Predictive History - The Story of "Civilization", "Secret History", "Game Theory" and more - Secret History #27: Empire of Evil

Episode Date: February 6, 2026

Secret History #27: Empire of Evil

We've discussed Transnational Capital, the British Empire. We've also discussed the Separatine Frankis. 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 matter. They're the ones who 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 few hundred 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 as soon as the Jews get all the money, get all the blame and what we'll discuss next class is that this is same thing that will happen today So that's the argument I will make to you today. All right, 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 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 good as Navy, and it also has a 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. The great crisis, the great crisis, The great problem, 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 training bloat. training block and then you don't need the seaways anymore if that would happen then the British Empire would go bankrupt because remember the British Empire

with the Bank of England trance national capital it's really a policy scheme it be in these people keep on buying into the empire for it to continue to succeed so the greatest threat is a great power emerged in 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 fun 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. The French, they were able to defeat because of the French Revolution as well as the Nepholic 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 region continent.

They also faced the Ottomans, and they also faced the Germans. Now, the British could not seen as though they were interfering in European politics because all that would do is angle the Europeans and 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 revolution in movements using transnational capital. And we'll discuss these revolution 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 Russia of Japanese war in 1905. And you may not know this, but traditional capital, the British and Americans,

finds 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, okay? And the last strategy is to, wherever you can, as much resources as possible as fast as you can. And this was true in India 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 Frankis made the most sense, right? So the advantages that 17th Franks brought to the Jewish Empire were fourfold.

The first is that they already had a diaspora, right? 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, okay? They also had access to a lot of transnational capital. They themselves were actually wealthy.

Now last major advantage, and the most important is that they had revolutionary cells and networks. So remember, but certainly Frankus, they believe, that they were saving the world. They believed they have to destroy the world in order to save it. And these made perfect revolutionaries. And I'll show you this as we move on.

Now, the last reason that we won't discuss much today, but we will 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 lot. This internet will 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 and Frankis, 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 Frankis were also very materialistic as well, right? They believe that the body was more important than the spirit. Second is that both of Frankis 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. All right.

So let's use an example of how the army empire, sorry, let's use an example of how the British Empire worked the Sapiens-Frank. 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 1883. Remember, in 1666, is when Sabaevsky declared himself the Messiah. And remember that Zebedoesevi had to convert to Islam, and the people follow him into Islam are called the Dome. The Domei are a 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 support the Ottomans. And the Ottomans were able to defend themselves against the Russians. But this alliance came across to the Ottomans. The British and the French made the Ottoman take out loans in order to finance the war. And over time, because of interest, these loans start 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, we go directly to the French and British bankers. Okay? And so this caused the Ottoman Empire to decline rapidly over time. And the French and the British they set a central bank controlled by foreigners. And not only that,

but they set their own tax administration. So they're their own tax agents. And that's why these bankers became very wealthy. Guess what? These bankers had a, natural ally in the Domey, right? The Saptain Frankis. And so the Sapturin Frankis 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 Domey did was start to finance a revolutionary group called the Yombo. The young Turks believe 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're a Turkey, it's a Domei that control Turkey. Okay?

All right. So remember, the Domei come from Zapatae Zevi. They are crypto Jews. They pretend to be Muslim, but they're in fact Jews. And these three Domei will help to found the Republic of Turkey, and they still control Turkey together together. So that's an example of an alliance between the Sarmacus and the British Empire. Another example of an alliance is, of course, the raw.

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 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 fastboat,

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. everyone, oh my god, we lost the Battle of Waterloo. So as you can imagine, people start to panic. There was a start 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 most was in philosophy, developing a understanding world that allow them to amass more power okay so let's go very quickly over some basic British philosophy so British philosophy at this time was controlled by Freemasons we'll discuss a Freemasons more 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 strength is all called empirism and the most famous proponent of this is John Locke. John Locke argued that we are born with a tabloor rasa, a blank mind, okay? A blank slate. And so whatever information comes into us is through experience, only for experience, okay? Not for 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 from 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. This idea of induction. This is what underlies something process. While 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 swines 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 epistemology 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

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, Jerry Bentham proposed the idea of utilitarianism. The way we understand the world is for 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 be candy, the time and makes him feel happy, then we should allow them to eat candy, and that is inherently good. And then what his disciple, John Suit Mill, will do is he'll take the basis

of this idea of utility, as a basis of good and evil, to create liberalism. So the very idea of liberalism today is based on utilitarianism. So, for example, homosexuality. Why is homosexuality? Homosexuality good?

Because first of all, homosexuals want to be homosexuals, okay? You force them not to be homosexuals, you'll feel bad, but also what's more important is they're not doing harm to anyone, right? So if you just do the mathematics and you recognize that allowing homosexuality is a positive, and that positive, it brings more pleasure in the world than you should allow it.

Okay, and this, we just talk of, it goes against the will of God, it's against the Bible, it's just nonsense. We 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-Frank's idea of the world, right? All right, so this is John Shoot Mill and this is Jeremy Bantham. And not only that, but what does philosophy is in place? They are now going to promote certain scientists that agree with this philosophy, or who's finding support this philosophy. And the most famous of course is Charles Starren. Okay, Charles Starren, 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 you actually read the book, even though if you actually looked at science, it's still very problematic. 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 to explain that? And he doesn't explain that. And you're not even allowed to ask this question. All right.

So, as this alliance between the 7th Frankis and the British Empire is growing, there are certain individuals that become these meaning 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 Begging Family. They're best friends, and you can argue the Rothschild banking family finance Benjamin Dirichelese 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.

But if you read it, people will say that the characters are very much based on people that this really knows. And this really 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. 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 serotype 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 that they're superior to everyone else, you are labeled as anti-Stymint, okay? But if you read this novel, and we'll read this novel, and we'll read this down, together, this is exactly what Benjamin Disraeli says, okay, about the Jewish people. All right, so let's read it together. So, Amher, can you read, please? This is the introduction to the book Connesepeep, okay. In asserting the paramount character of the...

Eccl... Eklast... What is this? Keep coming away. Okay. 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 malavans. 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 found Christianity, okay? Which is a Jews. We know it's a Jews who create Christianity, okay?

Keep on going. In the Dark Ages, when history was unknown, the passions of societies, undisturbed by tradition, traditional experience were strong and their convictions, unmitigated by criticism, were necessarily fanaticated,

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, divine author of course is Jesus, okay? That his doctrines avowedly, were the completion, not the change of Judaism,

that the apostles and the evangelist who 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, because they're the ones who created Christianity. And what we'll 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 Sedonia, who is a wealthy Jewish person

based on the Rothschild family. Okay? And he's going to explain to us how Jews control the world. Can you read, Alan? Sidonia. Sidonia was descended from a very Asian and noble family of Aragon. Okay, Aragon is in Spain.

We discussed how before, for 100 years, the Jews were part of the Spanish-Muslim Empire. But when they were reconquered, they were forced to leave or convert. That in the course of ages had given to the state many distinguished citizens. In the priesthood, its member had been precaritly eminent.

Besides several prelates, they counted among their numbers an archbishop of Tolato and a Cedonia. In a season of great danger and difficulty had exercised for

a series of years, the paramount office of grand inquisitor. Okay, so even after the Christians we conquered 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 crippled Jews. But most more importantly, these Jews rose to supreme power within the Catholic Church in Spain. The irony is, 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 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 illustrious family during all these period, in common with two-thirds of the origines, nobility, secretly adhered to the Asian faith and ceremonies of their fathers, a belief in the unity of the God of Sinai, and the right and observances of the laws of Moses. Okay, so guys, two-thirds of nobility in Spain were crypto Jews.

Catholics disguised, 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 in the mouth of basically a Rothschild.

Okay, can you read Amber? The Sedonius of Errigan were... New Christians. Were Nouveau Christianos. Some of them, no doubt, were burned alive at the end of the 15th century under the system of Torquimata. 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 Penicular War, when so many openings were offered to Taland and so many opportunities seized by the adventurous, a cadet of young, branch of this family, made a large fortune by military contracts and supplying the commissariat of the different armies, at the peace prescient of the great financial future of Europe, confident in the fertility of his own genius, in his original views of fiscal subjects and his knowledge of national resources, the Sedonia, feeling the 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 capitalist in Europe. Okay, so these Kripto Jews, they had a lot of of money, but not only that, but they have an information network, because they have relatives, grants, all throughout Europe. And there are intacts to a superior, and so they know how history will develop. And they see a good money out, make an 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 they're

actually no national loyalty. Don't see themselves as long as a certain group of people, a certain nation, they see themselves as first and foremost Jews. So when the time presented itself properly, the Sedonians, they will migrate, some of them, not all them will migrate from Spain into continent of Europe and up to England. They saw England as a future. And of course, from England,

they will also migrate to the United States of America. Alan, can you read, please? The only human quality. Sorry, so the father, goes to England and now he establishes the Begging 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 Sedonia was intellect. He cared not when it came, where it was to be found, creed, country, class, character, and this respect were like 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. And one anti-Semitic trope is that Jews have a conspiracy to the great religion, culture, society, nation state in order to advance their own interests. The author, the artist, the math, of science never appealed to him in vain. Often he anticipate their wrongs and wishes. He encouraged the 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 sympathizing men instead of the congenial intelligence, 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, Fidel, Ferdekyll will say is that about culture, there can be no great ideas. Okay, ideas emerge from community, from culture, from belonging. So think of Homer or, or Dante or even the Yahwehs. If you think that you are intellectual above culture, above nation, above people, you will not produce great ideas.

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 which secret agents and political spies as Sidonians. He held relations with all the clever outcasts of the world, the catalog of his acquaintance in the shape of Greeks, Ameri-Maritan's, Morse, Secret Jews, Tartans, Gis, geeseeps.

Okay, all right, that's fine. Okay, look, the idea is that Jews are international, first and foremost, international, the custom politan, 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 to convince that the superior race, the greatest race of humanity are the Jews.

Why? Because unlike other races, the Jews refused to intermarry. They refuse to breed with other cultures. And so as a result, the Jews are first and foremost peer. They are Aryan. This is really ironic again because the Nazis will use his idea. 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, Cisidonia. 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. I speak not with lightness of the labors, of the disciples of that school. I bowed 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 arre of public intelligence. There has been attempt to reconstruct society on a basis of material motives and calculations. So again, this is the idea of you did terrorism, right? This is Jeremy Bantam, John Stuart Mill. 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 reason. 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 Syracians are the Muslims, okay? 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. Men 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 bent them. 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 passion so so no is is emphasizing the limitations of British philosophy right law hume phantom male 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. Does that make sense? So again, this is trying to establish Jewish supremacy. Okay, all right, this is much too law, 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 relationship. So if you at any point, if you, the British at any point, try to restrain us, if you try to think our religious rights, we will rebel against you. We are co-heaval. We are We will set up for liberalism, we'll set up for secularism, we'll set 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 you're 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. Give on going to go ahead. That mighty revolution, which is at this moment preparing in Germany, and which will be, in fact, a second and great, greater reformations and of which so little as yet know in England is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews who almost monopolized the professional professorial chairs of Germany okay so this isn't happen yet okay he's saying

this year 1844 he's saying like the revolution that you will see later on in Germany we organize it man we do organized it why because we control the academies we control the professors of Germany Keep on reading. Ninder, the founder of spiritual Christianity, and who is religious professor of divinity in the University of Berlin as a Jew. So keep it on going, we won't read it. About how many professors are Jews, do you understand? Now what's amazing is, again, this came out in 1844 and 1848, there were revolutions throughout Europe, throughout Germany.

So how did this really know about this? Well, possibly because the British were helping to finance all this, right? The alliance between the British, except between the Frankus. 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 are 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. So what he's saying is we're very rich and nations and 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. The Russians are notorious for being en-Semitic at this stage. Keep on going. However, circumstances drew to an approximation between the Romanovs. The Romano's are the controlling family of Russia. And the Sedonians.

I resolved to go myself to St. Petersburg. I had on my arrival an interview with the Russian Minister of Finance, court... Count. Cancran. Cancran. I beheld the son of a Lithuanian 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, Signor Mendes Sable. 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 Salute a Hebrew?

Yes, and others of the French Marshals, and the most famous, Mascena, for example. His real name was Menasa. Menasa. But to my anecdote, the consequence of our consultation, was that some northern powers should be applied to in a friendly and meditative capacity. We fixed on Prussia and Prussia, and the president of council made an application to the Prussian minister who attended a few days after a conference. Count Arnhem entered the cabinet, and I beheld a Prussian Jew.

So you see, my dear... Conisbury. Conisbee. That the world is governed by a very different person, nage, from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes. So it's Jews who 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, okay? 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, okay? So I don't go much into this in detail, but I will point out that there is evidence that this is true. All right?

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's evidence is true but I do not think this is true why this really is writing about this we will discuss next class okay but it's all part of a secret plan all right but first looks at the evidence that this may be true again I'm not saying this is true but there is evidence that this is true okay and the major piece of evidence is the communist revolution the most revolution in 2017 that overfrew the government of Russia to create a communist government

All right, first let's talk about revolution. There are four elements you need in order for revolution to be successful, okay? The first is you need a really charismatic leader. Second is you need a broad mass appeal. Usually land for the peasants, freeing debt, okay, end of war, peace. Then you need organizational discipline. Everyone has to get along, okay? That's be a cohesive group.

The last element, of course, is you need incompetent opposition. Your enemies are moral, okay? And of course, the classic example of this is Mao Zedong versus Chang Khaqqqad, okay? Mao Zerang was a charismatic leader who had a very strong organization and chag chagad, 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, okay? And that's why he lost. All right, so the same is two for the Russian Revolution. This is Vladimir Lenin.

He's not charismatic, but he is exceptional. extremely 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 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're gonna help but be influenced by that person, okay? That's just a reality. All right, so October, 1917 is when the Bolsheviks launched a revolution and they seized power.

And then a month later, they organized, election. And as you can see, they are actually 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 Kozaks. 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 civil war, okay?

And at the 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 combination of the liberals and monarchists, they're much more stronger military. And also at the same time, you have all these different ethnic groups,

the Ukrainians, rebelling, against the Bolshev, including the Polish. But over the next five years, slowly the Bolsheviks will obtain absolute power. And so the question is, how do they do that? Well, the first tool is terror. 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. They were also the Greens, which were these peasants. So the Bolsheks were far behind. So how do the Bolshek's, 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 thousand mercenaries to help them, especially the Chinese mercenaries, the Latvians, the Hungians, Okay? Why, how did they get all this money? Transnational capital. Wall Street and say 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 United States, 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 said the armies is because the Bolsheviks were negged 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 showed as much money as they could from the peasants. from the nobility from the treasury and pay off these armies and then these armies

help them in the war against the whites doesn't make sense okay all right 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 Anglo-American foreign policy. Do you understand? Anglo-American foreign policy, it's not to serve national interests, it's not, it's to serve private capital.

That's the first point. Second point is the Bolsheviks are communist, and so there are a threat to capitalism. And the kind of argument is, is actually transnational capital case about profit. They don't care about ideology. All right? What drives them is money, not ideas.

The third argument is the Bolshek hated imperialism and capitalism, so they would refuse to work with Wall Street and the state 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 source of paradise, okay? All right, so this is a lot.

This is a book called Wall Street and the Russian Revolution. I started by 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 believe 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. 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-Boshevic faction on Wall Street had a most outspoken pitchman

and the aforementioned William Boyce Thompson. Departing petrol grade, he arrived back in the States on Christmas Day in 1917. On 18th January, he sat for an interview with the representative of Doe 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 open peace negotiations with Berlin, Thompson insisted that the Russians would never conclude a separate peace.

Okay, 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 pood-pood reports that 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 Bosnix basically did was they took all the goal they had.

to ride Wall Street so that Wall Street would go and brainwashed American people, okay? That's a strategy here. All right, can you read, Alan? For those on Wall Street and elsewhere who dreamed of putting the brakes on Russia's economic development and seeing its riches and resources up for grabs under a regime willing to sell anything, that dreams had basically come true. 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 wanted to destroy everyone. Okay? So that's why they support the Russian Revolution, because they knew that Bolshev would destroy the Russian economy. So keep on going? From 1918 through early 1921, Bolshek's war communism reduced Russian to an economic based on barter and robbery.

Besides the abolition of private trade and the destruction, of the monetary system. The RAD regime embarked on the massive looting campaign resanking, rensiking palaces, bank vaults, churches, and museums. They expropriate every valuable they could get

their hands on and stash it all in a new state treasury. By the close of 2021, an estimate $450 million in what valuable had been sequestered sequestered

there. With more to come, much of it is destined to be fenced abroad for a fraction of its value in 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 consolidated power. After the win civil war, everyone assumes that Trotsky would be the new leader.

But it's Stalin that becomes the new leader. Why? Because after war ends, there's expectation among the Bolsheviks that, you know, we help the transnational capital so much, they're gonna help us rebuild our nation, okay? They're gonna 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 brought a national capital. He's the one who facilitated this exchange. And now the bullshit is thinking, oh, this is a huge conspiracy. You Jews were planning on us all along to steal anything 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 a mistake 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 capitalist was a much worse crime. And that's why Justice Stalin won in the end. And this is terrible. for the Jews, the Bolshev Jews who believed in a revolution

because they all got killed by Joseph Stalin. The other trustee was killed along with all his children. All right. So it's not just that Transanth National Transanth Capital supported 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. 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 gonna 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 lots of money from Frederick Engels, who was a friend of his. and whose father was an industrialist, a Jewish industrialist. So why would the Jewish capitalist support Karl Marx? And the answer is because communism benefits transnational capital. Okay?

So why? What 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 loveliness. While in communist society, where 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, rare cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, and as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herzman, or critic.

So the problem with capitalism is that it degrades our individuality. We as individuals want freedom to enjoy ourselves. This is a very frankest idea. right? We want to enjoy ourselves, we want to be free to enjoy the pleasures of life. The part of capitalism is the idea of specialization, right, where you're forced to do one thing, one thing only according to the needs of the capitalist, 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 doubtly affirmed himself and his fellowmen. I would have objectified in my production, my individuality and its peculiarity and would thus have enjoyed in my activity and 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 say here is that before each of us were craft people so I might make a vase okay and when I make a vase then this vase is a expression on my individual 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 would 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 you 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 I reading, Amber. I would have been for you, the mediator, between you and the species, 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? Again, this is very frankest attitude, right, where you can project your imagination onto people and it can shape the way he or sees reality. This is a very similar concept.

Do you want 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 up going? 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, 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 to a material world. He recognizes that we have the 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 frankest concept. Come on going.

My work would be a free expression of my life and therefore a free enjoyment of my life. and where the peculiarity of my individuality would have been affirmed since it is my individual life. Work would thus be genuine, active property. Presupposing private property and my individuality is so far externalized that I hate my activity. It is a torment to me and only the appearance of an activity and thus also merely a force activity that is laid upon me 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 yourself.

That's the question, that's the debate, that's a dialectic, okay? And so what, by doing this, it's a very clever trick that Translanser 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 turned us all into slaves. 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's just 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? Now the last thing that's most problematic is Marx believes you need a vanguard in order to lead to politarity, into a social paradise. You need an elite in order to lead us into paradise.

And this esotology is all Frank's, 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. So all Marx is doing is taking Jacob Frank's ideas and systemizing it. Now I'm not saying that Marx was a Franks, he's probably not a Frankist. But what I'm saying is that there are people around him, like Federal Engels, who could have been a

frankest and as such, and they used their money to influence Marx in a way. 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 McCall 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 need a vanguard, like Trichael-Frank believed. But Buchanan says, no, no, no, you know, vanguard, they'll just become a new capitalist class. Okay? What's the difference, man? 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, where you can go back to the way things are before? It'll just be a little empire. Before it's the British Empire and now's the Russian Empire. Who cares? What's the difference? All right? So let's read some academy, okay?

All right, can you read Amber? As for us, we want neither. their 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 we're saying different things. Mark says, no, the object is the reflection. And what we kind of say, no, no, no. The other person is a reflection, okay?

And this goes back to Dante, Zoroastra, Jesus, there's a divine spark in us. And we love someone else. When we care of 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?

It sounds the same, but these are two radically opposing ideas, where Mark says, no, it's the object that matters. So, obviously, object, it's created by yourself freely, then that is good. And what kind of says, no, no, what matters is our relationship with each other? Okay, we don't need the object. Okay, keep on way. The freedom of every other individual does not limit my own, as the individualist's claim. On the contrary, it is the confirmation, realization, and human dignity of all people.

persons to see and feel my freedom confirmed, sanctioned, and boundlessly expanded by universal agreement as happiness. It is human paradise on earth. How you create paradise is for love. You understand. Not for objects, not for public property, not for socialism, but for love. Okay? The problem marks is he focused on the individual.

What makes the individual happy? And what Kevin says is, that's stupid. You have to focus on what makes a community happy. Because it's only food happiness of others. Can we ourselves be happy? Okay, this is something that Jesus said, Zorthusta, Dante. Okay, this is what makes logical sense. And Marx is not a dumb guy.

Okay, he's a really smart person. But he says it something opposite, which suggests to us that he is being influenced by an outside force. Okay? He himself would not come to a conclusion that he himself would not come to a conclusion that you need a vanguard to lead the workers. All right, keep your meeting, 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 feel. It would be sad for mankind if at any kind, if at any time theoretical speculation became the only source of guidance for society

as science alone were in charge of all social administration. Life would wither and human society would turn into a voiceless and survival 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 Marxistome, where you have a suddenly elite, a vanguard in charge. This is no different, by the way, from the 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 Simon 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 of you and the woman would say I'm

hysterical okay and at that time historical just meant that depressed or anxious I can't control my emotions if a man talks to me I like I I 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 him 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, he 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 not 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 Atyology of Hysteria. And so, Emma, can you, can you 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 other had dared to suspect. Okay, so this is, what is he saying is this.

Rape is a really common phenomenon, especially among higher society, okay? Keep on away. Either their 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, 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 hurt 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... a psychical life in the form of mimic symbols. Okay, so this is, the idea is very simple, okay? These women, when they're being historical, 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 all, 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 experienced it, okay? You can't imagine a leg injury. 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 and 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 the reason, he changes everything, okay? So can you keep our 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 his 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 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 woman 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 this conspiracy, among these patients. Possibly, but they're telling me, they're giving 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, who are significance they obviously do not understand, since they would be bound otherwise to be horrified by them. Or again, they mentioned details without laying any stress on them, which only someone of experience in life can understand and appreciate a subtle trace of reality. Okay, so he says that one thing about this trauma is this association, 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 that person, you're able to reconstruct the experience itself. Does that make sense? All right. Okay. Keep on going on? 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 as seeing I was expecting to find in such a way that he seemed to be living through it with all the appropriate

feelings. Perhaps other 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 scientists, right? He's looking at all different 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 patients, okay? The problem, though, of course, is that the fathers who are doing this are extremely powerful men. These are Frankis, okay? Remember, Frankis practice, um, father, daughter, incest, if you understand, okay?

The 17th century are very powerful people, especially in Vienna, and this is part of their religion. If you do it over generations, it's just become multi-generational trauma. You just do it because you're addicted to it, okay? And this is schooling 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, 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 a 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 Frankus, this is very common.

All right. All right, so after this happens, after Freud is reporting this and the Frankus are getting angry at him, what happens now is an alliance between Freud and the Frankus. In fact, you can argue that Freud now, joints of fracas. And so now what we'll see is a radical change in how Freud perceives these patients. Okay, so Amber, can you re 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 reward. 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 caress 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

endeavor 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 the sexual desire 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 know of this That's how angry she is at him, okay? This is a complete nonsense. But guess what, guys? This becomes standard mainstream academic knowledge taught in schools and universities for many decades.

This is called the Oedipo Complex. That's electric complex. Have you guys studied this? Yeah. It's complete other nonsense. I agree. All right? Can you keep on reading, Amber?

The motives. The motives for illness often begin to stir in childbirth. 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. 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 women being hysterical later in life? Because it allows them to control people. Okay, it draws attention to them, they want attention, but it also makes people obey her whims, okay?

This is gaslighting. All right, this is peer and other gaslighting. And the 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've discussed memory, that the person is like, I know what I saw,

but these dreams, then 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 that 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, 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, et cetera. Okay, so do you understand? So when the person is talking about his dream, you can now make suggestions.

And 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, gas-sitting everyone because he has to protect his patrons, the Franks, and the Franks will allow him to get very,

will become very famous, he'll get a lot of wars, when they're Nazis coming of 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 Young, who will take his for his ideas

and turn it into a understanding, It's a systematic understanding of how the mind works. And from this, we'll develop your science. The problem of all this, this is public podcast, the problem of all this is, as we can tell us, it's all self-directed inwards, which is just 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, yeah, so this is, So this understanding of a mind becomes reflected in popular culture, okay? Back to back to McConnell, he tells us that to be truly free, we all have to be free.

We have to be free together. In each other, we find meaning, purpose, and love. Not in ourselves, but in each other. That's a difference. And so this leads us to a question, okay? And this is a question I don't know. Today it's all of some speculation. The question I want to leave with you today is,

is Marxism, liberalism, individualism, Darwinism, psychology, just siops meant to turn us into slaves. 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 constant fact. I don't know, okay, but this is something that you have to ask yourself as you continue your study, okay? So this shows us an alliance between the Sabatine Frankus and the British Empire, and so next class, we're 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.