Shaun Newman Podcast - #338 - Matt Ehret 2.0

Episode Date: November 7, 2022

Your requests have been answered back by popular demand Matt returns. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review, the author of the ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas trilogy & co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation. Let me know what you think Text me 587-217-8500

Hey, everybody. This is Paul Brandt. This is Wayne Peters. This is Sean Baker. I'm Megan Murphy. This is Jess Moskaloop. I'm Rupa Supermonea. This is Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're listening to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Monday, man. What a weekend. I just got my hats off to everyone who made their way to Lloyd Minster over the weekend to see the SMP presents QDM in 222 minutes.

Obviously, if you're in Lloyd Minster of the area, hats off to you as well. I mean, the roads were crap. It literally blizzard, you know, nothing about that night was perfect. And yet we still had a packed house. People came from all over, all over Saskatchewan, Alberta. We had two couples come from Dawson's Creek, British Columbia. We had another couple come from Abbotsford. So, I mean, like, super cool, super cool group.

It was a great night. QDM blew the roof off. 22 minutes first time on stage doing stand-up did, well, blew the roof off as well, right? together the two of them on stage was, you know, an idea that, uh, had, I mean, it is in, you know, like it was just, it was a fun night. And if you got to experience it firsthand, I think you would agree the food was fantastic. And it was just a, it was a fun night, lots of great people in attendance. And I'm already, uh, looking forward to planning the next one. I'm actively taking ideas. If people, uh, think, uh, I should be bringing the S&P presents somewhere out of

Lloyd Minster, you know, I had a bunch of people trying to convince me in different spots last night. I had different people from Lloyd going, you can't take it out of Lloyd, you got to keep here. Either way, if you got a spot that you think, you know, you've got to bring it here, this would be a ton of fun. I'm kind of open to it. I think it'd be fun to take the show on the road for one and see how it does. It's been suggested by, you know, not only people in the attendance or listening, you know, on the airwaves, but even once upon a time, Daniel Smith, when she came before she was ever running for premier she said you gotta take this thing on the road

people love this so who knows maybe we'll see if we can't here in the in 2023 find a way to put the SMP present somewhere closer to wherever you're at but I would love to take it on the road and see how it does in a different place but anyways either day it was a fantastic weekend we had a ton of fun Saturday night and if you missed it no worries the audio did record we're gonna we're gonna try and

put that out I think Thursday this week so that people can listen and hear how that, you know, not the stand-up, that's obviously you want to pay to see QDM or even 222 minutes. You've got to do that. For the roundtable at the end, though, I'm going to release the audio for that. We had a little fun for about an hour at the end of the show. My favorite part always of being up on the stage and asking some questions and having the audience interact and all that good stuff.

So I think we're going to throw that out Thursday. So if you couldn't be in attendance or you're on the other side of Canada or the world, wherever you're tuning in from, you can still hear what kind of went on. for today let's get to today's show sponsors canians for truth their non-profit organization consisting of Canadians who believe in honesty integrity and principal leadership in government as well as the

Canadian Bill of Rights, Charter of Rights and freedoms and rule of just laws I got the honor of being on stage with the Canadians for Truth team Theo Joe and and Jamie gee that's got to be about a month ago now back in Calgary and they've been doing shows in front of live audiences they had Arter Polowski in Calgary and then I believe Swift Current and then of course I got Chris Barber coming up here as well so if you're looking to see what they're doing head to canaanians

for truth.caa or or their facebook page either way you can find out upcoming events because i think it's the oh geez is it the 18th i think it's the 18th that Chris barber's in calgary if memory serves me correct and i think that'd be an interesting night obviously if you're tuned into the show you know my thoughts on on Chris barber and uh Canadians for Truth is going to have him on stage here right away here in November so that'd be a cool show to be in attendance for um profit river clay smiley was in attendance last night uh of course the profit river uh specializes importing firearms from the united states of america and pride themselves and making the process as easy as possible all their customers doesn't matter where you're at in canada you know if you're looking for firearms profit river

can help you out they get it from uh well from uh their shop to your doorstep get all the proper paperwork etc done all you got to do is go to profit river dot com they of course are the major retailers of firearms, optics and accessories serving all of Canada. Tyson and Tracy Mitchell, Michko Environmental, they were in attendance as well last night. They're a family-owned business that has been providing professional vegetation management services for both Alberta and Saskatchewan, the oil and industrial sector since 1998. Right now with the snow flying, it's kind of their quiet season. But I keep bringing up, you know, if you're a college student and you're looking for summer

work, you know, when you're out of, geez, I don't know what I got in the old throat, today. We did have a little bit of a late night, but if you're a college student and, you know, when the semester breaks, you know, we got a little bit of time before them, but if you're looking for work where you're going to make some good money, be put to work and work for a good family-owned business, Mitchco is where it's at. Just reach out, take a look. MitchcoCorp.combe.combe. Give me a call, 780-214, 4,004. They have a huge hiring spree that goes on usually about the beginning of May if memory serves me correct. and you could get on with a team where you'll be put to work and you know you'll make some good

good coin I mean geez I work for them it's got to be like a decade ago and even back then it was good coin I can just imagine what it is now color the cloths and the team over at windsor plywood builders of the podcast studio table for everything wood these are the guys you know whether we're talking about mantles decks windows doors or sheds or a podcast studio table uh Windsor plywood is uh is the place to go they got such character wood I would say there that just becomes a fixture of your house or business or, you know, studio. Give him a call, 780-875-9663. Gartner Management.

Man, man, like, what is going on here today? Gartner Management is like Mr. Base Company, specializes all types of rental properties to help me your needs. You know, whether you need a small office, a studio such as this guy, or you got multiple employees. Giveaway Gartner a call today, 780808, 5025. Now, let's get on to the tail of the tape, brought to you by Hancock Petroleum.

For the past 80 years, they've been an industry leader in bulk fuels, lubricants, methanol and chemicals, delivering to your farm commercial oil field location. For more information, visit them at Hancock, Petroleum, DAT, CA. He is the editor-in-chief of the Canadian Patriot Review, the author of the Untold History of Canada book series and co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation. I'm talking about Matt Arrett. So buckle up. Here we go.

Welcome to Sean Newman podcast today. I'm joined by Matt Arrett. So, Matt, thanks for coming back on. Always a pleasure to be here with you, Sean. You know, we left your previous. And now, you know, that's terrible of me, Matt. You know, I bring it on and then I don't even put up what episode you were on. I want to say it was episode 333, but I'm going to check it real fast.

I should have had this up and ready to roll, but what are you going to do? Correction, episode 331. So if you're just tuning into this one, I suggest you go back a few and hit up Matt Erred on 331. But at the end of it, I said, you know, guys, do you want them back? Let me know. And they came out in spades. And I mean, I guess they enjoyed what you had to talk about. And there was a lot.

I'm relieved. I wasn't sure. I was sitting a lot of hot button issues that I figured might trigger some people. But I'm glad you got some positive feedback. So that's good. I want to start. I'm going to take you way back and see where we go today. but I was reading you'd sent along, I think it was the LaRoche paper or something along that lines.

And where we talked about in the first one was I was trying to figure out, I've been trying to figure out for a long time. You know, is it a group of families or is it an idea, right? And how does that transfer through time? Anyways, I started reading the paper and it says right in the early goings of it. And I'll quote here, bitterly opposed elites, the faction of some. Socrates and Plato, Plato, sorry, and with the faction of Aristotle until the developments of approximately 784 to 1818.

So I have my own question on 1784 to 1818. What's so specific in that time? We're going to leave that for a second. What I want to start with is Socrates, Plato, versus Aristotle. We're talking like all these guys died in, from 347 BC to 399 BC. right? All three of them go down in that time era. Are we saying where we're at currently

goes and extends all the way back to those ideas, those men fought for and discussed? Sean, this is a wonderful way to start a conversation. This is great. I'm glad that you were reading into that that wonderful essay I sent you. For those who don't know, it's the essay in question is a 1978 document that really moved me many years ago when I was trying to piece a lot of this stuff together. And what I'll do for the listener is, I'll post the link in the show notes. That way they can, it is,

and let me be clear to the listener, put aside some time because it isn't like two pages, right? It's a chunk of time. Anyways, I digress. It's in the show notes. Yeah, yeah, good advice. And it's written by the late economist

who we spoke about last show, Lyndon Lebrouffe. And it's called Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites. It's featured in an old, issue of campaigner, which has a picture of Plato and Aristotle with a division between them, going through the thesis that, like you just outlined, Shine, the underlying contour of history for the past several thousand years, especially since, well, I mean, starting from the lives and deaths of these individuals, is shaped by two different modes of thinking, ways of

thinking about thinking about the universe and human nature, one expressed really brilliantly by the method outlined in Plato's dialogues, and the opposing school, which is more oligarchical, which posits a more static universe governed by a more irrational god, a less reasonable, less loving God of grace located in the Aristotelian cosmology. Now, they did die. They did die like Aristotle died in. 322, Plato died in, I think, maybe 30 years earlier. Socrates died in 39 BC. He was sort of mentor of Plato. And yes, when you start scratching the surface behind the causal changes in the personalities who make big changes for the good or for the bad in

world history, you'll tend to find adherence to one of the two schools, usually both together doing battle. And once, I think, you know, I just wrote a five-part series. Part one has been published on Strategic Culture Foundation. It's called The Is the Universe Dead or Alive, Part One, the cult of Aristotle emerges, where I start with that. It was just published yesterday, so the timing is pretty good. And indeed, if you look at the origins, the underlying assumptions,

even though the details change, the branches have changed, the branches have changed. changed and been modified, but the underlying core assumptions remain unchanged for these last 2,000-plus years in terms of what is animating the creatures at Davos, the transhumanist cult that is, you know, found its voice after World War II. For those who don't know, transhumanism is an ideology that grew out of eugenics, which was itself a pseudoscience for the elites or the self-identified elites to try to manage global populations, weed out the human gene pool of the unfit breeds or traits and direct the forces of what they thought were Darwinian evolution into their own desired trajectory.

So transhumanism is this idea that we, that there are those who are more than human, kind of like a nichean idea, that you have the Uber mention, right? You got the humans and the interhumans, right? You got the dirty Jews and Poles and those who are deemed like the Slavs who the Nazis identified as being less than human genetically. And then you got the superior Anglo-Saxon Germanic stocks who must be genetically endowed to lead and rule and manage the herd. Now, that went out of favor after World War II.

But it was tweaked by people like Sir Julian Huxley, the president of the Eugenic Society of Britain, and the founder of UNESCO, and the founder of the World Wildlife Fund with Prince Philip and Prince Berenhard. And he gave it the name transhumanism with some others. So when you look at people like Yuval Harari, Klaus Schwab,

even Elon Musk, frankly, who believes that we need to either merge with machinery. We need to utilize CRISPR technology to create better-breeded babies in this brave new world utopia that they think that they're creating or will go extinct because machines, they say, are going to then outpace and become superior than human beings based on computing technology in the cult of AI that they believe is coming online. So if we don't merge with machinery, we're going to go extinct. So we should do that fast. And we should do it under, well, who's going to control the programming of these so-called human machines that, you know, get microchips and planted and whatever else.

All that to say, the core assumptions of Aristotle are really still there. And they've been sure. If you look at what Aristotle is saying in his politics, he's treated like this great hero of Western science. The greatest thinker says, Jeffrey Sachs, of all Western. Western philosophy is rooted in Aristotle, who they say, and this is a mythology, is the student of Plato, who carried forward and advanced Plato's ideas to higher levels. It's bullshit. If you actually read the writings of either man, you start seeing that you've got two opposing ways of thinking on every level of importance. There's outward surface commonalities, but in every fundamental

thing that really matters, they're opposed. And for one, the big one that matters to this conversation and then and then I'll pull back and stop and let you uh let you speak a bit because I feel like I'm rambling um is the issue of master slave relations and Aristotle in his politics is very very clear and explicit when he's asked is this in a is is the idea of having slaves a an error or is this built into nature and he says obviously this is built into nature purely because the world he happens to live and has slaves. And he said, obviously, certain people are born to rule. When they're, the moment of their birth, they're born to rule.

And certain ones are obviously born to be ruled over. Obviously, very circular, he doesn't prove anything he's saying. And based on that dichotomy, that there is, he also says, there is no such thing as a, as a pre-existent soul. You don't have to assume that. We are just these tabula razas, blank slates at birth to be written on by whatever customs are dominant in whatever society I'm born into as a baby. So he doesn't, he actually says on the surface he believes in universals and truths.

But in fact, when he says something like that, it's very, it's actually relativistic to the extreme. He doesn't believe, he believes that the only thing that you consider truth, like Nietzsche, also said the same thing, is who has the will to power, who can, who can impose, their their views of what definitions should be of words like justice, freedom, virtue, whatever, who can make the definitions, who can make, who has the strength and the political power to create those definitions that then are impressed upon through the education system and the customs onto those born into that society? And in that sense, you've got one justice for the master, one justice for the slaves,

one justice for the wife, one justice for the husband, one justice for the child, one virtue for the the tyrant, one virtue for the surf. So there's an infinite array, kind of like today, what is a woman is a big thing that people have been, you know, have realized it has turned into the theater of this absurd. You could have infinite definitions based on how you feel. That finds its root in that type of mental gymnastic that Aristotle did is a sleight of hand where you can just constantly subdivide and find, you know, one freedom for accountable grouping or what is good for a cannibal grouping of tribesmen in Guinea is their personal good.

And it's maybe not something you like to do as a good, but it's their good. And you have to respect that good of the cannibal as being equally good as somebody who wants to just eat, you know, broccoli and steak, you know, made from a cow. It's the same thing. So you tend to get this as soon as you allow that, that slide into relativism based upon the arbitrary customs of the, the age you live in, you're screwed because your age that you live in may be unhealthy. It may be sick. So if you try to normalize your standards based on whatever sick culture you happen to be in at whatever period in history, you open up the door to ultimately not just relativism, but there will be people who will control you because those who are the Aristotelian elite,

the Uber mention, will be happy that you don't believe in truth because that means you don't believe in intentions or causality, which means you don't know how to look for the agendas or invisible but real ideas that are shaping your world and moving you into a slaughterhouse. You won't even ask the question because you don't believe in truth. You don't believe that there's anything to be found. So you don't believe in a lie. You don't believe in truth. Well, if you don't believe in objective truth, it means you inversely also don't believe in lies, meaning you'll be duped into anything if somebody can flatter your ego or whatever or, you know, accommodate your prejudices.

But yeah, I mean, Aristotle to the current transhumanist age, and there's a direct continuity in between of the modification of this Aristotelian ideology in opposition to the more healthy platonic movement, which is traceable. Yeah. We've talked about Aristotle and how it goes from his time and his ideas to where it relatively is today. When you do the flip and you put in Plato, Socrates, what is the opposite then? What stems from their line of thinking that's so absolutely different? Well, what I said about the tabula rasa of Aristotle and the idea of a society crystallized around master

slave relations is refuted in all of Plato's dialogues. I say all of them, including the controversial one known as the Republic, which is the one that people tend to latch on to and say, oh, Plato said, you know, Plato is an oligarchist. Look at what he's building up in his republic. It's not true. It's actually, but if you look at every single one of his dialogues from the apology from the the, the philebus to the Fado, to the Gorgias, to the even his laws, you look at the protagoras, the statesman, the, the, the. Theatidis dialogue, the Tamaas, look at all of his dialogues and taking together as different chapters of one composition, because that's really what you have to think of them as being like different movements of the same unifying theme, all of them, and then look at the Republic in that context as a movement. In every single one, and especially in places like the Meno dialogue, he's demonstrating that there is an immortal soul, that we all have an immortal soul and it's made in the image of a

reasonable loving creator who made us in his image. It's there in the Temaeus explicitly. The idea of a trinitarian god that like the idea that as soon as you have a creation, you also implicitly have a creator and you have the created. So you have the effect, the cause and the process that brought the whole work into being. So creation is a verb, effect, cause. So you always have a threefold idea regarding anything. You know, a painting has a painter and painting is a process of, you know, is the, is the action that brought the painting into being. So you have, sorry, just to be quick, in the, in the, in the Meno dialogue, what he does with the slave boy Meno, sorry, the slave boy, Meno is an aristocratic, an aristocratic, not even

aristocratic, he's an oligarchical slave owner who is a real figure in history, who was actually a traitor to the xenophon, the campaign of the, of the, of the 10th, thousand into Persia. So these are actually a lot of these characters in the dialogues are real people who Plato is polemicizing against. Now, Meno himself as a slave owner and an oligarchist was somebody who was a traitor to the Athenian cause when they were trying to do battle with the Persians. He was one of the reasons why that campaign failed and Xenophon had to lead the men out of Persia to safety. That's part of the famous story. But so in this, he has a slave, and the slave boy doesn't have a name, but Socrates, the character that Plato uses in his dialogues, demonstrates, he's asking, well, what is virtue and can it be taught, but what is it?

And at one point in the dialogue, he asked the slave boy to come, and he's talking to Meno, right, the slave owner, and he asked the slave boy, well, could you do this, this geometrical problem of taking a square of any given size? and creating a square that's double the area. And unlike the Aristotelian method, which would be to give you the answer, to tell you what the answer is, like go to the back of the book, memorize the formula. He doesn't do any of that.

He simply asks a sequence of potent questions to the kid so that the kid learns where he was wrong, why his thinking itself was stopping his ability to come up with the solution. And then the kid, by virtue of learning how to self-reflect, upon his own blind spots and false solutions he thought were solutions, but were not really. The kid is able to generate from within himself the actual solution, which is the truthful

solution. And by doing so, he demonstrates, well, I didn't tell him any answers. Where did the answer come from? He got the solution to something he was ignorant of and now he's knowledgeable. Where did that solution arise? And he demonstrates also that Meno, the slave owner, is less creative than his own uneducated slave child. So he's actually demonstrating that the whole master slave structure is illogical because the slave boy is superior than the master. The slave boy has an immortal, has what he basically Plato gets at is he must have had it within him. And Plato's thought is that all the, every soul is a reflection of the entirety of creation. and it requires good teachers to learn how to discover dialectically through dialogue

that the nature of the universe by asking themselves having conversations with themselves, but then having outward conversations with their students. And by asking questions, you can kindle a flame. You're not putting things into the head and calling it education. You're more awakening of fire where the student becomes an active participant, and you never give a full answer. So in the Plato dialogues, a lot of people get enraged and frustrated because he never gives a solid crystallized answer of this is the definition, the final definition of justice or virtue. He's always leaving it at the end of the dialogue to the reader to say, okay, I've planted some seeds. Now think about it yourself.

Whereas Aristotle, if you read his politics, is Nicomackian ethics or anything of the sort. He's always telling you, this is the exact crystallized final definition of what this is or this is or this is. So it cripples the mind from being able to move and to think about how there might be things not considered. And the last thing I would say Plato, Plato did believe in the importance of a philosopher king. So to break the cycle, He makes the point in his republic that societies will always move from tyranny into anarchy and tyranny into anarchy with a few flavors in between as a cyclical disaster. If you cannot get a society that is capable of culturally producing philosopher kings, and he defines a philosopher as not just somebody who he's not just somebody who loves power, but somebody who really loves wisdom, the pursuit of wisdom. And the pursuit of wisdom means that you don't just get out of the cave.

You know, we have the famous story of the old, the allegory of the cave that Plato tells in book seven of the Republic, where he has an example of many people chained for their whole lives looking only at shadows cast on a cave wall with puppet masters, you know, with a fire behind them that they never see. and puppet masters controlling the puppets and making sounds, which their ears and their eyes capture through the forms of the sounds and the shadows on the cave wall. But then he has the example of that one guy who somehow gets out of the cave. You've heard about this one? Yes, absolutely.

And the true philosopher, he's like this one guy gets out and starts learning, at first his eyes burn when he looks at the green grass and the sunlight and other things, and he wants to go back into the cave into his comfort blanket. And he doesn't do it. Let's say we keep him out and we make sure that he learns how to, how to use his proper eyes and starts appreciating the real light instead of the fake light and things in their,

in their real form. And he's very clear that this is a metaphor for using the eyes of reason, thinking and seeing with reason instead of seeing with your, the belief in your sense perception. He's like at that point, they, they start pitying their, their former lives and their former,

their former colleagues back in the cave. But the real philosopher is not somebody who stays out and just thinks like an elitist enjoying the light of reason while they, let's say, can get a job maybe playing with the puppet strings as part of the manipulators inside the cave. He's like, no, the real philosopher is somebody who goes back into the cave at threat of their own life. Because as soon as they start telling these people who have, like, built their entire identities around, you know, structures of shadow assumptions.

And if you start telling them that their beliefs are wrong, they'll hate you. They might want to even kill you. It's going to be at great risk. But you're not a true philosopher until you can do that and find ways of doing that better and better. So he's very clear versus Aristotle. You're not a true philosopher. Sorry, say that one more time. If you're willing to go and try and pull people out of the cave, did I hear that right?

Unless you're willing to do that. Unless you're willing to do. If you're not going to pull people back in, then you're not a true philosopher. You're just a sophist. Or you're like Aristotle who's like, okay, I can be the unmoved mover. I can be one of the guys controlling the puppet strings in that case. Okay. I'm going to go back to the first time I had you on because what I'd asked is, is it different?

And I'm going to butcher it now that I, you know, I should have wrote it down. But anyways, is it families that carry along or is it ideas that carry along? essentially controlling the world, if you will. And what I get out of what you've just been saying for the last whatever 20 minutes is it's a little bit of both. But certainly, if we are to agree that where we sit in whatever form it is, whatever iteration it is, stems from the writings and teachings of these men, then it probably behooves all of us to go read the teachings of these men. Yeah. Yeah.

Right? Yeah. I think because I'm trying, it's this question that I've wrestled with for a long time. And I've relistened to our first one and I'm like, I'm sitting there and I'm like, I still don't know. But as I sit here and listen to this, it's like, well, obviously its ideas have stood the test of time. I mean, it's 2,000 plus years. and I'm certainly no experience knowledgeable

you know when I sit and listening you man I'm like huh this is this is interesting but have I read different things from Socrates and Plato and Aristotle yes have I read it in its entirety no like I just I just haven't

I haven't oh yeah and you don't have to read it all in its entirety you don't have to read everything but you do but in fairness yeah if you want to understand the divergence of ideas and why you have one side going this way and in another side, you're pointing directly to this group of teachings and how they've stemmed over time. And they've certainly got roots into different things.

But I mean, Close Schwab comes from an idea of master servant, essentially. I mean, in the simplest form, right? I mean, would you not agree? No, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, absolutely, yes. Yeah. And it, obviously, the more, the more you read, it helps of these key figures. And yeah, people should take the time.

And I mean, I've taken the time. I've read some of these dialogues five, six times. And every time I go back to it, I learn new things. Again, I don't think you necessarily have to read it, because time is of the essence in a sense, you know, it's not like we have all the time of the world to read everything. But to read some of the essentials, just to take the time to actually get a taste. And you get a taste after just a few dozen pages. of reading Aristotle, what the method is that he's using. And you could very clearly, when you

read his actual writings, just pick a few chapters from the Nicomachian ethics or from his politics, and then just compare it to one or two small platonic dialogues and just appreciate the different modality of thinking that is being activated. Because they both want to influence you. They both want to awaken or put to sleep certain faculties. They have intentions, right, when they write. write for themselves or to be to be published and make a living. They have effects that they want to awaken in society after they die. They have that sense of what's going to come after. And both of them, keep in mind, have political lives. It's good to also read their writings with an improved understanding or appreciation for the actual geopolitical environmental environments

that they were both shaped by and that they in turn politically shaped as real people in the real world. Because Socrates was killed. Right? He was by the Democratic Party, he was falsely accused of corrupting the minds of the youth and disproving the official gods of Athens

for the crime of getting young people that admired his way of thinking to just think for themselves and to question the fakers who were acting like they were the experts of justice trying to run for political office. He was just proven that they actually don't know what they, what they say. that they know they don't know.

And just by asking questions, he was able to poke holes in their entire, very impressive looking surface constructs. And he made a lot of enemies. And they killed him for that. And they did a sham trial. And they got their own, you know, duped jury with 500 people to the majority of them decided to go along with this and make him drink the hemlock. So why?

You know, he was a political leader. He was on leading political community. that were doing battle with real oligarchical forces that were trying to undermine and undo the good of what had blossomed a few generations earlier in Athens under people like Solon, the great Solon who studied in Egypt, the lawgiver and who took Athens out of a long dark age where Athens had collapsed into hell, a dark age they had forgotten how to read and write, they forgot their own stories. It was hundreds of years of dark age. And so on, I mean, 90% of the population of Athens, when so on was selected or requested to be a, to reform the society, 90% of that society had become debt slaves.

That's the way it was. And, and he not only freed the debt slaves, he had a debt jubilee. He basically said, okay, we're going to just, this is insane. You can't own slaves based on debt. You cannot put your body or your family into, uh, um, You know, you can't say that I'm going to become a slave if I can't pay my debts. You can't do that. And so he reorganized everything and he built a society around excellence, cultural standards of

of real excellence and freedom. So the whole idea of democracy arose out of a lot of the work he did. And it only lasted for like 100 years. But it became such, I mean, some of the greatest thinkers of science of the arts of philosophy emerged out of that cultural fertile soil, of which Socrates was a little. leading figure, that the dominant oligarchical forces that by that time had centered themselves around the priesthoods, the temples that managed the structures of power of Persia, that, you know, formerly it was Babylon, but then the Babylonian priests had taken control or moved their center

of command to Persia, which became sort of the Babylonian marcher lord, still operating under the same priesthood system, same structure of oligarchical families. and, you know, methods of getting dupes to give their secrets to a priest of Marduk, then later becoming known as Apollo, in order to be told, do you carry out a war, do you go to peace or what do you do? So they controlled the whole geopolitical terrain using this superstitious system of cults and a lot of the money that the cults were also in control of because, you know, you had to give a lot of gold if you wanted to get the gods to tell you what you should do,

as a king or a general. So it became the center of money lending. And this is what Athens was challenging was the structure of the Persian power. And they were the first small little city state to unify all of the diverse Greek city states around a common mission to defend civilization from this satanic thing. And Persian was once beautiful, but it got corrupted earlier on. And the satanic thing being all the cults and different things where you had to pay for the gods

okay on which way you were going to go like that that type of thing fighting that yeah because it wasn't just that it was the idea that you have certain groupings who have certain factions of special special families who have secret knowledge that they can

they they have the special ear of the god Apollo or the god Marduk who is again the proto Apollo and because they have that special communication, they're better. They have this elite power over the masses who they can then manipulate for their whimsy or whatever they're doing. What do you think of Jordan Peterson then and his breakdown of even Marduk and different mythologies and how they play out and how it's more of a more of a teaching for society. And if you can break it down into

simplistic things, you can see how it relates to each individual man and woman. I think that there's value in it. And I think that there's some truth in it. But I think he's also geopolitically, he just hasn't done the work on this, this way of looking at history from the standpoint of the geopolitical expression of these ideas. Enough. I think he skipped some steps on that aspect, although I think there is truth. I think all of the religious creations that have been birthed over even the pre-Christian era are all humankind trying to make sense of, the complexity and mystery of creation and trying to give it wrap, wrap words, wrap meaning around concepts that we all have in our hearts, that yearn for

freedom, but that also desire order, that, that require lessons to learn how to have, how to achieve that. So, I mean, I think that you'll, you'll find universal lessons and truths in most every religion that has been created and that has endured, but then you also have the perversion of it. So you have obviously a power. As soon as people worship at a certain tribal deity of some sort, whoever can control the interpretation of that deity's whim has a lot of power. You can get that whole tribe to do what you want it to do if you can control their interpretation of the God in question of what he wants. So then you have the political the politicization and that has big geopolitical effects of, of, of, of, of,

of religious orders, pagan as well as, you know, we have examples of this throughout the monotheistic faiths as well at different times when they get corrupted by a priesthood that uses, you know, there, you know, no one's allowed to read the Bible, right, unless you're, unless you're a holy man ordained by the church in, you know, the, the Roman era. Or if you can read, right? I mean, like- If you can read in general, if you can't read, you're really, you have nothing but to believe whatever's being told to you by that authority.

This is why I come back. If Matt Eric goes, you know, where we sit today is roots are put in from Aristotle, Socrates, Plato. Then, you know, it behooves all of us to go back and read. Whether it takes time or not, whether you read it all or not, that's up to the individual person. You want to start to understand some things from an ideological standpoint. you got to start to read and challenge yourself to grasp with large ideas, I would say, right? Because it's one thing to have somebody talk about it. It's another thing to actually go read it and then try and articulate some of your own thoughts on what you've seen, right?

I think, you know, I chuckle about the article you sent, right? Because I warn my audience, man, it is long, right? And I probably just dared half of them away from it. Oh, man, I ain't got time for that. It's like, well, what's your commitment to understand? what's going on. Is it just watching a 10 second social media video? Or is it watching a two-hour interview on the same person?

And it goes, you can extend that to any, any, exactly, at any level you want. And even myself, I find myself the same way as probably every other person, right? You see something, you're like, oh, it's five minute read. All right, I can do that. Oh, it's 80 pages long. do I have the time right well it's like well what is your commitment to understanding then and to me I'm still not there Matt but I am in a sense uh after the last whatever two and a half years starting to realize you know if I really want to start to to challenge my thought

process it's one thing to see it's another thing to like invest a more time into understanding what I'm seeing playing out. You know? Does that make sense? Yeah. Well, it's like these degrees of knowledge. Like, it's not like it's not true because you heard you watched a five minute video on social media and it said something truthful.

It's not like, and let's say you kind of believe it. It's not like it's not true, but it's not knowledge yet. And if you take the time to maybe watch a two hour interview on that same topic, you might, it'll be, your roots will be firmer in the soil. it'll be closer to truth, like to knowledge, but it's still just your opinion. You still probably couldn't go into a debate with somebody who is sophisticated, who thinks otherwise, and defend your position very well. You'd probably fall apart at a certain point.

So it takes time versus actually reading a book, like take allocating a few days to read something that involves you taking notes, writing your thoughts down. That can involve not necessarily, but generally, transforming something that is simply, a right opinion into actual knowledge that's well grounded. And Plato talks about that a lot. The difference between simply the qualitative difference between having right opinions versus knowledge. They might give you the same effects, but they're qualitatively different.

And it's kind of like the difference between memorizing a formula, like let's say we're talking about the Pythagorean theorem, which was discovered by Pythagoras, using a way of thinking and a bunch of questions that popped into his head when he was trying to solve a problem. So if you just memorize the A squared plus B squared equals C squared, you will get certain effects and it will work. It'll be your right, a correct opinion. You can go off and get a job and apply it and do calculations. But do you have a power of knowledge? Do you have a power that only knowledge could give you by having reproduced the type of thinking that Pythagoras himself had undoubtedly gone through because he was trying to solve. What was he trying to solve? It was the nature

of an incommensurable. When you have any type of right angle triangle that has one side and another side, regardless of what size the triangle is, there will be a diagonal, which will have generally, it will not be measurable by the linear metrics of the horizontal or the vertical. That diagonal is not going to be something which either one will necessarily give you as an answer. So what is it? How do you find out? And so you can do it by building up a constructive geometrical proof without even knowing any numbers, no mathematics. And you could very elegantly, clearly, and I've seen little kids do this, seven, eight years old.

I had my little cousin a few years back who was able to do this, whereas their father was not able to do this, you know, because kids are more like intuitive. They're more playful. They're more humble. and whereas the older person is a little bit more bogged down by their, you know, their ego, like on the one. It's kind of like the Mino's, uh, Mino was the slave master to the boy, right? Meno was not able to answer it. He found excuses to, because Plato was like at a certain point. He's like, well, why don't you, the kid's having trouble.

Why don't you help him out a little bit? And Meno's like, no, no, no, no, I'm just going to watch. And finally he like scoots off, you know, he like escapes. But there's all of the, the false ideas about ideas. is that are holding us back sometimes from just a straight, pure, intuitive leap that a kid can make more easily when they're confronted with a problem. So, again, knowledge versus right opinion, very different things. And this is where, again, the Aristotelian tradition, you could see that appreciate the

sleight of hand of taking the outward form of truths, extracting the substance, and telling the students who will go on to be the leaders of society, that is all you need. And you now have knowledge if you just memorize these shells. But it's like what happened to the substance of the egg? Like you've extracted, it's just a wind egg. It's just the contour.

And then you get people who think they know things they don't know, and thus they're instrumentalized by wills that are beyond their own. They don't actually have access to their own powers of free will, of free agency. And then you can better appreciate both how the elites themselves, many of the manager class of society who are trained in special training like we talked about in our last interview in Oxford or Cambridge, they're given scholarships to go to London School of Economics under very controlled environments.

They themselves have lose their agency of their own free will, their own access to their own powers of conscience, which normally are awoken when you make real discoveries and you love truth more than you love anything else. you awaken your conscience, right, as a power that tempers your logic, but they both dance together nicely. And you see examples of that in people like Benjamin Franklin and people like Alexander Hamilton and Dante Alighieri and Thomas More and Erasmus and St. Augustine. Like, you find these individuals throughout history who play key roles on the battleground of world history who all understand this. And you could get it in their writings, the same thing that animated Socrates

in Plato. You see it. there in the platonic school of Cicero, who described himself as a platonist, and he wrote platonic dialogues. And it was his murder, right, that caused Rome to collapse from a republic into an empire. And it was the killing of Cicero, the platonist that resulted in that, that downslide politically because he was the, without him as a leader, he was kind of like the Martin Luther King or the John F. Kennedy type of moral personality that gave vitality. to the masses who loved him,

but they didn't have it within themselves yet to replace him. So when Martin Luther King dies or John F. Kennedy guys, where was there the person to pick up the torch? People had not done the work on themselves. So there was a vacuum of leadership and people got more. They slid, the U.S. in that case, slid more into becoming an empire and it lost its Republican roots. Same thing for the Roman Empire.

Or when Socrates dies, the the the the Republican Democratic statehood of the Athenian people and of the nation slide into empire. They end up basically backstabbing all of their former allies. They align themselves with Persia. They become an empire. They they literally become an empire demanding tribute

from all of their former allies who just a generation earlier they had worked with to fight the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, of Persia. So all of these things, and same thing for Augustine. St. Augustine was a Platonist. He wrote in Platonic dialogues. You can get this by reading his free choice of the will at the end of the Roman Empire when Rome was collapsing. And just read a few of the Augustinian dialogues because you realize he takes the best of Plato. He unites it with the best of Christianity. And it's really Augustinian Christianity. It's platonic. And this is what is revived in later

Renaissance periods under Charlemagne in the 8th century. It was an Augustinian platonic revival of the Charlemian, the Carolingian Renaissance, the training of the orphans, right, the teaching, the providing of schooling, classical schooling to kids and orphans who normally would not be given any opportunity to awaken their flame. That was all then provided support under Charlemagne's leadership. And even though it collapsed into decadence after Charlemagne died, he was sort of a philosopher king that Plato was talking about that you needed to get to break the cycle. You know, it was revived again under the people like Dante Ligieri, Peter Abelard, who were platonists again in their own time in the 12th, 13th centuries, doing battle against the aristotilians

who were again trying to keep people in the cave. And again, it came about in the Renaissance period. So then when you look at today's day and age, man, and you see all these people searching for truth, I would say. You know, and you go back to something you said earlier along the lines of, you know, once you start searching for truth, you're awakening, you know, in your brain essentially, the balance that is your common sense. And you mention one other thing that I'm butchering right now. But you see that right now, it doesn't need to be some famous person to do it because it's literally happening everywhere where the simple mechanic to the farm. to the bureaucrat to the, you know, just go through all of them,

are all in this search for what is the truth. And out of that is coming like, you know, I said last, last time and people laughed at me in a good way, you know, everybody's getting red-pilled, you know, and I think I used a couple of explicits. And, but like, the more you question things, the more you search for what is actually, in fact, the truth of today. the more you're like awakening this party of you that's like that makes zero sense when you might have just put your head down and walked by it a year earlier right except that's happening

more and more and more and more and I mean I don't know about you I don't know how if you've been watching the commission on the emergencies act here in Canada this week has been fascinating because like these people who would never would have a show like this and there's no knock on what I'm doing here just it's not mainstream, right? It's not being broadcast to this large audience. Now you have like the Pat Kings of the world. I'm not for or against Pat, but he's getting his three hours in time where they have to ask him questions and he gets the mic, the hot mic, to just explain why this happened. And the Tom Marazo, the Tamara Leach is on, you know, the Jeremy McKenzie with diagonals coming on, you know, all these

different people, whether you love or hate them, are going to, challenge everyone who watches it, whatever side of the coin is on, the question and go, what? Yeah. Isn't that fascinating where we sit today? Like, I mean, you look through history. I don't know if we can find a time quite like today. We, we, uh, there are, there are parallels, but obviously with the advent of, uh, internet,

the communication technologies that we're currently, uh, swimming in. Yeah, there's obviously completely new, uh, expressions of this thing. I think I was reviewing some of Thomas Payne's crisis papers. Thomas Payne was a propagandist, and I used this in the best use of the term propagandist. Everything is propaganda because it's just anybody who says propaganda is a bad term. It's like, you know, you believe that news or intentions or that information can be written with no intention. I mean, it's like, no, your model of what you think healthy information should be is like a computer. Yeah, the only thing I can do on this side is I can admit I have a bias.

And my bias is playing out in the former guests that come on. And I wish I could get rid of that, but that's who I am. And I'm just trying to do the best by it, right? By allowing, you know. We all have biases. And we just want our biases ideally to be as closely aligned to truth as humanly possible. And anybody who says they don't have a bias is. acting like they're not a human. They're either dumb or they're lying to you.

All that to say, Thomas Paine was writing of this and this type of period in 1778, and it was a period of a lot of despair amongst the revolutionaries. Only like 10% of the people who were fighting age were actually fighting against the British during the American Revolution at that time. The French hadn't yet entered the war on the side of the Americans. And so there was a lot of depression, a lot of fear. You're up against the biggest global empire in the world, right? That was the one world government was the British Empire.

And I was reading. So in his crisis papers, he's, you know, going, he's working hard to remoralize people. And he's talking about the benefits of a real crisis because it shows you where, who the genuine people were and who were the fakers, like the people that you thought. And he's very clear. It applies to even today, you know, like, where are the real people who, who actually are willing to stand for their conscience and for truth versus all of the people who acted like they were.

Now you see that there's nothing there or they're traitors. And he's talking about the misinformation, the spies and espionage that are being deployed by the British as well to subvert the cause and spread even gossip. There's false narratives that were being spread as part of the cultural warfare, because warfare is not always kinetic. It's also psychological warfare too.

And the empire was working hard with their agents that they would pay money to inside the American Revolutionary Cause to spread gossip about the different power structures that the Empire had, what type of strategy is. Apologies to butt in, but I mean, just I keep coming back to Ottawa. Just come back to, for people of today, just take a look at Ottawa. What happened on the streets there compared to what the CBC and others proclaimed was happening is complete opposites of the spectrum. It is absolutely opposite. And there are people who still believe the occupations. was this dangerous thing there.

They tried to kill people and burn buildings and destroy all of Ottawa. And that is done by propaganda or by the narrative created by technology. I think any time you have, whether it was the printing press, whether it was the control of the, you know,

take the Bible, for instance, whether you could read, couldn't read. Well, I mean, right away, you're at a disadvantage, right? And so you go along. You have the printing press.

You got the radio. You got television. and now you have this whatever this is, you know, and the internet, the ability for the common person to get on a mic and just started interviewing people. And that comes with its own challenges as well. I'm not sitting here giving this a high pass, but it is the opening of doors that have never been there before. Yeah. The other side or whatever side has always tried to control. I mean, look at Bill C-11 here. Like, I mean, what they're going to, what they're going to try looks like they're going to try is they're going to try and control this, hamper this twist and contort people's access to information.

But they've been doing that since the beginning. If you're a government, you want to have control of what your population hears. Has there ever been in your time, Matt, you know, as you look at different things, has there ever been a place that didn't do that, that just. tried to give open, clear, this is what's going on. And let's see how the population handles it. Or as soon as you do that, somebody always tries to grab control and twist it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, obviously. No, I don't think we are a society, the way I tend to, my philosophy of society and history is that we are still in our infantile stage. I see society as being analogous to a human being, except the difference being that a human being is mortal.

We can extend that with technology, but we're ultimately going to have to face the same truth, you know, whether in a thousand years when our average life expectancy might be feasibly, you know, a couple hundred years, 300 years, I don't know. Like I don't, I don't, I don't see any reason to believe otherwise. We're still going to have to die. And so we're still going to have to confront these basic questions of what was that all about. So a society may inversely be immortal. The social body that we're all sort of cells on, the cells come and die, but the body itself of society of humanity may be potentially immortal.

And so what we contribute to greater or lesser amplitudes can be part of the, each one of us can participate in the amplification of those immortal characteristics that increase the power of the societal body that we're parts of, which goes even beyond the particular civilizational unit that we find ourselves in. Each civilizational unit is part of itself, kind of like organs of a body, too, you know. We could play a role in enhancing and participating in that immortal existence, or we could, you know, be fooled into staying in the cave and stepping out of that process and either being dampeners, you know, in wave, if you look at harmonics, there's certain type of wavelengths that will dampen, will undo, and other forms that will amplify

existent waves. So you don't want to be that, ideally. The oligarchy is, and the whole Aristotelian cosmology and method and way of thinking is in political, practical expression, always a dampener. It's like they're trying to do a psychological projection of their own anti-creativity and misanthropy onto the thing that they want to control. And they have to like get the thing to behave unnaturally so that we behave according to the way they want or they think that we must behave in order for their models.

They're pristine models to function. Yeah. So all that to say to get at your question. I think that human beings are still at a relatively infantile stage as part of the grand scheme of things. I think we still haven't matured the way we will eventually matured. as we come to discover who we actually are. We're still in the state where most people have not had the ability to access true knowledge of the self.

We haven't had a society philosopher kings yet. Every time it comes up, it's sort of like crushed, like the flame arises in the American Revolution with Ben Franklin or JFK or Lincoln or, you know, there's some Canadian examples too that I could say. But the flame is smothered before it could really take a hold and before the oligarchy could properly like a- because in history, if I take your example, it's been like one match at a time. It's like, whoop, we got one. Hey, it's right here. Well, that's pretty easy to go.

Edit, uh, one of the, I, I don't know if I'm writing this, but it feels like right now as things progress faster and faster, instead of there being one match, maybe there's 50 matches all at the same time. Or maybe, maybe it's a small little fire and that's, and that's conducive to, you know, a thousand people instead of just one very articulate person explaining what's going on. And I'm not saying that can't be put out. I would say right now it certainly looks like there's a lot of people or a lot of institutions that are trying to put that out. Except more and more people are starting to have access to said people and information and hearing different conversations and getting, I don't even know if triggered's the right word by different things people are saying and before they can put it out, it's already.

lighten more because because you're just like what the hell was that you know like what the hell was that yeah and it just leads to more and you just you know i take podcast for example and by no means people am i saying that i am one of the lights i'm just saying in the darkness of the last two years i don't know how many times i've had somebody reach out or another podcast coach reach out and say you know because of you i started to question things and i started my own podcast or i started to read more or or I started to listen more and you go, oh, man, that is, I don't know if there's a higher compliment than that because I just started this because my brain couldn't, I shouldn't say I started this, but I went down this road because my brain couldn't comprehend some of the things that were going on.

So I needed to explore the ideas, as I still am doing right now with you, Matt. I'm still exploring because I still can't comprehend them all. And if you take, and we'll use you as a small little match, and you're starting to go, over here, it's already amplified into, and if you're the government, if you're the controlling elite, if you will, that are trying to impose all these different restrictions that make us go about life in unordinary ways. It's got to be almost impossible at this point. They've got to be watching this going like, holy crap, like look at what's happening here. These ideas, if an idea can spread over the course of 2,000 years, because it's not just

carried by one person. An idea is almost something that it's almost like, it's almost like the mind virus, right? It's like something gets in your head and you can't forget it. It's like, eh, that's good or bad. Well, for a long time, it feels like that's been really controlled in one way. And right now it's the complete opposite. Like, I feel like it's a complete opposite. It is just spreading like wildfire. And they can't put the, you know, they can't close Pandora's box, so to speak. Yeah. No, absolutely. I mean, the more that you, you, you, you try to shut down. Well, the more you try to shut down a truth,

the more it will invariably make people want to know what is it that you're, like, what is this truth that we're told we're not allowed to think about? It's like, it's right there. Like, why can't I look at it? It's right there. Or like the kid, you know, the, the Hans Christian Anderson story. I mean, I was to fall back to that. But it's really just that, you know, like the, the whole population of the emperor that

the emperor had no, the emperor's no cloak. Yeah. Everyone was led to believe. probably would have passed lie detector tests that this emperor had great, this wonderful new outfit. And it required the honesty of that kid to just liberate them from the shackles. But once it was begun, it couldn't be put back in the bottle. That genie was out to stay. And I think that's really, that genie has really come out.

We saw it with the Freedom Convoy. I was there on the ground in Ottawa. And I don't think anybody in Ottawa, none of these ivory tower social engineers anticipated that level of quality of of response from the from the Canadian people in the millions who were there just in the Ottawa all across Canada and you just see the videos you know you brings you to tears that there was this amount of response even amongst people who had been jabbed they they recognized that this most people who had been jabbed just did it because they wanted to keep their jobs they did it out of intimidation not because they were ideologically committed to anything and they still

came out in droves defending freedom in a very peaceful and loving way. It was great. So I think now that has not been, that's as much as the oligarchy and their their, their auxiliaries positioned in, you know, corridors of influence in the Privy Council or the Prime Minister's Office of Canada, they want to try to pretend like that never happened. It happened. And all of these fires now are kindling and burning a lot brighter than they would have, than they were beforehand, when they all thought they were isolated islands, right? Everybody thought, oh, I'm, I'm, I think this is crazy, but I can't say it in public because everybody else would think I'm crazy who's around me, but then you realize everybody else around you thought the same friggin thing and nobody bothered

just speaking openly where you would have easily have come to realize quickly, oh, we all think, we all think this is absurd. And that's what that opportunity was for the freedom convoy. And I think we're going to get, and we're many more of such opportunities. We see this in Georgia, in Italy with George Maloney, who took a huge, huge victory out of the hands of some of these world economic forms psychopaths like Mario Draghi, who is, I mean, that is an Aristotelian death cultist to the extreme, high-level central banker who believes in a very hardcore, depopulated world order of slaves and useless eaters to be managed by a master class. He believes that. He was ousted. He had a full, a full strength hold on the Italian system. But, you know, people didn't want that. And you see protests all over Europe right now with the oncoming winter, which they, I mean, people now see like they're being told to accommodate a very, as you said,

a totally unnatural modality of living with like burning branches that you collect from the forest. You know, that's what the Polish people are being told by their government. They're going to have to do this year to stay warm is forage for branches. And, you know, the British government is giving these, like, notifications to the British people, giving them tips on how do you make a candle heat your room more? Well, it even extends further. You know, like, you know, it all starts probably with with the mandates of COVID and different things. Certainly the vaccine, you know, like it was, you know, if you go back and you hear 94% efficacy and you're never going to get COVID again and you're not. going to spread it and blah blah blah well that's been blown to shreds in less than a year is it is just

like anyone who is even doesn't want to pay attention probably has had COVID three times and it's going WTF right yeah but extend that to like the the the the green agenda to where britain is you know i mean if you look into it just briefly uh we're chopping down trees in Canada on the furthest part from the united kingdom shipping them across Canada, then across the ocean, so they can burn it per fuel and call it green. And you just got to step back and go, this makes zero sense. And I keep, I keep trying to be like, you know, maybe, maybe I'm just, you know, just looking at this the wrong way. And so then you're like, then you say it out loud and you're like, or we just got some big shenanigans going on right now.

more and more people just need to clue into it, which I think they are. It's almost impossible to hide at this point. Like, I just, I don't know what happens from here. Riots? Is that, is that what comes? Well, I mean, they're pushing it. I mean, I think that the approach taken with the, again, the freedom convoy was was a good prototype, I think, of anything effective that is going to be taken on. I mean, as soon as you go into, if you allow violence to, I mean, they're pushing people down the brink. If you make people live underwater long enough at a certain point, you know, for the first few seconds and maybe even a first minute,

you might be able to convince them that they can, that they're supposed to naturally just sit underwater and oxygen is like bad for you because it maybe causes cancer. But at a certain point, they're going to start like, you know, fighting back to get out of the water. That's going to happen. It'll always happen.

So this is where I think you really do need some qualified. people. And again, we saw that with the, the freedom convoy could have gotten violent. There are, there, there is reason to believe that it could have happened. There were either, there were provocateurs inserted. There were, there were things that were done to try to push people into violence. There were people there who certainly were itching for it, who didn't like being abused. But you luckily had an array of wise leadership, people who were able to provide good role modeling, good guidance to the crowds that kept them on the, on the, I think the proper path. Yeah.

Yeah. And, I mean, you had great videos of people like doing what the Martin, what made Martin Luther King effective was that he kept but abused people again on that same path of love and nonviolence, which made them effective. That's why the civil rights movement under his leadership was effective. while as after he died, and you had the radicalization of FBI operations that worked to put radical violent people from the Black Panther, Black Power movement into positions of being the voices of leadership of the civil rights movement of formerly MLK. It lost its effectiveness, and it became increasingly a tooled by the Five Eyes and the other, you know, three-letter agencies as part of the, you know, the 1970s and 80s.

but the whole idea was, you know, you, I watched things like that in Alberta where you had police threatened to arrest peaceful protesters and they sang, they sang freedom songs to the police, which caused the police to just turn human very, very quickly, you know, and just walk away. That works really well. And that's the sort of thing that the oligarchy is afraid of because they want us to become fight or flight. They want us to either run, stay quiet and just like, you know,

wait for the ship to just be driven by the helmsman into whatever kind of oblivion they want to take us or they want us to go into the fight mode where we just lose our reason. We lose our wisdom when we just start burning shit down. That also benefits them too. So you want to take that other higher path. And I think we've exhibited an increasing caliber of that. I do see that. You do this to me a lot where you rattle off some things. I'm like, I should write that down. I should write that down. I'm going to go back to something you said. about 10 minutes ago, okay? Okay. You said,

until we realize who we truly are, what did you mean by that? Oh, I mean that, that we're made in the image of God as a living, a living God, a creative God. I think that that's actually provable, even scientifically, that human beings must be,

this must be our true nature and not be artificial ideas of, you know, let's say, for example, Right now, most people think human beings are a virus. They're taught in an early age in school that all human beings do when we try to make things better for ourselves and we do technological progress, we build a dam or we do a hydroelectric dam or whatever. We try to make life easier for ourselves. And that involves influencing nature usually in some way whenever you build infrastructure.

And they're told early on that that is always bad. It'll always involve, you know, creating methane, creating carbon dioxide when you burn stuff, what you need to do if you're going to frankly support billions of lives. have to burn things. It's, you know, part of sustaining life and producing enough food and other materials needed to support life. It's like metabolism. Like the birth, that's what happens in our body. That's why we get, we're warm when we're alive and we get cold when we die.

It's because we're burning matter into energy to do work. That's, that's in the human body. You see that there also in human economies. If you don't burn. I got a thought in my head. I got to get it out. I'm going to forget it. If you're on the side, let's say me and you.

matter on the side of humans uh there's a certain number and as soon as you hit that threshold we are bad for the planet we are going to be locust we're going to plague this place and eventually we're all going to die a horrible death so we need to control said population to ensure it never reaches whatever in the meantime it went from you know hundreds of thousands of people to now billions of people and everything they've done at their best still has to have done. It hasn't worked. I mean, like, it hasn't even remotely worked unless you're telling me that it should be 50 billion by now, which is possible. I don't know the answer to this. Do they have a number that they're like, we need to be at 700,000 people? That would be the most optimal and perfect and we'll never have to worry about, you know, we can just get there and we'll be perfect. Or is that ever discussed? It's just models of like, listen, we can't get past six billion. Oh, we're at eight billion and we're still fine. I mean, we couldn't get past 10 billion or we can't get past this number. Like, Does that matter? Yeah, yeah.

No, I mean, it's totally relative because the question is, well, who determines that number? What's the number? Right now, I think there's a consent, an arbitrary consensus that they've all decided to come to over the past few decades around a billion. I think maybe they allowed to go as high as a two billion, says Joaquin Schell and Huber, who's an advisor to Pope Francis and wrote a recent papal encyclical on Lepalian. Dato C, but he's also a knight of the British Empire, too. He said it could be up to two billion. But I think that they allow this fake debate, you know, like, is it two billion? Is it one billion? Is it 500 million? Like, it's these fake debates, right? And the number itself is completely arbitrary because, like, well, what was the optimal population? What was our carrying

capacity, as they call it, in the 19th century? What about in the 12th century? What about in Athenian, you know, ancient Athens. The caring capacity is always different. It's different because of the advent of new scientific and technological discoveries and new insights into the structure of the universe. So when you're ignorant of, let's say, electricity, sure, you're going to have a lower caring capacity. There will be more constraints on what you can do if you're ignorant of electricity. But if, thank God, you got a Ben Franklin who's able to make a eureka and translate that into new inventions, discoveries, and new ideas about what the universe actually is, bam, you are all of a sudden, that caring capacity is so much more, it's so much bigger.

That idea, immaterial idea, just transformed your potential to support people. And the oligarchy, the problem is they believe, they don't believe, or they don't want us to believe, they might believe, but they don't want us to believe in the existence of this efficient connection between discoveries and their application in the material world, mind and matter. They don't want us to recognize that there is an efficient causal relationship between acts of fruitful cognition and their material expression in the form of technological and scientific progress that allows you to have more people living at a higher quality of life, lower death rate of babies, higher longevity of your average person, more access to their mental cognition.

All these things are measurable, measurable functions, the effects of which are caused by metaphysical, immaterial ideas. And so that's something that the oligarchy is they know of it, but they work to obscure it because they know as soon as it is made a general truth that is acknowledged by the people at large of society, their system cannot coexist with that knowledge. It can't, it cannot, it has nothing to hold on to. That right there, though, it just makes me extremely hopeful, right? Because if you think about it, for the course of history, there's been people who want control, the want the power, the, you know.

And yet, what's happened through the course of time? Brilliant minds have created brilliant things that allow people to move up the food chain, so to speak. And although the epic battle continues of these perversions of power, if you will, of trying to push us in. to these things that don't make any sense. It doesn't mean there won't be dark times. It doesn't mean there won't be tough times, to be honest. But overall, if you take human beings in their infancy and extend that over the course of, you know, immortality, I hate to use that word.

But I get what you mean by that, honestly. The different bloodlines of all people moving down the course and wherever they come to fight this certain thing, human interests. ingenuity solves problems. That's what we've done forever. And no matter how much the powers that be trying to stop said, uh, trying to solve problems,

it just keeps happening because it's like trying to put out the flames. Once the flames are going, it's kind of like, well, I'm sitting in a forest fire. What am I going to do? You know, I'm going to get a water bomber to come drop on this one little spot.

Like it even, it fizzles out before he even hits the flames, you know? And so like, I think when I listen to you, I go, I'm extremely hopeful that. It doesn't mean that you don't have to prepare for the things right now.

and do things to, you can't just walk into anything in willful blindness. It's like, no, you gotta pay attention. But overall, the course of history is showing and proven that good men and women

have pushed us to where we currently are. That doesn't mean we can't go back. It certainly means we can go back. And I mean, doesn't it feel like certain things at work right now are really trying hard? Like they are going absolutely insane right now, trying to push a narrative that makes zero sense.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, and this is where you get this room. The oligarchy, for me, it used to disempower me. When I started looking into this for the first couple of years, I thought to myself, well, maybe they have all of this power and influence over so many generations because they actually have real power and real secret knowledge that they're into that gives them an edge. And?

And? And? And they don't. I mean, now I appreciate a little, a lot more how every time that they're effective, when they finally achieve the type of consolidated utopic agendas that they're seeking, and they've always been seeking this of perfect crystallized stasis, they destroy themselves too. They don't benefit by their having attained what they desire.

Like, for example, the Roman oligarchical families that ran the Roman Empire for 400 years, you know, all roads lead to Rome. it was like perceived to be the immutable forever empire of the world. Did they benefit by the collapse into degeneracy, dark age that Rome actually fell into after the first Visigoth invasion in 410 AD? And then the second one that really did them in. And then they, no, no, these families did not benefit at all. Like it took them a couple hundred years to try to start reconstituting themselves and

and figure out how to like, you know, rebuild with maybe a little bit of lessons learned, but they, they screw themselves over big time. There's cases throughout history of these types of, or look at the Hitler project, too, right? Like the oligarchy, why didn't Hitler become the dominant victor on behalf of his financial backers in London and Wall Street during World War II? Why did that Hitler project end up getting defeated? Now, it's a lie that we're told that it could never happen again. were the big victors of World War II, you know, fascism is over. That's in the past.

It can never happen. No, it was a battle. But the battle did not turn out the way the oligarchy wanted because they created, they had this, this romantic idea, and I say romantic in the loosest sense of the term. They had an ivory tower idea of how they could bring these different Nietzschean eugenics-loving strongmen into positions of power, killing their democratic opponents, which is what happened in Italy. It happened in Germany big time. And Franco's, Spain, same thing happened. A lot of people had to get assassinated in order for Franco and these other fascists to come into power. But they want to use these strong men as battering rams to subdue the world under a new world order of eugenics-run dictatorship of an elites. Now, they realized

at a certain point that it might have looked good on paper, but they just unleashed a process that was not obedient to their formulas. Hitler all of a sudden was like, well, wait a minute, if I've got this whole, you know, Vermeacht massive arsenal at my disposal, why am I going to be the second stringer for the British oligarchy? Why can't they be my junior partners and I'd be in the command seat, you know? And that's why he gave Britain so many opportunities to escape, like eight times. He could have crushed Britain. He's like, no, no, come on. Get back to the original agenda. Come on. Let's work together again. You can control India. I told you. And this is, this is, this is, on paper. But the British Empire,

the oligarchy, you realize, no, they screwed up. Reality doesn't behave the way that their formulas say it should. And you only test it when you get to these crisis points. And you see all of a sudden things that just, yeah, go on. Close Schwab. Today's

enemy with a face is the W.E.F. Is Klaus Schwab? Has he been put there then by, in your opinion, the oligar. or is it? Oh, yeah. It's just he's a, he's a cardboard cutout. Like, look at his bio. He was a student of of Henry Kissinger at Harvard in, from 66 to 68. He was just selected. I think he's got some weird family connections that go into the Nazis too that Whitney Webb published. I have to look into

that. But he himself, I mean, Kissinger gets you into something a little bit higher of a upper level manager. If it wasn't Schwab, it would have just been some other sociopathic, you know, doesn't have to be German, but sociopath, who was installed to be the frontman for a junior Bilderberger group. That's all the Davos thing was. And in fact, the founder of the Bilderberger meetings, Prince Berenhard of the Netherlands, who founded that organization in 1954 as sort of a, it's a planning committee. It's with inner discussion groups. Just to keep coherence, it's hard.

It's hard to keep coherence of an international network of, of agentry and operatives to beat to the same rhythm. It's not easy to do. So the Bilderberger group was like a very high level such planning meeting that happened annually, usually in secret, but people got a sense of it. And they created a junior branch of it, which was what the World Economic Forum was in 1971.

And Prince Berenhardt was the principal patron of the third World Economic Forum meeting in 73, which was where they brought in officially the stakeholder capitalism manifesto, you know, the Davos manifesto was unveiled the Club of Rome. Orelio Pichet-She, who's the co-founder of the Club of Rome, a Neo-Malthusian

misanthropic guy who ran the Volkswagen Foundation, which has a lot of eugenics Nazi roots. Anyway, he was one of the key club of Rome guys who was then brought in to present the population model in 73 at that venue which normalized it and at which point it became embedded into the ecological, basically departments that teach environmental science quickly absorbed by 1974 these club of Rome population models that tried to pass on this lie that there is such a thing as a caring capacity for humans just as there are from monkeys or wolves that was taught

in Oxford and Cambridge and Harvard and Yale. And as soon as these big key universities do it, all of a sudden it sets the pace for every other sub-university that has like weaker versions of the same sort of model. But, you know, modified for the lower order, you know, serfs who are going to be trained at community colleges, they don't get the same. It makes sense, though, because like our world run on corporate,

North America is corporations, right? Giant corporations and they push down a policy. and then all the smaller corporations or companies start to adopt what they're doing. It's kind of a similar idea except to academia. Yeah, and it's marketed. Yeah, it's completely the same thing. Who has the money pays for the departments, pays for the research projects that then become peer-reviewed, that become the new pseudo-scientific religion.

Like, it's really, people say, oh, we're so, we're so beyond the religious age. of superstition and deities that controlled by priesthoods. That's so, it's so in the past. We're in the age of science now. It's the secular age. It's like, no, if you actually scratch on the surface of most of the dominant so-called scientific theories, it's not just the anthropogenic global warming thing or the pandemic science, but you know, Big Bang cosmology, Darwinianism, all of these, these models that

we're told we have to believe in in order to be respected scientists or professors to keep her job or to whatever, there's nothing there. I mean, there's a lot of mysticism masquerading as statistical science, but it's a lot of magic, a lot of belief in the occult, actually. Because ultimately, what is this? You have to believe if you're, if you're into Darwinian, let's say if you want to use the Darwinian interpretation of natural selection to describe why life happens, why it changes, why new species come online. Ultimately, the Darwinian theorem presumes randomness at the heart of the system, that there's ultimately at the very small, each element of life has a randomized mutation function going on,

kind of like just a random rolling of the dice. And occasionally you get lucky, you get like, you know, you roll sixes, like, you know, a billion times in a row. And by whatever miracle, that is exactly what is needed to then give you the attribute of a bigger claw that allows you to then beat out your competitors in a world of diminishing returns to have more sex, eat more food. And thus the competitors who couldn't get that bigger claw, they go extinct and gradually new systems come online. Now, that is a cultish because you're basically saying randomness causes non-randomness. You're saying like irrationalism causes order. We're told the same thing in quantum mechanics today. The filter of quantum mechanics that we're told we have to abide by and worship to at a temple.

It's just a temple of science, is that electrons, photons, protons are ultimately totally stochastic and random. There's no rhyme or rhythm or reason for the behavior of electrons. All you can know is probability theory of where an electron might be most likely, but you can't know any principle of why the orbitals of the electrons are where they are rather than some other location. It's all, and as soon as you allow that, you're basically assuming that randomness on the very small causes, you know, you're like, look at this beautiful flower, look at this beautiful sunset, look at this beautiful galaxy with this golden section structure of spirals in the galaxies that are the same that we find in the organization of even atomic behavior. We could see it, but then

we're told by these, you know, academics, oh, but that's just an illusion. Underlying it, it's just made up of randomness. The beauty that you think you see, it's just an ephemeral, uh, artificial fooling of your eyes of that flower or whatever. It's really just random, random coldness, you know, um, and, and kids know that that's wrong. Like a child knows intuitively that, no, there is beauty in nature. There is truth. There's order. There's kids know this, but you can train that out of them in time to the point that they become a PhD and they're like, yeah, yeah, the universe is this cold, dead, random place that doesn't care about us. And then you become Yuval Harari, trying to find ways of managing the useless eaters with, you know,

getting them all on drugs and video games. And you're backed up by political patrons who like how you think. This is what Darwin was, you know, this is what Isaac Newton was. This is what Aristotle was. They're promoting ways of thinking that would entrap you into the cave. And the cave today is just complexity. Instead of it being like, you can't know it. Like, we're not told you can't know science, but we're told science, you can't understand causality because the world is too complex.

And there's this infinite wall of complexity that separates your mind from knowledge. So don't even bother going there. Don't waste your time. Let the experts think about these things. Just focus on your job as a plumber, right? Just think a little. Let the experts who know the science make the decisions for you. And we'll have, you know, this is again, Davos Manifesto type of stuff.

right? We'll have the experts run the world. You're not smart enough to have opinions about things that you're not, you haven't spent eight years getting brainwashed and hired university on. So, me, shut up. Yeah, pretty much. Just shut up. Would you? Just, just sip it.

Man, I've really enjoyed you coming back on and, and, I don't know, teasing my brain or, you know, kind of going down the path I set somewhat. Really enjoyed it. I've stared at your books and I think what I got to do is the first thing I'm going to try and do is I'm going to try and read or do sorry by one of your first and I'm forgetting it untold history of Canada series. I'm going to I'm going to pick that up because before I have you. That sounds good. The unfinished symphony. That's volume one.

Oh, that's two Americans. That combines both a lot of Canadian history and U.S. history, but it's more of a north. how did the deep state come into being in North America as a not just a Canadian or U.S. phenomenon, but North American phenomenon. I would say start with that one and then afterwards get into the untolds history of Canada. Okay. Well, before I have you on again, I want to read one of your books because I stared at it last time and then I'm like, but in the short thing, I'm like, there's no way he even get through.

Like, you talk about reading a book in a couple days and don't get me wrong. I've done it before, but with kids and everything else, I'm like, I got to be careful. here on how quickly I say I'm going to do something. Either way, what I'm going to do is I'm going to pick up the one you just, you just showed, and I want to get through it because before the next time I have you back on, I want to pick your brain on a couple different things that have got written here, but I'm going to try and do my best to have a little, I don't even know if it's background knowledge, just a little more understanding of Matt Erritt and some of your thoughts and writing. Is there anything else before I let you go, though, if it's,

It's people wanting to find out more about you, support you, that type of thing, where people can get a hold you. Here's your plug, because I want to make sure if people are enjoying you, which they certainly were after the first one. They know where to find you in the interim so they can support and follow along with some of your writings, that type of thing. Sean, I got to say, and you have some of the most honest, potent questions that I've ever come across. It's a real pleasure to just chat with you on that. This is a great format you've done. And I would just say as well, like you've mentioned how many podcasts are arising, how many people are actually utilizing the technology of the internet right now to have

their own blog, substacks. It's even if you only get a few readers, I mean, I'm talking about people listening right now, do it because frankly, it changes your, it shifts gears of your own mindset where you move very quickly as soon as you take responsibility for being a platform, somebody actually amplifying ideas, whether you're again hosting a podcast or whether you're writing a blog, your relationship with the ideas that you're wrestling qualitatively changes. It's hard to describe until you actually just do it because you're not just consuming, but you're now producing and consuming.

You're doing it in a more back and forth way. And it's a much more healthy way of just relating to knowledge. The other thing. So for the plug, thank you. Yes. people could go to canadian patriot.org. All of the books are there. My wife, Cynthia Chung, is a wonderful writer as well,

and she's going to be doing or publishing her first full book on the origins of modern fascism from the beginning of the 20th century, even the end of the 19th century. Where does this come from? This is going to be the first of a two-volume series. This is coming out this Saturday. People can get that on Canadian.

Patriot.org. There's a lot of shocking stuff in there. And all the books are easily available there too. If people don't have necessarily the funds to get the books, send me an email at Info at Rising TideF Foundation.net. I'll send you a free PDF of any of the books that you wish. And the last thing is we've just started doing documentaries too. And we've got, we just finalized with a talented filmmaker named Jason Dahl in Ottawa. He's helped us make, turn some of our our work into little documentaries. This one's going to be 35 minutes. It'll coincide with the same day Cynthia's book goes public.

And it's going to be on the occult roots of secret societies and intelligence operations. Oh, man, that sounds interesting as all help. Yeah, it's going to go to some ancient Athenian stuff, as well as Albert Pike, the takeover of U.S. intelligence in the 19th century, what J. Edgar Hoover was doing, what he was a part of. who were the opponents to this operation in the United States around FDR, around JFK, and it'll end with a real homage to JFK and Martin Luther King. That'll be on Saturday night that should be released. So keep your eyes peeled for that. And so for the folks, me and Matt are sitting here recording this.

This will be out on Monday. So as he's sitting here, we'll just have released all this. You can actually go on, it's better this way because they can actually be like, oh, man, that sounds interesting. And it'll actually be sitting there. you know before i let you get out of here and i hate to get you on a 15 minute tirade but i i'm kind of you know this occult thing is like i don't know the word because i'm about to say interesting but that's not the word i i mean by it because i don't mean like oh wow i really want to learn up on

this and be a part of it you know i uh i'm more mean you talk about the elites don't have any secret knowledge and yet the more i listen the more i talk to different people, the more you feel like there are some bad people at the top that do some really dark stuff in the belief that it helps move them along. Does that make sense? Oh, that they do. Yes. That's true. And I feel like there's there's good and bad or good and evil and the occult stuff is definitely on the evil side of things. Like that is some fucked up shit. Yeah. Yeah. in the French. Do you think they've tapped into something that is dark, nefarious,

that is scary to the modern person like myself or to actually anyone who came before me, who am I kidding? I don't think it's changed in a thousand years. That I'm going to say they believe gives them a leg up, whether it does or not. Oh, yeah. Yes, that's true.

They believe that this gives them a leg up, yes. And it gets nasty as sin, yeah. that psychology rate there is really messed up, but like hard to understand, you know? Well, you think, H.C. Wells said once that, I think it was in his autobiography. And H.C. Wells, by the way, high level grant strategist, read his open conspiracy or his New World Order, look at what he did in his life as a leader of the Fabian Society. He said the greatest benefit or the greatest advantage that the empire has in reconstituting itself.

and he was saying this in around the early 1900s is people's unwillingness to think of evil. He wasn't warning them. He was saying that's actually, that's good. That's the best thing we've got to go with here is that people, we're generous, because we're good, because we're actually, the oligarchy wants to believe we're born as parasites,

we're born selfish, bad little pollution machines. We're actually born quite good. Um, that's our fundamental. Our fundamental is the good. And we project out our inner good onto, uh, other, others. And we tend to then miss a lot of the, yeah, stuff that is very unnatural. Like you would not think to, to think like, why would somebody desire such an unnatural thing or think such an unnatural thing?

I've never thought such an unnatural thing. There's a reason for that. But, you know, you're not part of that culture. neither am I and uh well I tell you what I look forward to your documentary because I think that'll be uh or your video I don't know if you're calling a documentary I might have just thrown out of it let's call it it it qualifies it's a documentary well I look forward to seeing it because I'm like I'm interested what that does because you know if you get onto uh the elites as a topic

I think it it leads to the dark and nefarious almost 90% of the time And if that's true, then it's trying to understand how you break that apart so it's exposed because as long as it gets to operate in this world where nobody understands or can see it or whatever, you know, there's a veil put up, then it allows to continue. And that in itself is like fear, you know, like clouded in mystery. Like you don't actually, like what the hell did they do? Like you just don't know. No, yeah, I agree with you.

Yeah, no, I totally. with you. What I'll do, look, I'll send you my wife's email and you might like to have her on the show. She's actually gone deep into this darkness. Like she's studied this more thoroughly than most people I know, including myself. And how has she been as if she comes out of that? Like, does it affect it? Well, not, because you have to have a strong faith in the goodness of God's love. Like, you have to have a strong faith. If you're going to go into that darkness, you've got to really have a lot inside of you to navigate that because if you don't, it'll, it'll break you or it'll suck you in or whatever. Like, there's so many, you're dealing with layers of fakery.

And in some of it gets, anyway. I get you. I get you. Well, you piqued my, pique my curiosity because I don't, honestly, I don't, I don't find it at all like, I find it very revolting, like a very revolting. That's healthy. That's exactly. That's the right spirit.

Revolting. Don't be intimidated by it in the sense. But like Jesus said, pity them. You know, like you want to, I find, I find it pathetic. I find it pathetic ultimately. That's the, that's the feeling I get. And it's pity that they could have been better, you know, like if little H.2 Wells is a baby was given some love, given a better set of experiences, he could have become maybe, not be,

definitely could have become a great, wonderful, loving human being. Prince Philip, all of these guys. But they're, they're born into this disgusting thing that brings out the worst in them, that cuts off the best in them, that I don't think that they're ultimately very. happy. And I think if people want to really understand this, read Edgar Allan Poe's short stories, especially the imp of the perverse, read his fall of the house of Usher to get the patheticness of the smart, stupid thing inside the oligarchy's cultural matrix, Poe is really good at getting you into that. Or the story of Dr. Tar and Professor Feather

where the crazies have taken over the asylum. That also, it's a good, clinical psychological breakdown of the oligarchy's mindset and their way of being. Dr. Tar and what? Professor Feather. And who wrote that? Edgar Allan Poe. That was an Edgar Allan Poe. No kidding.

I'm learning new things here today, folks. Well, I tell you what, you've heard me say that I don't race through books in a day. And saying that, you've really piqued my interest in a few different things. So I'm going to have my reading list set for me here for a while. it feels like either way man i appreciate you uh you doing this again and hopping on as always uh look forward to the next time uh that our paths cross and for sure send me your wife's email and uh i mean i'll be like the listener i'll be waiting uh to saturday night and by the time this releases they'll be able to go back and if they're so inclined to watch it because i think it'll be oh i mean anytime uh

something new comes out that's on a subject that i'm faintly interested in i'm i'm kind of like to me, that's 35 minutes. Oh, man, I can do that, right? Like, it's a sad genetic makeup of probably a lot of human beings. Like, man, how much time do I got to invest? There's so many things. Either way. That's the thing. Like, once you get the taste of it, though, it's like, like me too. I obviously, I didn't just start. I didn't read books for my own pleasure until I was like 22 or something. I was ridiculous. And it was, I just started by watching a few little documentaries like inside job on 9-11 and stuff. But what's the flame starts, you know? The amount of endurance. that one gets is incredible.

But just let the flame start, you know, and you've got it. Thanks, Matt. Appreciate it again. All right. Take care.