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