Speaker 1: Oh, that's are and welcome to the show. This is
Speaker 1: the Cult of Conspiracy, and my name is Jonathan. I'm Jacob,
Speaker 1: Jacob filling the good cult members. What are we talking
Speaker 1: about today?
Speaker 2: Sar all right, to anybody who's listening to our show before,
Speaker 2: you're gonna know that I am not a fan of communism, right,
Speaker 2: or socialism or anything in line with any kind of
Speaker 2: Marxist ideology. Okay, yes, on paper, is it a great idea?
Speaker 1: Sure? Sure, it's equitable.
Speaker 2: Right, everybody puts in what they get out, and everybody's equal.
Speaker 2: Nobody is of a higher stature than anyone else. On paper,
Speaker 2: in a dream state, it is a wonderful system. The
Speaker 2: problem is that it has never one time worked in
Speaker 2: the course of human history, right, because of people, right,
Speaker 2: and it's not There's gonna be people that will say, well,
Speaker 2: that's because of greed, or that's because of this, because
Speaker 2: of that. Listen in a way, right, there's always going
Speaker 2: to be haves and have nots. Take away money for
Speaker 2: just a second, let's say it's even in a bartering system.
Speaker 1: You've got a farmer who he grows corn.
Speaker 2: Okay, you got this other farmer he grows uh turnips,
Speaker 2: or whatever the case.
Speaker 1: They will have a bartering system.
Speaker 2: You give me so much corn, I give you so
Speaker 2: much turn ups, We'll make a trade.
Speaker 1: Happen.
Speaker 2: Everybody eats, We all prosper as a whole. Okay, excellent,
Speaker 2: until the time comes where one person's crop or herd,
Speaker 2: or skill set or craft or whatever. Right, a carpenter
Speaker 2: versus a blacksmith. Right, Okay, there's gonna come a point
Speaker 2: where one of these things is more sought after than
Speaker 2: the other.
Speaker 1: And that's not based off of human greed. That's just
Speaker 1: the nature of nature. Okay.
Speaker 2: When this time comes, the one who has the most
Speaker 2: of the more sought after thing becomes one of the haves,
Speaker 2: and then the rest of everybody becomes the have nots
Speaker 2: now In theory, if the person who is of the
Speaker 2: have variety is a moral person and doesn't try to
Speaker 2: screw over his fellow man and keeps it equitable across
Speaker 2: the board, everybody prospers as a whole. But there's always
Speaker 2: gonna be one bad apple who will decide, no, you
Speaker 2: know what, I'm going to just increase the price of things,
Speaker 2: because if my stuff is so sought after, it's gonna
Speaker 2: cost you a little bit extra to get out your
Speaker 2: hands on some of this.
Speaker 1: Well, the way it works, and the thing is too,
Speaker 1: is that there's so much corruption on a countrywide scale
Speaker 1: to where this is why we are always against globalism
Speaker 1: because if it gets up to a globalist scale, you
Speaker 1: want to talk about the level of corruption, and there's
Speaker 1: already traces of it right now, like beyond traces if
Speaker 1: you look at big corporations and everything and all of
Speaker 1: the monopolies the World Economic Forum. This is why we
Speaker 1: hate the World Economic Forum because they are trying to
Speaker 1: set the tone for the rest of the world, which
Speaker 1: is globalism at that point. And that's not good for
Speaker 1: anybody because it's rules for the and not for me.
Speaker 1: It is going to be putting money in the pockets
Speaker 1: of the people that are making the rules while taking
Speaker 1: money away from the people that are actually putting the
Speaker 1: work in. It does good for nobody except for the
Speaker 1: top one percent of the top one percent of the
Speaker 1: top one percent.
Speaker 2: The haves one hundred percent, And that's the thing. It
Speaker 2: works on a tribal scale, and I think there's a
Speaker 2: few studies that have been done on this a communistic
Speaker 2: or socialistic just for lack of better words, Marxist ideology
Speaker 2: can work on the small scale, and by small scale
Speaker 2: I mean a village of two thousand people or less.
Speaker 2: It can work in that small, small society. It cannot
Speaker 2: work on a macro scale. It simply can't. And it's
Speaker 2: not even because humans are so greedy. It's a mixture
Speaker 2: of things. It's a little bit of keeping up, but it.
Speaker 1: Is literally within our dna.
Speaker 2: It is a part of our human nature to keeping
Speaker 2: up with the joneses is one status of it. Don't
Speaker 2: get me wrong, but you always have that person that like,
Speaker 2: all right, just for you personally. You see your neighbor
Speaker 2: who works the same amount of hours that you do, okay,
Speaker 2: and he's you would think, making about the same of
Speaker 2: what you're making, give or take a little bit. But
Speaker 2: he's driving a Bentley okay, and he's able to like
Speaker 2: vacation with his family five times a year. Somewhere deep, deep,
Speaker 2: deep inside of you, and even if this is not
Speaker 2: like a jealousy thing, okay, we're taking away the ego
Speaker 2: from it for two seconds. You see that, and there's
Speaker 2: something inside of you that wants to get like that,
Speaker 2: and that's okay, that's human nature.
Speaker 1: You want to strive for more.
Speaker 2: You want to do better for your family, not necessarily
Speaker 2: better than your neighbor is doing, but better overall, maybe
Speaker 2: better than what you have when you grew up, maybe
Speaker 2: better than what you're currently at. You want to be
Speaker 2: able to make ten twenty k more this next year
Speaker 2: coming up, so that maybe you can put something away,
Speaker 2: maybe you can go on a vaca, whatever, whatever the
Speaker 2: case is. That's human nature. We are not built to
Speaker 2: be stagnant. We don't do well in stagnation. Okay, that's
Speaker 2: just that's the way our human biology is. Whether it's
Speaker 2: the caveman, well, this guy who is a way better
Speaker 2: hunter than me, his family's eaten, way better than my family.
Speaker 2: I need to get better at hunting, right, it goes
Speaker 2: to whatever level you want to put it to.
Speaker 1: Well, and as far as you know, Marxism, communism, whatever, socialism,
Speaker 1: it's it kind of just reminds me in globalism in general,
Speaker 1: but uh, globalism in general, it kind of reminds me
Speaker 1: of like it's a modern day raping and raping and
Speaker 1: pillaging really is.
Speaker 2: But they rebranded some things and it doesn't look like
Speaker 2: raping and pillaging. They branded as equality for all.
Speaker 1: Well, everybody's getting raped and everybody's getting pillaged, so exactly exactly,
Speaker 1: but it's all equal. But it's not. It never is.
Speaker 1: But here we go.
Speaker 2: We're gonna do a little bit of a history lesson here,
Speaker 2: just slight bit, and we're going to talk about the
Speaker 2: ways in which the communist ideologies spread. Let's talk about
Speaker 2: the Cold War real quick. Okay, Actually, let's talk prior
Speaker 2: to Cold War for just a second. Prior to World
Speaker 2: War Two, Communism was taking over in Russia. There was
Speaker 2: a big rush revolution about this. America and Russia were
Speaker 2: not homies. As a matter of fact, there was a
Speaker 2: packed between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia to invade Poland together.
Speaker 2: People forget this, but let's not do that. Let's not
Speaker 2: forget the ribbonsoft pack. Let's not forget the fact that
Speaker 2: the Communists were aligned with the Nazis at the beginning
Speaker 2: of World War two until they went back on their
Speaker 2: treaty and then started attacking Nazi Germany. Then it was
Speaker 2: an enemy of my enemy as my friend type of thing.
Speaker 2: And they were a part of the allies, right, The
Speaker 2: big three of the Allies was America, Britain and Russia. Yes,
Speaker 2: there were other countries involved, but those are the big
Speaker 2: three key players. Okay, as soon as World War two ended,
Speaker 2: and by like as soon, I mean the following day
Speaker 2: after the treaty was signed, Russia and America were back
Speaker 2: to not fucking with each other at all. Right, the
Speaker 2: beginning of the Cold War started. Now, there was some
Speaker 2: conflicts the Cold War that was being funded and proxied
Speaker 2: by both sides of this, i e. Let's start from
Speaker 2: the beginning here Korea, Vietnam, all the way into the eighties,
Speaker 2: with Russia's Afghanistan invasion, and how we were funding and
Speaker 2: training the muja haden to fight the communist Russians that
Speaker 2: were making their way through Afghanistan. It goes a long,
Speaker 2: long level here. We ourselves America were involved in somewhere
Speaker 2: around thirty different coupes in South America between nineteen fifty
Speaker 2: and now. All of those were to stop communism from
Speaker 2: spreading closer to America's doorstep.
Speaker 1: And we've talked about that before.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, Now, Russia decided at one point in time
Speaker 2: that communism still needed to spread, even though it was
Speaker 2: very clear that they could not beat us on a
Speaker 2: toe to toe fighting stance. They needed to get creative.
Speaker 2: They needed to inject their ideals in cultural ways rather
Speaker 2: than military and government ways because that didn't work. I
Speaker 2: think it also ties into Americans having an inherent rebellious nature,
Speaker 2: like deep within our culture, we were founded off of
Speaker 2: a rebellion from Britain, right in some way, deep deep,
Speaker 2: deep in the recesses of the human soul of an American,
Speaker 2: a little bit of fuck. The government still resides right,
Speaker 2: regardless of political parties. Right even the most devout liberals
Speaker 2: who are on every social program ever, they will still
Speaker 2: tell you that they don't trust the government.
Speaker 1: It's a part of our culture. You'd be an idiot
Speaker 1: not to think that exactly. But that being said, there's
Speaker 1: a group of Russians KGB, you know, the type Putin's
Speaker 1: former job and things very similar to American Cia. And
Speaker 1: I'm not going to say that America is the inherent
Speaker 1: good guy on the one. But for this episode, we
Speaker 1: are gonna be talking.
Speaker 2: About how the KGB went long con to spread communism
Speaker 2: to such a way that they are trying to bring
Speaker 2: about the new World order. And they did it way
Speaker 2: back when, they're still doing it now, and they're using
Speaker 2: political ideologies to further their means. We have a lot
Speaker 2: of history to go over here from a KGB defector
Speaker 2: who has written many books about it, all the way
Speaker 2: through ladies and gentlemen. Today we are going to be
Speaker 2: talking about the Peristoika deception.
Speaker 1: Let's go, let's go. We're gonna go ahead and share
Speaker 1: the screen and we're gonna be diving in here.
Speaker 2: We got videos, we've got articles, we got a book
Speaker 2: that was written on it. We're not gonna read the
Speaker 2: whole book, but we are going to read the forward.
Speaker 1: Jonathan.
Speaker 2: For anybody who would like to see all of the
Speaker 2: things that I'm gonna be talking about today rather than
Speaker 2: just hearing about it, tell them where they can go.
Speaker 1: You already know where you can go. You can go
Speaker 1: to Patreon dot com slash Cultive Conspiracy Podcast. That is
Speaker 1: the best way to be able to support the show.
Speaker 1: We appreciate all of the good cult members who have
Speaker 1: done so already and are joining us every Tuesday night
Speaker 1: at nine pm Central for the Cult Member Live Show.
Speaker 1: If you want to be able to come join us
Speaker 1: every Tuesday night, then go to the Third Eye all
Speaker 1: the way open tier or higher. That'll give you access
Speaker 1: to come join us and shoot the shit with us
Speaker 1: literally four or five times a month, and you'll also
Speaker 1: be able to slide into our dms. You'll be able
Speaker 1: to get the shows a couple of days in advance,
Speaker 1: you'll be able to see all of the videos. And
Speaker 1: the best part about Patreon is the only place where
Speaker 1: every single episode is completely promotional through Yeah buddy, so
Speaker 1: it's all inclusive. We don't have to worry about monitoring
Speaker 1: our words or using unlived or any of these bullshit
Speaker 1: ass terms. It is free speech all day over there.
Speaker 1: So we appreciate everybody that has following us over there,
Speaker 1: and we're just trying to, you know, keep it real.
Speaker 1: We're not trying to play by the Internet's rules, We're
Speaker 1: not playing by YouTube's rules. We're just trying to, you know,
Speaker 1: remain ourselves and we want everybody listening and everybody tuning
Speaker 1: in to also remain themselves as well. Patreon is the
Speaker 1: place to do that.
Speaker 2: Indeed, all right, everybody quick clip right here. And yes,
Speaker 2: I know it's an AI video. I have two AI
Speaker 2: videos that I'm going to be playing on this one.
Speaker 2: Everybody knows I hate AI, but both of these videos
Speaker 2: really do a good job of explaining the point and
Speaker 2: again you could fact check what these AI videos are
Speaker 2: saying very true. So with that being said, let's dive
Speaker 2: into the Peristoika deception.
Speaker 1: The Peristroika deception.
Speaker 3: So this entry is based on a book that was
Speaker 3: written by a Russian man named named Anatotly Gillitson. This
Speaker 3: man was a KGB defector when the USSR was still
Speaker 3: up and running. The Peristroika Deception book dives into conspiracies
Speaker 3: surrounding how KGB spies were placed all over the world
Speaker 3: in very high positions in order to attempt at the
Speaker 3: stabilizing governments, specifically in the.
Speaker 1: US and Great Britain.
Speaker 3: This was all done through what was known as the
Speaker 3: perist Peristroika in history books is known as the fall
Speaker 3: of the USSR and the attempted reformation of Soviet Russia. However,
Speaker 3: the book explains that the Peristroika had the exact opposite
Speaker 3: effect and was actually used as a secret tool to
Speaker 3: maneuver the USSR to the top of the world's food chain.
Speaker 3: This was done in an effort to more effectively spread communism.
Speaker 3: Some believe that Russia's actions in recent times tell that
Speaker 3: Golitzen may not have been too far off of the money.
Speaker 1: But I guess only time will tell. Okay.
Speaker 2: So, like I said, very brief overview of it, and
Speaker 2: like I said, this is not going to be just
Speaker 2: an American thing, although we will be bringing up some
Speaker 2: American examples because it's a little more closer to home.
Speaker 2: We're also going to be diving into Putin himself because
Speaker 2: all the way back from two thousand to now, what's
Speaker 2: going on in Ukraine. And this isn't just a conservative
Speaker 2: mainstream media talking point. There are a lot of signs
Speaker 2: that are indicating that he is in the belief that
Speaker 2: he is trying to re establish the former borders of
Speaker 2: what once.
Speaker 1: Was the USSR. I know some people are going to
Speaker 1: disagree with that. This is not me saying that this
Speaker 1: is a fact.
Speaker 2: I am saying that there is a chain of events
Speaker 2: that is leading a lot of people to make this assertion.
Speaker 1: And if you think about it, if he is you know,
Speaker 1: prior KGB, and that was the goal all along, and
Speaker 1: that guy is still in charge over there, why would
Speaker 1: he go against his original plan. I'm just saying, I mean,
Speaker 1: we're gonna get to all I know that there's a
Speaker 1: lot of people out there that are like that, I
Speaker 1: don't know, think that fucking Putin is a white hat
Speaker 1: or think that he's a good guy. I'm not. I
Speaker 1: don't know how you get there. That's like saying Jijupang's
Speaker 1: a good guy. That's like saying Kim Jong un is
Speaker 1: a good guy. That's like saying our own CIA is
Speaker 1: the good guy. None of these people are good. None
Speaker 1: of them are white hats. They all want maximum control.
Speaker 1: They all don't give a shit about what you think
Speaker 1: or feel.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, And to that point, how many many people have
Speaker 2: we had on the show that have talked about some
Speaker 2: Q drop where they actually believe that everyone you just
Speaker 2: listed are actually secretly in cahoots with Donnie t and
Speaker 2: that they're gonna bring about the end of the New
Speaker 2: World Order. And it's like, I don't, I honestly do
Speaker 2: not see how that tapestry weaves out well, just to show.
Speaker 1: You that nothing can stop what is coming, I guess anyway, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's crazy how they just got everybody roped into
Speaker 1: believing that politics and politicians is good. You know what
Speaker 1: I'm saying? Like that was really the whole idea behind
Speaker 1: QAnon is that these guys are the good guys. That's like,
Speaker 1: oh my god, they do so many people, including me
Speaker 1: for a little bit. I'm not even gonna lie like
Speaker 1: it just because I who doesn't love a good rabbit
Speaker 1: hole to go down into, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: And so the problem is is that with a lot
Speaker 1: of the rabbit holes, you have to believe that there
Speaker 1: are good guys and there are bad guys. Otherwise everybody screwed.
Speaker 1: And so and I'm not sitting over here saying that
Speaker 1: I'm blackpilled by or turbo black pilled or whatever the
Speaker 1: fucking term is. It's like, no, I think that you
Speaker 1: just have to have your third eye all the way open.
Speaker 1: And I like that. I mean, some people call that
Speaker 1: just white pilled.
Speaker 2: But that's a thing, yeah, in some regard, But I
Speaker 2: mean diving into conspiracies, you will blackpill yourself accidentally, okay,
Speaker 2: because the deeper you go. Sure, let's say that you
Speaker 2: are of political party A, and then there's political party B.
Speaker 2: Doesn't matter what country you live in. Yes, I know
Speaker 2: that there are certain countries or they have like five
Speaker 2: or six just there's usually two, maybe three main ones
Speaker 2: that are actually in the conversation for leading the country
Speaker 2: at any given election point. Right, if you are on
Speaker 2: political parties a's side, and you could find a million
Speaker 2: things wrong with political party B, it will not take
Speaker 2: you long, especially in the age of information like we're
Speaker 2: in right now.
Speaker 1: If you're in.
Speaker 2: Political party b's side, same thing, it doesn't take long
Speaker 2: to discover that, oh, I'm on this side because these
Speaker 2: people are so bad A bop bop pop pop, or
Speaker 2: the other way around, the problem is when you open
Speaker 2: up that third eye, when you do look at everything
Speaker 2: from the outside, take away your own political stigmas and
Speaker 2: dogmas and morals and ethics and beliefs, take all of
Speaker 2: that off for two seconds and just look at the
Speaker 2: situation as a whole. It is a black pill moment
Speaker 2: because there are no good guys. None can be found
Speaker 2: in any political spectrum of any country ever.
Speaker 1: Right, By the way, anybody that is curious about what
Speaker 1: these terms actually mean, I know I was. I was
Speaker 1: a little confused whenever I first got into conspiracies. What
Speaker 1: is blue pill? What is red pill? What is white pill?
Speaker 1: What is black pill? What is gray pill? And all
Speaker 1: these other fucking colors. So just to I mean, you
Speaker 1: should know what red pill and blue pill is by
Speaker 1: now so white pill and black pills. So the terms
Speaker 1: white pilled and black pilled represent different philosophical outlooks. This
Speaker 1: is from UH, actually from redded but it says uh.
Speaker 1: White pill generally refers to a hopeful or optimistic perspective,
Speaker 1: while black piled signifies a belief in the futility of change,
Speaker 1: often leading to despair or nihilism. So it's not it's
Speaker 1: not good to be black pilled, although diving into a
Speaker 1: lot of these conspiracies, it's easy to get there. So
Speaker 1: that's that's the point, is that you don't want to
Speaker 1: become nihilistic and think that everybody hates you and that
Speaker 1: you're under the Enannaki's thumb or some bullshit, you know, like,
Speaker 1: you want to still have some kind of hope and
Speaker 1: you believe that there the change can happen. That's great pilled.
Speaker 2: For the record, White pilled is more like you just
Speaker 2: got an optimistic disposition to everything that's going on. Black pilled,
Speaker 2: you are just pessimistic and you don't even see a
Speaker 2: reason get out of bed in the morning. Gray pilled
Speaker 2: would be like, all right, I can see the disgusting
Speaker 2: nature of the world, but I still am trying to
Speaker 2: have a little bit of hopium that things can and
Speaker 2: will get better.
Speaker 1: Well, I like to think that like white pilled, it's
Speaker 1: it's more of a to be honest, it's kind of
Speaker 1: like an internal thing. It's kind of like what they say,
Speaker 1: like change your change yourself, change the world, you know,
Speaker 1: Like that whole kind of ideology is just like how
Speaker 1: do you what is your perspective against the world, Like,
Speaker 1: if something terrible happens, is it going to send you
Speaker 1: into a downward spiral or you know what I mean,
Speaker 1: Like there's a bunch of different things that could happen
Speaker 1: as a result of that. So I like to remain optimistic.
Speaker 1: I like to you know, kind of hone in on
Speaker 1: the silver linings of a lot of things. But also
Speaker 1: I'm at the point where I'm like, yeah, I don't
Speaker 1: trust anybody, you know, I don't trust any any government.
Speaker 1: I don't trust any politician. I don't trust any build
Speaker 1: that has passed that is so good and so great
Speaker 1: and so big and beautiful. You know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, having skepticism is not black piled, right, That's that's
Speaker 2: not the same thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So I think that we're probably on the gray
Speaker 1: pill side.
Speaker 2: I would like to think so anyway, I guess it
Speaker 2: depends on the topic and depends on the day, to
Speaker 2: be honest with you, but I mean that's the way
Speaker 2: it goes.
Speaker 1: Every day is a new day. You can decide what
Speaker 1: you make of this one. You like to get a
Speaker 1: little gray scale up in here, baby, absolutely? Yeah. So
Speaker 1: all right, now we have the overarching theme to the deception.
Speaker 1: Let's learn about.
Speaker 2: The author who was the KGB defector himself. This is
Speaker 2: Wikipedia page. We're not going to read the entirety of it,
Speaker 2: but there's a few key things that we really need
Speaker 2: to discuss. Let's just start off with this top paragraph.
Speaker 1: All right. Anatolely Glitsen yep. He was a Soviet KGB
Speaker 1: defector and author of two books about the long term
Speaker 1: deception strategy of the KGB leadership. He was born in
Speaker 1: Ukrainian SSR, Soviet Union. He provided a wide range of
Speaker 1: intelligence to the CIA on the operations of most of
Speaker 1: the lines departments or lines our departments lines at the
Speaker 1: Helenski and other residences, as well as KGB methods of
Speaker 1: recruiting and running agents. He became an American citizen by
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty four. The military writer General Sir General Sir
Speaker 1: John Hackett, and former CIA counter intelligence director James Angleton
Speaker 1: identified Gilitsen as the most valuable defector ever to reach
Speaker 1: the West. However, many of Glitzen's claims were controversial, with
Speaker 1: MI five historian Christopher Andrew describing him as an unreliable
Speaker 1: conspiracy theorist.
Speaker 2: Indeed, even though once again, we're gonna paint a picture
Speaker 2: of how many of his predictions have come to pass,
Speaker 2: and you be the judge of he was a credible
Speaker 2: source or not, then we can look at what's going
Speaker 2: on in the world today and over the last few decades,
Speaker 2: and it's yeah, no, anyway, let's continue with his defection.
Speaker 1: Glitzen worked in the Strategic Planning Department of the KGB
Speaker 1: in the rank of major. In nineteen sixty one, under
Speaker 1: the name of Ivan Klimov, he was assigned to the
Speaker 1: Soviet embassy in Helenski, Finland as Vicekuntinki Helsinki. How what
Speaker 1: did I say? Yeah, you said Helensky. Oh, sorry about that, Helsinki,
Speaker 1: Finland as vice counsel and attashe he defected with his
Speaker 1: wife and daughter to Central Intelligence Aid Agency via Helsinki
Speaker 1: on December fifteenth, nineteen sixty one. They flew with a
Speaker 1: CIA escort from Finland to Sweden and thence to the
Speaker 1: United States via Frankfurt am Maine, Germany, arriving on December eighteenth,
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty one. He was interviewed by James Jesus Angleton.
Speaker 1: Imagine that middle name Jesus. I mean, damn, dude, I mean,
Speaker 1: I get it. You know, it's like I named my
Speaker 1: son after my football idol, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: So why not name it after like the number one
Speaker 1: idol of all time.
Speaker 2: I mean, you see a lot of Hispanic people named
Speaker 2: their sons Jesus.
Speaker 1: I've met quite a few Hayesuses.
Speaker 2: In my life, but I've never heard of a white
Speaker 2: dude with the middle name Jesus before this article.
Speaker 1: So, like, that's interesting. I'm doing it. My next kid,
Speaker 1: middle name Jesus. Doing it? Oh my god, I believe
Speaker 1: you're gonna do that too. Absolutely, I'm gonna tell me
Speaker 1: ys Christ consciousness, no, don't do that to them kids.
Speaker 1: And so he was interviewed by James Jesus Angleton, CIA
Speaker 1: counterintelligence director. In January of nineteen sixty two, the KGB
Speaker 1: sent instructions to as a Dentura throughout the world on
Speaker 1: the actions required to minimize the damage. All meetings with
Speaker 1: important agents were to be suspended. In November of nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty two, KGB head Vladimir Semi semi Caste approved a
Speaker 1: plan for the assassination of Glitzen and other particularly dangerous traders,
Speaker 1: including Igor Guzenko, Nikolai Kolov and bog Dan Stashinsky. Did
Speaker 1: I do good on all those? I think you I
Speaker 1: think you did.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure if the pronunciations were one hundred percent,
Speaker 2: but I think he did pretty damn good.
Speaker 1: Fucking Russian over here, dude. The KGB made significant efforts
Speaker 1: to discredit Glitzen by promoting disinformation that he was involved
Speaker 1: in illegal smuggling operations. Glitzen provided information about many famous
Speaker 1: Soviet agents, including Kim Philbey, Donald McLean, Guy Burgess, John Vassal,
Speaker 1: and double agent Alexander Kopotsky who worked in Germany and others.
Speaker 1: While unable to identify some agents like Philby specifically by name,
Speaker 1: Glitsen provided sufficient information that SIS was able to perform
Speaker 1: or able to determine the culprits. Thus, Glitzen's defection in
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty one said in motion of the process that
Speaker 1: definitively confirmed Philby as a Soviet mole.
Speaker 2: Okay, so again we're already off to a good start
Speaker 2: with this guy being credible. He was telling them, maybe
Speaker 2: not by name on all of them, some of them, yes,
Speaker 2: by name, but the others he could at least say,
Speaker 2: all right, I know for sure that the KGB has
Speaker 2: a mole working in this office with this agency in
Speaker 2: this country, and we know that they are in this
Speaker 2: type of position and they have this type of a
Speaker 2: job scope. So look for somebody of this kind of
Speaker 2: age range who has this going on for him. And
Speaker 2: he gave them enough of a profile the way they
Speaker 2: could figure out who these people were. Then come to
Speaker 2: find out confirmed every one of them was in fact
Speaker 2: a Soviet spy. So already he's showing his credibility before
Speaker 2: we even get into the thick of it.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, there is controversy as well. Did you want
Speaker 1: to do that one?
Speaker 2: No, not necessarily the controversy, But let's talk about the
Speaker 2: book at least this top part here, because we're going
Speaker 2: to be reading some of it ourselves.
Speaker 1: In nineteen eighty four, Glitzen published the book New lies
Speaker 1: for old, wherein he warned about a long term deception
Speaker 1: strategy of seeming a retreat from hardline communism designed to
Speaker 1: lull the West into a false sense of security and
Speaker 1: finally economically cripple and diplomatically isolate the United States, among
Speaker 1: other things. Glitzen stated in his quotes, the liberalization would
Speaker 1: be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about
Speaker 1: a reduction in the Communist Party's role. Its monopoly would
Speaker 1: be apparently curtailed, and ostensible separation of powers between the legislative,
Speaker 1: the executive, and the judiciary might be introduced. The Supreme
Speaker 1: Court would or the Supreme Soviet would be given greater
Speaker 1: apparent power, and the President of the Soviet Union and
Speaker 1: the First Secretary of the Party might well be separated.
Speaker 1: The KGB would be, in quotes reformed. The dissidents at
Speaker 1: home would be amnestied. Amnesty. Amnesty, Damn, that's a I've
Speaker 1: never read that word on paper.
Speaker 2: Given amnesty, there you go. The dissidents at home would
Speaker 2: kind of get a.
Speaker 1: Pass on that those in exile abroad would be allowed
Speaker 1: to return, and some would take up positions of leadership
Speaker 1: and government. Sokarov might be included in some capacity in
Speaker 1: the government or allowed to teach abroad. The creative arts
Speaker 1: and cultural and scientific organizations such as the writers' unions
Speaker 1: and Academy of Sciences would become apparently more independent, as
Speaker 1: would the trade unions. Political clubs would be open to
Speaker 1: non members of the Communist Party, leading dissidents leading dissonance
Speaker 1: might form one or more alternative political parties. Would be
Speaker 1: a greater freedom for Soviet citizens to travel Western and unitedations.
Speaker 1: Observers would be invited to the Soviet Union to witness
Speaker 1: the reforms in action.
Speaker 2: This being said, when the Soviet Union fell, what he
Speaker 2: is saying, what happened happened across the board.
Speaker 1: And here's the deal.
Speaker 2: When the Soviet Union fell, the people that were living
Speaker 2: in Soviet Russia at that time, granted they weren't a
Speaker 2: big fan of their government, but for the last fifty
Speaker 2: years they had been true blue bread.
Speaker 1: In to this communist ideal.
Speaker 2: Once that goes away, the people didn't decide that they're
Speaker 2: just done with communism.
Speaker 1: Hell, that was all they had known for the most part.
Speaker 2: Right, you may have some of the old timers that
Speaker 2: remembers a time before the Russian Revolution that was very
Speaker 2: few and far between, so even after it was gone
Speaker 2: and they were seen as a democratic republic unquote massive
Speaker 2: quote unquote on that It's not like you're just going
Speaker 2: to change the mindset and the culture of your entire
Speaker 2: nation with the stroke of a pin.
Speaker 1: That's not how that works. And they knew this. Angleton
Speaker 1: and so Jesus Angleton and Glitzen reportedly sought the assistance
Speaker 1: of William F. Buckley Junior, who wants worked for the
Speaker 1: CIA in writing the New Lies for Old book. Buckley refused,
Speaker 1: but later went on to write a novel about Angleton
Speaker 1: called Spytime The Undoing of James Jesus Angleton. New Lies
Speaker 1: for Old received a first edition in Portuguese in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: How about that.
Speaker 2: Right now, let's read this paragraph about the topic of
Speaker 2: today's discussion, the Perishtroika Deception.
Speaker 1: In nineteen ninety five, and Atoly Glitzen and Christopher's Story
Speaker 1: published a book entitled The Peristroka Deception, containing purported memoranda
Speaker 1: attributed to Golitzen claiming, Number one, the Soviet strategists are
Speaker 1: concealing the secret court that exists and will continue between
Speaker 1: Moscow and the nationalist leaders of the independent republics. Number two,
Speaker 1: the public of the KGB or the power of the
Speaker 1: KGB remains as great as ever. Talk of cosmetic changes
Speaker 1: in the KGB and its supervision is deliberately publicized to
Speaker 1: support the myth of democratization of the Soviet political system.
Speaker 1: And number three, scratch these new instant Soviet democrats, anti
Speaker 1: communists and nationalists who have sprouted out of nowhere and
Speaker 1: underneath will be found secret party members or KGB agents.
Speaker 2: Okay, now this is the talking point Soviet strategists. Excuse me,
Speaker 2: we're absolutely coordinating secret things between Moscow and the nationalist
Speaker 2: leaders quote unquote of independent republics quote unquote. They didn't
Speaker 2: just mean former Soviet states, right, like every nation that
Speaker 2: has a stand at the end of it was a
Speaker 2: former Soviet state.
Speaker 1: We know this. That is not what they meant.
Speaker 2: They meant the independent republics across the world.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: Of course, the power of the KGB remains as much
Speaker 2: as ever. There will be cosmetic changes, right, it's gonna
Speaker 2: be a whole new look. The Soviets are gone, man,
Speaker 2: Communism is dead. We're not that Russia. We're the Russian Republic.
Speaker 2: Come on, now we're not the same group. Even though
Speaker 2: all of those same people that were figureheads with the
Speaker 2: KGB are now just figure heads with the Russian Republic.
Speaker 2: It didn't change anything. Their flag might have changed, their
Speaker 2: rhetoric might have changed, but the ethos were still the same.
Speaker 1: The titles have changed, but the people are the same.
Speaker 2: Exactly Now he named democrats, I'm gonna throw that out.
Speaker 2: And also some of the loudest anti communist people actually
Speaker 2: were secret Communist sympathizers.
Speaker 1: It was a front, right, it was a ruse.
Speaker 2: And then of course the ultra nationalists, these people that
Speaker 2: seem like they are just the most patriotic ever in reality, again,
Speaker 2: that was all a front that just.
Speaker 1: Sprouted up out of nowhere.
Speaker 2: Promise you they are actually a secret Communist party agent
Speaker 2: or a KGB agent.
Speaker 1: It's just the way this goes. Oh, that was Martin
Speaker 1: Luther King right, Well, like that was something that they
Speaker 1: were trying to get him, like to keep him from
Speaker 1: talking about because he was such a Communist Marxist like
Speaker 1: ideology type of guy that you know that they had
Speaker 1: to like write his scripts and everything for him to
Speaker 1: try and calm him down a little bit and water
Speaker 1: it down a little bit from what we learned, yes
Speaker 1: and no.
Speaker 2: So the jury is still out on if he was
Speaker 2: a true communist or was that rhetoric that was sprung
Speaker 2: up by the CIA to discredit MLK and his mission.
Speaker 1: Right, That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: There are certain figures that if the CIA had their
Speaker 2: hands in it in any way, shape or form, how
Speaker 2: much of the story can you trust?
Speaker 1: How much of it was a part of the op.
Speaker 2: And or the counter op right, You got to like
Speaker 2: cut through the weeds on that. But we do know
Speaker 2: as far as the political parties in America is concerned,
Speaker 2: one of these parties got heavily, heavily, heavily infiltrated by
Speaker 2: communists and communist sympathizers, and the other one gets called
Speaker 2: racist bigots a lot. This is by design. Okay, so
Speaker 2: we're gonna get to all of it.
Speaker 1: I promise. Now, let's go ahead. I'm gonna read this.
Speaker 2: This is the book itself, The Peristroika Deception. If anybody
Speaker 2: wants to look into this book, I highly recommend it.
Speaker 2: It is a thick read, is a thickums, but it's
Speaker 2: full of amazing information. So we're just gonna read the
Speaker 2: forward of it. The forward is ten pages, but we're
Speaker 2: gonna get through it. I promise it's worth it. So
Speaker 2: this collection of my memoranda to the CIA is about
Speaker 2: Soviet Grand strategy and the new dimensions of the threat
Speaker 2: to Western democracies. There's a marked difference between the America
Speaker 2: and the Communist use of the term strategy quote unquote.
Speaker 2: Americans tend to think of strategy in short range terms,
Speaker 2: in relation to presidential election campaigns, in football or baseball games,
Speaker 2: or in such instances as the strategy of stonewalling during
Speaker 2: the Watergate investigations. For Russian communists, on the other hand,
Speaker 2: strategy is a grand design or general party line, which
Speaker 2: governs the party's actions over a long period and contains
Speaker 2: one or more special maneuvers designed to help the party
Speaker 2: achieve its ultimate objectives. The seizure of power in Russia
Speaker 2: in nineteen seventeen, the subsequent expansion of communist camps, and
Speaker 2: the final worldwide victory of communism. Yes, everyone, we are
Speaker 2: talking about a new world order. The book shows that
Speaker 2: the essence of the special maneuver in the present grand
Speaker 2: strategy for Communism lies internally in the creation and use
Speaker 2: of controlled political opposition quote unquote, to affect a transition
Speaker 2: to new democratic quote unquote non communist quote unquote nationalist
Speaker 2: quote unquote power structures which remain in reality communist control internationally.
Speaker 2: The essence of the maneuver lies in the use of
Speaker 2: political potential of these new power structures to develop contacts
Speaker 2: and promote solidarity with the Western democracies as a means
Speaker 2: towards the achievement of world communistic victory through the coverage convergence,
Speaker 2: excuse me of the communist and non communist systems. The
Speaker 2: main purpose of my defection at the end of nineteen
Speaker 2: sixty one was to warn the American government about the
Speaker 2: adoption of the current Grand Strategy for communism and the
Speaker 2: political role of the KGB and the use of disinformation
Speaker 2: and control political opposition which the strategy entailed, and to
Speaker 2: help the West neutralize KGB penetration of their governments. Now,
Speaker 2: before I read more, yes, we are going to be
Speaker 2: talking about the current Russia Gate situation with old Barack.
Speaker 2: So put a pin in that one for later, because
Speaker 2: what Tulsa Gabbert just released plus Obama saying that I'll
Speaker 2: be more flexible after the election when he knew he
Speaker 2: was about to get out of power, but he was
Speaker 2: talking to the Russian Minister of Defense about how he'll
Speaker 2: be more flexible towards their means after he got out
Speaker 2: of office.
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk about it all. We're gonna talk about
Speaker 1: it all, but just so we're clear.
Speaker 2: Although this was written back in the day and he's
Speaker 2: talking about him defecting in sixty one, there is a
Speaker 2: lot of signs to say that the operation.
Speaker 1: Is still ongoing anyway.
Speaker 2: On arrival in Washington, I asked to be received by
Speaker 2: President Kennedy. I was assured by General Taylor and the
Speaker 2: President's security advisor that the President would see my appropriate contributions.
Speaker 2: Mister Robert Kennedy, the Attorney General, told me that in
Speaker 2: due time a meeting with the President would be arranged.
Speaker 2: General Taylor wrote me in the following terms.
Speaker 1: Here we go.
Speaker 2: This is from the White House, Washington, the twenty first
Speaker 2: of December nineteen sixty one. Dear mister Galitzen, I have
Speaker 2: your letter of December nineteenth, nineteen sixty one, addressed to
Speaker 2: the President of the United States. The subject matter is
Speaker 2: one of considerable interest to the government, and your request
Speaker 2: has received careful consideration. I wish to assure you that
Speaker 2: the officials with whom you are now in contact have
Speaker 2: the full authority and responsibility for handling matters of this nature,
Speaker 2: and I therefore request that you give them your complete cooperation.
Speaker 2: I have asked that I be kept informed of the
Speaker 2: developments in this matter, and you may be confident that
Speaker 2: information concerning your contribution will be brought to the attention
Speaker 2: of the President when and if appropriate.
Speaker 1: Maxwell D.
Speaker 2: Taylor, all right, that was the letter he received. Now,
Speaker 2: while waiting for the meeting, I limited my cooperation with
Speaker 2: the CIA, FBI and allied services to the problems of
Speaker 2: KGB penetration of American, British, French government institutions. After President
Speaker 2: Kennedy's assassination, I briefed the head of the CIA and
Speaker 2: head of that agency's counterintelligence staff about the Communist long
Speaker 2: range strategy, the creation of the Disinformation Department, and of
Speaker 2: Schlipin's reorganization of the KGB into a political arm of
Speaker 2: the party. Now this is also pretty important. When Kennedy
Speaker 2: was assassinated, does anyone remember what happened next?
Speaker 1: LBJ took over.
Speaker 2: He refused to get onto the plane to He is
Speaker 2: the only president to not be sworn in in Washington, DC.
Speaker 2: I might add he was sworn in at the Dallas
Speaker 2: airport because he refused to even get on the plane
Speaker 2: to go back until he was the president. JFK's body
Speaker 2: wasn't even cold yet they had just pronounced him dead. Now,
Speaker 2: why was this Well, right around this time was something
Speaker 2: called Vietnam. Maybe you've heard of it, and we were
Speaker 2: trying to just not be a part of that at
Speaker 2: that time. But LBJ and his wife, Lady Bird Johnson,
Speaker 2: who had massive military contracting jobs or you know, money,
Speaker 2: I should say, really wanted that.
Speaker 1: War to continue. That was like their whole thing, right,
Speaker 1: They wanted to get involved with that.
Speaker 2: We need American troops over there, we need American industry
Speaker 2: over there. We need to get this war machine running
Speaker 2: and gun and so that the Johnson family can be
Speaker 2: made rich. There's more than a few reasons why JFK
Speaker 2: was assassinated. There's more than a few reasons why LBJ
Speaker 2: did what he did when he got to office, how
Speaker 2: he got to office, the whole way through. So with
Speaker 2: that in mind, as soon as he was assassinated, your
Speaker 2: boy here, the KGB defector was like, hey, y'all, I
Speaker 2: know that there's a lot of stuff going on. This
Speaker 2: is why this is what is happening right now. But
Speaker 2: it didn't matter because at that point the long game
Speaker 2: had already been started the defector's area, I should say,
Speaker 2: the plants were already planted in France, in England and
Speaker 2: in the United States.
Speaker 1: That's this seems like a long drawn out plan. And
Speaker 1: I gotta say, dude, I'm really not that shocked that
Speaker 1: this is even a thing though, if you really think
Speaker 1: about it, like you know, we've been feeling that, especially
Speaker 1: ever since JFK was assassinated, that there has been a
Speaker 1: change in the wins of the of the political system,
Speaker 1: you know, and maybe there always has been, but it
Speaker 1: seemed to make like a crazy ninety degree turn, especially
Speaker 1: at that point in time.
Speaker 2: Seemed I'm glad that you said the word that you said.
Speaker 2: It seems like there was a political shift, right. It
Speaker 2: seemed like the parties switched sides. What if I was
Speaker 2: to tell you that the parties never swap sides, but
Speaker 2: it was all a part of the propaganda machine to
Speaker 2: make it appear that they swap sides to ensure that
Speaker 2: their voter base felt even more morally upright.
Speaker 1: For voting in the way that they did. Yeah, it's like,
Speaker 1: you know, because it used to be the Democrats were
Speaker 1: anti war, now they're pro war. Used to be that
Speaker 1: the Republicans were pro war, Now we're anti war, right,
Speaker 1: And it seems kind of like the sales are shifting
Speaker 1: a little bit, which ultimately just waters down both political
Speaker 1: parties because they don't necessarily have a good solid foundation
Speaker 1: that they can stand on that goes back one hundred,
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty years or whatever, because everybody's flip
Speaker 1: flop side so many damn times, and everybody kind of
Speaker 1: forgets what the main goal is, which should be peace
Speaker 1: and happiness and the pursuit of property and whatever.
Speaker 2: But let me throw out an idea at you real quick.
Speaker 2: I know that you're not like the most well read
Speaker 2: as far as history goes, and that's kind of the
Speaker 2: point on this one. Okay, So we do know that
Speaker 2: Abe Lincoln was a Republican, right. We do know that
Speaker 2: the slaves being freed in America was a Republican initiative.
Speaker 1: Right, that's not a secret. We know this right civil rights.
Speaker 2: Don't think about it, don't seriously, do not think any
Speaker 2: deeper on this, Which party spearheaded the civil rights movement.
Speaker 1: To get past Jonathan Um spearheaded the civil rights movement. Well,
Speaker 1: you would think that it'd be democratic, right, you would.
Speaker 2: And for the record, I've had this conversation with three
Speaker 2: different people in the past two weeks. Most people believe
Speaker 2: that the civil rights full equality for minority groups in
Speaker 2: America was a Democrat initiative. What if I was to
Speaker 2: tell you that it was overwhelmingly a Republican initiative, I
Speaker 2: would believe it right, one hundred percent, because history is
Speaker 2: definitely a lie agreed upon and everything is always the
Speaker 2: opposite of what you think it is. Like, that's just
Speaker 2: that's the bait and switch of history in general.
Speaker 1: I would say it.
Speaker 2: Was propagandized to make it look like the Democrat.
Speaker 4: Party, the workingman's party, the one of the poor, they
Speaker 4: care about the minorities, never mind the fact that Southern
Speaker 4: Democrats were the ones that were trying to fight against
Speaker 4: civil rights being passed.
Speaker 1: Okay, you know it felt weired. It felt weird whenever
Speaker 1: you said that Abe Lincoln was a Republican, because I
Speaker 1: swear I remember as a kid thinking that he was
Speaker 1: a Democrat. Again, propaganda would lead you to believe that
Speaker 1: even though a quick Google search will show you these things,
Speaker 1: and it's not like this is a secret information, but
Speaker 1: they have put it out there into the public zeitgeist
Speaker 1: in such a way to where you think that it
Speaker 1: had to have been a Democrat initiative, because well, obviously
Speaker 1: the Democrats are the party that care about minorities. No,
Speaker 1: they're not, And for the record, they never have been. Yeah,
Speaker 1: let me read this. For the record, they never have.
Speaker 1: They still do not. So it's and I just typed
Speaker 1: it in on Doug Doug go. And it says that
Speaker 1: Abraham Lincoln became a Republican because he opposed the extension
Speaker 1: of slavery into the territories, which was a central issue
Speaker 1: for the newly formed party. His leadership and anti slavery
Speaker 1: stance significantly shaped the Republican Party's identity during the mid
Speaker 1: nineteenth century. Why do I not remember learning that?
Speaker 2: Because it was propagandized to where you wouldn't remember that.
Speaker 2: Never mind that the Democrat Party was the party that
Speaker 2: put Indians on reservations, kept Jim Crow laws in action,
Speaker 2: formed the fucking clan, I might add, and here's the deal.
Speaker 2: Everybody thinks the political party swapped after civil rights. They
Speaker 2: did not, but the propaganda machine, spearheaded by communists in
Speaker 2: the Democratic Party, spun the machine and put out a
Speaker 2: narrative into the public zeitgeist so culturally to where people
Speaker 2: still to this day believe that the Democrats actually care
Speaker 2: about minority groups. We're gonna get to it all. We're
Speaker 2: gonna get to it all. I promise you. This is
Speaker 2: not just a massive oh yay, Republican Party is the
Speaker 2: best thing.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: I understand the Republican Party is a lot of issues
Speaker 2: with them themselves. A lot of people have issues with
Speaker 2: some of their beliefs, a lot of people have some
Speaker 2: issues with certain Republicans that have taken charge over the years.
Speaker 2: And I'm not denying these facts, and I'm not saying
Speaker 2: that every single Republican is inherently not a racist or
Speaker 2: not a my anti minority in some way. I am saying,
Speaker 2: if you were to look at the parties over the
Speaker 2: course of the last you know, one hundred and fifty
Speaker 2: years as a whole, one of these parties truly cares
Speaker 2: about your your you know, the the downtrodden and the
Speaker 2: minority groups, and wants true equality across the board.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 2: Oh, women's rights, Jonathan, women's rights, the rights for women
Speaker 2: to vote right off the rip, Republican or Democrat initiative,
Speaker 2: I guess since we're sticking on this flavor, I'm guessing
Speaker 2: this republican.
Speaker 1: But you would have thought Democrat before we had this conversation,
Speaker 1: wouldn't you. I think that's what most people would think.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, complete lies, not even not even there was
Speaker 2: only a handful of Democrats that are even kind of
Speaker 2: in favor of it.
Speaker 1: Well, it makes sense whenever you got Joe Biden saying
Speaker 1: that we want we want little Uh what does he
Speaker 1: say that? Like, we want poor kids to be as
Speaker 1: smart as white kids? Yeah, poor kids as smart as
Speaker 1: white I'm like, did you just.
Speaker 2: Say that that We're gonna get to it all? But
Speaker 2: here's the deal, especially Joe Biden being a great example
Speaker 2: of that old China Joe himself, I might add, China
Speaker 2: being ran by the CCP and has been for decades.
Speaker 2: He is a communist sympathizer, very loud and proud about that. Actually,
Speaker 2: although yes, I understand his mental faculties aren't what they
Speaker 2: once were. It's a long con by the former Soviet
Speaker 2: Union and KGB to not just in America. This is
Speaker 2: happening in France, this is happening in England, This is
Speaker 2: happening all over Europe, this is happening across Africa.
Speaker 1: It's happening across South America. Which is why America led.
Speaker 2: Like thirty coups in the last fifty years in South
Speaker 2: America to keep communism off of our doorstep. This was
Speaker 2: the reason why we're gonna get to it all. But
Speaker 2: let's continue here. On many subsequent occasions, I this is
Speaker 2: this is our boy from the book. By the way,
Speaker 2: this is ol Galitzen. I had the opportunity to brief
Speaker 2: other leading Western services on the subject of Soviet long
Speaker 2: range strategy and the new role of their KGB, recommending
Speaker 2: a reassessment of the communist problem. A few counterintelligence officials
Speaker 2: in the CIA and the British and French services began
Speaker 2: to understand and accept the validity of my views. For me,
Speaker 2: the most encouraging development was the understanding I received from
Speaker 2: the Count Demarenci Marnsch of the French Intelligence Service under
Speaker 2: the late President Pompadieu. Count Dementi provided me I'm probably
Speaker 2: mispronouncing it. Sorry, it's been a while since I spoke.
Speaker 2: French provided me with the opportunities to work with the
Speaker 2: service on the reassessment of communist developments in terms of
Speaker 2: Soviet strategy. In the presence of a dozen senior officials
Speaker 2: of his service, the Count stated that he was in
Speaker 2: agreement with my views on the existence of the strategy
Speaker 2: and of disinformation, but I was unable to explain my
Speaker 2: ideas in detail because my project with his service was terminated.
Speaker 2: Interesting that it was just terminated. He agreed that this
Speaker 2: is a real problem. We're done talking about it now.
Speaker 2: Funny how that worked out. The growing awareness about disinformation
Speaker 2: and the political role of the KGB in implementing the
Speaker 2: strategy was interrupted by the Watergate hearings, which weakened the
Speaker 2: American services, by the unfortunate death of the President, which
Speaker 2: weakened the position of the French services.
Speaker 1: So around the same.
Speaker 2: Time where Watergate was going on and now the CIA
Speaker 2: was under serious scrutiny because Nixon was using them to
Speaker 2: further his own means and they got caught, is the
Speaker 2: same time when the French president dies. So right off
Speaker 2: the rip he was big working with the Big three
Speaker 2: at that time, England, America and France.
Speaker 1: Two of them just had some massive things.
Speaker 2: Happen to where his whole talking points had to be
Speaker 2: just kind of sidelined for a bit. Despite adverse circumstances,
Speaker 2: I have made a consistent attempt to analyze important developments
Speaker 2: in the USSR and other communist countries through the prism
Speaker 2: of the communist long range strategy, strategic disinformation, any political
Speaker 2: role of the KGB. I continued to submit my memoranda
Speaker 2: to the CIA about significant Communist developments and made suggestions
Speaker 2: on how to improve the agency's understanding of the communist strategy.
Speaker 2: In nineteen eighty four, I published a book New Lies
Speaker 2: for Old about Communist strategic political disinformation. In the book
Speaker 2: and in my memoranda, I made several significant predictions about
Speaker 2: future developments in the communist world. I predicted that the
Speaker 2: communist strategists would go beyond Marx and Lenin and would
Speaker 2: introduce economic and political reforms in the USSR and Eastern Europe.
Speaker 2: I predicted the legislation of solidarity in Poland, the return
Speaker 2: of the democratization of Czechoslovakia, and the removal of the
Speaker 2: Berlin Wall. I warned about political offensive to excuse me.
Speaker 2: I warned about a political offensive to promote a neutral
Speaker 2: socialist Europe, which would work to Soviet advantage. There's a
Speaker 2: few socialist countries in Europe right now. They are all
Speaker 2: not doing so hot. But my point is that everything
Speaker 2: he predicted came true. Let's continue to do Where are
Speaker 2: we at it is yep. I also warned, Yeah, I
Speaker 2: also warned that the West was acutely vulnerable to the
Speaker 2: coming major shift in communist tactics. It is axiomatic that
Speaker 2: the political ideas should be tested out in practice, and
Speaker 2: it is a fact that many of my predicts, particular
Speaker 2: about the coming of the economic and political reforms of
Speaker 2: the USSR in Eastern Europe, passed the test and were
Speaker 2: confirmed by subsequent events, particularly in Poland and Czechoslovakia. It
Speaker 2: remains also a fact that the leading Soviet experts like
Speaker 2: mister Brazinski, failed to make accurate predictions about these developments.
Speaker 2: This failure on the part of mister Brazinski and other
Speaker 2: experts in Washington was noticed by an independent observer in
Speaker 2: the New York Times of September twelfth, nineteen eighty nine.
Speaker 2: Since then, I have submitted new memorandas to the CIA
Speaker 2: and the American policy makers in which I explained the
Speaker 2: Soviet Grand Strategy and its strategic designs against the West,
Speaker 2: the essence of the Perestroika, the final phase of the strategy,
Speaker 2: the new use of the bloc's political and security potential
Speaker 2: for introducing new deceptive, controlled, democratic, nationalistic and non communist
Speaker 2: structures in the communist count countries, and the development of
Speaker 2: the political and security potential of the renew dude democratic
Speaker 2: regimes quote unquote for the execution of the strategy strategic
Speaker 2: design against the West. In the memoranda, I provided seven
Speaker 2: keys for understanding prayer Stroyca, explained the danger of Western
Speaker 2: support for it, and proposed a reassessment of the situation
Speaker 2: and rethinking of that support as priority.
Speaker 1: Items of business.
Speaker 2: I suggested also how the West should respond to the
Speaker 2: challenge of prayer Stroika and its destabilizing effect on Western democracies.
Speaker 2: Since the CIA did not react to my memoranda.
Speaker 1: I decided to publish them and ask the CIA to
Speaker 1: declassify them for the purpose The agency agreed. Several considerations
Speaker 1: forced me to take my decision.
Speaker 2: First, the democracies of the United States and Western Europe
Speaker 2: are facing a dangerous situation and are vulnerable because of
Speaker 2: their governments, the Vatican, the elite, the media, the industrialists,
Speaker 2: the financiers, and the trade unions, and most important, the
Speaker 2: general public are blind to the dangers of the strategy
Speaker 2: of Perestroika and have failed to perceive the development and deployment,
Speaker 2: rather of the communist political potential of the renewed democratic
Speaker 2: regimes against the West. The democracies could perish unless they
Speaker 2: are informed about the aggressive design of Perastroka against them.
Speaker 2: Before I even read the next one, I think that
Speaker 2: he's on one here.
Speaker 1: He is, Yeah, that's uh, he's It's crazy how he's
Speaker 1: basically bat in a thousand over here and everybody's just like,
Speaker 1: we don't see it. I don't see it. I don't
Speaker 1: see I mean, yeah, you made some I mean you
Speaker 1: made some awesome predictions, and good for you, and you know,
Speaker 1: you would you classify them so that you can, you know,
Speaker 1: get your trophies and whatnot. But it's like, why would
Speaker 1: you not continue to listen to this guy. This guy's
Speaker 1: a fucking modern day profit at this point, and for
Speaker 1: some reason, they're just you know, disregarding him. He literally
Speaker 1: came from the KGB. He knows what they're doing.
Speaker 2: Because he was once a part of them, And somehow
Speaker 2: they're like, we see what you're saying, but man, we
Speaker 2: kind of got other shit going on right now, bro.
Speaker 2: And he's like, Bro, you're not gonna have any shit
Speaker 2: going on if this continues. Eh, yeah, he can write.
Speaker 1: Your book about it. It's all good. Crazy. It blows my mind.
Speaker 1: And it wasn't just some Joe Schmoe either. I mean
Speaker 1: he's literally having conversations with the White House.
Speaker 2: He's got the president's direct line like that. That's not
Speaker 2: a sidestep or conversation. But still somehow they're like, eh,
Speaker 2: it's you know, we'll see how it goes. Bro, I've
Speaker 2: said what was gonna happen, and it all happened, and
Speaker 2: you're still just kind of going meh okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's might a whole lot of sense. It almost
Speaker 1: seems like the oh, if you really think about it,
Speaker 1: are are they just disregarding it? Or you know, are
Speaker 1: there penetrators in the White House that are you know,
Speaker 1: purposefully disregarding it.
Speaker 2: I think you're more on the money with that statement, personally,
Speaker 2: but we're gonna learn more.
Speaker 1: Let's continue.
Speaker 2: Secondly, I could not imagine that American policymakers, and particularly
Speaker 2: the conservatives in both the Republican and Democratic parties, despite
Speaker 2: their long experience with communist treachery, would not be able
Speaker 2: to grasp the new maneuvers of the communist strategists and
Speaker 2: would rush to commit the West to helping Perestroika, which
Speaker 2: is so contrary to their interests. It has been sad
Speaker 2: to observe the jubilation of American and Western European conservatives
Speaker 2: who have been cheering Peristroika without realizing that it is
Speaker 2: intended to bring about their own political and physical demise.
Speaker 2: Liberal support for Peristroka is understandable, but conservative support came
Speaker 2: as a surprise to me. Thirdly, I was appalled that
Speaker 2: Paristroka was embraced and supported by the United States without
Speaker 2: any serious debate.
Speaker 1: On the subject. Yeah, we're going all the way, deep, y'all.
Speaker 2: In the fourth place, I am appalled by the failure
Speaker 2: of the American scholars to point out the relevance of
Speaker 2: Lenin's new economic policy, to understanding the aggressive anti Western
Speaker 2: design of Perestroika, or to provide appropriate warning to policymakers,
Speaker 2: and their failure to distinguish between American's true friends and
Speaker 2: its Leninist foes, precisely because these foes are wearing the
Speaker 2: new Democratic uniform. Given the pressures they face, policymakers have
Speaker 2: no time to study the history of the period of
Speaker 2: Lenin's New Economic policy or to remind themselves of Marxist
Speaker 2: Leninist dialectics.
Speaker 1: But how could such learn? How could such learn? And
Speaker 1: distinguished scholars as S. Baylor ze Brazinski have failed to
Speaker 1: warn them about the success of the New economic policy,
Speaker 1: the mistakes made by the weston accepting it, and Gorbachev's
Speaker 1: reputation of Lenin's strategy and its dangers for the West.
Speaker 1: What happened to their credentials as scholars?
Speaker 2: Why was it left to Professor Norman Stone of Oxford
Speaker 2: University to detect and make the parallels in his article
Speaker 2: on the London Daily Telegraph on the eleventh of November
Speaker 2: nineteen eighty nine and to express concern at the uf
Speaker 2: FOI or over Gorbachev in his book or in his
Speaker 2: book The Grand Failure. Brazenski limited his description of Lenin's
Speaker 2: New economic policy of three brief phases. He described the
Speaker 2: new economic policy as amounting to a reliance on the
Speaker 2: market mechanism and private initiative to stimulate economic recovery. In
Speaker 2: his words, it was probably quote the most open and
Speaker 2: intellectually innovative phase in Soviet history. For Brazinski, the NEP
Speaker 2: the New Economic Policy is a shorthand term for a
Speaker 2: period of experimentation, flexibility, and modernization. See the Grand Failure
Speaker 2: By the Way, It's a New York, nineteen eighty nine,
Speaker 2: pages eighteen through nineteen. I am appalled by Brazenski's failure
Speaker 2: to explain the re relevance of Lenin's New Economic Policy
Speaker 2: to Perishtroika. This failure is further illustrated by the following Bieler's,
Speaker 2: former defector from the Central Committee apparatus of the Polish
Speaker 2: Communist Party, wrote a forward to Gorbachev's book Perestroika, introducing
Speaker 2: it to the US public without inserting any warning about
Speaker 2: the parallels with the New Economic Policy and its danger
Speaker 2: for Western democracies number or letter B. During his recent
Speaker 2: visit to Moscow, Brazinski, the former National security advisor in
Speaker 2: the Carter administration, met leading Soviet strategists, including Yakol Yakovlev,
Speaker 2: an expert in the manipulation of the Western media, and
Speaker 2: advised them on how to proceed with Perestroika. Furthermore, Brazenski
Speaker 2: delivered a lecture on the same subject to the Soviet
Speaker 2: diplomats at the High Diplomatic Academy. So basically what he's
Speaker 2: saying is these two learned and educated academic people who
Speaker 2: wrote these papers about it were actually plants, and they
Speaker 2: could he could prove his receipts on that s. Baylor
Speaker 2: or Biler was a member of the Polish Communist Party,
Speaker 2: although he rebranded himself and started running as if he's
Speaker 2: a new democrat and he's all about democracy and all
Speaker 2: of that. Shocker that he just kind of missed the
Speaker 2: mark on a few things. Then Brazinski is the same way,
Speaker 2: although he on the surface seemed to be a democracy
Speaker 2: type of guy, come to find out he went to
Speaker 2: Russia and literally not only talked to their advisors on
Speaker 2: how to manipulate the Western media, but then gave a
Speaker 2: lecture on the topic.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's it's sounding a lot more like infiltrators, and
Speaker 1: that's why he's not getting any pushback at all as
Speaker 1: far as you know Western government leaders right right.
Speaker 2: Essentially, that's the thing. It's not just one or two
Speaker 2: of them. It is a mass number of them that,
Speaker 2: in some way, shape or form, were all I don't
Speaker 2: want to say the term coerced, because that's not act.
Speaker 2: They were duped by plants from the communist sympathizers from
Speaker 2: around the world. They spread out like lice, okay, like rats,
Speaker 2: and they set up shop and they made nests in
Speaker 2: all these western countries, not just America, not just France,
Speaker 2: not just England. They did it all over Europe, they
Speaker 2: did it all over Africa, they did it all over Asia,
Speaker 2: they did.
Speaker 1: It all over the world.
Speaker 2: And that's why there were so many wars that were
Speaker 2: happening during the Cold War.
Speaker 1: When Americans and again it's not.
Speaker 2: Our fault that we don't know this more, but during
Speaker 2: the Cold War, Americans.
Speaker 1: Get taught about US versus Russia. We get taught about
Speaker 1: the Korean War, We get taught about the Vietnam War
Speaker 1: because we were involved in those.
Speaker 2: So we show and we talk about how those were
Speaker 2: a part of the Cold War through some proxy shit.
Speaker 2: During the Cold War, the rest of the world wasn't
Speaker 2: at peace by any means. Have you ever played Call
Speaker 2: of Duty Black Ops? Yeah, you remember how there were
Speaker 2: certain scenes there was African fighting going on. There were
Speaker 2: certain scenes where South American things are going on, and
Speaker 2: that your boy was like tied up and they had
Speaker 2: to keep shocking them to tell them the stories of
Speaker 2: all this stuff.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm. There's a reason why communists quote unquote were
Speaker 1: spearheading wars all over the world.
Speaker 2: During this timeframe, but America only pays attention to a
Speaker 2: few of them.
Speaker 1: Damn well, it seems like new World Order is It's
Speaker 1: like everybody almost has their own opinion and how they
Speaker 1: want to implement the New World Order. But where exactly
Speaker 1: is it coming from? Is it coming from the Rothchilds,
Speaker 1: Is it coming from the Rockefellers, Is it coming from
Speaker 1: your Schwabs? But it seems to really be coming from
Speaker 1: all the different degrees, and it makes me wonder, like,
Speaker 1: I mean, are they going along to get along with
Speaker 1: this plan rate here? Because yeah, we're we we want
Speaker 1: we all want the same thing. We all want new
Speaker 1: world order, we all want globalism, we all want you know,
Speaker 1: social or whatever. But it just makes you wonder, are
Speaker 1: they kicking the can down the road so that the
Speaker 1: West can kind of come up with their own flavor
Speaker 1: of what this guy's talking about. I think there's multiple
Speaker 1: things happening at the same time. Okay, So like, for instance,
Speaker 1: the name Rothschild.
Speaker 2: The bankers who fund wars want there to be more wars.
Speaker 2: They don't care if it's this side versus that side,
Speaker 2: this country versus that country, capitalism versus communism. They couldn't
Speaker 2: care less.
Speaker 1: It's profit.
Speaker 2: Okay, it's profit for them. It is strictly business. Their
Speaker 2: emotions are completely separate from it. Okay, when you're talking
Speaker 2: about the World Economic Forum, kind of the same thing.
Speaker 1: They're all about the economy.
Speaker 2: And yeah, war isn't always good for business, but it's
Speaker 2: certainly not always bad for business either.
Speaker 1: So they're willing to kind of look the other way
Speaker 1: and maybe speak very strongly about what's going on and
Speaker 1: said country and said place with this group. In this group,
Speaker 1: we strongly urge them to find peace. They're not gonna
Speaker 1: do anything about it. Well, these are these are the
Speaker 1: same people who now have a interiom head that says
Speaker 1: that you shouldn't have your own individual car and there
Speaker 1: should not be single family homes. This is World Economic
Speaker 1: Forum that is saying this, right, But meanwhile, do you
Speaker 1: think that those heads over there are gonna not have
Speaker 1: their own car and not have their own house, like
Speaker 1: that's the rules for the and not for me. I
Speaker 1: highly doubt any of these people are gonna be willing
Speaker 1: to have any foreigners from another country come in and
Speaker 1: share a bedroom, or share a kitchen, or share a
Speaker 1: laundry room. None of them are gonna be doing this.
Speaker 1: They want you to do it, absolutely so.
Speaker 2: I don't believe that the Rothschilds had been infiltrated by
Speaker 2: KGB plants or anything like that. I think that if anything,
Speaker 2: they're funding the KGB as much as they're funding the CIA,
Speaker 2: as much as they're funding Inner Poll, as much as
Speaker 2: they're funding Mussad and the cartels everything. They're funding all
Speaker 2: of it because you keep starting that pot. They keep
Speaker 2: making money hand over fist.
Speaker 1: But isn't it what they all have been infiltrated. They
Speaker 1: all find it to be the most profitable for them.
Speaker 1: Like they they they they're never going to get like
Speaker 1: somebody who is you know, pro individual, you know what
Speaker 1: I'm saying, Like you might have certain parties that that
Speaker 1: might say that that's what they believe. They want you
Speaker 1: to have your rights to free speech and free you know, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, not free guns, but the right to use
Speaker 1: guns and all this kind of stuff. It's like they
Speaker 1: want you to they it's like service level, that's what
Speaker 1: they're saying. But every year, the the it's shifting, you know,
Speaker 1: every year it's getting closer and closer and closer, until
Speaker 1: inevitably communism is worldwide.
Speaker 2: I think that the World Economic Health Forum has absolutely
Speaker 2: been infiltrated by KGV plants, right. I think they are
Speaker 2: absolutely a part of the perestroika deception.
Speaker 1: We also some of that World Economic Health form.
Speaker 2: I admit World Economic Forum, but that was also about
Speaker 2: to make it the point about the World Health Organization.
Speaker 2: I think they and the CDC have also absolutely been
Speaker 2: infiltrated by the peristroika plants.
Speaker 1: One hund Look at fucking COVID that came around. They
Speaker 1: got everybody to do it, bro every.
Speaker 2: Somehow they got the world economy to stop. But there
Speaker 2: was more billionaires created during that time than ever before
Speaker 2: in human history. That math, don't math, but somehow it
Speaker 2: is a true statement.
Speaker 1: Oh it's by them. Oh yeah, they're they're working on
Speaker 1: five D chess right now.
Speaker 2: And I personally am of the belief that it all
Speaker 2: ties into peristroika. We're gonna skip over this next one
Speaker 2: because it kind of brings up more things about nineteen ninety.
Speaker 1: All these things the sixth place.
Speaker 2: In the sixth place, the misguided Western support for Paristroka
Speaker 2: at all levels and especially among Western media, is destabilizing
Speaker 2: Western societies, their defense, their political processes, and their alliances.
Speaker 2: It is immensely accelerating the successful execution of the Soviet
Speaker 2: strategy designed against the West. In nineteen eighty four, I
Speaker 2: thought that in the event of Western resistance to Soviet strategy,
Speaker 2: the scenario of convergence between the two systems might take
Speaker 2: the next half a.
Speaker 1: Century to unroll.
Speaker 2: Now, however, because the West has committed itself to the
Speaker 2: support of Peristroika, and because of the impact of the
Speaker 2: misguided and euphork support for it in the Western media,
Speaker 2: convergence might take less than a decade. The sword of Democles, yeah, Democlets,
Speaker 2: is hanging over the Western democracies, yet they are oblivious
Speaker 2: to it. I believe in truth and the power of
Speaker 2: ideas to convey the truth. Therefore, I present my memoranda
Speaker 2: to the public, convinced that they will help the that
Speaker 2: it will help them see the Perishtroika changes and their
Speaker 2: sequels in the communist world and beyond in a more
Speaker 2: realistic light and to recover from their blindness. This is
Speaker 2: from Anatotly galitzin the United States nineteen ninety five. He
Speaker 2: submitted all of this to the CIA multiple times, to Interpol,
Speaker 2: to I five and I six, to all of the
Speaker 2: agencies that would even give them the time of day.
Speaker 2: Every one of them. They didn't tell him to kick rocks.
Speaker 2: They acknowledge that what he's saying is true. They just
Speaker 2: didn't really decide to apply it in any way, shape
Speaker 2: or form, which is my point. It is obvious that
Speaker 2: there was plants in place.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it seems like they're looking the other or seeming
Speaker 1: like they're looking the other way, and like, I didn't
Speaker 1: see that. I didn't see that. I didn't see that. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: and it makes you, you know, kind of look at
Speaker 1: it like, well, we got duped, and you know, we
Speaker 1: got taken advantage of. And that's why the world is
Speaker 1: the way that it is whenever it ultimately inevitably becomes
Speaker 1: the way of the perestroika.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, Now, that was all of the ford I was
Speaker 2: going to read. There was another like five pages, but
Speaker 2: we're not going to read all if anybody would like
Speaker 2: to look it up, I highly highly recommend pretty much
Speaker 2: any book that Anatoli Glitzen wrote, people need to really
Speaker 2: check out. So this is an abstract from one of
Speaker 2: them new lies for Old Committee for the State Security.
Speaker 2: All right, let's read just the abstract from this one
Speaker 2: and it will give you the overarching ideas. Once again,
Speaker 2: your boy literally never won time missed.
Speaker 1: So in his nineteen eighty four book Anatotly Glitzen predicted
Speaker 1: a forthcoming fake democratization of Communist Bloc countries for the
Speaker 1: ultimate goal of deceiving and defeating the West. According to Golitzen,
Speaker 1: Czechoslovakia played a significant role in the deception. The Prague
Speaker 1: Spring of nineteen sixty eight was a Communist provoked uprising
Speaker 1: that was to be replicated on a larger scale in
Speaker 1: the future. On November seventeenth, nineteen eighty nine, Czechoslovaki Czechoslovak
Speaker 1: secret police provocateurs led an official Communist student demonstration away
Speaker 1: from its approved course of march in Prague. When the
Speaker 1: police surrounded and viciously attacked the crowd of protesters, one
Speaker 1: of the secret police agents posed as a dead student
Speaker 1: and only a few days the news of the alleged
Speaker 1: student killing led to a general uprising. It appears that
Speaker 1: some members of the Czechoslovakian Communist Party and the Czechoslovak
Speaker 1: Secret Services, in cooperation with the Soviet Secret Service, planned, organized,
Speaker 1: and initiated the events of November seventeenth, nineteen eighty nine,
Speaker 1: which marked the start of the Velvet Revolution. The Velvet
Speaker 1: Revolution in Czechoslovakia was not a genuine revolt of the
Speaker 1: Czech and Slovak people against the Communist regime. Rather, it
Speaker 1: is the hypothesis of this paper that, as foreseen by Gilitzen,
Speaker 1: the revolution was a Communist planned handing of power to
Speaker 1: new caters as cadres cadres as part of a long
Speaker 1: term deception strategy designed to transform and unify Europe into
Speaker 1: a neutral socialist continent.
Speaker 2: Now, just so we're all clear here, that sound kind
Speaker 2: of familiar to something that we probably have heard of.
Speaker 2: There's more than a few examples that might be come
Speaker 2: into your head right now, But okay, secret police. There
Speaker 2: was a student march, was a protest, a peaceful protest,
Speaker 2: i might add, and the secret police kind of made
Speaker 2: them veer a different direction from where they were intended
Speaker 2: to have their march. Then when they got them, surrounded them,
Speaker 2: they beat the shit out of them. You had one
Speaker 2: cop that posed as a dead student that got blasted
Speaker 2: all over the media, and next thing you know, there
Speaker 2: is a quote unquote full scale revolution. If anybody wants
Speaker 2: to look up the Velvet Revolution, please do so, right,
Speaker 2: But all of it was because of a quote unquote
Speaker 2: regime change. The people are uprising in all this and
Speaker 2: they want a.
Speaker 1: New leadership, new democratic leadership, except for the fact that
Speaker 1: the democratic leadership was already KGB plants. So it was literally,
Speaker 1: you know, a changing of the guard.
Speaker 2: But it was just an old slave master for a
Speaker 2: new slave master who were reading out of the same textbook,
Speaker 2: just with different labels and different propaganda, right, a new
Speaker 2: branding if you will.
Speaker 1: But that was it. Yeah, it sounds a lot like
Speaker 1: pretty much every protest you can find that there are
Speaker 1: infiltrators of it. What was the most recent one, that
Speaker 1: was like a couple of months ago. You remember, it
Speaker 1: was like all over the world, right because look at
Speaker 1: the BLM riots or the free No King's Day, the
Speaker 1: No King's Day. Yeah, that was and that was out
Speaker 1: in the open that it was funded by the fucking
Speaker 1: owner of Walmart. Yeah, which which is crazy. People are like,
Speaker 1: oh well, nobody questions is this a genuine thing that
Speaker 1: is actually happening. Nobody questions that. It's like, oh wow,
Speaker 1: look we got the support of fucking Walmart. Do you
Speaker 1: really think that Walmart gives a flying shit about Kings
Speaker 1: or no Kings. They're making money hand over fist regardless
Speaker 1: they are kings. We're talking about the Walton family, one
Speaker 1: of the wealthiest families on Earth, not political, well health,
Speaker 1: true wealth.
Speaker 2: They built it from the ground up and they are
Speaker 2: one of the biggest most wealthiest financier families on the
Speaker 2: face of the planet as of this moment, and they
Speaker 2: were funding the No Kings Day protest. Does anybody see
Speaker 2: the red flag or are we just gonna bypass that?
Speaker 1: Well, and the same thing goes for BLM. You know,
Speaker 1: maybe it's I don't know exactly how it started. Maybe
Speaker 1: it was a genuine start, maybe it was infiltrated from
Speaker 1: the very beginning. It's hard to find the roots of
Speaker 1: where exactly that started. But if you look at the
Speaker 1: fruits of what came from that, you see, like I mean,
Speaker 1: division that was sewed on purpose, you see the people
Speaker 1: that were at the absolute top that were bringing in
Speaker 1: and raising all of the money. You find that, well,
Speaker 1: they just so happened to buy fucking mansions in California,
Speaker 1: right Like they all have six or seven different mansions
Speaker 1: in California, And it was absolutely well, I don't know
Speaker 1: if you want to say, was it misguided? Was that
Speaker 1: on purpose? I mean, was it? Is it always just
Speaker 1: about funneling money to the top in support of these
Speaker 1: quote unquote protests that aren't really doing anything for anybody,
Speaker 1: rather than just getting in the way of people like
Speaker 1: on the.
Speaker 2: Roads, you know what I mean, multiple levels of what's
Speaker 2: happening at the same time. So let's break down the
Speaker 2: BLM real quick. I'm not saying that it did not.
Speaker 1: Start or at least the initial first BLM meeting, Okay,
Speaker 1: not the first riot, not the first protest, the first
Speaker 1: meeting of these people coming together. I bet you they've
Speaker 1: had true intentions, right, agree with those intentions, disagree with
Speaker 1: those intentions whatever. At least I think that they really
Speaker 1: believed in what they were trying to stand for. Okay.
Speaker 2: Cut two United Way, which received federal funding, was bussing
Speaker 2: protesters from city to city and state to state for
Speaker 2: the purpose of it becoming a riot. Cut too, there
Speaker 2: were pallets of bricks left on random street corners out
Speaker 2: of nowhere to make sure that this peaceful protest had
Speaker 2: the ammunition needed to turn it into a full scale riot.
Speaker 1: Also cut to we had federal agents.
Speaker 2: All this has been disclosed by the way dressed as
Speaker 2: protesters that started the breaking of windows and the burning
Speaker 2: of shit to get the crowd motivated and turn it
Speaker 2: into a mob rather than a peaceful protest that was
Speaker 2: done by government infiltrators.
Speaker 1: Well, right, don't forget about George Soros's Open Social Foundation,
Speaker 1: who was ultimately paying people to show up at these
Speaker 1: events to disturb everything. Literally where I was about to
Speaker 1: go next. Yes, now, let's look at the wealthy financier
Speaker 1: that was trying to make sure that this happened in
Speaker 1: the way that it did. Right, George Soros does not
Speaker 1: give a fuck about black people. He does not give
Speaker 1: a fuck about Democrat versus Republican. He couldn't care less.
Speaker 1: He's a literal Nazi. But but does it suit his means?
Speaker 1: Do the ends justify those means?
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 2: What is his overarching goal? This could be used? So
Speaker 2: he funded these things to happen. Then let's cut two.
Speaker 2: What happens in every society and group, there's the haves
Speaker 2: and the have nots, and those members went on to
Speaker 2: buy all these mansions and all this shit. Never mind
Speaker 2: the fact that they were supposed to use that money
Speaker 2: to better their movement and better their people. That's not
Speaker 2: what happens ever, ever, because human nature dictates that people
Speaker 2: are going to be shitting when given the opportunity. But
Speaker 2: that's my point, start to finish. Look at any big protests,
Speaker 2: and I don't mean the Civil rights movement, because those
Speaker 2: were not riots. Those were inherently peaceful protests. As a
Speaker 2: matter of fact, MLK was very specific with his people
Speaker 2: to do peaceful sit ins, right, peaceful bus rides, peaceful marches.
Speaker 2: He did not want them to take one single movement
Speaker 2: against the police because then it would have detracted from
Speaker 2: the entire standpoint right cut to BLM and look how
Speaker 2: far that went intravers because one side was being funded
Speaker 2: and manipulated by political parties and the other side was
Speaker 2: a true grass its movement.
Speaker 1: You see what I'm saying. Yeah, And also I feel
Speaker 1: like just from going from Mlk's marches to BLM. It
Speaker 1: seems like a complete de evolution, right, Like, it seems
Speaker 1: like people have really gotten so much dumber, so much
Speaker 1: more animalistic, and only thinking about what's right in front
Speaker 1: of their face, and not worried about what's going to
Speaker 1: be happening in the future, because people are going to
Speaker 1: use that, you know, the the BLM. You think that
Speaker 1: the fucking all the big data centers and AI and
Speaker 1: all the all the governments around the world didn't take
Speaker 1: all that data and said, look, all we got to
Speaker 1: do is infiltrate it this way. We put some money
Speaker 1: towards this, We set aside some bricks over here, and
Speaker 1: this is the reaction that we're going to get. Say less.
Speaker 2: Say what you want about MLK. Yes, there's been files
Speaker 2: that have come out about him. Yes, was he a
Speaker 2: d gen Absolutely like and that's the thing. I thought
Speaker 2: that was an understood fact, but apparently the government disclosure
Speaker 2: of that was like earth shattering to some people. But whatever, Okay,
Speaker 2: say what you want about him as a person. Your
Speaker 2: boy understood the power of the optics. That's the thing. Yes,
Speaker 2: on the.
Speaker 1: Surface, he was a stalwarts reverend of his church, and
Speaker 1: he was a pillar of his community. Behind closed doors.
Speaker 2: He was an absolute dejon fine cool, but he understood
Speaker 2: that in the public eye you had to be seen
Speaker 2: a certain way for you to be taken seriously. And
Speaker 2: he knew that for the micro for himself and the
Speaker 2: macro for his movement. He knew that if one of
Speaker 2: these peaceful marches would have turned into burning and looting
Speaker 2: in all these things, civil rights would never get past
Speaker 2: because the optics are what the people are going to
Speaker 2: see when it's all said and done. The optics of
Speaker 2: the civil rights movement are police officers sicking German shepherds
Speaker 2: and fire hoses on peaceful marchers. It's not cops beating
Speaker 2: the shit out of looters and rioters. You see what
Speaker 2: I'm saying. Now, cut to the BLM movement. You have
Speaker 2: cops that have been decapitated or I should say crippled
Speaker 2: by their authority figure whether it's the chief or the
Speaker 2: mayor or whatever, saying to stand down and let these
Speaker 2: people act whatever way they want to act. And the
Speaker 2: people are the rioters and the mob and all these things.
Speaker 2: And that's the optic. Incapable police officers and rioters that
Speaker 2: have no justice ever coming their way. You see the
Speaker 2: difference of the optics because Perestroika civil rights movement was
Speaker 2: at the beginning of the peristroika deception BLM, it's in
Speaker 2: full fucking swing.
Speaker 1: You see what I'm saying. Yeah, so I was just
Speaker 1: I couldn't remember what her name is. It's Patrice Colors
Speaker 1: wash which it's I mean, the jokes Mansions, the nine
Speaker 1: fucking Mansions, Dude, the jokes kind of right themselves that
Speaker 1: her last name is Colors. But anywow, Yeah, she spent
Speaker 1: twelve million dollars on mansions, on several mansions, including one
Speaker 1: of the mansions that was six million dollars alone, from
Speaker 1: money from funds that were raised from donations, and so yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a lot of misappropriation and uh, not a lot
Speaker 1: of transparency at all. It was. It was a fucking dupe, dude.
Speaker 1: Everybody got c dooped. Everybody that bought a BLMT shirt,
Speaker 1: everybody that changed their profile picture, you fucking bought it.
Speaker 1: Bait and switch. That's what happened, one hundred percent. But
Speaker 1: you see what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: The motives behind the BLM movement and the civil rights movement,
Speaker 2: some could argue, are pretty comparable, right, at least the
Speaker 2: ethos what they wanted to come across. However, one of
Speaker 2: them was influenced by perestroika deception, the other one was not.
Speaker 1: It's not hard to see which one was which, right,
Speaker 1: And so I mean, I would say that BLM is
Speaker 1: just about as dumb as Cony twenty twelve was. Yeah again,
Speaker 1: Cony twenty twelve.
Speaker 2: That was meant to be a good initiative, right, and
Speaker 2: they there was a good ethos behind something that people
Speaker 2: could really sink their teeth into and get behind. Regardless
Speaker 2: of political parties or religious stigmas and socioeconomic class.
Speaker 1: Everybody can agree that child soldiers and child slavery is wrong.
Speaker 1: So we got this one guy we know for sure
Speaker 1: is that the spearhead of all of that in Africa.
Speaker 2: Let's go take this guy out. We need to bring
Speaker 2: awareness to it. We got to do something that is
Speaker 2: a noble, noble cause, well so is BLM. It started
Speaker 2: out that way, same with Coney. It started out as
Speaker 2: a noble cause. Nobody went to rioting and all that
Speaker 2: over it. But the people that sold the T shirts
Speaker 2: and shit, all they did was just collect that money
Speaker 2: for themselves.
Speaker 1: And that's it. Connie's still there Cony is still there
Speaker 1: like to this day.
Speaker 2: But anyway, anyway, so my point is though as far
Speaker 2: as Paris Droika, you can see where and how like
Speaker 2: even in our real time today, how some of these
Speaker 2: things are being blasted and promoted and coerced and shifted
Speaker 2: based off of some quote unquote bad actors. The pair
Speaker 2: short cout eception are where these bad actors really came from. Now,
Speaker 2: this is a quick video clip that I got from
Speaker 2: the YouTube's and it's gonna give us a good breakdown
Speaker 2: of the last three decades of just overall the parishtroikad
Speaker 2: deception being real.
Speaker 1: Let's listen.
Speaker 7: In Mikhail Gorbachev's revolutionary policies transformed the Soviet Union. His
Speaker 7: policies permitted the peoples of Russia and the other republics
Speaker 7: to cast aside decades of oppression and establish the foundations
Speaker 7: of freedom.
Speaker 1: Real quick. This is George H. W. Bush.
Speaker 2: Okay, this is a Republican that was spitting the rhetoric
Speaker 2: that Gorbachev's a really good guy. He was literally a
Speaker 2: part of parishroykat deception. Even the Republicans. Just so we're
Speaker 2: all clear here, I am not taking this episode just
Speaker 2: to shit on Democrats.
Speaker 1: It's infected all sides of the political.
Speaker 2: Spectrum, some more than others, for sure, But nobody's hands
Speaker 2: are clean on this.
Speaker 1: I wonder that even according to your boy that wrote
Speaker 1: the book, it's like he was like, it's no surprise
Speaker 1: that the Democrats are in on it, Like it's it's
Speaker 1: not really surprised at all. But what really surprised him
Speaker 1: was that the Republicans were seemingly not doing anything against
Speaker 1: it either. Exactly so proof in the pudding.
Speaker 2: George hw talking about it, and we're going to continue
Speaker 2: into other presidents as well, including Donnie t.
Speaker 1: We're going to get there. Let's go first.
Speaker 7: The United States recognizes and welcomes the emergence of a free, independent,
Speaker 7: and democratic Russia, led by its courageous President Boris Yeltsen.
Speaker 7: Our embassy in Moscow will remain there as our embassy
Speaker 7: to Russia. We will support Russia's assumption of the USSR's
Speaker 7: seat as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
Speaker 7: I look forward to working closely with President Yelsen in
Speaker 7: support of his efforts to bring democratic and market reform
Speaker 7: to Russia.
Speaker 1: It says, behind the mask of diplomatic and political cooperation
Speaker 1: in the partnership with the United States and Europe. The
Speaker 1: current Russian leaders are following the strategy of their predecessors
Speaker 1: and working towards a new world order. When the right
Speaker 1: moment comes, the mask will be dropped and the Russians,
Speaker 1: with Chinese help, will seek to impose their system on
Speaker 1: the West on their own terms. That is from your boy,
Speaker 1: and it totally Gillitsen. Oh look at your boy, Vlad.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, oh yeah, dude, it's that's flat with u. LBJ.
Speaker 1: Like I said, they're going we're going back in time
Speaker 1: into the future. But let's go.
Speaker 2: Is vlad short or was he short? Was he like
Speaker 2: five eight? I've met George W. Bush, who's shaking his
Speaker 2: hand right now. Actually that wasn't LBJ.
Speaker 1: Excuse me. This is a summit that was hailed. That
Speaker 1: was the uh god trying to remember which prime minister
Speaker 1: that was a which country beside the point.
Speaker 2: So I've met George W. Bush and I'm saying, I'm
Speaker 2: seeing him standing next to.
Speaker 1: Vladd he's not tall. For the record, Vladimir Putin is
Speaker 1: uh he's a short stack. That says right here, that says,
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin is officially reported to be five foot seven,
Speaker 1: although some estimates suggest that he could be as short
Speaker 1: as five foot two. Dude, I'm yeah, I'm just saying
Speaker 1: five to seven. No, sir, George W. Look on how
Speaker 1: tall George W. Bush is.
Speaker 2: Just that's're all on the same page here, because your
Speaker 2: boy is standing about six inches taller than Vlad at
Speaker 2: this moment. So the five to seven conversation, that's a
Speaker 2: bold statement.
Speaker 1: But all right, Uh, George Bush is right at six
Speaker 1: feet tall. Right, So your boy Vlad looking like he's
Speaker 1: probably five five five.
Speaker 2: Six maybe, Okay, yeah, that's right. But the imagery right
Speaker 2: shows him being this big dude. He's all swulky. Lease,
Speaker 2: he's riding a bear. He's over here riding a horse
Speaker 2: shirtless and all of these it's it's a Sylvester Stallone situation.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, Sly is short, isn't he? So it's Tom Cruise.
Speaker 2: But yeah, anyway, yeah, all right, so let's continue, and trustworthy.
Speaker 8: I was able to get a sense of his soul.
Speaker 8: I wouldn't have invited him to my ranch if I
Speaker 8: didn't trust him.
Speaker 1: Here's what two decades have failed to personal diplomacy.
Speaker 9: Looks like in the international community since the eleventh of
Speaker 9: September has been remarkable. We have cooperation today that would
Speaker 9: have been really unthinkable just a short time ago.
Speaker 1: Does bunch so about the basis of the very friendly
Speaker 1: cooperation between Russia and Germany, which likely has never been
Speaker 1: as good as it is now.
Speaker 10: Is trust I'm confident that this new level of cooperation
Speaker 10: between NATO's members and Russia, well no change the world
Speaker 10: and far the better.
Speaker 1: By the more cooperation between NATO members and Russia. This
Speaker 1: was only a few years ago, y'all.
Speaker 2: Well, I say a few Yes, we're talking about like
Speaker 2: the early two thousands. But like that's very different from
Speaker 2: what we hear today, isn't it.
Speaker 1: Yeah? Yeah, I mean, if they had such good cooperation,
Speaker 1: why would natos don't need to be around?
Speaker 2: If they had such good cooperation, why is Russia trying
Speaker 2: to kill all the NATO Nazis.
Speaker 1: That are ruling the world. Yeah, strange how that works out,
Speaker 1: It really is. It's almost like it was all according
Speaker 1: to a plan. Let's keep going, he said. I suggest
Speaker 1: that from now on the headquarters of NATO should be
Speaker 1: renamed the Council of the Soviets. That's putin saying that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I hope there's no objections, and he's laughing, but
Speaker 2: everybody else in the room is laughing as well.
Speaker 1: Like, ah, funny the Soviets, Ah, yes, you laugh y'all
Speaker 1: thought he was joking. Y'all thought that the former KGB
Speaker 1: agent in charge of doing some really heinous shit was
Speaker 1: joking with you. But all right, let's continue. Yeah joke,
Speaker 1: Do I trust him?
Speaker 11: Trust?
Speaker 12: Russian heavy guns were firing at Georgian positions. Inside Georgia,
Speaker 12: buildings are burning from the last air strike, and people
Speaker 12: are warning that the Russian Air Force may soon be back.
Speaker 6: I brought with me today a big delegation of British business,
Speaker 6: all with an interest in expanding their trade with Russia.
Speaker 12: We seek a significant and sensible approach to economic development
Speaker 12: across our continent, and to that end will now be
Speaker 12: closely interconnected for decades to come.
Speaker 1: That was from Angela Merkel, by the way, German killery
Speaker 1: by any other account, but moving on is a French
Speaker 1: Prime minister. I found him very well informed of the issues,
Speaker 1: very calm, very intelligent of.
Speaker 13: The extraordinary work that you've done on behalf of the
Speaker 13: Russian people breaking news for Knight armed men sees control
Speaker 13: of two government buildings, as Putin announces he's sending.
Speaker 1: True many if Putin's critics have mysteriously become ill or die.
Speaker 1: Here a vicious political assassination of one of President Vladimir
Speaker 1: Putin's most outspoken foot a new report.
Speaker 14: About Russian interference in the presidential election.
Speaker 1: Next to look at how strong the evidence is that
Speaker 1: points to the Putin government.
Speaker 12: Well not Russian spy is in a critical condition in hospital.
Speaker 5: Investigators suspect the Kremlin could be behind the incident in
Speaker 5: Salisbury on Sunday.
Speaker 15: He says great things about me.
Speaker 7: I'm going to say great things about him, and he's
Speaker 7: been a leader far more than our president has been
Speaker 7: a leader.
Speaker 8: Week wouldn't it be great if we actually got along
Speaker 8: with Russia?
Speaker 1: Am I wrong in saying that? Wouldn't it be great?
Speaker 7: I believe that President Putin really feels, and he feels
Speaker 7: strongly that he did not medal in our election.
Speaker 2: He's not going into Ukraine real quick, real quick. Just
Speaker 2: the last fifteen seconds of that. I believe that Putin
Speaker 2: did not meddle in our election. Cut to what Tulsey
Speaker 2: Gabbert is coming out and saying right now, and the
Speaker 2: whole new Russia Gate scandal showing its connections to Obama.
Speaker 2: But we'll get there later, right, And then Trump is
Speaker 2: saying he's not going into Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Putin is not going to go into the Ukraine.
Speaker 2: As we are looking out bombed at outbuildings in this
Speaker 2: two week special military operation is on year three and
Speaker 2: a half, about to make the lap and become year four.
Speaker 1: But okay, yeah, I always found it interesting that in
Speaker 1: all the movies, especially from like our childhood, it always
Speaker 1: seemed like Russia was always the bad guy. Like in
Speaker 1: every single cartoon and every single movie, and every single
Speaker 1: news talking point all around the board, Russia is always
Speaker 1: the bad guy. Why are they making them out to
Speaker 1: be the bad guy? I believe just by looking over
Speaker 1: this to take attention off of themselves, because they're actually
Speaker 1: working with Russia anyway exactly. And now China is gonna
Speaker 1: become the new bad guy. You're gonna watch this shift happen.
Speaker 2: There's gonna be a new same way with like when
Speaker 2: we were involved in two different wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
Speaker 2: all the big bad guys from a lot of the
Speaker 2: movies that came out just interestingly started to become middle Eastern.
Speaker 2: Interesting how that just kind of randomly shifted, right everybody. Yeah,
Speaker 2: Russia was always kind of seen as the bad guy
Speaker 2: of old kind of thing and still could totally turn
Speaker 2: at any moment, but it wasn't the big talking point.
Speaker 2: The big talking point was people from Latin descent and
Speaker 2: people of Middle Eastern descent.
Speaker 1: Those became the big baddies.
Speaker 2: Right. We are about to see a shift happen right
Speaker 2: now to where Southeast Asian and specifically China is going
Speaker 2: to become the big baddie and a lot of the
Speaker 2: movies in the comic books and the zeitgeist.
Speaker 1: Wow, yeah, it doesn't chock me. I can see that now.
Speaker 2: Staying on this whole Putin thing and talking about this
Speaker 2: deception of like, oh, you know, Russia's turned a new leaf.
Speaker 1: They're not the Soviet Union anymore.
Speaker 2: The KGB is shut down, it's just Russian intelligence these days.
Speaker 2: It's not the same thing. This is a this is
Speaker 2: a clip from miss Stature. Yeah, yes, I understand. Hold
Speaker 2: whatever opinion you want about old Margaret. Okay, I get it,
Speaker 2: I get it.
Speaker 1: But what she talks about and how this validates the
Speaker 1: Perestroika deception is very, very critical let's watch a little
Speaker 1: bit about this.
Speaker 6: No, we have now we have the new mister Putin.
Speaker 7: Uh.
Speaker 6: I looked at the pictures of mister Putin trying to
Speaker 6: look for a trace of humanity.
Speaker 7: I don't know.
Speaker 6: I should within a few weeks have known better, because
Speaker 6: you know what happened. They had the terrible tragedy of
Speaker 6: the submarine.
Speaker 1: Just we're all clear here. The submarine in question.
Speaker 2: Into August the two thousand, the cursed nuclear Submarines sank
Speaker 2: during an exercise caused by a large explosion on board.
Speaker 2: It sank to the seabed one hundred and eight meters.
Speaker 2: The international community offered assistance, which Putin refused. Five days later,
Speaker 2: having achieved nothing with outdated equipment, he allowed British and
Speaker 2: Norwegian crews to try to assist.
Speaker 1: Five days there were dudes.
Speaker 2: Still alive at the bottom of the ocean inside of
Speaker 2: a submarine. But we'll get to the whole talk about
Speaker 2: that here in a moment. But this was far too little,
Speaker 2: too late, and all one hundred and eighteen crew members perished.
Speaker 2: Putin faced widespread criticism for his slow response and perceived indifference.
Speaker 1: We're going to talk about that one a little bit
Speaker 1: more in depth here in a moment, but let's continue.
Speaker 6: Going down straight to the floor. Whether there was an
Speaker 6: explosion inside or not, we don't know, but it was
Speaker 6: very interesting what happened. If ever, there's a calamity in
Speaker 6: the west, the whole of the armed forces will go.
Speaker 6: They'll take everything there immediately. The politicians immediately will get
Speaker 6: together and say what help do we want? They can
Speaker 6: have anything we can give. If we haven't got the help,
Speaker 6: we'll get it from someone else. There would be anxiety
Speaker 6: because what mattered was not the submarine, but the lives
Speaker 6: of those in. And the interesting thing was that the
Speaker 6: new leader of the Soviet Union didn't act quickly. This
Speaker 6: was very soon.
Speaker 2: In the comment, her words, just so we're clear, this
Speaker 2: is year two thousand. Soviet Union collapsed, damn near a
Speaker 2: decade before this. Okay, it's the Russian feder the Russian Republic.
Speaker 2: Now her words, the new leader of the Soviet u Union.
Speaker 2: Was that a slip of the tongue or was that
Speaker 2: actually what she intended to say, Fredian slip?
Speaker 1: Oh sure, sure of course. But keep in mind Soviet
Speaker 1: Russia did not care about their troops or about their people.
Speaker 1: They didn't mind losing a million of them. As long
Speaker 1: as the mission was accomplished. This is supposed to be
Speaker 1: a new Russia, right with a new leader, one for
Speaker 1: the people. All these things former KGB and aw let's
Speaker 1: keep going.
Speaker 6: He didn't try to mobilize everyone else. We didn't know
Speaker 6: whether we could help, but we were all ready to
Speaker 6: go and help and scent some of the small submarines
Speaker 6: that we had just for such an occasion. But that,
Speaker 6: my friends, was very very revealing. Indeed, they still do
Speaker 6: not value human life in the same way that we do.
Speaker 1: And so all the help got there.
Speaker 6: I'm afraid, really rather late, and I'm very relieved in
Speaker 6: one way that mister Putin got so much criticism for
Speaker 6: what he should have done but didn't, And that again
Speaker 6: shows that the Soviet Union and the peoples of the
Speaker 6: Soviet Union are very much aware of what could be done.
Speaker 6: A great deal more could be done than is being
Speaker 6: done at the moment.
Speaker 1: She kept saying Soviet Union.
Speaker 2: Now I understand for the majority of her life Russia
Speaker 2: was the Soviet Union. But at the same time I
Speaker 2: have to agree with her statement. They don't value human
Speaker 2: life the same way we do. Okay, and yeah, we
Speaker 2: can look at the Ukrainian situation as of this moment.
Speaker 2: I want to say their KIA is somewhere around like
Speaker 2: seven hundred thousand, eight hundred thousand right now. Ukraine's is
Speaker 2: somewhere around like three hundred thousand. It's still a lot.
Speaker 2: But Russia by and large is doing meat wall tactics
Speaker 2: like they did during the time of the Soviet Union.
Speaker 2: They don't care. They do not care if people die
Speaker 2: or not. My point is, though, the whole point of
Speaker 2: this conversation, Putin had the opportunity.
Speaker 1: The West was trying to help him.
Speaker 2: Okay, this is everybody's looking at the rebrand of Russia, right,
Speaker 2: everybody's seeing it as the Russian Republic, not the Soviet Union.
Speaker 2: NATO is even having him at meetings and talks, right,
Speaker 2: so they're saying like, we're trying to let Russia turn
Speaker 2: a new leave. We're trying to let them show how
Speaker 2: different they are. He's getting involved with Germany and Britain
Speaker 2: and France and multiple United States presidents.
Speaker 1: He's a new guy. This is a new Russia, this
Speaker 1: is a new era.
Speaker 2: And then the first thing that goes wrong you see that, No,
Speaker 2: it's actually gonna be much much more of the same.
Speaker 2: It's just gonna continue with the whole rebrand thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, and that's the thing. It's like, what would
Speaker 1: you rather, you know, like, what would you rather? Would
Speaker 1: you rather your country? Would you rather understand that you
Speaker 1: are just a digit on a statu sheet and it's
Speaker 1: very out in the open and very loud and very proud,
Speaker 1: and it's Mother Russia first and the people second. Or
Speaker 1: would you rather a country that pretends to care about you,
Speaker 1: pretends that it's for you, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: So it's like neither one of them really care about you.
Speaker 1: It's just that one pretends to care.
Speaker 2: It's the same conversation that you and I have had
Speaker 2: with TikTok a million times. Yeah, I know our government
Speaker 2: is spying on us, and I know that they're not
Speaker 2: a fan of us. I would rather our government spy
Speaker 2: on us than the CCP, Like we know for a
Speaker 2: fact that they don't be given a fuck about their people.
Speaker 2: They literally are ran by the Chinese Communist Party. So yes,
Speaker 2: to your point, I would much rather at least have
Speaker 2: the image of freedom, But I also believe in individual freedom.
Speaker 2: Like you said, with the communist ideals, the culture or
Speaker 2: I'm sorry the people. The overarching of Russia is more
Speaker 2: important than the individual freedoms of one I am very
Speaker 2: much in favor of individual freedoms as a collective to
Speaker 2: make the entirety of a nation, but certain people in
Speaker 2: certain cultures do not feel the same way.
Speaker 1: Communism shits on that ideal, the idea of a democratic
Speaker 1: republic that definitely outweighs the idea of socialism and communism.
Speaker 1: I know, I get the point of what you're trying
Speaker 1: to say. I'm just saying that the idea of a
Speaker 1: democratic republic is more of a dream than compared to
Speaker 1: its actual reality. Yeah, but it wasn't always the case,
Speaker 1: and I would postulate that the peristroikuad deception went a
Speaker 1: long way to turn Americans into statistics and figures to
Speaker 1: the government rather than their constituents and their voters. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that it didn't.
Speaker 2: Predate that, right, Yeah, for I would say even much
Speaker 2: earlier than that, the government kind of saw the people
Speaker 2: as an ends to a means and not like the
Speaker 2: reason for their job. I'm sure that that existed, but
Speaker 2: the perishtroi could deception, especially embedding itself into our political
Speaker 2: figures and zeitgeist to the level that it has since
Speaker 2: the sixties too. Now it's gone a long way to
Speaker 2: make it very much more of there's a club and
Speaker 2: we're not in it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's I would say that it's probably just a
Speaker 1: little bit more obvious now. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So all right, real quick, this is a short about
Speaker 2: the Russian submarine and Cursk that we just heard about,
Speaker 2: just for anybody who has never heard of this situation
Speaker 2: in the year two thousand, the Cursk submarine disaster, Let's
Speaker 2: listen in.
Speaker 16: It was supposed to be a show of force and
Speaker 16: a demonstration of Russia's military capabilities, but something went went
Speaker 16: horribly wrong. On August twelfth, two thousand, around eleven thirty
Speaker 16: am local time. According to the official investigation, one of
Speaker 16: the practice torpedoes that the Cursk was loading had a
Speaker 16: faulty weld in its casing, which leaked high test peroxide
Speaker 16: HTP inside the torpedo tube. HTP is a highly reactive
Speaker 16: substance that can explode when it comes into contact with
Speaker 16: metal or organic matter. But there have been several theories
Speaker 16: about the possible causes, including a collision with a foreign submarine,
Speaker 16: a malfunction in the torpedoes and an accident during a
Speaker 16: mins military exercise. There is no evidence to suggest that
Speaker 16: the United States was involved in the Kerse submarine disaster.
Speaker 16: The Russian Navy has stated that the accident was caused
Speaker 16: by a malfunction in one of the torpedoes, and an
Speaker 16: investigation conducted by the Russian government concluded that the explosion
Speaker 16: was caused by a failure in the torpedoes fuel system.
Speaker 2: Okay, like I said, just the overarching breakdown of that
Speaker 2: submarine explosion, most people of our day and age right
Speaker 2: now have probably not heard of it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm just just a we're all clear. This is
Speaker 1: pre nine to eleven.
Speaker 2: Russia was on a whole different platform, right, They're trying
Speaker 2: to turn a new leaf all these things, Just so
Speaker 2: we're all clear.
Speaker 1: That's what old Thatcher was talking about a moment ago.
Speaker 1: You know, what I find interesting is the absolute lack
Speaker 1: of respect that Russia has for its own people. That
Speaker 1: it is always feeding, you know, its own people, its
Speaker 1: own lies, and its own propaganda. And the people have
Speaker 1: kind of understood over there, probably that they know that
Speaker 1: they're propaganda, as they know that they're being lied to
Speaker 1: all the time, and so it doesn't even matter the
Speaker 1: lies that the government tells to its people, because everybody
Speaker 1: knows that it's just a face, it's a facade, it's
Speaker 1: for geyzy, right, And it almost seems like they've they've
Speaker 1: almost gotten a little bit too laxadaisical and too reliant
Speaker 1: on their own people's distrust of them that they believe
Speaker 1: that they can just fool the rest of the world
Speaker 1: in that same kind of manner that we're gonna feed
Speaker 1: you a bunch of lies, We're gonna feed you a
Speaker 1: bunch of bullshit because hey, our people understand it, like
Speaker 1: we're not gonna give you the actual truth. No matter
Speaker 1: how belligerent and how blatant and obvious the lie actually is,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. Like it's all just surface level bullshit
Speaker 1: that nobody buys anyway.
Speaker 5: Bro.
Speaker 1: That's why if you ever watched the Russian news, like
Speaker 1: Russian State TV is what it's called, because everything in
Speaker 1: Russia is ran by the state even to this day.
Speaker 1: Well they're a republic, not.
Speaker 2: Exactly, but so you can watch how their news anchors
Speaker 2: speak and the rhetoric that they are pumping out their
Speaker 2: most pop show in the nation. You see what these
Speaker 2: people are saying, and it is like the term propaganda.
Speaker 2: I know, we kind of throw that around fast and
Speaker 2: loose from time to time. This is almost dystopian propaganda.
Speaker 2: Keep in mind, one out of every ten houses in
Speaker 2: Russia does not have indoor plumbing.
Speaker 1: But these people want to talk about the Great Russia
Speaker 1: like it is some sort of a monolith and the
Speaker 1: crown jewel on Earth, and how everybody in the West
Speaker 1: is Nazis.
Speaker 2: Everybody in the West is against Russia right now. Meanwhile, like, dude,
Speaker 2: before you invade Ukraine, no one had beef with you, literally,
Speaker 2: no one had beef with you at all. But okay, right,
Speaker 2: everything is controlled by the state, and I think it's
Speaker 2: gone to such a level now to where the people,
Speaker 2: even if they know it's being propagandaized to them, that's
Speaker 2: the only source they have, like they don't have access.
Speaker 1: To and I know somebody in the comments that's not true.
Speaker 1: They could use VPNs bit bit bit y.
Speaker 2: Okay, fine, fine, But to the vast majority of Russian
Speaker 2: people that are not using a VPM, they're only getting
Speaker 2: Russian Internet, They're only getting Russian news and Russian movies.
Speaker 2: They have no idea what the West actually thinks of them.
Speaker 2: It's it's complete propaganda through and through, and I think
Speaker 2: they've gotten to a point to where the majority of
Speaker 2: them believe it. Putin's approval ratings in Russia right now now, granted,
Speaker 2: if we are to believe the polls that are being
Speaker 2: done by Russia about Putin, so okay, his approval ratings
Speaker 2: are still extremely high. They faltered a bit because the
Speaker 2: two week operation is coming up on year four and
Speaker 2: that's not good, But overall, they still like him and
Speaker 2: see him as a very good, capable leader, even though
Speaker 2: they keep sending their sons to die, and even though
Speaker 2: they had two million military aged men flee the country
Speaker 2: when the war kicked off.
Speaker 1: But like, sure, okay, it's.
Speaker 2: Crazy to me, But to your point, yeah, they know
Speaker 2: it's propaganda, but it's also the only source of information
Speaker 2: that most of them have.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's kind of like, you know, what what source
Speaker 1: do you actually believe? You know? Whenever you start talking
Speaker 1: about different polls and excessens and like how much how
Speaker 1: many people are actually believing what the state is telling
Speaker 1: them and stuff like that, it's like I almost wonder,
Speaker 1: not that I even wonder, I'm almost like one hundred
Speaker 1: percent certain that those polls are always rigged in the
Speaker 1: state or the country's favor anyway. So I can't believe
Speaker 1: even any statistics, even whenever we talk about like the
Speaker 1: we brought it up before, about the COVID vaccine, and
Speaker 1: that number is literally always changing, Like whenever you ask
Speaker 1: to see, like what percentage of Americans took at least
Speaker 1: the first vaccine. I remember the last time we read it,
Speaker 1: it was like eighty three or eighty four percent of Americans,
Speaker 1: And I just looked it up right now and it
Speaker 1: says that, uh, seventy eight percent. But even still, it's
Speaker 1: the vast majority, right, And I don't know if I
Speaker 1: necessarily even believe those numbers because I know a lot
Speaker 1: of people that didn't get the first vaccine. Like I
Speaker 1: know more people that didn't get it than did. I
Speaker 1: would think that I know more that they get it
Speaker 1: that didn't.
Speaker 2: But the majority of the people I know that got
Speaker 2: it was because they were at risk of losing their
Speaker 2: jobs if they didn't, right, they were I'm not gonna
Speaker 2: say forced. No one held a gun to their head,
Speaker 2: but I will say that they were not willing to
Speaker 2: take the risks associated with not being able to provide
Speaker 2: for their family unless they could provide that slip of
Speaker 2: paper to their job.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, no, I get it. I'm just saying it's like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, dude. I almost wonder if the Russian
Speaker 1: people might even be a little bit smarter than us,
Speaker 1: because there's a lot of people over here that still
Speaker 1: believe everything in the news, like and don't question it.
Speaker 2: Most of the people in Russia believed the news, dude,
Speaker 2: and they are like still very much in favor of
Speaker 2: the war. There is still very much in favor of Putin.
Speaker 2: It's insanity and there's no There was a few quote
Speaker 2: unquote uprisings that happened recently. They were allegedly peaceful protests
Speaker 2: that were like, you know, an afternoon you know. Never
Speaker 2: mind the fact that your boy Petrosian what was his name,
Speaker 2: Pregosion excuse me, the leader of the Wagner group, who
Speaker 2: was Putin's homeboy, like tight tight friend, tried to throw
Speaker 2: a coup two years ago, got thwarted and then got
Speaker 2: thrown outside of a helicopter.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, I remember.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a thing that just happened, and everybody in
Speaker 2: Russia's like, wait, why would he do that with our
Speaker 2: leader Putin's obviously doing an amazing job, why would anyone
Speaker 2: try to take over?
Speaker 1: It's it's actually kind of mind blowing. But like I said,
Speaker 1: it's all a part of the deception.
Speaker 2: And although Russia may be a republic today, they will
Speaker 2: never get out of the shadow of the.
Speaker 1: Soviet propaganda machine.
Speaker 2: So to circle back to the deception, right, our boy
Speaker 2: Anatotly Golitzki or Glitzen excuse me, wrote this book with
Speaker 2: Christopher's story. Okay, now, this is Christopher's story in an
Speaker 2: interview to talk about the book. This is in two
Speaker 2: thousand and three, after Glitzen died, and we're gonna listen
Speaker 2: to the first ten minutes of this interview where he
Speaker 2: kind of gives the overarching breakdown to the whole shemang,
Speaker 2: let's learn about the Perestroika deception.
Speaker 10: Y'all, Welcome to the McIlhenny Report. I'm Bill mclhanney. On
Speaker 10: this show, we cover current issues of the day, but
Speaker 10: always from a viewpoint or perspective rarely aired by the
Speaker 10: mass media. We hope you'll find it interesting. Since nineteen
Speaker 10: eighty nine, the world has been told that the Soviet
Speaker 10: Union collapsed, and that except for several countries, communism is
Speaker 10: dead and the US won the Cold War. The truth,
Speaker 10: the reality is quite the reverse. Everything we have witnessed
Speaker 10: since nineteen eighty nine has been a massive and successful,
Speaker 10: multi decade long deception strategy on the part of the KGB,
Speaker 10: the Soviet secret police, the goal to deceive the West
Speaker 10: and achieve the goal of Leninist strategy, a totalitarian world
Speaker 10: government or international police state. We know this from the
Speaker 10: evidence provided by Anatolely Galieitsen, the most important defector from
Speaker 10: the KGBB, who came to America in nineteen sixty one.
Speaker 11: In nineteen eighty he wrote.
Speaker 10: A book, New Lives for Old that was published in
Speaker 10: nineteen eighty four, which described the disinformation strategy and made
Speaker 10: specific predictions as to what KGB would do in subsequent years,
Speaker 10: such as removing the Berlin Wall, changing the name of
Speaker 10: the KGB itself and other structures in the Soviet hierarchy,
Speaker 10: and also the role to be played by Mikhail Gorbachev.
Speaker 11: An independent analysis of these.
Speaker 10: Predictions years later showed that over ninety four percent of
Speaker 10: them came true by nineteen ninety one, and since then.
Speaker 10: That's how we know Galitsen was telling the truth and
Speaker 10: quite correct. Our guest today, who first appeared on this
Speaker 10: show in nineteen ninety five, is uniquely qualified to expose
Speaker 10: this conspiratorial strategy. Based in London, he publishes ten newsletters
Speaker 10: and reviews on economic, financial and political intelligence, including Soviet Analyst.
Speaker 10: These invaluable periodicals incorporate the understanding of post nineteen eighty
Speaker 10: nine events provided by Anatoly Galaitsen. He's published Galatsan's second book,
Speaker 10: Peristroika Deception. He's also published Joseph Douglas's Red Cocaine, on
Speaker 10: the Soviet strategy of using drugs to sabotage the West.
Speaker 10: And he's published a very important book, The European Union Collective,
Speaker 10: on the regional world government now in place over both
Speaker 10: Europe and Britain.
Speaker 1: Real quick, I do want to make a mention of
Speaker 1: something here that book about Red Cocaine. Do you remember
Speaker 1: how I said earlier that Russia was.
Speaker 2: Involved in Afghanistan for years and that America trained at
Speaker 2: the Mouzhih Dean to kick them out. Just so we're
Speaker 2: all clear, here's two places on Earth where poppy is
Speaker 2: grown really really really heavily and really well one of
Speaker 2: them would be called the Golden Triangle, which is in
Speaker 2: Southeast Asia, right, Vietnam War, anybody. And the other one
Speaker 2: is in what's called the Golden Crescent, which includes a
Speaker 2: majority of the country of Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: So what the hell is going on with the balloons? Okay?
Speaker 1: So when the Russian communist the Soviets were in Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: do you think they were there to spread Keep in mind,
Speaker 1: Afghanistan is a very tribal, clandestine area.
Speaker 2: They most of them do not know who their current
Speaker 2: president is. Most of them do not know the majority
Speaker 2: of the world politics. They're worried about what's going on
Speaker 2: in their village, with their tribe and their clan. Okay,
Speaker 2: So do you think that the Soviets were in Afghanistan
Speaker 2: to spread communism to a bunch of farmers that couldn't
Speaker 2: give a fuck less? Or do you think that they
Speaker 2: might have been there because there's a lot of poppy
Speaker 2: that grows there which makes really great opium and really
Speaker 2: great heroin.
Speaker 1: With the latter, I would say.
Speaker 2: So, just so we're clear that book. I highly recommend
Speaker 2: that one as well. The Red Cocaine. It's not just
Speaker 2: about coke, although there's a conversation for that one as well,
Speaker 2: little you know, contra conversation, right, Reagan was trying to
Speaker 2: stop the comedies by selling weapons to Nick Rogwins.
Speaker 1: In exchange for coke. And that's the whole thing. It's
Speaker 1: the whole thing.
Speaker 2: Okay, they are the Iranian conjuring conversation. But anyway, we're
Speaker 2: going to continue. I just want to make a mention
Speaker 2: of what that could mean with the how the Soviets
Speaker 2: were using drugs to bring down the West. Meanwhile, most
Speaker 2: drugs are punishable by life in prison in Russia.
Speaker 1: So anyway, moving on.
Speaker 10: I am so happy to welcome back to the McIlhaney
Speaker 10: Report my valuable friend and colleague Christopher's story. So glad
Speaker 10: to have you here, glighted to be here. Now, for
Speaker 10: those people who are just learning about Anatoti Galatson, we
Speaker 10: need to emphasize that the understanding he provided about the
Speaker 10: strategy of which he was a part in the early
Speaker 10: nineteen fifty nine to sixty one period in forming this
Speaker 10: strategy in the KGB hierarchy, this multi decade strategy means
Speaker 10: that nothing really has changed in the Soviet Union and
Speaker 10: the other satellite EA East Block. Communist states that call
Speaker 10: themselves democratic republics. Today, nothing has changed except deception, appearance,
Speaker 10: and propaganda. And let's go over some examples of that.
Speaker 10: Don't We have the same KGB Leaden bureaucracy with different
Speaker 10: names on the doors.
Speaker 17: Absolutely, the KGB remains the same. It's divided itself into
Speaker 17: several parts. But this is by no means the first
Speaker 17: time this has happened, has happened about five or six
Speaker 17: times since nineteen seventeen. But Galitzin's great achievement was to
Speaker 17: make Lenin understandable. Because actually all that Glitzin did in
Speaker 17: his two books New Life, fold In the Parastrikeer Deception
Speaker 17: is to explain Lenin's mind. And these people actually are
Speaker 17: in Lenin's mind. They're out of their own minds, and
Speaker 17: they're in Lenin's mind, which is not a very nice
Speaker 17: place to be.
Speaker 10: Also, the system of some seventeen hundred concentration camps that
Speaker 10: comprise the Soviet Gulag prison house of territory with millions
Speaker 10: and millions of political prisoners. All of those concentration camps
Speaker 10: are still there, but never discussed by the media, which
Speaker 10: since nineteen eighty nine has told us that communism has gone.
Speaker 11: Out of business.
Speaker 17: In a few years ago I was privileged to receive
Speaker 17: a list of these concentration camps from a very reliable source.
Speaker 1: And this list.
Speaker 17: Contained the actual street addresses, I mean, so to speak,
Speaker 17: the locations of these concentration camps. And these included a
Speaker 17: number of new camps which have been set up under
Speaker 17: the so called quote unquote non communist government of Boris Yeltsin,
Speaker 17: which in fact was a continuation by other means, which
Speaker 17: we'll come to now. I published this. When I published
Speaker 17: this in Soviet Anists, I thought, this has got to
Speaker 17: be a really interesting story. I sent it to the
Speaker 17: whole of the Western media that I could think of
Speaker 17: the English speaking world. Not a trace, no response at all. However,
Speaker 17: there have been a number of open references to this
Speaker 17: which have appeared, almost as if by accident, in articles
Speaker 17: in the Guardian and elsewhere, which of course I and
Speaker 17: others collect, And when you put these things together you
Speaker 17: get actually a very interesting picture. There's been no change
Speaker 17: at all.
Speaker 10: Okay, not only has there been no change in the
Speaker 10: Soviet concentration camp system, but in their massive military build up,
Speaker 10: their worldwide espionage activities within Western nations, the subversion in
Speaker 10: sabotage they wage, particularly the area of sabotage called drug trafficking.
Speaker 17: Basically, in nineteen sixty one, the Soviets relaunched or launched
Speaker 17: a long range strategy, which is what Gilitzin talks about
Speaker 17: in his two books. I should say, perhaps that the
Speaker 17: Communist Party of the Soviet Union has had four programs
Speaker 17: since it started, only four party programs. The first was
Speaker 17: nineteen three, the second was after the revolution nineteen seventeen.
Speaker 17: The third party program is that which Gilitzin speaks about
Speaker 17: and writes about in his two books. The third party program.
Speaker 10: Which would be from nineteen sixty one on.
Speaker 17: From nineteen sixty one to nineteen eighty six, when Gorbachev
Speaker 17: Goebchev is sorry eighty five, Gorbachev arrives as general secretary
Speaker 17: in eighty five, and at the twenty seventh Party Congress
Speaker 17: in nineteen eighty six he launches the fourth party program.
Speaker 17: Will come to that in a minute. So and the
Speaker 17: purpose of the long range strategy, which was which was
Speaker 17: actually an ounced by the head of the KGB in
Speaker 17: nineteen fifty nine. They prepared this strategy and then when
Speaker 17: they had worked out how they were going to deceive
Speaker 17: the West, in what has turned out to be the
Speaker 17: biggest deception operation in the history of mankind. To be honest,
Speaker 17: when they worked this out, they convened a conference called
Speaker 17: the eighty one Party Congress, which took place on one
Speaker 17: day on the sixth of December nineteen sixty one, and
Speaker 17: the consisting of eighty one parties from all over the
Speaker 17: world communist parties and the long range strategy was rubber stamped,
Speaker 17: and that was it. And from nineteen sixty one to
Speaker 17: the arrival of Gorbachev was a period when they were
Speaker 17: preparing for the implementation of what Gorbachev subsequently introduced. Now,
Speaker 17: i'd last just like to stay to say here something
Speaker 17: very important, which is sometimes people say, why was there
Speaker 17: such a long period from the introduction of the Third
Speaker 17: Party program to the introduction of the Fourth Party program?
Speaker 17: And the answer to that is extremely interesting. It is
Speaker 17: that in nineteen forty nine or nineteen forty eight, the
Speaker 17: Western Allies agreed with the Soviet Union. I you with
Speaker 17: Stalin that Germany was to be occupied for a period
Speaker 17: of forty years. Forty nine to eighty nine takes you
Speaker 17: to the pulling down of the Berlin Wall and on
Speaker 17: Q quick as a flash, they start pulling down the
Speaker 17: wall at the end of the forty year period, So
Speaker 17: what do they do during this extended period. Now, by
Speaker 17: the way, we don't really know why that forty year
Speaker 17: period was agreed, but it seems to have been an agreement,
Speaker 17: almost a secret agreement. By the way, Secure of State
Speaker 17: Burns byr Nes was responsible for agreeing that that was
Speaker 17: his last that was his most important contribution. As matter
Speaker 17: of fact, that's his main legacy. And we don't really
Speaker 17: know why it was it was agreed that the Germans
Speaker 17: should be occupied for forty years.
Speaker 1: I personally do not know.
Speaker 10: That a third party program from sixty one onward consisted
Speaker 10: of this scheme to promote disinformation about the alleged crumbling
Speaker 10: of monolithic worldwide communist superstructure, alleged rifts and splits between
Speaker 10: the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union in Red China,
Speaker 10: and give the West the impression that communism was fragmenting
Speaker 10: and becoming decentralized.
Speaker 11: At the same time.
Speaker 10: They were waging they were creating and waging an international
Speaker 10: terrorism campaign by creating an international.
Speaker 11: Terror network we'll get back to.
Speaker 10: And they were using drugs and drug trafficking internationally as
Speaker 10: they gained, maintained and gained total control over in national
Speaker 10: drug trafficking as a weapon of sabotage against the West. Yes,
Speaker 10: so these are all strategies along with military build up
Speaker 10: and espionage.
Speaker 17: They are all substrategies, but they're very important planks. I mean, basically,
Speaker 17: there are four main substrategies within the long range strategy,
Speaker 17: apart from the weak look which you've already described. The
Speaker 17: weak look being you know, appeer weak, which is based
Speaker 17: on the ancient Chinese military strategiest Sun t Su, which
Speaker 17: Sun SU's famous book The Art of War was required
Speaker 17: reading and still is in the Soviet military and in
Speaker 17: the East German. We have to know that it was
Speaker 17: required reading in the East German military because we've got
Speaker 17: a copy of the East German translation of Zu which
Speaker 17: appeared in nineteen fifty six, which is highly significant. So
Speaker 17: the substrategies are the global drug offensive, the international terrorism offensive,
Speaker 17: the what I call international criminalism, which is the exploitation
Speaker 17: of organized criminal operations in the interests of strategy.
Speaker 2: Now, going off what he just said, how many movies
Speaker 2: that we've seen that the Russian mafia somehow isn't just
Speaker 2: in Russia anymore.
Speaker 1: That's not just in movies. That's an understanding.
Speaker 2: So the four big strategies they need to make communism
Speaker 2: look weak. They need to export their organized criminal elements
Speaker 2: to the world. Drug trafficking is really really important to
Speaker 2: all this as well. And international terrorist organizations. Now let's
Speaker 2: follow a chain of events here. Iran by and large
Speaker 2: is the largest funder of terrorist organizations as far as
Speaker 2: the Islamic world is concerned on Earth. Who is Iran's
Speaker 2: titus homey Russia? It would in fact be Russia. It's
Speaker 2: crazy how that works out. And again this is a
Speaker 2: part of the long con because Iran or Iran whatever
Speaker 2: you wanna call it, didn't go through its religious revolution
Speaker 2: until the eighties, around the time when the wall fell
Speaker 2: and Boris Yeltsen and all these things, and Gorbachev and
Speaker 2: all that was taking place. That new phase, the fourth
Speaker 2: phase of this deception campaign that was around that time.
Speaker 1: This is all a part of the plan. What are
Speaker 1: your thoughts as of this moment. I I'm like shocked,
Speaker 1: but not shocked at the same time. You know, it's
Speaker 1: kind of like, uh, once once you do so many
Speaker 1: of these types of episodes, your your skin starts, it
Speaker 1: starts to get a little thick to a lot of it,
Speaker 1: because you know, if you're just now getting into conspiracies,
Speaker 1: this kind of shit would absolutely make your head spin.
Speaker 1: But being is that we've been in it for so long,
Speaker 1: it's like nothing surprises me anymore. Bro, It really doesn't.
Speaker 1: Like I've just come to the conclusion that, like people
Speaker 1: are going to manipulate all the time. It's never going away.
Speaker 1: There has never been good guys, there never will be
Speaker 1: good guys. And it's like, so yeah, I'm not shocked
Speaker 1: at all that, and especially you know with Russia and
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union, I mean, let's just
Speaker 1: be real, bro, Like the New World Order is like
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union is baby New World Order? Oh yes,
Speaker 1: oh yes, you know. So the the the idea that
Speaker 1: you would have all of these, you know, the World
Speaker 1: Economic Forum and you know, all those types of things
Speaker 1: as far as the New World Order goes. It's like
Speaker 1: they probably looked at Russia and said, damn, I love
Speaker 1: the way that those people respect their government and don't
Speaker 1: ask any questions. You know, it wasn't just Russia, it
Speaker 1: was communism.
Speaker 2: They love how any country that gets down with communist ideologies.
Speaker 2: These people fall in line. We that is great, we
Speaker 2: need that. How do we mass produce that on the
Speaker 2: global scale to bring about the new World Order?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Yeah, it seems it's so out in the open too.
Speaker 1: It's like the way that this guy is basically prophesizing
Speaker 1: all of it is like, man, this fucking it's it's
Speaker 1: it's a shock that more people don't know about it,
Speaker 1: and it's honestly a shock that we haven't talked about
Speaker 1: it yet. I know, I know.
Speaker 2: Whenever I first discovered this one, I was like, oh wait,
Speaker 2: how deep does this go? And when I found I'm like, oh, yes,
Speaker 2: this is the next episode we will be talking about obviously,
Speaker 2: So real quick, old British do we just heard from
Speaker 2: his name's Christopher's story? Just so everybody understands who this
Speaker 2: guy is, right, we already talked about our boy Galatsen
Speaker 2: or yeah, Galatson and what his background was, former KGB
Speaker 2: and all that. But just so everybody's clear about who
Speaker 2: Christopher's story is, what his background is, and how he
Speaker 2: became an authoritative figure on these things.
Speaker 1: Let's read his bio real quick. It's not long interesting
Speaker 1: how his last name is Story. That's like if our
Speaker 1: last name was Podcast. You know what I mean? Because
Speaker 1: he's a writer. Yeah, yeah, yeah, no doubt so. Christopher's
Speaker 1: Story was a British writer, publisher and government advisor specializing
Speaker 1: in intelligence and economic affairs, who and perhaps best known
Speaker 1: for his collaboration with KGB defector Anatoty Gildson on the
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety five book called The Peristroican Deception. Christopher's Story
Speaker 1: the son of Colonel Henry Harrell Story MC of the
Speaker 1: Cameronians Scottish Rifles, was educated at Eton College and christ Church, Oxford,
Speaker 1: and then worked as an industrial writer in Canada. In
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty three, he formed his own publishing company specializing
Speaker 1: in intelligence, and founded the World Reports Limited that year.
Speaker 1: In nineteen seventy, the Story edited and published International Currency Review,
Speaker 1: which has included the World Bank, the Federal Reserve and
Speaker 1: the Bank of England amongst its subscribers. Story became an
Speaker 1: economic advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and in nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety one, a year after her resignation, he published Soviet
Speaker 1: Analyst book. Due to his continued continued skepticism about Mikhail Gorbachev,
Speaker 1: Perestroika and the official version of events in the Soviet Union.
Speaker 1: Soviet Analyst was a respected journal whose previous editors included
Speaker 1: Robert Conquest and and Tibor Samuli. I don't know how
Speaker 1: to pronounce that one either, so let's just roll with it.
Speaker 1: In May of nineteen ninety two, Story was approached by
Speaker 1: KGB defector Anatolely Gilitzen, who supported stories analysis of the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union and Soviet Analyst. Glitzen handed over this to
Speaker 1: Story his memoranda to the CIA, which Story edited and
Speaker 1: published in nineteen ninety five as The Peristorica Deception. And
Speaker 1: an interview in nineteen ninety five, Story said the purpose
Speaker 1: of Perestroika has been to convince the gullible West that
Speaker 1: communism is dead, that the Soviet Union has collapsed. Story
Speaker 1: said that he agreed with Glitzen that the Sino Soviet
Speaker 1: split was a deception which masked the continuing collaboration between
Speaker 1: the Russians and China, which, again, if we were to
Speaker 1: look today, Putin and g are really tight homies.
Speaker 2: That's kind of the whole thing. They've been homies since
Speaker 2: the end of World War Two. They are still thicker
Speaker 2: than Thieves Today.
Speaker 1: In two thousand and two, Story published The European Union Collective,
Speaker 1: which applied Stories analysis to the European Union. He was
Speaker 1: also critical of the German intelligence establishment, pointing out its
Speaker 1: Nazi origins. Story claimed that former British Prime Minister Edward
Speaker 1: Heath was recruited by Germans before the war and was
Speaker 1: an agent of the secret Nazi strategic Continuum, since exposed
Speaker 1: as the Deutsch oh God Verted dig Gung's dinst or
Speaker 1: the DVD de.
Speaker 2: Chow doc Ow That's where one of the biggest concentration
Speaker 2: camps were at.
Speaker 1: Story claimed that successive European Collective treaties have been routinely
Speaker 1: procured by means of bribery. There that there was a
Speaker 1: corrupt financial incentive for ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon,
Speaker 1: which entered into force in two thousand and nine. Story
Speaker 1: claimed that slush fund money was being paid into offshore
Speaker 1: bank accounts for the top facilitators of the treaty. Story
Speaker 1: wrote about the Wanta crisis, when the controversial CIA operative
Speaker 1: Leo Wanta was involved in a plot to destabilize the
Speaker 1: Soviet economy. In nineteen ninety, Story wrote a series of
Speaker 1: articles posted on his website. His website is now closed
Speaker 1: as in May of twenty twelve. Interesting. Yeah, So, just
Speaker 1: so we're all clear about who Christopher's story was. This
Speaker 1: guy wasn't some half stepper, okay, He was an advisor
Speaker 1: to the British Prime Minister. Then continued to write about
Speaker 1: more and more and more things that he saw that
Speaker 1: were coming to pass, and again have yet to see
Speaker 1: him be wrong on any points. So let's real quick.
Speaker 2: This is a clip from Ronald Reagan talking about socialist Democrats.
Speaker 2: This is around the same time when these phase changes
Speaker 2: were happening.
Speaker 1: Let's listen in.
Speaker 18: Because back in nineteen thirty six, mister Democrat himself, Al Smith,
Speaker 18: a great American, came before for the American people and
Speaker 18: charged that the leadership of his party was taking the
Speaker 18: Party of Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland down the road under
Speaker 18: the banners of Marx, Lennon and Stalin. And he walked
Speaker 18: away from his party, and he never returned till the
Speaker 18: day he died.
Speaker 1: Because to this day, the leadership of.
Speaker 18: That party has been taking that party, that honorable party,
Speaker 18: down the road in the image of the Labor Socialist
Speaker 18: Party of England.
Speaker 1: Agreed one hundred percent. So there was actually a point
Speaker 1: in time where true Democrats stood up and said, no,
Speaker 1: you people are turning this into a socialist party, and
Speaker 1: I'm not going to be a part of it, and
Speaker 1: they walked away. Now, your boy Al was one of
Speaker 1: the biggest talking heads on this, but a lot of
Speaker 1: the other ones fell in line. They saw dollar signs,
Speaker 1: they saw control of their constituents, they saw a new
Speaker 1: forming in, a bringing about of the new world order.
Speaker 1: They just got in where they fit in. By the way,
Speaker 1: totally off topic here, but breaking news. Minneapolis Catholic school shooter.
Speaker 1: Have you heard about that? I've heard of a few
Speaker 1: school shootings. Was that that happen today or a couple
Speaker 1: days ago? I think I'm just real recent. But it
Speaker 1: says that Minneapolis Catholic school shooters sell uf identified as transgender.
Speaker 1: So just shocker, shocker, all right, So be getting back
Speaker 1: to it. Here are the Democrats a communist party?
Speaker 4: Now?
Speaker 2: Listen to any of our good cult members out there
Speaker 2: listening that are of the Democrat variety.
Speaker 1: First of all, good on you for listening to this show,
Speaker 1: even though you're a registered Democrat. Most of them hate us.
Speaker 2: But secondly, again, we are not talking about a social democrat.
Speaker 1: And by that I don't mean socialism.
Speaker 2: I mean like somebody who believes in the liberal ideologies
Speaker 2: that the left claims that they're about. And they may
Speaker 2: be like Joe Rogan has even said multiple times he's
Speaker 2: financially conservative but socially liberal. Okay, we're not talking about
Speaker 2: these types of people. We are talking about the figureheads
Speaker 2: that are pumping all of the fists for you. We
Speaker 2: are Democrats, We are the left with all these screaming
Speaker 2: heads of today.
Speaker 1: Are they actually communist? Let's read in are the party
Speaker 1: or are the Democrats of the Are the Democrats a
Speaker 1: communist party? This is written by Roger Simon, so it
Speaker 1: says this is on a substack. Even though I haven't
Speaker 1: voted for a Democrat in this century, I did many
Speaker 1: times before. I wasn't one of those who called them communists.
Speaker 1: It seemed like overkill, naive, yes, brainwashed to a degree,
Speaker 1: except for those who obviously profited from their power. But commies,
Speaker 1: give me a break. And yet, watching the opening night
Speaker 1: of the Democratic National Convention, I had second thoughts. Who
Speaker 1: were these drones applauding the same empty swill they had
Speaker 1: for years? Almost none of which had anything resembling a
Speaker 1: positive result. Often it was the reverse. But did but
Speaker 1: did that matter not to them? I am, to be clear,
Speaker 1: no particular fan of Republican rhetoric and propaganda, nor am
Speaker 1: I attracted to a party line to party line politics
Speaker 1: of any sort. But this convention seemed on the edge
Speaker 1: of an out of body mass formation psychosis experience, a
Speaker 1: lah I'm Mattias desmet from both audience and speakers that
Speaker 1: eerily approach the atmosphere of Lenny Riefenstall's documentary of the
Speaker 1: nineteen thirty four Nuremberg Rally. Not exactly Communists, but close
Speaker 1: enough in its celebration of group think. I would have
Speaker 1: to honestly agree it doesn't take much to see that.
Speaker 1: But let's keep going the times. They are indeed a
Speaker 1: change in at an almost unfathomable clip. But I am
Speaker 1: I exaggerating maybe, but even the scheduling of speakers at
Speaker 1: the DNC is beginning to resemble the shuffling of faces
Speaker 1: on a politic bureau rostrum, with Presidents Biden and Obama
Speaker 1: being rendered non persons by not speaking until nearly eleven PM.
Speaker 1: Biden is almost literally their bres nev to be propped
Speaker 1: up and then escorted from the scene. But if we were.
Speaker 1: But if we are to ask whether today's Democrats are
Speaker 1: a communist party, we must first define the term communist
Speaker 1: that has become rather different in our era, though no
Speaker 1: less ominous and in my view, potentially more successful globally.
Speaker 1: Communism today is far from what Karl Marx envisioned sitting
Speaker 1: on his Ample Darriere in the library of the British Museum.
Speaker 1: Not that his concept of the future was particularly accurate then.
Speaker 1: He predicted his paradise of quotes, scientific socialism would appear
Speaker 1: first in a modern industrial state like Germany, but not
Speaker 1: that long after his death it began. It began a
Speaker 1: considerably more primitive Russia. Although the Soviet Union became a
Speaker 1: substantial military power, it fell apart economically and quickly became totalitarian,
Speaker 1: largely due to its adherence to Marx's economic theories command
Speaker 1: economies don't work, a message apparently lost on Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: This mistake, Yeah, that was something that she said a
Speaker 1: lot of She was and we talked about that multiple times.
Speaker 1: The whore was literally getting on the microphone and spitting
Speaker 1: pure Marxist rhetoric almost line for line, And it's not
Speaker 1: like she was smart enough to ever read the Communist
Speaker 1: manifest though she was being given this by her aids
Speaker 1: and by her handlers. To read these things, it's a
Speaker 1: whole whole conversation in and of itself, But let's continue.
Speaker 1: This mistake was no longer repeated by communist China once
Speaker 1: Dang shaoping of a cat can be black or white
Speaker 1: as long as it catches mice fame rose to power
Speaker 1: starting in nineteen seventy six. Ironically, two hundred years after
Speaker 1: our revolution. Dang, responsible for the Tianeman maskers, was as
Speaker 1: much a despot in his way as mad as Mao Zedong,
Speaker 1: but did not adhere to Marxism with the uber religious
Speaker 1: fervor of Mao that allowed the chairman to become history's
Speaker 1: greatest mass murderer. More More, dengis Today's China is somewhat different.
Speaker 1: The despotism remains a good deal of Marxist rhetoric is
Speaker 1: employed for show or to keep the masses from getting
Speaker 1: untoward ideas, but communism itself, even more ironically, has evolved
Speaker 1: into the most advanced, autocratic and perverse form of capitalism
Speaker 1: yet devised one party only capitalism you might call it,
Speaker 1: with the obvious benefits of market available exclusively to party members.
Speaker 1: Socialist economics might have its problems, but autocracy can really
Speaker 1: pay off. Here's where it begins. That's kind of the thing,
Speaker 1: right in a pure capitalist society, monopolies are a thing.
Speaker 2: They happen all the time. In America, we have laws
Speaker 2: to bust up monopolies. Now, yes, we can have a
Speaker 2: conversation about how there are new monopolies that are forming
Speaker 2: and they are just curtailing outside of the realm of
Speaker 2: the rules to operate, but it's still monopoly in another form.
Speaker 2: In an autocracy like China where they are the CCP,
Speaker 2: every single business that is owned is also part owned
Speaker 2: by the government. That is a law enforced monopoly, no
Speaker 2: matter which industry you're trying to get involved in.
Speaker 1: Here's where it begins to align with today's Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: which is not so distant in essence from the CCP,
Speaker 1: especially in our inspiration. Sometimes, I think, particularly among their leadership,
Speaker 1: they secretly envy the chi cooms for having it evolved
Speaker 1: a perfect totalitarian system. This could account, along with the
Speaker 1: obvious personal profit that accrued in many quarters for their
Speaker 1: favoritism to China, from Biden to Tim Waltz and a
Speaker 1: host of others. That has also been shared, regrettably by
Speaker 1: a somewhat smaller those significant percentage of Republicans. China is,
Speaker 1: after all the deepest of deep states. Nevertheless, a caveat
Speaker 1: despite the growing similarity between the CCP and the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: It it ill what's up, or it ill behooves. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's correct, Yeah, it ill behooves. Conservatives and Libertarians, including
Speaker 1: their standard bearer mister Trump, simply to call the opposition
Speaker 1: party commis and leave it at that. The only that
Speaker 1: only impresses the choir most Americans, our educational system being
Speaker 1: next to nonexistent, or propaganda propaganda, propagandistic. There we go.
Speaker 1: For the other side, understand little of what communism has become.
Speaker 1: If anything, they think of Stalin or Mao, who are
Speaker 1: long in their graves and have supposedly a and are
Speaker 1: supposedly a thing of the past. This renders the charge irrelevant,
Speaker 1: with communist ideology cleansed and made suitable through the rubric
Speaker 1: equity that promises a mythological equality of outcomes, Just how
Speaker 1: mythological I saw on trips to China and the Soviet
Speaker 1: Union Party officials I met lived like lords, just as
Speaker 1: just as do party elites.
Speaker 12: Here.
Speaker 1: The disparity was even greater in the Soviet system. Few
Speaker 1: in the public have heard of Dang Xiaoping, even though
Speaker 1: he is arguably the most consequential political figure of the
Speaker 1: twentieth century. I few also know of his reforms and
Speaker 1: the system that wrought. Trump and others should take the
Speaker 1: opportunity to explain this transition to America, not just hurl insults.
Speaker 1: This is difficult since the mainstream media themselves, profiting from
Speaker 1: this corrupt system, hired as much as possossible from the
Speaker 1: public as well as from themselves lest they lose power
Speaker 1: that is precious to them. But difficult and actually painstakingly
Speaker 1: as this may be, those concerned with preservation of our
Speaker 1: republic must suck it up and make the greatest effort
Speaker 1: to do this in a short time. Therefore, we must
Speaker 1: be mindful and inform others that during the DNC and
Speaker 1: later in their propaganda, you will see words used in
Speaker 1: an Orwelian matter that are almost always their exact opposites.
Speaker 1: One of those is freedom, which, as Matt Taibi has
Speaker 1: pointed out on his substack, has been rebranded. Another is democracy, which.
Speaker 2: Is true love to throw a lot of rebrandings of
Speaker 2: certain very key buzzwords in our time frame. You've noticed
Speaker 2: this right fascist or nazi. Just nowadays they can call
Speaker 2: you a nazi for just not believing what Obama was doing.
Speaker 1: You're obviously a nazi, a big and no homophobe xenophone
Speaker 1: And it's like wait, wait whoa hey, homophobe means you're
Speaker 1: scared of gay people, like you have a fear of them.
Speaker 1: I don't actually know any homophobes realistically, but sure, yeah, sou.
Speaker 1: We can only guess what a political party, uh, what
Speaker 1: a political party that has just anointed its presidential candidate
Speaker 1: in a matter of weeks without a single vote means
Speaker 1: by that word. In one sense, Jijuping should be impressed.
Speaker 1: That's how they do it. And imitation, as the saying goes,
Speaker 1: is the sincerest form of flattery. But more likely he
Speaker 1: and Vladimir Putin are licking their chops in anticipation of
Speaker 1: dealing with the US administration that is weaker than ever.
Speaker 1: The intelligence report that the Chinese hacked into the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign is therefore not in the latest or not in
Speaker 1: the least surprising. Neither is the number of people at
Speaker 1: this point very real and not just imagined, who wish
Speaker 1: to kill the Republican candidates. This is typical communist behavior.
Speaker 1: As Mao is thought to have ordered the death of
Speaker 1: his competitor Lynn Biao, we also.
Speaker 2: For the record, I am I believe that he absolutely
Speaker 2: ordered the killing of that.
Speaker 1: There are some people that say there's no way he did.
Speaker 2: Obviously, Mao, the most prolific mass murderer of the last century,
Speaker 2: clearly killed his only political opposition. But moving on, just
Speaker 2: as Putin does, oh absolutely, that happens a lot.
Speaker 1: Every time there's an election.
Speaker 2: It's either one of Putin's homeboys that he knows is
Speaker 2: gonna lose and like it's ran to make it look
Speaker 2: like a free and fair election, but in reality, it's
Speaker 2: they know he's not gonna win, they just had to
Speaker 2: put another name on the ballot. Or it's somebody who's
Speaker 2: actually trying to go against him, And wouldn't you know it,
Speaker 2: every time they get arrested, they get killed in some
Speaker 2: crazy accident. It's just it's wild how many of these
Speaker 2: planes go down and how many of these car wrecks
Speaker 2: just happen.
Speaker 1: It's insane. Oh dude, the same thing happened in Mexico.
Speaker 1: What was it like? Thirty seven candidates died on the
Speaker 1: way to election. Yes, the current president of Mexico wasn't
Speaker 1: even on the in the running during the election until
Speaker 1: the final because everyone else that seemed like they might
Speaker 1: have something to run off of was immediately murdered. But okay, interesting,
Speaker 1: so we all know what Stalin did to Trotsky and
Speaker 1: several other members of his politic bureau. Those are only
Speaker 1: the tips of an exceptionally bloody iceberg that floats through
Speaker 1: every communist state from Cuba to North Korea. We are
Speaker 1: not there yet, except for a strange character in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: The media seems to have deep sixed. But could we be?
Speaker 1: A better question is what country and history is exempt?
Speaker 1: France that had its reign of terror certainly wasn't. Things
Speaker 1: don't look so hot in Europe now or on the
Speaker 1: streets of Chicago. As I mentioned, events are moving at
Speaker 1: an unfathomable clip. Anyone who wants Benjamin Franklin's a republic,
Speaker 1: if you can keep it apocryphal or not, better keep
Speaker 1: their eyes open and act accordingly.
Speaker 2: So again, I'm not saying that every single person who
Speaker 2: votes Democrat is a commy or a communist sympathizer. What
Speaker 2: I am saying is that the vast majority of Democrat
Speaker 2: political figures are one hundred percent. So this is another clip.
Speaker 2: This is actually from the PbD podcast Value Teaman. This
Speaker 2: is a short clip where he's speaking with David Horowitz
Speaker 2: about if all Democrats are actually communists.
Speaker 1: Let's listen in.
Speaker 14: If the Democrats were to have hired you hypothetically, I
Speaker 14: know this is not going to happen. If they were
Speaker 14: to have hired you and say, if the Democrats were
Speaker 14: to have hired you hypothetically, I know this is not
Speaker 14: going to happen. If they were to have hired you
Speaker 14: and said, look, we want one hundred percent accurate answers.
Speaker 12: Here.
Speaker 11: They put you on a light detective test and.
Speaker 14: Said, here's the panel of all the candidates that we
Speaker 14: have going up against Trump.
Speaker 1: Who do you think stands the best chance.
Speaker 14: Going up against Trump? Pre you know, when they put
Speaker 14: their candidates up, I'm talking about Buddhachid.
Speaker 5: All these guys, to a man and women, all the
Speaker 5: leaders of the Democrat Party are communists, They're racists, and
Speaker 5: they have no respect for American principles. You can't declare
Speaker 5: a resistance to a duly elected president and not be
Speaker 5: an enemy of this country. Our whole democracy is based
Speaker 5: on the peaceful transition of power. That's why we have
Speaker 5: honeymoons for incoming presidents. Barack Obama, who is an extreme leftist,
Speaker 5: got a honeymoon that lasted more than a year. Trump
Speaker 5: didn't get seven seconds. They men at a hotel at
Speaker 5: the Mandarin Oriental. This is all of my book Blitz,
Speaker 5: by the way, at the Mandarin Oriental in Washington. Pelosi
Speaker 5: was there, Elizabeth Warren was there, the communists, the street
Speaker 5: communists who managed Occupy Wall Street, the anti FOP people,
Speaker 5: they were all there, and they formed a resistance to
Speaker 5: au elected president. The last time that happened was in
Speaker 5: eighteen sixty one, Lincoln was elected. Then they conducted this
Speaker 5: phony impeachment process for three years, knowing from the outset
Speaker 5: that it was based on lies, that there was no evidence.
Speaker 5: Imagine imagine accusing the president of the United States of
Speaker 5: being a trader, of being in Putin's pocket, of Putin
Speaker 5: having something over his head, which Nancy Pelosi is doing
Speaker 5: this day to run him. You want to hurt the
Speaker 5: American people. That's what you do to their commander in
Speaker 5: chief if you are an enemy. You know, if the
Speaker 5: Mullahs had a psychological warfare unit, that's what they would
Speaker 5: be doing. Is they are doing. Unnoubtedly are one of
Speaker 5: them who's been nominated or is mentioned as a lead
Speaker 5: was the head of the Black Caucus, Karen Bass. She's
Speaker 5: a communist. She's was a leader of the Vents Brigades,
Speaker 5: which was run by Cuban intelligence for decades. That's the
Speaker 5: kind of people that they have. All that said, I
Speaker 5: think that he would be stupid not to pick Susan
Speaker 5: Rice is a pathological liar who lied about the Benghazi Berry. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So again, we're not saying that everybody who's voting Democrat
Speaker 2: is inherently Kami or even a commedy sympathizer. I'm saying
Speaker 2: that the vast majority of politicians that are running on
Speaker 2: the Democrat docket are absolutely a part of it. But again,
Speaker 2: let's not forget that there are Republicans who are part
Speaker 2: of this deception as well.
Speaker 1: But dude, they chose Kamala Harris, Like, say less, I
Speaker 1: mean you want to talk about like is it controlled?
Speaker 1: Is it operated by people who are trying to make
Speaker 1: you believe that a presidential nominee is actually running the country.
Speaker 1: And then you get Biden in there, then you get
Speaker 1: Harris in there, even Obama to a certain extent, who, yes,
Speaker 1: he was a good speaker, but not necessarily a power
Speaker 1: player by any means right, not necessarily going to be
Speaker 1: holding it down for the entire country. Most of these
Speaker 1: people are absolutely political puppets, and it makes you wonder,
Speaker 1: you know, like, are like, is it all a facade?
Speaker 1: Is every president some kind of facade, just a lower
Speaker 1: level puppet to orchestrate the world's the New World Orders agenda.
Speaker 2: I think that Trump wasn't his first term. I think
Speaker 2: that that's why they pushed him so hard. Like he
Speaker 2: had just said, you bore Hortz. So every president gets
Speaker 2: a honeymoon period where the media kind of leaves him alone. Right,
Speaker 2: they don't start shitting on him yet. He just got
Speaker 2: in office, bro, give him a little bit of time
Speaker 2: to cook. Let's see what kind of policies he implements,
Speaker 2: and these types of things. Obama got a honeymoon period
Speaker 2: that was over a year. You didn't even hear news
Speaker 2: talk shit on him.
Speaker 1: They may have voiced some concerns with things that he
Speaker 1: said on the campaign trail, but they didn't go after
Speaker 1: him until after a year of him being in office.
Speaker 2: It wasn't even like he said, seven seconds. We have
Speaker 2: played clips of when Trump took office. How many of
Speaker 2: these democratic you know, news anchors were crying on camera
Speaker 2: and like started the rhetoric and started, this is not.
Speaker 1: A joke, this is not a nightmare. He is really
Speaker 1: the press like he didn't get any time before. They
Speaker 1: were like, no, fuck this guy. And the reason why
Speaker 1: is because, just my opinion, he wasn't a part of
Speaker 1: the political machine at that time. Yeah, he was a funder.
Speaker 1: He knew a lot of politicians, but he wasn't in
Speaker 1: the click, not the political click. He was in the
Speaker 1: financial click for sure.
Speaker 2: But you're stepping into a realm where you don't necessarily belong,
Speaker 2: my boy, and we don't like the way you're gonna
Speaker 2: shake things up. So they immediately started shitting on him.
Speaker 2: I think that he has now turned into a politician.
Speaker 1: Oh bro fucking Rosi O'Donnell moved to Ireland because of it,
Speaker 1: which that's silly.
Speaker 2: I will say that at least I'll give a little
Speaker 2: bit of respect where it's due. So many wealthy Hollywood
Speaker 2: types said that if Trump gets elected there moving out
Speaker 2: of the country. At least Rosie was about that action.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But the thing was is that, you know, one
Speaker 1: of the main reasons why she moved out of the
Speaker 1: country was because Trump was racist. Yet she moves to
Speaker 1: the whitest country probably in the world. Yeah, it was.
Speaker 1: It was a silly, silly reason for her to move.
Speaker 2: But all I'm saying is, at least she was about it,
Speaker 2: and not just she wasn't just gonna talk about it.
Speaker 1: She actually was gonna be about it.
Speaker 2: I will at least give that shred of respect where
Speaker 2: it's due for that. She is still a psychopath, but
Speaker 2: you know, at least she was about that action. But anyway, anyway,
Speaker 2: Betty Robots.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so this all being said, we're talking a lot
Speaker 1: about communism. We're talking about some socialism, especially because AOC
Speaker 1: is now being thrown up as a possible VP candidate
Speaker 1: for the next election. They don't want her to be
Speaker 1: the president because she's not old enough, but they are
Speaker 1: talking about her being a solid choice for the Democratic
Speaker 1: vice president, and she is a very loud and proud socialist,
Speaker 1: which is very close to communism. But real quick, do
Speaker 1: you know the difference between communism and socialism? Just quick?
Speaker 1: I mean, socialism is not a far cry from communism.
Speaker 1: I know that it's not.
Speaker 2: It's still the Marxist belief system, but there are some differences.
Speaker 2: But just because we're going to be talking about both
Speaker 2: of these things, and I think how both of them
Speaker 2: do tie into this deception overall, because like we're talking about,
Speaker 2: it's all about the rebranding, right, It's all about the
Speaker 2: it's all about the optics of it.
Speaker 1: This isn't communism, it's democratic socialism.
Speaker 2: That's not any better, but they're gonna make it look
Speaker 2: like it's better. So let's hear a quick This's just
Speaker 2: a two and a half minute long video about why
Speaker 2: socialism sucks.
Speaker 1: In theory and in practice. I fucking love this.
Speaker 2: People need to just hear this and let it marinate
Speaker 2: in their brains before you go and vote for somebody
Speaker 2: who claims to actually be one of these people.
Speaker 1: Let's listen in.
Speaker 13: Sure, socialism has had its problems, but it's still.
Speaker 11: A great theory.
Speaker 13: Sure socialism has had its problems, but it's still a
Speaker 13: great theory. Well, actually, I think it sucks as a theory.
Speaker 13: Oh damn you, I'm nick fraidus. And this is the
Speaker 13: Why Minutes where we challenge the popular narratives of our time.
Speaker 11: Now, whenever we talk about.
Speaker 13: Socialism, the first thing that we have to do is
Speaker 13: define our terms, because there is a lot of discussion
Speaker 13: about what exactly socialism is. But it's important to point
Speaker 13: out that words have meaning, at least they still do,
Speaker 13: and in order for something to be truly socialist.
Speaker 11: Then it has to incorporate this concept.
Speaker 13: Socialism is a system or condition of society in which
Speaker 13: the means of production are owned.
Speaker 11: And controlled by the state or the people. So what
Speaker 11: the hell does that mean? Well, under socialism, you can
Speaker 11: still own your.
Speaker 13: Toothbrush or a pair of shoes or some other sort
Speaker 13: of good, but you are not permitted to have private
Speaker 13: ownership of the very capital which is needed to produce
Speaker 13: those goods and services. No, those things must be owned
Speaker 13: by either the state or some kind of collective. And
Speaker 13: while we have ample examples of such a theory failing
Speaker 13: miserably when put into practice, there are still a lot
Speaker 13: of people that insist it's a really good theory. And
Speaker 13: maybe that's because there is some comfort in believing that
Speaker 13: if only the right people were in charge, and that
Speaker 13: all of us could agree on a particular course of action,
Speaker 13: then we could focus our collective efforts on making all
Speaker 13: of our lives better.
Speaker 11: The problem is we don't agree.
Speaker 13: And ultimately, any theory which subordinates your individual ideas, creativity,
Speaker 13: or goals to a collective in the name of the
Speaker 13: common good is going to run into a couple of
Speaker 13: serious problems. And that first problem is who gets to
Speaker 13: decide the common good?
Speaker 11: Because you, as an individual, certainly don't.
Speaker 13: The collective decides, which is to say, some sort of
Speaker 13: simple majority, And if you and your ideas are outvoted
Speaker 13: or out maneuvered politically when the time comes to drop
Speaker 13: the next five.
Speaker 11: Year plan, well tough for you.
Speaker 13: The second problem with the system is that it degrades
Speaker 13: our humanity and treats peop people as if we're nothing
Speaker 13: more than producers or consumers.
Speaker 11: Under a socialist system, you're no longer an individual.
Speaker 13: You're simply a cog in the machine that needs to
Speaker 13: be managed sort of specific goal which will be determined
Speaker 13: by someone other than you. And this is why Alexis
Speaker 13: to Tokville warned that socialism calls, in fact, for the
Speaker 13: forfeiture of human liberty, to the point where I would
Speaker 13: say that it was simply a new system of serfdom.
Speaker 11: Now there are those who insist that you actually.
Speaker 13: Don't even need a government to implement real socialism, and
Speaker 13: so they reference anarcosocialism that essentially these communes could work
Speaker 13: through voluntary action. But this has already been tried hundreds
Speaker 13: of times across the United States, and you can find
Speaker 13: out how they turned out by clicking right here. I'm
Speaker 13: Nick Fredous with the y Minutes. Thank you for watching.
Speaker 13: Please like and subscribe so you can get our new.
Speaker 11: Videos every Wednesday.
Speaker 2: Now, real quick, we can watch that video if socialism's
Speaker 2: ever been tried. But the overarching breakdown of it is
Speaker 2: how many of these hippie communes or just communes in general,
Speaker 2: not just hippie, some of them are of the sovereign
Speaker 2: citizen type. And then there was that one in Alabama
Speaker 2: for the UH. I remember we talked about it with
Speaker 2: the the Black Moorish Science Temple and they bought land
Speaker 2: out and was Alabama or Georgia, and they were trying
Speaker 2: to start it in this way and it was gonna
Speaker 2: be a socialist utopia. Every single one of these communities
Speaker 2: that tries to enact some sort of socialist thing, like
Speaker 2: we talked about on the small scale, socialism possibly can work,
Speaker 2: but it just never does, like.
Speaker 1: Never, Jacob, I mean, Chaz was it was really firing
Speaker 1: on all cylinders right right.
Speaker 2: I forgot about the place that was taken over a
Speaker 2: few square blocks. It was ran by a SoundCloud wrapper,
Speaker 2: and there was a lot of rapes and a lot
Speaker 2: of injuries that happened. There was one murder that took
Speaker 2: place specifically that I can remember, and then they got
Speaker 2: mad that they weren't getting medical treatment even though they
Speaker 2: hailed off the ambulance at gunpoint and would not allow
Speaker 2: them to come in.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's that's a thing that happened.
Speaker 2: Right, So again the socialists and communist rhetoric that is
Speaker 2: being spurned on by these people. Let's hear from Obama
Speaker 2: himself when he tells men Medvedev that he will have
Speaker 2: more flexibility after the election. And for the record, this
Speaker 2: was after Trump got elected, so it's not like Obama
Speaker 2: was up for re election at this time. He was saying,
Speaker 2: once I'm out of the hot seat and off of
Speaker 2: the public zeitgeist. I'll have more flexibility to make some
Speaker 2: deals happen with Russia. Let's listen to his words, not mine.
Speaker 19: Transl transl is lead. Dam this is my last selections.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's for my election.
Speaker 14: I have more flexibility trust disfimation.
Speaker 19: To the legion that unless.
Speaker 1: This is my last time in this So once I'm
Speaker 1: all right, I'm sorry. I actually I do a decent
Speaker 1: Obama impersonation. Let me do that. So listen, I have
Speaker 1: a this is my last selection cycle. So once I'm
Speaker 1: out of the office, I'll have more flexibility work with you.
Speaker 2: And then your boy was like, I'll translate this message
Speaker 2: and I'll make sure that he unders by. He he
Speaker 2: means putin he understands. You know, Yeah, gotcha, gotch Yeah.
Speaker 1: I remember this. I remember this. This was super sketchy.
Speaker 1: You got more flexibility once you're out of the house. Dude,
Speaker 1: what does that even mean? I thought you're not supposed
Speaker 1: to have any fucking power at all once you leave.
Speaker 1: It was sketchy then, But now that you know more
Speaker 1: about the Perishtoika deception, does it sound a little sketchy er?
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know how much more sketchy it
Speaker 1: could get.
Speaker 2: I mean, now we know that Russia specifically has put
Speaker 2: in certain political figures into our zeit guys for the
Speaker 2: purpose of spreading communism and by extension, social to take
Speaker 2: over the world in a cultural way instead of a
Speaker 2: military way. And then we see Obama trying to make
Speaker 2: that was a hot mic situation. We weren't supposed to
Speaker 2: hear that, by the way, and we know for sure
Speaker 2: that he is already making backdoor deals with Russia.
Speaker 1: But it was it was Trump CoFe Russian collusion. Well,
Speaker 1: it's interesting that that's what people really truly believed at
Speaker 1: one point in time. Let's hear from a French media
Speaker 1: outlet about Trump's DOJ opening grand jury probe into Obama
Speaker 1: officials over Russia Gate. Let's read in this was only
Speaker 1: dropped a few days ago. The US Justice Justice Department
Speaker 1: on Tuesday launched a grand jury investigation into claims that
Speaker 1: Obama era officials falsified intelligence on Russian election interference, followed
Speaker 1: following allegations by Director of National Intelligence Tulsea Gabbard. Democrats
Speaker 1: have dismissed the probe as politically motivated.
Speaker 2: Of course they would, of course, the Democrats would be like,
Speaker 2: you're just on a witch hunt. You mean, like you
Speaker 2: did to Trump the entire time he was in office
Speaker 2: and found nothing. Y'all are so hell bent on seeing
Speaker 2: him in a jumpsuiting in handcuffs. Never mind the fact
Speaker 2: that the Russia conversation, even back then, all the Russia
Speaker 2: Gates scandal showed was connections to Clinton, who was going
Speaker 2: against Trump.
Speaker 1: Remember we talked about that for forever. Oh well, you
Speaker 1: don't know what you're talking about. Well, here's the proof
Speaker 1: in the pudding. Yeah, all you care about is the
Speaker 1: only thing he cares about is retribution. He only cares
Speaker 1: about retaliation. It's like, maybe if you wouldn't have tried
Speaker 1: to gun after him the entire time that you were
Speaker 1: in office, you wouldn't have to worry about that. That's
Speaker 1: like a bully being scared of being bullied.
Speaker 2: Or if there was no connection to Russia or this
Speaker 2: deception that has been going on since sixty five, and
Speaker 2: you were free and clear of that because you're not
Speaker 2: in cahoots with the plan to take over the world,
Speaker 2: you would have nothing to worry about with this probe.
Speaker 1: US Attorney General Pam Bondi has directed federal p prosecutors
Speaker 1: to launch a grand jury investigation into allegations that members
Speaker 1: of Democratic former president Barack Obama's administration manufactured intelligence on
Speaker 1: Russia's interference in the twenty sixteen elections, a source familiar
Speaker 1: with the matter set on Monday. The Justice Department said
Speaker 1: late last month it was forming a strike force to
Speaker 1: assess claims made by Director of National Intelligence Tulsa Gabbert
Speaker 1: about an alleged weaponization of the US intelligence community. Republican
Speaker 1: US donald President Donald Trump has leaped on comments from
Speaker 1: Gabbard in which she threatened to refer Obama administration officials
Speaker 1: to the Justice Department for prosecution over an intelligence assessment
Speaker 1: of Russian interference. Fox News first reported that Bondi personally
Speaker 1: ordered an unnamed federal prosecutors a prosecutor to initiate legal proceedings,
Speaker 1: and the prosecutors expected to present Department evidence to a
Speaker 1: grand jury, which could consider an indictment if the Justice
Speaker 1: Department pursued a criminal case. The report cited a letter
Speaker 1: from Bondi and a source a DOJ spoke. This person
Speaker 1: declined to comment, referring to the probe, and a post
Speaker 1: on True Social Trump said the truth always wins out.
Speaker 1: This is great News. Yeah, this is actually his truth
Speaker 1: social posts. I mean, it's it's basically that. But it's uh, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's pretty crazy how this is transpired. Last month, Trump
Speaker 1: accused Obama of treason, alleging without providing evidence, that the
Speaker 1: Democratic that the Democrat led an effort to falsify or
Speaker 1: falsely tie him to Russia and undermine his twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: presidential campaign. Trump won the twenty sixteen election against Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: A spokesperson for Obama had denounced Trump's claim, saying, these
Speaker 1: bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.
Speaker 1: Gavin never mind, we just heard from his own mouth
Speaker 1: about his flexibility once the election's over. So he already
Speaker 1: had some underhanded dealings going on. But whatever, all right, Deny, deny, deny,
Speaker 1: that's always.
Speaker 2: Deny, make counter accusations, implement others, shift the blame.
Speaker 1: This is the old, the old standard show, y'all. Gabbard
Speaker 1: had declassified documents and said the information she release showed
Speaker 1: a treasonous conspiracy in twenty sixteen by top Obama officials
Speaker 1: to undermine Trump claims that Democrats called false and politically motivated.
Speaker 1: An assessment by the US Intelligence Community published in January
Speaker 1: of twenty seventeen, concluded that Russia, using social media, disinformation hacking,
Speaker 1: and Russian bot farms, sought to damage Clinton's twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: presidential campaign in Bolster Trump, who won that election. The
Speaker 1: assessment determined the actual impact was likely limited and showed
Speaker 1: no evidence that Moscow's efforts actually changed voting outcomes. Russia
Speaker 1: has denied its attempted its attempt to interfere in US elections.
Speaker 2: So you remember that that was the thing, right hashtagkofethe
Speaker 2: Russian collusion, and it was the whole thing. Trump has
Speaker 2: ties to Putin and he's going to try to take
Speaker 2: over the world with Putin and all these things.
Speaker 1: And it was clearly it was to damage Clinton's standings.
Speaker 2: That was by the intelligence community at the CIA, just
Speaker 2: people quote unquote of the intelligence community in twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1: Yes, these balloons, and that was what they published, even
Speaker 1: though we knew that that was a lie.
Speaker 2: All of the Steele dossier, all the emails that Clinton deleted,
Speaker 2: all these things. Yeah, some of them were about like
Speaker 2: Belizian Grove and some of the other discussing shit that
Speaker 2: she's done.
Speaker 1: A lot of them.
Speaker 2: John McAfee tried to bring to light as a matter
Speaker 2: of fact, were about her ties to Russia. This is
Speaker 2: a portion of the reason why he was killed.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, and unfortunately that kill switch never came to be,
Speaker 1: not even a little bit.
Speaker 2: All right, So we're gonna hear back from our boys
Speaker 2: story here. This is just a little six minute video.
Speaker 2: It's kind of the ending of that. It was like
Speaker 2: an hour and a half long interview. If anybody wants
Speaker 2: to watch it, I highly recommend it. Where he talks
Speaker 2: about the multi decade communist deception and disinformation strategy. He
Speaker 2: breaks it all down very beautifully. Here Again, the man
Speaker 2: is literally an expert on this and wrote the book
Speaker 2: on this with Gletson, So let's listen to the man himself.
Speaker 17: All these countries, so instead of just having the USSR
Speaker 17: and Ukraine and Belo Russia as it up to nineteen ninety,
Speaker 17: we now have sixteen of these republics, so that there
Speaker 17: suddenly we've got sixteen KGB's and we've got sixteen delegations
Speaker 17: in the World Bank and the IMF, so that these
Speaker 17: institutions have now become metamorphosed into instruments of the revolution.
Speaker 17: More clearly than was the case before. That is one
Speaker 17: reason why they are provisionally they were given this curious independence.
Speaker 17: But another very important reason is that with the apparent
Speaker 17: independence of these countries, they opened up scope for independent
Speaker 17: military action, so that the repression which subsequently took place
Speaker 17: in Georgia, Tajikistan, Moldova and in Abkazia could take place,
Speaker 17: The minorities could be suppressed, and Russia could be whiter
Speaker 17: than white. Do you see what I mean? In other words,
Speaker 17: the communist the repression was carried out by apparent non communists.
Speaker 10: Was delegated, was delegated.
Speaker 17: And it was actually in the case of Georgia where
Speaker 17: the most severe repression has been taking place, supervised by
Speaker 17: Shiva Nazi, who the West thought was was not only
Speaker 17: a Christian, but you know, baptized a Christian, but the
Speaker 17: architect at the end of the Cold War. He's known
Speaker 17: as Stalin two in Georgia.
Speaker 19: All right.
Speaker 10: In the early nineteen eighties, Abraham Schiffrin of Israel, an
Speaker 10: expert on Soviet concentration camps, published a guide book to
Speaker 10: these camps, listing over seventeen hundred concentration of camp sites
Speaker 10: in the Soviet Union, with millions of prisoners. Are we
Speaker 10: to believe that all of these suddenly vanished about nineteen
Speaker 10: eighty nine.
Speaker 17: Are we to believe that these people suddenly all of
Speaker 17: a sudden set aside their ideology and suddenly started talking normally?
Speaker 10: Or are the some sixty million members of the Communist
Speaker 10: Party of the Soviet Union did they all stop being
Speaker 10: members of it instantly?
Speaker 17: In the same time, Galitzin makes it quite clear in
Speaker 17: his new book The Parastroke of Deception that the power
Speaker 17: structures depend on the continued adherence to revolutionary objectives of
Speaker 17: the Consomole. There are over fifty million members of Comsomol.
Speaker 17: They work closely with the structures, and so he says
Speaker 17: somewhere in the book, he says, scratch any of these
Speaker 17: so called sudden instant democrats and you will find underneath
Speaker 17: them a Consomol or a secret party member. We all
Speaker 17: these people you see on the television screen in Moscow,
Speaker 17: they are all, without exception, secret party or CONSOMOL members.
Speaker 10: We're going to have to do a second show on
Speaker 10: the content of Perastroic Exception because it covers the period
Speaker 10: of nineteen eighty nine through nineteen ninety three and written
Speaker 10: by elites and actually derived from memorandum he memoranda HE
Speaker 10: prepared for the CIA, which they of course ignored. But
Speaker 10: we hear about free enterprise, a burgeoning of free enterprise
Speaker 10: in the Soviet Union and in the Eastern European countries.
Speaker 10: What is the reality of this, I mean, isn't it?
Speaker 10: Isn't it overwhelmingly controlled and limited in a way that
Speaker 10: makes a mockery of the term free enterprise.
Speaker 17: They themselves call it state controlled capitalism, which is of
Speaker 17: course a contradiction in terms. What has happened is that
Speaker 17: Lenin's original state was a criminal state. The Chekha, the
Speaker 17: Soviet intelligence controlled the mafia, invented the mafia, became the mafia,
Speaker 17: so that what this apparent outbreak of free enterprise we
Speaker 17: see is in fact controlled by the KGB and this
Speaker 17: outbreak of Soviet criminality, and it's controlled, and it's been
Speaker 17: exported on a global scale. Why is it being exported
Speaker 17: in order to It's one of the themes that they
Speaker 17: are developing to create problems which need global solutions. So
Speaker 17: that there's a world criminal crime epidemic, terrorist epidemic. We've
Speaker 17: got to have global structures in order to contain this
Speaker 17: epidemic which they themselves have created.
Speaker 10: Also, the KGP generated criminal activity provides an excuse for
Speaker 10: ever tighter control over whatever window dressing business or free
Speaker 10: enterprise or business or entrepreneurial activity may exist over there.
Speaker 17: Sure, and not only that, but of course you've got
Speaker 17: the drug element as well. It Since the nineteen fifties,
Speaker 17: Soviet Military Intelligence GRU has been in control of drug
Speaker 17: networks all over the world. And the reasonason the GRU
Speaker 17: controls is involved in this is because it's sabotage. You know,
Speaker 17: the narcotics operation is sabotage. Other elements of controlled by
Speaker 17: the KGB.
Speaker 10: Christopher, we're gonna have to continue in our second part
Speaker 10: of this interview. I want to thank you for being
Speaker 10: with us today.
Speaker 1: If you found any of this all right? The audio
Speaker 1: does kind of go to ask towards the end there,
Speaker 1: but again, can you find any faults with what your
Speaker 1: guy is saying here? It seems like pretty haffus. No,
Speaker 1: it's not even like a far stretch. It's like, of course,
Speaker 1: the original Communists and the original Soviets wouldn't have just
Speaker 1: been like, yeah, you know what we lost, So we're
Speaker 1: we're gonna go and do what everybody else is doing. No,
Speaker 1: these people were fucking hardcore about it. It wasn't just
Speaker 1: like a fad thing that people were into. That's like
Speaker 1: asking the original followers of Jesus to stop following Jesus
Speaker 1: and take up Islam. It's like, exactly, you're not gonna
Speaker 1: get that to happen. It's even deeper.
Speaker 2: Well, and I gonna say deeper than that, but like,
Speaker 2: for instance, Jesus only did his ministry for three years,
Speaker 2: right where you could even say it's like somebody who
Speaker 2: lived as a Nazi, not just like a person that
Speaker 2: went along to get along, but like a true believer
Speaker 2: in Nazism. Did they just like stop and change their
Speaker 2: ways when the war ended? Did their Avoy Werner von Braun,
Speaker 2: did he just stop being a Nazi when he got
Speaker 2: to America?
Speaker 1: And keep in mind, Nazism, true Nazism was only around
Speaker 1: for arguably fifteen to twenty years. Well that's not true.
Speaker 1: I'll give you twenty. I'll give you a solid twenty
Speaker 1: on that. But that's my point.
Speaker 2: Communism in Soviet Russia was around from nineteen When you
Speaker 2: say nineteen seventeen to nineteen ninety one, we are talking
Speaker 2: about an entire population of a country that understood nothing
Speaker 2: except communism being the way of the truth in the life.
Speaker 1: Sixty million of them. Boom, Well, Soviet Union's over. Communism's bad.
Speaker 2: We're a free and open republic now, all of you
Speaker 2: need to just get with it. In the seventeen hundred
Speaker 2: gulags a political dissidence and just anybody who they really
Speaker 2: didn't like. These people were set free, new system, new government.
Speaker 2: I know the crime that you said was again stalin,
Speaker 2: but always man, you're free to be clear to get
Speaker 2: out of here.
Speaker 9: Now.
Speaker 1: Do you think they went away?
Speaker 13: No.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, more goologs were built and
Speaker 1: filled since then, and the ones currently are still full
Speaker 1: to this day. Jacob, if all of the women were
Speaker 1: just deleted from the planet, would you just accept to
Speaker 1: being gay for the rest of your life? I can't
Speaker 1: say that I would. Dog can't say that. It was
Speaker 1: basically what they're trying to say here. It's ridiculous.
Speaker 2: You're talking about people who this is not just like
Speaker 2: their identity. This is what they adhere and acknowledge to
Speaker 2: be truth, like true factual information. They've never heard anything
Speaker 2: else ever in their life unless it was from you know,
Speaker 2: those Western.
Speaker 1: Dogs over there those capitalist pigs like that, that's all
Speaker 1: they've been taught. And then flip of a switch, Berlin
Speaker 1: wall is down, Stalin and Gorbachev, all these, it's all
Speaker 1: the things have happened.
Speaker 2: The transition is made. It's a new Russia now allegedly.
Speaker 2: Then Putin takes over and shows us that not so much.
Speaker 2: Never mind the fact that he was former KGB and
Speaker 2: again as true blue of a communist as they come,
Speaker 2: was your boy Putin. Now he's in charge of the
Speaker 2: Russian Republic and it's a new Russia.
Speaker 1: Funny how you said true blue, I just say true red.
Speaker 1: Excuse me, true red? Yeah, well, I'm just thinking of
Speaker 1: the Democrats being socialists and communists. Nah, which leads me
Speaker 1: to my final point.
Speaker 2: This is an AI video, and I understand that it's
Speaker 2: it's meant to be funny, but also you can't find
Speaker 2: any incorrect information that they say about here. If we
Speaker 2: are going to make the true connections to the Republican
Speaker 2: Party and the Democrat Party when it comes to the uh,
Speaker 2: excuse me, when it comes to the prestroikia, I keep
Speaker 2: forgetting how to pronounce the word, actually perishtroika deception when
Speaker 2: it comes to that with these parties. Yes again, I
Speaker 2: know that they have infiltrated the Republican Party two. But
Speaker 2: it's a little more extreme with the Democrat Party. But
Speaker 2: like I asked you earlier, whenever we talk about certain
Speaker 2: social rights issues, and certain tax issues and certain freedom issues,
Speaker 2: everybody thinks the political party swapped it. One time, I
Speaker 2: can prove to you that they haven't, and this AI
Speaker 2: video actually does a pretty decent job of showing it.
Speaker 1: Let's go. The Republican Party, formed in this check in
Speaker 1: eighteen fifty four, is the anti slavery party, but later
Speaker 1: it would be better known as the party of your
Speaker 1: boy on a stage. We freed the slaves and won
Speaker 1: the war. Then I took my wife to a play
Speaker 1: in hopes to get laid after, but a shitty actor
Speaker 1: cock blocked me with a pistol. Republicans dominated the North,
Speaker 1: which was always the industrial hub of the nation, so
Speaker 1: naturally they gained a more free market, get your shit
Speaker 1: together stance. We overwhelmingly supported the nineteenth Amendment allowing women
Speaker 1: to vote. We dominated election until my cousin wrote to
Speaker 1: power on his hot wheels. Then came the Depression.
Speaker 15: People lost trust in markets, so I wheeled in to
Speaker 15: drastically expand communism across the country, and Democrats been hooked
Speaker 15: ever since.
Speaker 1: Then.
Speaker 15: We passed the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four
Speaker 15: to say we're sorry for slavery, but it was actually
Speaker 15: majority Democrats that blocked or filibustered the bill.
Speaker 8: All right, we're all still super pissed and racist about
Speaker 8: this bill, but now.
Speaker 11: We're all going to switch parties.
Speaker 15: So actually Republicans are the evil racist ones.
Speaker 1: Okay, so let me get this straight.
Speaker 11: You're super pissed.
Speaker 15: Republicans overwhelmingly supported the Civil Rights Bill, but you now
Speaker 15: want to be Republicans, correct, But don't forget Republicans now
Speaker 15: want to.
Speaker 1: Be the evil racist party.
Speaker 15: And that's exactly how we'll teach it at universities around
Speaker 15: the country. I hate to break it to you, but
Speaker 15: no matter what your comrade professor told you, the big
Speaker 15: party switch never happened. Democrats still ruled the South until
Speaker 15: the early nineteen nineties. Voters simply changed preferences and the
Speaker 15: South became more economically inclined. You're seeing another switch happen today,
Speaker 15: but it's not the parties, it's just voters.
Speaker 1: The Republican Yeah, that was a great video, Actually, dude,
Speaker 1: I thought it was. I can't look at Teddy Roosevelt
Speaker 1: and not think of Robin Williams anymore. Ah, I see
Speaker 1: it because what was it Night of the Museum. Yeah.
Speaker 2: But everything that was just said in that in that clip,
Speaker 2: if anybody wants to look it up, who actually was
Speaker 2: Which political party was the one that freed the slaves,
Speaker 2: gave women the right to vote, overwhelmingly supported civil rights.
Speaker 2: All of the things that you can think of that
Speaker 2: were inherently good for our country was done by one party.
Speaker 2: But again, FDR on hot wheels right spread communism in
Speaker 2: this country.
Speaker 1: That was the beginning of it. Truly.
Speaker 2: Right after him, you had Eisenhower, who was a general
Speaker 2: in World War Two, very.
Speaker 1: Much anti communist.
Speaker 2: But by that point FDR had sunk his hook so
Speaker 2: deep with these social programs to try to get us
Speaker 2: out of the Great Depression Bear. His answer to that
Speaker 2: was communism. His answer to that was socialism and social
Speaker 2: programs and welfare systems and all these things that were
Speaker 2: just flooding tax dollars into no name projects. The Green
Speaker 2: New Deal, the Big New Bill, all this well, not
Speaker 2: the Green New Deal.
Speaker 1: That was my point is the big new bill, right,
Speaker 1: all these things, the New Deal that he was going
Speaker 1: on and on about was communist in nature, but a
Speaker 1: lot of people of the American voting population didn't really
Speaker 1: know about that at the time.
Speaker 2: Some of them have heard of communism and socialism, but
Speaker 2: it wasn't that wasn't like a big stance to be
Speaker 2: talked about over the dinner table. Only certain people of
Speaker 2: the educated class even had heard of the Communist Manifesto,
Speaker 2: let alone Carl Marx. But this was after Russia had
Speaker 2: had their revolution. They were seeing the communism might work,
Speaker 2: because it's going it seems to be going well in
Speaker 2: Russia right now, never mind the fact that it was
Speaker 2: absolutely the beginning of the end and full on despotism
Speaker 2: had taken over.
Speaker 1: So you had mentioned about how now Trump is also
Speaker 1: a part of this giant plan. Do you believe that
Speaker 1: is there? I mean, is he just is he part
Speaker 1: of it too? Or what's going on there? Again?
Speaker 2: I don't think he was his first term. I think
Speaker 2: that he was the I want to say, the underdog
Speaker 2: by any means, But nobody believed that he was going
Speaker 2: to be taking over as far as that goes, then
Speaker 2: he did.
Speaker 1: And that's just how that shook out.
Speaker 2: I think that at this time especially, Yeah, he's trying
Speaker 2: to end the war, but he's not trying to topple
Speaker 2: Putin right, No, he's trying to bring him to the deal.
Speaker 1: They just had a big meeting in Alaska. That whole shabam.
Speaker 1: It's just it's a sign of the times, brother, it is.
Speaker 1: It is good cult members out there. Let us know
Speaker 1: what you think about all this. I mean, is this
Speaker 1: just conspiratorial crazy jargon? Is you know? Or or are
Speaker 1: the breadcrumbs actually there? And how far back do they extend?
Speaker 1: And how far full to the extend in the future?
Speaker 1: You know, let us know what you think if you want,
Speaker 1: if you could go check us out on TikTok and
Speaker 1: on we have YouTube clips and everything too. Cult of
Speaker 1: Conspiracy Clips. I think it's called cock clips. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Cooc clips don't actually type in cock like with a K. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's cock without the K or the chain of command,
Speaker 1: whatever you want to call it. But we have it
Speaker 1: all over the place. If you're trying to just you
Speaker 1: don't have time to listen to every single episode. We
Speaker 1: have clips of most of the episodes up on TikTok
Speaker 1: on YouTube on Instagram. Go give us a follow over
Speaker 1: there and you'll be able to keep up, you know,
Speaker 1: with your regular one or two minute videos or something
Speaker 1: like that. And also if you want to be able
Speaker 1: to get the shows a couple of days in advance,
Speaker 1: see all the video listen to a completely completely commercial
Speaker 1: free As I said, come check out patreon dot com
Speaker 1: slash Cult of Conspiracy podcast. But other than that, I
Speaker 1: mean Jacob any parting word for you, sir.
Speaker 2: There is another way that you can help support the
Speaker 2: show and support your own financial freedom. That would be
Speaker 2: to go to the link in the description below to
Speaker 2: cocsilver dot com to get your start in the buying
Speaker 2: and selling and trading of gold and silver billion.
Speaker 1: If you want to invest a little bit, you want
Speaker 1: to invest a lot of bit.
Speaker 2: Listen, talk to your financial advisor and ask them what
Speaker 2: they think about it. Is precious metals a wise investment
Speaker 2: for the future. I promise the answer is going to
Speaker 2: be yes, at least in some portion. The best place
Speaker 2: to get your start at this time would be again
Speaker 2: to go to cocsilver dot com.
Speaker 1: Silver is a little bit over thirty six dollars an ounce.
Speaker 2: I think I looked at it today gold is still
Speaker 2: over three thousand dollars an ounce those prices are only
Speaker 2: going to go up forty years from now, fifty years
Speaker 2: from now, maybe even in your children's lifetime, not yours.
Speaker 2: You're gonna be thankful that you took the opportunity to
Speaker 2: buy some while it was still affordable. Once again link
Speaker 2: in the description below. But another way that you can
Speaker 2: support the show, especially with this one. Tell us what
Speaker 2: you think about the prayer stroika.
Speaker 1: Jesus, I'm gonna get this right, parastroika and let us
Speaker 1: know what what parastroka deception? Thank you. Let us know
Speaker 1: what you think about the parastroika deception is this is
Speaker 1: completely off base?
Speaker 2: Is there at least a chromeb of truth to this?
Speaker 2: Is it something that you have been able to witness
Speaker 2: in your own lifetime? I know, I for sure have.
Speaker 2: I know Jonathan has. But we want to hear from
Speaker 2: you in the best place to do that would be
Speaker 2: too Please hit the five stars. Hit the shares of
Speaker 2: like suscribes to comments, they ale, post reviews, shares, sit
Speaker 2: defensive family shares that We're here's the deal.
Speaker 1: The more activity the algorithm is across all of our
Speaker 1: listening platforms, the more we get promoted to more potent
Speaker 1: to listeners who could that become potential COLT members like
Speaker 1: THEIRSTU Fine ladies and gentlemen, Why are you already? Go
Speaker 1: check out Metamisteries Jonathan's other show and getting the same
Speaker 1: level of respect with the five starbs and the positivity
Speaker 1: in the comments. Come check out the caje to Night
Speaker 1: and come join each of us for our individual patreons
Speaker 1: that we host every Wednesdy Night at nine pm Central
Speaker 1: links to those in the descriptions as well, and we
Speaker 1: thank if everybody's already gone and done so, Oh the
Speaker 1: little boy and you came out a little bit on
Speaker 1: that last part, I did a drink, dude. That fucking
Speaker 1: crackle there was not pleasant. Nice. Also, I do want
Speaker 1: to say if you are absolutely fucked big Pharma all
Speaker 1: the way to the grave, then go and check out
Speaker 1: Real Rife Technology dot com. That link is down in
Speaker 1: the show notes below. Use the promo code you'll get
Speaker 1: ten percent off of the Rife Machines. The Rife machines
Speaker 1: are staples in our houses and in our families houses.
Speaker 1: We know that they absolutely work. It is crazy. Don't
Speaker 1: know how it works. You can't see how it works,
Speaker 1: but I can't see how Wi Fi works. I can't
Speaker 1: see how cell towers work, but they just do. You
Speaker 1: know what I'm saying. The real rife technology towers, the
Speaker 1: machines themselves are fucking They are all the way middle Finger,
Speaker 1: all the way up to big Pharma. If you want
Speaker 1: to not have to take in a leave or an
Speaker 1: asperin every time you get a headache, you don't want
Speaker 1: to have to go and lay down because your back
Speaker 1: hurts today. You want to be able to get rid
Speaker 1: of whatever ailment or whether it be mental or physical,
Speaker 1: it really doesn't matter. It helps all across the board
Speaker 1: using natural frequencies that your body was designed to be
Speaker 1: able to be healed with. Okay, these are real, actual,
Speaker 1: like perfect, perfected technologies. So if you want to get
Speaker 1: your Rife machine, go ahead and click the link down below.
Speaker 1: Get ten percent off of that bad boy and put
Speaker 1: it in your house, and you ain't ever got a dude.
Speaker 1: It is. It's it's the best thing you could possibly
Speaker 1: do for your entire family, So go and check it out.
Speaker 1: There's a thirty day money bag guarantee.
Speaker 2: Also, if you cannot tell any effects by I promise
Speaker 2: you'll be able to Within a month of using it
Speaker 2: on a daily basis, you'll be able to see the.
Speaker 1: Effects, I promise you. But if you can't, we should
Speaker 1: also mention there is a thirty day money bag guarantee.
Speaker 1: It works so well you're going to think that it's
Speaker 1: a coincidence that your migrain went away, because you're not
Speaker 1: going to know how it just happened. It just absolutely so.
Speaker 1: With that being said, this why is that another beautiful
Speaker 1: episode of the Cult of Conspiracy? And my name is Jonathan,
Speaker 1: I'm Jake, and there's one very important extreme we final
Speaker 1: piece of information we needed to learn just as soon
Speaker 1: as humanly possible. Hey, cult members, Jacob here just want
Speaker 1: to ask who wants better sex? The best way to
Speaker 1: get started is to go to Adam and eve dot
Speaker 1: com Right now. Adim Eve is offering fifty percent off
Speaker 1: just about any item, but that's not all. When you
Speaker 1: get one item, they will also send three bonus sexy
Speaker 1: items and six free movies. They offered a screet shipping
Speaker 1: as your privacy is a priority. Plus free shipping on
Speaker 1: your entire order doesn't matter how much you spend or
Speaker 1: what you buy. All we packaged and sent discreetly for free.
Speaker 1: That's fifty percent off one item and ten free gifts
Speaker 1: to boot bring more pleasure and satisfaction into your bedroom.
Speaker 1: Just go to Adam and Eve dot com and select
Speaker 1: any one item. It could be an adventurous new toy
Speaker 1: or anything you desire. Just enter the offer code CULT
Speaker 1: at checkout and you'll get fifty percent off almost any item,
Speaker 1: plus ten free gifts, three bonus items, six free movies,
Speaker 1: and free shipping. Use the offer code CULT that's cult
Speaker 1: at Adam and Eve dot com. Now, this is an
Speaker 1: exclusive offer specific to this podcast, so be sure to
Speaker 1: use this code to get you not just the discount
Speaker 1: and the free goodies, but also the one hundred percent
Speaker 1: free shipping with the code CULT