Secret History #27: Empire of Evil

We've discussed Transnational Capital, the British Empire. We've also discussed the Separatist Frankets. Today, we will put the two ideas together and show how the alliance between these two different forces have created modernity, or the ideas that underpin our society today, including Marxism, Darwinism, Individualism, Liberalism, and Freudian Psychology. All right, so we will talk a lot about Jews today. But just as a caveat, it's important for us to remember that it's easy to see a Jewish conspiracy everywhere. But things are actually much more complicated than that. The argument I want to make to you today is that the Jews are a construct and tool of empire. In other words, they're really the middle managers. They're the ones who help. They help manage the empire. And if the Jews weren't around, then it would be the Indians or some other group. An empire needs scapegoats. It needs middle managers. And for the past 200 years, the Jews have served the purpose.

Something else I will show you today is that the empire, which is Transnational Capital, they get all the profit. They hide behind the scenes. They're the shadows. And they make all the money. And it's really the Jews get all the blame. And what we'll discuss, in the next class, is that it's the same thing that will happen today. Okay? So, that's the argument I will make to you today. Alright. So, let's discuss the British Empire. The British Empire is unique in human history in that, it controls the entire world. And it's just a small island, right? It's just a small island with very little resources. And it's able to control the entire world because it controls global trade. It has the world's greatest navy. It also has, It also has the Bank of England, which is really transnational capital. And English becomes the lingua franca of the world and has colonies throughout the world as well.

So for the British Empire, the way they control the world, it's a very simple concept. As long as the British Empire is able to control the seaways, then it controls the world. So in the world, the great crisis, the great problem, the great threat is that an empire will emerge within the Eurasian continent. It's called the heartland, okay? And this could be Germany, it could be Russia, it could be China. But if it's able to emerge, eventually, like the Mongol Empire, it's able to conquer the entire Eurasian continent. And through railways, it's able to link up Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. All together into one trading bloc. And then you don't need the seaways anymore. If that were to happen, then the British Empire would go bankrupt. Because, remember, the British Empire, with the Bank of England, transnational capital, it's really a policy scheme. It needs to be able to keep on buying into the empire for it to continue to succeed.

So the greatest threat is a great power emerging from the heartland. And throughout history, that was either the French, the Ottoman Empire. The Germans, or the Russians. So the grand strategy of the British is to create as much chaos and conflict in Europe as much as possible. You always want your enemies fighting each other. And that's just the core strategy of the British. Not very hard, okay? So again, as we discussed, there are four major enemies that the British have faced throughout their history as an empire. There are four major enemies that the British have faced throughout their history as an empire. The French, they were able to defeat because of the French Revolution, as well as the Napoleonic Wars. Then they had to face the Russians. And the Russians were the greatest threat because the Russians had the largest land empire.

And they were the most likely to unify the Eurasian continent. They also faced the Ottomans, and they also faced the Germans. Now, the British could not seem as though they were interfering in European politics. Because all that would do is angle the Europeans and unite the Europeans against the British. They had to do it using subterfuge, secretly, using intelligence operatives, right? And so, of course, what happened was that they built different strategies in order to divide and conquer Europe. What they would do is promote revolutionary movements using transnational capital. And we'll discuss these revolutionary movements later on. And we'll discuss these revolutionary movements later on. They also industrialized Japan because they saw Japan as a natural ally in the world. So you know that in Japan, they underwent the Meiji Restoration. And in only a few decades, they were able to industrialize. So much so that they defeated Russia in the Russian -Japanese War in 1905.

And you may not know this, but transnational capital, the British and the Americans, financed a great deal of Japan's industrialization. Because the Anglo -American Empire wanted Japan as an ally. It was a natural ally. What they would also do is establish resource colonies. So Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, these are all resource colonies. The idea is that you can now use manpower to fund your armies. And the last strategy is to, wherever you can, steal as much resources as possible, as fast as you can. And this was true in India and China. And China and Africa as well. So this is the grand strategy of the British. And they needed agents to help them in these endeavors. And the 17th Frankish made the most sense. So the advantages that the 17th Frankish brought to the British Empire were fourfold. The first is that they already had a diaspora. And they were also crypto -Jews.

They also discussed identity as Jews as well. So they were able, as a network, to conduct intelligence, do blackmail, and subvert governments. They also had access to a lot of transnational capital. They themselves were extremely wealthy. The last major advantage, and the most important, is that they had revolutionary selves and networks. So remember, the 17th Frankish, they believed that they were saving the world. They believed they had to destroy the world in order to save it. And these made perfect revolutionaries. And I'll show you this as we move on. The last reason that we won't discuss much today, but we'll focus a lot on in our last class, is the idea of eschatology. Where the British Empire, they are Christians. And they believe that they must use Jews as a pawn in order to force the return of Jesus. This is something that we'll discuss a great deal next class. But I want to focus on these three reasons first.

Okay? All right. So, and it made sense for the British to align themselves with the 17th Frankish, because the way they saw the world was the same. As an empire, as transnational capital, remember, you're focused on extracting as much energy as possible from your workers. So you're very materialistic. Well, the Frankish were also very materialistic as well, right? They believed that the body was more important than the spirit. Second is that... Both the Frankish and the British, they wanted to obtain power through chaos, instability, and regime change. And both were very focused on the pursuit of wealth and power. So these were natural allies. So let's use an example of how the Ottoman Empire... Oh, sorry. Let's use an example of how the British Empire worked the suffering of Frankish. And the most obvious example is the Ottoman Empire. So for the longest time, the Ottoman Empire was the most powerful force in Eurasia.

And this was the Ottoman Empire at its height in 1683. Remember, in 1666 is when Sabrelai Zevi declared himself the Messiah. And remember that Sabrelai Zevi had to convert to Islam. And the people who followed him into Islam are called the Dongmei. The Dongmei are very important people. But over time, empires will decay. In 1853, Russia attacked the Ottoman Empire. And this led to the Crimean War. The British and the French feared Russian expansionism. And so they supported the Ottomans. And the Ottomans were able to defend themselves against the Russians. But this alliance came at a cost to the Ottomans. The British and the French made the Ottomans take out loans in order to finance the war. And over time, because of interest, these loans started to overwhelm the Ottoman financial system. And so what happened was, the British and the French bankers came and established their own tax administration.

And so from now on, a third of all revenue, tax revenue, that the Ottoman Empire generated would go directly to the French and British bankers. And so this caused the Ottoman Empire to decline rapidly over time. And the French and the British, a central bank, were then controlled by foreigners. And not only that, but they set their own tax administration. So they had their own tax agents. And that's why these bankers became very wealthy. Guess what? These bankers had a natural ally in the domain, right? The Saboteur Frankish. And so the Saboteur Frankish also became very wealthy. Now what happened is that the Ottoman Sultan didn't really like this relationship. He didn't like being bossed around by these bankers. And so he went to the Germans. And so now the Germans were now financing the Ottoman Empire. And they were now allies. And so the British and the French didn't like this. And so what the domain did was start to finance a revolutionary group called the Young Turks.

The Young Turks believed in three things. They believed in secularism, no religion. They believed in liberalism. And they believed in individualism. Just basically the basic ideas of modernity. And eventually, the Young Turks were able to overwhelm the Ottoman Empire and establish something called the Republic of Turkey, which is still around today. So guys, the Republic of Turkey, if you go to Turkey, it's a domain that controls Turkey. Okay? All right? So remember, the domain comes from Zevi. They are crypto -Jews. They pretend to be Muslim, but they're in fact Jews. And these three domains will help to found the Republic of Turkey. And they still control Turkey together. Okay? So that's an example of an alliance between the Somerset and the British Empire. Another example of an alliance is, of course, the Rothschild banking dynasty. This is Jacob Rothschild with King Charles of England.

And this alliance goes back hundreds of years. And the Rothschild family is, of course, one of the most powerful banking families in the world. So there's a story of how they got rich. In 1815, Napoleon and the British fought the Battle of Waterloo. And this would determine who controlled Europe. In the battle, the British and the Germans together were able to defeat the French. When this news happened, an agent of the Rothschild got into a corvette, which is a fast boat, and they sailed all the way back to London to tell the Rothschild the news. The Rothschild controlled the media at that point. And so the media told everyone, oh, my God, we lost the Battle of Waterloo. So as you can imagine, people started to panic. There was a stock market crash. And then the Rothschild bought up all the assets. And that's how they became extremely wealthy. And this is a strategy that they continue to use throughout their history.

Okay. So where the 17th Frank is and where the British Empire clapped the most was in philosophy, developing an understanding of the world that allowed them to amass more power. Okay. So let's go over quickly over some basic British philosophy. So British philosophy at this time was controlled by Freemasons. We'll discuss the Freemasons more in the next class. Okay. But the main purpose was to really deny God and truth. And there were three major strands of this philosophy. The first major strand is what we'll call empiricism. And the most famous proponent of this is John Locke. John Locke argued that we are born with a tabula rasa, a blank mind. Okay. A blank slate. And so whatever information comes into us is through experience. Only through experience. Okay. Not through reasoning. Not because of God. Not because of imagination or inspiration. Not because of the mind spark in us.

But through just experience and only experience. Okay. Then Hume proposed a new idea called skepticism. And he goes in further. He goes in further than John Locke. John Locke says that we experience the world and that's how we know the world. Now, the entire basis of science is the idea called induction. If I see a white swan a thousand times, I can then infer that all swans are white. Okay. This idea of induction. This is what underlies studying process. Without the idea of induction, you can never access truth. And what David Hume says is, induction does not work. You cannot prove that just because you've never seen a black swan, black swans don't exist. Okay. You could have seen 10 million white swans. That does not prove that all swans are white and can only be white. And he's right because there are black swans. Okay.

So what he's saying is the very project of truth seeking, the very project of epistemonology, of philosophy, it's all nonsense. Not only that, but we don't really know things. All we do is remember things. Okay. So when we say that Rome is a capital of Italy, we think we know it, but we don't know it. It's all just convention. It's all just we agree to call a place in Italy Rome. We agree that that's a capital. Okay. It's all just agreement. But there's no basis for truth here. All right. So now this raises the problem of, okay. If God doesn't exist, if truth doesn't exist, if there's no way for us to reach truth, if there's no way for us to discover truth, then what can we do? And so Darien Bantham proposed the idea of utilitarianism. The way we understand the world is just through utility. If it is good for the majority of people, then it must be good.

If it causes pleasure for the majority of people, then that policy must be good. If people want to eat candy all the time and makes them feel happy, then we should allow them to eat candy. And that is inherently good. Okay. And then what his disciple John Stuart Mill will do is he'll take the basis of this idea of utility as a basis of good and evil to create liberalism. Okay. So the very idea of liberalism today is based on utilitarianism. So for example, homosexuality. Why is homosexuality good? Because first of all, homosexuals want to be homosexuals. Okay. You force them not to be homosexuals, they'll feel bad. But also what's more important is they're not doing any harm to anyone. Right? So if you just do the mathematics and you recognize that allowing homosexuality is a positive, and that positive brings more pleasure to the world, then you should allow it. Okay.

And let's just talk of it goes against the will of God, it's against the Bible. It's just nonsense. We should just focus on first principles and just focus on utility. Does it bring benefit to people? And this is the very basis of British philosophy. And as you can appreciate, this aligns very much with the 17th of Francis idea of the world. All right. So this is John Stuart Mill and this is Jeremy Bantham. Okay. And not only that, but once this philosophy is in place, they are now going to promote certain scientists that agree with this philosophy or whose findings support this philosophy. And the most famous, of course, is Charles Darwin. Okay. Charles Darwin. Right? When his book, The Origin of Species, came out, it was an instant bestseller. And within 20 years, it became the mainstream understanding of how we originated, even though if you actually read the book, even though if you actually look at the science, it's still very problematic.

All right. So this is very strange how science is supposed to be a field of rigorous debate, rigorous science. Right? But the evidence supporting evolution is limited. And again, we discuss this all the time, but it doesn't explain to us how we come to think. Right? It explains to us how we dug our bodies. Sure. Yeah. From apes, we get humans. That makes sense. But intellectually, we're a lot more imaginative than apes. How do you explain that? And he doesn't explain that. Okay? And you're not even allowed to ask this question. All right. So as this alliance between the Seven Frankish and the British Empire is growing, there's certain individuals that become these meeting points of these two different groups. Okay? So let's discuss two of them. The first is Benjamin Disraeli. And it's important. Because he becomes the first and only Jewish prime minister of the British Empire.

And the second person is Leonon de Rothschild, who is here to the Rothschild banking family. They're best friends. And you can argue the Rothschild banking family financed Benjamin Disraeli's banking career. Okay? And in 1844, Benjamin Disraeli will publish a book called Collinsby. It's a novel. Okay? It's not a memoir, but it's a novel. When you read it, he will say that the characters are very much based on people that Disraeli knows. And Disraeli is very explicit in telling us why he wrote the book. And the idea is to tell the British people more about Jews, because Jews right now in history, in Britain, they're an exotic species. Okay? And it's also to establish how Jews think. Now, what's amazing about this novel is that you read it, and it's really strange, but it conforms to every single anti -Semitic stereotype that we say today. Today, you say that Jews rule the world.

You say that Jews work together. They conspire together. You say that Jews think they're superior to everyone else. You are labeled as an anti -Semite. Okay? But, if you read this novel, and we'll read this novel together, this is exactly what Benjamin Disraeli says, okay, about the Jewish people. All right. So, let's read it together. Okay? So, Amber, can you read, please? This is the introduction to the book, Collinsby. Okay?

In asserting the paramount character of the...

Ecclest...

Ecclest...

What is it? Single. Keep going, Maureen.

Okay. For polity and the majesty of the theocratic principle, it became necessary to ascend to the origin of the Christian church and to meet in a spirit worthy of a critical and comparatively enlightened age, the position of the descendants of that race who were the founders of Christianity. The modern Jews had long labored under the odium and stigma of medieval... Malevolence. Malevolence. Malevolence. Okay.

So, what we're saying is this. Christianity is a great religion, but it's important that we look at the origins of Christianity and who founded Christianity, okay? Which is the Jews. We know it's the Jews who created Christianity, okay? Okay. Keep on going.

In the dark ages, when history was unknown, the passions of societies, undisturbed by tradition... Traditionary experience were strong, and their convictions, unmitigated by criticism, were necessarily fanatical.

So, during the dark ages, everyone was just stupid, okay? Keep on going.

The Jews were looked upon in the middle ages as an accursed race, the enemies of God and man, the special foes of Christianity. No one in those days paused to reflect that Christianity was founded by the Jews, that its divine author in his human capacity was a descendant of King David. Okay.

The divine author, of course, is Jesus, okay? Keep on going.

That his doctrines avowedly were the completion, not the change, of Judaism. That the apostles and the evangelists whose names men daily invoked and whose volumes they embraced with reverence were all Jews. That the infallible throne of Rome itself was established by a Jew, and that a Jew was the founder of the Christian churches of Asia.

So this really is not just saying that Jews are important, but he's also saying that Jews are superior. Okay. Because they're the ones who created Christianity, and what he will say later on is Jews created everything because Jews are the most intellectually creative people in the world, okay? And remember, this really is a Jew, and he's one of the Jewish elite, okay? All right. Let's keep on going. All right. So in the novel, the major character is Sidonia, who is a wealthy Jewish person based on the Rothschild family, okay? And he's going to explain. He's going to explain to us how Jews control the world. All right. Can you read, Allen? Yeah. Okay.

Sidonia. Sidonia was descended from a very Asian and noble family of Aragon. Okay.

Aragon is in Spain.

Okay.

So we discussed how before, for a hundred years, the Jews were part of the Spanish Muslim empire. But when they were reconquered, they were forced to leave or convert. Do you want to go in? Okay.

So Sidonia is a Jewish state that, in the course of ages, had given to the state many distinguished citizens. In the priesthood, its members had been peculiarly eminent. Besides several prelates, they counted among their numbers an archbishop of Toulouse and Sidonia. In a season of great danger and difficulty, had exercised the power of the archbishop. Sidonia, for a series of years, the paramount office of grand inquisitor. Okay.

So even after the Christians reconquered Spain, and after some Jews converted to Catholicism, okay, first of all, these Jews kept their faith secret. So even though on the outside they were Catholics, in the inside, they were still Jews. Okay. They were crypto -Jews. But much more importantly, these Jews rose to supreme power. Revealed their power. Within the Catholic Church in Spain. The irony is that the Spanish Inquisition, where Catholics were looking for Jews who were pretending to be Christians, the leadership were Jews. The leadership were crypto -Jews. Okay. This is what this really is saying. I'm not saying this is true, but this is what this really is saying. Okay. Keep on going.

Yet, strange as it may sound, it is nevertheless a fact, of which there is no lack of evidence, that these Jews were Christians. This illustrates family, during all this period, in common with two -thirds of the Aragonese nobility secretly adhered to the ancient faith and ceremonies of their fathers, a belief in the unity of the god of Sinai, and the rites and observances of the laws of Moses. Okay.

So guys, two -thirds of nobility in Spain were Christians. Crypto -Jews. Jews disguised as Catholics. Okay. All right. So again, I'm not saying this is true, but it's striking and really strange that a Jewish man, who is very powerful, who will become Prime Minister of England, he's writing this stuff. Okay. He's putting it in the mouth of basically a Rothschild. Okay. Can you read, Amber?

The Sidonians of Aragon were...

New Christians.

Were nouveau Christianos. Christianos. Christianos. Some of them, no doubt, were burned alive at the end of the 15th century under the system of Torquemada. Many of them, doubtless, were the San Benito, but they kept their titles and estates and in time reached those great offices to which we have referred. During the long disorders of the Peninsular War, when so many openings were offered to talent and so many opportunities seized by the adventurous. New West Asia, on the western part, in the 10th century, during their times, with the most Great II. He loved his people. He loved his people. Madrid or even Cadiz could never be a base on which the monetary transactions of the world could be regulated, resolved to emigrate to England, with which he had, in the course of years, formed considerable commercial connections. He arrived here after the Peace of Paris with his large capital. He staked all he was worth on the Waterloo loan, and the event made him one of the greatest capitalists in Europe.

Okay, so these crypto -Jews, they had a lot of money, but not only that, but they have an information network, okay, because they have relatives, friends, all throughout Europe. And they are indexed to a superior, and so they know how history will develop. And they see a good money -making opportunity in war. So when these wars come out, what these Jews do is they support both sides, so they can't possibly lose. And then they make a lot of money, and then they figure out where it is in their most advantage to be. So there's actually no national loyalty. They don't see themselves as belonging to a certain group of people, a certain nation. They see themselves as, first and foremost, Jews, okay? So when the time presented itself properly, the Sidonians, they will migrate, some of them, not all of them, will migrate from Spain into continental Europe and up to England. They saw England

as the future, and of course, from England, they will also migrate to the United States of America. Okay? Alan, can you read, please? The only human quality... Sorry, so the father goes to England, and now he establishes the banking dynasty, and his son will now inherit everything, okay? And so this is about the son. Keep on going.

The only human quality that interested Sidonia was intellect. He cared not whence it came, where it was to be found, creed, country, class, character, and this respect were alike indifferent to him.

Okay, so again, this is a very anti -Semitic trope. Where Jews don't like the idea of nation, or culture, or religion. They like the idea of ideas, okay? And one anti -Semitic trope is that Jews have a conspiracy to degrade religion, culture, society, nation -state, in order to advance their own interests.

Okay, keep on going. The author, the artist, the man of science. His friends never appealed to him in vain. Often he anticipated their wrongs and wishes. He encouraged their society, was as frank in his conversation as he was generous in his contributions. But the instant they ceased to be authors, artists, or philosophers, and their communications arose from anything but the intellectual quality which had originally interested him. The moment they were rash enough to approach intimacy and appeal to the simplicity of the world, he saw them no more.

Okay, so this is a really important idea where, again, this is propaganda for Jews, right? So this really is saying how great Jews are. Jews are intellectual. But you know what, Hegel, Friedrich Hegel, will say is that, well, culture, there can be no great ideas, okay? Ideas emerge from community, from culture, from belonging, okay? So think of Homer or Dante. Or even the Yahwehs, okay? If you think that you are intellectual above culture, above nation, above people, you will not produce great ideas.

Okay, keep on going. It was not, however, intellect merrily in these unquestionable shapes that commanded his notice. There was not an adventurer in Europe with whom he was not familiar. No minister of state has such communication with secret agents and political spies as Sidonia. He held relations with all the clever outcasts of the world, the catalogue of his acquaintance in the shape of Greeks, Amerians, Moors, secret Jews, Tartans, Geesebes.

Okay, all right, that's fine, okay. Look, the idea is that Jews are, first and foremost, international, the cosmopolitan, right? And as a result, what will happen is that over time, because he is in contact with so many different groups. He's so intellectual, he's always reading his history, he comes convinced that the superior race, the greatest race of humanity are the Jews. Why? Because unlike other races, the Jews refuse to intermarry. They refuse to breed with other cultures. And so as a result, the Jews are, first and foremost, peer. They are alien. Okay, this is really ironic, again, because the Nazis will use this idea. A hundred years later, to justify the Holocaust, but at this time in history, the Jews think that they are the superior race because they are the most peer, okay? So this is all that is saying. All right, can you read, Amber?

In this country, Macedonia.

So this country, of course, is England, right?

Since the peace, there has been an attempt to advocate a reconstruction of society on a purely rational basis. The principle of utility has been powerfully developed. Okay. I speak not with lightness of the labors of the disciples of that school. I bow to intellect in every form, and we should be grateful to any school of philosophers, even if we disagree with them. Doubtly grateful in this country, where for so long a period of our statesmen were in so pitiable an arrear of public intelligence. There has been an attempt to reconstruct society on a basis of material motives and calculations.

Okay, so again, this is the idea of, you did terrorism, right? This is Jeremy Bantham, John Stuart Mill. Keep on going.

It has failed. It must ultimately have failed under any circumstances. Its failure in an ancient and densely peopled kingdom was inevitable. How limited is human reason? The profoundest inquirers are most conscious. We are not in debt to the reason of man for any of the great achievements, which are the landmarks of human action. And human progress. It was not reason to be besieged Troy. It was not reason that sent forth the Saracen from the desert to conquer the world.

Okay, so the Saracens are the Muslims, okay? Keep on going.

That inspired the Crusades. That instituted the monastic orders. It was not reason that produced the Jesuits. Above all, it was not reason that... ...created the French Revolution. Man is only truly great when he acts from the passion. Never irresistible, but when he appeals to the imagination. Even Mormons count more votaries than Bantham. And you think, then, that an imagination once subdued the state. Imagination may now save it. Man is made to adore and to obey. But if you will not command him, if you give him nothing to worship, he will fashion his own divinities and find a chieftain in his own passions.

So, um, Sonoi is emphasizing the limitations of British philosophy, right? Law, Hume, Bantham, Mill, they're all limited. And so what the British need is for the Jews, with their imagination, with their religion, to save the British, to lead the British, to guide the British. Okay? Does that make sense? So, again, this is trying to establish Jewish supremacy. Okay. All right. This is much too long. Okay? But what he's really saying is that, listen, we Jews, we want to be part of society. We are naturally conservative, but we also want to practice our religion. So if you, at any point, if you, the British, at any point, try to restrain us, if you try to take away our religious rights, we will rebel against you. We are cohesive. We will stand up for liberalism. We will stand up for secularism. We will stand up for individualism, because these three philosophies are what most protect us from religious overreach.

Okay? Does that make sense? Okay. So that's what he's saying. So, Alan, can you start here? You never observe.

You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate. The first Jesuits were Jews.

This is true. Okay, guys. The secret intelligence agency of the Catholic Church were first Jews. This is true. Keep on going.

That mysterious Russian diplomacy, which so alarmed Western Europe, is organized and principally carried on by Jews. So the Jews are the agents of the Russian Empire. Keep on going. That mighty revolution, which is at this moment preparing in Germany, and which will be, in fact, a second and greater reformation, and of which so little is yet known in England. It's entirely developing under the auspices of Jews, who almost monopolize the professorial chairs of Germany.

Okay. So this hasn't happened yet. This is the year 1844. He's saying, like, the revolution that you will see later on in Germany, we organized it, man. We Jews organized it. Why? Because we control the academies. We control the professorships of Germany. Keep on reading.

Okay. Peter, the founder of spiritual Christianity, and who is Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Berlin, is a Jew. Okay. So keep on going. Okay. We won't read it.

About how many professors are Jews. Okay. Do you understand? Now, what's amazing is, again, this came out in 1844. In 1848, there were revolutions throughout Europe, throughout Germany. So how did this really know about this? Well, possibly because... Because the British were helping to finance all of this, right? The alliance between the British and the Frankish. All right. Can you read, Amber?

Okay. From...

From here, okay?

A few years back, we were applied to by Russia. Now there has been no friendship between the court of St. Petersburg and my family. It has Dutch connections, which have generally supplied it, and our representations in favor of the Polish Hebrews, a numerous race, but the most suffering and degraded of all the tribes have not been very agreeable to the Caesar.

The Tsar. Tsar. So what he's saying is, we're very rich and nation states come and look for us for money, okay? So Russia wants a loan from us. We said, no, you mistreat the Jews, so we're not going to give you any money, okay? The Russians are notorious for being anti -Semitic at this stage. Okay. Keep on going.

However, circumstances drew to an approximation between the Romanovs and...

The Romanovs are the controlling family of Russia.

And the Sidonians. Right. The Sidonians. I resolved to go myself to St. Petersburg. I had on my arrival an interview with the Russian Minister of Finance, court...

Count.

Ca... Can...

Cancrun.

Cancrun. I beheld the son of a Lithusianian Jew. The loan was connected with the affairs of Spain. I resolved on repairing to Spain from Russia. I traveled without intermission. I had an audience immediately on my arrival. With the Spain Minister, Senor Mendes Zabel. I beheld one like myself, the son of a Nuevo Cristiano, a Jew of Aragon. In consequence of what transpired at Madrid, I went straight to Paris to consult the President of the French Council. I beheld the son of a French Jew, a hero, an Imperial Marshal, and very appropriately so. For who should be military heroes if not those who worship the Lord of Hosts. And is Solut a Hebrew? Yes. And others of the French Marshals. And the most famous, Massena, for example. His real name was Man...

Manasa.

Manasa. But to my anecdote. The consequence of our consultations was that some Northern powers should be applied to in a friendly and mediative capacity. We fixed on Prussia and... Prussia. Prussia. And the President of Council made an application to the Prussian Minister who attended a few days after our conference. Count Arnim entered the cabinet and I beheld a Prussian Jew. So you see, my dear...

Connerspeak. Connerspeak.

Connerspeak. This pleads the truth and my consent that we are then convinced by the same Docker safety that the world is governed by very different personage from those who are not behind the scenes.

So it's Jews is which control the world because only Jews get along together. Okay? So if Jews didn't exist the world couldn't get along, right? And Jews hide everywhere. And that's how the world works, guys. You think the person in charge is in charge, but actually it's a secret society of Jews. Now again I'm not saying this is true. I just found it really weird that Benjamin Disraeli is writing about this. And again, he's getting a lot of this information from the Rothschild banking family. So the Rothschild, for whatever reason, think they control the world. So I don't go much into this in detail, but I will point out that there is evidence that this is true. So we're going to look at the communist revolution in Russia together. I also want to keep you in mind that I don't think this is true, actually. There is evidence that this is true, but I do not think this is true.

Why Disraeli is writing about this, we will discuss next class. But it's all part of a secret plan. But first, let's look at the evidence that this may be true. Again, I'm not saying this is true, but there is evidence that this is true. And the major piece of evidence is the communist revolution. The Bolshevik revolution in 1917 that overthrew the government of Russia to create a communist government. First, let's talk about revolution. There are four elements you need in order for a revolution to be successful. The first is you need a really charismatic leader. Second is you need a broad mass appeal, usually land for the peasants, freeing debt, end of war, peace. Then you need organizational discipline, everyone has to get along, it has to be a cohesive group. The last element, of course, is you need incompetent opposition. Your enemies are morons. And, of course, the classic example of this is Mao Zedong versus Chiang Kai -shek.

Mao Zedong was a charismatic leader with a very strong organization. And Chiang Kai -shek, even though he had a huge army, even though he had the American army, even though he had all sorts of benefits, he was a moron. And that's why he lost. The same is true for the Russian revolution. This is Vladimir Lenin. He's not charismatic. But he is extremely focused. He's very focused. He's fanatical. And this is Leon Trotsky, who is very charismatic, he's a great speaker, and he's a Jew, okay? So I will point out that in 1917, he helped lead the revolution. But before that, he was actually in the United States. He had an apartment in New York City paid for by wealthy Jewish bankers. His uncle is a very wealthy Jewish industrialist in Ukraine. So he's part of this transnational capital network. And even though he himself is a revolutionary, he hates capitalism.

If someone gives you money, you cannot help but be influenced by that person, okay? That's just the reality. All right, so October 1917 is when the Bolsheviks launched a revolution and they seized power. And then a month later, they organized an election. And as you can see, they are actually not that... They are not the most popular party in the world. They are not the most popular party in Russia. They only have about 23 % of the vote. The socialist revolutionaries actually have much more popularity than they do. They are 37%. And they have all these different groups. The Ukrainians, the cadets who are liberals, the Mensheviks, the Cossacks. So at this point in history, Russia is divided into so many different groups. You have different ethnicities, you have different political programs, you have different orientations, okay? And this is what will launch the Great Revolution. You have the Bolshevik Civil War, okay?

And at this time in history, remember, the Bolsheviks only control a certain part of Russia. They are the official government, but they only control a small part. And the White Army, which is a combination of the liberals and monarchists, they're a much more stronger military. And also at the same time, you have all these different ethnic groups, the Ukrainians rebelling against the Bolsheviks, including the Polish. But over the next five years... Slowly... Slowly, the Bolsheviks will obtain absolute power. And so the question is, how do they do that? Well, the first tool is terror, okay? This is called the Red Terror, where they went around and killed anyone who opposed them. Now, what you don't understand is, there's actually a strategy behind the Red Terror. The very idea is to steal as much money as possible from wealthy people, okay? So you're an aristocrat, you have a lot of wealth hidden, I need your money.

So you either give me your money, or I will kill your daughter, and I will kill your son, and then I will kill your wife, okay? So it's your choice, give me all your money, or I'll kill everyone in your family. So the Bolsheviks were fanatical about this, and that's why they won the war. Leon Trotsky organized the Red Army in the war against the White Army, okay? There were also the Greens, which were these peasants. Okay? So the Bolsheviks were far behind. So how did the Bolsheviks, the Red Army, win the war? Well, guys, they had a lot of help, okay? They had a lot of mercenaries coming to the country, tens of thousands of mercenaries to help them, especially the Chinese mercenaries, the Latvians, the Hungrians, okay? How did they get all this money? Transnational capital. Wall Street and the City of London were bank -holding the Soviets. Why were they doing that?

Also, we have to remember that at this time in history, during the Revolution, Britain and France and the United States and Japan sent armies into Russia. Now, what you learn in class is, oh, it's because they are capitalists, and they fear the communists, and that's why they sent armies to try to reduce the Bolshevik threat. That's not true, guys. Why they sent the armies is because the Bolsheviks... Okay. The Bolsheviks reneged on debt, okay? Russia owed a lot of money to Britain, Japan, the United States, and France, and so these armies were sent in order to threaten the Bolsheviks. So what the Bolsheviks did was they stole as much money as they could from the peasants, the nobility, from the treasury, and pay off these armies, and then these armies helped them in the war against the whites. Okay? Does that make sense? Okay? So let's summarize what we've just learned. Now,

what you're taught in history class is American Britain needs Russia in war against Germany, and that's why... And the Germans control the Bolsheviks, and that's why Britain and America would not support the Bolsheviks. And the kind of argument is, no, it's transnational capital that has influence over any country. It's Anglo -American foreign policy. Okay? Do you understand? Anglo -American foreign policy, it's not to serve national interests. It's not... It's to serve private capital. Okay? That's the first point. The second point is the Bolsheviks are communists, and so they're a threat to capitalism. And the kind of argument is, actually, transnational capital cares about profit. They don't care about ideology. All right? What drives them is money, not ideas. And the third argument is... The Bolsheviks hate imperialism and capitalism, so they will refuse to work with Wall Street and the City of London. And the kind of argument of is that they believe that the ends justify the means.

We just have to do what we need in order to obtain power. Then we can create our socialist paradise. Okay? All right? All right. So this is a book called Wall Street and the Russian Revolution. It's started by a man by the name of Richard Spence. He spent a lot of time collecting documents that show that, in fact, transnational capital were helping the Bolsheviks win power in Russia. Why? Because they believed in the Bolsheviks? No. Because transnational capital, first and foremost, steals. You understand? They like revolution because revolution is an opportunity to steal as much as you can. Okay? You can buy things really cheaply during a revolution. And this is his argument. All right. So let's read a couple of passages from his book. So Amber, can you read, please?

The pro -Bolsheviks... The Bolshevik faction on Wall Street had a most outspoken pitchman in the aforementioned William Boyce Thompson. Departing Petrograde, he arrived back in the States on Christmas Day in 1917. On 18th January, he sat for an interview with a representative of Dow Jones and published in the Wall Street Journal.

Wall Street Journal, of course, is the newspaper of Wall Street. Keep on going.

Despite the fact that Bolsheviks had proclaimed an armistice on the Eastern Front and opened peace negotiations with Berlin, Thompson insisted that the Russians would never conclude a separate peace.

So he's just lying to people. Okay? The Bolsheviks want peace of Germany. They promise peace to the people. That's why they're popular. And these Wall Street bankers are just lying to American people. Okay. Keep on going.

He pooh -poohed reports that there was anarchy. Okay. There was anarchy in Russia and said that the Russian people were trying to adopt socialism as the basis of their government. If they were allowed to succeed, an extremely democratic, well -managed country will emerge. In other words, an excellent business environment.

So what the Bolsheviks basically did was they took all the gold they had to ride Wall Street so that Wall Street would go and brainwash American people. Okay? That's the strategy here. All right. Can you read, Alan? Yeah.

For those on Wall Street and elsewhere who dream of putting the break on Russia's economic development and seeing its riches and resources up for grabs under a regime willing to sell anything, their dreams have basically come true. Okay.

So it's really important to understand. The British Empire was fighting a war against Germany. Russia was an important ally, right? They didn't care because for Britain, they want to destroy everyone. Okay? So that's why they support the Russian Revolution because they knew the Bolsheviks would destroy the Russian economy.

So keep on going. Keep on going. Yeah. From 1918 through early 1921, Bolshevik war communism reduced Russia to an economic based on barter and robbery. Besides the abolition of private trade and the destruction of the monetary system, the Red Regime embarked on a massive looting campaign, ransacking palaces, bank vaults, churches, and museums. They expropriate every... Every valuable they could get, they're hands on and stash it all in a new state treasury. By the close of 1921, an estimate $450 million in valuable had been sequestered, sequestered, sequestered there. With more to come, much of it does not... Testing. Testing to be fenced abroad for a fraction of its value in capital... Capital. Capital. Capital. Capitalist hard currency. So this is how empire works guys.

Okay? They destroy nations in order to steal as much as they can. What happens afterwards? They don't care. All right? It's that simple. All right. Okay. So after the Bolsheviks consolidate power, after they win civil war, everyone assumes that Trotsky would be the new leader. But it's Stalin that becomes the new leader. Okay? Why? Because after war ends, there's expectation among the population. Bolsheviks that we help the transnational capital so much, they're going to help us rebuild our nation. Okay? They're going to give us loans. They will give us technology to help us rebuild Russia. And guess what happened? Transnational capital says, no, you guys are good. We're good. We made our money. Okay? And so now what's happening is that Leon Trotsky, who is a Jew, he gets blamed, right? Because Leon Trotsky is the one who bought a nice transnational capital. He's the one who facilitated this exchange. And now the Bolsheviks are thinking, oh, this is a Jewish conspiracy.

You Jews were planning this all along to steal everything from us and then screw us over in the end. Okay? And that's why Stalin won. All right. So let's go over the difference between Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin. Leon Trotsky did not work for transnational capital. Okay? He was first and foremost a revolutionary who was interested in global revolution. He had... He had, let's say, a calling to transform and save the world. But he was accused of being transnational capital. And because he was a Jew, everyone just assumed that he was a spy, okay? And he also had a personality which was arrogant and aloof. Stalin had his own issues, okay? But he benefited from the fact that Trotsky was a Jew and he was able to slowly amass power for himself. He also has a background as a police informant. But being a spy for the capitalists was a much worse crime, all right?

And that's why Joseph Stalin won in the end. And this is terrible for the Jews, the Bolshevik Jews who believed in a revolution because they all got killed by Joseph Stalin, okay? Leon Trotsky was killed along with all his children. All right. So it's not just that transnational capital supported the Bolshevik revolution. The Bolsheviks, they also supported Karl Marx, okay, all right? So Karl Marx has an interesting background. He actually comes from many generations of rabbis. So he's basically a Jewish aristocrat. And he was German, but then he moved to England. And he wrote many letters, wrote many books to promote communism. These books aren't going to sell well. So he was poor all his life. But what's interesting is he lived a very nice life. Okay? He lived in England and he lived a basic middle class life. So where did he get all his money from?

Well, he got all his money from Frederick Engels, who was a friend of his and whose father was an industrialist, okay, a Jewish industrialist. So why would a Jewish capitalist support Karl Marx? And the answer is because communism benefits transnational capital, okay? So why? Why would it benefit transnational capital? All right, can you read, Amber? So this is a letter written by Karl Marx, okay?

For as soon as the distribution of labor comes into being, each man has a particular exclusive sphere of activity which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood. While in communist society, we're not allowed to do that. Therefore, nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity, but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes. Society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, and as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman, or critic.

Okay. So the problem with capitalism is that it degrades our individuality. We, as individuals, want freedom to enjoy ourselves, right? This is a very Frankist idea, right? We want to enjoy ourselves. We want to be free to enjoy the pleasures of life. The problem with capitalism is the idea of specialization, right? Where you're forced to do one thing, one thing only, according to the needs of the capitalists, okay? Can you keep on reading, Amber? Okay.

Supposing that we had produced in a human manner, in his production, each of us would have doubly affirmed himself and his fellow men. I would have objectified in my production my individuality and its peculiarity, and would thus have enjoyed in my activity an individual expression of my life, and would have also had, in looking at the object, the individual pleasure of realizing that my personality was subjective, visible to the senses, and therefore a power raised beyond all doubt.

Okay. So what you're saying here is that before, each of us were craftspeople, so I might make a vase, okay? And when I make a vase, then this vase is an expression of my individuality, an expression of my creativity, and by looking at this vase, it becomes an objective symbol of my existence. I can look at this vase, and my own individuality will be reflected back to me, okay? Keep on going.

In your enjoyment or use of my product, I would have had the direct enjoyment of realizing that by my work, I had both satisfied a human need and also objectified the human essence, and therefore fashioned for another human being the object that met his need.

Then I give this vase to a friend, and I see this vase at my friend's home, right? He puts flowers, and he's very happy with this vase, and then I can see my impact in the world. All right? Keep on reading, Amber.

I would have been for you the mediator between you and the species, and thus between—and thus been felt by you and acknowledged as a completion of your own essence and a necessary part of yourself, and I would thereby have realized that I was confirmed both in your thought and in your love.

Okay, so this vase now shapes your reality, and I know that this vase has given you meaning, and it has shaped your reality, and therefore I find meaning in that, okay? And again, this is a very Frankist attitude, right? Where you can project your imagination onto people, and it can shape the way he or she sees reality. Okay? This is a very similar concept. Keep on going.

In my expression of my life, I would have fashioned your expression of your life, and thus in my own activity, I have realized my own essence, my human communal essence.

Okay, right. So again, this is something that sounds perfectly correct, right? And the reason why it sounds correct to us is because it becomes a basis for our society, okay? The idea of individualism, the idea of materialism, okay? Keep on going.

Okay.

In such a situation, our products would be like so many mirrors, each one reflecting our essence. Thus, in this relationship, what occurred on my side would also occur on yours.

Okay, so this is a really important metaphor, okay? He's saying that objects become mirrors where we can see our own individuality reflected, okay? And this goes against the religious concept where our humanity is all reflected in each of us. Okay, so what he's doing is creating a material outlook, does that make sense? He's denying the existence of God, he's denying the existence of spirituality, but he's seeing the concept of religion and applying it to a material world, right? He recognizes that we have these spiritual, religious needs, and what he's saying is that we don't need God to achieve these needs, we can have materialism achieve these needs, okay? Which again, is a very Frankist concept. Keep on going. Okay.

Okay, interesting, very interesting. So, when he says materialism, he means the self. Please, take your time to imagine this. So, in general, what does materialism look like? In the individualistic sense, it's a means of thinking, meaning, of understanding, of not just thinking and of being, and of being. It's a form of thinking that's not really a form of thinking, but the idea of thinking or enthusiasm, as I said, of not being, of being, to me, it's a form of thinking that is being, that's not really an expression of what, what I'm doing, not what I'm doing, it's not what I'm doing. through an external arbitrary need, not an inner and necessary one.

So why would transnational capital support this idea? The reason why is that before the debate was mind versus matter, right? What matters more, the spirit or the flesh? And what Marx is saying is, no, what matters, the debate, the dialectic is between private property versus public property. In private property, I have to work for someone else. In public property, I work for myself. That's the question, that's the debate, that's the dialectic, okay? And so what, by doing this, it's a very clever trick that transnational capital uses by making us think that the only thing that matters is private versus public, as opposed to mind versus matter, okay? That's the goal of communism. That's why transnational capital is supporting this idea, because it advances the goal of empire, which is to turn us all into slaves. Okay, does that make sense? All right. All right. So Marx is correct in analyzing the problems of capitalism, okay?

But his problem is that he believes the solution is to make capital public. And as a result, this will create a worker's paradise. But there are problems with this, okay? So let's go over some of the problems. Okay, Marx believes that history is linear progress. So capitalism will lead to socialism, which will lead to communism. It is a linear progress, okay? Second is a problem that history is theological, meaning things go the way they should. Marx also believes that what matters is class struggle between the rich and the poor, as opposed to between spirit and flesh, okay? And the last thing that's the most problematic is Marx believes you need a vanguard, in order to lead the proletariat into a socialist paradise. You need an elite in order to lead us into paradise. And this esotology is all Frankist, right? This is something that we learned last class. This is something that Frank proposed, where his group is a new people, which will lead people into a material paradise, all right?

So all Marx is doing is, taking Jacob Frank's ideas and systemizing it. Now I'm not saying that Marx was a Frankist. He's probably not a Frankist. But what I'm saying is that there are people around him, like Frederick Engels, who could have been a Frankist, and as such, and they used their money to influence Marx in a way, okay? And we can suspect this because there's some ideas that don't make sense. If you are a socialist, you believe in democracy. But Marx believed in a dictatorship, okay, that makes no sense, all right? So this is Michael Buchanan, and he was a socialist. He was an anarchist. And he believes, he agrees with most of Marx's analysis, but where they disagree is this. Marx believed you needed a vanguard, okay? Like Frederick Frank believed. But Buchanan says, no, no, no.

If you have a vanguard, they'll just become a new capitalist class, okay? What's the difference, man? If you are a vanguard, if you are a socialist, you have to believe in democracy. You have to believe that everyone has capacity to make his or her decisions. And that must be the basis of your new society. Otherwise, we're just gonna go back to the way things are before, okay? It'll just be another empire. Before it was the British Empire, now it's the Russian Empire. Who cares? What's the difference? All right, so let's read some Buchanan, okay? All right, can you read, Amber?

As for us, we want neither phantoms nor nothingness, but living human reality. And we recognize that man can feel free, be free, and therefore can achieve freedom. In order to be free, I need to see myself surrounded by free men and be recognized as such by them. I'm free only when my individuality, reflected in the mirror of the equally free consciousness of every individual around me, comes back to me strengthened by everyone's recognition.

So this is really important, okay? This may seem the same as Marx, but they're saying different things. Marx says, no, the object is the reflection. And Buchanan is saying, no, no, no. The other person is the reflection, okay? And this goes back to Dante, Zoroastria, Jesus. There's a divine spark in us. And we love someone else. When we care about someone else, our divine spark is reflected in that person's divine spark as well, okay? And the object gets in the way. That is a crucial distinction, do you understand? Okay? It's not the same, but these are two radically opposing ideas where Marx says, no, it's the object that matters. As long as the object is created by yourself freely, then that is good. And what Buchanan says, no, no, what matters is our relationship with each other, okay? We don't need the object, okay? Can you keep on going?

The freedom of every other individual does not limit my own, as the individualists claim. On the contrary, it is the confirmation, realization, and human dignity of all persons. To see and feel my freedom confirmed, sanctioned, and boundlessly expanded by universal agreement is happiness. It is human paradise on earth.

How you create paradise is through love. Okay, do you understand? Not through objects, not through public property, not through socialism, but through love. Okay? The problem with Marx is, he focuses on the individual. What makes the individual happy? And what Buchanan says is, that's stupid. You have to focus on what makes a community happy, because it's only through the happiness of others can we ourselves be happy, okay? And this is something that Jesus said, Zor, Thusta, Date, okay? This is what makes logical sense. And Marx is not a dumb guy, okay? He's a really smart person. But he says something opposite, which suggests to us that he is being influenced by an outside force, okay? He himself would not come to the conclusion that, he himself would not come to the conclusion that you need a vanguard to lead the workers. All right, keep on reading, Amber.

Available to everyone will be a general scientific education, especially the learning of the scientific method, the habit of correct thinking, the ability to generalize from facts and make more or less correct deductions. But of encyclopedic minds and advanced sociologists, there will be very few. It would be sad for mankind if at any time theoretical speculation became the only source of guidance for society if science alone were in charge of all social administration. Life would wither and human society would turn into a voiceless and servile herd. The domination of life by science can have no other result than the brutalization of mankind.

Okay, so what he's saying is this. The ultimate project of Marxism, where you have something elite, a vanguard in charge. This is no different, by the way, from Transnational Capital or the British Empire, okay? It would lead to slavery, all right? And quite honestly, he was right. All right, let's look at Sigmund Freud, okay? Sigmund Freud, like Karl Marx, is also extremely influential. He practiced medicine in Vienna. He was a psychologist. And so there were a lot of young women who came to him as patients. And Freud would ask them, what's wrong with you? And the woman would say, I'm hysterical, okay? And at that time, hysterical just meant that depressed or anxious. I can't control my emotions. If a man talks to me, I stutter and I run away, okay? And I can't have personal relationships. I can't sleep. I'm sweating. I'm anxious. And then Freud, of course, would ask them, why is this happening to you, okay?

And then the woman would say, because when I was younger, when I was a little girl, my father raped me. Okay? Incest. That's why this happened to me. And then Freud's like, wow, that sounds really strange. But then he looked at the literature and talked to many patients and he recognized that everyone was telling him the same thing. And it's true. I mean, it's just pure logic, right? If you were abused as a young girl by your father, you're going to have a lot of social problems when you get older, okay? Especially with men. And so he collects all this research and he published a paper, which is very good, called The Etiology of Hysteria. And so, Amber, can you read, please?

Above all, my previously communicated assumption that trauma, specifically sexual trauma, cannot be stressed enough as a pathogenic agent was confirmed anew. Even children of respected, high -minded puritanical families fall victim to real rape much more frequently than others had dared to suspect. Okay.

Let me say this. Rape is a really common phenomenon, especially among higher society, okay? Keep on going.

Either the parents themselves seek substitution for their lack of sexual satisfaction in this pathological manner or else trusted persons such as relatives, uncles, aunts, grandparents, tutors, servants, abuse and ignorance and innocence of children. The obvious objection that we are dealing with sexual fantasies of the child himself, that is, with hysterical lies, unfortunately is weakened by the multitude of confessions of this kind on the part of patients in analysis to assaults on children.

Okay. So what he's saying is, first of all, rape is very common and these children are saying the same thing, okay? Keep on going.

If you try in an approximately similar way to induce the symptoms of hysteria to make themselves heard as witnesses to the history of the origin of the illness, we must take our start from Joseph Brewer's momentous discovery. The symptoms of hysteria, apart from the stigmata, are determined by certain experiences of the patients which have operated in a traumatic fashion and which are being reproduced in his psychical life in the form of mimic symbols.

Okay, so this is, the ideas are simple, okay? These women, when they're being hysterical, when they're being anxious, depressed, it's because they suffered real trauma when they were younger. They're not making this up, okay? They're not imagining this because a lot of people are accusing them of like, you're just fantasizing this, okay? And they say, no, no, no. The science tells us, the research tells us that you can only have these symptoms if you yourself experience it, okay? You can't imagine a leg injury. It has to, you have to be hit by a car to have a leg injury and this is what he's saying. You have to be raped by your father or a trusted friend or a relative in order to have these symptoms. Otherwise, they can't exist, okay? All right, keep on going. All right, so this is a book by Jeffrey Mason, okay? And he was for the longest time a follower of Freud, okay?

Freud was dead but he himself looked at Freud's personal letters and what he discovered was there's a sharp brick, okay? And early Freud was very scientific. He believed the woman who were his patients but then later on, for whatever reason, he changes everything, okay? So can you keep on reading, Amber?

I therefore put forward the thesis that at the bottom of every case of hysteria there are one or more occurrences of premature sexual experience, occurrences which belong to the earliest years of childhood but which can be reproduced through the work of psychoanalysis in spite of the intervening decades.

Okay, so again, he's writing these letters to his friends and he's saying very clearly, I am certain, 100 % certain, that if these women are suffering from depression or anxiety, it must be because of sexual abuse at an earlier age. And when I talk to them, I can reconstruct the experience, okay? Because even though they're traumatized, the memory's still there. So through talk therapy, I can slowly reconstruct the experience and this will help them heal, okay? And this is true. If the women are able to reconstruct this experience and they feel as though someone believes them, advocates for them, they will feel much more safe about the world, okay? So this is true. This is very simple. Okay, keep on going.

There are, however, a whole number of other things that vouch for the reality of infantile sexual scenes. In the first place, there is the uniformity which they exhibit in certain details, which is a necessary consequence if the preconditions of these experiences are always of the same kind, but which would otherwise lead us to believe that there were secret understandings between the various patients.

Okay, so what he's saying is, is it possible there's conspiracy among these patients? Possibly, but they're telling me, they're giving, like, these details. And these details make a lot of sense. Okay, so he doesn't believe it's a conspiracy, but he does not discount the possibility of a conspiracy, because he's a scientist. He wants to be rigorous. He wants to be absolutely certain. Okay, keep on going.

In the second place, patients sometimes describe as harmless events whose significance they obviously do not understand, since they would be bound otherwise to be horrified by them. Or again, they mention details without laying any stress on them, which only someone of experience in life can understand and appreciate as subtle traits of reality.

Okay, so he says that one thing about this trauma is disassociation, okay? So these patients will reveal details that would shock anyone else, but she says it indifferently, which means that she was disassociated from the experience when it happened. So just by talking to that person, you're able to reconstruct the experience itself. All right, does that make sense? All right. Okay, keep on going.

It is less easy to refute the idea that the doctor forces a reminiscence of this word on the patient, that he influences him by suggestion to imagine and reproduce them. Nevertheless, it appears to me equally untenable. I have never yet succeeded in forcing on a patient a scene I was expecting to find in such a way that he seemed to be living through it with all the appropriate feelings. Perhaps others may be more successful in this.

So one major objection is, is it possible you are implanting false memories in your patient? And what he's saying is, okay, well, I tried this and it doesn't work. And maybe others, I mean, he doesn't deny that it's possible, okay? But he's saying like, I myself have tried this and it has not worked. So he's being a very rigorous scientist, right? He's looking at all the possibilities and he's discovering that, no, there's only one possibility, which is like they are telling the truth. So he's advocating for his, his patients, okay? The problem, though, of course, is that the fathers who are doing this are actually powerful men. These are Frankists, okay? Remember, Frankists practice father -daughter incest, if you understand, okay? The Sunday Franks are very powerful people, especially in Vienna. And this is part of their religion. If you do it over generations, it becomes multi -generation trauma. You just do it because you're addicted to it, okay?

And this is screwing up a lot of these young women. It's making them miserable. Yeah?

So you mentioned that this kind of rape is frequently occurred in upper class. Why does it not so frequently in the lower class?

You know what? That's a good question, okay? And the answer is, if you are an upper class woman, you're much more likely to report this than if you are from the lower class. So we're not saying that this occurs only among the rich. It could also occur among the poor. But it's the rich who have money to send their daughters to psychiatrists, okay? The rich are educated, and therefore they will report this. They will understand this is a bad thing, okay? So we don't have evidence to suggest that this is more common among rich, okay? But what this is telling us is that among Frankists, this is very common, all right? All right, so after this happens, after Freud is reporting this and the Frankists are getting angry at him, what happens now is an alliance between Freud and the Frankists. In fact, you could argue that Freud now joins the Frankists. And so now what we'll see is a radical change in how Freud perceives these patients, okay?

So, Emma, can you read, please?

Since childhood masturbation is such a general occurrence and is at the same time so poorly remembered, it must have an equivalent in psychic life. And in fact, it is found in the fantasy encountered in most female patients.

Okay, namely that?

Namely, that the father seduced her in childhood. This is the later reworking which is designed to cover up the recollection of infantile sexual activity and represents an excuse and an extenuation thereof. The grain of truth contained in this fantasy lies in the fact that the father, by way of his innocent care, caressed in earliest childhood, has actually awakened the little girl's sexuality. The same thing applies to the little boy and his mother. It is these same affectionate fathers that are the ones who then endeavored to break the child of the habit of masturbation, of which they themselves had by that time become the unwitting cause. And thus the motives mingle in the most successful fashion to form this fantasy, which often dominates a woman's entire life, seduction fantasy. One part truth, one part gratification of love, and one part revenge.

Okay, so now this is like really weird, okay? What he's saying is these young girls, these young boys, they want to have sex. They're like sexually obsessed. And whenever a father kisses them, which the father wants to do, they think this is going to lead to sex. But the father recoils at that possibility and now the young girl feels rejected. But she has all these sexual desires, so she masturbates. But while she's masturbating, she feels anger and guilt at her father, and therefore she makes up these sexual fantasies that the father is raping him. And that's why, and she's determined that the world knows about this, that's how angry she is at him, okay? This is complete nonsense. But guess what, guys? This becomes standard, mainstream academic knowledge taught in schools and universities for many decades. Okay, this is called the Oedipal complex. That's the Oedipal complex. Have you guys studied this? Yeah.

It's complete other nonsense. Agreed. All right? Can you keep on reading, Amber? The motives.

The motives for illness often begin to stir in childhood. The love -hungry little girl, unhappy at having to share her parents' affection with her brothers and sisters, realizes that all that tenderness comes flowing back when her parents are made anxious by her illness. The girl now knows a way of calling forth her parents' love and will use this as soon as she has at her disposal the psychical material necessary to produce a morbid state. Once the child has become a woman and, in contradiction of the demands of the childhood, has married an inattentive man who suppresses her will, unstintingly exploits her work and expends neither affection nor money upon her, illness becomes the only weapon with which she can assert herself in life. It gives her the rest she craves. It forces the man to make sacrifices of money and care that he would not have made to the healthy woman. And it requires him

to treat her with care if she recovers, because otherwise a relapse would be waiting in the wings. Her illness is apparently objective and involuntary, as even her doctor will be obliged to testify, and it enables her to employ without conscious self -reproach this useful application of a means that she found effective during childhood.

So why is woman being hysterical later in life? Because it allows them to control people. It draws attention to them, they want attention, but it also makes people obey her whims. This is gaslighting. This is peer and other gaslighting. And guys, this is what psychology is. Just peer and other gaslighting, okay? All right. The problem, of course, is how do you convince your patient that this is true? And so he develops a mind control technique called dream analysis, okay? This is his book from the book Interpretation of Dreams, okay? And it's all just mind control crap where the patient is trying to recall dreams and you're brainwashing that patient, okay? Because if you discuss memory, the person's like, I know what I saw, right? But it's dreams that you can implant false memories, that you can make suggestions, you can hypnotize that person, okay? And so psychology becomes now mind control. Okay, so can you read, Amber?

I think everyone who occupies himself with dreams will recognize as a very common phenomenon the fact that a dream will give proof of the knowledge and a recollection of matters of which the dreamer in his waking state did not imagine himself to be cognizant. In my analytic investigations of the nervous patients, of which I shall speak later, I find that it happens many times every week that I am able to convince them from their dreams that they are perfectly well acquainted with quotations, obscene expressions, etc.

Okay, so do you understand? So when the person is talking about his dream, you can now make suggestions. That person will believe whatever crap you tell him, okay? And that's a secret of mind control. And guess what, guys? We still use this crap today, all right? All right, so Freud is, of course, gaslighting everyone because he has to protect his patrons, the Frankists. And the Frankists will allow him to get very, will become very famous. He'll get a lot of awards. When the Nazis come to power, he'll go to England where he's well treated. He joins the Royal Academy. The British protect him, and the British will then spread his views, okay? He has a disciple, Carl Jung, who will take Freud's ideas and turn it into a understanding, a systematic understanding of how the mind works. And from this, we'll develop neuroscience, okay? The problem of all this, this is public Picasso, the problem

of all this is, as Buchanan tells us, it's all self -directed inwards, which gets us nowhere, okay? It's just you looking into yourself. It's navel -gazing. And from that, you learn no truth at all. But that's the entire basis of our society. And so, so yeah, so this is, so our, so this understanding of the mind becomes reflected in popular culture, okay? Back to McCall Buchanan, he tells us that to be truly free, we all have to be free. We have to be free together, okay? In each other, we find meaning, purpose, and love. Okay, not in ourself, but in each other. That's the difference. And so, this leads us to a question, okay? And this is a question I don't know. Today, it's all speculation. The question I want to leave with you today is, is Marxism, liberalism, individualism, Darwinism, psychology, just psyops meant to turn us into slaves? Okay, that's a question that you have to carry with you.

I don't know the answer to that, okay? I'm just providing you with a theory. And these connections, we don't know how close they are, okay? It may just be random coincidence. It could be a constant fact. We don't know, okay? But this is something that you have to ask yourself as you continue your study, okay? So, this shows us the alliance between the Sabatini -Francis and the British Empire. And so, next class will be our last class, and in our last class, we'll talk about the Pax Judaica, okay? Which is a culmination of all these trends. All right, any questions, guys? Okay, great. So, I will see everyone next class.