Speaker 1: There is a committee of three hundred men that rule
the world. They are known only to each other, and
nothing happens without their consent.
Speaker 2: That is quite a way to open a conversation. It's
one of those quoits that just.
Speaker 1: Hangs in the air, it really does. It sounds like
something from a movie, you know, the villain's.
Speaker 2: Monologue, right, or like a late night Reddit rabbit hole.
But the source of that quote, that's what's so jari.
It wasn't some anonymous.
Speaker 1: Poster, no, not at all. That was Walter Rathanow exactly.
Speaker 2: And for anyone who doesn't know the name, we need
to be clear about who this guy was. This was
back in nineteen thirty four. Rathannow wasn't just some random commentator.
Speaker 1: Far from it. This man was a German socialist, sure,
but he was also the financial advisor to the Kaiser
and to the Rothschilds.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's the definition of an insider. If there
was a room where it happened to borrow the phrase,
Rathanew was probably arranging the catering. He wasn't speculating. He was,
in his view, describing his colleagues.
Speaker 1: Welcome to thrilling threads. I'm your host, and today we
are well, we're tugging on a thread that, if the
sources are to be believed, could unravel the entire fabric
of our modern world. We're not talking about the usual
political theater.
Speaker 2: It's good to be here, and you're absolutely right. This
isn't about the people you see on cable news. It's
not about presidents or prime ministers. It's about the people
who allegedly put them there.
Speaker 1: Today we're digging into a really fascinating and I have
to say deeply unsettling collection of transcripts and documents. They
all center on the work of one man, doctor.
Speaker 2: John Coleman, and Coleman is a well, he's a very
controversial figure. He dedicated a huge chunk of his life
to exposing what he called a supernational committee, the.
Speaker 1: Committee of three hundred, the very same one Rath no mention,
and the material we're working with today, it's dense. It's
the culmination of what he claims was a twenty five
year investigation.
Speaker 2: So our mission for our time here together is to
unpack that. To try and make sense of this twenty
five year quest, we need to look at who these
people are. Coleman gives them the nickname Bels the Olympians.
Speaker 1: I like that it's very fitting.
Speaker 2: But more than just the who, we need to understand
the how, because the central claim in this material is
that there's a specific structural mechanism designed to and I quote,
crush the middle class.
Speaker 1: That's the part that really got me when we were prepping.
We're so used to conspiracy theories being about you know,
secret handshakes, bookie rituals in the woods, that kind of thing, right,
the occult stuff exactly. But Coleman's work isn't really about that.
He's talking about something so much more mundane, and because
of that, so much more terrifying. He's talking about logistics bureaucracy, Yes,
a parallel government that operates through paperwork and policy, and
he claims it effectively scoops the world's intelligence agencies before
they even know a game is being played.
Speaker 2: That's a perfect way to put it. It's the banality
of absolute control. It's not magic wands, it's monetary policy,
it's not secret incantations, it's trade agreements. And speaking of
intelligence agencies, that's really where Coleman's whole journey begins, right,
Let's start there.
Speaker 1: The Aha moment, because he wasn't always an outsider looking in.
He was an insider. The source material puts him on
the ground serving an Angola correct and you have.
Speaker 2: To put yourself in that time and place to really
get the impact of this. We're talking about the thick
of the Cold War. It's not a Cold war in Africa.
It's a very, very hot one. Proxy wars are everywhere.
Decolonization is happening, and it's messy.
Speaker 1: So he's a field agent, an intelligence officer, believing he's
on one side of a clear conflicts.
Speaker 2: He's a true believer, and because of his position and
his clearance, he gets access to documents that are classified
above top level.
Speaker 1: I've always been fascinated by that phrase, above top level.
It implies the top secret. You know, the stamp you
see in all the spy movies is basically for public consumption.
Speaker 2: Well it's for the lower rungs of the latter anyway.
It's a perfect illustration of compartmentalization. In intelligence. Knowledge is power,
and it's distributed on a need to know base. The
agents in the field, the analysts in their cubicles, they
see one piece of the puzzle. They need to believe
the story. They're told to do their job.
Speaker 1: But Coleman got to see the picture on the box.
Speaker 2: He got to see the picture on the box, and
it was a completely different puzzle. See, Coleman went to
Angola believing, truly, with all his heart, that his mission
was to fight the spread of Soviet communism. He was
there to stop the Red menace from taking over Southern Africa.
Speaker 1: He was the good guy holding the line for freedom
and democracy.
Speaker 2: That was the narrative, that was his reality. But then
he reads these documents, the above top level documents, and
they tell a story that is so radically different it's
worldview shattering.
Speaker 1: What did they say?
Speaker 2: They laid out that the actual mission, the real purpose
of the intelligence apparatus he was a part of, was
not to fight socialism, but to introduce socialist regimes into
these newly independent black African countries. Wait what exactly? He
wasn't the shield defending against it, He was the speared
delivering it. He thought he was working for the West
against the East, but he found out he was actually
working for a third party that wanted to install the
very system he thought he was fighting against.
Speaker 1: I can't even imagine that that's a complete psychological break.
It's like finding out you're not the hero of the movie,
You're a pawn for the villain.
Speaker 2: It's the ultimate betrayal. But the key twist here is
who he was working for. It wasn't that he was
secretly a double agent for the KGB.
Speaker 1: No, the documents didn't say property of the Soviet Union,
not at all.
Speaker 2: He discovered he wasn't working for any specific country. He
was working for this committee of three hundred and in
the intelligence circles he was in. The code name for
them was the Olympians.
Speaker 1: The Olympians like the gods on Mount Olympus, just playing
with mortals down below.
Speaker 2: It's a disturbingly fitting name, isn't it. They see themselves
as being above the petty squabbles of nations. They're not
American or British or Russian. They are Olympians. They sit
on the mountain and the rest of us are just
pieces on their global chess board.
Speaker 1: And the foot soldiers agents like Coleman was, they don't
know who's actually moving the pieces.
Speaker 2: They can't know. If you knew the true cynical objective,
you couldn't do the job with conviction. You need to
believe in the cover story, Coleman, through whatever circumstances, got
a look behind the curtain, and once he saw what
was back there, he couldn't unsee it.
Speaker 1: And that's what he claims kicked off this twenty five
year investigation.
Speaker 2: Right now, we have to talk about credibility here, because
this is where these stories either stand up or fall apart.
Anyone can say they saw a secret document.
Speaker 1: Sure, it's easy to make claims proving them.
Speaker 2: As the hard part exactly, but the source material provides
a very specific and I think very compelling piece of
evidence Coleman used to establish his bona fides. It has
to be with an agency called the.
Speaker 1: NRO, the National Reconnaissance Office.
Speaker 2: That's the one. Now I had this part bookmarked because
the timeline is just undeniable. In nineteen eighty six, Coleman
publishes a work I think it was called Mind Control
Metaphysics or something similar. In it, he states very plain
that the NRO is the top us intelligence agency, more
powerful than the CIA, far bigger, far more powerful, far
better funded. He even gives its address. And you have
to remember this is nineteen eighty six.
Speaker 1: So no Google. Most people, even people in government, had
probably never heard of the NRO.
Speaker 2: Nobody had heard of it. It was a black agency.
Its existence was officially denied. If you went to Langley
and asked a CIA director about the NRO, you'd get
a blank stare. It did not exist.
Speaker 1: Okay, So he makes his claim in eighty six.
Speaker 2: Then you fast forward eight years. It's nineteen ninety four.
Sam Donaldson from ABC News comes on television, very serious,
and he announces this huge scoop, one of the biggest
intelligence revelations ever. And what is it.
Speaker 1: He's discovered the National Reconnaissance Office.
Speaker 2: He announces its existence to a shocked world, and Coleman
is presumably sitting at home thinking, yeah, I told you
that eight years ago. I gave you the street address.
Speaker 1: So the point of that story isn't just about the NRO.
It's Coleman's way of saying, I see things before you're
allowed to see them.
Speaker 2: Precisely, it's his proof of concept. If he was right
about this massive secret intelligence agency almost a decade before
the mainstream media even breathed its name, what else might
he be right about. It forces you to take the
rest of his claims, as wild as they sound, a
bit more seriously.
Speaker 1: Okay, so it sets the stage. If he was right
about the NRO, maybe he's right about the Olympians. Let's
dig into them. Who are they? The Committee of three hundred.
Speaker 2: According to Coleman's research, they are a supernational body. That
phrase is key, supernational. It means they exist above the
level of nations.
Speaker 1: They don't have passports.
Speaker 2: I mean they probably do, but they don't feel allegiance
to any flag. The laws of the United States, the
laws of the United Kingdom, they don't apply to them.
In their minds, they are.
Speaker 1: The law and they don't hold office. You can't vote
them out.
Speaker 2: No, that's the whole point. Democracy is the theater for
the masses. They operate the theater from behind the stage.
And Coleman starts to move from this vague idea of
they to naming specific groups. He talks about what he
calls the funding families.
Speaker 1: Funding fondi g. It's an unusual term.
Speaker 2: It refers to the foundational wealth, the originators. He specifically
points to the Italian black nobility. He names families like
the Luccats, the Renatis, the Vulpi, Dumiseratis.
Speaker 1: I have to be honest, I have never heard any
of those names in my life.
Speaker 2: And that is exactly Coleman's point. Ask anyone to name
the richest families in the world, and what do they say.
Speaker 1: Rockefeller, Rothschild, maybe some tech billionaires now like Bezos or Musk,
the Gates.
Speaker 2: Family, right people. On the cover of Forbes magazine, Coleman's
source material claims that these Italian families, these Olympians, makes
someone like David Rockefeller look like a popper.
Speaker 1: That's that is genuinely difficult to comprehend. Rockefeller money built
modern New York City. How can you have wealth that
dwarfs that and nobody knows who you are?
Speaker 2: Well, it's about the nature of the wealth. What we
think of as rich. The Forbes less money. It's very visible.
It's tied to stock prices. It's in publicly traded companies.
We can track it. If Tesla stock goes down, we
see Elon Musk's net worth change in real time.
Speaker 1: It's liquid, it's on paper exactly.
Speaker 2: But this old money, this true dynastic, centuries old wealth,
it's different. It's not in stocks. It's in land, it's
in physical gold held in private vaults. It's in priceless
art that never goes to auction. It's held in a
labyrinth of trusts and foundations so complex that no tax
authority on Earth can unravel it.
Speaker 1: So it's wealth that's become so vast. Yeah, it's basically
part of the planet's infrastructure. It's invisible.
Speaker 2: It doesn't need to be seen. It doesn't scream for attention.
It whispers instructions. And that brings us to this absolutely
bizarre incident with Mikyle Gorbachev.
Speaker 1: Oh, this story is wild. It feels like a glitch
in the matrix.
Speaker 2: It really does. So the scene is this, Mikyle Gorbachev,
former leader of the Soviet Union, a global titan, is
visiting the United States. He's standing there with George H. W.
Bush and Dan Quayle. It's a huge media event.
Speaker 1: He's there to launch his foundation, the Gorbachew Foundation. It's
all about post Cold War peace and cooperation.
Speaker 2: Correct, And he's giving a speech and in the middle
of it he just says it. He says very clearly
that his foundation was established with the approval of the
Committee of three hundred.
Speaker 1: He actually used the name out loud on camera.
Speaker 2: He said the quiet part loud, And according to Coleman,
what happened next is the real story. The event was
being broadcast live on CNN. The second those words, committee
of three hundred left his mouth feed cut away, gun,
just like that, switch to something else. Technical difficulties, you know,
the drill, of course. So Coleman, being the investigator he is,
starts digging. He writes to CNN over and over again.
Can I please have a copy of the transcript of
that speech? They'd reply, yes, it's available, But he never
received it. Every request was stonewalled, ignored, or denied.
Speaker 1: That is that's more damning than the comment itself. In
a way, if it was just a strange, meaningless comment,
why go to such length to scrub it from the record? Right?
Speaker 2: If you'd said, with the approval of my good friends,
nobody would have blinked. But the reaction to the name
itself is what's so telling. It implies a level of
information control that is just staggering. If you can edit
a statement from a world later out of the historical
record in real time, what else can you edit?
Speaker 1: It makes you wonder how much of recorded history is
the first draft versus the approved final cut.
Speaker 2: It's a terrifying thought. So, okay, we have the who
these three hundred Olympians. But like you said, three hundred
people can't personally manage a planet of eight billion. They
need an operating system, They need executive branches.
Speaker 1: They can't be on every city council meeting.
Speaker 2: They don't need to be. They operate from the top down,
and Coleman identifies their primary executive arm the Royal Institute
for International Affairs, usually just called the RIA, which.
Speaker 1: Is base at Chatham House in London. I've heard of
Chathamhouse rules.
Speaker 2: Yes, the rule where you can use the information from
a meeting, but you can't attribute it to any specific person.
Very convenient for having off the record conversations.
Speaker 1: It's a highly respected, very influential foreign policy think tank.
Speaker 2: That's its public face. But Coleman claims it's much much
more than that. He calls it the executive body that
gives instructions directly to the government of the United States.
Speaker 1: Instructions that's a strong word. It's not advice or recommendations.
It's a chain of command. London tells Washington d C.
What to do.
Speaker 2: That is the core of the claim, and to back
it up, he issues a challenge. She says, go and look,
find me one single United States Secretary of State from
nineteen nineteen onwards, who was not appointed through the influence
of the RIAA or its American sister organization, the Council
on Foreign Relations.
Speaker 1: In santeen nineteen.
Speaker 2: That's more than a century, a full century of American
foreign policy. Think of the presidents in that time, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Democrats, Republicans, Hawks, Doves.
Speaker 1: The completely diverse range of ideologies, supposedly Supposedly.
Speaker 2: Woman's argument is that the person actually running foreign policy,
the Secretary of State, is always selected from the same pool,
a pool curated by this London based institute. It makes
the president look less like the chief executive and more
like the branch manager.
Speaker 1: The public face of the company, the one who cuts
the ribbons.
Speaker 2: The packaging, as the source calls it. Coleman makes the
explosive claim that presidents themselves are chosen or manipulated specifically
to ensure they appoint these handlers. He points to Woodrow Wilson, FDR.
And he's particularly brutal about Jimmy Carter.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that part of the transcript was shocking. He claims
Carter was selected by them precisely because he had a
history of mental breakdowns.
Speaker 2: It's a very harsh allegation, but it fits the logic
he's presenting. If your goal is total control, you don't
want a strong willed, independent Maverick. You want someone pliable,
someone who can be managed. The claim is that they
saw Carter's psychological profile as a feature, not a bug.
They saw someone they could easily control.
Speaker 1: So all the debates we have the election, the arguments
over red versus blue. If this is true, we're just
arguing over the color of the curtains in the house
we don't own.
Speaker 2: That is the illusion of choice in a nutshell. The
faces change, the rhetoric changes, but the underlying structure of power,
the advisory bodies, the policy institutes, remains the same. The
ship of state continues on the same course, regardless of
who we think is at the heme Wow.
Speaker 1: Okay, so that's the political arm the riia. But that
can't be the whole picture. To really control society, you
need to control the economy. You need to control how
people live and work.
Speaker 2: And this is where the story takes an even darker turn.
This is where we get to the weapon. According to
Coleman's investigation, The Committee of three hundred gave it directive
to an Italian industrialist named Aurelio picche The.
Speaker 1: Directive was to form what we now know as the
Club of Rome.
Speaker 2: Yes, and on the surface, the Club of Rome presents
itself as this benign global think tank. You know, they're
concerned with humanity's future, overpopulation, pollution, all the big problem.
Speaker 1: Sounds noble enough.
Speaker 2: But Coleman alleges their true secret objective was devastatingly specific,
to systematically dismantle the industrial and agricultural supremacy of the
United States.
Speaker 1: Okay, hold on, why why would you want to do that?
The US was the engine of the global economy after
World War two. Crippling it seems like shooting yourself on
the foot if you're a global oligarch.
Speaker 2: It does until you understand that wealth isn't their primary goal.
Their primary goal is control. A wealthy, prosperous and independent
population is very, very difficult to control.
Speaker 1: So how do they justify this? What was the cover story?
Speaker 2: Overpopulation? The Club of Rome's most famous publication was a
nineteen seventy two report called The Limits to Growth. It
was a sensation. It used computer models to predict global
collapse due to population growth and resource depletions.
Speaker 1: I've heard of it. It basically said, we're all doomed
if we keep growing.
Speaker 2: Exactly, and Coleman calls this the zero growth post industrial plan.
They created a narrative that humanity was a virus and
the earth was dying. And who was the main culprit,
who was consuming the most, producing the most, and having
too many prosperous babies.
Speaker 1: The United States. We were cast as the villain.
Speaker 2: We became the whipping boy for the world's problems. And
the solution they proposed was zero growth, a managed dedevelopment
of the United States.
Speaker 1: Zero growth. That just sounds like a managed death. It
sounds like decay.
Speaker 2: That's what it is. But here's the most important part
of Coleman's analysis. This plan wasn't aimed at America as
some abstract idea. It was aimed at a very specific
segment of the population, a middle class, the American middle class.
And this is really the heart of the whole theory.
We have to ask why why were they the target.
Speaker 1: I was assumed the super rich would want a thriving
middle class to buy all their products and services.
Speaker 2: That's the conventional economic wisdom. But from a power perspective,
from the perspective of a group that wants a feudal
style one world order, the middle class is a massive problem.
Coleman looks at it historically. For most of history you
had a tiny ruling class and a massive poor peasant class.
Speaker 1: And the peasants were easy to control, very easy.
Speaker 2: They lived hand to mouth. They had no savings, no property,
no real power. If they got out of line, the
lords could just starve them out. They had no leverage.
Speaker 1: But the post war American middle class was a completely different.
Speaker 2: Animal, a historical anomaly. For the first time, a huge
swath of the population had long term, stable employment. They
had job security, They owned their own homes, their own cars,
they had pensions, they had disposable income, and crucially, they
were not dependent on the state for their survival. They
were independent, dangerously independent. They were a stumbling block, as
the source puts it, to the idea of a global,
centrally planned society. If you want everyone to be dependent
on a global government for their food, their housing, their income,
you first have to destroy their ability to provide those
things for themselves.
Speaker 1: So you have to take away their good jobs.
Speaker 2: You have to take away the foundation of their independence.
But you can't just send it an army. That's messy
and people fight back, so you use economic warfare. You
attack the industrial base.
Speaker 1: This is where the outsourcing and d industrialization comes in.
The transcript specifically mentions making the US dependent on China.
Speaker 2: Yes, the plan, as Coleman lays it out, was to
systematically hollow out America's manufacturing core. Shut down the steel mills,
the car factories, the textile plants, ship those jobs overseas
where labor is cheap.
Speaker 1: And you replace those high wage, high skill manufacturing jobs with.
Speaker 2: Low wage, insecure service jobs the gig economy. You turn
a nation of producers into a nation of consumers dependent
on foreign supply chains for almost everything they need. You
turn a homeowner into a lifelong renter.
Speaker 1: It's the difference between being the master of your own
destiny and being independent.
Speaker 2: And Coleman's core argument is that this wasn't just some
unfortunate side effect of globalization. It wasn't an accident. It
was intentional sabotage orchestrated by the Club of Rome on
behalf of the Committee of three hundred.
Speaker 1: That's a heavy thought, because when you look around today
you see the results of that everywhere, the anxiety, the
feeling of constantly treading water, the loss of the idea
that your kids will be better off than you are.
We're told that's just economic evolution, but.
Speaker 2: He's arguing it was a planned demolition. And if you
start to see it that way as a deliberate plan,
your own personal struggles start to look very different. It's
not just bad luck. It's that you're living inside a
system designed for you to fail, or at least to
never get ahead.
Speaker 1: There's this one quote in the material from Alexander King,
who was the chairman of the Club of Rome. It
is one of the most chilling things I've ever read.
Speaker 2: I know exactly the one you mean. It feels like
someone accidentally saying the master plan out loud.
Speaker 1: He said, the American people henceforth must get used to
the idea that they will never ever again in their
lifetime have full employment.
Speaker 2: Never ever again. It's not a prediction, it's a declaration.
It's a statement of policy. It's a verdict being handed
down from on high.
Speaker 1: And the most infuriating part is that, according to Coleman,
the US government was an active participant in this. The
very people who were supposed to be protecting American prosperity
were helping to dismantle it.
Speaker 2: Which brings us back to that idea of a parallel government,
a secret upper level government that actually runs the country
while the visible government provides the distraction.
Speaker 1: They don't want you to know they exist because they're
the ones pulling the levers that control your life.
Speaker 2: They dictate the flow of everything. Your wages, the interest
rate on your mortgage, the cost of gas, the stability
of your job. These aren't just market forces. They are
policy decisions made by people you've never heard of and
will never vote for.
Speaker 1: It's power through systems, not through people. It's not a
dictator yelling from a balcony. It's an algorithm adjusting interest rates.
It's a trade policy written in one thousand pages of
legal lease.
Speaker 2: It's all logistics. And look at how the system is
designed to absorb shocks. The super wealthy, the Olympians, they're insulated,
they have their fonding wealth, They can write out any storm.
The very poor are sadly used to hardship. They adapt
because they have to. But the middle class, the middle
class is the crumple zone. I think you use that
analogy earlier, and it's perfect. When the Committee of three
Hundred decides to slam the brakes on the economy with
a zero growth plan, the middle class is the part
of the car designed to be crushed to protect the
passengers in the back.
Speaker 1: We take the impact so they don't have to.
Speaker 2: And the beauty of the system from their perspective is
its efficiency. Once you embed these ideas into the culture
that jobs are temporary, that you'll own nothing and be happy,
people stompfighting it. They accept it as the new normal.
The defeat becomes internalized.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's try to put this all together, because it's
a huge, sprawling picture.
Speaker 2: It really is.
Speaker 1: We start with doctor Coleman in Angola discovering the entire
Cold War narrative he believed was a lie.
Speaker 2: That leads into the Committee of three hundred. The Olympians,
these ultra wealthy, invisible families who operate above the law.
Speaker 1: To execute their political will. They use the Royal Institute
for International Affairs in London to essentially select key US
government officials, ensuring policy continuity no matter who wins an election.
Speaker 2: Then to execute their economic will, they create the Club
of Rome, which.
Speaker 1: Uses the cover story of environmentalism and overpopulation to launch
an economic war against the United.
Speaker 2: States, a war specifically targeting the independence and stability of
the American middle.
Speaker 1: Class, which leads to de industrialization, wage stagnation, and a
shift from a nation of independent producers to a nation
of dependent consumers.
Speaker 2: When you lay it out like that, step by step,
it's well, it's a blueprint. It reframes the last fifty
years of history, not as a series of accidents and crises,
but as a series of calculated decisions.
Speaker 1: It's not a car drifting off the road, It's a
car being deliberately steered towards a specific destination. And the
why of it all is just so chilling. To create
a global society that is easier to manage, easier to control.
Speaker 2: Population that's too indebted, too insecure, and too distracted with
basic survival to ever pose a threat to the ruling class.
Speaker 1: And the efficiency of it is what's truly diabolical. Once
you set the system in motion, it just runs itself.
You don't need a secret meeting every week to plot
the next move. The economic laws and trade policies you
put in place in the seventies. Just keep doing the
work for you year after year.
Speaker 2: The decline feels natural, the loss of the American dream
feels inevitable. But Coleman's entire life's work was to shout
that there is nothing natural or inevitable about it. It
was engineered.
Speaker 1: Which leaves us with a big question. If this theory
is even partially true, where does that leave us today,
sitting here living in this reality they supposedly created.
Speaker 2: Well, it gives us a different lens to look through.
Instead of seeing economic hardship as a personal failure, you
can see it as the result of a system functioning
as designed.
Speaker 1: And if the middle class was targeted specifically because we
were too independent and hard to crush, it's almost a
backhanded compliment.
Speaker 2: It's the ultimate backhanded compliment. It means that our independence
is the one thing they actually fear. The very existence
of a stable, prosperous, self reliant middle class was such
a threat to their long term plans that they had
to spend decades and vast resources to dismantle it.
Speaker 1: That's a powerful way to look at it. Yeah, we
were the stumbling block, and maybe in some ways we
still are.
Speaker 2: We can only be a stumbling block if we understand
the game being played. You can't fight a machine if
you think it's just the weather. Coleman's work, whether you
believe every single detail or not, it forces you to
stop looking at the storm and start looking for the
machine that's making the wind blow.
Speaker 1: It forces you to connect the dots. The NRO prediction,
the Gorbachev incident, the century of Riia, approved secretaries of State.
These are specific, tangible data points that are very difficult
to just dismiss as coincidence.
Speaker 2: They're the threads, and when you pull on them, the
whole picture of the world can change.
Speaker 1: So we want to leave you, our listener, with a
question two really all over, and we want you to
be honest with yourself. Do you feel the structure that
Coleman describes in your daily life, that slow, steady squeezing
of the middle class, that shift away from security and
poors dependence. Does that feel like a deliberate force to you?
Speaker 2: Or do you think this is all just a complicated
way of making sense out of what are essentially chaotic
impersonal economic forces.
Speaker 1: Put simply, is the system broken or is it working
exactly as it was designed?
Speaker 2: Is the pain we feel a bug or is it
a feature of the program.
Speaker 1: Let us know what you think in the comments. We
read them all and we're really curious to hear your
perspective on the Olympians and their alleged plan.
Speaker 2: As always, stay skeptical.
Speaker 1: But stay curious. Thanks for joining us on thrilling Threads.