And I think, and I may be wrong here, but
Speaker 2: this is my speculation and I'm hoping that this is
Speaker 2: what I'm going to find at the end, although I
Speaker 2: am going to follow this deductively no matter what to
Speaker 2: the truth. But I think that this crisis of the
Speaker 2: expert signal is a point in our history where they're
Speaker 2: going to actually start to dismantle this idea of a
Speaker 2: society being governed by the scientific expert, eliminate that and
Speaker 2: in just imposed totalitary and governmental rule.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I could see that. It still it stilf
Speaker 1: fills the same bill.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And if we can get ahead of that message,
Speaker 2: then we can have everybody understand that once they start
Speaker 2: tearing down the idea of the scientific expert in society
Speaker 2: governed by their opinion, that we can have a more
Speaker 2: sophisticated worldview and a perspective and then not so black
Speaker 2: and white. Throw the baby out with the ba the bathwater,
Speaker 2: much like the education system we talked about earlier, but
Speaker 2: discern exactly what the problem was. Like a mechanic does
Speaker 2: with a car, take out the problem, fix it, and
Speaker 2: the car runs proper again. Because I believe, you know,
Speaker 2: institutions are necessary, it's just the information and the motivations
Speaker 2: and values of which it is built upon. We're clearly
Speaker 2: seeing that they weren't built upon the proper motivations and
Speaker 2: values then.
Speaker 1: Right, And you know, it even goes so far as
Speaker 1: it's just the conscience of the consciousness, consciousness of it,
Speaker 1: because if you have people there in the same First
Speaker 1: of all, there'd be a whole lot of bureaucracy that
Speaker 1: would just be wiped off off the planet because it's
Speaker 1: unnecessary and successive and it's just there to control. So
Speaker 1: once that is gone, hooray. But the idea that a
Speaker 1: government or a country wants to prosper and the people
Speaker 1: to prosper, to make it strong rather than to weaken
Speaker 1: it and erode it, then ninety nine percent of the
Speaker 1: problems would be gone, and it would be a lot
Speaker 1: easier to identify the cancers and the diseases, you know,
Speaker 1: like Masonic quorders, like the Francis, like, you know who
Speaker 1: I'm talking about a lot easier, but without and also
Speaker 1: the lack of dependency on their system of monetary exchange.
Speaker 1: We can't beyond that too, because otherwise it's all it's
Speaker 1: nothing's going to happen, because but the consciousness of a
Speaker 1: country like it happened in Germany, people who who seriously
Speaker 1: want us to prosper that's how it's got to go.
Speaker 1: And and all these other institutions they'll fall apart on
Speaker 1: their own, you know, and anything that was you know,
Speaker 1: that was detrimental to that. And I say progress because
Speaker 1: I mean it in the right way, but I mean prosperity,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. And I and I say
Speaker 1: in the in the in the sense that we want
Speaker 1: to strengthen the family, which is what they want to destroy.
Speaker 1: They've taken everything that is natural. And they even stated,
Speaker 1: which I think is a ridiculous statement to make, that
Speaker 1: natural law and natural rights don't come from the state,
Speaker 1: therefore they're invalid. If that was spoken aloud at in
Speaker 1: public anywhere in any time of history prior to a
Speaker 1: hundred you know, one hundred years, you know, one hundred
Speaker 1: years back, and further there would have been a civil
Speaker 1: war there for that particular reason, a revolution against these people.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and even in my lifetime, even in the last
Speaker 2: fifty years, you know, there's a generation that has disappeared
Speaker 2: along with my grandparents. But I even remember when I
Speaker 2: was a young kid that there was a lot of
Speaker 2: well developed men and that were loyal to the US
Speaker 2: Constitution or the Canadian Bill of Rights, and they recognized
Speaker 2: when when our values were being encroached upon in a
Speaker 2: negative way, and they would voice their opinion. And so
Speaker 2: we now are in a generation where we have a
Speaker 2: lot of soft people that don't understand their history, and
Speaker 2: so this was deliberate. And as soon as they've got
Speaker 2: people not understanding the words that they're using and the
Speaker 2: things that they're saying, they can just drop it right
Speaker 2: in and there's not going to be much pushback against it.
Speaker 1: The collective understanding, I guess, is what I'm going by based,
Speaker 1: you know, rather than the fragmented individuals who won't be
Speaker 1: able to come together, you know what I mean, Because
Speaker 1: there's so many there's someone that's poisoned in between each
Speaker 1: person who's act. So they've got something good, they're not
Speaker 1: going to be able to congeal into any kind of
Speaker 1: solid force against something like that. But one hundred years ago,
Speaker 1: the common sense collective of people, the collective understanding was
Speaker 1: about natural law, was about order, It was about you know,
Speaker 1: prosperity and just being sensible and having bravery too. So
Speaker 1: there might be very very very well be a lot
Speaker 1: of brief people out there, a lot of creative people
Speaker 1: that will lay it on the line and understand that
Speaker 1: they have to. But how far apart from each other
Speaker 1: are they and how fragmented is that rather than that
Speaker 1: being the actual stream of consciousness of the people, you
Speaker 1: know what I mean?
Speaker 2: This is why I try to talk to people on
Speaker 2: a human level and remove all labels, because as long
Speaker 2: as you're talking labels, you're being divided, and you can't
Speaker 2: divide a human being other than color or accidents. But
Speaker 2: as soon as we understand that, then you can't divide us.
Speaker 2: And so you brought up a You said that the
Speaker 2: same things were happening in Germany, and so we've shown
Speaker 2: that the same thing was happening at the same time
Speaker 2: with the Bolsheviks, as you stated earlier, but also with
Speaker 2: Mao Zadon in China. We've talked in previous episodes about
Speaker 2: the principles of scientific management, the perfectibility of man brandeis
Speaker 2: coins this term. It turns into Taylorism, named after Frederick
Speaker 2: Winslow Taylor, the publisher of this book, and it was
Speaker 2: translated in all of these languages. We have Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin,
Speaker 2: and maw all openly advocating the tailorist system, and they
Speaker 2: used it to subjugate their own respective populations. Now I
Speaker 2: want to point everybody towards this wiki page on Mao Zadun. Okay.
Speaker 2: Can you see that? Yep? Okay? So Mao Zadung Maoism okay.
Speaker 2: And so we know that Rockefeller is involved early on
Speaker 2: in China in the establishment of institutions and organizations, and
Speaker 2: it's really it predates much like Germany and Russia does
Speaker 2: the American takeover that we're experiencing today. And so I
Speaker 2: was just and you.
Speaker 1: Can transpose Rockefeller with Roschild because the funding and the direction,
Speaker 1: so he's coming from the same source.
Speaker 2: Sure, yep. And so I was talking to my good
Speaker 2: friend Roger Joke about all of this, and he was
Speaker 2: wondering about Mao's involvement in Harvard. I haven't been able
Speaker 2: to connect that, But what I did share with him
Speaker 2: was that he's actually a Yale grad because the Yale
Speaker 2: China relationship is the oldest relationship between the two countries.
Speaker 2: And so this Phi Beta Kappa skull and Bones connection
Speaker 2: to the Peking University is where Mao went to school. Okay,
Speaker 2: So now what I want to show here is that
Speaker 2: what they actually imposed in China to subjugate their population,
Speaker 2: of which Rockefeller said that he was he very much
Speaker 2: admired what Mao Zedong did and was going to try
Speaker 2: to impose that in America. Well, it's the new culture movement, okay,
Speaker 2: And so look at what starts to come up the
Speaker 2: Treaty of Versailles, and it goes coincides with the exact
Speaker 2: time nineteen nineteen. And so when you click on the
Speaker 2: new culture movement, am I able to do this? I'm
Speaker 2: just going to click on this and this should become
Speaker 2: the page. Yep, we're seeing new culture movement. Well, what
Speaker 2: is it?
Speaker 1: A progressive socio political.
Speaker 2: Movement in China during the nineteen tens, in nineteen twenties,
Speaker 2: this is exactly the same thing. We just don't quite
Speaker 2: understand that it is completely subjugating our population and I
Speaker 2: would venture a guess that the Chinese and Russians didn't
Speaker 2: really realize it either, you know, much like the Vietnam
Speaker 2: War isn't called the Vietnam War. To the Vietnamese, it's
Speaker 2: the American the American War, the American Freedom War, the
Speaker 2: American Independence War, they'll call it.
Speaker 1: We went out in the well, there's an operation I
Speaker 1: don't know, I don't know I remember which one it was,
Speaker 1: but went out and killed the actual Chee resistance that
Speaker 1: would have resisted communism in Vietnam. So if we were
Speaker 1: trying to stop communism, why why would our special forces
Speaker 1: go out there and kill all like twenty thousand people
Speaker 1: that were the actual resistance force if it wasn't to
Speaker 1: create communism there, right, and get control the poppy fields, right.
Speaker 2: The Golden Triangle and the Golden Crescent or whatever it's called.
Speaker 2: These are the two most important areas in the world.
Speaker 2: When you look at the big new Brazinski's and the
Speaker 2: Grand Chessboard and between two ages, these are the regions
Speaker 2: he identifies. And so we know about what's the American
Speaker 2: airlines that was going in there and taking out.
Speaker 1: Drugs in America.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we know all about this stuff. So yeah, and
Speaker 2: you know, show you some of the books I got
Speaker 2: for free or nearly free, but save that for another day.
Speaker 1: So Voodoo Ranger says, great point. Diego Tantris always presses
Speaker 1: on that too human level communication with all the propaganda
Speaker 1: and social engineering stripped away. Race is part of the
Speaker 1: natural law, though not an accident.
Speaker 2: Well, your race is an accident in that you know
Speaker 2: it's a genus and then there's species when you look
Speaker 2: at how they determine it. That's why I'm saying it's
Speaker 2: an accident. And I just let your skin color or
Speaker 2: your name.
Speaker 1: I just got booted out when I, oh try to
Speaker 1: minimize that was a crazy this computer man, guys, please.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I don't even think you need all that
Speaker 2: much to get this new computer. So everybody throw ten, fifteen,
Speaker 2: twenty bucks at them. Let's get a new computer so
Speaker 2: we don't have to deal with this. Let's get an
Speaker 2: open air or open line of communication.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's the reason why I'm doing my own building
Speaker 1: so that I don't have these issues of compromise already,
Speaker 1: and buying a pre bill is it's one lie after
Speaker 1: another when it comes to components and what they actually do.
Speaker 1: So if I get the components myself putting together, I'll
Speaker 1: know it'll be good for the next ten plus years.
Speaker 2: So well, that's commendable. That's a skill that I don't have,
Speaker 2: so good for you. That'd be great. I'm looking forward
Speaker 2: to it. Is there anything else that you want to
Speaker 2: talk about or cover or any other questions?
Speaker 1: I think I'm good. Let me think. I just wanted
Speaker 1: to make sure everybody else anything.
Speaker 2: I got to everything I wanted to today, So we'll
Speaker 2: just continue next week from here, I think.
Speaker 1: And Voodoo Rangested Yeah, no disrect or anything.
Speaker 2: Brother, Yeah, it's all good. It's all good. Thank you
Speaker 2: for contributing and all of that for sure. Thanks for
Speaker 2: being here, and hopefully we'll see you next week.
Speaker 1: Voodoo Ranger Yeah, long time, long time.
Speaker 2: Yeah. These are the kinds of people that I really appreciate.
Speaker 2: They're coming to me and finding me on Facebook and
Speaker 2: saying that they've met me through these podcasts that we're
Speaker 2: having on Wednesday morning. So man, I value all you guys.
Speaker 2: I appreciate everything you guys are doing.
Speaker 1: Are you, I know you talked about Deep show. Are
Speaker 1: you coming back? Are you going back to Missing link?
Speaker 1: He has some jaded opinions of Germany. He's got the blur,
Speaker 1: the more textbook, you know, the victors tell the story
Speaker 1: type of view on that. Still, unfortunately I caught that
Speaker 1: when one of your talks because I was listening to
Speaker 1: yours on my drives in San Diego.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, Jesse hal is a friend of mine, and
Speaker 2: so you know, he interviews a lot of people. You know,
Speaker 2: it's it would be pretty hard to stay neutral through
Speaker 2: all of this, but I think he's done a good job.
Speaker 2: I have no reason to not go back on that show.
Speaker 2: We don't have any anything scheduled at this point. I've
Speaker 2: been on there fifteen times and pretty much revealed all
Speaker 2: of my work. So we'll see going forward how Jesse
Speaker 2: and I decide to continue. And you I would love
Speaker 2: to just continue there because I think that he does
Speaker 2: good work, as does his wife, Angeline. I think they're
Speaker 2: really genuine and they're want to help people. And you know,
Speaker 2: this is one of the things that I want to
Speaker 2: also say, is that we have to be patient with
Speaker 2: people because sometimes there are little things that happen. We
Speaker 2: can't just discard somebody because one thing or the other.
Speaker 2: I mean, I am so if people listened to what
Speaker 2: others say about me, even here in Cologna, and nobody
Speaker 2: would listen to me because we are large I am
Speaker 2: largely vilified here because I ask people to be accountable.
Speaker 1: So when we had you can't have these kind of thoughts.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, when we were having these lockdowns and we
Speaker 2: were protesting, they were a bunch of que tarts. I
Speaker 2: hate the label, but they're following the Q Tartarine. We
Speaker 2: already know Operation Trust in Russia and how it worked.
Speaker 2: We already know if you've read nineteen eighty four that
Speaker 2: there was an underground resistance that wasn't real. This is
Speaker 2: what the whole Q phenomenon is. And if you doubt me,
Speaker 2: if you doubt me, those followers are of C go
Speaker 2: look at the very first Q transmission. He said, Hillary
Speaker 2: Clinton's getting arrested within hours. Here we are a decade later.
Speaker 2: You got to stop following that. And so this is
Speaker 2: why here in Cologna, a lot of people really don't
Speaker 2: appreciate me, because I asked them, Hey, you got to
Speaker 2: get you got to be better. This isn't sophisticated at all.
Speaker 2: You don't understand if you're just being pulled around by
Speaker 2: that carrot you don't understand the old whole overall picture,
Speaker 2: and then trying to talk to people like this it
Speaker 2: gets their anger up. And sure, shit, you know, these
Speaker 2: people that call themselves awake will start calling me names,
Speaker 2: just as the left does when I tell them that
Speaker 2: you got to turn off your television. So just because
Speaker 2: you understood that COVID is anti human doesn't mean that
Speaker 2: you are awake. Right, So that just because you've all
Speaker 2: of a sudden going wow, the first thing we must
Speaker 2: consider is our own fallibility. Are Like, it's like jumping.
Speaker 2: You're a hitchhiker. You've jumped into a car. Now you're
Speaker 2: making the directions. You're telling the driver of that car
Speaker 2: where to go. I don't think that's how it works.
Speaker 2: I've been at this a long time.
Speaker 1: And so it's one of those things where like when
Speaker 1: you start to look at it, like if they lied
Speaker 1: about all these other things, you think they told you
Speaker 1: the truth in this particular place, for what purpose would
Speaker 1: that have served? You know?
Speaker 2: It's like, yeah, well there was all it was a
Speaker 2: large religious sort of sect to that too.
Speaker 1: But that was a real truth to those things that
Speaker 1: they were talking about in Q. Because you're using that
Speaker 1: to base their credibility, which is like the child trafficking
Speaker 1: and stuff like that. I mean real stuff that's not
Speaker 1: to be pulled down into the fiction land that And
Speaker 1: again Q did a lot of damage on that too
Speaker 1: because people are thinking that, oh, well he was a SIA,
Speaker 1: so therefore everything that they said was no, no, that's
Speaker 1: not true. Just like every broadcast from people like Stupete,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of truth in it. But what are
Speaker 1: they doing? Is it a honeypot so that you can
Speaker 1: make a comment and get in trouble? Is it to
Speaker 1: steer you in a different direction with a blackpill later?
Speaker 1: Is it to still throw you towards Trump? I mean
Speaker 1: any of these things. I'm not just saying Stu, but
Speaker 1: the people at that level who came out of nowhere.
Speaker 1: Actually during the same time COVID was going on, he
Speaker 1: blew up after George Floyd because he was in Minnesota,
Speaker 1: like doing a podcast.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Does that mean?
Speaker 2: Well? I would say in general, it's it's a phishing
Speaker 2: sy op p his hi n G and that they're
Speaker 2: dangling a hook for you to get gain Because when
Speaker 2: when you look at the conclusion, what is Q? How
Speaker 2: does Q and this following serve our society as a
Speaker 2: source of ridicule for anybody speaking the truth. Yeah right,
Speaker 2: I was amazed that.
Speaker 1: You know, just like you're a trumper if you don't
Speaker 1: believe in the bullshit that's a ninstream narrative.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're a maga idiot. It's the whole you know,
Speaker 2: you have to be at this point, be a political
Speaker 2: You have to remove yourselves from this false diconomy of
Speaker 2: a two party system. If you are going to entertain
Speaker 2: an intellectually honest journey towards the truth, you have to
Speaker 2: remove yourself from that, at least temporarily, because it's completely
Speaker 2: compromised and infiltrated. And whether you vote for the Green Party,
Speaker 2: the writer laugh, blue, Red, whatever, you're still going to
Speaker 2: end up in the same place because they're all controlled
Speaker 2: by who, the Zionists.
Speaker 1: I have friends that I've talked to who make fun
Speaker 1: of Democrats all the time. And then when I said
Speaker 1: something about what Israel's doing, but Palestine is assuming that
Speaker 1: you know, you can just use your eyes and see
Speaker 1: what's going on there, he was like, what do you
Speaker 1: use And he did that, what are you some kind
Speaker 1: of a That's what all the liberal retards that the
Speaker 1: colleges are protesting. But are you one of those guys?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 1: What Yeah, so child death is okay as long as
Speaker 1: it says you're doing it, and as long as you
Speaker 1: know that somehow equates to conservative Republican Where's who has
Speaker 1: the disconnected logic here?
Speaker 2: Me or you? Yeah? Well, you can see this protest
Speaker 2: that the Association of American Universities is largely being used
Speaker 2: as a dialectic to promote antisemit or the use of
Speaker 2: antisemitism to now legislate laws against it. And it's all
Speaker 2: done in a false definition. And I challenge anybody there
Speaker 2: has been a part of those protests to tell me
Speaker 2: who the founder of Sorry to show me who the
Speaker 2: founder of Israel? Is right? Do you know that there's
Speaker 2: seventy seven branches of Semitic speaking people. Did you know
Speaker 2: that a US Supreme Court justice was the primary author
Speaker 2: of the founding document of Israel? Do you know anything
Speaker 2: about PICA and the Palestine Economic Corporation?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: Or definitely not?
Speaker 1: Or APAK or the fact that you know wore criminals
Speaker 1: founded that place, or the fact that Lanski was involved
Speaker 1: in setting that shit up too. I mean, there's all
Speaker 1: kinds of criminal activity and absolutely the straight up murders
Speaker 1: they were in terrorist groups that created it's a terrorist
Speaker 1: state principle, and it is a bank as terrorist state banker.
Speaker 1: I guess whatever is bank is the thing?
Speaker 2: I mean. The belfour Declaration states that it clearly being
Speaker 2: understood that nothing shall be done to prejudice the civil
Speaker 2: and religious rights of the already existing non Jewish communities
Speaker 2: in Palestine. Now, if there isn't a greater contradiction in
Speaker 2: this world right now, I don't know what it is.
Speaker 2: So my whole life I grew up confused by the
Speaker 2: Palestine or the Palestiner's Raeli conflict. I remember watching on
Speaker 2: ABC News when I was getting ready for high school.
Speaker 2: They would try to inform me, but at the end,
Speaker 2: as I'm walking out of my room, I'm like, I
Speaker 2: still don't get it. Well, now I do, because we
Speaker 2: went into the work and we saw that it's a
Speaker 2: US Supreme Court justice. Three of the four members that
Speaker 2: created that document that were in the room or House
Speaker 2: of Truth members residents, They are living in the same house.
Speaker 1: I have to wonder if there's a like a cognitive
Speaker 1: dissonance or like useless separation of like a disconnect here
Speaker 1: because it's how many people believe that Muslims took down
Speaker 1: the World Trade centers, and how many people know the
Speaker 1: truth that it was a joint effort between our government
Speaker 1: and we still do nothing about it, and Israel and
Speaker 1: the banks obviously and still support Israel even though they
Speaker 1: know that they attacked us on her own soil? Do
Speaker 1: they both?
Speaker 2: Do?
Speaker 1: They know both things, and somehow those aren't connected to
Speaker 1: the idea of maybe we shouldn't be supporting them killing
Speaker 1: other people to and getting them bigger and stronger.
Speaker 2: This is exactly why I got kicked off the farm,
Speaker 2: or even Ukraine, exactly why the police came to my
Speaker 2: farm to remove me right because of exactly that. And
Speaker 2: so maybe I'll take this opportunity to thank my wife.
Speaker 2: She's been incredible this year. I've been able to sneak
Speaker 2: on and off that property to make sure I'm pulling
Speaker 2: weeds and staying ahead of her, but she has been
Speaker 2: a She's been able to run an entire twenty week
Speaker 2: harvest box program nearly by herself, and we will. I'm
Speaker 2: not going to declare how much money we've made this year,
Speaker 2: but we've been very successful. When I look at other
Speaker 2: talk to other farmers. They're surprised on how much two
Speaker 2: people can make off of a half acre.
Speaker 1: Awesome.
Speaker 2: So yeah, this is a main, a major conundrum in
Speaker 2: our society that has led people to believe falsities to
Speaker 2: support Israel. And you know, to anybody that disagrees or
Speaker 2: is critical, they are intolerable. And all of a sudden
Speaker 2: we start acting like bigots, because what is the definition
Speaker 2: of that being intolerable of the viewpoints of others? Right?
Speaker 1: Yeah, do you did you say that subthing happened with
Speaker 1: your next plot?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 1: It did.
Speaker 2: Sorry man, Yes, we are actually we don't have a place.
Speaker 1: And excited about that. That's why.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, my heart's been broken in many ways. I'm
Speaker 2: going to try to attempt to hold people accountable. And
Speaker 2: I don't want to put out the names of these
Speaker 2: people because it's just not fair. I just want everybody
Speaker 2: to know that, you know, the rug was pulled out
Speaker 2: from underneath us in the last minute.
Speaker 1: They asked me to the lost really good deposit or
Speaker 1: anything like that was no.
Speaker 2: But they asked for a commitment for me. They promised
Speaker 2: me all kinds of stuff, and once I committed, they
Speaker 2: pulled the rug out from underneath me, leaving us with
Speaker 2: nowhere to grow next year. So we are openly considering
Speaker 2: all kinds of options. And I'm here to try to
Speaker 2: protect my wife first and foremost in our family. And
Speaker 2: so we are in discussions with all kinds of people
Speaker 2: right now. Hopefully we can find a place here in
Speaker 2: Kolowna that has a kiosk that allows us to sell
Speaker 2: our vegetables at a low cost and allow us to
Speaker 2: continue this life of being a farmer, because if I
Speaker 2: don't continue to be a farmer, I've lost all my
Speaker 2: meaning and purpose. I'll tell you that right now.
Speaker 1: Sounds like you're pretty damn good, is there? How far
Speaker 1: away are you from Wasshington State?
Speaker 2: Well, I could be in Washington State in a two
Speaker 2: hour drive.
Speaker 1: Possibility, right, I think good on the other side of
Speaker 1: the bullshit and maybe grab us take to land there.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, we're openly entertaining all kinds of ideas. So
Speaker 2: fortunately we have over a thousand friends on our Hell's
Speaker 2: half Acre Facebook page. We've got an email list that's
Speaker 2: in the hundreds, and so we are in the next
Speaker 2: couple weeks we were ending we're coming to the end
Speaker 2: of our harvest box. We're in the final three weeks,
Speaker 2: and so we're going to just start reaching out to
Speaker 2: our clients and our customers and those that really value
Speaker 2: us the most.
Speaker 1: Maybe you can decentralize and get a little spot from
Speaker 1: each of your your friends. Yeah, a little bit here,
Speaker 1: a little bit there, a little bit there.
Speaker 2: Right. Strangely, that is was the original idea. That was
Speaker 2: the nexus of the idea. This is why we called
Speaker 2: it Hell's half Acre because when I told my wife
Speaker 2: that we were going to rent or at least several
Speaker 2: back yards, she said, you're going to be all over
Speaker 2: Hills Health Acre And I said that you just named
Speaker 2: the farm. So we're going to move forward. We're actually
Speaker 2: open to all kinds of ideas. I may even change
Speaker 2: the name, or we may now yet even have a name,
Speaker 2: because what we've been really trying to do is create
Speaker 2: the ability to be a gorilla gardener. I don't know
Speaker 2: if that phrase has ever been used, but I want
Speaker 2: to have the infrastructure where we can just drop a
Speaker 2: sea can on a nice plot of land and grow
Speaker 2: for that season if necessary, and then get out because
Speaker 2: that's where we're going to be. And so you know,
Speaker 2: that is really allowing me to walk the walk not
Speaker 2: just talk the talk like we are today. So that
Speaker 2: is about as close to my heart as anything in
Speaker 2: my life. So I hope it what it's up, man,
Speaker 2: it's gonna because I'm gonna make it happen, because I'm
Speaker 2: going to show you that free will does exist in
Speaker 2: this life, and as much as they want to tear
Speaker 2: it down and tell you it doesn't exist, like Latin
Speaker 2: and the truth in God, I'm going to show you,
Speaker 2: and I'm going to show those people that are rooting
Speaker 2: for my failure that nothing of the sort is going
Speaker 2: to happen. And we're going to continue growing, and we're
Speaker 2: going to continue being the people we are, and we're
Speaker 2: going to continue, regardless of whether we are paid or not,
Speaker 2: to be the people most oriented correctly in a moral,
Speaker 2: in an ethical way. So I think we should probably
Speaker 2: end it here.
Speaker 1: Daniel, all right, guys, you heard it. Go to a
Speaker 1: bulletproof pub dot com and you know what the description
Speaker 1: is on my video. His link is also in there. Okay,
Speaker 1: all right, here's everybody.
Speaker 2: Thanks,