WW1 & 2 and Axis & Marxists a Controlled, Managed Dialectic? Open Debate (Free Half)

Scenarios. What they wanted the power lad in the West, we're already mapped out that Hitler would lose to Stalin was the plan that the Western League had, And that actually backs up with what Quickly said, because Quickly argues that the Western Atlantis power leade wanted to destroy through the two World Wars their main rivals in the twentieth century. So the Anglo American establishment in the First World War destroys the Austra Hungarian Empire as a rival, and then in the Second

World War they destroyed Germany even further. And then in the Cold War it becomes the exhausting and the destruction, destruction of Russia. But also a part of that way that they would destroy Russia or even China was not nearly through external warfare, but also through the exportation of toxic ideologies such as Leninism, Trotskyism, Marxism, Maoism, all exported to those countries as technologies which you can read Bertrand Russell himself, the famed Fabian socialist, in his early thirties

texts talking about how he was so happy that the experiments of Bolshevism and Sovietism were having their sway and when we're succeeding as far as they were at that time. So again, Royal society, British early power structure people absolutely on board with Sovietism with the quote Marxist experiments in the other countries, because according to for example, HD Wells and Huxley people, excuse me, hd Wells and Russell people in the Western power structure, they were lauding this one because

they were experiments and technocratic governance. And they also believed that tiny mustache Man's form of socialism was also an experiment in technocratic governance. But what happened when the Germany lost World War Two was that that plan was discarded, and then the Cold War ensues, and then after the Cold War, now what we're getting is the perfect planned synthesis from what they planned and said they wanted one hundred plus years ago, the same power structure. And I detailed this in

all the books that I lectured through. You can go back to H. G. Wells, to the Milliner Fabian elites, to John Ruskin, to all those characters are rolling in supernational affairs and they've had a long history of promoting all forms of communism, fascism, socialism, capitalism, democracy. They don't care whatever achieves the end goal of the best, and that doesn't have to be the same plan everywhere. They can export a certain ideology to a

certain region. For example, one system of Marxism might work better in one country as opposed to some other country. Maybe fascism would work better in a different country. And this is precisely why David Rockefeller wrote multiple articles in the New York Times praising and supporting Maoism. Why would the most powerful Western capitalist industrialist man right gigantic editorials in New York Times in late seventies talking about how

great Maoism is again, over and over and over. We see that certain people transcend the dialectic. But what everybody who wants to come argue with me says, and my prediction will be that most of these people, maybe some of them are most of them are not familiar with the source text that I've talked about. But I will just simply argue that number one, the source text that I've mentioned talk about what I talk about, not just from conspiracy

there. I only mentioned one conspiracy theorist in this whole talk, doctor Coleman. The rest of them are mainline academic texts which are not foisting some conspiracy but actually just trying to give the perspective of the power structure. That doesn't mean it's true, doesn't mean that when I cite Brazinski, I think Brazinski's a good man and that he's true. I'm siding him as a source for

how the Western power structure views dialectical philosophy. And in fact, Brazinski in many places talks about the Cold War as a mannequean dialectic that results in a technocratic synthesis. That's the whole point of his nineteen seventy between two Eights book. So anyway, we'll open it up to people who want to come on and make their point. I think there was a guy dming me. Let me see if he's on here. He hasn't popped in here yet, So

I'll go to the next guy, American Marks Gotta. I'm what's up? Hey? So I was reading your interaction with pause, right, And I'm not as interested in like the whole Anthony Sutton history as I am with your justification of Like isn't your whole thing about like like it's all Hegelianism or whatever? Right? So my Thinggelianism. No I'm not, no, no, no, no, no, you're not. I'm saying, like you think like Nazism and like communism are the same because they're both Agilian. Right.

Well, I didn't make that argument, but I think that they rely in part on Hegelian philosophy. I was making the point to him that he and I would disagree over what facts and quote history, facts are and that would probably relate to different world views. That's what I was trying to say. So let me read. Okay, So let me read specifically what I wanted to ask you about. So there's no such thing as non theory relating brute facts in common sense that is self evident to appeal to. Aren't you a

proponent of materialism? Sounds like you just argue facts are just fearful. Okay, So what do you mean by this again? I mean, I don't know exactly his account of epistemology or what he's going to say about like what

a fact of history is. So I'm making the point that as a presubsitionalist and as a religious thinker, I interpret the world from my paradigm, from a certain world view, and that means that I'm going to read the facts quote unquote with the world view that I have that incorporates things like spiritual realities and the transcendent God's existence, the church, et cetera. His world view,

as I understand it, is a materialist sort of critical empiricist. That's the Leninist view, right, right, So reality doesn't present to you actual

facts. I was making two different critiques. One is that I don't know what he means by a fact of history, because it might be the Hegelian sense where fact what you mean by fact of history is like pure like empirical like data rather than like okay, first of all, yeah, that First of all, I was saying that because I don't know what he means, he might be subject to the Hegelian notion of history and facts, where history

and facts cannot like you don't know, like there's subjects like the famous Hegelian dictum that if the facts contradict the system, the facts be damned, right, which is yeah, But like he was specifically saying like he wanted to debate like the empirical facts. Yeah, And I am saying that there's not a thing is that doesn't exist. So so then what you're just talking about for the past thirty minutes, because it's a difference between a question of empiricism

and the notion of justification. So if he's a materialist, then he's committed to a certain epistemology and a certain metaphysic and that's going to be our more fundamental contention. That's what I was saying to him. Yeah, but don't facts matter in this regard, like you're trying to prove that the Bolsheviks and the Nazis and and because it's Anthony Sutton, I think he also argues that FDR was funded, which I'm not going to argue that as much, but

yeah, you know, you know. But the point is, have you read have you read quickly? What have you read quickly? He has an old chapter on that. Yes, and no, I'm aware of quickly. You're saying you have read Doctor Pire quickly. I haven't read quickly. I've written sudden, which is like the guy you Okay, right, but quickly. It's more of a source than something. No, I know, but I'm not sure that you do know that. But okay, I know about

him, but I haven't read him. Okay, But I'm just saying he says the same thing about f the R. Yeah, no, I know, but I was thinking. I wasn't making a point about that. The point I was making was that to even makes such a clean don't you have to at least dive into the empirical evidence in facts behind. Yeah, I believe in empirical data, but I'm not an empiricist, and it's very easy to demolish either. With Mark. Mark was not an empiricist, like you

know, just like we're not talking. Hold on, how how is he not an empiricist? Mark? Well, if you want to get into the whole, the whole like early Marks, later Marks thing, early Marx was very into like the whole naturalism of Hegel right, and he wasn't necessarily a full materialist. And actually, if you read Imperial Criticism and Materialism, Lennon explicitly like differentiates between like Marxist materialism and like pure like mocky and as a

pure mocky and like empiricism. Okay, that's fine. I don't have a problem with that, because it's critique that I would give it really pure mocking impure. You're gonna let me finish, like okay, So my critique would apply to any form of materialism or empiricism, I understand. But my point was that pure MOCKI and empiricism like completely removes like ideology as a whole.

From Yeah, I don't from I don't believe that we're like Marxists like like they do print, they print, they place precedence on the material world, but they still like, but like, ideology is still a factor in Marxist materialism. It's not like ideas do exist in Marxist materialism. And there's there's even a term that Marxists used called vulgar materialism, which they often use against each other, right, right, But then I believe that Marxism is a

philosophy of a bunch of contradictions. So I believe that Marx himself, as he evolved, had no problem contradicting himself. And I think if you read rot to his book, for example, there's a whole chapter where he charts

Marx's development and that Marx basically had no problem contradicting himself. So and even Marxists admit this, right, like all who's there talked about early later Mars Right, Okay, yeah, when I so, when I was at undergrad, I was studying under a guy from who has studied under Frankfurt School under

Horror Moss. So one of the things, one of the first things we learned about Marxism and critical theory is that you get this distinction and early and later marx and then there are various strands and schisms schisms of the Marxists. So there's histematic, there's diamat, there's a Frankfurt school and all that. So so I'm aware of these distinctions, but I'm just going to make the point that I really think none of that even matters when it comes to the

strict logical and philosophical argumentation about epistemology and justification of knowledge. So as far as there's something else I wanted to address that you said in this whole talk, and it was about the Fabian society, right, So we were talking about how like the Fabian society, and this is the thing, like like part of what you said was true about like, yes, the Fabians didn't like Hi Melis in particular, didn't Meyer Sellen and didn't Meyer Hitler, but

maybe it wasn't for the reasons that people would like to believe. Like maybe what I see in HD Wells is he's a liberal, right, and he's

committed to liberalism and he's committed to the British system, right. But then he's he's hitler, like dismantle democracy and then like dismantle the bureaucratic state, and like go full on, like we're going to repress anyone who disagrees with us, right, and then he's stolen, like do his stuff, and then he's like, Okay, why can't Western liberalism like adopt the methodology without

adopting the ideology of Nazism or Leninism. That's what I totally disagree, because I think there's a consistent pattern throughout Huls's writings to where he had a front of being a liberal. But when you read what he expects the technocratic plan when it comes about to actually be, it's no different than any of the

other models. I mean, he's a radical proponent of massy population. He says, most of the world's going to have to die for this technocratic government to come in, and so he favors at mass and fantas side abortion, total technocratic control. Most people are gonna have to die. I mean, it's he's not a he's just wearing the cloak of being a liberal, and in my view, the Fabians in Britain were the liberal front for the royal

society elites. And then you had some of the other royal society elites that you know, openly funded and founded and like Hitler, like the Duke of Kent, like you know, the King Edward, Sir Peter Vickers. I mean, there's a bunch of these people that were more so fans of tiny mustache Man. But there was also plenty of people in the Fabian society who definitely preferred the Bolshevik, Troskyi and Soviet models. But I don't believe that

ht Wells, or bertand Russell were actually liberals. I think they had a face of being quote liberal, but believed in a total one dystopian control model. But then how do you explain Carl Popper, who was not related to socialism or the Fabians or Marxism in any way, but he came to almost the exact same conclusions as Popper is mentioned in Anglo American Establishment. If I recall as one of the I can't remember if he says, and I think

he's one of the helpers. So he's one of the outer outer circle elite. So if you look at quickly structure and anglimerical establishment. You have the inner party elite, and then you have the outer party, who are the academic helpers. And so he identifies Popper as one of those outer party helpers who you know, he's a neoliberal. He's the you know, father the open society. I don't again, I don't see open society as antithetical to

Fabianism, because Fabianism is all about adapting. Their whole model is let's work with the fortune one hundred, let's work with the banking elite. And their their argument was because classic Marxism failed, the only way to get this through would be the Fabian adaptation model, or what they call reform Marxism. Yeah, but the point is that Popper he doesn't want he doesn't even claim to be a socialist. He's against socialism and he claims that. But yeah,

but I'm finding that doesn't matter. You can be you can have an ideological difference as to what works the if you agree to the overall plans of For example, I did a video called Ten Commandments of the Elite, and basically all I was doing was just boiling down the ten things that you have to kind of agree on to be in this club. So there's people in the elite power structure, like if you go back to the Council and form relations.

For example, in the Cold War, there were members who want an outright union with Stalin at that time, third Way proponents at that time in the CFAR, but you also had neoliberal, neo conservative people in the CFAR that did not want to do that. So there can be genuine disagreements amongst the game plan without sacrificing identical end goals, which is what they all agree on, but can't. This is my this is what I disagree with. You are right, the Fabians and Popper, like I understand. I agree

that the Fabians and Popper have this relationship and that they are similar. What I disagree with is the connection that people draw between Fabianism and Leninism slash Marxism, because you know, Angles and Lenin and Trotsky like they completely opposed Fabianism, and like the Bolsheviks, their whole orientation was anti Fabianism is about like Fabianism is about, like winning the elites over to like their version of socialism, right, it's not just playing them over, No, No, In

fact, relution that's not true. Beatrice and Sydney Webb wrote glowing letters back and forth with Propskaya and Lenin, so their public statements are whatever works. So it's it's not that they oppose revolution. Therefore whatever works, and they didn't oppose the Bolshviks. I would disagree. I've read stuff by I've read stuff by the Fabians from back then. I'm not talking today's Fabian, says Fabians. But they're eighteen, they're they're the first crop of the Fabians.

And uh no, they wrote openly about how they loved They wrote letters to crow Skyl. But then again, like the Fabians didn't like there were Fabians that did have disagreements like okay, maybe Wells like Slent, but also Hi Wells eventually left the Fabians and like Ahi, Wells was like very different.

Yeah I don't I don't think that. So again, just because people supposedly leave a group, like for example, Russell was only amongst the Fabians I think for like a year and then he's he publicly said I'm not involved in that group anymore. But the ideology doesn't change. So what do he overall wanted and called for? For example, if you read Impact of Science on Society. That one's the later book I think, written in the forties or

fifties. So for example, so if we look at Scientific Outlook, which is like nineteen thirty two, I think, and then you compare that to about twenty years later and Impact of Science on Society, where he's post Fabian society, like the game plan and the philosophy hasn't significantly changed, So it doesn't really matter whether whether they're publicly part of this group or not is really irrelevant to their overall ideology. But I hope you read like the first say

three chapters of Ratiu's book on the history of the Fabians. I think he really shows that the idea that they were opposed to Bolsheviks and revolution is simply not true. But like the Fabians, they first of all, I understand that they like some of the mythodology the Bolsheviks. I guess my question then is what ends do they serve for the British elites, Because clearly at some

point the British elites ended up being sanchily opposed to the Soviets. So I understand wanting to copy the methodology, but anyone would want to copy the Nazi or lenning this methodology if they were power hungry themselves, right, Yeah, I think I think that the power lead in the West. You can look at for example, Reinhard Heydrick. His methodology and approach was borrowed by Kurt Lewin the first the first stages of Tavistock's research to set up the OSS.

So they utilize a lot of SS philosophy when they wanted to perfect the techniques of the Tavistock Institute. That doesn't mean that Kurt Lewin was a Nazi, no more than if the power structure in the UK borrows and adapts elements of Sovietism and communism or communism or whatever, doesn't mean that they adopt the system as a whole. So they're interested in research and development, adopting what works

doesn't mean that they adopt the system as a whole. But Fabianism serves the British, the British elite in a lot of ways to again get the technocratic agenda. And I think the Sovietism as Stalin deviated by not accepting the Marshall Plan aid and the Cold War kicks off. There is a real opposition going on there. I don't believe that it's all fake, But I don't think that in the long run, they really saw the Soviet Empire as a as

much of a threat as they played it up to be. And that's another thing quickly points out, which is that all of that Cold War intelligence whim off too in his book, all that Cold War intelligence stuff that was coming out of the National Security establishment by Keenan and the Containment doctrine, all that that was all hyped up to have the Cold War. So then my question is, how are you using your methodology? How would you explain multipolarity,

how would you explain bricks? And how would you explain modern Russia. That's a really complex question and I don't honestly have the answer to all of that. I mean, I know that Jackie Morgan Chase had a big role in the early stages of Bricks, so I would be suspicious of that. But I also know that the world is complex, and I'm not trying to reduce everything to you know, simple Manichean dialectics or one or two one overwriting con

spiracy. I think that I think the world is more complex than that, So I just try to go by what evidence I've seen and read and that I can put together into a coherent thesis. I think when we're dealing with history, we have to deal with THESS. We don't have, like you know, infallible knowledge of all of these events. I do think that when Putin kicked out a lot of those oligarchs, that he did genuinely anger a lot of the Western establishment, because I think that the looting of Russia in

the nineteen nineties after the Soviet collapse. I think the Yeltsen was a Western asset. He was a CIA guy. I think that he was there on purpose to help the Harvard crew, Larry Summers and others loot Russia that was actually congressionally in kore in the nineties. So that's pretty much pretty much fact. So I think that when Putin came to power, he did legitimately kick

out and oppose a lot of Western corruption that was destroying Russia. But to what degree Russia is is in some way sort of aligned with or compromise in certain ways in the back door with the West, I don't know. I don't have I'm not access or don't have access, or I'm not privy to that. But I do think there's a legitimate war and operation going on on the part of the Western Atlantis establishment to make sure that there could be no

legitimate contenders or rise in terms of their their global designs. So that would include both Russia and China. And I don't think that's mutually exclusive to Russia and China, uh, you know, being in certain ways aligned with and

embed with the West. I think that the nature of the complexities of the modern world necessitate, you know, with payment systems, with the global economy, with pipelines, energy, you know, the dollar, all of these things necessitate to some degree every country having to be involved and connected and compromised. You could say, so there's no totally rogue nation. But I do think that you can have genuine opposition by people who come to power and fall

a foul of the elites. I think to a degree both Hitler and Stalin did go off script, so there was a real opposition at real war. But I still think that from the perspective the atlantisis elites. They think that the end goals are assured, even if on the on the way to the end goal to the winning the game, you know, there might be different

plays that if you think about like a football game. Right, there might be different plays that are run, there might be different strategies, and they might lose this or that, you know, kick off or whatever in the kick in the football match, but they all have the same end goals. So I don't think they're super worried about where it's going. So then you

know the guy you're engaging with. Hawes. His theory about capitalism is that capitalism on a global level end of the nineteen twenty nine, with the introduction at least in the United States, with the introduction of Yeah, basically with the end of the gold standard, was the end of capitalism, right? And what do you think of this? I would agree with Quigley's analysis that

there's different types of capitalism. You know, he gives the faith when he goes through the history in the first say, two or three hundred pages of Trajan Hope, he gives like the history of h I'm trying to think of all the terms he uses, Like he talks about the cartel phase, cartel capitalism, he talks about finance capitalism, and he talks about monopoly capitalism.

And so I think that if by capitalism you mean kind of that classical Enlightenment idea of well he would believe, well, he would believe we just live in socialism today. What he would believe we just live in socialism today, but not socialism in the Leninist sense, but like more in the Fabian sense.

Yea, rich, So what I was saying, what I would say is that what we think of as like austry in school Enlightenment free market las fair economics that went away, Yeah, when when there was no hard currency that you could peg the dollar two or you could argue the federal reserve, and then you could argue also the removal of the gold standard and all that.

So yeah, I would agree with that in terms of what people think of as like quote classic Enlightenment capitalism and free market lasa fair that ended at that time, I would agree with that. I think quickly says that too. And I would agree that what we live in is a kind of a soft socialism, yeah, or a Fabian model. So let me get this

straight. So you agree that we live in the sort of Fabian socialism, right, and you do understand that there are differences between like, yes, even if the JP Morgan or whatever supported or some other or Goleman sects of or mixing them up. But if any of those banks supported the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany or even like the rise of modern Bricks and Russia are China, that at some point they do defeat from the script, right, So

I think, I think, I guess yeah, so I guess. My question is from your worldview, how would people like why do you think people defeat from that script? Well, and there could be all kinds of reasons. I mean, think about Gadaffi or Saddam. I mean both of those, Both of those characters were at various times uh in bed with and allied with the West. You know, for example, Saddam was actually trained by

can you it's really loud in the background. Saddam was trained by the CIA, put in power by the CIA, and then you know, at a certain point when Iraq, you know, stopped going along with what the CIA wanted, then it was time for you know, Saddam to be dealt with.

I think a similar thing happened with Gadaffi, where at times he was tempted to be in bed with the West, at times he opposed, they asked uh, and eventually, you know, he ran a foul of the West, and they said all right, you're you've expired time for you to go. So there could be there could be different motivations for why a person deviates in that way. I mean it could be it could be intelligence compromise,

It could be threats of no longer getting US AID. I mean us AID is a huge way that they, you know, cajole and soft power control these countries. So they might they could say, hey, you don't want to do this, you don't get any more of our USAID aid money. I'm'm talking about USAID, the Humanitarian Front organization, to my US monetary like monetary aid, all of those could be they could align with a rogue

nation quote unquote that doesn't align with the West. I mean, any of those could conceivably be reasons why the you know, the ten put dictator or the tyrant or the you know whoever is taken out. So then what would be your solution to all this, Like do you think those rogue like when those countries go rogue, is that a good thing? Or do you not support that? I think in geopolitics on an international scale, there's not good

guys and bad guys in any kind of like easy sense. So I just I mean, I don't really have any I think the world is super complex and there's I don't have any easy answers as to what the solutions are. I mean, you know, I'm a religious person, so I think the Orthodox Christianity is probably the best hope for opposing the global technocratic order. So that's where I would lie. Yeah, I understand, so as an Orthodox Christian. Then I know I already asked you about modern Russia, But what

direction do you see modern Russia heading in? Well, I mean I've never been to Russia, so I don't know what it's like over there. I've had friends that have gone over there many times and spend time there. So I hope that, you know, the revival Orthodoxy becomes more and more of a real sincere thing. I hope it's not just, you know, the thing that the media talks about. It seems like they're building a lot of churches. I don't know what church attendance is, so, you know,

I hope that it's a lot of figures. There's a there's a lot of different statistics on sure, because because a lot of the ease off, like wignat people they love to say that, like in response to like when any of us say like, oh Christian orthodox Christianity is rising in Russia, they always bring up like low church and they side the old statistics from the Soviet period of higher work. Yeah, I know, and yeah, and I have a hard time believing that in Russia in twenty twenty three that like church

attendance is like ten percent. I have a hard time believing there. I know, make too many religious Russians for that to be true. Yeah, that's a good question. I don't know a lot of those the realities of contemporary Russia. But you know, I've had friends that went there and spent time there and they all talked about it as positive experience, and you know that there's a real hope for legitimate religious revival. But do you have anything

else before? I'm not trying to be rude, but there's a whole bunch of people that want to probably come on and contend here. So to check the other hands you have, that's all do what There's probably other people who have their hands up, so just let them on. Okay, Yeah, good questions, Mann, thank you for those welcome. H Let's see what's I don't know where this one guy is. It was really talking smack. He he said he was coming. I don't see him. Let's see where

he's at. I'm not that guy. Let's see Alexander Victory. Where you at? Dude, thought you were coming. Let's see who's next? Is what's tainters, I'm gonna, I'm mute. What's take is precious? When you speak of fascist, is this specifically talking about the Italians or the Spanish. I don't think there's much of a need to make a distinction between like who was funding the access powers. I know that from what I've read.

Quickly, for example, talks a lot about Franco being aided by British intelligence, and I think he was even flown out at one point by British intelligence. So I know more about not Franco. Excuse me, Mussolini. Excuse me, So Mussolini, I know more about than than Franco in terms of like Western aid and support. Quickly It doesn't spend a whole lot of time on Spain. I think he gives it one chapter. So, but I think modes of the time, when people think of access funding and aid,

they're typically thinking of Hitler. But I couldn't really speak to Franco that I don't know that much about it. No, I was just clarifying because national socialism isn't the fascism. It's not the same. Okay, you got me on that one. So what where am I wrong in what I'm saying? Nothing? Knowledgeists clarifying for the title. So do you do you think that it's not correct that when Mussolini defines it the way that everybody typically talks about

it as the merger between private and corporate power? Is that not correct? No? That is correct, because so that is fascism. Yes, but people get confused and they think fascism is referring to national socialism. Okay, so as national socialism, not also the merger of private and corporate power. Yes, but the okay, all right, you got me on that one. Good job left against lockdown. Gonna mute. Sure, Hey, how

are you doing? Uh? Listen? So this bit about Marxists being agents of oligarchs because they may have had some funding at some point from oligarchs, are you aware that most of the founder founders of Enlightenment liberalism were at one point funded by monarchies, in some cases absolute monarchies. Uh, you know, Frederick of Prussia and Louis the sixteenth Benjamin Franklin. We don't really know when he started getting his money from Louis the sixteenth. They were just funded,

they weren't They weren't just funded by certain elements of the nobility. They were also funded by Protestants with and Jewish banking interests, right, But a substantial part of it was from absolute monarchies. Does this mean that the anti monarchists of the eighteenth century were in fact pro monarchist, or that both the monarchies and the anti monarchists were controlled by a shadowy force in the background. I think there's elements of the shadowy force even back at that time. I

don't think that those are mutually exclusive possibilities. I think that you could look at it just from a practical perspective that if I had if I was a king and I had a rival, you know, the person I was going to go to war with another country, I might, in order to foster destabilization, fund any movement in that rival government in that rival nation, right wing and left wing as a way to destabilize. So it doesn't have to

be a single monolithic entity. It could be just power politics of you know, one king funds the leftist group and another king's dominion to destabilize him. Okay, but that doesn't mean that the local thi monarchists are nothing more than useful idiots, or that they're insincere in being anti monarchy. That's simply the standard game of triangulation that people do for their own interest, not for a vast larger agenda. Well, I don't think that everybody in those movements is

stupid or insincere. I think there are people who are intelligent who can be very sincere and committed to those ideologies. But you're down on the ideologies because at the end of the day, they're just useful idiots. Well, it seems like there's a repeat pattern of ideologies being used for other ends. I mean, take for example, the rotovsky including liberalism, I mean including anti

monarchism in a completely counterproductive way. I think anti monarchist movements, for example, many of them were coming from Freemason lodges, and I think Freemason utilizes and dupes people absolutely. I think Albert Pike even talks about duping people in

his lodges. Right, But but that doesn't mean well, because it was a secret society operating in a feudalist world, right, And now it's there may be secret societies now that the bourgeoisie is running the world, but that doesn't mean that every secret society is a freemason secret society, right, And every revolutionary, every revolution society every year, that's a strong man. I

didn't say every revolutionary or every secret society. Person. Well, I'm glad getting the opportunity to clarify it. Well, I mean, I'm clarifying what you attributed to me, which was a strong man. So you committed Well, it was an impression that I think you've left in certain people's minds. I'm glad you could clarify it. Well, that's a mistake on your part, not a mistake on my part. Well, I apologize for my mistake. Well, I mean, you know, fallacies happened, So it's okay,

we all commit fallacies at times. But another fallacy I wanted to point out, I think is you know he didn't point out a fallacy. Of course, of course, so Anthy Sutton. I've been starting to go through Anthy Sutton in his book on Wall Street and the Bolsheviks, and he claims that Wood for Wilson personally approved Trotsky's passport back to Russian His source for that is as neat as sort of this anti Semitic populist. I don't say that

as a judgment. This anti Semitic populist or neo confederate guy named Jennings c Wise and I looked at his book because it's the entire thing is online. And his evidence for that claim is that wood For Wilson in nineteen eleven, when Trotsky wasn't in the country, advocated for all Jews to have all Russian Jews to be able to go back and forth easier to Russia, not speciically

Trotsky, not specifically socialists, revolutionaries, all Jews in general. When Trotsky wasn't in the country, and when there was no Russian revolution in fact, the revolutionaries and Russia runs the retreat because World War One hadn't broken out yet. Because kind of leaps on his own. So he uses multiple sources, including congressional or presidential cables that were sent. So do you think those are

also bad sources? I haven't gone through every single one, but he claims uncritically parroting uh Jennings Wise, that Woodrow Wilson personally assisted Trotsky assistant generally before the revolution broke out. So you found one source that's dubious, okay, find but he also sided the cables. Do you think the cables are dubious? Uh? Try by the fact that it's that it's garbage, garbage sourcing on something that he unequivocally claims. I would say, do you think do

you think that Brazensky saw Sutton as a garbage source? I don't know what you're refering to. Well, I'm saying that A Sutton's research was so garbage and ridiculous. Why would Brazinski site him in between two ages as a reliable anti communists? For one thing, Brazski is not anti communists. He's at he's anti Soviet, but he's not anti socialist, right in the same way

that David Rockefeller is. Right. What I'm saying is that is that I don't think that the power structure in the West would They don't see Sutton as a a faulty source, even if you have a situation where one of the footnotes is a bad source, like I'm saying. He also cites, in regard to Wilson, the actual cables that were sent supporting him, as well as the history of the Swedish Bank or the whole left guy. I don't have the Sutton Book with me right now, but there's a whole section on

an old left guy with the payments given. It wasn't the German government. But you're not gonna all right, so you're gonna interrupt me. It's excuse me. You've been talking for You've been talking for five minutes straight. You're just bucker because you started attributing fallacies to me and now you're all you're all salty. You go ahead, sir, So he's okay if I speak for you know, I don't. I didn't, but it was well over two minutes that you were talking, so equal time, would that be all you

left us? Are ridiculous? It's like this was every time every time I like there, you're going there, you go, yeah, I mean you attributed If you attributed a freaking fallacy to me, that's called lying. You know what lying is? Where you said that I said all liberals are parts of dude. I'm not interested in this personal bullshit with you, and you're trying, frankly, trying to deflect you said that that you're using barbage you're

trying to deflect this into personal Okay, I be deferential. I hope everyone's recording this that I can see how different going up. But it's your show. I am your guest. I am your guest. So if I could at least all time. Yeah, but you lied. You said I said something I didn't say. When did I say that all? When did I say all revolutionaries are part of secret societies? When did I said? When did I said? You said? All? Right, now you're lying again,

that's what you said. It quite minutes ago you said you love people without impression? Who a little bit more? Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Yeah, that's what I said. So that's not my fault that people have that impression if that's not what I said. Did I also apologize? Okay? Cool, So we're on the same page. So you found Okay, So so again I'm granting. Okay, so this really is about not letting me speak. Okay, I'm granting you. I'm granting you that.

Okay. So he's got a bad source in that footnote, and I said, he also cites the cables, So we're gonna go through all five address The cable book is garbage. Because of a bad footnote. I'm saying the book is not a quality source. No, I don't think because the one I wouldn't and not just fing retort unbelievable. Jake brings something. What's up? So I mean if one if they're I don't even grant that that

is a false source. Maybe it is. I don't have the Sutton book in front of me, but I do remember in that section that he cites the cables that were sent under Wilson to support that thesis. So there can entirely be a footnote that was a bad source. It doesn't make the entire book garbage. If one footnote makes the entire books garbage as a bad footnote, then everybody's book is garbage. Anybody would know this if they've done any research. Go ahead of dude, what's up? What's going on? Jay?

So I'm not going to take long man, because I'm not in opposition to you on most fronts. So I'm gonna speak my peace scory back down. But I think I can give some good insight on some of the communism that we're seeing in the spaces on Twitter, because I've done a few debates recently. By the way, I want to add, yeah, so you

can make those points. The book I was thinking of is uh, Sir Robert Bruce Lockhart's book, Memoirs of a British Agent, which I have a copy of it, and I've read the last chapter which talks about this, and he is British intelligence ana to the Bolsheviks, and he according to Coleman, and this is theory, this may not be true. Coleman theorises that he's there Zinski's handler for British intelligence. That may or may not be true.

But regardless, Lockhart was not an in opposition to the Soviets and to the Bolsheviks. And that's actually backed up in the Walls Shart Bulshart Revolution, where he gets into the chapter about Lord Milner and Milner sending Lockhart to the Bolsheviks as the operative of the Milner's circle. So you can go to quickly or ascieing me two Sutton's page on that. I that is what got me to get Lockhart's book, and that Lockhart's book does vindicate what Sutton says there.

Now you could say Lockhart's lying, okay, fine, says there. Now you could say Lockhart's lying, okay, fine, Yes, So it's entirely possible, yes, that everybody's memoirs that they include disinformation and lies. But I'm saying, as far as we can tell from the evidence, what Sutton's arguing there in terms of Millner Fabian circles, it seems to bear out. And also the Rakoski interrogation bears it out as well because he talks about

Lockhart. Yeah, so I just should continue on what I was getting at. I did a debate about a month ago with the has guy that you were talking to in your common sections. It wasn't long, you know, he was supposed to kind of getting muted, but I didn't even better debate with just another you know they call themselves mega communists. Yeah, I've seen him on Twitter. Sure, yes, I'm gonna be quick, man, I'm gonna go down. But I think that's a contradiction in itself. But

it just seems like a way to prop up more Marxism. But basically, I've sourced some of the things that you've sourced in here and that you do on your channel that communism is inherently, you know, funded by those that they call you know, the West or the capitalists and whatnot, and that Sutton, and obviously, you know, the other Fabian socialists or international socialists not only admit this, but there's the funding. And for every example of

funding of you know, basically Nazis, there's probably three for communists. It basically in the debate, I went unanswered every time I sourced Banker intervention. And I really just completely disagree, you know, with all the policies because they all seemed very quite literally demonic. But anyways, I just came here to say that even Sutton kind of is just a level one. And obviously and other texts there they go into way more depth. Right, So let

me I'll give you an example of that. For examples, Sutton says that he doesn't think Jacob Schiff was involved, but I've read where Jacob Shiff talks of our I remember the shift or war. Everybody says that they weren't, but other researchers point out, no, actually they were funding the Bolsheviks. I went and found Warburg's diaries. Okay, so when I was research assistant, we had a copy of Warburg's letters and diaries, and there's an entire

letter that he wrote. I don't remember who it was too, but he talks about the support and aid and hope for the Bolsheviks to have success. So and if I remember, that's also the case with Ship, but I don't remember the reference the ship of it. Sutton has an appendix where he says he doesn't think Shift was involved in this, and the argument is that

because Shifts supported anti communist causes. But in the same book, Sutton admits that some of these people hedge their bets and supported both communists and anti communist outlets too, you know, because they weren't sure exactly which way things would go. So again, even though that's not antithetical to Western support, the

fact that one entity, again, it's very simple dialectical thinking. Oh well, if Jacob Shift supports uh, you know, free market principles, there's no way he could support or aid a Well, look at David Rockefeller. David Rockefeller says, I love Harold Laski, the Fabian socialist economists, and I love Fredrick Gonhayak. And so we can see somebody like David as a

you know, somebody to transcends that dialectic. I completely agree with all that that, you know, nothing cleaned about it there now, just to reference some higher even higher in my opinion than Quickly and Sutton. You know, you got texts like the United Nations Exposed by William Jasper and then my favorite, Uh well, that sounds like a conspiracy text. And so the reason that I prefer Quickly and Sutton is that they're not primarily conspiratorial. I don't

I don't know. I'm not opposed to conspiracy books. It's just that in the effectiveness of rhetoric, I think that primary sources from the establishment are better. Now, Sutton is somebody that's a little bit in Queen because he's an establishment academic who starts publishing on this stuff and then runs a foul of the

of the academy. So so maybe he's not the strongest. I think Quickly again a stronger source than Sutton, But they're their theses line up, and so I'm not opposed to you pointing out, you know this this person, Jasper, guard whatever. But the title that book sounds like a conspiracy book, which I don't have a problem with. Like I just read John Coleman's book again, but that's a conspiracy book, right, So I think this is you know fine too though, because I can make a critique of establishment

figures being someone that might still peddle some propaganda. Well, I agree, I agree. I'm just saying that's why I said effectiveness for rep not effectiveness in argumentation. I mean, you know, you can find a conspiracy like the Ratio book is much more forceful in its argumentation and proof than because if I read quickly, he's trying to convince me of why Western liberalism and democ

democratic capitalism or the hope of the world. That's the hope in tragic right, so even apologist, but in terms of proving to today's dissenters, it's a much more effective argument if I say, hey, the Western power will lead themselves say this, so you know you can say they're lying, but

I mean, this is what they're admitting to, right. And then on the line of something to not only did he write that trilogy, but then he also came out with the Patriot Review where Miles's name was literally with the Skilling Bones. So I tried to dip in. I mentioned that earlier, were you in here when we talked about that when I gave the opening salvo. The Yale Review has the whole publication saying that the Skilling Bones brought me out of power. Yeah. Absolutely, yes, I mean I'm pretty aligned

with your work. You know, I've used it on several debates. But then another nest to h Webster, I know it's conspiracy, but again, I just want to finish by just saying this, I've read go ahead, but I've read it. The problem is that she makes these kind of ridiculous claims about talking to somebody who had a machine or some cursed object that could talk to Satan. So I think that not always right either. I completely agree with you, So I'm not saying that she shot herself in the foot

with that. Right, Well, are you talking about in secret societies and subversive movements? Because I think that I wrote that whole book. Yes, right, although there could be on what off topics that we're not talking about things that we're wrong. Absolutely, but I think that when she basically describes that communism basically is a front for the illuminating and other secret societies, that's always got source where I completely agree with you that. You know, it's

just nobody who's going to find that. I think that a thesis is true, but nobody's going to find that convincing. Because the first thing they're gonna say, is, yeah, is, She's not a credible source. So when I had I had two undergrad classes, one French Revolution. And I'm just giving an example of how this played out. So I had two two undergrad classes on this with French Revolution, and we had two for example, pick I think eight sources to read on the French Revolution, and we picked

the kind of a variety. So we picked establishment books on it, and then we also read, uh, you know, narratives that question and I chose the nest To Webster book as a questioning narrative. I don't have my library with me, so I don't remember all the titles of the establishment history. But what was interesting was that many of the establishment histories of the French

Revolution did admit that the Jacobins were absolutely influenced by Bishop's illuminism. And of course, most famously, Billington's Fire in the Minds of Men supports that thesis as a mainline historian and supporter of revolution and philosopher. Yep. And so I'm going to wrap up, because I mean, we clearly agree. I just brought those sources in because I figured why not. I have many others,

But I'm just not by the rest of my books. So yeah, again I'm not going to take too much your time, but just again unanswered on all the examples of internationalists and what they call quote unquote capitalists that actually aid and even train when you're talking about literally the pearls of New York City, you have Warburg, you have these bankers meeting with what they called Loam Bolshevich that actually went on that trip to Moscow as well with Leninists and laterally

did the revolution. Yeah, exactly right. American Red Cross funds them. American Industrial Corporation is a big element of this one twenty Broadway. It's all run out of New York and London, according to Sutton, and I think that's correct. Thanks for yeah, good, good comments there. Now you'll notice with the liberal guy that came in here, as we started fleshing it

out, I was actually agreeing with his points. But then he got all salty because he said that I've left the impression in people's minds that every revolutionary is part of a secret society. Never said, no idea where he's getting that totally made up. That's that's a straw man, and that's a fallacy. And so then he moves on and saying, well, but there's a footnote that's a bad source in Sutton, okay, and every book will have a bad footnote, doesn't mean the whole book's garbage. So he went from

a non sequit or to bad bad footnote. And I'm not even sure it is a bad footnot because i't have to. I don't have the sunt book in front of me, but I do remember he cites the actual cables it. So unless you can demonstrate that the cables are fraudulent or he didn't actually cite them, I mean, it's just and that's just one piece of data regarding Woodrow Wilson specifically in regard to I think was it. I think it's your Leonard oft Trotsky. But it's like there's dozens of other examples, so

are they all fraudulent? It's like he just picks one footnote thing tradition Europe. What's up? I'm you, hey, Jay? How are you eving today? Good? What's hey? I just had a bit of an inquiry and possibly a little debate on the fashion queston and some of your views surrounding it. Okay, you said that's fascism sort of originated because of the I would say, like international capitalists and so on. I'm not sure exactly.

Well, I don't know. I don't know that's the direct origin per se of that philosophy, but the rise of it is directly tied to banking and industrial elites in the West. Yeah, because in my sources, I definitely don't see that. Because if you read a very well renowned historian, his name is Henry Ashby Turner, and it's a hold on I haven't in my notes right now, it's German big business and the rise of mister h. He says for Batum and quote big business support was virtually zero by the election

of nineteen thirty three. It reached a bit of a high point in the spring of nineteen o two. Is this big? Is this big business in Germany? Because I don't believe that the main support for tiny assessment with German, Well, it includes like Germany. He has a focus on Germany, but he also talks about others like Henry Ford and so on, and okay, so what episode, So what about Schroderman. Well, in his assessment,

he's researched this pretty thoroughly. He went through archives and stuff and his assessment was for things like Henry Ford and so on, that he received little to no big business and he makes the assessment which I quote is only through growth distortion can big businesses He afford it a crucial or even major role in the downfall of the Republic. During his whole rise from nineteen twenty to nineteen thirty three, he received little to no funding from any industrialists. Well,

there were two. One didn't really offer that much and the other one he backed out in nineteen thirty two. I believe his name is Tishse or something like that. I don't have it written down, but he was eventually because he dropped his support when he actually got into power after the election of nineteen thirty three, he got thrown into lake a labor comp Okay, So again

I'll read what quickly says on ten fifty nine. Dallas was partner in Schroeder Bank since in London since nineteen o two, director of the Bank of England nineteen twelve to forty five, as well as Lazar Brothers, Fray and the Angelo Ray Ool Company. It would be recalled that Schroeder Bank in Cologne helped to arrange Hitler's accession to power as chancellor in nineteen thirty three. So that's just one example of a banking elite that funded the rise to power Hitler.

And so my argument would be that as an archivist to the CFR, he's in a much better position to find out accurate information than the mainline academic that you're citing. Well, he wasn't the only person to assess this also Susan Poll as well, and who financed mister h It comes to the same conclusion through But but you think that, so you don't think Quickly is in a

better position as a CFR archivist. In all fairness, Jay, I haven't delved too much on Quickly, and I've read half of A. Sutton's book on Okays Adventure so Quickly. So Quickly is the historian of the CFR. So he's the archivist and historian for he is the elite historian par excellence twentieth century. So the reason that this book is unique is that it's not written from the perspective of the sort of the average academic at the you know,

public university level. But he's pulling from And this book was originally suppressed because there was too much in it, so they tried to destroy the original plates. But this was the book that was given out to the CIA station chiefs in the nineteen seventies because a lot of second chiefs were saying, hey, why are we funding communists? I thought we were anti communist and so they

would give him tragic hope to say, here's the explanation. So I think that the Quigly has access to information even even better than Sutton was just a mainline historian an economist, cut ferreting out some of this information from the archives, but he didn't have access to what Quigly had access to. So yes, I am presupposing that the CFR is one of the major arms of the power elite in the West, and so therefore that's why this this has more

weight for me in terms of argumentation than the academics that you're sourcing. I'm just not exactly sure. I would have to do more on quickly. But I mean, he is he has a he's like from Yale University as well, which is pretty prestigious university, and he's pretty well respected in his community, and he's had contact with some archivists around Western Europe. Yeah, but

he's not he's not writing the Official History of the CFR. I mean, do you think the Council Form Relations is a major power power power committee? I mean, I guess you guess you're not even aware of the CFAR, No, I said, I guess, so equait what you guess? So

what that is the major power structure? M Yeah. There's another book that Sutton has which is a good appendix to this, which is his book with Patrick Wood called Trilaterals over Washington, because there he's tracing the history of the CFAR and the Trilateral Commission in the nineteen seventies, because they actually, if you watch the live stream I did last night, there's a whole bunch of stuff that was being pushed by Razinsky and Kissinger in the nineteen seventies, such

as the Global two thousand Austerity Report, which they really probably to get the Carter administration to put in place, which is basically the Great Reset. It relates to State Department Memorandum two hundred and the depopulation protocols that Kissinger wants to

employ, and it was in justust depopulation protocols for the Third World. The Global two thousand Report was also concerned in for the entire West, and so The point of aking is that when you get into the history this be at far, this will be a big re orientation about how you approach history questions because they are they are the power structure in the West. Yeah, I can see that I would need to look in the quickly a little more.

But there's still not much of this would make sense as to why in nineteen thirty three, after he gets in power, after he's said very controversial things and going against Western powers, and you know, the typical fascist stance of

they control everything and if they don't like anyone to take him out. I wouldn't understand how him declaring war against the British Empire and bankrupting like much of their country and losing territorial and resource rich places and like eventually South Africa, and any sense, especially when they already made perfect sense and perfect sense.

Because the game plan as quickly talks about there's two giant chap. I think it's too at least one giant chapper might be too about the dual the dual appeasement strategy of the British hat so they had a public policy of outcries against Hitler, but they had a private policy of appeasement and support to get him to invade Poland. The British elite wanted that. And so, by the way, you know that there's a bunch of British elite that were openly pro

Hitler, right, like the King, the Duke of Kent. I'm aware of that, and I'm okay. So so sort of supported the invasion of Poland because they wanted him to take the full brunt of the force on its communism for one thing. And I know the king was you know, Quickly's thesis is that the Two World Wars were long term strategies of the Western Power League to destroy their two main rivals, the Hungarian Empire, which is what destroyed that rival in World War One and World War two, and then the

Cold War two exhaust and destroy Russia. So the thesis of trasy Know, according to Quickly from the CFR perspective, is that the two World Wars exhaust, deplete and destroyed the rivals of the Anglo American establishment. So that's why they're even after Hitler invades, and even after Britain publicly has their policy. There's a whole chapter where Quickly talks about the continued support from the West and

from the industrialists to keep the work the German war machine going. So again, I know it might sound strange to you, but if you read the chapters, it's around page seven hundred and quick and treasure. I'm looking at it right now. What this did was also put Germany into war debt for the next several decades. The banking elite wanted Germany in that generational debt which the war necessitated. You had to have that war to have that, to

put them in perpetual Western control, which Germany is still under today. In fact, it was the OSS that's set up to EU after World War Two, precisely as the OSS and build Donovan plant. People think it was Hitler that had a strategy for the EU. No, Hitler had his plan for the EU, but if you re brought to his book, it was actually Donovan and the OSS and Dollars that were the key figures in setting up the European Union. None of that could have happened had they not had the justification

for it through Tiny Mustache Man. So there was a real war. But the continued Western aide to Hitler, even after the invasion of Poland, I think again proves this well, I haven't seen any evidence. There's like continued Western aide during the invasion of chapters and quickly on and I'm telling you what the evidence is. All right, I'll look at after. But to be fair, this still seems a bit illogical because your premise is that the bankers

funded the Strength Revolution, which I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. I agree with a lot what you have to say and all that. Okay, so don't make sense because like Churchill as well, he was more of a warmonger. He was like anti German versus like Chamberlain, who is more into appeasing and Solan and Churchill and Stalin they kind of have a bit of a history of being pals in the twenties. But that's just assuming that you think

those people are running the show. I don't think they are. It's the Quiet, it's the Millner circles and the Cliveden said that are running the show. Not those people. Yeah, sure, I definitely agree, but you're expelled. Hold on page six. Listen page six thirty eight. Six thirty nine. Hitler comes to power and begins his accession in his reign through UK aide. This is the section on the dual appeasement strategy and planned. So this is the dual policy. It starts on page sixty two of Quigley.

Page six forty three is how the UK continued to aid aid Hitler during the time when he's began to invade. Then six forty four Quigly says, the Bank of Inland England gave Phitler all of the check gold. The Bank of England gave Hitler check gold. Then there's secret meetings still occurring during this time period in late nineteen thirty nine, it says, between British elites and Hitler. Okay, and they're telling him different things than they what they really want.

They're telling him, don't worry. We've got elites here that support you. We got a bunch of nobility, we're all secret Nazis. We want you go invade Poland. So he does it. The UK louns one billion dollars to Hitler page six fifty. Then France continues to also aid Hitler after the invasion. This is page six fifty of Quickly. Who was giving this money? Quickly says the Millner, Fabian, Clived and set. Then he says on page six fifty four, this was an Anglo American trap to get

Hitler to go to war. And so it wasn't that Hitler was like a direct British agent, although there's one guy who thinks that that was the case. They were basically just telling him, like lying from perfidious Albion Live to him to get him to go to war, and the war was what they wanted to have, the United Nations, So you understand that quickly says that when World War One happened, the elite problem reaction solution was that the League

of Nations would be a new world governance. The League of Nations didn't it didn't work. It failed. In fact, even US, the US Congress rejected the US joining the League of Nations under the under the argument that it would compromise US sovereignty. So what they did was they went back to the drawing board. And again you can read H. G. Wells's book Shape of Things to Come, where he predicts what world War it will be.

Now, he wasn't a prophet, he didn't have a he didn't have a crystal ball, but he's in the circles that people planning the next war. So that's how he knew what would happen in World War two in that prophetic book. I think he wrote that in like thirty eight or thirty nine, and so he's a few years off, maybe even early thirties if you're the exact year of shape shape of things to come. But he's basically saying what the next world war will be, and they'll be flying machines, dropping bombs

and you know, big bambs. He talks about kinds of crazy tech stuff. Well, he knew this because he's in the circles of the people planning the war, not because he's a prophet. So anyway, if you read six thirty up through sixty is where and then the next chapter is Battle of Poland September nineteen thirty nine. Then they keep giving aid to Hitler and get this written, doesn't aid Poland. So they've told Hitler to invade. They

condemned the invasion. They keep aiding Hitler and not Poland. Why would they do that if they If what you're saying, it's the case, well, to me, interest seems very like sorry to me, it just seems like pretty illogical at times because I know quickly says this, Why is it a logical if it results in the Breton Woods bi as banking system. That's this's

is the Federal Reserve Bank, the central bank of central banks. And if it results in the dollar as the world reserve currency as a result of all this, and it results in the United Nations and all these entities being set up that served a Western power lead, it's not illogical. It's perfect so well to me that I mean, if we really looked at the history, it doesn't really make sense because looking at what do you mean looking at pre

war and postwar? Pre war they already had Germany, they had the Weimar Republic. And if Hitler was really getting all this money and he was being like the inside guy, or you're not hear what I said, they wanted a giant war to exhaust and destroy the potential allies of the potential opponents to the West. It doesn't mean that Hitler was really gonna destroy the West or

be this real? I mean he Hitler may have thought that. He may have thought, I could, you know, I can really flip the tables on these guys, and you know, we can eventually just he didn't want to bomb written originally, right, and I want to do that because he had sympathies, and he thought they were like correct, good airning people or whatever. But it makes perfect sense when we think about the economic slavery that it would put Germany in in terms of debts, in terms of the Fiat

system if they have a giant war. So again, giant wars are planned by these people, and they talk about it ahead of time. Again, look at eight wells this shape of things to come. Well, there's the things like I'm looking at it because of the result of the war. He said. One of the things was to deplete the Soviet Union. By the argument before with Antony Sutton is they already controlled the Soviet Union, so deplete That's not what he said. It doesn't say they controlled it. He says,

they helped build it up. And so what did I just say earlier? I said Stalin, No, that's the Bolsheviks, that's pre Stalin. Stalin cleared out the Trotskyiks and the Bolsheviks when he came to power, and so he wanted a merger of international socialism with Russian nationalism. And even Brazinski says this is the every every geopolitical analyst says this. I mean, Dugan says this, This is what Stalin achieved was the revival of nationalism, which

is why the Trotskyids called him bourgeois Soviet. They called him bourgeois socialism because he wanted to revive Russian nationalism and make it an element, because they saw how destructive Bolshevism and Trotskyism were to to the country. So he thought, well, we got to bring back some of this, you know, facade of Russian orthodoxy and Zarism, and I'll take that role. Uh, this is Brazinski's analysis, this is Dugan's analysis. Plenty of people will say this,

So I don't think that's that controversial. That's why he filled the set up doing the Bolshevik Menshevik plan of destroying all the churches. He just put KGB bishops and all the bishop seats right or tried to right. So that was the Stalin model, which deviated from the older Bolshevik Menshevik Trotskyite model. So, but when he didn't accept Marshall plan aid, that's when the National

Security Memorandum goes into into play. From I think keenan right where they say Stalin's building up, So that very moment is when they say Stalin is building up his armaments. He's got all the nukes. He's gonna this becomes the justification for Gladio Stalin's gonna invade Europe. We're gonna have to stay behind units. We've got to recruit and use all the Galen tiny mustache man networks. Right, Why do you think all the tiny mustache man networks so easily integrated

into the OSS. Well, they just want to use them because of their intelligence and research, and they would comply easier with the Less than they with the East because of mister ash. Yeah, but they had they actually had a lot of sympathizers, not just amongst the British royals and elites, but also amongst the os S and CI. Oh. Yeah, for sure. I definitely don't doubt that. But I don't think like literally every single one or there I did. There wasn't like mister as you know, well I

said the gay sorry what I said, Galen organ paper clip. I didn't see all of the you know SS or the very mock or whatever. Oh not the SS, but like the British Parliament and so on, because they're genuine like sympathizing, they're not sympathizers. There was genuine people who are anti

mister h of course. Okay, look again, I'm just gonna say, I think Quickly is a key text on here, and he will reorient your I'm not calling you out and just saying I think he'll He's a key power structure writer explaining from their perspective why the two World Wars were necessary and why they were wanted. That does not mean that every person is controlled or every

event is completely controlled. It just simply means that as players in the Grand chessboard game, they understand that the World Wars would have the effect of gigantic debts. And this is another point that you didn't address, which is crucial to why they do this, is that they put they put the giant wars, put the nations for generations after that into perpetual generational debt that they can never pay back. And that's what keeps them in part subservient to the Western

power structor. This is what the whole BIS I mean, just look at the BIS. Quickly says that another one of the key reasons why World War Two was wanted was the establishment of the Brightwood system in the Bank for National Settlements. And they got that, and they got the UVN well, yeah, my contention would be like if you took me and all that, he

would have just joined with the British instead and fought against the communists. And another thing to address your to address your cross your debt point real quick, if I could just for like most in a minute, The thing is with because they needed a war against the communists and all that, and they wanted to put them in debt or whatever, and then Germany needs to be in generational debt. Was really that was the debt really worth more than losing like

basically the entire British Empire. They lost all of India, which was which had rich resources. They lost Africa over the years. Yes, yes there's like Bancus and stuff who technically still control they're not, they don't, they're not concerned with Britain. Yeah, but it also bankrupts Britain as well. In the US was it was pretty hard for them to get back on their foot, but they and actually quickly covers the fact that all of this bankrupted

the British Empire. But it's not the British Empire that's a in my view of the British empires have cut out for the raw channels basically, and so they don't care about what happens to the British people. They can just reorganize and re orient and that's exactly what happened when the Raw channels made their famous alignment with the Rockefellers and the JP Morgan and the power structure in America. Well, all right, I probably had one or two other things to say,

but right now it's skipping my head. I guess it was a good It was a good discussion to appreciate your questions and push back. Yet I would just again recommend definitely try to retraging hope or if not, you can you know, I did a sixteen hour lecture through the whole thirteen hundred phases, but good questions. Yeah, thank you for having one chairman, Shock, what's up? Dude? You? Hey, what's weed? So?

I thought I was going to disagree, but I don't know. It's not like you were saying that the West back to naz Season and you know, incorporated them into this stuff like after World War Two, which I agree with. Yeah, it's it's but it's specific very powerful families and corporate banking leads. It's not the West as if like you know, America as a whole supporter. It's not the people, it's not even the senators, and it's

it's very very wealthy families. Is who's quickly has a whole book just on that's called Angle American Establishment, where he talks about how this was working at the time of Cecil Rhodes and Rothchild and Milner. That's the Millner circles, right, So you could look to people like John Ruskin and his model of world socialism, how he would see it, where it's like a British,

British centric world socialism. So yeah, but I mean, so the thing is, that's the one thing I think, you know, there was like the CIA involvement, you mentioned Operation Gladiol and you know other things that it wasn't just like I mean, you could argue that these elements that worked for the more powerful, powerful people within the West and stuff, but the state apparatus in and of itself, you know, has been constructed to kind of

push that like anti I would say, anti socialist, actually anti socialist, anti communist, you know, in the Western like the rug the world. Yeah, I think that the CIA definitely had a lot of people really who were cold warriors, anti Communist Individuals. World Anti Communist League was set up by the CIA. The CIA was training all the School of America's people. They were running Gladiol. So this is not to say that there's not a real opposition. There is, but there's people above the CIA. Okay,

there's people more more powerful, people from foundations, people to run. You know, these giant foundations have more power hour than some CIA field operative who's you know, trying to recruit Soviets or get them to defect. Okay, that's not a very powerful role. You know, you're out you're out there trying to compromise people or get them to be on your side. But that doesn't mean that you know the big picture. Okay. So a Kissinger and

a Brazinski they're above that. And what I'm saying is that you know, if you read, if you read Tragedy and Hope, you're getting a book that was given to see IA people. And so the story is the nineteen seventies because they were beginning to wonder, well, if we're fighting the cold, where why are we aiding some of the Marxists in these different countries.

It doesn't make sense. So oh, here's your book. Read this this will help you understand why we're doing it, because there's a bigger game plan at work here. And I think that my thesis is just that the Fabian model of a synthesis out of the dialectical oppositions is what some of these people wanted. It doesn't mean everybody. I don't know if Alan Dallas himself knew that there would be a long term technocratic agenda that would be that would be

successful through a third WAT synthesis. You had people in the CFR in the nineteen seventies who were saying that they really wanted a third WAT synthesis at that time in the sixties and seventies, but they didn't really get their sway. That didn't happen at that time. But it looks to me like that's where we're going because most of these institute entities and institutions that were set up that I mentioned earlier, like the IMF World Bank VIIs that's Alkanesian, that's Fabian

socialist stuff. They Rockefeller are a big fan of both Austrian economics and Fabian socialism by Harold Laski talks about this since memoirs. To me, it looks like that's the overriding ideological game plan, which is again, as Brezenski says, to produce the synthesis. So I think that Brazenski genuinely doesn't like Russia and doesn't like Sovietism. That does not mean that the Western elite that are anti Soviet are anti socialist or to fabian. So that's two different things.

So again, I do think there's a real Cold War dialectic going on between the NKBED and the Soviets in the United States, even if certain industrialists are helping to build up stalling because they want real war and real opposition, it's not it's not all fake. I never said that, So some bile are coming on her, so it's all think. No, I didn't say that, I said. I'm just saying that we time and again we uncover information.

And this is how history works is that there will be you know, new information is discovered, New declassified documents come about, you know, years decades later. So this is why history can always be reformed and informed, so to speak, in terms of the predominant narratives. So what I'm saying is that more information comes out, you get more biographies coming out, you get declassified documents showing, for example, Mark Hacker translates the KGB Colonels diaries

about Lord Victor Roche and what do we find out with Lord Victor? Well he's is he British intelligence or is he a Soviet? Well he's playing both sides. And to me, and I might be wrong about this, some people disagree with me about this. It looked to me it looks like armand Hammer is the same kind of a figure. And but then people said, well, no, he's actually working for the CIA against the Soviets. I mean maybe, but I'm saying we've got another big industrialist who's trying to play

both sides of this dialectic. I think I think Robert Maxwell is another figure who appears to play both sides of this dialectic. I feel like they're not playing both sides of the dialectic. And just you know, people, what about the people, whether people are listed though or examples of people that were right. But I feel like even then, like the dialectic is, you know, between the working class and the capitalists, or so Marcus would see

it. This is why Fabianism is really just another I see what you're saying. No, no, I'm talking about a bigger dialectic of East versus West, what what Prezenski calls the global Mannequean dialectic. That's what I'm talking. I'm not talking. I understand that Marxists, when do you think of dialectics, they're typically thinking of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. I'm talking about the global dialects. That's Sutton's thesis in the Scold Bones book, is that the

dialectic of the twentieth century. And you could say maybe even a trialectic is Western capitalism versus you know, Eastern Eurasian Sovietism and communism, and you can

throw into fascism in there as well as part of that trialectic. I could see that, but I would put the I mean because even if you look at Mindcom was a fucking love letter to England and the imperialist which to your point about why they didn't win to bomb them in the first place, like they were doing with England and France that did over hundreds of years consolidated into ten years, but didn't they weren't against the you know, capitalist system.

Well, if I remember, yeah, and I've read I read my many many years ago. I don't know if I've finished it, but I read at least half of it. If I remember. Early on, Hitler says that he sees himself as basically the continuation of the Kaiser, and so he actually points out that, for example, a lot of the eugenics work that he believes in that he wants to continue. He says, I'm just doing what the Kaiser was doing, and that's actually why the Rocketfellers named the Eugenics

a suit in America. The Kaiserville on the Institute. So I think Hitler just saw himself as continuing that operation, and he probably genuinely didn't understand why Britain would want to go to war with him, given the fact that so many of the British elite were Malthusian New Jessie, I mean, he's got a British imperial ideology. So I think you're absolutely bright theer. But I

think they played him. I think what they did was they got him to go into Poland under the auspices of thinking that he would get Western support and aid, just like they duped is it Hess? Remember the British intelligence trick that they did with has where they got Crowley to go tell Rudolf Hess, Oh, we secretly support you. Fly into Scotland and we'll have a secret

meeting because we're secretly gonna, you know, support you. And it was all rus And as soon as Hess landed that they arrested him because they there were briticially that genuinely believed in Tiny mustache Man. But it's not like they were wetted to that, like they Okay, so he we're gonna We're gonna

use him. We don't have to. Our technocracy, the future is not necessarily wedded to either Sovietism or Bolshevism or tiny mustache Man philosophy merch and Russell calls them experiments, and so I don't want to oversimplify it as if you know, nobody had these ideologies and it wasn't real. But from the atlantisist perspective, those people didn't have a problem with exporting these ideologies as experiments in

these different nations to see how they work as control mechanisms. Would I would agree with that, but I would push back into Sovietism because the difference between them and him and the mustache Man. When the Soviets came to power, they got invaded by you know, twelve or fourteen, I forget which one European nations. Whereas when Hitler came to power, the New York Times said, give him a bad give them most fashed man a change. You know.

He's actually not that bad, you know. And I think again, there are there were many people in the power structure in America and in the UK that we're already wedded to Malthusianism exactly. And by the way, I agree that it. I mean, I'm not an expert on this, but it looks like with the British double cross of Hitler in regard to Poland, that's they basically put him in a position where he had to do that. He had to go to war, he had to do this, he was

forced into this. I'm not saying he's a good guy. I think he's a crazy sort of maniac. And I think that in the case of when Stalin rejected the Marshall Plan eight, that that forced him into the Cold War. So I think that the elites really did want the conflicts. I'm not saying that they didn't. They didn't want They built up these countries to have a conflict. They didn't build them up for nothing. So We're gonna build up all your armaments and your industry just so you can have fun and have

a you know, have a prosperous future. No, it's to go to

war. I would, but you know, I agree with that. The only thing is that I feel like the dialectic is the West and and the you know, the must bash Man versus the Soviets, because again, like they invaded the Soviets immediately and try to strangle them before they even got to strangle the revolution and strangle the baby, you know, as soon as it was delivered, basically, whereas they were looking forward to them the Germans going over and crushing the Soviets and wiping out, you know, the idea of

Sovietism, and because it forced them to make concessions to their people. It's like this idea of a fabianism as you mentioned, or you know, the national health and then like the different social programs, which is really the same powerful elements doubling out certain allowances the people to maintain the system that they already had. They don't like that though, they ever since being created, they try to fight in quarterback and pull back all of the concessions that they meet

and bring us back to a more feudal relation in my opinion. But well,

I definitely think that they want a feudal situation for sure. Yeah, Like what the end goal of all of these people is a feudal system, right, So whether it's Maury Strong, or whether it's David Rockefeller, or whether it's Lord Rothschild, or whether it's any of these people who might disagree on the game plan or or the you know, think about like a football game, like we might have different strategies as coaches as what plays are going

to run, but the end goal is the same. So I don't think that Sovietism was a I mean it this way, as you could debate to what degree Sovietism was a real threat to the West. That's debatable. Sure, you know, I'm not sure. I don't I'm not sure I have

an opinion on that. Parenti actually as a thing on YouTube Michael Parenti anti Soviet, anti sovietism in the media, and he's this is like nineteen eighty nine, and he said, you know, I just saw the State Department released it says that there was never there's actually never a threat of Russia invading Europe. And he says, this is crazy, I did that. That's

the I agree with that. Like, so that's what I'm saying about Gladio and both wim Hoff and quickly admit that the Western assessment of Stalin was far exaggerated because they wanted a Cold War. But that doesn't mean that Stalin didn't have any power or any level threat or any you know in kBT agents around the world obviously did. But the exact nature of what threat level Stalin really

was, I don't know. And I think we start we're seeing a similar thing now, you know, where they're seeing, you know, Russia's going to invade Europe. But it's the same kind of like news that they well, I definitely yeah. And by the way, Mirror is exactly what when Hitler was in Ukraine. It's the exact model. And by the way, it quickly has a great section on that, and it's the seven hundreds and

so it's seven twenty one. He talks about Hitler's movements into Ukraine and that this was his plan to take Leningrad, take Kiev and then he would make Ukraine kind of a base of operations right to full on attack Russia. So yeah, I think the model is the same that's why there's all this the tiny must sashment followers in Ukraine. Now, it's because they've been there ever since, and that's that's the Galen Order. There's a great article by Russian

historian that I've linked many times. He's actually traces the history of the people sent from Galen spy network to train the not seas in Ukraine during this time period. But you know, we wouldn't be real about it, like you

were saying, these powerful people, these powerful interests that existed beforehand. Right, None of the things that I'm not going to say none, that's an exaggeration, but a lot of the things that we're going on, they've happened under the mustache man where things that they've been doing all over the fucking world, all over you know, Asia, you look in in India, the I don't know if it was under the roads. But in the are you saying he's just doing what the British impart of yes, you know what I

mean, but we see it historically. It's like completely different. But as you were saying, why why would he feel like they would attack? No? I mean again, mauthusy and ideology is mauthless, right, that's seventeen hundreds of Britain. That's Darwinian philosophy, racial supremacy of the Victorian era, that Britain is the most evolved of all the people, so they have the mandate of nature to impose civilization on the wrest world. That's the Victorian mythology,

right, So I totally agree with that. I'll give you a crazier one. You know, when when what's his name the most age man came up with? Was it Lieban Strong? The one? You know what I mean? You know where I'm going with this, Like it was, you know, the manifest Destiny was no different from that. But it's because they were successful, as why we don't see it as like some kind of crazy, you know, historical tragedy. For the most part, I understand that

that's how empires operate. Eric Wahlberg, who would say himself like a Soviet he wrote a book called Postmodern Empire, and he basically says that this is kind of the modus operandi of imperialism. Right. There's two sides to it. There's the liberal democracy. But when they feel like their power is threatened or you know, I feel like then it naturally goes to that side, but there was no word for it when it was with I mean, Brazsky

calls it the American Empire, so exactly. It seems that the difference, though, is that they figured out, you know, via I think a lot of Kissinger the more I read about this than Kissinger plays a bigger role than people think. I mean, he seems to really be heavy in the whole gladiol P two thing. Kissinger is the devil. I think you could argue that he more people than the last entry than any or yeah, that's what I'm saying. Like he see, he seems to really be overlooked as

this you know, merchant of death and uh. And people say, you know, when you read right wingers, they have all the silly narratives or like Kissinger's a communist who's a commedy and then everybody else, all the boomers will be like, no, oh, he fought the commedist Cold War. Well, Kissinger is a great example of somebody who I believe is at that you know, power player level above the dialectic. I think he's you know,

he recruited Brazinski put him in the role of triliteral commission. Uh, you know, He's been there from the earliest days of when day Rockfeller recruited him. So I think Kissinger's a key figure to again, another person that transcends this dialectic who you know in his In his newest book, World Order, the last chapter is Kissinger basically just saying that the future is gonna be whoever controls the tech. So basically he says the technocracy is coming and the

gods of the future age are going to be whoever controls the tech. So that the whole point is just the transhumanist orders coming. It's here, submit to it, and whoever runs it's going to be running the future. So again it basically just submits everything we've been talking about. The last chapter is

just technocracy. And you made a good point about the last thing about them being willing to like use both sides, which are first one you said it I kind of disagreed with because to me, like all these Western empires have been like a vowidly, especially America, it's like a religion to be like anti communist and anti Marxists. But at the same time, Kissinger, I think he do work with like Paul Pott and then to but he would work

with anybody to especially them current exactly. So that was a good point that you need, even though I would argue for a lot more scarce than than moving to work with the other side. Well, I mean, yeah, the logic of the cold bar would dictate that there wouldn't be after the Stalin rejects the Marshall plan. Ai, Yeah, they're not gonna They're gonna be working with communist movements less and less, unless perhaps it's to try to co

opt communist movements. For example. I think one of the examples that Quickly gives that probably confounded many of the CIA people at this time was the support I think for Tito. I think he says that the CIA in certain cases aided Tito, which is odd, but it would fit into kind of the

thesis that I'm talking about. Let me yeah, because remember Tito, the big grape between here it is, Yeah, so Quickly talks about that's a page seven eighties seven eighty one, and so the CIA is aiding or the OSS I guess it's aiding Tito, and he talks about that his page seven eighty one. My guests would be, maybe you know, you can sway people over to your site with AID. So it doesn't mean that they adopted the ideology per se, but maybe they were just trying to you know,

I mean us AID, I don't mean the Humanitarian Front organization. I mean us AID. Money is a key soft power tool of controlling and getting people over on your side. So maybe it's literally the biggest grade between like Tito is Tor Tito, and like the marks mnist at the time was that Tito was like open to Yeah, let's start in. Let me here's what quickly

says. It's not very long seven eighty one. He says the contrast between these underground movements was sharp, but to Churchill and Roosevelt, these differences were largely nord in favor of the more immediate question of which was more willing to fight the axis. The answer that question, at Churchill's opinion, was Tito.

For this reason, Churchill at Tehran made the faithful suggestion that the Allies should support the supplies to Yugoslavia should be shifted from Mahalo Djovich to Tito, and that Russia should send military and that Russia should send a military mission to Tito to join the British military mission already there. This suggestion was accepted by the Big Three without any clear idea of what this change in policy meant.

But it was a change that was filled with significance since it meant that Communists would control Yugoslavia in the post war period. So they're basically saying, will allow Tito to to come to power. There no under percent of you. That's a good point. They do. They would side with them to undermine, like, you know, the primary enemy, which was like the Soviets, but then you know, later on they ended up siding with the Soviets

over the Chinese. Then they switched and it became you know, and since then they sided with the Chinese over until the end of the collapse of the USSR. Well what they were, Yeah, what what's your what's your take on the mouth stuff that I mentioned? Oh I missed that part where someone I first one would stayed before that. MAO was funded by you know, the with if you could repeat. Well, So, so it was declassified on the CIA website about eight years ago. It's not you can't find it

anymore, but they declassified Bill Donovan training mals A Gorillas. I have Bill Donovan's biography, it's in there. He mentions it going in training Malagrilla. He's setting up the Grilla network in China. Oss did. Then we have Yale News putting out or somebody dug up in the archives the Yale Review with the whole essay about Mao being a Yali, which is a special program called Yale in China, and the article argues that mal could not have come to

power without Oss going bone support. So you know, again that fits into this. Now. I don't even think quickly knew about that. He didn't talk about that because I wasn't he classified until fairly late. But to me it makes sense with the narrative that I'm talking about, and Sudden makes a big use of that in his Skull and Bones book. I wonder how did that is? Like, I mean, that was you know, pre cold were obviously, but I think the reason why they did that was because of

the that they were at war with Japan and the UMG. Remember at firstly that's the you're right, I mean, that's the justification was that when we had to aid Malo to fight uh tiny mustache man. But by what I'm saying is that this also includes the famous betrayal of chen Kai Shack, right, so so they the trade Chin Kai Shack and allowed Mal to do all this, which if we're supposed to believe the mainline narrative, like why would why would they be doing this if they you know, if they wanted to

support Chinese nationalism and Chang Kai Shack, But they didn't. They betrayed him, Malcolmes to power by the way, he was super corrupt. Understand that Chang Kai Shack was super corrupt. But uh, but what I'm saying is that is there a longer game? Is it not just to fight tiny mustache man? Because the me why does David Rockefeller, you know, in nineteen seventies, right, all these glowing editorials about malois, Oh, he's a big fan of it. I think everyone is working in love with malis't at

that time? Well, you read but if you read David Rockelos memoirs, he says that, well, the great thing about Maloison was that when everything was consolidated, all I had to do is go, uh, make a deal with who's the guy after Mal forget his name? Then yeah, he said, all I had to do is fly over there and make a deal with him. And he said, then Chase Bank is the only bank in

China. So they said it's great for me as a monopoly capitalist that I'm the only legal bank now in China, and will I will be the only bank to to to to read China. So my point is that I think that's really why David Rockefeller was such a fan of communist socialist movements. I mean, not just by the fact that he was studied under the Fabian Harold

Laski. But see, that's what I'm saying, Like Rocketfeller is a huge fan of on Hiak supposedly the von Mesas Austrian economics, but he's also a huge fan of Fabian economics and Harold Lawski and Milton Canes and all that stuff. So and the Mustache Man, they didn't didn't they didn't even mention him by name. In the Rockefeller's absolutely aided and funded the rise of Hitler, absolutely, I think. Look, lastly, I think I agree with your

point with the Ding. I think maybe why they would appreciate it math with them is if you've got to look before even when the Koman thing, we're in power, they were going through the the Ooid crisis still like they were picking up thousands of like dead bodies on the speak just on end the day to day, you know. So I think to transform the country, regardless

of who did, was probably impressive to a lot of people. And I think that the CIA, especially but in general, the defense forces, at the end of the day, they're going to fund who is the best fighter. He usually the same thing they did with the Mujahideen, which became Al Qaida, and they planned for Alkaida to become the thing, but they just funded who was the best fighter at that time. And Shinkai shik was getting as by the Japanese at that time. You know, Oh, I disagree

there. I think that Brazinsky knew the older British strategy of using radical Islam and the model of British intelligence which had long used the Rosin brotherhood. I think that when Brazinski was, you know, saying let's use Mujadeen, he

didn't come up with that. He was just using what the old duld British strategy, going back to John Saint John Hunt and E. Sat John Philby a t. Lawrence that's old British and that that comes from people in the royal in supernational affairs like Mark Curtis has an old book on that that's the strategy that Brazinsky switched the CIA to do it, because before that they had strategy of panner of nationalism that they were going to try to do to modernize

and industrialize the Arab nations. But they found them, according to Miles, and they found them the bead to divisive and a really they do tribal So a much better technique was to utilize the radical Islamic elements. That would right, because that wasn't something Brazinski came up with. That's the old British intelligence model. True, because remember when or the US when when the Swiss canale Christis happened with with NASA in Egypt, the UF actually becked or they didn't

get it. They didn't intervene. They were on the side of Nasser as some would you know. But I think at your point, like the way that he kind of maneuvered after that then put him in opposition with the Wiston and he ended up getting undermined. Yeah, exactly. And by the way, Copeland talks about that being the CIA's kind of supposed quote consultant to NASA

during the whole period, and again you could say he's lying. Maybe he's lying, but he basically just says that we were never really that concern with with Nasser in a Cold war. We always had a way that we could kind of maneuver him into not doing too much damage or being too far off of a leash. But I'll read you what the regulars I've wrote in them in his From a China Traveler, because and I think you wrote more than

one. I haven't found the other one, but the one that everybody refers to From a China Traveler, he says, given China's vastness, it was only due to the remarkable thoughtfulness of our hosts that the six members of our Chase group were able to see an experience so much during the last few days in Peking Siam, Shanghai, and Canton. In terms of simple simple geographic expanse, a week and a half visited China is something equivalent to trying to

see New York City in a few minutes, blah blah blah. And he goes on to say that Mao's experience himant was something that was amazing in terms of economic growth and social organization for China, and it's and he seems to speak of this like something he sees as a model. So you know he doesn't he doesn't. He speaks glowingly of this is what I'm trying to say. And uh, and it wasn't you know when kissing during Rockefeller are going there meeting with Mao. I mean this tells you everything, right, I

don't think that that these are real threats. I mean to me, this is just just pretty clear. But no, but remember that this is after the signal Soviet split, so they were like giddy to work with the Chinese to undermine you know, the Soviets at that time. Yeah, but what I'm saying is that the reason that day Rockefeller talks about why he lights it, and you could argue with those geo strategic reasons as well, but like he talks about it like hey, one child policy, consolidating and all the

control to you know, the superstate. Uh, these are great things, right because David Rockeflower is a technocrat. So and again he has personal interests there because he's been allowed to set up Chase Bank as the only bank in comedies China. So so I think there's multiple reasons why he likes it because it's technocratic. Yeah, I appreciate that I'm gonna do more reading myself because I always look at somebody. Somebody should find that, so look up.

They're from a China Traveler essay, which is the nineteen seventy nine New York Times editorial here I haven't pulled up, but I can barely read it. But there's also another. He wrote two or three, but I've never been able to find the other ones. But anyway, Yeah, great comments, good points there, Shaq, appreciate that. Let's see who else is on here wants to speak? It's been waiting, Kingdom and joy Er, you've been waking for a while. What's uthing? Hello? Hello? Hey?

Uh So that was weird. It was it like totally cut out and then now I can talk. Uh So. My name is Mark uh and I've been in the Infrared movement since the very beginning and recently over the past year and a half. Now, after reading Dugan and then getting into reneguan On, and then from reneguan On reading Father Sarah from Rose, I've decided to become Orthodox, and so I am in Catechism at Saint John's at DC. I've met I met Metropolitan Joe, and I've seen that you've done a bunch

of videos with him. Also, I also wanted to say that very very thankful for you, You've You've been very influential to me as well. But just have a few things to say about the infrared movement in general, and then kind of a couple of questions about your opinions on it, sure so recently. Uh well, okay, So the maga communism thing comes from uh kant bought and logo data lists, which are kind of like they're too like

uh, I would say, like lead guys. We we did an lengthy interview a couple of years ago, so from yeah, so so him and this other guy logo data lists are kind of like the lead guys behind. Yes, I think that insane. Oh absolutely yeah, late logo data lists is absolutely insane. I been praying for him a lot, let's just say

that. But the it seems like there is uh those guys. I talked to Logo on a Twitter space like a couple of days ago after he posted that the war in Ukraine is over Orthodoxy versus Catholicism, and I talked to him for about an hour and a half and I pretty much laid out how I view his view and the infrared view as pretty much the perennialist Catholic viewpoint, the running a list freemasonic Catholic viewpoint. Uh. And then the way that in the way that they approach like Marxism is hold on, I want

old on. So I got one question here. So I thought that these people were like empirico critical critical materialists like Lennin. So, how is that perennialism? Yeah, well, that's that's something that I found super interesting about this group, is they they're not actually like that they reject the militant atheism.

Uh, they tipped their hat towards religion. Hold On, I thought, I thought has and he I thought has In Hinkles say that materialism is compatible with what we I mean, I don't know what do you mean? Is that not has In Hinkle's view? They yes, they see that materialism is compatible with religion and has a material Isn't he a materialist? He says that he is. Okay, So again I'm just how is that perennialism? That's what I understand. Yeah, So, uh, it's not that that

is perennialism. It's the viewpoint that he expounds on in that he his his view is like he's Muslim, right, and then Jackson tips his hat towards orthodoxy. But then you're you're saying that he argues that these are all compatible. Yes, okay, yes, yeah, so he like at the end

of the day, they like religious freedom. Uh, They're like, it's it's funny because when you push, when you push their thinking to its conclusion, it is very much just freemasonic liberalism, but more conservative than we have today. And and so one of the things that I really like doing is using Dugan's Dugan's critiques of perennialism and his critiques of Marxism in general against them, because they really like Dugan and they use him as a source of inspiration

as well. And so one of the things that I found super interesting is well hold on so and again I'm not disagreeing, it's just I haven't read everything Dugan's written, but I didn't I didn't know Dugan was critical of perennialism. Maybe he's critical of certain perennialists, but I always got the impression that like he was kind of quasi perennialism. Uh. He could say that he is on the surface, but underneath, well, I mean, like the

last chapter of fourth so a fourth political theory. The last chapter is just the total defensive nasticism. So yeah, so yeah, yeah, I mean that's kind of something that I've been trying to work through myself and understanding his position. But from his article in the nineties called Counterinitiation, he talks about

how perennialism doesn't work because of contradictions within perennialism. Okay, and so I've just uh in talking to logo data lists uh this past week, I've I just have found that if once once pushed to uh to to uh the fullest extent of their of their claims and their ideas, uh, they circle back to very much like how reneg went on uh was working with the Catholics in the forties and that yeah, and and and it's it's just fascinating to me.

Uh yeah, I don't know. But my my question to you is more like along the lines of, so, if this is the case that these people have these opinions that are in line with the thing that they're saying that they oppose, my my question is do you think that they're naive or do you think that they're they're conscious and are have some force behind them. I don't know. I mean, I mean, I've I've seen maga communism stuff popping up on Twitter, you know, the last year, off and

on here and there. I saw my buddies over at w NN shout out to Conrad and OC. You know, I think I think they tried to have a debate with Hayes. I watched about five minutes of it and didn't

find it that interesting. So I'm very suspicious when anything like this pops up because and again I don't know these people, so I don't know their motives, but I could definitely see something like what Hinkle's saying playing into the narrative of what the you know, the establishment in the West wants to say, Oh, look, here are all of the Russian infiltrators pushing you know, Russian communism on Twitter, and we've now we're justified, and you know,

whenever actions we want to take so interesting. That's not to say that I don't I'm not saying they're operatives. I don't have any evidence that I'm saying that I can see it'd be used. And I'm always suspicious when stuff like this just out of nowhere pops up on the YouTube Twitter scene or suddenly this is everywhere. Suddenly there's all these people that are flooding like bots into you know, my feed to challenge on the question. So, and I'm not

saying everybody's an agent. I don't know that. I'm just saying that I'm always very suspicious when I see this. So I think that perennialists ideas are always very useful to the establishment. A lot of the perennialists, if you look into them, you know, they have a lot of ties to Oxford and to British intelligence. So I'm always very suspicious of perennialism, sufism. I know that Western intelligence has used Sufi's quite a bit. Uzz Bondi huzz

claims to be a Sufie. Oh there we go. Okay, So again I'm not saying he's a Western intelligence opera iman knowledge of I'm just saying that I'm suspicious of these kinds of things when they pop asolutely. But as to the ideas themselves, to me, it seems preposterous to think that. I mean, I could understand it as kind of like a larpie sort of trolling PSI up to call it maget communism as a joke. But if if the under underlying ideology is or strict materialism, I think it's pretty easy to refute.

Yeah. Absolutely. I think one one more thing I'd like to say is in that in that interview with oc Cannonist and by the way I see OC Cannons is in here, I really like your work and uh, if you'd ever let me come on the show and talk about Oz talk shit about Owes, I would love to. But anyways, in that, in that debate that you had with him, in the end of it, he's claiming that the Hostids are the Hostids are against like the or the the elites are

are against the Hassids, and that that kind of just was a gigantic red flag for me. And then there's also there's also you're saying, you're saying against Asidic judys. Yes, and specifically in Ukraine, because the Ukraine has become a sort of Jewish state. There are parts of Ukraine where they have people at the front of the entrance to towns, uh, checking people's passports asking them if Christian, and if they're Christian, they'll turn them around.

So that was kind of a huge red flag for me. And then in addition to that, there is a show runner from the Infrared community called mar Joseph who has advocated killing homosexuals in the streets and is his dad. Mar Joseph's dad is very much tied to the idea. So I just I see. And so it looks like, in other words, they're allowed to call over violence and nobody does anything. Is that right? Yeah? Yeah,

and it's it's very interesting. Yeah. I mean, if you're allowed to call over violence and nobody gets in trouble and you can do this all the time, and I mean, that's just come on, I completely agree with. But yeah, I think it's very interesting because I think that one of the things that people are seeing right now is that, or at least in Marxist circles, they're seeing this, uh uh, that Orthodoxy is challenge, is a challenge to the elites. It's not, it's it has been co

opted and it will be co opted again. But real Orthodoxy is a challenge to the elite. Yeah, certain sectors of Orthodoxy are I mean certainly not the Bartholome you Fordham University circles are not a challenge to the elite. They're part of the power. Yeah, yeah, but yeah, it's it's bosting to me, like the they seem to perceive this, but then but then they don't want to push to its final conclusion. So they're kind of like

the way the way Gropers see traditional Catholicism as a political tool. Right, So they're basically the pseudo Orthodox version of Gropers where they see the Orthodox Church as a political tools that right. Precisely, Yeah, precisely, And uh, I mean that's that's fishy to me as well, a big red flag.

But yeah, I mean it's it's fascinating, and uh, it's something that I've been thinking about a lot recently with with that talk with Logo that I did, and it's very interesting to me because his position is essentially, uh, we are not the same as the Catholics because we're Protestant and we

make every man a pope. And it's yeah, it's very it's very interesting because he's just what he's essentially saying is that my argument was you have the same position as the Freemasons, and his argument is the Freemasons are controlled by the pope. We're not the Freemasons because we made every manopope. He says, the Freemasons are controlled by the pope. Yeah, well that I mean

that like he was following through that. Yeah, I mean he was following my argument that the Freemasonic perennialism of Catholicism is the is the position that he takes, and so he was kind of trying to combat that by saying, no, we're we're Protestant. Every man is a pope. And it was just it's a fact. It was a fascinating conversation. And the whole time I was like, holy shit, this dude is just like objectively and and uh, objectively what you kind of it was the time I was just like,

Wow, this guy's objectively elusiferian. Uh in that that guys would say yeah, yeah, uh yeah, good questions. We're gonna move on. Thank you for that. So we've answered a lot of we had some good push back. Let's see who's been waiting for a while here. I don't recognize it is now the guy who was talking about this fact that it originally came he did out. So I don't know where he went, but he was he's the one that really wanted to come do this and then he left.

Clayton, what's up Clayton. It just I'm you, Clayton, do you want to I'm you, or we'll just move on. All right, we'll move on, David. What's up, David, David, I'm you. Hey, I'm gonna be the worst person to come into the space right now because I actually just jumped in and I'm not sure what you guys are talking about, but I've got high takes about anything, so uh yeah.

So basically, I'm defending the thesis that the two World Wars of the twentieth century and the dialectic creative between the communist East and the capitalist West was a in the final analysis, a confrontation and an opposition the establishment wanted. So it was I agree with you right there. Okay, well so yeah, no hot take on that one. Then we'll move on to the next person. Clayton, did you want to come back and try trying to ham you say, I'm you? Uh huh. I'll follow up with what I've got

you go ahead. I mean, I've I've stated kind of what my argument is multiple times. Well, I did get here a little late, so I might have missed some stuff. But first it's you know, it's nice to get the chance to seeing a lot of your stuff and really respect what you're doing. I grew up in the church, in the Baptist Church,

but I was one of those guys and who actually paid attention. And after the war, I really had a fallen out and you know, had my angry at got atheism years and I sort of come back more towards to the side, you know, after the Iraq War. After the Iraq War, that was okay what I participated in the Marine Corps. So so today's I'm not trying to be rude to you. Today's discussion is whether the twentieth century

conflicts were engineered. Fascism, communism, capitalism isn't today's I get it, but I'm I think I'm trying to bring it back to that which is in my analysis. I'm trying. I continually come up against the Freemasonic networks,

especially the British Freemasonic networks, and I find a lot of validity. And I was just going to some background for you know, but I find a lot of validity and the sort of tarply Larusian understanding of Edward the Seventh being the primary engineer of the world of the of the world wars, because I mean, World War two was just an extension of World War One, and if you look at all that foreign policy, it's it's huge Freemasonic British networks

and he died. I think thats part I think that was partially correct. I don't think AdWords called well, he's not calling them, but I think they the angle that they used was, oh, he was just a you know, he was a playboy, Edward the caresser. That's not true. He you know, the notes from Clemenceaux show that he was directly intervening and the world affairs, and he was the primary person setting up the Triple Entente

and all the precursor entanglements that were part of that. So I would like to know, you know what, what do you think about the British Freemasonic networks being so heavily connected and across the world, even in America. I see them everywhere amongst business people, and and I think that it really shows

that this is part of a much longer plan. And in British Freemasonry, I think it's quite relevant that you know, they're so obsessed with uh, with the Holy Land, you know, so it's there, it's like King Solomon and this Temple and we're gonna and the balt for decoration and all that, so this was definitely planned. What do you you know, do you have any thoughts or I definitely agree that in the eighteen hundred nineteenth century the

British Masonic structure was very useful as basically a kind of intelligence apparatus. So I think it was the intelligence network of the British Empire. I think that with the waning of the British Empire, though it didn't it doesn't have as much influence and power today as it did then. I do still think Freemasonry is a an element in the in the global power structure, but it's not

I don't think it's at the top of the pyramid. I think that many powerful people are Masons, but I don't think that everybody has to be a Mason. I think we can just look to uh, you know, I think the city of London is definitely a major player, but so as Washington, So's New York, so it's the Vatican. I think all of these entities are to some degree aligned with the coming technocratic government. So I don't know if the definitely I think in you know, the eighteen hundreds the British

Masonic structure. There's even mainline history books on this, like Jessica Harland Jacobs's book on Builders of Empire. Now, the British Masonic network was really their their spy network. But I just don't know if today they have as much power in these lodges as they did in eighteen hundreds. But I definitely think Masonry exists as a kind of global network, which still I'm sure it is involved in compromising people and controlling people and definitely has some degree of power.

But I think today people are much less interested in Masonry. I mean, they've had to have these kind of like recruiting drives because people don't care about it. I think that, you know, big tech has a lot more power in influence maybe then Masonic lodges. I'm sure that some of the big tech people are Masons. I don't doubt that. But I just think there's some gaps in the LaRouche. I think they have a lot of great research.

I've read LaRouche and Executive Intelligence Reviews stuff for years. I think they have a lot of great insights. I think there's some gaps though in their in their thesis, Oh yeah, absolutely, But One of the things is I don't see any other network or structure that actually is global. So one of the things it's like I'll say, oh, it's not one single overarching

conspiracy that's worldwide. The Vaticans world on the back right, I'm saying, but there are those are the two main structures, which are you know, the esoteric of each of the monotheisms, you know, but they all basically boiled down to Luciferianism in the first place. So it seems like to wait, who whoo, who bolts down Mason. Well, I mean you've got,

you know, for for for Christianity. I mean, I understand that Masonry is sort of non denominational, and you've got the London versus the French school, but the Grand orient but within like Sufism for Islam, Cobbolism, you know, in Babylonian Talmudism for Judaism. But they all basically more or less boiled down to the same thing. So and including for the for the you know, the Catholic Church, it's still that Saturnalia, Jupiter worship,

it's all those things merge. But when I look around, I do see I don't I mean, like Georgetown you see the Jesuit influence, of course, but what I actually see when I follow the evidence for who's the mover and shaker today, I still catch the Freemasons more than any other organization. All right, well, yeah, that's that's possible, so appreciate that. Let's see who's next, Fletcher, what's up, gott I'm you, I'm you if you want to come on Fletcher? Oh yeah, sorright. There

was a little bit of a delay when you hadn't met a speakers. So anyway, I just a few weeks ago I finished reading Your Resistible Revolution, and there was a part of the book right explains how when like the age of kings ended, I think it was back some kind of hold on you. You read one I could Irresistible Revolution. Who's that? I don't know. It's a pretty recent book, I think, a pretty recently written book. I can find the author for you, Okay, but it's uh talks

a lot about communism. But there's a part in the book when he mentions that back and basically, when all the kingdoms all across Europe fell apart, there was a I don't remember the time or the town, but it was town in Germany where there was two secret societies that were formed. One of them was the Freemasons, and then one of them called themselves some order of the Illuminati, and they eventually that group eventually became communism. I was wondering,

I'm true about that. I mean, that's the main line. That's I mean, that's in Billington, and that's in most history, like Bishop to influenced, so it was Wanaratti and then Bishop influenced the Jacobins in France

to be the sort of the communists of the time. That's correct, was that it seemed it sounded like it was around the time of the founding of or like time of the American Revolution, and a lot of the people that were part of those like that sounded like the Freemasons kind of went to America. They had a different philosophy of like you know, independence and freedom and

stuff and the Aluminium. This is the Jacobins versus the Grandin's, and so the American founding fathers, many of them were mainly influenced by the so called conservative revolutionaries known as the Grandins. Jacobins are the radical communist. You know, we share all share everything, we share wives, it's all communal Okay, yeah, but now not some of the Founding fathers were also influenced by Jacobins, like Thomas Jefferson and Franklin, so it's not exclusively Grandin. But

but yeah, that's correct. And then okay, well, do you remember what year that was? Plenty chance when they when that happened. And it just seemed kind of weird to me that all the French reb I mean French revelers in seventeen eighty nine. So okay, I thought it was something earlier than that that happened in Jermany. We'll go back and look it up. So seventeen so you're probably talking about seventeen seventy six in terms of like by shopped in Bavaria. Right, Yeah, maybe that was correct, but I

thought it was even just a little before that. Well, there's there's people, I think one I think if you read Billington, he talks about one A. Roadi as the first modern revolutionary of that time period. Okay, and then let me see what let me see what year one A. Ruddy was. Yeah, I'm not able to look it up right now, but

I just garious if you knew what you knew around that. And then also I just started Witness by Whittaker Chambers, which is supposed to be pretty good, and I don't know, so have you heard about that book at all? Uh So, now bron won A Ruddy is the same time period, late seventeen hundred, so I guess v shots would be prior to one road. Okay, all right, well compare those with that. What I got I was just garious. What you do about all that stuff? So all

right? Thanks? M Yeah, I mean they've always been people. I mean, you can go back to Pythagoras. Pythagoras argument for communism. I mean, that's if you read Bellington. He says that the Aluminus utilized the Pythagoraean symbolism because Pythagoras was there, you know, one of their quote saints. So let's see what exact years sub by Shopt is a little bit Malays a little earlier than one already. Yeah, the part the part that's I'm

sorry I already hit. Patrick is the one to speakle at. Patrick makes some points. What's up? Patrick? You're muted? Patrick? Oh hey, Jay, Hey you doing? Yeah, greeting great space. I think you kind of through the discussion of approved you know, on a global level internationally to manage there's a manage dialectic there. I think one of the big challenges maybe you could comment on this is uh is people struggling to define fascism

and Marxism too. But why this is important and I think I'd like to put this in your on your with this ball in your court, is that this dialectic is still used today to manage and steer politics, the rising of candidates, the suppression of parties of populism by branding it fascist or you know,

et cetera. The same could be said in the other direction, but you see it a lot now with the war and populism, especially conservative or in France lapenne is you know, is presented by the mainstream media is if you vote for them, you're voting for fascism, so you must vote for Macron uh. And so it's still to this day this dialectic is used to scalpe and shape contemporary politics. What are your general thoughts on this? It's a great point in fact, you know, Klaus the other day was at

one of the Davos a summit. To might be an older clip, but I re twittered the clip and Klaus said that for democracy to work, working for a sustainable future based on equality. I'm not joking. You can scroll down guys and see that the quote. He says, governments need to make an alliance with private interests, and he calls upon the governments of the world to align with his corporate representative interests. And this is what he defines a

stakeholder capitalism. So get this. His very definition of stakeholder capitalism is the full cooperation and subordination of governments to private corporate interests. And he calls it the public Oh you mean, in other words, the exact definition of fascism. So they're actually literally saying fascism from the mouths of clouds recently at that World Government summit, calling for all the sovereign governments to literally submit to Davos.

What is the definition of fashion? But at the same time, as Patrick absolutely correctly pointed out, anybody that challenges the narratives is immediately branded a fascist and a Nazi, which is completely ridiculous to call even Donald Trump or any of the Libertarians or any of the main line just in any way if you disagree, so and then that can be applied to people who are on the left side of the spectrum Joe Rogan, Right Russell brand they're colluding and

they're fascist now, or you can be on the conservative right wing perspective right Alice Jones, Donald Trump, fascists, Neo Nazis and so has. It's completely divorced from history. Ironically, that usage of it, and yet the very thing that is the definition of fascism. Klaus can literally call for total collusion between public and private interests and no one bats an eye and no one

calls the fascism. It's just amazing things. So that's a great point that all of these uh, these dialectical manipulation tools, which were you know, really established, I guess you could say in the Cold War, they're still there today, right, And so I guess we're just supposed to basically just whatever the establishment says we have to submit to and obey or else we're fascists. I mean that is that The worst part right now is it's like a

total it's a spectrum that's completely relative. So if you're branded as far right or someone says, oh that's far right, then that's seen as the gateway drug to fascism, which means it's the you know, early stages of hitlarianism,

so it immediately will get dismissed. And I've seen so many different candidates just completely sidelined, uh you know, using these sort of uh this tactic and we're still slaves to this dialectic in the twenty twenty three, which to me is incredible considering a lot of people can't even agree on the definitions of

these words. When you really drill down into kind of intellectual debate. Well, it's funny because you know, you can have Black Rocks CEO basically saying that the corporations are going to align and collude with governments and they're going to enforce and he says, well, we'll make you do this, so the Black Rock guy can get in there and say that everybody will be forced to submit to SDGs, d I all their acronyms, which is just I mean,

did Hitler and did any of the fascists actually go that far? And like did they openly even speak this way? I mean it's like it's like Clouds Can and Larry Think can literally just say, uh, yeah, we're going to use the governments to force you to do what the corporations want, and uh, you know this is for democracy. I mean just just insane, right, just none of it makes any sense. But yeah, but if you what, you want to have a business, you're that's now fascist.

If you want to have private properties, fascism. If you if you don't want to you know, own nothing, if you don't want to eat the bugs, you're fascist basically. And by the way, as I pointed out that the Channel four I thought he was a BBC present the Channel Channel four presenter can actually just like some of these you know, suspicious radical groups. He can get on there and say it's time for illegal actions for climate

change. Not for me. But but if any of you out there want to do the illegal actions, I support you, but I'm not going to do it. But uh so, yeah, so you can call for violence if you're the establishment figures, right, establishment, fake accountter revolutionary revolutionaries, right, they can do whatever they want. They get they get a basically

a free pass. But if you're Russell Brand, if you're you know, even if you're on leftist and you barely deviate right, you're immediately branded fascist. As says just another quick when I was going to get your thoughts on antifa, it's it is a kind of a global concept before it became the kind of LARPing caricature of what it is now in Portland. But I used to travel around the world and see you know, spray painted and graffiti antifa,

anti fascist. So there's a concept there that's very attractive to certain type of socialist revolutionary for instance. So what is the vision in their head is that they're opposing. Is it still Hitler? There has to be some kind of a driving for some attraction there, and it's clearly it's become something completely different. Now that's a good question, So my guests would be and I don't know. I've been looked into the history of the anti fascist movements.

I do remember some of the if I recall, weren't weren't some of the early quote antifa or anti fascist movements part of the what were they called the like the the anti Hitler Rose movement. I think they would adopt that terminology of being anti fascist. So you know, when there's a Hitler figure there,

I suppose it makes sense to have this kind of a movement. I knew a girl in college who I think she was doing like her undergrad thesis on on the the the anti Hitler Rose movement that people would know more about that than I do. But that's why I'm thinking where the terminology arises from. And then now it's co opted essentially to be an arm of you know, basically like Ford Foundation, So Rose Foundation, like you know, it's

just a totally foundation run fake is it? Is it anarchist? I mean, do they have like a statement of public we affirm public anarchy because I can't understand any other ideological movement other than like we were against all forms of order, and so now fascism is basic anti fascism basically equated with anarchism or cynicalism. But I mean that's not what the history of the quote anti fascist movement is. Anti Fascism historically is like that anti hitlarian movements in Europe,

isn't it. Yeah, there would be. They would all identify as progressive, I would imagine, at least in America could say so. But so they are pro structure, they're pro enforcing gender ideology and compelled speech, and probably most of them vote Democrats. So I wouldn't necessarily call this lot anarchist. But yeah, yeah, those are great points. I mean I would say that that's definitely a controlled situation. Now Alexander, who wanted to debate, came back. So what's up, elegent? Just I'm mute, m

ei there, h are you there? Can you hear me? Yeah? You're on muted? Okay, right, I hope not to be the guy that you were talking that was to start. Well, you took gets you with with my comments that I didn't have any evidence. So, I mean, we've been presenting a lot of evidence so far. So what what's your disagreement? Yeah, just to explain, it was really weird because you told me the time, but it was already in my path. I was thinking, oh, that's funny. Yeah, I got you, no problem,

no problem, m hm okay, okay. By the way, just to interrupt that, what I was trying to think of was Sophie Shoal And she was the White Rose movement in Germany that opposed Hitler. So that's what I was trying to remember. Go ahead, No, I've not talked to Hayes. I've not m Well, I just first of all, I can't fathom how Bolshevism wouldn't be funded and aided by the West. I mean, I think there's abundance of evidence for that. And also I can't fathom how materialism

would be something you know that that's defensible. So I just don't understand, like what. I'm not opposed to having a debate, but I just like, to me, it seems like the pre suppositions of empirical critical materialism like Lennon talks about. I mean that would be our point of departure about about Lennen? Are you talking about how Okay? Correct? Thank you? And you so you you think this is a completely organic thing. You don't think

there's anything at about it at all? M h. Well okay, but the fact that you followed in two years ago doesn't have anything to do with whether it's organic. Kay. So let's kind of the takes like are you a materialist? Like a rot? Do you think materialism is true? Okay? What I'm talking to you? So, like what are your views? You agree with him? You know? Okay? Okay? Yeah, yeah, okay, So let's go let's talk about material like materialism? How do

we why should we think materialism is correct? How do you know or give an account or justification for that belief? Yeah? Are you saying hold on? Are you saying me personally or everybody in the West. Okay, Okay, so and so so so Sculling Bones was not involved in the rise of mout Okay. So the pieces of evidence that I gave, what are those? Where are there? Well? Then wait a minute, So if you didn't catch most of the stream, how do you know those those evidences that

I gave her false? You just said, you just said it was wrong wrong? What? Okay? I get multiple examples of MAO and Maoism being aided by Sculling Bones in the West. Bill Donovan trained Maus guerrillas. Mau was a Yali. This is in Yale Review. Those are examples that I gave. I've presented that evidence mount countless times. It is well known. So but what am I So? You're old? No, you're so you're not even aware of that? So you're not even aware of the fact that

Donovan What No, Bill Donovan of the OSS famously trained Male's gorillas. You're saying that's not true. Well, I mean it's publicly admitted, That's what I'm trying to say. It's it's declassic. It's been Bill Donovan's autobiography. It's declassified on the CIA website, it's in the Yale Review. I mean, so is that all it is all fake? Right? Well, but I mean I've been presenting and making these arguments for years, so I'll I'm

happy to give you those horses. We've already pulled them up and talked about them today in the first few hours. So that's just one example. I mean, why would David Rock, why would David Rock feel the right essays in the New York Times about why you love Maoism and supported it well addressed it. Now you said you wanted to debate. I mean, I could keep piling on to evidences of what you're You're just saying that they don't exist or what it's all fake? Oh well, so wait a minute. You

don't have a knowledge of these things. And how do you know that this is all wrong? You said twice you are wrong, wrong. The evidence that I'm wrong, that Maoism was funded, it can't be possible. Well before that, though, my original question before you mentioned MAU was how do you know materialism is true? And then you start talking about mal No, that's what the question was. But I said, are you in materials like has? You said yes? And then my question was how do you know

materialism is a case. And you said, let's talk about now Europe, your philosophy. You and you guys are wanting you believe in materialism. Why am I supposed to believe that materialism is true as a system as a philosophy? Can you would draw me to position? Is that there's something that there's definitely some evidence to be suspicious of the kind of organic nature or lack there of, of the rise of fascism in Europe, possibly or maybe more specifically

than Hitler. I don't know if you can say, yeah, well no, I'm saying I'm saying that for both for both Bolshevism and Hitler, and so uh they couldn't have risen without Western the boort. Okay, I've heard

that before. Well, I never I've seen contradicting evidence, especially as it comes to like the rise of the NSDAP, specifically who they were actually backed by, like how they would get donations for example, so like how they were actually got money, donations and funding, because I never understood what the exact line of evidence was for that. Because right, so my chief source for can you mute when I'm talking to it's going really bad? Yeah?

Yeah, So tonight we presented a lot of argumentation from Sutton and from Quigley. I think Quickly is a stronger argument than Sutton. Sutton, I think was a mainline academic that stumbled across a lot of this research, and he makes a really strong case for the most part throughout his books. But I think Quickly is a stronger case simply because Quickly as the CFR or sort of historian, archivist, and so I've read multiple times to