Shaun Newman Podcast - #718 - Stephen Coughlin

Episode Date: September 30, 2024

Stephen Coughlin is an American lawyer and former intelligence analyst known for his work on Islamic law and its implications for national security. He served as a contract employee at the Pentagon, working with the Joint Chiefs of Staff's Intelligence Directorate post-9/11. His role involved analysing Islamic law and its relevance to U.S. national security. He co-founded Unconstrained Analytics, focusing on analyzing threats without ideological constraints. This platform has been involved in examining topics like the influence of Marxist ideologies on feminism, the role of interfaith movements, and broader geopolitical analyses influenced by his expertise in Islamic law and strategic threats. Clothing Link: ⁠⁠⁠https://snp-8.creator-spring.com/listing/the-mashup-collection⁠⁠ Text Shaun 587-217-8500 Substack:https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcast E-transfer here: [e-mail] Silver Gold Bull Links: Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/ Email: [e-mail] Text Grahame: [phone]

This is Tom Longo. This is Alex Kraner. This is Lila Micklewaite. Hi, this is David Collum. Hey, this is Gordon McGill. This is Kirk Libdemo. This is Chris Sims. This is James Lindsay, and welcome to the Sean Newman podcast.

Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Monday. Well, if you're tuning in, you probably read the substack. You probably got the week in review because that airs every Sunday night, 5 p.m. And you're probably gone, crap. Sean had this great plan on how he's getting to Florida, private plane. everything was going smooth. And then this little thing, big thing, whatever you want to call it,

a hurricane comes rolling through. And it takes Sean's little plants and spreads it to the wind. Didn't get there. That's all right. We had U-9 hockey evaluations this weekend. Got to, you know, hang out with the family. I'm not one bit upset. I do chuckle at times because I was praying.

I was like, listen, big guy upstairs. Jesus, just tell me. Is this you? It ain't you. As if it's not, just smack it down. All right, just stop it. And a hurricane comes rolling through. I mean, am I disappointed? Yeah, I am.

But I mean, a literal hurricane just knocks us out of the park. I'm like, fair enough. Fair enough. Wasn't meant to be there. So be it. Happy Monday to you all. That's where I sit. Let's talk some silver gold, shall we?

Silver gold bull. My favorite precious metals. dealer with their complete in-house solutions, whether buying, selling, storing, or adding precious metals to your retirement accounts. They got their start here in Alberta, Rocky Mountain House of all places. Nothing against you, Rocky,

but it's kind of like getting a podcast started at a Lloyd Minster. I think we're kind of tip for tat there. And I think we can all agree. The price of gold is a measure of trust in government, and with gold at all-time highs, trust in government is not surprisingly at all-time lows. And Silver Gold Bowl has an exclusive just for you, the S&P.

listener that's on quarter ounce gold coins and for anyone looking to protect their savings with physical gold these low cost fractional coins are a great buy text or email graham down the show notes for details go to silvergoldbore.ca.com depending on which country you're sitting in and they can ship right to your doorstep they can give you all the answers just make sure to reference the podcast helps you helps me helps them know that you're listening. McEl Thorup he's got the world's largest offshore event taking place entirely online October 7th to 11th. He is the host of the expat money show. He was on the stage at the Cornerstone Forum,

and he wants you to know why discovering international diversification is a must for those looking to preserve their liberty and wealth. You can learn everything you need to know about crafting your perfect plan B, how to quickly acquire a second passport, diversify your finances offshore, invest in international real estate, and get in-depth insights on geopolitics from world-renowned experts, including Dr. Ron Paul, Doug Casey, Scott Horton, Tom Woods, Mark Faber, Tom Luongo, and more.

And you can get a complimentary ticket, that's right, a free ticket at expatmoneysummit.com. Go there. Nice and easy. Calrock, your trusted partner in Slyder Plus oil field equipment, leaning supplier of new used and reconditional oil field production equipment in Canada, but that's not all. tank fabrication, new and refurbished fluid storage tanks, trucking, pump jacks, and demolition, go to calrock.ca for all your oil field needs. And then, uh, Prophet River. I was literally

just in this place, uh, went, uh, looking at firearms and, uh, and, well, the brother may have, or may not have bought and said firearm. And actually, I just got a text from somebody else who was in there. So, uh, it seems like Prophet River, when, uh, you know, we're, we're having the debate. What's better at the end of the world? Goals or ammo? I'll leave that one to you. Either way, they specialize in importing firearms from the United States of America.

And I think this is worth pointing out because we've got talking to the staff there. You're thinking, oh, I've got to buy a brand new gun. Got to buy a brand new this. They have like an crazy amount of used firearms there. So they literally take guns in and sell them for people. so if you're looking for used firearms, right? You don't want to pay the high, shiny price of X.

You can go online and you can see the different firearms they're selling for different people. And all you've got to do is go to Profitriver.com. Search it out. They got a ton there. I think that's worth noting. Because, of course, not course, of course. They are the major retailer of firearms, optics, accessories.

Oh, my goodness. There's Monday finally kicking in, folks. They are the major retailer of firearms, optics, and accessories. serving all of Canada. Carly Clause and the team over at Windsor Plywood, they got a big project going on. If you don't live in Lloyd, you have no idea about this,

but if you drive by their storefront, they are redoing the entire storefront. And, well, I look forward to seeing what that looks like. For everything wood, these are the guys when it comes to talking about mantles, decks, windows, doors, sheds. You want a character piece of wood? Just take no look or no further look than the podcast studio table.

They can get you hooked up. Stop in today and see Carly and the team at Windsor Plywood. Substack, why aren't you signed up? You should be because that's where you're going to find the week in review. You're going to hear some notes from the week. You might see some personal stuff in there as well. And if you want to support independent media, you can do that.

That is the one place for the SMP. You're going to get a week at, well, you're going to get a look, sorry, a week. Here's Monday. Really kicking into gear. You're going to get a look at today's episode before anyone else. That is what paid subscribers get on Monday, Sunday. night's man alive i was doing so good folks and now it's starting to fall apart so let's get through this uh so you got uh sub stack you should be doing that legacy interviews they're sold up there

done i was uh i was you know trying i had the five boop they got so uh if you're looking for a legacy interview pay attention for next year because i'm going to start talking about them again and certainly um i'm not doing a whole bunch of them so if you're interested in it jump on it five gone out the door. Friday November 29th, S&P Christmas party, nine tables left. That's it. So if you're sitting there twiddling your thumbs, maybe shoot me a text. That's dueling pianos, supper, Gold Horse Casino and Lloyd Minster. And, well, shoot me a text, would love to have you there. Now, let's get on to that tale of the tape. He's an American lawyer and former Joint Chiefs of Staff Intelligence Analyst who is a contract employee providing advice and analysis at the

the Pentagon. I'm talking about Stephen Coglin. So buckle up. Here we go. Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast. Today I'm joined by Stephen Coughlin. Stephen, thanks for hopping on giving me some time this morning. It's a pleasure. Now, I know for a fact, because I didn't know who you were until Dave had mentioned that I reached out to you. So I'm going to assume my audience has no idea who you are. I'll be pleasantly surprised when I get a few texts saying, oh, yeah, I've listened to Stephen multiple times. I assume that will happen. But for the rest of us, let's just, I just want to start. Like, you know, like, where are you from? What can you tell people about you? And we'll jump from there. Sure. My name is Steve Coglin. I live in suburban Washington,

D.C. out in Maryland. I run an organization called Unconstrained Analytics and Unconstrained analytics because when you're a newly minted intelligence officer as a second lieutenant, you go to the military intelligence officer's basic course and you learn what used to be called intelligence preparation of battlefield. And in there, it basically warns that your intelligence analysis has to be unconstrained by your own personal opinions or how you think things are going. It's kind of the intelligence corollary to Sherlock Holmes, you follow the evidence. and when the evidence deviates from the narrative, you continue to follow the evidence. And that's the name of our organization.

I was at one point in the early 80s, Russian language qualified intelligence, got out, went to finish college, got a law degree, became commissioned as an intelligence officer, boom, was deployed to Desert Storm, where because of my background, I ended up being positioned in, what used to be called the IGB area inter-German border when the Soviet Union was collapsing. And that was at a time where a whole lot of terrorism was running through the eastern blocks, Stasi, Romanians and stuff like that. And did a lot of CT counter-terror stuff there. Move to Maryland to take a job and I was going to get out.

And somebody came knocking on my door. I went to law school and said, you know, know we see you're going to get out of the reserve program. We would like you to stay, and we would like to offer you a master's from what is now called the National Intelligence University. Back then it was called the Joint Military Intelligence College, the J-MIC, and just to be brought into that, puts you in a somewhat elite status in the intelligence community. It's a school that offers a master's degree that is only available inside the intelligence system. And so I said, sure. And they said, you can't leave the reserve if you want to go

to that program. So I then got on board to be an intelligence officer working in the intelligence directorate of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And so that put me in the Pentagon in 2001. We had just moved here. My wife had a, we had, I should say, my wife would slap me for saying that that way. We had a 18-month-old baby, not even quite 18-month-old baby, and she decided she'd just take a little time to look for a new job while we were here. And while I'm at the Pentagon, they talked about how they had a severe shortage of intelligence officers. And they didn't even have someone to run there at the time Yugoslavia desk. I said, my wife is cleared. You know, she's not really looking for a job right now and brought her in, and boom, she was there.

Brought under the Joint Chiefs of staff and put in charge almost immediately of the Yugoslavian. Slavia task. And that's where she was on September 11th, when events happened. And shortly thereafter, I was taken out of my civilian job and brought into the intelligence directorate and put in the targeting cell. And so did a lot of things relating to that, became somebody who became, you know, started raising some serious questions when I was still in uniform about the nature of how we were analyzing the threat. And when I left, I wrote a long memo to anyone who wanted to read it on the Joint Staff Intelligence Directorate is because we refuse to define the enemy as the enemy actually presents itself. These things will happen. Well, lo and behold, those things happen. I bumped into the

senior civilian intelligence person in the Intelligence Directorate about 18 months later. And he begged me to come in brief, you know, the senior officers on the Joint Staff Intelligence, and I basically said, I am not going to do that in uniform. You want me to give a brief or why that stuff came true? I have to save things that I'm not, I'm not going to sit there as the lowly major telling generals they're all messed up. Because, so they did. And some, I think it was Thanksgiving break, 2004, I came in and I decided before they throw me out, I'm going to cut to this slide. I made a little PowerPoint briefing. And I said, is there a point where you're outsourcing of your understanding of an event leads to your outsourcing of the decision making on those events? Meaning if all the

people who are making all the hard decisions on what Islamic terrorism was, were people who the warning signs were out, we're not on our side, but put that aside, if you depend on them to explain the nature of Islamic terrorism, aren't they going to be the decision makers that you depend on? Because they're going to frame how they present the argument so you make the decisions they're going to condition you to make. And I thought that was going to get me fired. I mean, thrown out physically. Lo and behold, they asked me to come back full time as a civilian to be the chief consultant on terrorism. I refuse. They went to the company I worked for and brought me in against my will.

And I was doing that until God outed. We were very successful in what we did. At one point, we had some people work very hard to get removed. It's a long story. It's its own story. But created an outside entity that started to actually challenge what they were doing. We were very successful at that. and things have progressed.

I had to remind people back in 2015 that, you know, you cannot understand the nature of Islamic subversion in the West unless you understand that they're actually allied with the Marxist left. And it goes way beyond the Afroism, the red-green alliance. In fact, I think everything we do that states think superficially exist to overwrite the depth of things that are real. I don't know if that makes sense. So what I do right now is I'm putting something together that raises the very real question

that the nature of the threat we are facing is such that we are not even capable of recognizing it. And I use a quote. I use a quote from the two colonels who wrote unrestricted warfare that said in 1999 that they're going to wage a form of warfare that the U.S. does not understand, doesn't want to learn, and we'll never adjust. and we condition everything we see from that date to this date to point out this is this is it this is everything our foes across the board know we are incapable of fighting the war that is going to destroy this country and they are enjoying great success and they will succeed if it's not actually directly challenged in a meaningful way and right now that's just not on the boards so what i'm doing is i'm putting

together something that pulls it together in complete recognition that there's no possibility of understanding the nature of the threat in the current paradigm because the current narrative paradigm exists to obstruct what is needed to be known to push back how's that well okay i i am okay for uh full disclosure i sit in the canada married to an america woman so you know it's it's it's us Canadians, we're dealing with our own things up here, and then being married to an American, plus not to mention you guys have an election coming up, and, you know, you almost had a former president assassinated

and other things like that. It's hard for pretty much the world, not to stare at the United States and pay attention to your election. And then obviously being the largest border that you have, we're, you know, deeply affected by things that go on, probably on both sides, us to you, and more so you to us. So when you say there's the nature of the threat is we're not capable of recognizing it. What is the threat that you see?

And then why are we not capable of recognizing it? I hope I framed that the right way. The nature of the threat. And in briefings, what I do is I literally pull up quotes from Lennon. I literally pull up quotes from Marx to say, I'm not making this up. is that the Nate, if you can learn, read every book you ever, Marks ever read, wrote, excuse me, and be an expert in articulating every page. But if you do that, not understanding that everything they said is based on the fact that their approach is dialectical,

you know nothing. You are a, you know, someone writing an article, you have encyclopedic knowledge in the world that people talk about this, you have the ability to read the rules of soccer from a rulebook and yet not be able to play the game. Does that make sense? It does. But I want it, before you go any further, when I listen to you talk, I was, you know, in my pre-research, it's funny to me, I listen to some of the words you use and I'm like, I got to make sure I get this right because I'm, I don't, I'm not saying I've never used the word dialectical, but I want to make sure I understand. understand what you mean by that? Before we go any further, can you just,

what do you mean by dialectical? Well, first of all, a major piece of work I'm doing right now is to build up how to understand the dialectic, and in fact, we call it the platonic nightmare. Because there's neutral, you know, there's, you know, you can say dialogue and actually only mean we're having a conversation.

And there's a sense in which that's true. You could go to Aristotle, who neutered the meaning of dialectic to mean it's a starting point to a discussion. We used the term as it was initially brought forward and made known to the world. I won't say the pre-Socratic, so people can argue that fairly, is Plato. And what he brought up was the dialectic. And in fact, I just gave a presentation last week to kind of take it to the studs. So what is the dialectic?

The dialectic is a process by which you move, people from a reality-based orientation of what's going into the world to a narrative-based one. Okay. And what you do is you do that by setting up a common narrative so that the narrative that's established is the central core. Now I'll use kind of a magnetic kind of, you know, electromagnetic analogy here. But take a look at that common narrative. Well, what you'll get is a positive statement of an event, that would be what you believe as a Canadian who's patriotic to what Canada has been, and they will create an anti-Canada narrative. Now, in that, let's just say there are 142.5 reasons why you're pro-Canadian.

They will create 142.5 times three negative ones, three to attack each one. Okay, so what you have is there is this rotating around the narrative. So now you're no longer defending Canada from the perspective of Canada. Now you're protecting defending Canada in the context of this narrative that the other side is attacking you or in that narrative. So the first thing to understand is you've moved from reality to a pseudo-reality. So taking this one step forward, all the negative charge has to do is keep introducing negative, the negation of everything you believe.

And each one of those negations is called a dialogue, a dialogue and a dialectical event over a period of praxis. They have a period of time in which they will take to annihilate your sense that you are a man who is a Canadian, who, for the purpose of this discussion, believes in a Judeo-Christian concept of God. Every one of them will be targeted for destruction, and they will have a series of dialogues

through a period of time called a period of praxis until they are all knocked out of you. And when you get to the point where they're all knocked out of you, you have been awakened from your slumber, as Mao would say. And when you were awakened, you're woke. Now, in modern parlance, those series of attacks are, there's a line of effort for an entity.

Let's say, I am a Christian. No, I am Canadian. There's a line of effort, and that will break down to a series of lines of operation. And those lines of operations will break down into lines of attack. Does that make sense? And they will sustain themselves for everything that targets you because the goal is to deny you your sense of who you are. It's the total destruction of your identity as a person. Do you see then, sorry, Stephen.

Yes, sorry. Individual attacks in today's parlance are called intersectional lines of attack. And that's what intersectionality is. And so, and just one more point, this way of doing things is what the Frankfurt School called Alf Haven, Derfabin, culture in english destroy the culture or on the street it's branded name cancel culture make sense it does actually you're you're you're um encapsulating what we've all been living through for you know i you probably know the time frame better me certainly covid was it on steroids but it goes further back than that and i'm sure you can speak to that i am kind of curious i see if there was a a stricine effect

happening to all that, there's been this other movement as well. And that is, you know, I am Canadian. I am white. I'm a male. I believe in the family unit. I'm proud father. I am a Christian. And I see that movement also growing in reaction to being attacked by this. What would, is that natural or, or I don't know, I guess, just in how they're attacking. attacking it and how they're pulling you into this pseudo reality of like insanity in my opinion I also see a different world

trying to fight back this is why getting your mind around dialectical warfare which is what drives many things it's what drove the French Revolution okay that's pre-Marx because I just want to make it kind of

point out that that Marx is from within this of attack and it's why it's so important to understand the dialectic because you have to now make a decision to have to understand what you're seeing because if you're in that circle trapped in that narrative put it like this in the in the u.s context you have fox news giving you one line to understand that narrative you have ms. NBC or CNN giving you the other. And they both reinforce the narrative.

So in a dialectical context, you're just as trapped in that circle if you go to Fox as if you go to MSNBC. And this carries forward to your question. And this is all something that is not learned by osmosis. It's like you have to make a decision to understand this. And you have to recognize it for any event that happens, there will always be a prepared, better explanation in terms what people want to hear.

Okay? And that is, most of the stuff you will hear that has you defend your way of life inside the circle was geared to get you to bite on that. Instead of stepping outside the circle says, well, they said what I wanted to hear, but they don't give me anything to go on. I am always chasing the corner in the round room.

And I am then also gonna have that way of talking, attacked by the left for being a racist, Right? You are white. Well, you just accepted an argument, the Marxist argument, on the terms of the debate. No, you're a Canadian. You're a Canadian. And there's a certain sense whose heritage comes from Europe and whose heritage is X, Y, and Z. And in the name of accepting White, you're accepting as the rule for the discussion, the complete destruction of who you are. And then you're going to try to defend it in that circle. And of course, they own you at that point.

So the first thing to realize is you have to develop a discernment to recognize that the stuff that's giving me in the narrative to defend myself is to keep me in the circle to churn me, to churn me to dust, to dialectically negate me. And so this is, I will bet, rubbing, this makes sense as you're hearing it. I'll bet, but I also will say, where do we even begin if this is true? And, you know, I have these other ways of understanding it, and they work for me. As Canada gets reduced to nothingness, as Europe gets reduced to nothingness,

as America, as the West gets reduced to nothingness. And then you start asking the question, why do the powers that be in the West? That's a totally different discussion to who they are. Okay? And there's a mystery at a certain point about that. Why have they sought as their object of destruction of the national, the ethnic people of those lands? Because that's exactly what's going on.

And if you say this, everything about the racism narrative has you pinned down. and they're criminalizing your ability to defend you as a person, you as a Canadian, that's what's going on. And then you say, well, I'm going to fight them back in their own terms. But then you accepted their narrative, and the narrative only exists to destroy you. I feel like you're going to, so this is what you can do. Am I wrong on that? I assume you've stared at this problem for a long time and been like,

as soon as you start using their terminology, their language, you enter into their narrative. So. And the minute you're in the narrative, you're not going to lose. You've lost. You've lost. Yes. You are in the pan boiling. And if you get out, you're getting out at a degraded state.

Right. Okay. Go ahead. Well, so then what is your solution if there is one? Well, Dave Column knows, so we were introduced, that I will tell you the picture is grim, you know. I think what I'm talking about requires a complete reset. I dislike the analogy, but I'm going to use the analogy of the Matrix. Neo knows that everything is wrong, but he's in the Matrix and he has no solutions.

And while he's searching for it, Agent Smith can just chase after him. Eventually he'll be run the ground. Okay. Everybody in the Matrix, including his friends, can be turned against him if the Matrix decides to do it. But he knows something's right. But he has to have an intervention. Somebody, not him, has to pull him out of that situation. Somebody has to give him a choice.

Okay. And if he decides to take the blue pill, he goes back in and never has a memory of this. And he'll be churned until he's destroyed. He'll be kicked out of his toilet incubator as a threat. The first thing that happens when he takes the red pill is the real appearance of the agents, mechanistic machines, the real world he lives in, a toilet incubator that allows him to be flushed, instantly recognizes him as a threat, instantly recognizes that the only thing that could be done with him

is to get rid of him. You cannot tolerate a truthful understanding of events because it puts everything in the matrix at risk. So here's the point. The point is there's an intervention required. You have to already know things are wrong. So you have to be prepared to look someone in the eye like me, not because I'm pushing it on you and say, but if what you're saying is true, even though I'm right about what we're fighting, everything we're doing is wrong. And everything I've done is just build up the other side's ability on their schedule. And the answer will be, until you can get yourself to recognize that, there's no working with you. Because as soon as Neo comes to comes around, remember, there's a long rehabilitation period where they pulled things out of his body.

He has to be physically rehabilitated. And the world he lives in is a shithole. And it looks nothing. It looks nothing like what he thought it was. And so what I would like to point out, and by the way, That picture includes, I can't remember the name of the guy, people who want to go back into the matrix because at least they could pretend they're- Cipher. Cipher, okay? Well, this whole matrix picture,

this entire picture, is a modern recreation of book six of Plato's Republic, as explained in book seven of Plato's Republic. the cave. Okay. That's what that is. And I introduced that because I will argue that this is what we're up against. And it's as old as the republic. And it is understanding that. And it is understanding it clean before you understand it applied. It's understanding that the other side controls, if we use Marx's language, and I'm jumping to the modern world, once they, once you get control of the language, you control the people. Once you control the people, you can

abuse your abuse of language leads to your ability to abuse power and to abuse it arbitrarily. And I think we're now in the phases where they are, we're not in the early phases of a takedown. You know, if you want to postulate the 2020, okay, led to putting the population literally in their basement as the left completely deployed around the world all on one message all spring loaded to start on the you know if it was a Europe it would be May Day but was spring loaded to start here in the United States so it was the Memorial Day weekend you know draw a circle around that and I actually put it in writing before the Floyd event that everything we're seeing built up through the through the lockdown was going to start

Memorial Day weekend having a year earlier said that the Marxist left was going to use the U.S. presidential election to undermine the electoral integrity of the constitutional system directly related to the intersectional line of effort of critical race theory. And they did. And so they did it exactly as we stated. Now in March of 2021, Unconstrained Analytics put out two documents, one called Red Team on COVID, to line out with warning why what we were seeing on COVID had severe Maoist insurgency model, that's political warfare, outlier lines in it. And then we put out one associated with called dominant narrative on COVID to say that the language being used to express publicly the COVID narratives followed Maoist mass line enforcement form.

And of course, the national security, we got that into the NSC, and we kind of knew that National Security Council, and we got it on the record, we got it there, but they just kind of put it aside and laugh because it sounded like such an overreaction. And we take it, we say here's like, let's say, 150 points we made. That point was wrong. Everything else was exactly. true. So what I will say on your question is you can understand what they're going to do if you understand that their attack is dialectical. And the reason going back to the going back to the matrix narrative is but once you understand the attack is dialectical, it looks nothing, nothing like what Neo was experiencing when he,

lived in the matrix before being brought out. So that's kind of what I'm, it's a reset. What do we do? We have to, do you have any military background? I don't. Okay. I was a, I was a, I was a hockey player. Okay. So, okay. Well, you could play hockey and be in the military. True, true. But, but you're my question, it's just very easy. Whether you're a ground force walking into a minefield, or whether you're a naval ship going into a minefield what's the first thing you do when you're in a minefield probably scout the area no stop oh stop okay so we are currently in the shoot get ready aim phase of everything and it's what do we do we can't wait to do something if we wait to get it right we're going to lose you know i was told that in october 2001 i was on a

joint chiefs of staff we don't have time to understand the nature of the threat and therefore never functionally define the threat and therefore could never functionally target the threat so going back to unconstrained analytics as a name you have to analyze the threat as it presents itself they unconditionally state their dialectical so you have to understand the dialectic and you have to understand it not just as they use it, but as they as they adopted it. And so you could be somebody who is fully aware of how the dialectic works and never read marks and instantly understand everything they're doing, put right next to the guy who's read every book on Marks and said, I don't need to know the dialectic, and be a walking encyclopedia of what Marx wrote and not understand any event

as they're happening. Just like the guy who takes a rulebook on how to play hockey, knows the game but can't play the game knows the rules but wouldn't recognize the penalty if it happened if he saw it and that's where we're at okay that's where we're at so okay let me let me ask this then was this help at all or am i absolutely but this this idea of the dialectical what i'm understanding i think is basically you have a narrative and two sides play into the narrative And if you're in the narrative, even arguing it, they're winning. You have two sides to the narrative. One doesn't understand it's being brought into it for the purpose of destruction. Does that make sense? It does. Okay, so one, the narrative is based on targeting something.

So let's go back, let's go back to have that narrative work. You have to have the fair and balance arguing one part of that narrative. and you have to have MSNBC arguing its opposite with CNN. And of course, the fair imbalance always says that they're fair imbalance, which means on their show, they'll bring in your dialectical opposite. So even on the show where a conservative gets a voice, he's opposed. And he'll always be opposed in the narrative. Is this making sense to you?

Yes. So the first thing you have to realize is that player that's on your side, Fox, ends up in this in this construct and i'll throw some concepts use some you know military ease at you that for the purpose of making this make sense um he becomes the control his job is to keep his people in the circle so he will report the news as factual as it has to be to to be the source for where people go when they want the news so when it's time to flip them They're all contained in the circle. Okay.

Now, I have some graphic visuals I give this briefing with because I would argue these are visualizations more than anything else. So, but that would mean you are a control, they are, you are controlled by an opposition, the controlled opposition. So their job is to fix you while the other savages you. Does this make sense? And that raises the question whether Fox is unwitting or whether they are co-eux, equals in the whole line of attack and i think that our position is of course they are all you have to do is run into an issue and if you watch fox and i don't anymore i mean i don't watch news anymore i believe that all 24-hour news cycles are active measures they can't not be some might be inert

right but they have an they have an editorial line to which they will have all events uh uh uh no matter what happens, be guided to the standard mean of how they want to talk about something. Talk about a terrorist attack. The first two hours is people on the street talking about what happened, the law enforcement or national security people who give you something that's reasonably factual. Then what happens is they have the guy come up on TV, the official that tells you what's happening. And then they have a little pro-conn. But you know, you have the first, let's say, genuine, opposed.

argument to what happened. But that's the first 36 hours of an event, but they're going to fund 72 hours. And over a period of time, the person tuning in all of a sudden doesn't realize they've gone from experts in the field to their in-house talking heads to now it's been reduced to a narrative that's contained where their talking heads just battened back and forth.

And Fox has a narrative line that puts them to keep their demographic in, MSNBC has theirs. And so they could always re-engage on that whole thing. So I know this was a head splitter because the first thing you're saying is, well, that would mean everybody in the circle can't be on my side, even if they appear to be on my side. And the answer is, until you get out of the circle, until you take the red pill, the answer is, of course. What do you make then a podcast?

Huh? Sorry, what did you say? That's the what method? That's what the Chinese meant in 1999. Oh, meant. This is ideological warfare. Go ahead. Oh, man, I'm in for one this morning, folks, and I'm enjoying it.

What do you make, then, of the rise of you have, okay, when I look at this analogy, and I want to stick with news, because to me it makes perfect sense, right? CNN, MSNBC, you got Fox, and they're there. where do you put the Tucker Carlson now with his show, the Joe Rogan, the Sean Ryan, all these, I don't know what to call them, characters, but they're a new class, are they not?

There's something different. They're this long-form podcast where you can come on and talk directly to what's going on and share this, and now the world hears this. And it's apart from the Fox, the MSNBC, etc. and up here we have our own version just smaller. Excuse me, I'm sorry.

No, no worries. I would have to say I'm extremely skeptical. I'm going to keep my own counsel on some of the answer here. But I think you have to go back to the fair imbalance in 2020, where everybody was just shocked. Fox brought in the former speaker, of the House Republican Ryan, who then staffed Fox News

with a whole bunch of Democratic operatives. Okay. And all the viewers were just shocked that Fox betrayed them. Do you remember that? I don't know if I do, to be honest, Stephen. I'm sure some watchers certainly, or listeners certainly do.

My journey through COVID is, I don't know. I never watched. I was never a giant Fox watcher. I certainly was not a CNN. I know my mom is a giant CNN, BBC, et cetera. My in-laws love CNN, et cetera, et cetera. But I guess where I was, by that time,

I was already listening to Joe Rogan, among other podcasts. I'd started doing this. And in the middle of COVID, I just watched everybody around me start to fall one way. And I couldn't understand what was going on. And I was talking at that time. to hockey players and I stopped and I started talking to I guess I don't know the most extreme

people out there which was the doctors a lawyers professors different people just talking about what was going on so I never paid attention or maybe near enough what was going on with Fox CNN the only time it really stuck out to me is when Joe Rogan was taking um oh I'm forgetting the word and and uh CNN attacked him for taking horse paste and and different things like that and and it just became more evident of where everybody was at and things I guess I think what happened is they had to basically move the dialectic out from fair and balanced that makes sense so we have Carlson leaving I'm skeptical of what he does and I'm I also believe or

suspect that the people he brings on his show to launch, take on narratives, adopt positions on things that are on people's minds, that on the initial pass is quite correct or 99% correct. And then they capture everybody who's worried about this issue and it will now watch them. Okay. You recognize that they're funded to be able to do this. And you recognize that they're allowed to sustain themselves. It's situations where other voices are not allowed to be heard, right? So I'm just, I'm going to, I think the first thing that people have to realize,

whether it's a 24-hour news cycle or now it's radiating out into that part of the world, you know, the podcast world, is that people are making them pass, are allowing themselves to become passive players in their own destruction. that the moment you decide that you're going to take, you will define yourself by who you're listening to, and that guy's going to fight the battle, you're not fighting the battle. And I think that you will get to certain levels of awareness,

whether it's Joe Rogan, you know, or some people that Tucker Carlson basically spun out programmatically. You know, boom, boom, boom. Well, we understand that's going to be a narrative that they're going to hold people to. And they'll be caught in that, you see they'll be caught in that Marvel universe, right? Everybody in the Marvel universe speaks to something that reinforces the universe of the Marvel universe.

Well, now you have that Tucker Carlson universe. And for people who decided that's reality, they're going to now not realize that reality is right here. Those group of clutch of people we're talking at, but every month they go one degree off, one degree off, one degree off. And they can always go back to the center if they overstep to move people away into the pseudo reality. So I would say that the worst part about people being addicted to podcasts, you know, and I'm under heavy pressure to do it myself, is, and I'm not saying this about you, okay? It's people who want to have their entire world defined by what they're watching. You're becoming passive participants of your own destruction, where your grandparents said, have to stand up and take a position. We have to do something, right? You know, you know,

is it okay for some government employee to come into my child's public school and decide without my permission that they can transition them? You know, that's sterilization of children, right? I mean, I don't look at it that way. Well, you better, you know. And so my point is, this population had to be moved so far over that they're going to get mad and they're going to go watch somebody who's mad with them as their children get transitioned and then when your world is destroyed those children who weren't transitioned who knows what happens to their friends half of whom killed themselves will say you never stood up for me you allowed this to happen and whether the Islamic movement steps in and say, that's right, we'll protect you. You're going to follow our rules. We'll protect you. Or Marxism takes over, say, you know, that's a totally corrupt culture. And then they'll start creating things for men to be men again, you know, and then they'll populate that with men. That's where the population is going to go, where the women can be women. The men can be men.

Because just like, just like Stalin did, after he got control and got rid of all the weird left, just like Hitler did with a night of the long knives, no matter who wins in this thing, if the left wins, the first thing they do is kill all the people who destabilize the country. And that's canon for them. You can quote their people for that.

Why? Because you can't build a culture. You could destroy a culture for what's going on in your schools right now. And the people who put that in your schools did it for that purpose. They brought hostile, populations into your country who cannot reconcile themselves with values of Canada or the United States or the West because they're hostile and because they will be allowed to be violent against that population. Sanctioned. Of course they'll arrest everybody after the event, but they're creating an environment where that is going to happen as a matter of course.

And so, and people are passive. They're going to watch a passive explanation. And, you know, am I arguing for violence in the street? I'm not. What I'm arguing is the very act of going down this road destroys discernment. And now you're just watching a program. And today, Carlson is, you know, not on something I'm that interested.

So maybe I'll watch a rerun of the Beverly Hillbillies. Or I'll watch a replay of the Stanley Cup finals from, you know, 1972. But that's where you're at. That's where you're at. Okay? And that's why you are going to be crushed by this attack. And until people understand that's the nature of the attack,

and it's bigger than just the left coming back to it, here's the military ease. Splinter movement operations. You have a main attack, and it wants to come across as thoughtful and moderate and all this. But they don't agree with anything of what you believe in. Let's just say in America, the Muslim Brotherhood. Well, then you have Al-Qaeda, which is a violent splinter that engages in activity.

They agree 100%. Okay. What does the Brotherhood do when they come into the Pentagon and say, we want to help you understand how to win this war, how to be safe? So what do we do? Oh, you have to do what they are doing, what they said to do. Or, you know, they're going to attack. and we can't stop them. And so the violent splinter had your people who want moderation,

okay, move to that and accept that. And they're just pushing you all the way over here until all of a sudden now, your government will arrest you for Islamophobia because you pointed out that a group, let's just say in Ireland, are actually going out knifing little children. where it's obvious.

And the first person could, you know, the U.K., they go after the people who talk about it with a vengeance. You might not hear what happened to the people who actually engaged in the knifing, but you will hear that those people got sent to jail who said, hey, why are you, let this happen? And every response to that real situation is criminalized, right? Hate speech, Islamophobia.

And that's where you have to understand hate speech is a Marxist narrative. It's a shutdown narrative. But you have to live all the way back and figure, see how it integrates into the dialectical attack. You know, I don't know, I assume you do this. What did it say on your website? You had the red pill briefings, I think is what the military used to call it. I think I'm right in saying that, correct? That was when I was doing the Islamic, uh, Islamic God. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I read that and I'm like, hmm, okay, I don't get it. I'm getting it. You remind me of the first time I listened to Jordan Peterson. He was talking in these concepts that I just, I'm like trying to grasp. I'm trying to hold on to the bullet train you're throwing me down. And while I get some of it, some of it, I'm like, I just, there's, there's lingo, there's words used that I'm like, I just don't, I haven't used that. And so with

Jordan Peterson, it took time and I listened and I, you know, I read his book and on and on and on and went and then you start to understand what he's saying to the point when he's talking you can keep up to what he's saying uh james lindsay was another one at times when he gets to go and i'm like holy crap this is you know bullet train trying to keep up the first time you hear it and you sir at times i'm like i get everything absolutely you're saying and then as you keep going i'm like huh now i'm going to have to sit and stew on this and go back and and re-listen to it again and probably do some some more research into the topics you're talking about you're talking about about just so I can start to begin to understand it because you're pointing to

everything I see going on in society and I've had a hard time understanding it and yet you make it so easy just to overlap it's like oh okay so sitting here as a podcaster as a guy who's down this this this road of bringing you on among others to try and help people understand what is going on what can we do about it? To your point, there's a couple things here. One, you actually can't under, this is hard to learn because you have to make a deliberate decision to do it. We have, you know, I can open some time if I want to just kind of sit back and I'll run some of the introductory briefings by you. I'm in the process of kind of overhauling them to get to their culminating

point. But so you could kind of see how this adheres. But this is hard, this is hard and it's hard to learn, and you have to decide you're going to know it because it doesn't, it's not, you can't do it by osmosis. That's the first issue. But the second issue is your ability to get it has been severely crippled by the ability that there's an enormous effort to take away the language that your grandparents had reference to that. It could get them to see that. It doesn't mean they did see it. It meant the culture had the language to defend it. itself and people did it for you. The culture had those defenses in there, right? So, so you're,

there's a deficit of there's, there's a knowledge deficit and a barrier to getting there. And I think people have to see that. So I would say, uh, we are actually going to try to put some stuff together to say, here's how you have to attack things and how to have to understand them. But really it's going to cause it's going to call you know what we're going to call for is we have to understand that the way we are addressing the issue is the way the people who want to destroy us scripted our responses they scripted our responses for us they they they they chose the time and place for it to be executed and and everything we get to say will pull people into our side making that argument and so long as you're in the circle it's being brought in there to churn churn to

nothing so i think it's what i'm saying is we're deep into a problem you know i have said to people this may not be about saving the current situation is about rebuilding one because things may have gotten to a point that things i think there are certain elements of what have happened are that are irrecoverable. And, and, you know, you, you know, that's a long discussion because I operate on the assumption we can pull things back. But I also kind of realize that if we're going to put this together right, we may have to recognize that the other site, as London said, they have the commanding heights. They control everything. They control government. They control media. They control finance, they control social media, they control education, they control all those things.

So they are redefining reality on a daily basis, right? And we are going to have to wait till the population has a cultural level gag reflex. And here's the warning. If fathers stand by as their children are transitioned and do nothing, you're not really a man because you're not really a father. And your purpose for existence is gone. And maybe that was a number one part of this whole objective. You have no purpose. And wouldn't you want to destroy,

if you're going to destroy a culture's ability, I'm not getting into some kind of macho speak. I'm not getting it to any misogynistic kind of stuff. here. I don't want to, so just to make it clear. But the point at which people will stand by and watch that happen is the point at which that culture needs to be gone. You know, or it has to make a decision to revivify itself, right? And that's, that's not something that's going to be a passive action. That's a deliberate decision to know the nature of the threat. It's going to be deliberate decision to stall their progress as you build up

capabilities, you know, recognizing that you have no ability to turn the tables today. You don't have those abilities maybe for the next year or so. But what you can do is start putting sand in their gearbox. What you can do is desynchronize them. What you can do is start to expose them to get people to create aha moments where people start to process what's going on, right? Because if you talk about transitioning with the language that are using it, you're just a hater. But if you buy that language, you stood by and watched your children get destroyed. So, you know, I think that, you know, I think I took this way past the point of how people would understand Marxism. But that is part of the Marxist attack.

I could send you a clip. I gave a 30-minute, 35-minute presentation on that, a couple of things. months ago how the war on women is the radical feminist narrative that we could take all the way back to Plato by the way but we could certainly also take it back to the lead character and a novel by the Marquis de Saad named Juliet and the first thing you realize is in this brief is I never heard of that I never heard of that I never heard of that how could all this be going like a freight train right by me and I've I the way the world is explained to me I don't even see it and that's kind of I think

where we're at so you know there's a rabbi friend of mine and he he told me uh Steve you know early on early on when you go to a yeshava which is a Jewish seminary as a practical matter what we try to tell these people is and you'll see it's logo you'll see it's it's on our our our our our web page stop seeing what you know stop thinking you know what people showed you that's someone tying a carrot in front of a donkey for god's sake and start knowing what you see and that's a decision that you have to undergo active effort to go to those events and it's it's a recognition that you have to realize the first three layers of stuff you get on a Google search was there for you to include the leading

way they want it and also include the leading way you're allowed to disagree with it. What does Fox News say? And I know this is Canada, so I apologize. Well, we're going to give you the proper conservative response. And anybody who goes beyond us is crazy. Did they just not keep you in that circle? See, I don't want to make you think I watch as much as I do. What happened on that election night with Fox was a bombshell. It was the news, right? So that's how I would put that. Did I answer your question at all? Yes. You're doing lots of different things to my brain. You got trained as a military intelligence officer. You worked at the Pentagon, etc, etc., etc., yes? Yes.

And if I sit back and I go, okay, I'm going to strategize out how COVID is going to play up. On one side, this is where we want it to go. But eventually, people are going to be. wise and they're going to they're going to start talking out about it the further we push etc etc and you're going to play out this game of like this is where we're going to go this is how we're going to set up the on and on and on and on the only thing i have with that is then the freedom convoy happens in canada where like could they have ever predicted that a group of truckers would go to ottawa and this would happen and then the reaction to that would be to where we are and you can like how far down the rabbit hole i guess can you strategize what a population

is going to do to the point of where you have it, where you're constantly re-aiming this, you know, you point at Tucker Carlson. We're going to have Tucker Carlson fired. Okay. Tucker Carlson's going to go start his own show. Okay. Tucker Carlson's going to do this. Okay.

He's going to go over and talk to Putin. Okay. And you have it strategized out to where you're at. I'm just, my brain is like, I get you to a certain point and then apart, I'm like, but what about that? Like, did they see, like, could they have possibly seen the Freedom Convoy coming.

Or could they have seen Sean Newman, the hockey guy, talking about things, interviewing the Premier, not at the time, the Premier, but switching from hockey to all of a sudden

switching to, okay, I'm going to talk everything, Paul, everything about COVID. It's not going to make me a household name by any stretch of imagination.

And in that line of questioning, you hit Danielle Smith, who then becomes the Premier. Where does the strategizing end and when did they, restart strategizing, or am I just looking at this in the sense of like days, weeks, months, and they're like decades and hundreds of years? Well, first of all, we can make an argument that it's over hundreds of years.

We can argue that it started at the French Revolution. And just to kind of put an asterisk, I mean, an exclamation point on that, you go to the opening of the Paris Olympics this summer. And, you know, what I was telling people is this is, they are literally tell you this is the start of the second French Revolution, right down to the beheaded lady, Marie Antoinette, all that stuff. So yes, there is continuous operation. And I think one of the things that you're asking for a series of things,

the interesting thing about hockey as opposed to like American football, or soccer as opposed to American football, is an American football you have players who are stationary before a play begins, and it becomes stationary again. In a hockey game, you have continuous motion. And so long as you're in motion, when something happens, you can always swarm to where the event is. Make sense?

Yes. They want you, now, moving off the, I'll use the military paradigm, they want you to put yourself in a series of point defenses while they are engaged in maneuver operations. Does that make sense? to you? Yes. Okay. So, so from where they are, they can foresee everything you're going to do. And from where they are, this is a 10 series game, this is a 10 series event. So they will incorporate everything that broke down on the first game and correct in the second game. And then when the third game,

and you're going to have a response to that, that they'll have in the fourth game. But they did anticipate a freedom march and they did respond to it in a way that suppressed it. They got their narrative out that these were these were right-wing racists even though they were interviewing non you know they were interviewing Native Americans they were interviewing people from India you know clearly it wasn't but they are imposing what's called a mass line narrative and And so today, despite the fact that everybody who's a part of it knows that's not what happened, they will talk off the sleeve. Was there a revolution on January 6th at the capital of the United States?

No, there wasn't. Did they have those fatalities like they say? No, they didn't. The only person who got killed was a woman who was shot point blank in the throat. Okay. But do they have overlapping enforcement of that narrative? So eventually your side will be just extinguished like an anaconda over time suffocates its prey? That's what they're going to do.

So yes, they have incorporated everything you see. But they also incorporate everything they don't know and don't anticipate so that they can make responses in the moment or let it ride to the next event. Does that make sense? because it's a continuous unfolding of events. By the way, the unfolding of events comes from this ancient Greek word and ancient Latin word, which the unfolding of events, like the unfolding of a unrolling of a scroll or the turning of a page is where you get the word evolution. I just thought you might find that interesting. Where I sit, I look and I go,

but this is this is fascinating i'm curious Stephen you know on your thoughts on this because where i said i go i can't see past the u.s. election because you know i i see and maybe and there's probably more paths that i can't see but i i see either donald trump gets elected or kamala harris gets elected there's also a fracturing of donald trump gets assassinated in there as well and you try in play out those scenarios and I come down to, you know, a couple of possible solutions.

And they end in war, right? Like, we don't go to war. We go to war. What do you see in the next, you know, like, what do you stare at when you're looking at the next, whether it's two months, well, it's less than that now, leading up to the U.S. election or even pass there? Like, am I even, when you hear that, are you like, oh, oh yeah, yeah, I get where you're going, or you're like, oh, but there's a bigger thing at play.

And you have to understand that's what they're wanting to push on you. And these are the other things at play. What do you ask me now? I mean, I'm just trying to. I'm worried about war. And I'm wondering if Stephen is worried about war the same way I look at it. So there's a famous saying from Trotsky to a young man who brought up the question. His answer was, son, you may not like war, but war likes you.

Okay. And I think that we have to break from the idea that this upcoming election is a telek event. This whole thing is going to keep unrolling and unspooling. It's going to go down one road if Trump gets elected. It'll go down another road if he doesn't. Both roads include violence, not because you're going to become violent, but because the left and the Islamic movement, we see in every college campus in the streets of America are waging violence that are calculating, calibrated to be escalated in the level of violence given the circumstances and the conditions they feel are okay. So the question of violence is here, and they're going to calibrate it in a manner that they believe works for them. And so, and it's going to go down one road if Kamala Harris gets elected and it'll go down another road of Trump does. And so, but this is a continuous movement

alongside the fact that Trump can get elected and this will buy time for other things to stabilize. I don't know that Trump can do much more than buy time. That's, you know, without going into detail about it. You have the fact that you, there is kind of the sense that the left is aging out and the people who put this thing together in the West

are in their 70s and 80s. and the people replacing them aren't up to the game. You know, I, does that make sense? And that there may be, can the left prevail? Yes, they can. Can they prevail with and impose violence? Well, I think that's the plan. You know, but they want to scale the violence so that it's not as overt as it could be.

But the question becomes, are they losing compression? I think that most people understand. that a Democratic Party that went through its whole already rigged processes to have Biden get the nod, then had the central committee, right, say, we need somebody else to lead the vanguard of the proletariat and we're kicking him out. They generated a whole bunch of narratives about how it's time to go. What right down a timeline you knew on Monday that they'd say this Wednesday and the decision to have, have that frightful moment, what happened next Wednesday, and he's out, and she's in. And not one party member who was just like the people who show up at the, you know,

caucuses and conventions was even to ask what they thought. I mean, if this isn't a central committee, what is? So the question is, and I'll stay out of the rigged election or not, is, do you believe that she can win a fair election. Okay? So that if she wins, do you think she won fairly? The problem is you'll get gaslight lit in the regular media, but I think a majority of the population knows that's true,

some of which who just agree with the outcome. I think that that's, I think it, I don't know people, except like in social media who attack you, who don't kind of understand, this is not right. we saw an attempted assassination of Trump with a secret service

and you know I'm close enough to people who know these things I'll just leave it at that as one who was in a targeting cell a man getting that close on a roof to a target

to the X unimpeded is simply there is not a get-out-at-a-jail-free explanation with that. That's someone needs to go to jail for that. And of course, that's not going to happen. And then you saw all the chatter by Republicans that nothing was done, right?

So, I mean, I would ask the question, you brought it up in COVID, and I think that there were events in the United States that were kind of indicators of where things were going. But was 2021 a successfully staged revolution? And I asked that question, not because I'm asking you to agree with it, I'm just asking you, well, get yourself familiar with revolutionary cycles and know what revolutionary cycles are, start taking events in a revolutionary

and associating with events that you could reasonably associate with them, and say, well, I still don't believe it was a revolution for God's sake, Steve, come on. Say, but can you prove it wasn't? And I guess I can't. So do you think it's time to at least red sell that in your mind? Because it clearly seems that we're on a path that was charted by Marcuse in 1971. And a book he wrote explaining exactly what they were going to do. It seems that way to me. And it seems like they talk the talk.

You have everybody in America talking about the democracy. Save the democracy. You know what the United States is not? It's not a democracy. Never was a democracy. It's a republic. And you want to go all the way back to Plato and Aristotle? Democracies are unstable events that no sound culture wants.

Aristotle said they're a debased form of republic. So why is there an active measure all over the West to use the word democracy? Because the only democracies created after World War II was the Deutsch Democratic Republic. Okay. The People's Democratic Republic of North Korea. Because revolutions are the natural state of democracies. And you hear people on the left side say, save our democracy. You realize there's two ways to interpret that.

And you can't rule either out. And one's kind of a binary retreat to what could actually be met. And you realize there's everything out there telling you that the world is not only what, not what it appears to be, but it's actually a lot. There's actually things warning that things could be that way. And if you're seeking answers in the prevailing narrative like Neo before someone intervened, you're not going to be satisfied. And you'll have answers short of something that can generate a response that works for you.

and Canada as a, you know, political entity with a history that's worth preserving, warts and all. That makes sense? I'll probably say this 10 times over. It's a lot, you know? Like, I just, at times you're moving at least, I understand what you're talking about. And yet, what I would suggest is the gap, there's a learning curve here. It's not that you have to be super smart. You have to decide to know it.

What you're negotiating right now is how you're allowed to understand the event that includes walling off how the events actually are proceeding. And there's all sorts of interference, including sanctions. We don't talk about it that way. Serious people don't talk about it that way. So what you're doing is you're trying to get from this way to, you hear it and you know that's true. or you know it, no, you know it's ringing true at a level you can't get your hand around because you can't get to that from this way of talking about it. So then how do you stick to that point right there at the end?

I always bring up Peterson because Peterson was talking about something that rings true and you're like, what is he like he's making sense of things I get. But somehow, as you're pointing out, I'm still stuck over here and you need to get over here. I think it's a choice that a lot of us, heck, I talk about this lots, about the listenership and where they're at. They're probably,

oh, yeah, I'm more over here. When you say you can't get to it from being in here, you got to go make an actual choice, right? Like, I'm going to go over here. You got to take the red spot. Sure.

So when you talk about going over there, where do you, like what is there? What are you talking about, Stephen? It feels like it's this abstract. idea of like going and reading Plato and then you get it. It's like, okay. So then we're going to try to put something together to explain the platonic stuff.

And you know, we'll let people read that if they want. And it will be necessary to back into it. But what we really want people to understand is that you're living in, you're living in a matrix. And the reason this doesn't sound real is because you understand that what you're in is not real. And you search for the real. this goes away. So, I mean, I understand this sounds convoluted. This will sound convoluted until it doesn't. But then what will happen is, you know, the phrase,

you know, we were just talking about this last night. You know, some guy put something out, somebody put out a video about all these evangelicals. Stop thinking about rose, start thinking in circles. And they had a whole, like 15. different entity saying this. It's like, well, first of all, that's an operation, right? Second of all, you know, the discussion we had is because we go down that road is, you see, once you see it, you never unsee it. Does that make sense? Yes. You see. I'm not

sitting, I guess I'm not sitting here going, um, I'm fighting, I'm, um, I'm, uh, actively trying to understand because I see it all over the place. You know, what's the latest thing? I'm just going to pop it up on my phone. I want to make sure I get this right. Pope claims all religions lead to God. I'm like, what? Yes. Like, I mean, that's an insane thing for the Pope to say, beyond insane.

A hundred years ago or whatever time frame you can, he'd be a stone to death, pretty much. Here we are. So, you know, I put something out on that. Okay. And I think one of the key things to realize when you say this all goes back to the French Revolution is who was the number one target of the French Revolution? Catholics because they were Christian. I mean if it was in Germany it would have been Lutherans but I mean Catholics. Okay, they literally invented guilletines to drive them into town hundreds at a time to go kill whole Populations, right? Did okay first mass execution device for for going after civil population

So, you know, this goes to the issue of, this is going to hurt your brain. What he said is not crazy. What he said reflects the fact that he's a heretic. And he knows he's a heretic. And because you can't get people to, and he was put in there because he's a heretic. He is doing what his mission is. So what did he say? What he said is theologically sound from the perspective of hermeticism, right?

Now, you see, you're, how do you, I get it. Okay. But you see, when it'll get blown away again? The reason Marx adopted Hegel's dialectic is because it was covert hermeticism. And there's a theology to Marxism. Okay. And that's where it gets just heavy. So when you see him say that, he knows what he's saying.

He's been doing this all along. He had Pachamama about four or five years ago, didn't he? right? So he knows what he's doing, and you have to make a decision to say, you know, I'm sure you have a lot of people here

who are not Catholic, okay, but you have to make a decision that if the authority of the Pope best in the deposit of faith, scripture, blah, blah, blah, that goes back to the beginning, and that the church authoritatively states that the Holy Spirit does not protect new ideas,

everything that's new is bad if it's being done by the church. And yet you have the novice ordo, you have the new theologics and the nouveau theologians, the new theologians who controlled Vatican II that were condemned in 1950 and Humani Generis. You know, so, I mean, you have, you see, this entire range of discussion starts with the fact. Can I ask, are you Catholic? No, I'm married to a Catholic. Actually, honestly, Stephen, you know, leading into COVID, I was nothing. I was agnostic.

And I found my faith again through going through all these conversations. I would love to nail it down to one thing. but it's probably the sum of all parts leading me towards it. Well, the reason I ask was because I will give a kind of a this level, a simple explanation to something, and I lost my train of thought. But it was going to go to this whole idea. Well, you were talking about new theologians and these different things controlling that narrative, essentially.

You can go to 100 Catholics, who consider themselves informed and asked about the new theology, and 95% of them will say, what are you talking about? I've never heard of that. Therefore, it must not be important. But I will go on to social media, and I'll look it up, and I'll find everything that make me feel okay about it.

So you're just overreacting. And yet, it was condemned in 1950. It was its precursors were condemned from 1840s all the way to 1905 outright. And so the whole point of it is for this discussion on the new theology to get a bearing, you actually have to make a decision to open up a whole area of understanding that is completely non-existent. So the term itself, the inability to negotiate that term is itself referenced that events that happened that were in play. Okay, you don't even have the ability to talk about it because you don't even have the language to reference it. And this goes to the issue of how history of events have been erased.

So you're left defenseless. So, you know, but we could, I'm putting something together on that. You know, I told people, if I were Jewish, I would make the argument to show how Kabbalah was penetrated by these movements. I'm not saying Kabbalah. I'm saying they penetrated through that. If I were Anglican, I would make the point of how Anglicanism was penetrated by this. Or if I were German, or if I were Lutheran, I'd talk about how it penetrated into Lutheranism. There should be the Catholic Church and these Protestant churches is that the Catholic Church was run by the Pope.

In this instance, what I mean is not a government official. Whereas in Germany, in Russia, and in England, their leaders could impose. into the seminaries these things. So what happened in the 19, you know, from 1905, just a rough number to 19 to Vatican 2, was already a done deal by the beginning of World War I and the other religions, not because those religions were more,

they were more vulnerable in the sense that they were part of a state religion that the leadership could impose. When you are sitting there, you go they okay and you're like because when you do the full breadth of this thing right and you get down to like what is the root like if we could just grab the root and go this is what is stemming all this is that a group of people is that a group of institutions is that some ideology that's stuck so far down there that's going all the way back probably past socrates and all of them or or

I don't know. If you could just grab the root and go, this is the problem. Right there, that's what it is. This group of people, this ideology, this right here. This is what is attacking the West, along with a whole bunch of other cultures. I think if people took a close look, they would understand this kind of thing might be happening in other non-Western cultures, but not in the total destruction mode that it's happening here. And then you have to go to the next level and basically point up, but who's doing it? You say, well, this is being imposed in cultures by the leadership who want this to happen.

So I think that what I'm trying to do is, first of all, say, yes, we are going to argue that there's a completely different take on reality on what's happening, that we are going to argue as closer to the events as they actually occur, that don't force you to have to say, why did they do that in the context of, oh, if you're this, you should never have done that and say, well, they did that, so they are this. And here's why they're this, and that's why you missed it. Because you understood it wrong, right? And so going back to this thing with this video someone sent

of like 15 different ministers, like it's one of those things where they show that everybody said the same thing. Okay. it's not don't plan a straight line row have a circle well of course that would lead to a dialectical understanding of the nature of reality that in the non-political realm would kick all the way back to the a baros right right who who are the a borough forgive me okay no no problem you know what the abro says it's that tattoo of the snake eating its own tail oh picture of snake eating its own tale.

Yes. Well, it doesn't take much to understand that that is a mainstay in what we'll just say for today, esoteric worldviews, you know. And so when you hear these evangelical church people saying it, I would bet 70% of them don't understand at all what they're saying, or they do understand what you're saying. But, you know, there's the sense in which you're going to, that's the path to it. So I would say I want to create the mechanism to get people to be able to say who or what is it But I do think that you know I've already put out that we are we are no longer you know if if you are a

Republican or Democrat in America and I just think this carries over one-to-one in Canada Or you go to the UK and a conserved to get elected what do they do exactly what the other side was doing right? When you get when you get to the point where you realize that no matter who gets elected, a majority of the people are not for what's happening. And increasingly, they're going from political correct was them inserting language below the waterline so that when they finally got people to adopt that political correct language,

they could call opposition to it hate speech and attack people. See how that works? That's dialogue and praxis. Okay. But it's to understand that then once you understand, understand what, that there's a completely different way to understand it. You then start to understand that the policy, political science, political theory world is a complete construct. And the first thing it does is it destroys your ability to understand events in their natural form.

And I think the whole world knows that. I think the people who are imposing that on people do it because from that construct, excuse me, you can't get out of the circle and so you will be destroyed but why does the leadership elements of this culture one its own worldview destroyed and that you know they hate themselves okay but all nihilism is self-hatred at some point and i think that that's where things have to go so you see that Pope Francis is the antithesis of what he is supposed to be and he's actually claimed he has a new basis for authority which is dialectically and diametrically opposed to the status of the actual authority and it's been asserted but people say oh you know don't get don't get into the weeds and the problem is is everything that you

think is in the weeds in this in this paradigm is the game in reality And so the whole point is there's no maneuvering about what you can do until you're outside the circle. There was no negotiating with Neo before he took the red pill. No matter what I tell you, you're going to be wrong doing it because you can't ever be right if you are in the circle. So what you do, what we do is dependent on whether we can get enough people to take the freaking red pill and get them oriented properly with enough time and numbers to be able to push back. And that's a grim picture. We don't, you should be skeptical of every assertion I would ever tell you.

I'm all good with that. But we don't worry about being wrong because we've been calling the, we're like eight years into calling things and being exactly correct. You can take what we wrote. in war on racism in 2019 saying how the election was going to be undermined in 2020 and show that that warning is more accurate than almost every after the action event assessment right when you look then when you look then at what we're being primed for right now what do you see in the next year like what are you warning people of right now um I'm warning that if we're in a

revolutionary cycle at some point it will escalate to open attacks on society so I mean I'll give you an example now two different instances where a Marine Corps element and the Fort Fort Bragg I'm not going to use Fort Liberty or Bragg is the home of the 18th Airborne Corps it's the home of a J-Soc okay it's the home of some of our most elite forces, teaching that you should understand that someone's pro-life is a terrorist and be treated that way inside the United States. And I'm not getting into the abortion issue, not. But what I am pointing out, though, is that's your military leadership in a republic where, in theory, at least 75% of the population is in some status Christian, and they're targeting them for that. And that's what you're

where you have to start making a decision. I don't think it's any different in Canada. I think you lived it in Canada with the freedom march, right? But is a U.S. military that a lot of people in my world think, I don't know if we're really capable of combat operations as we historically are. But you know, I certainly wonder whether they're being repurposed to civil, you know, civil things. I certainly believe that DEI is a way of purging the military of dissenting voices, you know, along specific ideological lines. And, you know, so, so I tell people, I tell people they have to,

they have to make a decision about what they're willing to know. They have to get over the fact that things are bad. And they have to get to a level of awareness of what's going on so that in the absence of knowledge, they keep their own counsel. You know, and society is so, is so sanitized of silence and ability to people to just kick back and ponder events, that the ability to disqualty to disqualify. is almost non-existent. Hmm. I don't know. I mean, I know I'm not giving you the answer you want because there is not a silver

bullet. No. In fact, you see, we have to build a silver bullet and we have to build a gun to shoot a silver bullet. I mean, that's how far back we are. You know, I'm not educating silver bullet by us either. Just be clear. But I mean, our side is completely degraded.

If you create an organization and do exactly what you want to do, kind of in theory along my lines, 50% of the people who will join will only agree with you because you're the end thing. 50% of the people who join will actually be bowing for the other side and they're reporting back on you. You know, I mean, you know, and then you have to get into what is it called? I'm looking for it really quick. Do I have it here? I don't. I thought I did.

And I don't. Or do I have it over here? Well, it would have been a book called, I forgot any of the book is, but it's got a chapter called The Trust. It's about Soviet disinformation campaigns from 1917 to 1998 or something like that. And what is the trust?

The trust was the fact that the Soviet forces Derzynski, Trotsky, they controlled the opposition that opposed them so that it all points down the line. They were able to not only maneuver themselves in the battle space, ideological battle space, sometimes not, sometimes the actual battle space. And they were able to maneuver the other side, was called the trust. And I think that we live in a world where, you know, things may be that bad. Now, I mean, they may be that bad, but I want to say, I don't want to make it out like it's doom and gloom.

I don't think the other side has been able to close the deal, you know. And I think it's because maybe people aren't ready for it. I mean, you could be sure before they have the next round of lockdowns, they're going to have something built into what to do for the next freedom train, right? How do we deal with that? I mean, how do we do with those? Here in Canada, they're trying to put through different bills that would criminalize protests, right, if it went against, you know, incited violence or hatred or, you know, there's 12 different things with, I'm talking specifically here to Bill C63 folks that outline what they can do with the next freedom convoy, you know? And in Canada, they went one step too far by taking people's bank accounts away and different things that donated to it.

So in Canada, we've seen different chunks of what you're talking about. It's, but I think people have to internalize what that means in a way that they don't. They look at this as another setback of what they're doing. And it's like, no, step back. It means that you're living in a state that is in everything but name. This is dialogue and practice. In everything but name becoming a police state. Right?

You don't want to, oh, Steve Coglin said Canada is a police state. I don't think I don't I'm not sitting here saying that and I I don't think my audience is either Stephen you know but I mean you'll have you know there'll be lurkers in your you're saying I said but what else is it and so you have to come to grips with the fact that if I live if this country operated the way it's supposed to those elected people would be already swore owes to protect my freedoms and they don't give a rat's ass about them and that's going back to the you know the in America of the two-party system. Or they're so terrified of what public outrage will be

if they stand certain in certain positions. But then you have to realize that the outrage is funded. That it's there. And it's a very complex issue, right? And so their fear is based off of its own government funding it to call them out when they say, you know, misogynistic, racist, blah, blah, blah, all these different terms. And the point is, it becomes very simple once you understand it's intersectional line of attack,

and you know what intersectional lines of attack are. And the fact that you're scared is because they're imposing it on you. And, you know, we have, I have the briefings I gave in like 2013 or 14, bringing this material back from OSCE conferences I've got to in Warsaw, Poland, Organization for Secured and Cooperation in Europe. Canada is a participating member. Okay. of all these cards and they were all these Marxist cards.

And on the back, you know, it was about, you know, black-dressed people, you know, black-clothed people, you know, attacking citizens in Europe. Well, that would be Antifa today, right? And it's like, well, and then you see in the bottom quarter paid for by the European Union. And we're warning, guys, this is going to come to America. And what you're saying is, this is going to come here. It was really a way of saying, it's already here, dude. They're just putting it together. The European Union just doesn't care that people know they're doing it.

So the whole point of it is, is this is the fact that they're at a phase where they can put you in your home and criminalize your activity and force you to take an experimental drug and know that they will create mass-lying extra-legal narratives, like if you don't get the shot, you're going to kill my mother so they can get a crowd to beat you. Right? Every time you drive around and you see some guy driving by himself

with a mask on, you're looking at a guy who will put you in a gulag. Do you know what I'm saying? Yes. You're looking at somebody who will believe it to the ridiculous. Right? It is known that whatever you think about the COVID virus,

that it can't survive fresh air, right? can't survive sunlight, right? So why are you wearing a mask outside? Who told you that? So you see, this raises another issue that's outside the realm of what you're, I'm not saying you're dumb, I'm not saying that at all. You know, you raise a couple of things

that hit things that have to be recognized. And that is that they control the ability to make claims of science where their metaphysical worldview can be declared scientific, such that your disagreement is unsophisticated and doesn't have to be respected, right? It was important that Fauci said wearing masks are ridiculous and then turned around a week later and said they must be worn.

And we yip yip, we see blah blah, blah, he's going all over the place. That's not what he did. If you understand the nature of a dialectical attack, what he did was say, I'm right when I say masks don't work and I'm right. when I say they do because I am the authority and I am right no matter what I say and it was the flat out slapping in the face of the American public and I think much larger public I am the face of arbitrary power

I have a job in the United States government that doesn't give me any authority to do any of this in any situation. And yet you had the entire elected Congress, all, most of the elected states, and a president give him power that is completely outside the legal constitutional framework. And the whole world did that, right? And he was allowed to be arbitrary. And the demonstration of arbitrary authority is itself the goal. I'm right because I said it. and you will obey me because I can enforce it. That's what was done in the COVID lockdown. Make sense?

The dialectical attacks, I guess I have two thoughts. One, is there something you'd be like, go read this? This is going to frame it in a way that you can sink your teeth into. Or two, you mentioned right off the hop. Normally, you do a presentation with slides and you walk through it. So my question, I guess, is two questions. One is, is there something? You just go purchase this book, Sean, go read this.

Or come back on the podcast, Stephen, and walk me through a presentation on dialogue, and the audience for that matter, on dialectical attacks. I don't know which you're like either or. Well, I mean, that would be a series of briefings because it's a build. It is a, it is a complete, it is, like I will say, I'm not going to tell you to stop thinking, about the world the way you see it, but carve out in your brain a red team space. Does that make sense?

And I'm going to tell you this. The only rule I'm going to oppose on you and I will shut you down every time you do it is, well, isn't this just like this and can't we say that? And my answer is, you're out of class. We are saying this and we mean this and we never mean that.

Because even if that sounds the same, that's in the circle. and you're using that word to explain what we're saying will pull you back in there. So what I'm saying is, so there's a build to it, and there's a headache to it. And, you know, you will go and understand everything I say in the build as I'm going through it. And the next day, you'll try to explain it to a friend and you'll, you know, you're what? You know what I'm saying? because it's not going to be like painting an outside house with a big thick oil-based paint.

It's going to be small layers that have to be put on over time. And the moment where you get it intellectually will not be the point at which you are able to execute on it in the worldview. That might take 18 months because your brain is going to go through an entire rewiring. And the first couple times that something happens right in your face. Some have to go, you see, that's what we meant with that. I said, oh, yeah, well, I didn't see it that way. I said, well, I know you didn't see it that way because nobody sees it that way until it's pointed out the first couple times, right?

Makes sense. So, you know, and this may be beyond what you're interested in. But, you know, I actually do brief a group of retired Canadian national security people. I'm going to not be any more specific. And, you know, we have gone into some detail. because the Canadian military, you know, uses the same nomenclature we do. Or they have nomenclature that's one for one.

Does that make sense? You know, so, and you know, walk them down a road and kind of bring them along and it's like, it kind of makes sense. Let me give you a way that the dialectic attack on the dialectic works and nobody who did it understands why. In the primary, Republican primaries in 2016, Trump is in these primaries.

And they ask them questions and they go, well, will you support any of the candidates if you don't want? And he said no. And he said some very caustic things about these guys. And they're all trying to sound like Trump because they're trying to sound like what they have to sound like to get the MAGA vote, you know, the populist Americans to vote for them. I think most people will vote for Trump are not MAGA. they understand the alternative is really bad. Okay, so he makes it clear he's not going to be anything with them.

I'm going this way. This is what I think is right. I think you are saying this because you want to sound like me. And if you ask people why they instantly switched to Trump, it's because they understood real when they heard it. If you asked him to explain it and why that guy wasn't saying the same thing, they couldn't. That was real.

that's not real. This is how they've been talking to me for the last 10 years when we know we're getting kind of, I won't use any obscene metaphors. Okay. Being in the military, I gravitate toward, right? But, you know, we know, you know. So, and he instantly understood real.

And from that moment, the Republican opposition and those Republicans completely collapsed. And my point to people is that's the day the Republican Party died. Trump is not really a conservative. He's not really a Republican. He's kind of a populist. And when he goes after these people, he says it in plain language. Plain language that is true is what the dialectical speakers cannot handle.

And that's why they melt down. He doesn't obey their rules. So here's the thing. The Republicans keep trying to generate people who sound like Trump, and they can't get any traction because now people sniff it out. They also know that they can no longer feel the candidate on their issues because nobody wants them. So the opposition to Trump, this is not a pro-Trump statement, this is a political analysis. This is political warfare analysis.

So the only way republics can elect it is if they pretend they're the demographic that they need to vote for them, that they themselves hate as much as the Democrats do. So that is the situation you find yourself in. They can only be elected if they're false. And I think people now are starting to, it's becoming internal to how people understand this, right? And I think that, you know, I think you have to have that applied to a Canadian venue applied. I think the English are starting to figure that out. The Irish, the Irish seem to be getting it really fast.

it may be faster than the Irish government can catch up to them but um because the Irish are the Irish you know I'm Irish American it's like but yeah so that's what's going on I appreciate you hopping on today this has been um well for the for the audience what I'm going to ask Stephen as soon as we're done is I want them back because I want to go listen to this stew on it do some things and then I want to bring them back on to ask a bunch more questions. But before we get to that conversation, I just want to say thanks for, you know, if this is the only time you ever grace this side of the podcast world,

I appreciate you coming on and really forcing my brain to work this morning. I think that's a wonderful thing. And I think I can speak from my audience and saying they're going to certainly enjoy when this drops. So thanks again, Stephen, for coming on. And sure, yeah, final thought if you have it. Well, I'll say if we do it again, I'll have a couple short bite graphics to kind of feed people to kind of see a way to understand things. Visualizations maybe on some of these complex idea because I think people see it. You see, I think they write these big books on Marxism, which is itself, you know, not the way to understand it.

Marxism is the sports graphic of X's and O's and the explanation of what those things in motion are. that becomes much more operational, right? There's an operational way to understand what you're looking at that completely cuts through the narrative. And that's what we're building toward. And so long, long before you get the high-level discussions we might be giving you, that we would give you just for, so you realize that we did close the circle on that, if you get the visual and that that's, that's the play, right? you know, here is a, here's a, you know, I was going to come over with a sports play, a football

play. Once you understand that, you can remember the visual and you can just associate things with that. If they're here, we got to watch for that over there and we got to watch the shot coming here. But there's nobody there to give the shot because they have to be there first. Yeah. If you wait for the guy to take the shot, the, the score is point. The point to score. Yeah, it's already too late. That those people parallel. Wayne Grexky was a fantastic in hockey for seeing where people were going to be. And that's what you're talking about.

You're discussing where they're moving to, and that makes it hard for people to understand because they can't see it because it hasn't happened yet. And yet what history is showing you is that these things happen over and over again. This is the play. This is what they're going to try and do. This is what the lead up to it looks like. and then you're you

if you get to where you can all see what's going on it's too late and now you have to readjust uh I'll tell you how good you can get at it if you have a functional knowledge of the dialectic what I mean by functional I'll replace that word with an operational understanding of the dialectic operations driven or if you want to say in a sports metaphor

game plan driven right okay the playbook okay is you go to my website and do a word search, Requeam for Minnesota. Okay. I just want you to know that that was in the hands of people two weeks before it was in the hands of people in our national law enforcement and other groups, two weeks before Floyd. Okay. And check it out.

And that's how you see these things coming. Because they have their rule sets are not your rule sets. And we go wrong because we think they're, they're, their, um, mirror image opposites of us playing the same game. And they're not that at all. But if we under, if we get a handle on their rule set, we can get a sense for where they're going or where they're not going. Fair enough. Yes. Thanks again for doing this. You bet. It's a pleasure. And I, once again, we'll talk offline, but I do appreciate you giving me some time this morning.

Absolutely. You take care.