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