The Pete Quiñones Show - The Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson Episodes (Updated) - Completed

Episode Date: May 1, 2026

9 Hours and 44 MinutesPG-13These are the episodes featuring Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson minus the 200 Years Together readings (so far). Uprisings and Pogroms in Historic Ukraine A Century of Zionist Violence Vladimir Putin and His EnemiesThe Myth And Lies of the Russian 'Pogroms' The 'Red Terror' in Russia (1918-1922)Ukraine, Israel and Endless DestructionThe History of Khmelnytsky and his CossacksKarl Marx's Zur Judenfrage w/ Dr. Matthew Raphael JohnsonWho Is Claudia Sheinbaum?Borhy Splacheni Krovyu: The Foundations and Causes of the Russo-Ukrainian War of 2022-2025Dr Johnson's CashApp - $Raphael71Dr Johnson's PatreonRusJournal.orgTHE ORTHODOX NATIONALISTDr. Johnson's Radio Albion PageDr. Johnson's Books on AmazonPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

I want to welcome everyone back to the Pete Cignonos show. I am pleased to have Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson with me today. How are you doing, Dr. Johnson? Yeah, I think it's about time. We got together. I know we have some mutual friends. I'm doing okay. So I'm really happy to be here.

I'm really happy to be helping you out this way. I appreciate you doing this because this is one of those topics that once you start to understand it, it starts leading you in other places and even up to the modern day. But before we get into the meat of the discussion, I want to tell everybody a little bit about yourself. Well, for those who don't know, I've been doing this sort of thing professionally for 32 years now.

I've got my PhD in the history of political philosophy from University of Nebraska. And then I went straight to Willis Cardo's Liberty Lobby. the Barnes Review. And I worked under him for many years. And then I was a professor of many universities until COVID hit, really. And then, yeah, it just, I assume at that point, just like many other people, you just had to adopt a new paradigm. Well, it wasn't that difficult. Academia has reached a point where I can't function in it anymore.

But my name, I'm known enough where. where through things like, you know, website and Patreon and everything else, I can make some sort of a decent living. So, but even when I was in college in the 90s, there's no, and grad school,

it's an extremely difficult place. I always thought of it as a test experiment for what the rest of the society is going to be like in the future, like collective farm. But since, I got my degree in my, I've written 16 books or something.

I can never remember. And I've been, you know, the leader as far as nationalism is concerned in in Russian and Ukrainian history. And I was the very first one. And this was in the early 2000s when I was at the Barnes Review in D.C. To say that Putin was going to do things that we really could use. That he is going to be everyone at the time was calling him a communist KGB. The right was saying that, the left was saying that, and that was by myself. And I convinced Willis Cardo and Michael Collins Piper that this is not true.

And his agenda is not known yet. I used to think it was Alexander Labet in the 90s, and then they murdered him. So that whole right-wing interest in Russia comes directly from me. And I took so much crap for it back then. I'd have been in office a couple of years by then. and now of course it's taken for granted but but at the time the right wing was screaming and yelling about about this guy

he turned on his financiers and and you know it's one of my one of my several claims to fame but I my main function now is is the lecture series at Radio Albion which is located in Britain

the owner of that is in prison for crimes against liberalism you know thought crimes and that's Sven Longchengs and that gives me a forum I have an hour long lecture on Wednesday and a half hour more current events thing on Thursday and it's called the Orthodox

Nationalist Orthodox and religion nationalist in politics which is how it's really organized and then my own website, Rush journal.org, which I don't, I have to keep up with. I'm not, but I need to do that. And, of course, my Patreon page. But if you go to Radio Albion, and I think in the description, you can have the website connected to that, the Orthodox Nationalist. WordPress.com, where you can buy books, you could donate to me directly, because I do this full time. This is not a part-time job. and I'm financed exclusively by my readers and and listeners.

So that's, you know, this is this is what I'm doing now. I just got remarried after a wretched divorce in 2014. And this is, and, you know, I'm 50, I'm going to be 52 soon and I'm getting to the point professionally where I could pretty much do what I want. and I have some very loyal readers and listeners. It was 2009. I started doing the radio thing at a place called The Voice of Reason, which I don't think exists anymore. But they're essentially university lectures concerning topics of interest to people like us. Generally, you know, the nationalist right, whatever you want to call them, Paloio, the Playao types.

you know, E. Michael Jones, the type of person, or Russell Kirk, Dugan, you know, people like that. So, and this is what I do. This is what I do full time now. How long did you last in academia? Well, I taught when I was getting my PhD for several years. I got a Warren Buffett fellowship to go there in 95. And then when I went to Willis Cardo, I, left to get a university job, Mount St. Mary's University in Maryland. From there, I taught a couple classes at Penn State, Mount Alto, a few community colleges. I would say that came to an end.

2018, but I did teach another class after that. I won't do online stuff, but that's where everything is, thanks to COVID. So I pulled out for that reason, but clearly it's not the only reason. I probably couldn't go back if there was a gun to my head. Yeah, it's shocking to me that you could have lasted that long, having the Cardo associations, some of the associations you had. And I think it really just goes to show just how much things have changed even in the last four or five years. Yeah, it irritates me when, you know, I'm not a big fan of conservatives in general.

I think they're extremely naive. and of course I was one in college I got human events and national review and all that stuff long before there was an internet but you know this this propaganda term woke which irritates the hell out of me conservatives being so naive they'll actually use that term which is a flattering term for the honest is the same left

that's existed for a very long time they just found a new set of targets and the cancel stuff you know it's as if when the it's only when the media discovers something and gives it a name. Of course, they're a big part of this anyway. Only then does it exist. But this was the same in the early 90s.

You know, that was just before the electronic social media revolution. So there's nothing new here. But what happened, you know, the fraud of 2020, especially the what's his name killing in Minnesota, which was, you know, he was not killed by them, given what we know today. That created an impetus in the riots of summer of 2020 to, you know, that was a violent revolution you need for the Red Guards to take over. And they function very much like whether it be in China or the Soviet Union. I have a book out on the Soviet Union.

And I'm working on a book on China, China as a national socialist state rather than a communist one. So that irritates the heck out of me. And I think I survived in academia for a while. Because my name is very common. And I have a laundry list of academic accomplishments. And don't underestimate the fact that I'm a nice guy. I know how to get along with people.

So I'm not going to go in preaching anything to these guys. I'm not particularly ideological in my, unlike the left in any university lecturing. I do ask some impertinent questions, but that's about it. and it's a thing like, you know, they hear something about me. They'll go, well, Matt's a nice guy, but he's a little nuts, but he's a nice guy. And that is how to do it. You don't go in the first day screaming and yelling about how corrupt the place is. You save that for later.

So you get to the subject at hand, I guess I really didn't start looking into Ukrainian politics until about 2014 when everything started happening there. And then I started reading history. I got a translation of 200 years together by Solzhenycin in English. And I started reading that. And that really piqued my interest because even though he a lot of the, most of the concentration is on the last 200 years, he does a really good brief summary of the history of what happened in Ukraine and Russia. before that, coming forward from about, I think, about 1,1100 he does in the book.

And I started talking with a friend of mine, and we started talking about what comes to be, what came to be known as the Kamlenetsky Uprising. And when I started looking at that, I was really intrigued because the players involved the body count on on a couple sides there and it just seemed like something that could have been very significant and even something that could be in the minds of certain people up until today and so I asked my friend I said who's the best on this subject and he mentioned your name reached out to you here you are if you want to give any kind of introduction into it ready to jump right in if you are.

Well, as far as Jews are concerned, followers of the Talmud and the rabbinical system, other than Hitler himself, the only close second to that in the Jewish mind in terms of tragedy is the Kimonitki uprising, which in part was against the Jews who were not just asking for it, they were begging for it. And in fact, there's plenty of even mainstream writers that can't avoid. the awful Jewish behavior. Remember, this occurs in the Polish Empire, where the Polish nobility, there wasn't much of a central state there. Poland was the largest country in Europe. The king was mostly toothless, for the most part, and it was an oligarchy of landed magnates. And by 1700, there was about 80% of the Jewish population lived. in the Polish Empire. And they very tightly controlled it because the aristocracy who controlled the country

did not engage in any kind of banking or administration or trade in the cities. That they brought, deliberately brought in the Jews to act as their agents. It's kind of like hiring an accountant. And Polish nobles weren't particularly good when it came to, you know, business sense. They were involved in trying to create the old, you know, Roman Republic and the other fantasies they had about themselves. So all of their financial dealings, everything from, you know, loans and pawn shops and all the rest were in Jewish hands. Jews, of course, worked in the name of whoever the landlord was. Some of these estates were bigger than, you know, like Holland.

These were humongous places. And so you had a number of places. So this exploded in the Kimunitsky Rebellion in 1648 because Jewish power was so overwhelming. There was a messianic spirit for the first time in a long time in 1620, 1630s in Poland. We ruled. It was called the Paradise of the Jews at the time. Jews were pouring into the place, especially after Spain. and their power was so overwhelming. And they generally engaged in short-term leases.

And whenever the – which were monopoly leases, that could be a – it could be a small region. It could be a church. It could be a – it could be a pastor land, whatever it might be. And the – of course, the noble Lord would get a piece of it. and as Jews were heavily involved in Usyri of course and credit was called the Arenda system and in Polish actually Arenda and Jew is almost the same word it just means a short-term leaseholder and this is how Jews came into Poland this is how the country and the empire expanded especially into you know parts of today Ukraine that has a very very very

very different sort of people there than the Poles. They've been enemies for some time. And you have a number of players. Of course, you have the Polish nobility. You have the Jews themselves. You have the Ukrainian Cossacks. Now, of course, I should note, I have a book on this topic, simply called Ukrainian nationalism,

which is you could find it on Amazon, published by Hermata Press and with the assistance of the journal Russia Insider, who I'm close to. And the Turkish Empire was involved, of course, Russia, and then later on Sweden. That's not even to mention the Polish monarch, who on occasion, would gain some sort of traction. Though I think one of the reasons the Polish nobility brought the Jews in was to avoid the bear situation where a crown could tax the monetized economy of the cities and grow in power. since Jews were dependent on their Polish protectors.

And there's a number of Jewish historians that say they got more obnoxious as times went on. They owned, in the name of their lord, of course, most of the land and most of the religious institutions, especially in Ukraine. And given the extreme nature of Polish serfdom, then Jewish usury, Jews were the tax farmers. and because their leases were generally short-term, they didn't have much, they didn't have long to recoup their investment. It was intensive exploitation of these estates, overworking the land, the peasantry, and not really caring too much about long-term effects.

And when they obtained the right to collect and impose taxes and fees, even for church services, it got worse and worse. Polish serfdom was particularly nasty and it's even worse than that in Ukraine because they're not Catholics. And so as Polish landholding became more and more centralized,

as either states became larger and larger, you had this excellent utilitarian connection between Jews and the Polish nobility. The Jews didn't really speak the language. They never assimilated, of course. They were involved in the Cahal system, which was their communal form of rule under the absolute control, the council or even the head rabbi. And the Poles, the nobility, could worry about military stuff and fighting, giving all of their financial stuff over into the Jews. There's really nobody who has any brains at all that doesn't say or doesn't have to admit that the Jews were extremely.

irrational and unjust and exploitative in their financial practices. And by the time Kimmolniki and the Kosak host rose up in 1648, of course they'd been dozens of uprisings prior to that. The Ukrainian and even much of the Polish working class and the peasantry had been entirely dispossessed. And so when the explosion finally came, there was this whole movement that we can do whatever we want because the Messiah is going to be coming and he's going to be coming here and it's because of our power here that we know that the Messiah is coming well rather than the Messiah

they got Kim Ilnitsky and the war lasted really until the 1650s and the Cossacks were the main fighters Kimoniski himself was in the higher ranks of the Kosak coast on the Zaporosian Sikh or the you have fortress in the banks in the rapids of the dineper which is what is the parosia means that name comes up a lot because of the nuclear plant that's there it means beyond the rapids which was the main cossack headquarters now the cossack is slavic and you had to be orthodox to be a member were what we would call freebooters which is where the word comes from and um they had a fortress the bikers of the day, but they had a strict moral code and their job was to raid the Turkish Empire

and rescue slaves from the island of Khafa, which was run by Jews. And the Crimea was run by an Islamic Khan, so the Emirate, which is a dependency in the Ottoman Empire, used the Kim Monizky uprising to make more money for them by engaging in the slave trade. The Jews eventually talked him into an back in Kimunitsky and that's when he when his rebellion fell apart but the constant you know the demands of the kosanak hosts they were spokesmen for the ukrainian people at the time

they were strictly orthodox there was the military force um of the church and because they were so fanatically uh you know it was a knighthood it was a brotherhood they believed in in a christian equality and they loath more than you know the polish nobility especially in their relationship with with the Jews because for them as both the Catholics and the Jews that were that were the worst possible enemy by the time of the uprising and you know previous uprisings for the same reason just total dispossession wanting to even not just destroy the Kostak homes but reduce them to serfs which is really one of the things that that sparked this and rather than rather than deal with them unless they absolutely had to their reprisals for

previous uprisings were so violent that, you know, it didn't solve anything. So the situation by 1648 in Poland, especially in the Ukrainian Orthodox areas, was absolutely intolerable. Life simply wasn't worth living. And it certainly wasn't worth working because no one really had anything by this point. Don't forget, still, the Baltic grain trade and the Jewish monopoly over liquor was what were the big for-profit crops and that just means even more

to work the the peasantry to the bone and so that's why the Polish nobility in the one hand the Jews and the other became at least in the Cossack mind a one in the same thing so the the Cossack movement

that exploded that year under him it had the force of decades, maybe 100 years of this kind of extreme, almost hyper exploitation. And of course, from then on, the Polish Empire weakened. And in what, 150 years later, whatever it was, the Polish Empire ceased to exist. So they became victims of this short-term financial mentality.

And, of course, the partitions of Poland in the late 18th century, that was the end of that was the end of the empire. But the causes of all that can be laid at, but this, I mean, this is the main foundation for it. And the Cossacks fought for the Orthodox Church and for a rational economy rather than usury. You know, labor and usury are opposites. And so they became the core of later Ukraine. of course clearly ideologically it's not the case anymore but that was ukraine Ukraine Ukraine came into existence as uh as an orthodox state under kosak control in their battles with the polish and to a lesser extent the turkish and russian empires that's where it that's where it came from that's what ukraine is mean to this day the hetmans the hetman was

ahead of the cossack coast his mace is used in the in the rata kiev um as a as a sign of authority It's like a big mace. I have a replica of one here, in fact. And that's what Ukraine is. So it's by definition. You know, almost a national, certainly a nationalist, national anarchist, agrarian state with a Cossack military corps. And the empire probably would, the Polish empire would have been conquered had not the Crimean Khan been bought off by these very same Jews. and then turned on Kim Mniewski.

So then after that, it gets very complicated when Ukraine was divided between the right bank and the left bank. And of course, the partition of Poland 150 years afterwards. But that's the basic foundation of what we're talking about. Before we jump into any more detail there, it does seem like that story of a certain group not being able to, invest and make the kind of money they want, they hear about this group of people who can, they invite them in. And then just as the system we have today,

where the people on the top are getting the richest, it actually starts to impoverish the population around the person who brought them. in to make money. And it just seems that, you know, when you read like Werner Sombard's book, he talks about that, how that happened in multiple locations and it always ended up in expulsions or worse. Yeah. And not just Sombard, you know, E. Michael Jones is Barron Metal, which is a history of usury,

starting from North Italy and then going right up to the present day. One of the best books. He's one of my favorite authors. I know him personally. And he uses Sambark quite a bit just to make that very same point. You know, the Gentile Polish nobility was a little on the naive side. They just figured we could keep the money out of the hands of a monarch is going to tell us what to do. The Jews seemed to be very industrious.

And at the time, you know, economics as a science didn't exist. The same thing for North Italy, no matter how sophisticated their banks were. they didn't realize what Eusri amounted to. They didn't realize that, you know, the Jews come in with a massive amount of capital. They could undercut their opponents. They seemed to have an unlimited amount of credit. They could undercut their Gentile opponents in that respect. Many of them refused to charge interest, couldn't charge interest, forgetting that, you know, any economic downturn,

you're going to have defaults all over the place, which means, at least in the Polish case, their land and equipment capital going to the Jews in the employ of the nobility. That wherever you go, you free lead to mass impoverishment. It's both a cause and a result of economic failures. But it was very difficult to compete with a group of people who have, you know, thanks to the Talmud and later on, Zohar, a mission to gain wealth and power at the expense of their of their rivals which is why Jones wrote his book in the first place and it's very uniform when you read all the documents about why they were expelled from i forget 109 since the end of the roman empire uh country cities whatever uh the complaints are identical it's unfair business

practices it's mass indebtedness it's the property of the poor and middle class going to to Jewish overlords and the state itself dependent on these people for a steady flow of credit and cash. And it doesn't take long before the concentration of economic power into Kahal, in the Jewish elite, ends up taking over the state slowly but surely without the Gentile leadership having any idea what's going on. And that's exactly what happened in Poland. They were engaged in short-term profiteering, forgetting about what the long-term results of usury and dishonest trading practices are going to lead to. And Kimonitsky is what it led to one of the worst examples of this. And they had an excellent case.

Now the killings of the Jews in that revolution have been exaggerated. I think now it's a couple of thousand, usually in the cities, particularly obnoxious ones. but that was only after their Polish bodyguards were were overcome and Kimminsky couldn't control that if you wanted to and they learned nothing because even after that the same practices continued but at least with some kind of an independent Kosang state and it shouldn't surprise you that the two countries that you know like Shabad the the the Hasidic sect really was his root root came from right after what happened to the Jews after Kim Ilinsky and where Hasidim came from one of the results of it and this kind of messianism the two places that they

that they loathe are Russia and Ukraine the current the population agenda is right up their alley and Shabbat and groups like this make no bones about it. This is a perfect arrangement for them because to this day you have Odessa Ukraine is still a major center

for Jewish power. Maybe later on we could talk about the project of New Qazaria, which I've dealt with in great detail, which this war has derailed. But the expulsions, as you said, pretty much the exact, there's also sexual vices, stuff like prostitution. But these expulsion edicts were identical

in almost every single case. Yeah, it always seems to come down to the same thing and it's usury. And, you know, the people who, whether it's people who are Jewish or people who defend or jumped, jump to defend against anti-Semitism, quote unquote, they try to turn that into riches. Oh, you're, you know, you're just upset because Jewish people have more money than you. It's like, first of all, I know a lot of people who have more money than me, and I'm not jealous of them.

It's maybe it's how they got their money. Maybe it's the fact that they control the money, and maybe it's what they do with that money. Maybe it's the social programs that they take these billions of dollars and push trends. You know, the Pritzker is pushing the transgender agenda down people's throats and everything else that they do, which is basically to de-rassinate people from their, from their heritage and to make sure, in my opinion, make sure that there's never like an all-white country again that has any power. Well, that's, you know, unfortunately, that's, that's politics 101. But Joe Soberd used to say, you know, talking about politics without the Jews, it's like talking about,

basketball without mentioning the Chicago Bulls or Michael Jordan. It doesn't make any sense. And an analysis, whether it be the early modern period or today, of world politics without mentioning the power of these financiers, going back generations, leads to absurd results. But since in academia, you can't really talk about it. Absurd results are the norm. To talk about Polish history without talking to Jewish history is impossible. the Jews were the most powerful group there.

And I've heard all the excuses, all the special pleading, the jealousy argument and everything else. And there really not much you could say. It's dishonesty. They don't really know. Very few people have access to a lot of this data, especially in an age of censorship. We know what their arguments are, but they often don't know what our arguments are, which is an important fact. You go to grad school, I know their arguments in depth. But we're still a bit of a mystery to them.

But because it involves Jews, all of a sudden people's brains get turned off. There's a short circuit there. I'm not allowed to talk about this because they could hurt me in a lot of different ways in terms of employment and anything else. The same situation in the early Soviet Union. As Sultan Eastern does mention it, 200 years together, as I know you know. And this isn't a matter of this. is not a personal matter, as you hinted. I mean, it's not because you hate.

I've had, you know, too many personal from New Jersey. I'm from Union County. There are Jews everywhere. Over New York City, yeah. You know, that's where I lived. And it's, you know, I went to the University of Hartford, this is one of the most Jewish universities in America. You know, there's nothing, nothing new here.

But there are a handful of Jews who are willing to listen, but they're not many. these attacks on jewelry, whether intellectual or otherwise, aren't personal. They're institutional. It has to do with everything that derives from the Talmud and the rabbinic system and their contempt that they have for us, which is so easy to prove. The sheer amount of material I've collected on all of this. Every once in a while, you get a few Jews who will say, like Ginsburg and Jews in the state, which is an excellent book, that this short-term drive.

for power, whether it be through Ushri or, I mean, I think Uxri is just an aspect of rent seeking, rents are even more broad. That short-termism ends up leading to long-term irrationality. But I guess the Jewish mind is used to going from place to place. And, you know, Israel being an exception, but Israel's situation is so tenuous right now, which is where Crimea came in as a new Qazadia. I'm not sure how long that that country has less demographically and otherwise. You know, they're running out of people to move there. And they're so overrunned by homosexuals.

I mean, there is no reproduction is bound to peter out. I remember when Rabbi Weiss, Rabbi David Weiss, who many people know, who's a personal friend of mine, actually, the head of Natura Carter. which was a vehemently. They were actually at the Holocaust conference in Iran. What was that? 15, 20 years ago.

Talking about the exploitation of this. The very fact that they call it the Holocaust, as if this is a superior event, is arrogant. But he's, and so many, some of the ascetics are vehemently anti-Israel because it's essentially a secular,

essentially a Kabbalistic movement. And Rabbi Weiss always said in all of his speeches, He says Zionism requires Jews to have a predominant influence over their host countries' foreign policy. Because Israel is not viable by itself and controlling and funneling information. That's because Israel exists. Now, there were other reasons for this in the past, but because Israel exists and they want to keep it going, they can't allow too much criticism.

I mean, the wars that this is dragging the U.S. and Britain into because of this unfailing and the inability to see the connection between the two, this unfailing support for Israel. But that has to be shut down, which is what APEC is for and all the rest of it. So, you know, Jews end up being this very powerful, media savvy, very politics savvy. I mean, the homosexual movement is exclusively Jewish at its leadership level. I have the whole list of them here. It's pages and pages and pages. Even down to the local level, that was their pet project.

The Hasidics in Jerusalem don't like it, but that's because the Jewish mind in these cases is based on a double standard. So I know exactly what you mean. Eusri is the dominant profession of these people, but rent seeking in general being in a position of cultural or political power and charging fees, even if they're only intellectual ones, because they have this authority. This is part of the Jewish mind. One of the things that people hear about, and it's why Israel has to have their own homeland,

is these programs that have happened over the centuries. And the Komeneski uprising, I think on Wikipedia it says they have as much as 35,000. But maybe can you, Can you just give some insight into, like, was it because he was thrown in jail and it was a reaction or was this going to happen anyway? In reference to Kim Ilnitsky, the cauldron of increasing hatred, given the economic practices of the day, it just needed a leader. It needed somebody who, yeah, it was personal for him, but it wasn't just personal. he lost his land at the at the hands of one of these jewish guys who took who took a polish name and um you know that he finally put it together but not him it would have been someone and there were many other uprisings both before and after uh under similar circumstances it was immensely popular in fact i'll go so far as to say in my ukraine book i say this that kimalnitchki is the second most important person in ukrainian history after you know of course st.

Vladimir of Kiev. He is the hero. And the people who control the colonial administration in Kiev now, of course, don't either don't understand that or don't want to understand that. And it's a Jewish government there anyway. This depopulation agenda is very old. And it was the case, you know, hundreds of years ago as it is as it is right now. So it just was a matter of focusing.

And especially, you know, one of the things that causes revolutions are, is dashed expectations. Because the king at the time, who died that very year, had promised a whole host of reforms, whether or not he could carry it out. But whether it be John Sobieski or Vladislav or any of these other monarchs in Poland, they were always overruled by the Senate, which was run by these. oligarchs in their Jewish account manager. Kind of like Black Rock is that writ large today. And they would shut this down. So, you know, simple, simple requests, you know, like, you know, equal representation or freedom of religion in Ukraine. Lessing of serfdom were thrown out the window when, you know, a monarch would promise this.

and then the Siam or the diet would overthrow it and make it worse, in fact. And you keep dashing expectations like this. You're going to build a pressure cooker. And when you have a talented leader like Bogdan Kimmugniewski, you're going to get the results that you need. None of this had to happen, but it was inevitable by 1648. Well, maybe get into a little bit about this new Khazaria.

I think it was obvious to some people when this started and looking at what's been going on for, you know, since the Soviet Union fell, that Jewish interests had their eyes on Ukraine. And it's, Ukraine being the quote unquote breadbasket of Europe, it seems to be a better, it would be a better long-term. place to control then Israel, Palestine. Is that what your theory entails? Is that they're looking to have another quote-unquote promise land? Well, I think many of your listeners understand already that the Jews that populate the present day Israel in the Middle East are of usually of Ukrainian or Russian initial citizenship.

And they came from the Khazar Empire, which is a sort of. overthrown by destroyed actually by Svelte Pulk in the middle of the 960s they had they were there are Turkish people who had converted to Judaism

a few centuries prior to that and were in fact a Jewish empire and they functioned in the same way that Jews everywhere do they charged tolls on the on the Volga they were heavily engaged in the slave trade

they weren't particularly productive. Their military was usually mercenaries. They were given carte blanche to do whatever they pleased. And after Kiev destroyed the system, the mentality of Kazatiga didn't go away. The overwhelming majority of Europe's Jews come from in one form or another that empire. And, you know, the Khazar Emperor. cars called Red Zion in many cases. There was plans to recolonize it as early as 1943.

Even with an agreement with Molotov and Malinkov and Beria, the Jewish anti-fascist committee was engaged in this. And when you have the oligarchic movement starting in the 1990s in both Russia and Ukraine, which was almost entirely Jewish, you had the makings of a very unique situation. The Bidobisdan, which I also have written on substantially, experiment in southern Siberia didn't quite work out. But rather than denying that they, you know, denying that they're Khazars, that they should embrace it. And it's not something, I think this war has derailed it in Odessa, which is the capital, Jewish capital of Ukraine. new Kazadia the idea arose and now you have the world's largest synagogue complex

right there in Odessa and thereabouts this huge system it's like one big yeshiva in the southern part of the country close to the black sea and prior to the war there was some out migration from Israel with IDF support and into that part of the world. When Russia, because of the referendum in Crimea, took it, that was a huge blow to this movement. Of course, now the war. The Jews were always very sensitive, Zionists, that they had no religious or ethnic right to return to the Middle East because they're strangers there.

So the war, of course, derailed all of this for now. But this group, there's a few thousand who lease land on a 99-year lease. Sometimes it was a 48-year lease from local Cossacks in rural areas, and they bought the grain elevators here. I know back in 2006, it was 500 Jews arriving of Estabropal from Israel. And, of course, they quickly separated themselves from the native Slavs, and they called themselves New Cazadea. And they built even the security fence like you had in Israel. itself. They had ex-MOSAD private security that kept watch over it. And in the Russian newspaper, Ere Vossi, it was actually 2002, did a story on the state within a state project that Novo Alexander

office and Stavropo. Migrants were busy building an entire, I mean, they're They're not productive. They don't work the land, obviously, but they own all the grain elevators. And this was, you know, from the old collective farm system. The community is growing rapidly and very few people know about it. They are subsidized. But they're essentially settlers. It's just an extension of the settler idea.

And this became this new form of red Zion. They don't buy anything local. They don't employ anybody locally. and they're isolated, but they are in a strategic agricultural area. Stavropo is, well, was, you know, then with the large scrannery in Russia, 50 million tons of grain yearly. And of course, they don't want the attention, but, you know, media blackout was only ruptured in Russia itself. And it's one of the reasons that the Jewish president of Ukraine had to repeal the, the law that you can't sell Ukrainian farmland foreigners.

And that was kind of ignored to begin with, but now it's official. And apparently, up until the war began, it was 500 at a time, 500 is rarely showing up at a time. As I mentioned, 2012, the Minora, Jewish Community Agricultural and Business Center opened up in the east. actually, as well as in Odessa. So there's colonization happening, at least there was, and because of the Jewish nature of the oligarchic, and now, of course, the Jewish nature of the administration in Kiev, media and everything else, is they're in a perfect position to do this, maybe not in Crimea, but in parts of Ukraine. And that really is going to me, and the war is over as far as Kiev is concerned.

I knew that from the beginning You know, they never had a chance to begin with Except for a medium manipulation And as Zelensky has stated That we are going to build a state very similar to Israel He said this He said this The webcam

To a rally in Tel Aviv It's going to be a massive security state Essentially totalitarian On the on the on the model of the Zion estate. And as they're closing churches by the hundreds there, they're clearly not messing around here. I don't know how well known his comments about building new Israel

in Ukraine are, building this security state that really will serve the interests of capital only. All the labor legislation has been repealed. You know, there's no minimum wage. They use the war as an excuse, although this has been around a long time. That's just the beginning. But a lot of things are going to depend on the outcome of the war, which is largely a theta complete for now, but what kind of negotiated settlement there's going to be.

And this is just the beginning. Do you have any evidence that one of the reasons why Putin would have invaded was to, was this was an attempt to stop that? it would surprise me. I have no doubt he's he's aware of it and what that would mean for Russian security. If anything, it's a, it would be a minor matter. But it's common knowledge and Russia is just not common knowledge here. You're not dealing with a lot of people.

Many Jews reject the whole concept, just like they rejected the Birro-Bizdan Siberian concept many years ago. But at least it has. the effect of derailing it. In order for this to work, you needed Zelensky in office or someone very much like him. Since 2014, only Poroshenko has not been Judaic, you know, since the revolution of 2014. And even Israel's approach to this war, I mean, you know, Jews support Ukraine for a whole bunch of reasons, that being one. But the Israeli government is, and they've been attacked by Zelensky, have, you know, taken a wait and see attitude.

I thought they'd be jumping on the bandwagon, but they've not. Whether there's a connection here or not, obviously, this is a Jewish part of the world, is a separate issue. Of course, now Netanyahu has his own problems and can't really be worried about this too much. But whether or not, you know, the direct reason for the, I know the precise reason for the, I know the precise reason the invasion of course was to save Nova Russia against the Ukrainian attack. That's what the, you know, this was a preemptive invasion.

But being able to strip mine the industry of the East was certainly a goal after 2014 and they still have failed to do it. And now that they're part of Russia, they will permanently fail to do it. Ukraine is in a viable state just with this central and western part.

You go kind of like Israel. But whether the Jewish media is prepared to talk about this is another matter. The Russians know about it. Ukrainians know about it. Turks know about it. But it's almost totally unknown in the West. Is this a Ukrainian, white, Orthodox Ukrainian genocide on their part? Is that one of their goals is to get these people out of the way? as I mentioned in the beginning depopulation of their two most hated groups of people

the Ukrainians and the Russians the Russians because they are the third Rome and Rome is condemned in the Talmud until you know they use code names for it but but the fact that yet it is a genocide of the best of the Ukrainian Orthodox population is not an accident and it's one of the reasons that the war continues despite the fact that it has no chance of a winning. Throwing these boys who aren't trained very well against now rested regulars. I mean, Russia is using what, 10% of its military potential here. It's not just, and of course, the outmigration is huge. Desercern is huge.

There's no question. I mean, they're closing churches all over the place because every Orthodox church there has some connection to Russia, I guess, except the Kiev and Patriarchate, I suppose. But that isn't all that large. It's an ethnic cleansing. It's a religious cleansing. And, you know, the war is really the perfect pretext for. You know, if the West wasn't supporting Ukraine to this fanatical level to the point where they don't have anything left,

the war would have been over in a month, you know, just like the Georgian War in 2008. But given intelligence and the electronics, it was NATO and the U.S., the war has been dragged out, especially in Russia always had very limited goals in mind. It really had to do with Nova Russia and to defang the Kievan administration militarily. You know, it's been dragged out, which means that every Ukrainian killed in this war after the first month and a half is killed unnecessarily and is killed for this very same agenda. and the Russians, you know, haven't had many casualties, are minimizing civilian casualties, especially since they're Russians, where they're fighting,

and all voted to become a part of Russia. But, you know, the Ukrainians don't have that level of, don't have that scruple because the whole reason for them wanting to take eastern Ukraine is to eliminate it and re-colonize it, which, of course, would be very difficult to do. They'd have a Northern Ireland on their hands if they didn't do that. but as an after effect that that makes Jews happy the two most hated groups of people fighting each other is this is almost a utopia for them yeah a friend of mine who was a American military intelligence and also in propaganda units said that Russia as their military and what they're doing now even using mercenaries they become like a perfect meat grinder to eliminate the Ukrainian population.

They just keep sending them in and they just keep killing them. And Russia will take losses, but he said, in his opinion, it will be Ukraine whose losses are going to be devastating to the point where anybody who would be allowed to go in there and investigate would be able to see that it was, I mean, this is just basically what he called the meat grinder genocide. Well, that's not his opinion. That's just a fact. You have to be an idiot to deny that. Russia's losses have been fairly low. This is an artillery in a drone war, but an air war is for Russia's concerned. They've avoided, you know, Ukrainians have set up shop in the cities, knowing full well that Russia won't attack them there.

But now everything has broken down. Their command and control is broken down. They have very little ammunition. They have no fuel. It's been the case for a very long. time. The private military companies from Russia are taking the bulk of the losses, Wagner and a handful of others, but in Russia's rotating troops here, so they're always going to be fresh and trained and everything else. Ukraine doesn't have, Ukraine can't leave this meat grinder. That's actually the term they used for to throw men who they know are going to be killed, to send equipment that they know is going to be vaporized.

There has to be an explanation for that. Obviously, it doesn't make any sense financially, militarily, or any other way. And I'm definitely willing to argue that that's the reason, that to depopulate these areas. Remember, one of the most anti-Jewish countries in the world up until recently was Ukraine, you know, our kind of talk, Holocaust, everything, that's day-to-day discussion there. And the same thing goes for Russia. The Orthodoxy, the ritual murderer, Mertr of Zarnikos II shows. is the enemy. Rome is the enemy.

Kiev used to call itself the New Jerusalem in the Middle Ages. Russia, of course, is Moscow is the third Rome. This is, and it's extremely upsetting because Ukraine, up until the war started, had the best educated population in the world. The highest percentage of citizens with advanced degrees are there. And heavily towards the sciences, everything from electronics to chemistry. extremely well-educated population. They could have been one of the dominant economic powers in Europe if they went with the Russian deal rather than the EU deal.

There is nothing left. Ukraine doesn't have an economy. And that's been the case for a very long time. So the tragedy here exists at numerous levels. And if anything, it shows the evil of the current regime, the current ruling class globally. It's this. who is that that idiot lindsay graham that that piece of garbage said something like um at this stage in the war this is just about killing as many russians as possible and yeah he's he's stupid you know he's a figurehead he's he's a half-wit i think maybe he's a little

mentally challenged he's very devious though um he kind of let the cat out of the bag that's exactly what this is about and they're good either way you know ukraine ukrain military created by the U.S. is a GOLM, no different than the American military is, or the Polish military was many centuries ago. You know, the Gullum idea is extremely important. So, yeah, it's extremely depressing because it's had 2014 not happened. Really, 2004 hadn't happened. And Kiev went its natural route towards the Eurasian Economic Union. You would have a powerhouse country.

You could be on to the Soviet Union was a powerhouse. It wasn't just the agricultural center. It was the biggest electronic center of the Soviet Union. And the rape of the country in the 90s from the oligarchy, now the rape today from the oligarchy for this mindless, you know, blatant military defeat. It's, oh, it reminds me of like 1943 when both Japan and Germany and a little bit afterwards. had sued for peace and was told to go to hell because they were only going to be satisfied with the total annihilation of these powers.

The war could have been over much sooner. The Germans had feelers out all over the place, as did the Japanese. Of course, it wasn't popular in Japan, but it was definitely an option. They sent out feelers what we can resolve. And, of course, they said no. They had to incinerate the countries before they were able to deal with whatever's left.

So this isn't anything new here. And everybody wants to get bogged down into the conversation of whether Putin is a good guy or whether all these things that really have nothing to do with it. And no one wants to talk about the, you know, why this is happening, why this pit place in particular. And, you know, was this the, you know, how long has this plan been going on? It's just, it really is frustrating for any. anybody who, I mean, this is, your whole life has been about, about this section of the world. I've only been looking at this section of the world for 10 years and I'm utterly frustrated and I can just imagine where you're at at this point.

Oh, yeah. I can't really watch any mainstream media discussion because I cringe to the point where I could have a stroke. You know, these city and town names that these people haven't. never heard of until very recently. Now they're talking about it. It's their day-to-day, their day-to-day life.

All the lies of 2022 about, you know, the Russian defeat and all that, you know, they're still maintaining it despite the fact that even NATO says this is an absolute disaster. Lying about casualties, you know, casualties of the sources I have, both in Ukraine and Russia, Ukrainian dead are about 650,000. They were, you know, admitting $250,000 in November of last year. And it's gotten much worse since then. This is why the casualty figures are a state secret. They may never release them.

And, you know, because how long are these boys going to continue to go? How long is the high command that continue to send them to certain death? I mean, how many purges in the officer corps has occurred at least one or two, at least two, I should say, since February of, of 22. Zelensky is well aware that he is despised if for no other reason than this the shutting down of political

parties, all media that was even vaguely pro-Russian churches eliminating all labor rights, eliminating all you know, God, it's going to be another 10 years. It's going to be 75 now where you have to get any kind of pension with a worthless currency no less.

And they wondered why Crimea wants to be. be a part of our way. The East wants to be a part of Russia. No one wants to be a part of this sinking ship. But again, it's short-termism. They stripped every bit of asset they had to pay the debts going back to the 90s to remain a part of the Western system. And of course, the industry was located in the East, which is not

under Kiev's control. So what do they have left? The only thing of value that they had until fairly recently was the land, which is why in all of my work I'm doing on this topic of changing the land laws and bringing the GMO Western corporations to buy the Black Earth areas up is very important. But that's a finite resource. So that means the ultimate value that Ukraine can use to pay its ridiculous debt to the Western bankers is blood. That's all it has. It's finally useful. The West doesn't need anything Ukraine makes. the east may but but not the west what does ukraine give that the west can't do itself um this is it

existence because of this you know it's a colonial government there they have no independence they haven't had a long time um so let's he was installed by the by the u.s um that's the last the only thing the only use that ukraine has to the regime is being this golem against a against the Russian Federation. Now that there's no more assets to sell or to privatize, the blood of its boys and justice boys and men are on the chopping block, and that's all they have. Well, I told you I'd keep it at an hour,

and I hope that if you enjoyed the questions and the conversation, you'll come back in the future, and we'll talk about other subjects that I know that you're just, so well-versed on, but please remind everybody where they can find your work and where they can support you. Well, searching for my full name, in quotes, is probably the best thing you can do. But Radio Albion, just RadioAlbion.org or something like that, can bring you pretty much whatever you need.

Theorthodox Nationalist. Wordpress.com, which was set up by Radio Albion. is probably the bed. I know in your description you'll have these links here. And that way you can, you know, there are books, their essays, their ways to donate, all that kind of thing. Because this is a full-time job. This isn't a part-time matter.

And even as a full-time job, I get harder to keep up with everything I have to. And I depend on the goodwill of my listeners to function. So I lost my, I lost my PayPal account, but a year ago. a year and a half ago for this very reason. And so I've had to go to other providers. But, you know, there's always going to be another provider out there. So, and my website, rushjournal.org, which I promise I'm going to start keeping up with, has a lot of this stuff on it as well. But Radio Albion is my main base right now.

And that's the best way to get in touch with me or to buy a book or something. I appreciate it, Dr. Johnson. Thank you very much. I had a good time. You could contact me any time. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekignano show, returning, and I'm really happy to have him here, especially at this time. Dr. Matthew, Raphael Johnson. How are you doing today, Dr. Johnson?

You know, I'm happy to be here, too. You're very good at what you do, and you know how to handle guys like me in terms of questioning and responses. So I always look forward to this. And I'm glad you contacted me again. I'm doing okay. I'm doing all right. Good. I appreciate that. And let me, sometimes interviews, you can just throw softballs out there, underhand pitches. First thing I wanted to do was I wanted to get your take on the current, the current goings on in Palestine. Well, I've been a student of nationalism, my entire adult life. Usually what happens in my personal life is when I go away somewhere, there's usually a massive political event.

Even back to 1990, when the Gulf War started, I was on a cruise somewhere. My parents. My honeymoon was when the Russia war started. The first day, we leave to go down south, this war starts. This has been going on almost every time. So I was just wondering which event's going to occur this time. I wasn't disappointed.

Don't forget, the Israelis just spent quite a bit of time over the summer leveling much of the West Bank. And I know that there's a theory out there, which I'm willing to be wrong on because it's so early, but that Israel was well aware of this, knew about it,

and almost encouraged it and they list a whole bunch of reasons. And I think it's a bit too early to jump to that conclusion because I think if this really was planned, it was an idiotic. It's an idiotic plan. It's true that Israel would occasionally lean to Hamas, just like they used to lean to Iran, for the sake of dividing their opponents, although even that failed. as of right the second, I'm of the opinion that whatever temporary use Hamas may have had in challenging the Palestinian authority,

Israel was really caught in a security breach in this case. There's actually very good reasons to believe that. But even if, you know, there's money that's been funneled to them, that's true, although it was from Qatar. and Netanyahu has made statements that suggest, you know, some years ago that Hamas was something that was useful. That's a far cry from saying, A, that it was the creation of Israel, like ISIS was, and the way that ISIS and Hamas operator

are two completely different things. ISIS is most certainly a Western creation. Hamas is constantly a thorn in Israel's side, largely because it's so well off. It doesn't need Israeli money. It doesn't need Israeli support. So I've been irritated. And right now, even like Paul Craig Roberts is talking about this, only in the most tentative way. I have a few issues with the general theory. And then the main one is that it takes away any agency or competence from Hamas. These people have been fighting the Israelis every single day. for now decades and decades. It's like they've learned nothing. You know, they can't figure out

that there's an Israeli side to this. They can't figure out the weaknesses in Israeli security. You know, they're like prisoners in a federal penitentiary. All they do all day long is look for weaknesses in the guards. And that's exactly what happened here.

You know, even though Hamas is occasionally useful for Israel, there's no way Nutnyahu thought this was going to unify the country didn't there is no way he thought

that he's going to use this to take Gaza which he won't and some of the arguments at least so far are very weak I'm the first one to look at all the anomalies

in this like a 9-11 the Arrow Air flight the story which I broke 1285 the US's Liberty for the 80s and you know

the argument are right now still tentative. My God, Hamas is so advanced that they even have their own rocket factory. And it's really tough for Israel to do much about it because they're often in populated areas. And since when does Israel need an invasion to level an occupied territory? Last time, all they needed was a few rockets. Now they needed an invasion. I think the Israeli casualties are now 2,500 or something like that.

Military they're admitting there's something like 500 right now. there's no way Israel can occupy the Gaza Strip. There's no place for these people to go. It would be 10 times worth the Northern Ireland was for the British. But the divisions among Palestinian are normal. It's like in the Jewish case. And the comments that Netanyahu made would automatically imply that in any kind of invasion, they would blame him, which is exactly what they're doing.

Right now, 80% of Israelis believe that Netanyahu is. is incompetent, if not behind it, then certainly did nothing to stop it. So if his real goal was to unify the country and all the rest, guarantee American assistance, well, there was guaranteed to that anyway. He was really bad at it. The truth is that, you know, Amas is not to street thugs. Their main mission is to take all the social services. They are the main, if not the only social services provider on Gaza Strip.

They're very literate. They're educated. They're sophisticated. They're very well funded. They have many economic interests all over the Arab world. But, you know, they have these two missions. Feed the population of Gaza and probe for weaknesses in Israeli defenses. And the assumption that they needed Israeli assistance or that they deliberately stood down is I don't think it's true.

But they have no capacity to act independently. But I do believe that this would have, if you're going to attack somebody, you attack them when they're out their weakest. And this, the Israeli society is now so divided. Over the summer, it became mainstream to criticize Israel. So what do they do? They bomb a Gaza hospital. It doesn't make any sense. They don't need an invasion to justify anything.

They don't really need anything to justify anything. I think Israel has assassinated seven major leaders just over the last five years of Hamas. ISIS, of course, is more obvious because they will never attack an American or an Israeli outpuls of any kinds. They only attack enemies of the U.S. But Hamas is constantly harassing the settler population. The level of violence in Israel over the last year and a half, roughly, has skyrocketed. One of the reasons that the Israeli forces were away from that part of the fans was over the Sukkut celebration in the Yitzar region, the northern West Bank. Settler violence is out of control.

So the local military authorities, with the approval of Netanyahu, ordered two of the three army battalions that are guarding that part of the fence to go north to protect the Sukkot festival that's going on up there. Actually, it's a settler festival. And there's been, I think, over the last couple of years, something like 2,500 acts of violence from the settlers around there. But even at the best of times, the Israeli security services are stretched razor thin. You know, the invasion couldn't have come on a worse time. And this doesn't benefit the prime minister. The Hamas has proven themselves just like Hezbollah did. as very competent soldiers.

But, you know, Israel didn't require an invasion to justify leveling Gaza. They haven't over the last 20 years. All they need is a couple of rockets or even do it themselves. Now, Israel didn't consider that everyone's going to know, or it really is the case that he allowed this. Everyone's going to know that. He's made public statements years ago that Hamas was a great counterweight to the Palestinian Authority, even though they've come to an agreement over the last 15 years, they're not constant opponents.

Hamas isn't this rejectionist group like Hezbollah is. So for all those reasons, and the fact that this can go so badly wrong, Hezbollah has now mobilized. A lot of the Arab states who have been financing Hamas for a long time, are turning on Israel, just as their economic empire was going to grow. And I just, at the moment, and I could be wrong about this, but at the moment, I have no good reason to believe that Israel permitted this to happen. After the leveling of the West Bank, that parting award, Janine is,

Hamas was simply engaging in a preemptive attack to keep that from happening to them. I have a friend right now who's in Lebanon, and he reported last week that the IDF was actually firing upon the Lebanese armed forces, which they've never, as far as he told me, as far as I know, they've never fired upon them before. It's always Hezbollah. So what would be, what is the purpose of this, where it seems they have to worry about. at Hezbollah at this time, but it seems like they're picking a fight to go even further. I forget the American general who said Hezbollah had superior infantry to the IDF. Hezbollah defeated the South Lebanon Army. I think that was roughly around 2000.

One of the biggest defeat that Israel ever had to deal with. And Hezbollah was able to establish themselves as a ginormous party in Lebanon. It's difficult to tell so early why Israel, you know, they can't count on American backing. They know that American military supplies, material is at critical, critically low levels. You certainly can't depend on a zombie like Joe Biden and certainly that idiot defense secretary, especially given what's happened in Israel over the last, and say roughly two years. Netanyahu has painted himself into a corner.

He's in an extremely weak position. And now you have pretty much almost everybody, except a handful of Republicans criticizing Israel over Netanyahu's judicial reforms, which I dealt with a while ago. You know, because of this, Netanyahu is not in a position to dictate events. I don't think

any of this ultimately isn't his interest unless he has some secret assurance that the U.S. are going to do something about it. The Turks are extremely upset over this. He forced all allies to become enemies overnight. Does he think that this is going to be one

apocalyptic war? I'm not ready to make that statement yet, especially given his position. And given the death toll so far, I think Netanyahu's political career is over. Something that we talked about before we started recording was just how much of Protestant Christianity in this country just supports anything Israel does, just no matter how horrific at this point.

And I don't want to turn this into a Protestant bashing. But I know you've been on vacation. I don't know if you've been able to look at social media. But it seems like this time more than any other, the huge proponents of Israel, I mean, the cheerleaders, the Zionists, the Ben Shapiro's of the world, they are desperate. And their voices are almost desperate in this while this is happening. And it seems like the pushback that they're getting where you're just seeing so many more people who are so much much more confident in saying, no, not going to fight these Jewish wars anymore. If you're talking about how Netanyahu is not getting the support he needs,

is the American public starting to catch on and say, no, this isn't our problem? Well, the left, which is the same thing as the regime in the West, but maybe earlier this year, I had a severe problem. On the one hand, they're terrified to criticize Jews. But on the other hand, given Netanyahu's policy and his reforms that, you know, destroyed his international standing, he promoted all of these fringe extreme Zionist parties to positions of prominence. That's how the Lakud maintains its, it's very, very thin, kness majority. So that means he's imposing what we would call right-wing, although from a Jewish point of view, religious policies all over the country. And the dam broke, I noticed it early last summer where you had left this from all over the place, condemning Netanyahu primarily because, I mean, he tried to nullify.

You know, it's not quite that simple, but nullifying the separation of powers. and he's trying to keep himself out of prison because he's looking at a serious trial concerning the Israeli media of all things. So all of a sudden, it became very mainstream to criticize Israel. Now, let me give you one example here. I think you probably know about this,

but Marco Rubio, who is a piece of garbage of the first magnitude, I want to quote him directly. He was asked by Jake Tapper. you know who's an idiot he thinks that you know he's asking him is there a way to destroy Hamas without creating millions of casualties there's two million people live there 2.5 million people

and a million of them are children so Rubio said this yeah I don't think there's any way Israel can be expected to coexist or find some diplomatic off-ramp with these savages I mean these people as you've been reporting and others have seen that deliberately targeted teenagers girls, women, children, the elderly. Horrifying things.

I don't think we know the full extent of it yet. I mean, there's more to come. The days and weeks ahead, you can't exist. They have to be eradicated. Now, we expect that kind of stuff from idiots like him. But that's how far away. And of course, a lot of what he said was nonsense. There's a few people at a kibbutz that claim that the IDF was shooting them,

that they were fairly well treated by Hamas when they, when they came over the border. So, but whether or not, you know, this separates coming out and saying what the Zionists, we're saying 70 years ago, that these aren't human,

and saying this in public, saying this on CNN, well, we all know that people like Rubio and that idiot governor of Florida who now wants to ban any anti-Israel social media post. You know, this,

this is not going to be acceptable. And thinking that he could say this openly, because he's reliant on Jewish money, given the context over the last six, nine months, is an absolute disaster. And don't, you know, don't fall into the error that these guys, whether be Hamas, Hezbollah,

are just these thugs who don't know anything. They're first-rate soldiers. The U.S. military admitted that as far as Hezbollah was concerned when they defeated the South Lebanon Army, among many other things. This is a sophisticated operation. They're extremely motivated. Now, the Israelis are a different story. I don't know if they're so happy about supporting Netanyahu,

the career soldiers versus the reservists, who are totally untrained, by the way, and now having to go all over the place, protecting settlers from Arab violence. you know again it's put not just Netanyahu but Israel and Zionism in a terrible position if this is something that Rubio is going to yell at Jake Tapper. It definitely seems like there is a message out there of you're either 100% on the side of Israel and any kind of, if you have taken any half measures, if you equivocate it all and you,

like when people bring up World War II and the Germans, if you start talking about Holodomor, they start losing their minds. It really seems like at this point, they're going so far over the top with, if you are not 100% on board with Israel, you are an anti-Semite. You want to say,

see another Holocaust and, you know, they're comparing this. They're saying this is like their 9-11 and they're doing things like using per capita numbers. Oh, if you take the amount of people who were killed in the first day and you compare it to the population, it's way worse than 9-11. The desperation, I think, is very clear. Well, when when Israel used white phosphorus in the Gaza Strip from 2000, 2004, 2008, 2014, all the wars I'm forgetting about over there, it turned the place into an open-air gas chamber. You know, if you've seen pictures of burns from white phosphorus. No international law doesn't mean anything to me or to anybody, but that is chemical warfare if it's used against civilian populations, which is exactly what they do.

Now, when the settlers started killing kids, now they've been doing that for a long time, but recently, it's gone. gone through the roof just over the last five years. Let's make sure everybody understands that when you say settlers, you're talking about Israelis. Well, yeah, yeah, a settler with a capital S. I'm talking about the most militant Jews who go into Arab territory and set up, you know, they don't work. They don't do anything.

Set up a camp, which automatically means that the Israeli military has to surround it, protect them from millions of Arabs, which is a terrible job. And because they're so militant, to me, they're simply stealing land. They usually move into Palestinian homes that they've thrown out. They are the most militant. And they've been an embarrassment for Israel except for now because they, now, these parties that are allied with Netanyan, they're all settler party. That is the most obnoxious.

But when they kill kids, nothing was ever done about it. because the chief rabbi, I don't remember if it was the Escanazi or the Sephardic one, said, look, the Talmud says that we all know these kids are going to grow up to be enemies. And they even cited a passage saying you can kill kids if you're certain that that's the case. And that became mainstream for a while. I can't believe people are talking about the Talmud who never heard about it before because of that. It's really hard. They're pushing to the point where, and of course, yeah, the black and white thinking, that's been their issue for a long time. The entire country is based on mythology and lies and terrorism.

And the Talmud is the perfect set of books if you want to justify this kind of thing. Now, people will say that this war is a Nanyahu's interest because they rally around the flag. But that didn't happen. People are blaming him. People are, hate him now more than ever. And these war crimes in God, so just like the West Bank a few months ago, are so blatant in public. Nothing here benefits him.

I mean, he couldn't have considered how badly this can go. He knows exactly how advanced Hamas is. This is not something that he can easily handle, especially in the fall of 2023. Israel's tearing apart at the seams as of a few months ago. None of this benefited him. And he had to have known that at some level. I just think Hamas said Israel is in serious trouble. The U.S. is bankrupt, of course, but doesn't have the military equipment like they used to.

Stocks are so low. And given what's happened in the West Bank, maybe this is a time. They're very popular in the West Bank. they win every election. I'm sorry, the Gaza Strip. They completely rendered Fatah irrelevant, even though now they're semi-allies or they were before the war. Stockpiling weapons or either from the sea or from Egypt. They've been doing that for so many years. They're experienced guerrilla fires and all this nonsense. The minute they start using rhetoric like that, 9-11 with us or against us, you know, Holocaust nonsense, you know, they have a very very, you know,

very bad caves. And you're starting to see Protestants all over the place, converting at least to some variant of a non-Zion, not an anti-Zionist, but a non-Zionist point of view because of the acts of Netanyahu in numerous areas. When you mention that settlers are killing kids, what somebody is going to come back and say is that somebody from the Palestinians, someone from Hamas is up there, they're throwing rocks, they're doing things. And then when the Israelis fight back, they hold up kids in front of them. Basically, the whole Hamas uses children and civilians as human shields. Can you address that? I don't think these people realize what's happening here. The campaign against the West Bank over the summer, and certainly the Gaza Strip,

you have millions and millions of people living in a very tiny area. Human shields are just a part of the, part of the job. There's nothing you could do about it. It's not like there's tons of empty space. These guys operate. I mean, this is exactly what the Ukrainians were doing in the early years of the, early months of the war in 2022. That's why they took up positions in the cities.

But that also implies that groups like this have no problem with murdering their own kids. And in the past, even if that's happened, me, the Israelis have done it too. The Israelis, and even in the Goldstone report, Israelis were using Palestinian children to keep, to draw Palestinian fire away from them. And so this is a certain level of projection, but it implies that these people are, you know, willing to kill their own kids. And it's not to the extent, it ever was used. It's not particularly successful. And it makes them look terrible. And winning over hearts and minds has been a central, at least for both Hamas in the one hand and Hezbollah and the other. Not so much the PA, but the U.S. finances the Palestinian Authority for a while, especially in the media realm. You know, this, it implies that the American media, which is almost completely Jewish, is reporting these things accurately. the Israelis have killed thousands and thousands of children over the years to think that they would just have no problem sacrificing more is nonsense

that would destroy the political foundation of these groups and you know Hamas livi's taxes you know they have strong institutions all over the gansa strip they need and they're considered the most non-corrupt organization in the you know in in the occupied territories which is why they They won the election in 2006 and maintained control and became very popular. I think the Israelis see Hamas as an asset only in the sense that because they handle all the social services, they keep a lid on the anger. The rage is always going to be there. But the anger that will come from starvation because turning off the water and turning off the electricity, that's pretty normal.

Israel does that all the time. They don't need an invasion to do that. But there you have, especially with white phosphorus, a war on children. And settlers, again, these aren't countries. In fact, I'm not entirely sure what the administrations and the West Bank or the Goddustrip are. They're ruling entities of some kind or another. Israel, on the other hand, is a well-off country. However, with just a few million people.

Everybody is being mobilized today. So you automatically have asymmetric warfare. You know, people talk like, you know, Israel, Hamas is like two countries fighting each other. No, it's more like the U.S. Army attacking a Starbucks far more than two countries. There's no countries there. The institutions are rudimentary and require popularity. So the human shields nonsense, that goes back to the Iraq war and all the propaganda, beheading babies, all that stuff. The World War I propaganda is still being used today, knowing for well that people are stupid enough to buy it.

Some will say, and a lot of people have been saying that why should we be worried about water and electricity being shut off? these Palestinians, these people in Gaza, they're terrorists. They're all they exist to do is to kill Jews. And they basically are in line with the worst Wahhabists on the planet. And that is, I've seen Christians, evangelical Christians, saying that that is the excuse that's needed to just turn it into glass. And that these people, they're not, people are saying that they're not human. So if they're not human, you know, we know people who have been deemed not human before.

And then you can do anything you want with them, people that's done by many sides in history, especially in the 20th century. all these people are terrorists there as soon as they're born all they're taught to do is to hate Jews and to want to kill Jews so why would we why would we let them live so are they are they asking me to defend their humanity um i i mean i don't think that these people believe that they're human so i guess The question I would ask you is, are these people brought up to hate Jews, to become terrorists, and to, you know, basically be a net negative on that area and the world in general? Because right now, the West is most, a lot of people, especially on the right and on the hard right, are most concerned that these people are going to end up having to be evacuated and they're going to end up in Western countries, and we're just going to see an increase of what we've seen

in England and Sweden, Germany, France, places like that. Well, that's an entirely separate issue. The IDF, you know, what you're saying, and I know exactly what you're talking about, and who these people are, but that's been the official IDF, the official Zionist point of view for decades. There's nothing new about that. The Lakud was based on the Urgun. One morphed into the other.

That's been their militant point of view for a very long time. And certainly their policies reflected. The use of the word terrorists, of course, is something that wasn't used nearly as much decades ago. It has an emotional punch to it, but it doesn't really mean a whole lot. They don't have to be brought up to hate. Jews. They just do. They're living in a refugee camp for generations with very little in terms of a functional economy constant blockades by the Israelis. Those people see everything from the Israeli point of view. We sometimes don't realize just how absurd that is. They also don't realize

that these areas contain maybe 5% Christians. And certainly they do in Jerusalem. Orthodoxy know, Marianite, they just think that they're just one big mass. And that's what comes down to dehumanization. It's like how the regime destroyed American farming by calling them rednecks and Hicks. Complete utter dehumanization. And it makes it easier to control them. Same thing. The Soviets did that to the peasants rebelling against them.

That they're savages, that they're never going to be reconciled. And therefore, they have to go. but a materialist can get away with that. And on top of it all, I think that there's any ethnic or religious connection between the group of, you know, Poles and Russian Turks who moved to Israel starting in the 1920s or, you know, Palestine as far as 1920s. And the Israelites of old is laughable. You know, they talk about our people as if, you know, how inbred they would be if this is the same group of people over time.

They're not that many of them. These people have no right either theologically or ethnically to be there. It's two totally different groups of people. You know, all the empires are the societies that adopted Judaism long after Christ, not just Qasaria.

But again, that's also going too far afield. It's really a tough one to answer because you're not really used to deciding whether or not someone's human. That's really hard to that's really hard to quantify. But the easiest way to talk about it is everything here is seen from the Israeli point of view.

And you notice it's only where the Jews are concerned that these issues are justified. It's not justified anywhere else. You know, it's like you could slaughter Germans after World War II on Mars. But because it was in the service of Judaism, it's okay. Anywhere else, that would be a huge problem. So you're talking about the special pleading

that's institutionalized amongst American academics and journalists. Your neighbors aren't reading your memes. If you want to counter demoralization where it counts most, your community, you're going to have to bring it into meat space. Get your counter-propaganda gear at mostly peaceful.com, made especially for people who did have breakfast this morning. Mostlypeaceful.com has merch for the dissident right, recovering libertarians,

and your based uncle who knows. about them 20 years before you did. Featuring apparel, hats, and stickers, it piss off all the bad people and make the right people laugh. There's plenty of Uncle Ted stuff, Kildozer, Waco and Ruby Ridge. There's even a Rhodesia designer, too. Most of it has been banned from the big marketplaces and led to PayPal and Shopify suspending accounts. If you're more Bill Cooper than Alex Jones, more Pinoche than Prager You, stop at mostly peaceful.com and start shirtpost. Use code Pete to save 20% off your order. This message was not approved by the ADL or SPLC. Something you mentioned there, if you can expand upon that a little bit, is what I grew up hearing was what's going on over there has been, is 5,000 years old, has its roots in 5,000 years, and no one's ever going to solve it.

And when you step in and say, really, it's less than a hundred years old, people look at you like you're crazy. So is this an ancient blood feud? I think you've already answered that. Or is it something that is just basically you came here and pushed us off our land. And as I've been saying lately, I mean, they pushed them off the land. They pushed them off the land and then they let them stay there. which seems to me that you keep your hostages right there and they're always going to hate you and to me that lends credence to the theory that the reason they keep them there is because

if they have somebody right next to them that's hating them and always attacking them they can keep up with this victim um consciousness that they've that they have built before World War II, but definitely since and has gripped the West since World War II. I can't fathom the level of ignorance someone has to have in order to make an argument like that. It just requires almost a knowing, blocking out of just mountains of information. Because of the nature of censorship,

whether it be on the Jewish issue or anything else, Normies only get a very small percentage of the actual data available for any question. So much is blocked out. Entire points of view are blocked out. And as you probably know, the EU, I know a few governments in Denmark and I think Germany are banning any references to Hamas except as savages, which has become the norm now. But to think that these are the same, I mean, Islam didn't show up until the, you know, until centuries after Christ. So I don't know how that fits into it.

I've written extensively on the connections between Jewry and Islam in its formative years, even when Muhammad was still alive. He was heavily influenced by Jews in his area. There's such a mixed area where he's from. But very few people know who the Khazars were. And I think at this point, I've had to defend that thesis a few times.

Arthur Kessler, among many, many, many others, the explosion of the Jewish population in starting of really the turn of the first millennium comes from the conversion of the Caucasus peoples and the Khazar Empire to Talmudic Judaism as a way to differentiate themselves from the Orthodox in the one hand and the Muslims on the other.

And it was very much a trading, slave-dealing, merchant economy that was finally smashed by the Kievan state, not too long before the turn of the first one in. That's the group of people that flooded Europe. They don't speak Hebrew. They speak Yiddish, which is an amyglam of Turkish and German, some Slavic words in there. You know, when the Israeli settlers first started to come to mandated Palestine in the 1920s, And afterwards, they had no conception of Hebrew.

They had to relearn it. Everyone who goes there has to relearn it. It was a dead language by that point. Everything about this is completely artificial. The Talmud, as I think many of your listeners know, is the total negation of the Old Testament. It's a pagan, idolatrous sect. But the connection between what we call Jews and the rabbis, who are Talmudas, even in the Middle Ages, when someone was referred to as a Jew, it was automatically a Talmudic Jews,

like the Samarans, whatever, car rights were not included in that. And it's because of the mythanthropic ideas found in the Talmud that, and of course, as I already mentioned, it's being used to justify the killing of children. The hedges around the law, the legalese that Jews were able to accomplish in justifying policies that could be tolerated nowhere else derived from that Talmudic mentality. It's a huge set of books, and it is the core of Judaism. And I've been through tons of it many, many, many times. But it is the core constitution of the IDF.

And so they have no problem engaging in everything that Americans think that the Muslims do. And that's how we know that this is a totally different group of people here. They have no roots in the area. Now, up until recently, there was the New Khazaria movement, which is supposed to be in eastern Ukraine. Of course, that's over now. You had hundreds of settlers from Israel going to Ukraine. The very largest synagogue complex in the world is in eastern Ukraine. This was going to be the core of a brand new civilization because Israel was just unworkable.

and the IDF paid for a lot of this stuff. A lot of the Jewish oligarchs in Ukraine created this. They even call themselves Kagan's, you know, the former title of the Khazar Empire, leader of the Khazar Empire. And but now the war has destroyed that in Russia. So now they have to double down on the Israeli thing, which is why Jews were so obsessed with the defeat of Russia in the in the war. Although Israel was iffy, one way or the other, given. the nature of the Kiev government. Jews despise both sides, in other words.

So these are the people who showed up in the 1920s. They're not the same people as the Israelites, not, theologically or ethnically. And previously you had mentioned, you said the term Ergon. And something that I've been talking a little bit about lately is the fact that Israel, the people in Israel right now, the leadership, They decry terrorism. They, you know, call it, how could you possibly target civilians?

And I think that maybe there's a topic we can talk about in the future and just touch on right now. But I think most people don't realize that a lot of terrorism and targeting of innocence was carried out by radical Zionist groups and Irgun was one of them. In other words, the foundation of the Zionist state was terrorism. That's absolutely true because Britain still had its empire after World War II briefly. It had many investments in Arab areas. And after the war, the Zionist movement, which is very wealthy, started to pour into mandatory Palestine, controlled by the British post-19. post-Ottoman empire and it caused riots

it caused extreme violence they came here very arrogant they you know created their own little economic world and committed violent acts constantly the British were in a terrible position

because you know they didn't want to alienate all the Arabs they didn't want to alienate their own Arab populations and their influence over the economy. They didn't want to piss off the oil producing areas. And a handful of Jews with really nothing really for them to live on except subsidies was a disaster to them. But that's where the terrorism against the British came from. Terrorism against the Arabs was day-to-day.

Terrorism against the British, this is an empire that just bled itself in defeating Hitler. And that isn't sufficient because they didn't move quickly enough in subsidizing their new state in the Middle East after the white paper of 1939 saying that it's probably not, given there so many Arabs. But as the Jews continued to pour into the area, they formed organizations. The Haganah was the main one. And that was a more mainstream one. But breaking off was the Urgun and the Alehi. Lachia actually was talking about an alliance with Germany for a long time

concerning the transfer agreement but Urguin was much larger and let's say in 1945 the height was 1946 you had a tremendous campaign of terror against the British it just never

ended and it culminated in the explosion at the King David Hotel in July 22nd of 46. And, you know, it's not only the killing of people, but they destroyed the infrastructure there. The Jewish militants had, you know, the night of the bridges, the night of the airports, night of the trains. And all of this was the destruction of those institutions. that existed probably from the British and mandatory Palestine.

So they were going to render it impossible to live there, knowing full well that they could be subsidized from abroad. There was no lack of money. You know, the Rothschild family really bought much of that land to begin with and financed it. The Jewish agency, which was the main Zionist organization, wasn't happy with any of this. But even, you know, people like Yitzhak Samir, who was prime minister of Israel in the 90s, Was a part of the, part of the year good. And the King David Hotel, you killed roughly 100 people, civilians.

That was the document center of mandatory Palestine. And there was no warning given, although they claimed that. And it really, it drove the Jewish agency or the Zinus agency insane. It was a terrible thing. People didn't even know what happened. But they justify it. They had this plaque a few years. years ago back when Samir was still alive. That said, for reasons, only unknown or only known

to themselves, Britain refused to heed any warnings that we're going to blow this place up, which is, of course, absurd. If there were such a warning, it would have been removed. This was a center of British government in the area. But this became the most famous, but they were doing this anywhere they could. They killed hundreds of British soldiers, and God knows how many Palestinian Arab civilians and their cause of course was establishing a state there

pure, purely Jewish ethnically racially pure and attacking the British because they weren't too keen on just Jews pouring into the area because as they well knew that would make it ungovernable and they had to deal with millions of Arabs

and a few thousand Jews but that was perfectly acceptable to the to the initial crop of Jewish settlers from the 40s to the establishment of Israel in 1948. So, yes, it was founded on terrorism. It was founded on genocide. Israel is the first state that you can claim was based on the obsession with ethnic and ritual purity at the expense of everyone else in the area and certainly at the expense of the U.S. Yeah, the old ditty about a land without a land without a people for a people without a land.

That's a good piece of propaganda that you will still see non-Jews defending them with. Well, to this day, Jews are divided. A lot of the old Orthodox are anti-Zionists because they claim that, only in Messianic times is Zionism possible. Now, they differ on whether that's the case now or not. But especially as the war against the British continued in the mid to late 40s in Palestine, you know, the issue was just so overwhelming that it didn't make any difference. terrorism was the central conception.

They don't call themselves that, although the Yirguyen actually did call themselves a terrorist organization because in the mid-40s, that didn't have the connotation it does today, they deliberately targeted civilian areas, not just British soldiers. But at the time of the war in Palestine, probably still a minority of Jews believed in Zionism.

that changed a bit later. You're always going to have that hardcore, especially the ascetics in Jerusalem, who absolutely despise the Zionist entity despite being on welfare from them. So, maybe 30% of Jews were very interested in Zionism at the time.

The U.S. was run by Jews. Very pro-wills were from the beginning, although the oil companies were iffy about it for very obvious reasons. People like James Forrestall really counseled against the partition plan which would have created Israel as an ethnic unit, which, by the way, you know, in and of itself,

I have no difficulty with. Of course, what I have difficulty, I mean, I'm anti-Zionist and only in the sense, not that they don't have a right to self-determination. Every ethnic group has that, the racial group has that. It has more to do with the lifeline to the United States that countries that didn't have to be enemies became enemy because of the arrogance of the Zionists in the area.

You know, you just simply plot a group of foreigners in an area populated by millions of Palestinians and expect nothing to happen. No, they were quite willing and able. They were armed. They were armed in Europe and they were armed in the Mideast. And terrorism, violence was at the core of Zionism still is. You mentioned James Forrestal there and he, you know, he. His death is rather suspicious.

Well, he was one of the last holdouts in my paper on the Soviet support of Zionism. I talk about the threats that were made against him. And it was, it wasn't, you know, Felix Frankfuruk and Morgenthau were the three people that were pressuring the U.S. government. And they had connections with the Rothschilds. They had connections with the Zionist movement. and they threatened Forrestal. Actually, it was Baruch, who said if you don't, actually, it was February 3rd, 1948. Baruch confronted him because Forrestal said we can't alienate all these people.

The people who were invested heavily in, yeah, of course, the West controlled all the oil wells, but they could still be burnt. He said, you know, America's going to be perpetually at war with the Arab states. if the U.S. supported Jewish interests without any reservation, which of course the Zionism is based on

whether or not it could function without the U.S. is a different story. So Forrestal went to the Secretary of State, Marshall, and said, let's bring this straight to

Harry Truman. And the State Department at the time said that the plan for dividing Palestine is impossible. It would require genocide. But Forrestall was identified by the various Jewish organizations as the main hindrance to the U.S. backing of

Zionism. Despite the lavish Soviet support, especially diplomatically, of the Zionist movement in 1948, the Soviet Union was in no position to finance the Israelis. They had lost everything in World War II thanks to Stalin. German invasion was preemptive. But on the third, Bernard Baruch confronted him and said, if you didn't shut up, and the quote is, your own interests will be now under threat. That's a direct quote from Forrestle himself, and it frightened him to such an extent that he refused to talk about it again. Still didn't save him, though.

He knew and said the Zionists were on a mass murder spree in the Mideast with no real repercussions, but those who support that are going to pay the price decades on. And he was absolutely right. Yeah, one of the things after 9-11, when terrorism really became an issue for Americans, and they started looking into, people started asking the causes of it. And from a purely research point of view, it seems like terrorism happens, and especially like suicide bombings happen in occupied lands, when a land belongs to somebody and then a foreign entity occupies it. And that's not what happened.

That's not why Irgun and Lehigh were, they weren't terrorist organizations responding to an occupation. They were terrorist organizations. They were the aggressors. They were doing this so that they could achieve their goals of moving people out and taking over. It was basically the complete opposite of a lot of what the kind of terrorism that we've seen since then. Well, you know, there's an argument to be made. The Twin Towers were they had many police agencies, insurance companies who underwrote military equipment.

CIA, FBI had offices there. This was the economic core. I think, I don't think these handful of Saudis had anything to do, anything to do with it. I think much of their claims are impossible. But what happened on that day is a drop in the ocean compared to what's been going on, the Arab population in the Middle East since really the 30s, let alone 1948. In order to create an ethically pure Israel, everyone else had to be pushed out. and that generation is probably all gone now, but they were quite proud of the slaughter of Arabs.

So you had to start off with the idea that we are the aristocratic people, where the only people with a soul, which is a Talmudic idea, not themselves, and everyone else is just mud, which is the exact word used. You know, the famous Goyim or cattle. That's what they are. They're occasionally useful, but they're not on our level. You have to start off with that mentality. to I mean no one was talking about the so-called Holocaust at the time that rarely came a persecution did but in general that that didn't come up it was this this conception of you know this generalized persecution in the one hand and this belief that they had and some racial and even metaphysical right to be there regardless of their totally foreign nature compared with the Israelites so that's how you have the thing

in order to do this, your point you make is a really good one. One of the reasons that Stalin was a scientist, called himself a Zionist, and supported the Zionist, is that it was special pleading for the USSR, who, by the way, suffered far more than the Jews did. Everyone suffered. Belarus lost half its population. And it certainly could be applied, so-called persecution, to what Stalin did his entire career and it serves Soviet diplomatic interests well because it allowed them to take any attention

away from their own crimes, which is part of why the Soviets created the Nuremberg trial. And so the initial mythology for the creation of the Zionist entity comes from Stalin's Middle East Department and his version of the State Department, especially. Andre Gormico, who made the main speech, the UN supporting partition. They Soviets didn't care. Even Goldemeyer was quoted later saying Soviets didn't care about the Arabs. Soviets were going on about how Jews are naturally socialist, the heart of the socialist movement. And therefore, we're going to support them wherever they go.

The reason that they couldn't support mass immigration from, say, the Soviet Union or Poland, whatever, is that government offices, we collapse. These were so top-heavy with Jews, both in the USSR under Stalin as well as in Eastern Europe, that if they just allowed unlimited immigration in Israel, they would have no country left. So many of the leading offices would be abandoned. Only Romania permitted some immigration into Israel. So that's why ultimately the Soviets cooled on the idea is that we could support Zionism, but we can't allow our best people to leave.

There was nothing Russian about the USSR, just like there was nothing Polish about the People's Republic of Poland after the war. So that's the problem there. There's no doubt that Stalin, who was the first to recognize Israel, even when the arms embargo was imposed on the, in 1948, Soviets continued to send weaponry. usually through Czechoslovakia. They had no problem doing that.

And even people like James Forrestle were aware. An arms embargo is just going to mean that only the Jews get weapons, which is part of why that came into existence in the first place. You mentioned that Stalin said that he believed the Jews were naturally socialist. And, I mean, when you look at the Bolshevik party, even in books written by like Schlesgen, you see the over-representation. there.

There's, maybe you could address the, the trope that we hear now that one of the reasons why you have to support Israel is because they're the only quote unquote democracy in the region. Is Israel the only democracy in the region? Has Israel ever been a democracy? Well, it's a state based on race. and ethnicity, which in and of itself, I mean, democracy is not used as a synonym of representation. Representation or representative government and democracy are two completely separate things. In fact, there are war with each other.

Part of the reason why so many liberals and leftists around the world came down so hard on that Yahoo, when he tried to ban, you know, impose a much older law on the people of Israel who are generally liberals, was that he and then when he allowed himself to be able to veto Supreme Court decisions among many other things that argument fell apart it is a common argument of them

uh well Lebanon was had a multi-party system Turkey had a multi-party system Syria does contrary to mythology Iran does you have to be a Muslim but there's many parties in there there's more parties in

in Syria than there are in the U.S. certainly more parties in Lebanon than there are in the U.S. With their proportional representation system, because of Netanyahu's complete destruction of the separation of powers, which is why so many, even soldiers, were refusing to follow orders, including today, that argument, which is so, you know, faculties to be laughable, facile, they can't make it anymore.

It used to be their big stupid comment that there's two major parties, therefore it's free and yet it's a highly regimented state because it's unnatural it's a it's what leu moumlev called a chimera uh it's foreign based foreign people based in a foreign land and a foreign ideology that has no connection to the region the entire thing is is doomed to fail um and but when i say that you know we know the soviet uh the bolivic movement was at its upper levels, almost exclusively Jewish. The American ambassador to Russia during the war said that.

The British ambassador said that. You had so many, you know, listing there were 375 people in the main institutions when they moved to Moscow. About 300, 325, that 375 were Jews, almost always from the upper classes, upper class merchant families that many of them change their name and the Bavarian People's Republic which is one of the things that provoked the National

Socialist Revolution as well as the Hungarian. The People's Republic were exclusively Jewish and I have a paper out in the Hungarian situation Stalin got nervous. How come every single one of you is Jewish? Go find somebody and make him president which had no power at the time

And it took the months to finally find a non-Jewish guy. I can't think of his name. It starts with an S. They made him president and then promptly forgot about him. This was under the rule of Bella Kuhn, which is just a Hungarian version of Cohen. It was exclusively Jewish. This is why Hitler said what he said. The Bavarian people's Republic, it was just, it was pieces of Germany were being, you know, Judaized.

In fact, even Winston Churchill said that. It's not, you know, at the time, it was, it was, you know, it was a Jewish movement. And I mentioned that, primarily because people claim that Stalin was anti-Jewish, which is a load of nonsense. I have paper after paper on that. Any anti-Jewish statement in the Soviet Union was possible by at least a 10-year Gulag sentence. But American scholars like to talk about this because it relieves them from having to explain why the entire, almost the entire Bolshek movement in the 20s. was non-Russian. Stalin did persecute the old Bolsheviks.

That's true. But there were mostly Jews. It wasn't a targeting of the Jews. But if you were a Bolshevik in the 20s, hence an old Bolshevik by Stalin's era, you were most likely Jewish. Well, they can't admit that. So they have to create the mythology

that Stalin didn't like Jews, despite the fact that he and his and his foreign affairs department saw the Jews as the core of socialism. And they weren't necessarily even talking about the foundation of the Soviet Union. They were talking about the kibbutzim. They were talking about just the natural, of course, with an ethnic solidarity. So it's special pleading there that it seems to be an already socialist, even Ilya Aaronberg. This is the infamous film director called for the genocide of Germans after World War II.

and the essay regarding one letter. And he said, we're sympathetic to the struggle being waged by the Israeli workers. At the same time, every Soviet citizen understands the problem Israel faces cannot be reduced to the national character of the state. The social structure matters as well. Ehrenberg expressed support for Israel on behalf of Soviet Jews with one reservation. And that reservation was it has to be a people's democratic republic. independent of the West and somehow

devoid of Zionist ideology which would put race ahead of anything else. I'm not sure how Israel can exist without Zionism. But the Soviets were willing to alienate millions upon millions of Arabs

because they burnt down the Lebanese Communist Party headquarters once the Soviets made their speech but because the stereotype was that they're nothing but they're mired and futile superstation they can never be pro-Soviet and they wouldn't mind getting rid of the British from the Arab areas anyway now that changed later on of course and the Soviets became anti-Israel only because they were you know this was this was a an American base now the Soviets and the Americans traded freely

throughout the so-called Cold War. There weren't the enemies that people have been led to believe. But in 1950, the Israelis backed the U.S. in the Korean War, and that drove Stalin crazy. And so Zionism became a big problem. And they couldn't support it, as I've mentioned. They'd lose some of their best people, would be emigrating to that state. Of course, the U.S. just was in a better position to support Israel than the Soviet Union was. couldn't support itself at the time, not without American assistance.

But I think we're in an age where, no matter how powerful Jews are, you can't produce the military equipment quickly enough after the Ukrainian debacle where there's almost nothing left. And then suddenly, you know, make it appear. And I think most of you know that the weaponry meant for Ukraine on the black market has found its way all throughout the world, especially the third world, and Hamas is using something. Also, they claim it may well be true because the black market arms sales has exploded since

February of last year. But that's where we are right now. And that's why the new Qazaria idea exploded starting in the 90s, but at least as far as the war is going on in Ukraine can't come to fruition. People often say that the reason Israel needs to be there is. because they're the only stabilizing force in the region. Before Israel got there, was it a warring region? Was it a region that was that something was brewing there

that could possibly have destroyed the West? Or, you know, I mean, it just, it seemed, when I hear things like that, all I hear is propaganda, all I hear is Hasbara, that, oh, that the whole region was this insanely unstable region, and then all of a sudden these Jews go there, restart up old Israel, and now they're the only thing that stabilizes it.

Yeah, again, that would require, I know you're not saying that, but that would require another just massive amount of ignorance that I can't picture. It's like trying to picture the universe. You just can't do it. The instability. Well, first of all, at the time, there were very few independent Arab states. This was a colonial realm, if not from the Ottomans, then later the British and the French.

The Sykes-Pico Treaty, I forget the year, divided it between the British and the French, had their lines of demarcation, so they wouldn't butt heads. The French were no more excited about Zionism than the British were, at least in the 1940s. And still, I guess there's still a reluctant partner in this. They were against the Iraq war and all the rest of it. The instability became endemic, not just a decolonization, but also because of Israeli policies. And if anything, the one thing that unifies them all is their general support for some version of the anti-Zion in his cause, but because there's so much money coming in and out of that country that it's really hard for some governments to resist it. And after the, you know, 1967 in the wars in the 70s, Egypt just figured they were going to make peace.

Syria never did. Saudi Arabia is now so alienated from the whole thing. They're not going to do it. And in fact, the new leadership there is going to align themselves with the Iranians. Iran is considered now the last standard bearer of the militant response to Israel. The attacks on places like Sudan, Libya, Iraq, going way back, and Syria, it isn't so much that they are going to create nuclear weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons. It's that they were switching over to nuclear power, which are two totally different things.

all of those governments, including actually Lebanon, that Israeli and American interference destroyed, were all on the cusp of first world status. Now, Iran's been a first world country for a long time now, with a far healthier economy than the U.S., which is insane a whole lot. But that was Israel's concern, is to keep everyone poor. That has a lot to do with their policies in the West Bank. nuclear power was proof that these were becoming first world countries. They had a huge scientific establishment. So they invented the myth that somehow you could just make nuclear weapons out of the material used to generate nuclear power, which is false. It's too totally different.

They're related, of course, but they're two totally different plants, totally different systems. And keeping everyone around it impoverished is critical. And that explains the U.S. intervention. that explains Israeli policies in the area. And now, of course, because of the U.S., every place but Iraq has been reduced now back to third world status again. Iran remains more or less alone in this respect, which is why the venom against Iran is going to grow and grow and grow. But now the U.S. is facing war on what three fronts, at least? the Far East, Iran via Azerbaijan,

which is why the U.S. so interested in the Azerbaijan war, and of course in Russia. The U.S. doesn't have the resources for one of these, let alone three of them. The U.S. is so broken and decrepit and bankrupt in all senses of that term that it simply doesn't exist. Is the American, is the regime such that they're willing to destroy themselves for the sake of Jewish domination and Jewish power.

That's the question. I think there's some of the neocons who are, but that's only a very extreme point of view. The U.S. was willing to give so much weaponry to the Ukrainians, which is destroyed immediately, to the point where their stocks hardly exist anymore, making them vulnerable. They're willing to go that far.

All of a sudden, you're talking about nuclear weapons. Where's all the anti-war movements, all the anti-Noop movements, that dominated places like Germany in the 80s. All of a sudden, they've disappeared. The anti-war movement doesn't really exist like it did for Vietnam, but it's a very different kind of enemy then. Since 1990, the enemies have been essentially,

generally speaking, right-wing governments. Well, that's a very different story than fighting the communists that the American ruling class was heavily invested in cooperative with. So because the country was founded on genocide, it has to continue to function and that automatically function on genocide that automatically forces

the U.S., especially Britain to be perpetually at war with the Arab and of course the Iranians aren't Arabs these Islamic states and it's destroyed American interests in the area all for the sake of the Jews. Are they going to go so far as to destroy themselves for it?

I'm not going to answer that. Well, we could keep going on this, but we'll save it for a future date. Remind everybody where they can find your work, and we'll end this. Yeah. You'll see in the description, like you did last time, all the links. You know, I do this full-time. This is not a part-time job by any means.

I've been around for a very long time. I've been doing this since the late 80s. And the links in the description will show where to support me financially in every other way. I have 16 books out mostly in the Slavic, the Eastern European questions, especially the Russian and Soviet questions. And all of that is available here. I'm at Radio Albion and I have the Orthodox Nationalists, which is essentially a lecture series, mostly about Russian-Ukrainian matters, but orthodoxy in general. And then that's on Wednesday and on Thursday I have the daily nationalists, which is usually more, um,

current events oriented. Our founder, Sven Longshanks, is in prison on hate crime charges, even though it's just words that even he didn't even say it. He's in prison in Wales right now. And so we're kind of running a place as best we can. And if you go there,

you'll see a million ways to donate to me to get books. We search for my full name. The only Matthew Raphael Johnson in the world, I think. And you search for that. All this stuff is going to come up. Just don't use Google. And I appreciate any support that you can give. And I do appreciate you, Peter, for giving me an opportunity to talk to some new people.

Well, Dr. Johnson, it's the last time you were on. The first time you were on, the response was phenomenal. And people kept asking for you to come back. So I won't make it so far in between next time. I'll reach out. I just want to thank you for your time today. And until the next time. All right.

Goodbye, my friend. Goodbye. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekinguono show, and I want to welcome back once again, somebody who is quickly becoming a listener favorite, Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson. How are you doing, Dr. Johnson? A little tired, but I really appreciate you having me on again. No problem. This is the episode I wanted to record with you last time, but then everything broke out in Palestine,

so we talked about that. but as we were talking about before we started recording, I consider Vladimir Putin and probably Bashar al-Assad to be the two most interesting and probably powerful when it comes to their positions within their countries and how they rule their countries in the world. And I know that there's no better person to talk to about doing a deep dive on Mr. Putin. And so what can you tell us about Mr. Putin? Well, 10 years ago, I published Russian populace, the political thought of Vladimir Putin, and the Barns Review books, I'll publish that.

And it's sold very well. And it's because Putin doesn't deal a lot with abstract ideology. This is the only political theory book on Putin in existence, or at least in English. and I go through it thematically. Putin is probably, if not the most popular, one of the most popular politicians in the world. He helped rescue Russia from the 1990s, where it had gone from an industrial power to a third world country, losing population, all at the hands of the U.S., to the seventh largest economy in the world. very diverse, very complex. Keep in mind that the energy sector, depending on how you define it, makes up about 9% of the GDP.

So this is a competitive state directed, although not state-owned or state-run, which is extremely important. In fact, Putin's doctoral dissertation concerned that topic in economics on the mining industry, which I read along. time ago. The state has a strong role to play. He was baptized secretly as a young man and, you know, has been orthodox ever since. But it's hard to deal with Putin without understanding the context. In the 1990s, about 80% of the old Soviet economy was liquidated. And while the nominal president was Boris Yeltsin, people like Yuri Guidar and Anatoly Tobias, both Jews, both connected closely with the United States, especially Harvard University, were making policy. So by 1993, Yeltsin had roughly a 10% popularity rating. And because of that, he declared martial law.

The decree on the special order governing the state and all opposition parties were silenced. And the U.S. found this a victory for democracy. His opposition, the so-called popular resistance, I've talked about the coup of 1991 or the attempt at a coup. And one of the big problems is at the time, they didn't have a unified ideology. Now, the Communist Party could count on maybe a third of the vote. But keep in mind that the agenda was never to return to the Soviet system.

but a reassertion of the state system within an eurasian framework. And bizarrely enough, the 1993 referendum with less than 10% popularity, he got something like 60% of the vote. So clearly it was fraud, and USAID actually admitted them. So by the mid to late 90s, Yeltsin knew that if his... his government fell, he's going to prison. And in 93, Yelton shredded the Constitution. And the Supreme Court dethroned him, putting Wutskoy in his plate. And that, and the fact that Putin intelligently, throughout this period of time,

vaguely supported the opposition to the coup. he was able to preserve his political career. Ultimately, in that confrontation between the legislature and Yeltson, you had about 1,500 deaths. No one was ever brought to justice. Yelton controls state media at the time. He was sending them false information, telling them that they're going to be fired unless they shoot first. all of that. And as this is going on, you have the total collapse of the Russian economy.

You had no functional central state apparatus. Warlords had taken over the regions. Of course, Chechnya was going on. And I wrote a paper, you know, Vladimir Putin's war against the oligarchs, Vladimir Zerunovsky, political ideas, and Yeltsin's legacy. And they had Zirinowski. real last name is Edelstein, is this very false opposition. But Yeltsin's people pardon those who were part of the emergency, so-called coup.

In 95, Yeltsin got about 10% of the vote. So his big fear at the time was exposure, even though he was an advanced alcoholic. they hardly had a functional budget tax collection had had collapsed so with 5% popularity in the mid 90s somehow he got 54% of the vote so you're talking about extreme bankruptcy non-functional economy and so much of it bought up by Western investors or simply liquidated and the money sent us with bank accounts or Israel. The oligarchs, as you well know, at the time, were overwhelmingly Jewish, both in Russia and in Ukraine, Ukraine even more so. And once Putin cracked down on them, so many Jews then talking, you know, by 2000, 2001, had fled to Israel.

There's not that many Jews left in Russia anymore. The cost of living went up 3,000 percent in this period of time. Alcoholism went through the roof. And strangely enough, vodka was subsidized by the Yeltsin group, making it artificially cheaper. Four million Russians were homeless. The best and the brightest went to the west. And when you compare, say, Hitler's invasion, destroyed about 40% of the Russian economy. This was almost 80%.

In the few years in the 1990s, under American IMF direction. they lost about a million trained scientists in all fields to the Western world. They pilfered all the scientific conventions and the patents that they had in Russia. I mean, Boeing in 99 had 600 former Soviet scientists at its disposal. So that's the context, not to mention the lost war at the time. Now, they won the war eventually, but the whole military chain of companies. man in Chechnya collapsed. And that was a big part of the problem.

So Putin realized, and of course every Russian in the world, you know, realized that something needed to be done. They were going to carve up the country. They were going to completely colonize it and force it to be nothing but a raw materials provider in third world poverty. So Putin taking over, he was actually appointed. Because Putin didn't support the national Bolshevik coup just a few years earlier. He was able to work in the mayor's office in St. Petersburg.

And then once Anthony Sobchak lost the election there, he went to Russia and went to Moscow. And he didn't talk much about ideology. He was in security services. And that's where his friends came from. In other words, they didn't need the billionaires to finance them. and because of that he had a decent political career although he wasn't much of a you know no one really knew who he was and he wasn't particularly political so right away now you know i want to make something very clear um 2002 2003 i was the only guy to say that Putin is one of us to a great extent at the time everyone the right wing was condemning him as a at the

KGB agent and all that stuff. I was the one I wrote the very first article for the board interview on that on that score. I convinced Michael Collins Piper and Willis Cardo, who I worked for at the time of all of this. And then they went on and convinced everyone else. And that's how Putin became more or less popular in parts of the nationalist movement. but the context is absolutely absolutely everything so now the agenda this has a lot to do with the

Russian populist book I wrote it's helped sold very well I'm very proud of that book I think it's the best book I ever did taking the agenda and extrapolating what ideology it served everyone in the security service was national Bolshevik and Eurasian. Communist Party operated on a semi-nationalist and Eurasianist platform, which I think they had always been. Many Russians at the time didn't connect Bolshevism with Marxism. Many considered Bolshevism almost the kind of national socialism. So Putin's agenda was very simple.

First and foremost, the state had to be rebuilt. It had to be centralized. It had to be put almost on an emergency footing and staffed by Putin's people. And that by itself, you know, the economy resurrected once the state made sure that nothing was going to happen to your investment. Unifying the country. Well, that wasn't all that tough at the time. You're talking about people who had been driven into dire poverty with a Jewish oligarchs, oligarchy that ruled over them.

And the more of those guys he put in prison, the more popular he became. Had he just shot them, he would have been even more popular. These people were hated, and liberalism in the U.S., in the public mind, was associated with this. and you know this was an emergency situation the army and the security services were reformed the international monetary fund was kicked out of the country and he built relations with the east and the south Putin won the war in Chechnya

made sure that a pro-Russian but still Islamic man was elected president of former rebel Putin stopped the flow of American guns and drugs into Russia from Afghanistan and he watched while the U.S. was defeated in Iraq, later on, of course, and now driven out of the country and completely defeated in Afghanistan. Now, you mentioned something when we first started about American politicians wishing they had the legitimacy, wishing they had the popularity

and the effectiveness of Vladimir Putin. And a kind of minor thesis of my book is that this is a form of projection. I'm deadly serious about this. And I say that because their insults, you know, at the time, you know, Bush, Obama, McCain, you know, Schumer was so perfectly applicable to the U.S. that it has to be projection every few months the financial times would predict the collapse of the

Russian economy even though we're living in a collapsing economy right now um opposite you know military opposition or civil war is inevitable when of course they're dealing with a broken military apparatus but throughout all of this his popularity never went below 70%. God of my, I mean, at the time, the average Russian salary was $100 a year, even though they had a lower standard of cost of living. They used to, there were periods of time where government workers were paid in kind. Total lack of any kind of credit, market networks, any kind of infrastructure at all anymore.

So what remained about that, you know, maybe 20%, was controlled by a tiny handful of elites. And Putin threw them in prison, partially because they were actually selling off chunks of Russia to places like Boeing and Exxon Mobil. And this is, I'm still talking about 2002, 2003. So on foreign policy, he's won at all, at all fronts. The American media is the only group that tries,

to say otherwise. He did a brilliant move both in Georgia and in Syria. And of course, the war in Ukraine has been artificially extended due to American support and work within the so-called Ukrainian side and continues to prop up a man probably less popular than Yeltsin, the Jewish actor who's running the place now. So that, in brief, is the context of how Putin functioned in one. You mentioned his doctoral thesis and economics. What else is there in his background that prepared him for this? It's, you hear, every once in all you hear about this great man coming forward and taking over and changing, and actually making change. in the 20th century it tends to have pretty much the same path with the same people fighting against him. But what in his past specifically would give him the not only the ability but just the gumption to do this? Well, it wasn't as if he was a general in the army and he took over in a coup.

Putin was extremely methodical, both in his KGB career. You know, Marx was seen, or Bolivism was seen as a national Bolivism at the time, especially in security services. And he had the foresight to reject the coup from the emergency committee and to get to work, because he was very well trained. He spoke German without an accent, a bunch of other languages. and he started off at a relatively minor position in the St. Petersburg bureaucracy. He learned political economy from experience from the ground up. So by the time Yeltsin had appointed him, New Year's Eve, 99, 2000, he knew the inner workings of the country, the army, what the problems were, and the basic foundation, the ideology that he was going to have to. lay out to unify the country.

And while it's general, and I have some criticisms about it, whatever Putin's ideology is, it's worked. So learning from the ground up, you know, a minor bureaucrat in St. Petersburg slowly moving up the ladder is what made him so methodical, so intelligent and so strategic. Now, I'm not saying that he wanted power at the time, and I think it was a bit of a surprise to him, but because he was from the security services, that training isolated him from the oligarchs, and he knew how to function as an agent and self-defense instructor. He developed the confidence to pull this off politically. You mentioned the Chechen problem.

Now, I've read up on this. I remember when it was happening. Was there, let me just ask the question straight, were Western forces, you know, what we call global American Empire now, were they importing Wahhabism and extreme elements into Chechnya to infiltrate? so that they could have so the kind of violence that could happen that was happening that ended up happening could happen yeah i have a couple of fairly lengthy articles on the chesnia situation like everything else the american press coverage was laughable pretty much the same kind of sloganeering as i do in ukraine georgia was done so quickly they really couldn't couldn't do that in the georgian case you had Israeli citizens

running the military, the defense secretary was, for example. But yes, especially the second Chechen War. And

you know, yes, the Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia and Sudan, they were not popular. And, and, And, you know, so they brought in, you know, the anti-alcohol stuff. Yeah, they were Islamic. Iran refused to support them. But because they grew up in the Soviet Union, it weren't really that strict. It was so bizarre to bring these extremists coming from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

And this is also the reason why Putin made, again, a very popular measure of banning foreign sources of funding for a political group, especially candidates in Russia. So it's an extremely interesting story. The former Soviet Air Force general, Zokar Dudyev, proclaimed the independence of the Chechen Republic. He seized the Soviet weaponry. And this was mostly a civil war. And Dudev was just as unpopular as Yeltsin was. Of course, they didn't. Russians didn't lose the war.

But the second Chechen war was the imposition of Sharia law. And it actually came not just from Saudi Arabia, but also from Sudan. And just copied that legislation and imposed it on Chechnya. Once Dutiev was killed, that just created a vacuum where more severe, foreign-funded Islamic militants could take over. And they suffered ginormous casualties. The second war was a clear victory for the Russians. and whatever the Chechens had very quickly fell apart. They used terror tactics.

They'd have American advisors. They used poison gas. And really the only popular person was Meshkaidov, who was pro-Russian, moderately pro-Russian. And ultimately, you had no solidarity, the Islamic movement. Everyone knew this was foreign. It had no connection to the kind of the secular political Islam. that Chechens tended to accept. So the second war, you know, about 4,000 Russians were killed, along with 15,000 Chechen militants and plenty of foreign fighters.

But by 2009, the remaining cells were cleaned up. And since then, really it was April of that year. That victory was proclaimed and the pro-Russian faction in Chechen politics wins elections very easy. It makes sense as to why. And Russian investment from the center into that part of the world has been pretty substantial. So yeah, foreign fighters, foreign ideology, foreign money, foreign weapons. So just like in Ukraine, that conflict too was artificially extended by the West. Now the first one, the military chain of command had collapsed.

Yelton had purged it so badly that you had utter chaos at the top and no real functional state. And you had al-Qaeda guys there. But even with all that, the American support for it was absolutely unflinching. And because Aswan Miskadov was a moderate, pro-Russian, Islamic with great limit, he won the election right after the victory. And that's what led to the withdrawal of Russian troops from the area. And he was elected with a comfortable margin, but you had many Islamic parties competing.

No one has ever said that it wasn't fair or anything else. So, yes, to answer your question, yes, and it's clearly not the embarrassment that the American media made it out to be. Well, no one can be a popular leader unless the economy is not even booming, just that it's functioning properly. What did he do or what did he get out of the way in order for the Russian economy to come back after the 1990s, which was thought awful? Well, I gave you the first step, and that's to resurrect the state on the basis, not of, I mean, there were always elections, but no one trusted them. That's why I mentioned all the poll numbers for Yeltsin, and then how that translated into votes doesn't make any sense. In taking over the districts, the regions, putting his own men in there with the approval of the local legislature, which was condemned in the West,

despite Yelton trying to do the same thing, created a far more rational structure. Importantly, the export duty on petroleum products was repealed. You know, and against all free market ideology, it allowed the free flow of oil to Western Europe. the U.S. doesn't get very much from it. The auto industry grew massively. These are targeted investments and you had consumer

consumer confidence had returned. Massive increase in the social programs as the poor were being eliminated. You know, under Yelts and pensions were below the poverty line at 25%.

Now, of course, there or as of a few years, ago, it's more than 50% above this line and it's increasing. Just one example. I talked about this at the time. Michael Kodakowski, who was the head of the Israeli head of the Ucos oil concern, he was going to sell those fields which are

monstrous to Exxon Mobile. And that's what why he was arrested. He was arrested on his way to sign the document. You've seen those videos of Putin marching into a board meeting. That's not all public relations. One of the reasons that Western politicians hate Putin is because Putin is very independent. The state is more powerful than any concentration of capital. He ended up nationalizing the Ucos firm. Actually, I was writing his dissertation on the so-called national champions. This was state-directed but not dictated investment.

And these areas, again, like the auto industry. And then he abolished the law. The law was, this is in 2004, the production sharing agreement. And he signed years earlier that put natural resources under quote-unquote international jurisdiction. that means de facto, not de jure. BP and Exxon had tremendous control over not just oil, but natural resources. And this increased his popularity. Russian oil was not benefiting Russians at all.

It went to Shell, BP, the typical groups of people. And by saying that Russian resources belong to Russia, he was automatically marked for debt. So right afterwards, the Russian national budget went up by 300 to 400% very quickly. You know, he was the leader of the national revolution by this point. Between 92 and 95, for example, what functioned as a state was essentially at the mercy of the IMF and foreign advisors. All legislation in the 1990s, including the tax. Act laws were written under foreign grants. About 10,000 foreign advisors were working in Russian ministries and department, especially

economic centers. And all of this, you know, these massive increases of revenue, increasing stability. People were actually listening to the laws. And one of the central things is, you know, of course, I forgot about the flat tax. and by lowering taxes, people who had refused to file before now were filing. And it didn't take long for Russians to realize that you can't get away with anything anymore. Russia was completely taken out of debt. State directed investment was focused on the elimination of poverty.

You had massive increases in incomes. And even, you know, in the midst of the 2007, 2008 crisis in the West, Russia increased pensions and other benefits by a huge margin. Gold reserves, everything else. And this means that life expectancy went up. It was under 50 at one point. In 2010, the birth rate was at least 50% higher than it had been in the past. And that's really just the beginning. economic indicator.

Inflation was brought under control. The ruble was properly functioning. He had very close control of the central bank, and since sanctions was able to essentially nationalize it, and that's how he's making these deals with the Chinese central bank, which is totally under the state. And the impressive thing is that Putin had very little to build from. all of these taxes, all this written by foreigners to benefit themselves, and yet all she had to do is centralized tax collection and the war in Chechnya and rebuild the regions that the economy went off on its own, nationalizing many industries. This is where the sanctions came from.

The plan was to divide Russia, make it a third world country supporting American manufacturers, Western. the Western economy. And by doing the exact opposite of the free market, he resurrected the economy in a way that very few people can claim and in a relatively short period of time. Just like everything else, this was slow and methodical, and the reforms were in place about 2005, as well as the explosion of pensions, of personal incomes,

consumer confidence, exports and imports, and Russia paid off its debt early, which outraged the IMF. And again, that's just the beginning of what's happening here. And it turned Russia from almost at the door of the fourth world like Ukraine is now to, again, depending on how you count it, the sixth or seventh most advanced and complex economy, the largest in the world. So it's a little bigger than Britain, roughly about Canada.

So again, that's the beginning. But, you know, Russia was able to collect a mass of trade surplus, where it was the opposite before, that allowed Russia to weather any crisis. And, you know, real simple, you know, the flat tax was 13% All taxes were eliminated for homes Home improvement

Any investment of a cultural nature Subsidized loans for Small businesses and farmsteads And everyone knew at the time that the carnival That the oligarchs had put in power in the 90s Couldn't possibly last Extremely strict anti-corruption measures All government workers

Have to divulge their assets and any liability before they take office to prevent any conflict of interest. No civil serving can have accounts in foreign banks, especially security services, and any business dealings while an office is forbidden.

Can you imagine that being imposed to anywhere else? And that's because the state was stronger than any combination of privately owned capital in the country. And I think kicking the IMF

out and totally reversing the flow of trade that benefited Russia, these gold reserves, currency reserves are so ginormous. They could weather any storm. By the time sanctions were imposed, Russia had already rebuilt its infrastructure concerning China, Mongolia, India, Iran was a huge trading partner. And that's where the Shanghai Cooperation Organization came from and the Eurasian Economic Union, especially in Central Asia, Kazakhstan. this was slowly unified. Now, of course, China's Belt and Road initiative.

And that plus the Georgian victory, the Chechen victory, brought his popularity through the roof. And ideologically, I would call him a Eurasian because like so many people in the East, no one trusts the West for anything. there is no economy that you could predict positively in any west of the debt is too high the industrialization especially now is extraordinary

and you already have chunks of Europe reverting to third world status Belarus and Russia are our exceptions to this and it's all because of these centralizing policies well you already talked about the Chechen wars the Georgian wars you start seeing the pushback against him. I guess one of the first things that I saw were accusations were being leveled was and I mean this is something that any enemy anybody who stands up to the global American empire gets hit with is that any opposition that he has within the country

he takes care of that he has he has eliminated up to an including citizens. So What's the truth behind that? Well, this has been actually a few years ago, a substantial preoccupation in my case. Right off the bat, if your popularity rating, no matter what polling agency is used, has you at 70, 75%, and it went even higher after the Chechen War ended, I'm not sure why you would have to control any opposition. Like in the Navalny case, no one ever heard of the guy prior to. to what happened to him. He had a few thousand followers on Twitter, something like that.

I mean, he really was a nobody. He was educated in America, spoke English. You'll notice that all these so-called opposition figures are usually totally unknown, and they're all educated in the United States. In fact, I've gone through the color revolutionaries from all over the world, say over the last 10 years, and almost everyone had a degree,

at an American university and in something or other. And when Navalny went to Yale to study law for some reason, that's when he was recruited and then sent back to Russia. I think his party got 3% of the vote. But prior to all this in the legislative elections and all of a sudden now the U.S. created this opposition figure through its media that had nothing happened to him. To this day, no one would have heard of them. So, and not to mention the methods apparently that he uses are so crude and stupid. The guy who is allegedly poisoned by radiation, for some reason, his name isn't coming to me.

He died of a long agonizing debt because that makes sense, right? Putin's going to make sure that this guy who's front-center media dies a slow death because of him. Yeah, it sounds just like him. you know, these are stupid and crude that that would never happen normally. But they needed these headlines. They needed this emotional impact of these stories. So he doesn't have to.

The stories that the media tells are so full of holes that it really is a joke. And as recently, I don't really deal with it anymore because it's the same thing over and over and over again. and everyone forget and then they start over again. It really is a, it's a joke. One of the other things that you will hear,

and I especially heard this last year when after February 23rd was that Vladimir Putin is, and you've already addressed the fact that he makes it so that people who serve in the government can't keep foreign bank accounts, things like that, that Vladimir Putin is a trillionaire, that his daughter, you know, his children live lavish life, lifestyles all over the world.

He's the richest man in the world. He's the biggest thief in the world. And, you know, where do those come from? Well, that's one of the examples I use as a form of projection. Because all of that fits the regime in the West perfectly. If he had that much money, we wouldn't know about it. I mean, he'd be powerful enough that no one would ever find out. Apparently, he was so bad at hiding this money that somebody had uncovered it.

And yet with people like Zelensky, politicians in the U.S., that's exactly what they're doing. They are ridiculously wealthy. Remember the Pandora papers had Zelensky having like eight mansions around the world. I'm sure Putin has never done poorly, but it's absolutely nothing like that. This came entirely out of whole cloth, and it was a way to deflect attention from precisely that kind of billionaire attitude in the West. I do think it's a form of projection. What about another trope? And this one was, I think this one was put out there even more so than any kind of corruption, is that his intention is to invade all of these former satellites and reform the Soviet.

Union? You mean, reforming it, but they don't say to what, what version of it? Yeah, the fall of the Soviet Union led to tens of millions of deaths in Russia. Even Schulteneitin said that in this extreme poverty that occurred in

the 1990s. Yeah, it was a tragedy. By the end of the USSR, most state workers were essentially national Bolshevists or national socialists, you know, for lack of a better phrase, of one kind or another. But this is a justification that the West uses for surrounding the country with military bases,

especially in the Baltics, Central Europe, and in the East as well, completely surrounded. And as they surround and act very aggressively towards Russia, they then project that on to Putin saying that's what he's doing. I mean, the correspondence is one-to-one. It's perfect. I think it's very clear that this is, psychological as much as it is political because you know he's not supposed to be doing that

He was supposed to be you know overseeing a third world country and by using non-market non-capital style methods are very much a national socialist thing just like in China He created this power help he has every right to Try to enforce that he has friendly or at least neutral states on their border And of course, the U.S. is absolutely no different in that respect. Again, another form of projection. I mean, they invaded Grenada in 83. You know, it just didn't matter.

Panama a few years later making sure that every neighbor, a close neighbor is directly under U.S. control. I'm sorry, indirectly under U.S. control, which is why they've been as well. And it was so severe at the time. So all these people are doing, imposing, projecting exactly their, policy on to Putin. They've never explained how he was going to do this. Why would he do this? Why would he deliberately make himself, you know, the Ukrainian case was very obvious as to why he did that.

But so long as there's no aggressive action, you know, these militaries, especially in the Baltics, were created top the bottom by the United States. So I'm not sure, you know, if I'm having the Soviet Union. while the U.S. media like the Soviet Union in the 60s and 70s, this, I used to be not a big deal. There were no sanctions on Soviet leaders. There were no media condemnations, you know, mainstream media attacks. No one's ever been brought to justice as far as what's happened the last, you know, 40 years of the USSR's life. Oh, and by the way, I do have a book dealing with a lot of this called the Soviet experiment,

the Leninist and Stalinist economy, also published by the Barnes Review. So I get into much more, much more detail there. So, you know, that's where I am, and that was established a long time ago. And this is just continuing the policies. When you look at organizations that are forming things like BRICS, some of his associations, like with a, Assad, people like that, people who are the enemies of the global American empire. Are these associations are things like Bricks?

Are these defensive or offensive to go against, to fight the West? Is it a combination of both? What are his intentions in doing this, do you think? Well, from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to the recent expansion of Bricks, Yes, it's to consolidate a strong Asian region that they could, without harming the state, the nations, rebuild an economy without the U.S. dollar. As of now, thanks to the sanctions, and that never hurt Russia at all, quite the contrary. due to sanctions, they totally did dollarize. It's almost a complete process now, at least in Russia, nationalizing the central bank,

usually indirectly in their dealings with China. He has some questionable appointments there. He's far from a perfect man, but compared to him. of the Americans. He's extraordinary. I'm not going to talk about defensive or offensive because they really blend into each other. But to the extent that American institutions,

dollars, militaries, can't penetrate, you will have the growth of nationalism and regionalism in all of these areas. And the greatest fear of the American regime is cutting them out of lucrative trade deals.

But the irrationality of the political class and putting sanctions on anyone and everyone, including India, now for siding with Russia with all this. And needless to say, the events in Gaza, which whatever support the U.S. may have had in Asian Africa has completely evaporated. So I remember he was in Syria by invitation, as are the Iranians. And I have to pick one favorite move of his. It was the intervention in Syria. He knew that the U.S. was allied with Hokkaida there to the extent that that really is a functional group. The U.S. created ISIS from the ground up. Putin said, I guarantee you, when I wipe them out in Syria,

the U.S. is going to condemn me. And it got to the point where the condemnation is about the U.S. was defending ISIS, giving the Russian pilots the wrong coordinates. They bombed nothing, all to protect ISIS. You had prison breaks organized by the United States. I have several papers on that question. So what Putin did is not only if he destroyed this Western finance organization, but he forced the Americans to essentially admit that we've created them. How can you possibly be opposed to me destroying them? And of course, they absolutely were.

It's kind of like the president of the Philippines who won his drug war over the last decade or so, immediately condemned by the United States. He did what you guys are trying to do, and he did it very quickly. But the fact that what they condemn and what they attack, that's really their true policy, not what they say. publicly at home. When you consider the Bolshevik revolution, the revolutions in Russia in the early 20th century and who financed them, people like Jacob Schiff to the tune of what would be considered today, $2 billion. When you look at what's happening now, is it, does this just appear to be a continuation

of this Jewish enmity towards? Russia to do whatever it can to destroy it, even if it needs to salt the earth forever? Yeah, the people who murdered Zarnigalus II were overwhelmingly Jewish and in their graffiti on the walls of the Apatia of the house where they were murdered, raped and murdered actually, you had all of these references to the Talmud, I'm sorry, Zohar, and Tabala. the Jews have this instinctive hatred for Russians and to a great extent Ukrainians because it derives from the concept of Rome. Rome and the Talmud is condemned. This is the Goy government and anything that has that kind of land power, national socialist approach is going to be attacked.

Now the pogroms in late imperial Russia are a myth. most of the people killed there were Orthodox the Jews were very very well armed in the western parts of the empire but in their minds and same thing for the Cossacks this is the poll of resistance to American liberalism which is another way of saying Jewish finance and their hatred for Russia knows no bounds you had all these Orthodox rabbis coming out

protesting in favor of Ukraine in March of of last year. It seems to be an odd cause for them to rally around until of course you understand that because the oligarchy in Ukraine is entirely Jewish if anything happens

to Israel at least the southern and eastern parts of Ukraine are going to be new Khazadia, the successor to Israel, I mean the state of Israel. So, yeah, the same people who created the Bolshevik Revolution in, you know, from say 17, 1920, the same ethnic group who oversaw its dismantling and imposition of Plymouth.

They're both the same. First of all, you know, Lennonism and capitalism are very similar to each other, ideologically at their root. But either way, it's still a looting of the country. Same occurred in 1920. Same thing occurred in 1995, that the Jews were. part of both of them shows you just how close those two systems are. I think the only big difference was that, you know, you have state ownership rather than private ownership, but otherwise their behavior is exactly the same.

Soviets were a little bit cruder. And the Soviet economy was built by the West. Anthony Sutton's huge book on the topic is extraordinary, including its high tech sector. Of course, that could never happen today. The difference is that the only real battlement against, liberalism, the West, and Jewry is nationalism. Soviets were okay. Same thing with Mao.

Mao killed 30 million people. That doesn't matter. There was no sanctions on him. They knew exactly what was going on. So, yes, it's a continuation. Whether it be state-owned or Jewish private-owned, it doesn't make any difference. They functioned in the same way.

And I think, don't quote me on this, but I think the new Khazadea idea has collapsed given obvious Russian victory in Ukraine because Ukraine has long since been a fourth world country. It's about at the same level as Ghana or Mali in Africa in terms of corruption in terms of the economy. No one wants to live there. So when the Russians took over, you know, Chechnya and the eastern part of Ukraine, all these referenda, the point was that even if you were pro-Ukraine in Crimea, you don't want to live there. there. The minute these places became a part of Russia, their GDP, their bank accounts, everything, went through the roof because they switched over to rubles. And with the massive Russo Chinese gold

reserves, the ruble is very safe, despite the back and forth that we've seen recently. It's really rallied over the last month or so. So, you know, the short answer is yes, it's the same mentality, but maybe using substantially different methods. Either way, they were both revolutionary, then both were materialists, they both brought Jews to power, and they both were immensely unpopular. Well, I said I was going to keep you at an hour, so I have one more question, one more topic to touch on here. We're getting reports out of Russia that in the last 10 years, birth rates have gone down.

we've seen encroachment of global homo like LGBT, trans ideology, you know, younger people or some younger people are latching on to that. Is that, I mean, if that is true, I guess the question would be, if that is true, I guess we know where that came from, where that influence was probably very targeted upon Russia, especially Western Russia, right? Yes, remember what the NGO is, the non-governmental organization. These are the arm of corporate capital.

All corporations, big ones, have a tax-exempt organization. And their agenda is always, like Amnesty International. Go to any of these websites and you see who's financing them. Now, the NGO law, which is, you know, old news now in Russia and the foreign financing law makes their operations much more difficult than it had been in the past. So they've had to go in differently.

They've had to be more deceptive in their... And, you know, Russian liberals, you know, liberals in our sense of the word, there's only a handful of parties. Normally they get between 2% and 5% of the vote. There's been a couple times where they have been slightly higher than that,

but always in single digits. So regardless, of what might be, you know, Putin isn't going to kill them all. You know, he would be popular if he did it. But of course, there's going to be something like that there. But now that the Constitution has been amended where this stuff can't take any legal form, you know, in Georgia and Serbia, you've seen these homo parade that had to be protected by an army of cops. Same thing goes for Kiev.

You know, it suits the Jewish interest to a great extent to have their two Slavic opponents, Ukraine and Russia slaughter each other. This is, you know, infest in Ukraine to depopulate it and then move new Khazdia there, although I think that's mostly a, that's mostly a fantasy. All right. Then we'll leave it right there. I will, of course, in the show notes, include what I, links to the things you've sent me in the past. If you want to mention anything else, you can do that right now and we'll end this.

Yes, well, as I said the last time, this is a full-time job. This is definitely not a part-time job. I was a professor for many years, but obviously that was not going to last, especially after COVID. So I sell books, I take donations, and of course my Patreon page,

which I know you've already linked. This is how I make my living. So direct donations from the radio album site are absolutely a necessity for me. and so I appeal to anyone who's gotten anything out of this to throw me a few dollars so I can continue to eat. Well, Dr. Johnson is always a pleasure, and I look forward to doing this again really soon. Thank you very much, and have a good Thanksgiving.

You too, my friend. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekingiano show. Returning, someone who's quickly become a favorite, Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson. How are you doing, Dr. Johnson? Well, we have a beautiful snowy day here in Pittsburgh. I love the snow. I love wintertime. I'm getting over what I think is the second round of COVID.

But I'm feeling pretty good. It was a rough end to 2023. And I'm starting to see some light at the end of the tunnel now. Yeah. Yeah, it's the weather has been down here in Alabama. It's just been rainy lately, but it's staying in the 40s. So if we get snow, then we know that there is something weirds happening. Whenever we get snow around here, it's just like no one knows what to do.

And all the bread and eggs disappear. I guess everybody's making a French toast or something. Yeah, around here, you would think that these people are from Barbados. You know, it gets under 70 degrees and the coats come out. They're cramming the Walmarts. I don't know where half these people are from. All right. Well, let's get into a topic here because this is, you know, you and I have talked about some topics before that are controversial in the mainstream.

This is a topic that could possibly be controversial to most people because this is something that I don't think most people have, most people haven't looked into. And I know that when people talk about this subject, they talk about it as it's a given, as if they know the story, the history has been written. And it turns out it looks like it's court history. So let's talk about pogroms in Russia against Jews. And as you point out right in the beginning of your lovely work that, well, let's talk about the origin of the term pogrom. What's the purpose of that term? Well, I think it largely comes from the Jewish language. It may have Greek backgrounds.

I don't mention that here. In fact, I've never thought about it before. But I like the idea of them using the words to separate violence against them from everybody else. You know, no one claims, you know, it's one of the arrogant claims of the ruling class today is the Holocaust, effected the Jews. it's separate from everybody else and that's a common claim programs you know you don't you didn't hear that word too much back then you don't really hear it now except in relation to this and it's just it it separates violence against Jews from violence against any other group so that's you know that's I think that's that's interesting or at least that's how it worked out in practice people bring up

the the programs in Russia especially in the late 19th century, early 20th century, as a, you know, one of the, one of the reasons why Zionism came into existence, why Zionism had to be created. People had to talk about having their own homeland. And basically what we're told is that, you know, just for no reason at all, people would just rise up and start killing thousands of Jews in certain locations. what does your research say about that, especially when it comes to Zaris Russia? This got started when I first read Zolzhenitsyn's 200 years, because he does bring this up. I hadn't looked into it in great detail before, although this, of course, is connected to the Revolution of 1905 in the January, so-called Bloody Sunday.

this is essentially one in the same one in the same battle um Sultan Eatson says that and he's right to say this that these pogromes began after the murder of Alexander the 2nd uh by one of the combat organizations that people like Tickamedo eventually abandoned um but the violence against the left which just meant violence against the Jews at the time it was very few dead Jews. Now, after his murder, when you use the word pogrom, you're usually talking about maybe between 1903 and 1906, where the newly absorbed areas of Western Russia brought millions of

Jews into the Russian Empire at the end of the 18th century. In fact, I have another paper on Gabriel Dersov, and when he was sent by Emperor Paul I to get to the heart of why are there, why is there violence and hatred against Jews in these areas? These are very wealthy. These are extremely important areas for the empire. No one wanted any trouble in these, in these trade hubs, and all of these cities were.

And so they wanted violence, ended before it began. And of course, Dershavin, who tended to be, you know, at least neutral on the subject, came back to Petersburg and said, well there's some good reason for this. They manipulate the peasants. They hate them. They don't charge interests amongst themselves, but they do everybody else.

They own a huge percentage of the land, more than we ever knew. And that's why the Jewish missions, as they're called, from both Alexander I first and his predecessor, were extremely important why various people know about them. It's rare that you had a lot of Jewish deaths

in any of this. People think that they were just sitting around counting money. No, they had very strong militants both leftists and Zionist militias in every major town in Western Russia. And I'm talking about both Belarus and Ukraine, even in what now is part of Romania. They were heavily armed. There's no, you know, no such thing as a gun law in the Russian Empire. It couldn't be enforced anyway. and most of the riots were started by them.

Any time, and I list from the Russian State Archives, media at the time, example after example after example, where a procession, there was an Easter Sunday procession that was disrupted by them, any rally in favor of the monarchy or any church festival were met by hundreds of armed, Jews who wanted to break it up.

And when you're talking about fairly well-off cities, like Odessa, for example, which was the Jewish capital of Ukraine for the longest time, and the Jewish capital of the Russian empire prior to the revolution, when you have a half a million Jews in a place like this, any public expression of Russian orthodoxy is, to them, extremely offensive. and they were egged on by the press, which I also mentioned. There was very little censorship. The Jewish press was completely of themselves. The leftist press was completely free.

They were incredibly irresponsible, not that anything has changed. And they created a myth that the Russians lost the Russo-Japanese War, which is an enormous myth. Anything they could to whip up hatred against the ground. government, not so much against capital, but against the government. I have, in the Barnes Review, which is I recommend to everyone, I had to cover story a few years ago, I think it was 18 on the so-called Bloody Sunday massacre, which is right here in the thick of all of this, in January 9th of 1905, which was an aborted attempt to take over the government rather than the march for peace and justice,

as it's normally depicted, with no exceptions. You know, we have people, you know, challenging the narrative on the Russian Revolution, all three of them, and we have people challenging the narrative in World War II, but very few challenging the narrative of the pogromes, which still is a huge part of the, elite Jewish mind.

And I came across another article by Andrew Joyce, the Occidental Observer, which was excellent. He wrote this back in 2012. People like John Clear and in Russia, Oleg Plotanov is one of my favorite authors anyway.

And, you know, he, a lot of my information came from him, whether it be the Bloody Sunday thing or the pogrom, essentially this is all part of the same continuum. and overwhelmingly it's Russians and Russian Orthodox people who were killed in these things. The only time you get an exception to them is retaliatory strikes,

which happened all over the place. You know, a bunch of Russians get killed by Jewish militants and then they actually strike back. That's usually when the state comes in and ends it. But the way that the press at the time was presenting it, both in Russia and in the U.S., in Britain, was that you have Jews, you know, totally innocent, probably poverty-stricken,

and black hundreds in the black uniforms show up and start shooting them. They never give a reason. It's just, you know, an early version of the atrocity story. The narrative is exactly the same. I have a quote from Solton-Eatsyn here in that regard, just the rape of underage girls and things that couldn't have happened under the circumstances with the implication that this is the nature of

of Russians to do this. Never give a reason, because the minute they give a reason, it becomes complicated. That means they did something. And of course, there was always a reason, usually now. In this period of time, we're talking about

endless provocation, especially where the church was concerned. And so my paper was published in Barnview, both the Bloody Sunday and the program one. And it got a lot of positive.

of reaction because no one has really tackled it before. And it's a pretty important piece of work for me. Silschenison says, I'm quoting Sultzhenyson here, because I think that when people hear this, if they've been paying attention since October 7th, they'll, they may hear some stuff that sounds familiar in here. Solzhenason writes, in St. Petersburg became frantic newspaper articles, were read about the murders of women and infants. And on numerous occasion, the rape of underage girls, wives raped in the presence of their husbands or parents.

Quoting, one Jew had his belly ripped open and the insides came out. A Jewish woman had nails driven into her head through her nostrils. Within the same week, the Western papers reprinted these. They unconditionally believed the Russian press. Britain's leading Jews completely relied on these terrible articles and incorporated them into their protest slogans. This is, yeah, this is right. This is one of the quotes that got me to start looking more and more close. I mean, Plotanova's work helped me there too.

Plotanov is nothing. I don't remember if I translated this or if this was in English, because not all of that book has been translated as far as I can see. But this is normal. And you mentioned, you know, October 7. You mentioned God knows how many events that are treated the exact same way. And there's not even an attempt to be original. because the accusations are exactly the same

for the last 100 years, 120 years almost and they just fill in the blank with a different country and you're a different person. So the left, when it comes to this kind, I think they rely on two things, number one that rely on deceit. They're aware that they're lying about this. Same thing for Bloody Sunday.

They know that's not what happened, this massacre for no reason. And the other one is public ignorance. Now, you couldn't say so much in Russia because people knew, especially in West Russia, where they live next to each other. But to this day, Russia is this black spot on the American intellectual brain, such as it is. And when you have a black spot on your brain, you end up just filling it with whatever you come across, even subconsciously. Because there's so, even among specialists, there's so laughable ignorance

It's about Russia prior to the, prior to the revolution. You could pretty much say what you want, supporting an agenda, and it's going to go through. The Soviet press, Soviet books were taken uncritically by American. London's attacks on the clergy and everything else was partially based on these pogrom, as if they had anything to do with it. It was such a Jewish movement. The Bolsheviks were so Jewish that any of the pogrom was an attack on the U.S. before the USSR existed.

Any anti-Semitic statement was interpreted by the party as anti-Sovian, as a matter of course. So, and of course, they singled out the black hundreds or the union of the Russian people, the assembly of the Russian people who still exist. And so they could just kind of create these James Bond villains, killing people for absolutely no reason. And knowing full well just how powerful the Jews were then and now. and how these wild exaggerate without any talk about how these things came about,

who started it, how heavily armed were these Jewish militias in all Western Russian cities, and how little, I mean, they blamed the government for this, even though they were the only ones who came in and finally stopped it. This is an empire, not a country, so a lot of politics was local. And even in 1905, you had a provisional government erected in Odessa with very few people know about it. It was more symbolic than anything else. You had a lot of strikes. You had some violence during the Russo-Japanese War at home.

And the strikes were targeted specifically from the defense industry. And they spread the mythology about that war. Same thing about World War I. It was just defeatism everywhere to take any credit away from. from the monarchy. And then in 1906, Tsar signed the manifesto. There are certain basic freedoms that are guaranteed.

And Lenin himself said, this is great. Now we could take advantage of it to overthrow it all. So in environments like this, you know, rumors spread pretty quickly. So, you know, the fact that Jews were the wealthiest group of people in the empire at the time is conveniently ignored or simply unknown. Or people will just say that you're jealous because you're mentioning their wealth.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, it certainly was important back then. But so long as there was no attacks on the system, the monarchy was quite interested in letting that go. Just to make sure that the tax money came in and that these areas were continuously built up. that used to be a part of the of the Polish Empire. But after a while, really from 1905, especially,

Bloody Sunday on January 9th, in the strikes or everything else, they took advantage of a difficult situation to everything that the Soviets did after 1980, 191919, had all these many attempts and experiment, do the exact same thing at the local level. Odessa was one of the more obnoxious versions of this,

where the mayor had the red flag over his departments in 1905. And a few other, you know, Chunk of Moscow did it to typical, you know, typical leftist stuff. And they cleansed whatever areas they controlled, however temporarily, of anything Russian Orthodox. They pissed everybody off. and this is what the Bolsheviks were over that, you know, a period of a generation, this is what their agenda was. And it was so Jewish that they associated the two things normally.

They just go together. So an attack on a Jew is an attack on the USSR. And that's how Lenin saw, certainly that's how Kratky saw it. And the beginning of these policies were formulated in this era. What I see today is when I bring up like woke ideology, Frankfurt School, feminism, these things that have basically movements that are headed up and the minds behind them are Jewish. I mean, this is inarguable. This can't be argued is what a lot of people now will say is, well, no, it wasn't Jews.

it was leftists. I'm like, well, okay, well, what are their names? And it seems like you had the same thing happening back then where it's like, you know, a lot of people listening to this right now could be like, well, if the Jews were doing all of this, you know, if they were responsible for the murder of Alexander II, well, these are just revolutionaries. They're all revolutionaries. These are people who are anti-z-Zar.

They're just revolutionaries. the fact that their Jews are secondary. But it always seems like they, when they're heading up and they're the brains behind these operations. And especially at this time, also the guns behind it, the swords behind it, they're hiding behind something else like revolution or Bolshevism. So that you don't see, you know, I think this is what a lot of people would say today is they would be like, well, the fact that they're just, Jewish doesn't mean anything. They were just revolutionaries. And it's like, okay, well, why are all of these revolutionary movements headed up by Jews?

Well, it's hard to blame them. I mean, if they have a job, if they have a normal life somewhere, they can't be talking like us. And to ease the cognitive dissonance, they have to come up with all of these explanations. You know, at the time, the 1897 census Jews were about 4% of the population. but they were the majority of the members of the merchant class, which was an official class in the cities, meaning that they ended up creating this cartel plugged into the international network and getting money from abroad.

They didn't charge interest to each other, but to everybody else, and especially the rural Russians at the time who didn't fully understand. and not all the economy was monetized at this point, didn't understand how money works, and there were very easy marks. So in the major Western Russian cities, Kishny of Gomez started up these places, even Kiev itself, Odessa,

they were millions of Jews, they were extremely well organized, they were wealthy, they were well-armed, far better off financially anyway than the Russians who they live close to. the Kiev program in 1905 that same year I think you had it with 250 roughly 200 killed and even according to the hospital about 12% were Jews

these were started by very well-armed Jewish revolutionaries making war on any symbol of either the crown or the church which they associated anyway and you could go on you know I quote a few of them where in Odessa, of course, Jacob Brightman was the guy who started that riot with a bomb. The incendiary leaflets in the 1906 Chernigov version had three elite Jews, Yanklebrook, Pinkus Kugersky, Tamaglowski, calling for the murder of all royalists, death to the czar and a shutting down of any non-leftist or at least pro-Jewish newspaper.

And this comes from Oleg Plotano, too, in his work from 2005. In places like Stododub, you know, 1902s were going on a few years earlier than that, there was a militia demanding the eviction of the Orthodox population of the city. They're cleansing the area of these, you know, of the Gentiles was normal. The only time it gets called the pogrom is when the Gentiles fought back. I cite in June 1st, 1906, the Jewish Bund, heavily armed, attacked a nationalist, actually was an orthodox procession, killing 25 people. And let me quote the Vilna Gazette here from the Baltics,

and I quoted that from Plotov, that same book of his. Here's what they wrote at the time. In Chisinault, the September, 1903 riots saw the Jewish provocateurs and they're well armed self-defense units showing no care about the safety of ordinary Jews organized to attack Russians and cause disorder. One thug, Pinkish Jasevsky, tried to shoot the Russian writer crucible on with a revolver. Unfortunately, the wound wasn't serious. And the perpetrator was arrested by the Russian people and punished by the court.

Now, he says Russian people explicitly. In other words, it was a crowd that went and grabbed them. so this happened over and over and over again and since no alternative point of view was ever let you know out of the country at least in a way that the Englishman could read it the only version of this that they got was from the Jews and then later the Bolsheviks

so and this is you know we have people who challenge the Holocaust in 43 4445 but very few people challenging this this set of stories. And it's particularly outrageous. And the rhetoric was exactly the same. What these Jewish leftists and Jewish nationalist groups wanted to do was exactly what the Soviets did a few years later. You can tell they wanted to do that because between 1905 and 1906, they were murdering governors and mayors.

I think you wrote 15 governors and mayors, 267 security officials, which would have been, some form of police and 12 bishops. Okay, so, I mean, this is echo, I look at this, and I immediately start thinking of the Spanish Civil War because that was just multiplied by hundreds, by thousands, basically. But yeah, how, if these revolutionaries are murdering, sitting officials, police, and heads of the church, how are we supposed to take it that they are the victims here that just doesn't make any sense,

especially when you understand that these revolutionaries are majority Jewish? You know, in my paper on Bloody Sunday, I say the exact same thing. I use that, you know, we're talking about the same period of time here. And even people who don't want to deal with the fact, it is an overwhelmingly Jewish movement, at least at the, at least at the combat organization level. Terrorism was a huge problem. Terrorism usually, you know, yeah, yeah, governors,

you had some high-level people, but a lot of low-level bureaucrats were killed, were killed too. And, you know, the only person, really, that would do that in furtherance of some kind of secular utopia in the future, is this Jewish elite. And I have, I list so many of the names and so many papers of mine of who these people are,

I could barely, I could barely keep up with them. I could hardly remember them. There's so, there's so many of them. And to even bring that up now in parts of Western Europe is, is to commit a crime. The 1905 bloody Sunday thing was such a tragedy because most of the people, a huge crowd that went to the Winter Palace in Petersburg, were very loyal.

They thought that they were giving a, a wartime list of demands as far as working conditions were concerned. The Russian working conditions were excellent at the time. And it was the leftists who were armed who started shooting people. And so you end up with a gunfight with government. People had no idea who they were being led by. They actually broke into the church, one of the cathedrals, and stole icons so they could march with it.

So people will think, oh, this is a loyalist. This is a loyalist march. and of course it's always deceit they base themselves on deceit they use deceit um to get their way they they could never get 300,000 people to march for their agenda so they lied and they said how moderate we are by the time they get to the winter palace they're talking about burtering the czar no one else is and so innocent people get killed um the state was not expecting it was a it was a big march they thought it was going to be a peaceful thing. And at the last minute, they opened fire.

And like it or not, it was a very Jewish movement, except for one of the leaders was Father Gregory Gippon, who was a left-wing priest, who was eventually defrocked because of a lot of this. He was a secret revolutionary. And he, but he was working with Pinchis Rutenberg. Jewish nationalist hated everything, everything Russian. He was one of the founders of the American Jewish Congress, by the way, and the Jewish Legion during World War I.

He controlled the Palestine Electric Company. So he wasn't just any old Zionists. Today the electric corporation of Israel. And he was one of the leaders, not just of the revolution in Russia, but he built one of the first Jewish militias in Palestine. He founded Palestine Airwaves. He was president of the Jewish National Council. He served in the provisional government under Kerencki very briefly.

And he was a huge part, not just of the organization of the revolution from 1905 to 1980 in Russia, but then later on, building the early pre-Israel militias in the Middle East. So Gapan almost was used precisely because he was a priest. They eventually murdered him when he wasn't useful anymore. but at the time, even in the West, Bolshevik and Jewish were seen as more or less synonymous. He had the same thing in Hungary and the so-called red government, Belakun, where Stalin was so upset that he said, you need to have one big Jewish name in your organization. It's 100% Jewish.

So they had to search and make him president of the Hungarian People's Republic, who had no power, of course. It took days to find a non-Jewish leader in Hungary, you know, by a generation after all of this. But so those two things, public ignorance and deceit, these two things are absolutely necessary for this agenda to even have a chance of going through. What I find interesting is that they even controlled the press in Russia, to the point where you had mentioned,

I think you had already mentioned, how does that I pronounce, Chisinau? Or Chisano? Yeah, Chisna, yeah. Chisnao, how they, the provocateurs, basically they tried to cause disorders there, and it was for the purpose of disorder to create chaos, the population will be more sensitive to manipulation.

And these stories of a, massacre that happened to Jews that never happened. You even have William Randolph Hearst writing in the American press. We accused the Russian government of bearing the responsibility for the Chisanao massacre. We declare that this Holocaust is steeped in blood. It is on Nicholas's door that we lie these killings and violence. May the God of justice come into this world and finish Russia as he finished with Sodom and Gomorrah, sweeping this hotbed of hate from the earth as a plague. And this is from this is from Plentinoff.

And I think he's quoting from basically a lot of this was coming from like the Vilna Gazette from Russian newspapers. Yeah, the Baltimore Sun in earlier, earlier than this goes back to Alexander the second two in 1903. That was before even the worst of it got started. And this is why the American view at the time was so twisted. This is why there was support for the revolutionary. There was support for the Reds amongst otherwise normal Americans because this is what

they had been fed. The same thing was occurring during the Crimean War generation earlier. And the same thing is going on right now. So when you have zero knowledge, especially back then, Russia was just considered a part of the Orient. You had to go to Harvard to get a degree in the Russian language. Even regular state schools didn't have it. And this man is aware that he doesn't know.

But because a few of these, usually rabbis, were writing in English and French and German, it must be true. I mean, how could you deny someone like that? Royce even mentions the Prussian rabbi that served as the intermediary between events in Russia and in the West. Rabbi Yitzhak Ruf, who established himself as the intermediary between the Jews of the East and the West. And even, you know, I quote here, clear, one of the important writers more recently was their sensationalized accounts of mass rape, which came out of the news. York Times, the London Times, and especially the Jewish world, the Jewish world newspaper,

invented a lot of this stuff. And then because of the rabbi as well as the Jewish world, the Times and the London Times in particular, and of course, anything where Hearst was concerned, simply repeated this stuff, repeated this stuff without any criticism. It's the same thing now. Very little has changed here. And no one knew the first thing about what was happening over there, why this happened, they just bought the idea that for no reason, Russians wearing black uniforms and went in the name of God, shot all these Jews. But the truth is, the overwhelming majority of both the injured and the dead were non-Jewish because they were the ones who started this in the first place.

And it wasn't just this violence by an organized militia. It was also, you know, these leaflets and little booklets that were circulating saying, we're going to kill all of these people. And if we do it, the Messiah is going to come. And we could all, you know, becomes Zionists and go to Israel and rule with him. Now, you did have, like I mentioned, the Vilna Gazette and a few other places. That's from Plotanov, and there's a few from Sultan-Eats in that he quotes, too, that knew what was going on and reported it.

But when you have so few people who could speak the language in Western Europe, especially the United States, it fell on deaf ears. Betharabi and province news also from 1903 talking about the Jewish agitators and Chisinao and all these other places preparing for war, riot and murder and so many of their violence occurred on Easter, either the eve or the day of.

And in their province news, they were eyewitnesses to this. But again, it wasn't in English. so it never quite penetrated to even when the exiles from the Soviets entered the West, they didn't speak English and they didn't do a very good job of translating their work into the language that the average American could understand.

Really, it's still to this day. They're just terrible propagandists, the monarchy especially. You know, he, for a mon, and I understand this, for the monarchy to lower itself to polemics and left-right debates, that was considered a, that's what a, That's what politicians do.

That's not what the great unifier does, the great restrainer. So the problem there is that although you had many monarchist intellectuals then and now, Ivan Illegis is increasingly well-known, Plotano of being another. Catasano, so many of these great writers, very few of them, became popular in the West, spoke English, wrote in English, and it's only been very recently that a lot of this stuff has been translated

for the very first time. There's still not an official translation of 200 years together into English. What we have access to, unless you do speak Russian, and I believe it's also translated into French,

or like samiz dot copies. But one thing I do want to mention is we're recording this on January 6th. Pretty much every newspaper in the world is reporting the three years ago an insurrection attempt happened in Washington, D.C. And how people ask, how is that possible? How was it that they, you know, they all seem so slanted. They all see, no, they have an agenda.

And here's the thing. They always had an agenda. Newspapers have always had an agenda. and especially newspapers, if you, if one group is behind a revolution and that same group also controls all of the newspapers, or it controls the majority of the newspapers and the newspapers that are being taken seriously in the West, the ones that the West will pick up on and report, well, if it's, if they belong to the same group and they're on the same side and they agree with each other, of course they're going to have an agenda and of course things are going to be. reported in a certain way.

I mean, you know, what you wrote, what you wrote here is, seems to be true. There's two sentences. The majority of the terrorists were Jews. The pogroms were a cover story for their own violence. And it's, once you start looking at this, once you start, when you have people quoting their newspapers, when you have someone like Solzhenycin who went to great lengths to detail and footnote everywhere he got his information from.

And Solzhenycin, so many people who would quote his Gulag Archipelago want to ignore this book. Well, why? Ask yourself, why? If you're one of those people, why wouldn't this be the same level of research that he put into Gulag Archipelago? I mean, it just, we know, everyone knows that the press has an agenda.

They're not biased. They have an agenda. Why wouldn't they have an agenda back then? But we're not talking about the Middle Ages. You know, we're not talking about the Middle Ages. We're not talking about the town crier. We're talking about mass printed newspapers that are being read throughout the empire. People are being told.

I was told when I was in college that the Tsar ruled over everything Jews were second-class citizens and there was 100% censorship over the press and it was only when I don't speak Russian at all but when I learned the language to read enough

to get by it opened up a whole new world because things that are of mainstream opinion over there have no bearing on reality over here it's two different universes and now there's very few Jews left in Russia since the 1970s and USSR, most of them have left.

I think it's like 0.02%. Ukraine is a different story. Because again, the farther west you go in the old Russian Empire, the more Jewish you get. None of this stuff started until after the Polish partition, and the Polish Empire fell very late 18th century. Some of these towns and economic hubs were brought into the Russian Empire. Now they have this unmoving. Kahal system to deal with and they had no experience.

Hence, you know, the Djerjavan mission to Minsk in places like that. The Russians really were very naive in dealing with these people at the time. And then within 50 years, you have these combat organizations using the secrecy and the autonomy of the Kahul system to hide. Shulzanitin and so many others. and I have got the sheer amount of writing I've done on the October Revolution it's almost absurd and you know

the Jewish presence is is overwhelming as I said this before there's really no there's no reason for socialism to be anti-Christian in fact you had idealist and Christian socialist institutions all over old Russia and there were some of the first things to be destroyed when the Bolsheviks took over. The working population of the peasantry,

not only these are the last people that they wanted to deal with, they had no dealings with these people, but they wanted to destroy the knowing full well that the West will bail them out. The overwhelming majority, I mean the overwhelming majority of the revolutionary

at the time come from very wealthy, either Polish or Ukrainian, upper-class merchant families. None of these people were workers. None of these people knew what a worker was. And in Russia, doing so well, the second half of the 19th century, Russia was exploding in terms of industry, in terms of money,

in terms of population, in terms of the popularity of the system, they needed to act, they needed to act fast. And unfortunately for them, they didn't pull it off in 1905, 1906, but they were able to pull it off a little bit more than 10 years later. and it got to the point where if there was any orthodox you know any public orthodox presence in a city where there were a lot of Jews there was going to be fighting and the fighting came from the Jewish side at least initially retaliation was often forbidden because of the presence of the state because this is again they knew the bad press that they would get number one and number two these are very wealthy areas they can't afford this this money to go elsewhere and because of that I mean this was a Jewish nationalist who was gambling on anyway, and that the West wanted to believe everything negative about Russia.

So they were going to jump on every little thing. And I have, I don't have to go through them, but I have from the state archives, and this comes from numerous authors who cited this stuff, you know, act of terror after act of terror from mobs of Jews in different parts of the empire. Yeah, you had the individual acts of terror where they would kill a bureaucrat somewhere. It really became a huge problem. They were getting shot all over the place and blown up. But also mob actions all over turn to government design in Moscow itself during the violence of 1905.

Odessa was one of the worst because I had the mayor's office. And they were simply, you know, shooting non-Jewish policemen. Orthodox people in that city became rebels and acted accordingly. and any act from them against the provisional government of Odessa was seen as an anti-Semitic pogrom. Peasants, you know, reacted violently in the rural areas. The Rasta Vandan manifesto, which was almost exclusively Jewish, created their own militia there,

and they tried to seize power in the city there. And it was only the citizens that were able to fight back. And then that's when you had Jewish shops that were destroyed, who was beaten by the demonstrators after it, but only because of the damage that they did initially. And this happened every few months in the era that we're talking about here. And usually the aggressors were, almost always the aggressors were these Jewish militias

who really were convinced. I mean, they were both Zionists and Bolsheviks or Marxists of one kind or another like Moses has, that somehow we kill enough Gentiles, the Messiah will appear. Some of this seems to be what we would think of as Bolshevism, as Marxism, as being anti-capitalist. Yet we know that the, like you earlier as social reason points out, that some on the left interpreted the protection of Jews and the region, the same as protection of capitalists. Many will ask how can Jews be Bolsheviks and also be capitalists?

If you look at the whole, if I remember Solzhenycin, right, talking about 1810, 1820 is really when they become huge merchants in Russia, their wealth starts growing, they start gathering all these arms together. But it also becomes very revolutionary. It also becomes very what you would see as anti-capital. capitalist while they're basically creating capital, I mean, the famously the alcohol, the drink, but everything else farming, tenant farming, things like that. How do you square that circle when some, because somebody, somebody will ask that,

especially liberal, like the libertarian crowd will be like, well, they can't be they can't be bullshitics and capitalists at the same time. What are you talking about? Well, I'm glad you asked me that because I've spoken about that way more than I. I want to admit, I have a list of the fundamental assumptions that both materialist Marxian socialism on the one hand has and capitalism on the other, meaning advanced capitalism around today. And it's never ending.

Bolivism and capitalism are very similar at their fundamentals. And they function in very much the same way, especially today. they're materialists, they're obsessed with production and efficiency, they believe that they are the true proper end of the enlightenment, that they're scientific, that they're the true interpretation of Darwin, they're secular, they're heavily Jewish at their foundations, you know, it didn't matter who ran the institutions so long as they were easily able to be controlled.

all that planned economy meant in the Soviet system, especially early on, was that if you were able to plan an entire economy, that implies that you own everything to begin with. Every bit of productive capital in the Soviet Union was owned by the party. Every bit of productive capital in the West either is owned by or goes through a very Jewish banking cartel. and that's international, not just in the West. It's a matter of control and or ownership.

Not just, you know, an oligarchy is the end of capitalism. Aligarchy is in a market-based institution, assuming that that ever existed. Aligarchy functions the same way. The Soviet Union did just far more and more sophisticated way. And after the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, the oligarchs were almost exclusively Jewish. and today in Ukraine, exclusively Jewish. There was one exception. I think that was Putanan early on.

It was the only exception to this. Because a Jews separated from the USSR in the 1970s. And then suddenly it became okay to be anti-Soviet. You know, the money was running out and the capital is not being replaced. You know, the Brezhnev stagnation changed everything. So the system and the slogans and the buzzwords aren't important. is who ends up with money. And now beyond that,

you have people like Jacob Schiff financing the Bolshevik revolution. He knew exactly what he was doing. But because of stuff like the Hearst papers and this kind of rhetoric, how many people in the West knew what the heck of Bolshevik was? People saw this group as able to capture the Russian market for us. one of the shocking, one of the things that should completely change one's approach to 20th century history is the fact that the U.S. and Great Britain built the Soviet economy. They had nothing in 1920.

They were starving. And it was Ford Motor Company. Henry Ford himself built the largest truck plant in the world in eastern Ukraine in the 1930s. Their entire automotive industry comes from that. Their tank engines, their military, plane engines, both jet and previous to that, are either of American or British design. General Electric electrified the country. The American mining firms, what did they have?

The Rothschilds owned the oil fields near Baku, in today's Azerbaijan. There was no attempt to destroy the USSR. The white armies didn't receive a penny from any either Western government or capitalist. the only reason you had Western military and during the Russian Civil War was to protect the oil fields in the South or to keep stores of weaponry from falling into the hands of the Germans.

They scuttled the ammunition rather than give it to the whites. The Reds were being lavishly funded. Every staff member was paid. So, you know, this is just the nature from 1920,

to say the mid-70s and even beyond, everything ultimately came from the U.S. or the U.K., sometimes some from Germany. They didn't have, although they were highly industrialized, by the time Lenin essentially destroyed the country, and there was no food, they didn't have much of anything. And in the Stalin era, you had, everything was under, essentially contract with Western companies.

So it was not one aspect of the industrialization process in the Soviet Union that didn't come fundamentally from the West. Italy was the number one, under Mussolini, was a number one trading partner for a while in the early years of the Soviet Union. They had technicians all over the USSR early on. Italy was one of the first countries to

recognize the Soviet government. Everything that people think they know about this is BS. Anthony Sutton's three-volume work on this very topic and then his later work about national suicide, about how American military secrets were voluntarily given over to Soviet scientists.

These weren't opposed ideological systems. They may have had divergent interests in certain parts of the world, but ideologically they had no problem with each other, or at least the capitalist had no problem with the Reds. There were no sanctions on the Soviet Union, not until the Jews were involved in the 70s. All Soviet debts from World War II were canceled. The entire economy was built by Western technicians

who then trained their Soviet counterpart. The whole Gulag system, you had American and British architects putting this stuff together, not knowing what was happening. They didn't have that skilled labor at the time, given what happened between World War I and the Civil War. Nothing that the average person thinks that the average normal, thinks it's true is real. And it's extremely important to know that.

Capitalism is inherently revolutionary. Karl Marx realized he said free trade is necessary for the socialist revolution because the free trade destroys all local communities. It destroys nations. It destroys any integral body beyond the family and even the family. It's revolutionary and it still is. As ideological systems outside of textbooks, the two you know capitalism built the USSR there was never any big ideological divide

and the only time like early on woodrow wilson would condemn lennon because he was being too much like the czar then they came up with the nonsense that Stalin was an anti-Semite and and this this just nonsensical historical point of view is destroyed by by anthony sutton i've done my own work in the area u.s wasn't anti-communist. Sometimes diplomatically there were problems, you know, in Korea and elsewhere, but that had nothing to do with ideology. There was constant trade between the two countries. You can't have a cold war when you're building up your enemy. And once that's understood and the evidence put in place, everything changes.

Well, you finished out the article by saying that the pogroms were a crude set of stories invented for several reasons. One was they covered over for Jewish violence at the time, as well as during the Soviet era. It depicted the Tsar as a Jewish stereotype of bloodthirsty, bloodthirsty, ignorant, hypocritical, tyrant. Later, it covers over violence in the Jewish USSR, run USSR. But one of those says it gave permit Britain an excuse to demonize their main global

rival. How was Britain and how were they, Britain's main global rival at the time? Well, Britain had two. Very similar country. Germany and the Russian Empire. Their populations were exploding. Their industrial potential was extraordinary. They were industrializing so fast. It's really hard to get accurate statistics. and well Britain couldn't fight both the same time in fact they probably couldn't fight one at the same time so World War I was partially a way to get her two biggest rivals to fight each other and of course Balkans was the flashpoint the biggest nightmare in London the turn of the 20th century was an alliance between Germany and the Russian Empire.

I mean, the Kaiser and the Tsar were cousins at the time. And because of the growth of the Navy, the banking system, which was under state control in both countries, the popularity of royal rule, the tremendous growth of the military apparatus, tremendous growth of the scientific apparatus, their technological advances, all under

fairly stern royal houses in both Berlin and St. Petersburg this terrified the British. And so getting in the fight each other was pretty much the only chance they had. Then eventually, the Tsar was overthrown.

And in 1917, 1918, the Soviet Union was put in its place, which did not threaten Britain because Britain was heavily invested over there. So it was their tremendous economic growth under different auspices. These weren't just strictly market systems was a huge threat. Just like Russia's growth over the last 20 years is a huge threat to the liberal empire today. When you really started digging down deep into the reasons why World War I would happen, many reasons.

And then you start, once you start realizing that the Soviet Union was a war, way to how many capitalists, like Western capitalists, had their hands in it, even in the founding of it. It's just another one of those things that people need to realize that history isn't written by the victors. History is written by academics, and history is written by people who write newspapers and write and write in magazine columns. That's all you need to know about history.

And in order to really dig. down deep into it, you're going to have to go back and try and find sources as close to the events as possible and be able to really read through the BS. For some reason, I've dedicated my entire adult life to that process. Self-inflicted torture. And a lot of us, a lot of us are really happy that you did because at this point, at this point trying to know, trying to understand what the truth is is really hard because, and let's face it, most people are set in their ways.

Most people have already decided that they know what the truth is. So changing their minds, I really, I respect anyone who is able to change their mind and change their opinions. and most people that I meet who don't, who, you know, who I say like 2020 is one of those times when you really needed to start reexamining and looking at what you believed. And if you, if the politics that you believed in, you thought that it was going to be, even your personal politics, how you live your life personally. how that was going to be able to come up against people who could basically shut the world down. And just finding people who are willing to go out and do that and devote their lives to destroying these false narratives and there's just really this blatant agenda-driven propaganda.

I want to thank people like you and thank you personally for, for doing everything you do because I don't I want to know the truth no matter how uncomfortable it is. Well, and that's, and I've made up my mind even in college. I said, I don't care. I can't, what's the point of becoming a scholar if you're just going to repeat what the regime is, is saying all over the place? What's the point of getting a PhD in that case? What's the point of having critical skills if you're just repeating the basic fundamentals of the system?

but let me tell you something this is very important to note your listeners in particular but mine as well from a radio albion and elsewhere these guys are keeping me afloat here I don't answer to anybody

because I have many small individual donations or people who are subscribed to my Patreon and all this I know you'll have the links on the description like you did the last time these are the guys even if you're

can't do it yourself by supporting me and you, I can do it full time. And I could do, you know, without an institution, without a university, without a church, without anybody. You know, it's your listeners and our listeners that have made it possible. Otherwise, I couldn't function. Yeah, same here. Same here. I can't put out the amount of material that I'm able to put out.

And I think at this point, from what I hear from people, the material, they believe the material is high quality and essential without people donating. So I want to encourage people to go in the show notes and go to Dr. Johnson's Patreon and support him. Support him in any way you can. There'll be plenty of places that I'll link to that you'll be able to, you'll donate if you want to do like a one-time donation or something like that. But yeah, yeah, please support the people who are out there who've basically, you know, someone like Dr. Johnson who has a PhD and is not going to be able to get hired anywhere. Please, please support his work. I appreciate your help and I appreciate you. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Dr. Johnson. I appreciate it. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekino Show. Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson is back. How are you doing, Dr. Johnson? Well, I appreciate you and having me back. I'm not doing too badly. Great. Great. So got a topic here that I know is of interest to a lot of people, and there was no one else that I really thought to contact to talk about it. A lot of people talk about what happened, the revolution and the subsequent civil war that happened in Russia, especially starting in 1917.

but really nobody starts getting into the nuts and bolts of how it carried out and how it played out. So I wanted to have you on today. And I guess we'll start right at about the time that after the October takeover and go from there. So you up for that? Yeah, it's what I do. For better or for worse, it's what I do. And I have, in fact, so much writing on the topic. I can't keep them straight.

I have so many papers in this era. And, of course, my book, the Soviet experiment, really deals with the period of between 1917 and, I don't know, 1930. So the early part is, I think, the most interesting. And, yeah, there's a lot, of course, that the mainstream historians refuse to mention. And I want to fix that. I want to fix it right now, in fact. you have the floor go right ahead i will interrupt with any questions and uh anytime you want to you feel like a topic has come to an end i'm sure i will have a question written down here for you

well zarniklis the second later canonized by the russian orthodox church in exile as well as the moscow patriarch years later never abdicated the abdication note is it's phoning it's uh it's a clumsy forgery put together by the general staff. And in Russia, that's kind of well known. It was typewritten, which was never the case for these kind of imperial statement, partly to avoid

forgery. And so that's one of the many myths. You got to remember everything that the average normie American believes about the world is wrong. It's a series of stories. And this is no different. They refuse to talk about the Jewish role in all of this, which is, you know, akin to talking about football and refusing to talk about the New York Jets, you know, or the NFC. It doesn't make, it doesn't make any sense. They end up sounding ridiculous. You had essentially two factions afterwards. liberals, these all come from the wealthy elite overwhelmingly Jewish.

By the time the Civil War began a year or two afterwards, all right-wing parties had been banned, as popular as they would have been. You had the Social Democratic revolutionary socialist that eventually became the Bolsheviks later on. The faction of them supported the provisional government and allegedly didn't care much for for violence, although I don't understand what the revolutionary would mean in their name. And the leftists ended up joining what eventually became the Bolsheviks. And the constituent assembly didn't mean that much in Petersburg. Peterborough wasn't going to be the capital for much longer anyway. but rather the Lenin dominated all Russian Congress or Soviets. But the Soviet, that particular council in Petersburg, opposed to Lenin's agenda.

So it's infighting among the extreme left. The Petrograd Soviet actually took the side of the provisional government, which is just as left this as anything else out there. and for a brief time they shut the Bolsheviks out. Lenin and Zinovian flushed with money from Germany, which is another way of saying from Western banks, Germany didn't have anything to give at the end of World War I. Lenin was outraged.

He said this is the new Belize case, as if to stretch the, that was one of the ritual murder cases in Ukraine. In fact, from there on in, Lenin can see. considered any criticism of the USSR, the takeover as Jewish blood libel. And he used a lot of Jewish turns a phrase. So the provisional government eventually collapsed entirely. And at the same time, of course, you had the Supreme Commander Kornilov who wanted to put a break on this chaos.

Eventually Kornilov was betrayed, quote unquote, you know, and, and, and, and, and, and And his confederates like Khrimov, so-called committed suicide, in quotes. The provisional state and the Bolsheviks, regardless of their public disagreements, worked together all the time. The Bolshevik name, meaning Bolshoi or large or great, in this case it means a majority. By force had their people put into both the Petrograd and the Moscow Soviets. Trotsky at the same time began preparation. for an uprising, his so-called military revolutionary committee, thinking that this is going to guard and protect the second Congress of Soviets. It was only a handful of Bolsheviks in the Capitol, but the government had absolutely nothing there.

So, on October 24th, 25th, a regiment or so of red forces took all the key infrastructure, power stations, telegraphs, and the media. So, on the 25th, the provisional government was officially deposed. So he triumphed only because of foreign money and violence. He then created the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, which eventually in 1937 became the Supreme between Soviet. and much of Lenin's agenda was part of his very famous book in 1917 called The State and Revolution. And I have torn this apart and he didn't mean a word of it. He justifies terrorism, but his program, 1917, talks about worker control of industry.

transfer of land to the to the peasantry, democratization of the army, et cetera, a convocation of a constituent assembly, which of course never happened. Not to mention self-determination of nations, which was a big propaganda plank of the early Bolshevik party. That, of course, they rejected the minute they took over.

The Bolsheviks were a tiny party flush with foreign cash. it was a it was a judeic party and this is a a key element um the jews were the beneficiary of these of these events i also want to note that the white armies received zero support from the western powers the interventions were there to keep germany from rearming itself to take the ammunition um that the russians were using during the war and then they'd give them to the whites, they threw them in the water, just off of Murmansk. And this is at a time when Union forces were doing very well.

White forces were doing very well. But, you know, you had someone like Montgomery Skylar, captain in the Army, American Army said in a telegram, he said that Russian Jews dominate Soviet Marxism. And the correspondent for the London Times, the very well-known Robert Wilton, who wrote the last stage of the Romanos in 1920, actually lists all their names. And in the Soviet, 384 Bolshevik deputies, and about 300 were Jews. And the same thing for their so-called opposition, the Petrograd Soviet had almost 300 people and 271 were Jews. And of that 271, 265 were brought by.

Kratzky from Brooklyn and he arrived with you know Wall Street millions and you know if you've read the last day of the Romano's a lot of this will be is already well known Russians had very little to do with this with this so-called revolution so in state and revolution he made these promises and he had no intention of of keeping No army, no police. You'll be an architect one day like Mark says and you'll be a grocer the next day and intellectual the third day. But violence and coercion was always going to be a part of the agenda no matter what. When he talks about whether Engels or Lenin talks about the withering away of things, he means the old system. He doesn't mean his. Yet they call the police force by a different name. And therefore, you could say the withering away of the of the of the, of the, of the, you know, of the police. But there, even Frederick Engels. And then Lenin, of course, echoed him by saying that this is the nature of a revolution.

It's a terrorist method. It's, and I'm quoting him directly, it's whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets, and cannon. He also then says that the victorious party has to maintain its rule by terror. He talks about the reactionaries, but the white armies were so scattered without supplies and having no ideological core. They were well led, but the Soviets had the propaganda outlets down. You know, the dictatorship of the proletariat was one of Engels' ideas from Marx, and of course it was one of the few things that Lenin took very seriously in that. in that book started off in October of, actually November of 1917, the decree in the media, which shut down all opposition publications.

And then the old Russian extraordinary commission was created, a checker, under the leadership of Felix Dersinski, who is a, who is not Russian. He's Jewish and from, and from Poland. So when Korenski fell, and again, I don't think there were as bitter enemies as they're made out to be, the officers in Petro Guard completely gave up. They didn't have, they didn't know what was what. They claimed to want a constituent assembly. But, of course, at the same time, the Cossack areas had refused to be a part of it. the constituent assembly was a theory more than a reality even there the elections really never mattered but only leftist parties could be a part of it and the bolsheviks got about 20% of the vote with a turnout rate of like 40% because again these weren't competitive elections the petrograd Soviet is different from the constituent assembly which never really mattered but the elections took place.

It's like having a one-party state. If a Democrat's definitely going to win the election, the only race that matters is a Democratic primary. And it's the same thing here. Lenin had so much money and was, you know, not being a Russian himself, surrounded by non-Russians, was willing to do whatever it took to take power. So again, foreign correspondents talk about this at great length. It wasn't until March of 1918 that they changed their name to the Bolsheviks. But the more they put its agenda into practice, the more they were hated.

And then that very same month, November of 1917, they took over the urban factories, workshops, everything, anything that produced anything in Petrograd and Moscow. And the economy in the meantime had collapsed entirely supported only by Western assistance. So you had left-wing opposition. had right-wing opposition, but since Wall Street had already put its bet on the Bolsheviks, as at least the most. I mean, they even said, Lloyd George said that Trotsky was the only statesman in Russia. And one of the things that the left eventually disagreed on vehemently was the peace treaty, the separate peace treaty in 1918 with the central powers. And, you know, Trotsky was against it.

Lennon wasn't in favor of it. But he knew that if he was going to tick over, he needed to engage in tremendous repression. You know, Lennon, you know, it's common to hear that Lennon promised the destruction of the landlords and land given to peasants. The only problem is, is that by the start of World War I, 95% of the peasantry owned their own land. Landlords meant the peasants themselves.

the decree on land, all land was immediately declared state property. So whatever the peasants received, the ones smaller than what they had before, and they were users never owned it. I mean, they rejected private property, so I'm not sure how they could promise anyone their own plot of land. By definition, it's a lie. Zaris Russia was a prosperous place. Now, of course, they're dealing with shortages of absolutely everything.

These are revolutionaries. They have no idea how to run a country. The Jewish run something called the Bread Front, a war against the peasantry starting in November of 1917. In 1918, it became the Food and Requisition Army to take so-called surplus food. And that's when private trade was declared a crime. Punishable by death, by the way.

There were guard outposts everywhere. This is at the beginning. of the so-called Red Terror. And it really never ended. To a great extent, the Civil War never ended because there was never, up until World War II, there was never a time where there wasn't peasant revolts happening everywhere.

The point being that power over food means power over everything. Lenin calls this the security of any socialist transformation. He always used mystification. You can never take him at his word since he's using a very different vocabulary and it's designed

to fool people. It's meant to be deceptive. But the so-called food army had the mandate to confiscate property to take hostages, which by the way during Civil War was a very important way of controlling parts of the country and of course to shoot

any resistance. That's also part of his socialist transformation. and we have him, for example, his encyclical to Sattatov, explicitly says, to shoot anyone who opposes him, to round up the so-called Kulaks, which could be anybody, and, of course, taking hostages was extremely important. And it kind of is the apogee of all leftist revolutions that came before. And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the committees of the poor, which was a rhetorical, concoction where you took the poorest. In other words, people who couldn't work the mentally ill, you know, brigands, whatever it was, and they had the right to then take whatever they wanted

in the name of the Soviet government. So, and this is the reason that the Russian Civil War began and why it became as expansive as it was. In 1918, even the Cheka says 245 major country revolutionary demonstrations were recorded just in 20 provinces of Central Russia I mentioned the Cossacks already the entire Don region had revolted

but 1919 every plus except those two cities the two main cities had revolts against the red there were both leftist results and rightest results including members of the White Army they weren't all right wing now huge

revolt against these policies in Siberia that never really had any kind of surfdom and Central Russia too and one of the ways that the Soviets defeated this was by the use of of poison gas

now I don't know if gas had been banned by then was obviously used in World War I and the Red Army from Trotsky on down these weren't really military men these were revolutionaries. They knew how to operate a guerrilla war, revolutionary war, but not how to run a normal war. The peasants were armed, and the white forces never quite made the connections with the peasant revolts that they should have.

The use of poison gas work was never done by. The whites was done by the Reds on a regular basis, but these peasant revolts, they didn't have the supplies. The whites never had the supplies. They never had a common leadership. They didn't have a coherent goal other than some vague kind of agrarianism. I don't know. I guess the latest number is like 25% of the peasants participated in the uprisings in the entire country. And maybe 0.8% of the population, half million people, were active in terms of imposing communist policies on the countryside.

And then, of course, the Constitution written by, you know, Lenin and his friends, adopted in 1918, was also just justification for terrorism since anyone they didn't like was called a non-laboring class. Non-laboring group, which, of course, included the clergy and any peasant that was doing fairly well. You know, about five million peasants hired at least one worker at harvest time. and remember the deprivation of rights wasn't just to the person but they're all their family members and it also meant the deprivation of food rations the Soviets were able at least in the big cities to put them on rations and of course they couldn't be educated or or anything else to the Constitution which you know they followed when it was in their interest it removed the very concept of personal guilt now it's collective guilt and collective punishment So the head of the Petrochekka, Moses Yuritsky, was killed by one of these moderate social revolutionaries, and London was actually wounded that very same day. So that gave him the excuse to increase the level of terrorism. Any Bolsheviks that killed, a bunch of hostages will be automatically shot.

And that was renewed again in February of 2019. This is also the origin of the Goulog system, which was built with Western money and expertise, since the Soviets had none of their own at the time. Remember the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? Some people will claim that the Gulag system was already in existence with the Tsar. Well, then they're idiots. Prisons were monasteries in most of Imperial, Imperial Russia. if you were sent to Siberia, you were you were lodged in a private house and they all escaped at one time or another.

Just you had to walk quite a waste to escape. There were no bars or anything like that. There certainly was no anything like a systematic prison system. You had, you know, Peter and Paul Fortress. These were used on occasion, especially, you know, just before the war. But there was no such thing as a labor camp. in the in in the czarist era and some monarchists actually fault him for that he didn't take strong enough measures and not really actually you know underestimating his his his his opposition so that would if anyone were to hold that view is you know knows nothing since nothing like that existed it was a very modern very

the whole concept of a systemic series of camps integrated with the economy and staffed by whoever was unlucky enough to be arrested that was a Soviet creation and it didn't end with the so-called victory in the Civil War in 1922 he continued

he said this the Lenin says this to the People's Commissar of Justice that we have to expand the use of that execution and murder without any apology without any embellishment and make the causes for execution to be as broad as humanly possible and the broader point here is that it proves that Lenin, Trotky, Stalin did not differ really in any respect not ideologically not in terms of policy the only difference is that Stalin had more cash at

his disposal and had full control over the country for the most part where Lenin did not. And the very fact that Lenin regularly used terror, I mean, it was a normal policy tool, especially after the murder of Yuritsky, you know, terror became day-to-day. and that includes the camp system. And they weren't shy about this or shying about admitting it. And the Western press didn't say a word about it. All three men used terrorism, purges, the Gulag system.

It was a normal part of Soviet Marxism from the second they took over. Stalin continued the same policies, but he, thanks to Western, especially American investment, had an industrial economy eventually to work with. So, you know, and again, that's a very brief summary of these things. But obviously, the situation is far more complex than most people realize. Well, I think most people would think that this happened because they wanted to, you know, institute communism as far, much like Marx said, you have a dictatorship of the proletariat.

takes you into the workers' paradise, but they never had that plan at all in place. So what was their plan? What was their main motivation? I mean, they had no problem killing thousands and tens of thousands. They had no problem of just exterminating whole groups. So what was the whole goal of all this? Why were they doing this? Well, this is answering this question.

is part of why I wrote the Soviet experiment because they had no interest in labor except rhetorically. They redefined the word worker however they wanted a proletarian, however they wanted. It ultimately was to collect the entire wealth of the Russian Empire in the hands of the party. And you have to have all the wealth in your possession if you're going to centrally plan the economy. And after the NEP was outlawed, so was any kind of profit. So, you know, and then the Jewish agents sent that to the USA. The close, you know, the state and revolution is the place to go to to see his basic agenda. Karl Marx refused to talk about what the future society would look like, which is very suspicious.

You know, they were certainly Marxists. They put Marx into practice as best they can. So it's extremely important to note that, again, they use the rhetoric, but certainly never explained how the well-rounded man of the Marxist utopia could ever be created by violent revolution and the rule of the party. You know, doing away with a division of labor, doing away with money to have a man expert in all-important fields. He doesn't explain how this is going to be done. They didn't try to make it. I suppose they could just change the definition of terms, and so they could create a workable consensus

just through authoritarian control. This is exactly what they did, and it was completely lawless. Lenin refers to the narrow horizon of bourgeois law. In other words, the party is the law. and it's important to note that they wanted to make believe that they were opposed by the Western world and they knew very well, both Trotsky and Lennel and knew very well that they were financed by this same Western world. That the so-called Red Cross mission was a cover for the British and the American Wall Street type.

and they knew that they weren't going to be called into account. They knew they were going to be covered for, and that they considered the profits eventually that they made in the USSR as their payback for supporting them. And this way Germany could never rearm itself. It's one of the reasons they also built a strong Poland, and Germany can never rearm themselves. It's the only reason that they really cared about this.

and as far as a unified front, only the Bolsheviks had it. And no one ever talked about the uprisings throughout the entire country. And, you know, nothing mentioned about that. The elections existed but were completely phony. And their war was against Russia itself. Remember, both Marx and Hungary. as well as a few other revolutionaries like Moses Hess went on and on and on about how evil the Slavs were. Not leadership, but Slavs in general.

And that even Engels said that the revolution is partially aimed at Russia and Eastern Europe. So long as Russia exists, you can't have, in the royalist form, you can't have a global revolution. They said this over and over again. even Lenin used phrases like Russian fools or half barbarians or or whatever and the excuse was that they said that the you know Russian workers were didn't have the proper Marxist consciousness because either they were too stupid or they needed to be um dominated somehow which of course is exactly what happened you know the terrorism was justified and that they're building a new a new man and you know the only thing it really came out of it is, is corpses. The only thing they were produced properly. The economy was never stable.

And every screw in that industry, and any industry that the Soviets had came from the West. You know, GE laid out their electrical grid, Ford, and Henry Ford personally, invested in eastern Ukraine, where the entire Soviet automotive industry came from. even the organization of the Gulag a military apparatus completely built by a Western capital but eventually they took it over and added their own spin to it

there was no one in the USSR in the early years that had this this sort of expertise they were either dead or in exile or just refusing to be a part of it Russia even the word Russian was generally prohibited in public life

until the end of the 19th 30s, the head of the Communist Institute of History, and then Pukroski was the head of that. He created the so-called writing of Soviet history in the 1920s. Even the phrase Russian history, according to him, was a counter-revolutionary idea. And in my various papers, I've listed all the place names that they change from Russian names to local names. Petrov's port, for example, was changed, Verlini was changed to Almaata, removing Russian names. This should just sound pretty familiar. Libraries were completely purged.

And, you know, as both Lenin and Stalin believed, that there will be a global language and they'll use Latin letters in this global language. In fact, they created a new alphabet, the All-Union Central Committee of the new alphabet actually existed. So, and this is temporary. They never went back, but somehow trying to please local nationals was a way to get them to support Bolshevism. And the minute they did so, they were incorporated into the USSR and totally denationalized. Lenin, just like Marx and Engels before him, realized that only a denationalized worker, he can't have any ties to the land or to the nation or to religion. Because this was a totalitarian project where every aspect of human life can be regulated by the state via the action and policy of the party.

So there was a whole lot of things going on here. It was a Jewish hatred of all things Roman. This was a Jewish revolution to a great extent. It was to concentrate all the wealth of the empire into their hands. it was creating a new man and to use a mechanized empire to destroy really the only counter-revolutionary force they saw in the world after World War I, which was Russia.

And things have gone steadily downhill since. In the time of 1918 to 1920, I know that it would be very hard to answer this question accurately. How many Russians do you think they killed? Well, even in the de-stallonization campaign under Crucephship, during the Civil War, you see, it's hard to tell on a Civil War who died from combat and who died for political reasons. Of course, you have anywhere between a half million and a million combat deaths. But of course, this was an era of tremendous.

excess mortality because World War I had just ended. But the camps were stuffed pretty early because everyone, including a lot of their, you know, their leftist supporters, were considered unreliable. Lenin always thought that quality and focus is far more important. It's a very Jewish idea than having a lot of member. You know, so you're talking about at least six figures. By the end of Stalin's era, you're talking about, you know, seven figures. And as Stalin said, you know, one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic, meaning it's easier to swallow the concept of a million people killed than someone you know being killed.

I know that in any kind of revolution such as this was going to. to be, the church would have to be eradicated. Was there something personal about the Russian Orthodox Church that they, something that they took personally that caused them to do what they did? Yeah, this is the church that refused to make peace with jury. And it's part of the reason why Slavs, and by that they largely mean Russians and Serbs, were targeted. and the Russian people, not, you know, not leadership, but the Russian people themselves were the target of destruction.

Marx and Engels called for this. Merciless terror, as Engels called it, the same thing occurred in Hungary. In that case, the party was almost 100% Jewish. And I have all the leadership names in a separate paper. There were no Hungarians in the Hungarian Soviet takeover. But you have, yeah, there's a horse of church. is concerned. It's one of the proof that this is a Jewish movement, that under Lenin and the early Stalin, the church was absolutely decimated. The church is what animated the monarchy,

which in turn was the bulwark to revolution everywhere. You know, even using Slavs against, like, say, the Austrian monarchy was against their their policy. Slavs were targeted, therefore orthodoxy was targeted. It's an alternative source of loyalty. And absolutely, you know, Marx was a materialist. He was a Darwinian, and he used Darwin quite a bit, as did Engels, as did Lenin. Don't forget, Marx was on the side of the Western aggression against Russia during the Crimean War.

They were opposed to any anti-war movement that was going on. The fact that you have a starving population, a collapsed economy, and very little hope for the future in 1919, their number one priority is to destroy the church. Yes, this was a hatred. The Jews despise the Russian monarchy, and they despise the church. This was a militant, large, growing, and very powerful empire under the monarchy that would not give in to the demands of the Jews like the British had done. and so when they took over, they started this slaughter that went on.

Stalin did not mitigate it. That's another myth I have written about elsewhere. There was this war. It wasn't much left. And then he created his own kind of pet church in 1943 with a few bishops that were in prison and ended up being the so-called Soviet church. So, yeah, of course,

it was personal, it was ethnic. Russian orthodoxy was the number one threat as far as the Jews were concerned. 90% of whom, I shouldn't say that, maybe 80% of Jewry was from the East. So, you know, we talked about the pogroms the last time.

We talked about the mythology there. Lenin, because of the constant accusation, this is a Jewish movement. banned any reference to it, the so-called anti-Semitic legislation. People were in the gulag for this kind of thing. Lenin fully admitted the Jewish nature of the revolution. He mentioned it over and over again. There was no denying.

You could list all the names. There's nothing you could do about it. And of course, anything the Soviet government did, especially in this era, has to be laid at the feet of those who ran it. And these weren't even Russian Jew, as I mentioned before. Robert Wilton and so many others, the Dutch ambassador, the French ambassador, they all say this over and over again, and their number one target, even before the economy, will be the destruction of the church.

I think a lot of people would be able to get their, wrap their heads around the kind of evil that they perpetrated. If there was some, if there were some kind of practical, ideological. something like that. It just seems, it's hard for a lot of people to look at this and try to even begin to rationalize it when it's just complete violence.

I mean, and, you know, I come, I bring it forward to, you know, the thing that I, I like to study a lot is the Spanish Civil War. And what they did to priests and nuns and seminarians and churches, looking in from the outside, I don't even think

people take it seriously because it doesn't make sense. It doesn't even seem real to most people, you know, that they would burn down 6,000 churches, that they would execute priests in the street, you know, in the thousands. As human beings, as, I don't want to say human beings, as Christians, how do we even look at this kind of violence and how do we try to rationalize anything and try to understand anything about what they did? well with the fall of the third rome Rome itself was removed from the equation

and in the ancient church it was fully understood you even see this in the apocalypse that once the restrainer that is to say the emperor will be murdered destroyed removed the end will begin and you know

God may extend the period of time of history post-Rome for the sake of our repentance, but it's going to be a time of suffering. How long it will be, I don't know. If we're not in the time, the early period of Antichrist's rule, then, you know, it'll never happen.

Everything that even the fathers, who barely had a vocabulary for this kind of thing, said what happened, is happening not just locally, but for the first time on an absolutely global scale. Whether we like it or not, this is a time of suffering. This is a time of martyrdom.

Clearly you have an entire class of Russia new martyrs, which are those men slaughtered by the communists from 1917 right up until the late 70s. The gulag was never taken down except eventually near the end of Gorbachev's rule. We talked about the pogroms last time. I mentioned that again

because so many of these were restarted by Jewish attacks on religious processions. The idealism, the authority over our decisions that comes from

the existence of God, logos, natural law in the church is absolutely intolerable. The revolutionary creed is that they're going to create a new man because they assume that man has no human nature. It's up to them to create it. The old

Kabbalistic Tukun Olam, which most of your listeners I know realize what that is. The healing of the world, taking the sparks in the Kabbalah at creation and gathering together all of this light

in the proper vessels and that proper vessel is jewelry by definition. That's why I quote, you know, Moses has to a lot of these guys and that's the nature of the Shabbat movement right now. I know I can't do the guttural sound, but everyone knows what I'm talking about.

Even when they took over the Winter Palace, the Bolsheviks destroyed everything inside. They wiped feces on things. You know, it was almost a form of possession. They didn't just kill Zarnikoulos in a ritual. They slaughtered the whole family and all their servants. Sexually molested the girl. And God knows what else they did.

And it took a long time for them to die. This was considered that end. now, the Russian church has a redemptive sacrifice, almost an imitation of Christ's sacrifice. At the fall of Rome, the day that the Tsar was murdered, is the beginning of the end. And that's one way. And in fact, I think the most important and patristic way to look at these kind of events. Yeah. Yeah.

Well, when you look forward from the revolution, revolutions, was it really ever really a revolution, really wasn't it a civil war? Wasn't it just a civil war being a struggle over who gets to control the power of the government? Well, that would be nice if they just left it at the government. No, a revolution, it's not just a change in government. Calling it the American Revolution is a big mistake. The nature of a revolution implies turning everything on its head, and I mean everything, the nature of what it is to be human, the family, sexuality. the church, the banning of anything spiritual, mechanization of all things, the creation of a brand new earth. I mean, Christ promised the new heavens and a new earth in the Old Testament.

This is a new heavens and a new earth by mass party-created mechanistic methods. It's the inversion of everything. The spirit is not superior to matter. Matter destroy spirit. Everything is turned on its head. Inversion is the key issue that there is not a single human relationship that doesn't come under the control of the party

as much as humanly possible. So to completely uproot the old society, I mean, no one did it as thoroughgoing as Mao and Pol Pot, which was their explicit agenda. And the use of terror is a part of that to completely disorient people, to make them suggestible, to make them fearful, looking for any kind of a savior,

but certainly not in Christ. Not to mention the fact, it's not a materialist ideology, obviously, and it's an alternative source of loyalty. That's what a revolution is, the complete inversion and complete remaking of all social relationships. If it was just a change in government, everyone would have been much better off. When Stalin finally takes over,

what is the change there? because even more so, it seems, than Lenin and Trotsky, who eventually Lenin does, Trotsky gets, falls out of favor with Stalin. When it gets into the point where Stalin is doing his purges and he's even purging the people close to him, what is he trying to do at that point? What is he trying to create at that point? Well, as I said in the beginning, as I say in my book on the time, topic, ideologically, and even at the level of tactics, there is no substantial difference

among Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. They just had different tools at their disposal. Stalin ruled after the Civil War was over, and for the most part, the peasantry, having been slaughtered in huge numbers. Now, the deliberate famines throughout the reign of Lenin in early Stalin, you're talking about, you know, five million people, which was, you know, they were living on Western aid anyway, Western food aid. So it really didn't matter whether they had food or not. They only really cared about the cities. Lenin's goal, of course, was to create one, the world would be one big factory that would mechanize agriculture. Everything would be like the mechanized city.

Everything would be turned into a factory. Everything would be dedicated to completely transforming nature. That's why this is a totalitarian system. Nothing can be outside of an agenda like that. There is no area. If you're a materialist, you can't believe in free will because matter is just cause and effect. It's certainly, you know, to believe in free will by definition, you have to think that the human consciousness is immaterial or else there is no freedom. And when you reduce human beings to just matter in motion, then who cares if you kill a lot of them?

If that's all they are, then there's nothing special about them. They could produce machines, and that's pretty much about it. If they're not involved in that, then there's no reason for them to be around. And again, St. Ticon in his writings against this system during the Civil War, which had become silent by the time of Stalin, so few people were left, although the exile organization continued to put out materials as to what's going on. They supported Hitler's invasion, obviously, since anything was better than that. The difference really with Stalin is that he already had a pacified country. Industrialization was in its infancy there. It had occurred under the czar.

It was industrializing rapidly. And then bringing in Western, especially British, German and American investment to build the industrial base of the country, the heavy industry necessary for any worldwide factory. to create a far more totalitarian and efficient state than ever before. You know, the Bolivics didn't really matter except in Petersburg and Moscow. The countryside, you know, that had to be pacified and that took a very long time. And again, more peasants were starved to extract every bit of value from the food that they grow to feed the machines, to feed the cities. Because that was the nucleus of revolution, not the countryside.

You had some old social revolutionaries in the late 19th century, early 20th century, who believed that the peasantry can create a new communal way of life, which of course they already had. It just had to be on an atheist basis, not on the old Christian basis. You had labor cooperatives all throughout Zaris, Russia. The Artel system is a local union, where the tools are shared. This all existed long before. And these are the first things that the Bolsheviks destroyed.

All this stuff was already happening. It was already developing rapidly by the time the Marxists took over. But Stalin was able to rebuild it on a new basis with foreign money. Everything about the Bolsheviks was foreign. I mean, that's all you have when you don't have that many real supporters. But by the 1930s, you had a lot of opportunists and careerists realizing that I better join the part. or at least say I like them or else I'm not going to be able to get a job, which of course was true. No one wants to sacrifice themselves for this if they think it's, you know, the rule of the communist is inevitable.

So Stalin, it was just a matter of degree. It was just, you know, he had the beginnings of a mechanized infrastructure to work with, which makes persecution much much easier. Can you, I know you have a hard out, but can you take a couple minutes to go over something that you talked about at the end of the Pogroms episode was, and you already started talking about it, was the fact that they, they, they couldn't, they didn't have anybody who could do anything. So everything had to be done by the West. Like, can you remind everybody who, their automobile manufacturing, their oil refining, everything that they were doing, who was, who was helping with this and, you know, why this isn't

when, when people, when a lot of communists today, people who call them, themselves communists from their iPhone, say that that wasn't real communism. Why it really wasn't real communism, it was just some, I mean, maybe it was, maybe, you know, as I've argued, I've argued before, maybe this is what they're doing is the only way, the only thing you can ever call communism is this is what it's going to look like. But can you talk about how they, they just couldn't, they had to basically import everything, even manufacturing? Yeah, I mean, you had a manufacturing base in the Tsar's Empire, and it was growing, very much like the German industry was growing rapidly.

And for the most part, they were trading with each other. Oil was discovered in what we call Azerbaijan today. The only reason the British ever intervened during the Russian Civil War in the South was to secure these oil fields. certainly had nothing to do with the Reds. You know, the Reds were really a tool in their hands. I discovered this through the work of Anthony Sutton, in particular, a book published by the Hoover Institution, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development from 1945 to 1965.

And then his other one, technological treason, a catalog of U.S. firms with Soviet contracts from 1917 to 1982. And in all of this, you have major firms. The two that I use all the time is GE for the electrification, which was a Stalinist thing. You had a major mining company in Alaska, whose name I can't remember off the top of my head, who laid out their mining was very important,

Neuro Mountains. Henry Ford built the largest truck plant in the world near Kharkiv and the extreme eastern Ukraine. and as Sutton lays out you have weapons manufacturers in Germany in Britain and in the U.S. building their army. It all comes from the West. They did at one time have a substantial workforce in certain places for industry, but that was all gone. Nothing was functioning.

The Soviets had no idea how to run anything. They were professional revolutionaries. the only choice thing but the fact that this western building of the U.S.S.R completely destroys the whole narrative of the 20th century the fact that the

the whites were never ever assisted by the Western powers and in fact the Reds were and sometimes people in the middle but the whites suffered from lack of supplies because the West

and eventually Coltach Danikin had to admit this right in their memoirs they said they said we didn't get a bullet. Our supplies came from what we were able to capture from the Bolsheviks. Now, as far as military assistance throughout the Soviet era, including after World War II, Sutton also in 1973, he published National Suicide Military Aid to the Soviet Union. The Red Army was built in the West. So the major companies saw the Bolshevik Revolution as opening up a new market.

One of the biggest markets, one of the biggest trophies, Lord George used to say, was whoever was able to pry open the Russian market. And they took advantage because they financed the Bolsheviks. Once they took over, they wanted their payback. and that was in this kind of profit. So, you know, the West intellectuals, people like, you know, Herbert George Wells saw, thanks to biased press coverage, you know, this is, you know, the Soviet system is the future.

A totally administered state, a totally administered society. This is how we're going to rationalize everything on the model of behavioralist psychology. And my God, even in the early 20s, the starvation had already set in, President Hoover and the American Relief Administration organized the import of vast qualities of food. But they were also exporting wheat in order to earn money for, you know, German revolutionaries. You can't claim to be opposed to Bolivism while you're financing it. And that was just the very beginning. Avril Harriman during World War II, he talked about, you know, Stalin admitting and paying tribute to the assistance rendered by the U.S. before and during the war. Stalin and Harriman both said that about two-thirds of the large industrial enterprises in the U.S.S.R had been built with United States help, financing, or technical assistance.

and that was a direct quote actually I got straight out of the out of the Sutton book you know then and now you go in as a university as a Bolshevik you're celebrating national solicit a very different

kind of reception but because of all of this because of the Western investment what still isn't well known everything about the 20th century history is

has to be completely revised. And, you know, I could go on. In fact, I have a couple of papers. Actually, in the book, in the Soviet experiment, I have a full list of all the major companies, many of which are well-known, the predecessors of Boeing and Northrop Grumman. All of this, heavily invested,

all kinds of infrastructure projects. Like Stalin said, like Avril Haramun said, maybe two-thirds came from the West and Western financing as one of the reasons that they were able to win World War II, but it didn't stop afterwards. There was never any sanctions on the USSR during the so-called Cold War. Yeah, it never made sense to me when I was a kid that the first thing that Reagan did when he got into office was lift the grain embargo on the Soviet Union. I'm like, isn't that supposed to be, aren't, isn't that our enemy?

What are we doing? Yeah. Well, it shows how much, how limited the president's power is. Yeah, the embargo was very briefly put on the USSR for the same reason that the U.S. boycotted the Olympics in, what was that 76, I think, under Jimmy Carter. It was for the invasion of Afghanistan. Yeah, in 1980. Yeah, that was for the only point of that. It had nothing to do with they were, you know, there were Marxists or anything. anything else. And to those people who say it's not real communism, then I'd say to them that, well, the society you live in isn't real capitalism either. Anyone can say that. Any one can rationalize their failures by saying, oh, they didn't do it right. And yet every time these governments come to power, including the one that rules the U.S. today, they do the exact same

kind of things. Using terror and surveillance is part and parcel of the left from the British revolution straight on to today in the postmodern revolution in the U.S. over the last 40 years. It's identical in every case. They use the same rhetoric. They use the same methods. These days, of course, it's a lot more refined and psychological. It was a little cruder before, but it was the same, you know, the Paris commune. It was the same exact method and the same people behind it.

You know, so that the Jewish left is the engine of revolution. and they are ushering in this new era to Kunalaam. All right. Remind everybody where they can find your work and support you. I'll make sure to include links to everything that you've given me before and will end us. Well, I appreciate that. You know, what I've been saying here is a minuscule percentage of what I've written. And it's hard to answer these questions when you know way too much about a topic.

so we end up all over the place. But my weekly lecture, actually two weekly lectures are to be found at Radio Albion, you know, the other word for England. And I've been there for a very long time. There, and the links that you provide, you could find my books, mostly on Russian issues and related topics. and of course a place the Russian Orthodox Medievalist

which is my own website which is still up and the Orthodox medievalist box there which you could use to directly donate to me because I require donations to function the other option is my Patreon page which I know you have

usually have a link to where you know I have numerous books worth of material I publish a long essay maybe two or three times a month. Not just on Russian stuff either. It's kind of all over the place. Tons of stuff on the war in Ukraine, tons of stuff on the war in Israel.

You know, it's generally this international politics and some domestic stuff to be found on Patreon. And that's a big deal to me. So if you want to support me, go to those links and help me out because I don't have a big institution like a university or a party behind me. So this is all self-finance, and it's your listeners and people like your listeners who've kept me in business all these years. I think they all appreciate it every time you come on, and I think that's why they go and they make sure that you get supported so you can keep up your work. So I will include all those links, and as per usual, thank you very much. Thank you. You're welcome, my friend.

Anytime. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekingano show, Dr. Matthew Raphael, Johnson, Reitz. How are you doing, Dr. Johnson? I'm doing very well, my friend. We're living in very depressing times, but despite all that, we're doing pretty well, both of us. Yes, yes. So I wanted to have you on because we, I think the first time we ever talked, we talked about Ukraine, and I don't believe we have done anything since then.

And with the news of billions and billions more of money that could be closing the border, and doing all sorts of things going there. We need an update on what's going on over there. So what are your thoughts on all this? Well, for those of your listeners who don't know, I'm an academic specialist in Russo, Ukrainian, both history and to a lesser extent policy by politics and theology.

I have many, many books out on this topic. So back in 2004, when the first foreign revolution happened. I got this flurry of activity. Then 10 years later when my done occurred, and then since 2022, when I went away, my first day of my honeymoon, the war broke out, which didn't surprise me. It didn't surprise a lot of people. And keep in mind, you know, the trilemma of counterinsurgency, which essentially was what's happening in Ukraine. That war was over as a conventional matter by the summer of 22. They've been artificially maintained, not just by Putin's conservatism here, but by intelligence and mercenaries and everything else that are shipped in from the Western world, who now with the Israeli situation can't even defend itself.

American military equipment has performed very poorly. Tactics have been switched by the Ukrainian side back to the Soviet models, which most of the officers anyway were trained in. and I have this from mercenaries personally that the American way over there of war does not work they could send all the weapons in the universe over there and it doesn't matter because being trained on these things requires a lot of translators

people aren't even asking how many people know how to work this stuff not only that but how to integrate it with the rest of the strategy which may or may not actually exist a unified command structure was destroyed last year no one knows what's going on what's going on now don't forget the war is taking place in russian areas

these are russian speaking areas in the east that voted over and over again to leave ukraine which now is a fourth world backwater it would have been a fourth world backwater regardless of whether there was a war or not this is something i've been following since you know i started in the early 90s but the trilemma of counterinsurgency is that you there's three ingredients you want to maximize the damage done to your opponent and you want to minimize both your own military casualties and civilian casualties.

The problem is you can never have all three at once. So Putin decided to eliminate the first one. He wanted to minimize his own casualties and certainly civilian casualties since they were all Russians to begin with and unfortunately it meant that he had to sacrifice maximal damage to his opponent.

That more recently has changed. Ukraine has been depopulated No one knows Ukraine like the Russians do Most of the capital there is Russian anyway And it's been painful as a specialist in these areas To listen to these media morons Start talking about these places and things

That they just discovered yesterday As these authoritative figures So But so other than that the aid to Ukraine bill and the entire funding issue was front page news for a while and this program at least in part as you mentioned should be on the aid thing a country that doesn't have money that for the first time has the majority of its budget going to interest payments on the debt and is being invaded by a hostile guerrilla army from the south and the north too strangely you know and is cutting back on everything from health care on down, but sending hundreds of billions to a war that can't be won, the purpose of which solely was to weaken Russia,

because Russia, as I said in the 90s, was the only self-sufficient, a nation who is completely self-sufficient and has the population, military tradition, and the economy to stand on its own against what we used to call the New World Order. Of course, now it's the great, reset with their Chinese and Central Asian allies.

I also want you to keep in mind that this was never the case. And if you don't mind me talking about this, I'm writing something here on a similar issue during the so-called Cold War, the aid to the Contras. What suffering, Ronald Reagan had to go through, would you get even a few dollars to go to, go to. of these people, despite the fact it was right in the backyard. What's the difference between the hatred, the regime's hatred of the Contras in the 1980s in Nicaragua or the El Salvador government back then and Ukraine today? And the only real difference is ideology. I mean, Reagan made this a central plank of his program.

The enemy was the USSR, the regime in the Western world was heavily invested in the USSR. They vehemently opposed any war against it. everything from Vietnam on down. The media openly backed the kind of semi-soviet or Cuban-Sandinista government and had zero opposition in the process for a handful of conservatives. So Reagan had to do this secretly. There's only one difference between those two wars. And the one in Nicaragua was anti-leftist and the one in Ukraine is anti-Russian.

In this case, Russia is seen as a, as a, more or less right wing power. It's a bit more complicated than that, but I think you know what I'm talking about. He did get a few million dollars through the Congress. Remember, this is before the web, this before everything else. It was really hard to contradict these people.

I have a book on Latin America, the military dictators there, which aren't really too relevant here, but all this make-believe information about how evil the conscious were. Nothing, of course, by the corruption of Ukraine. And of course, they passed the infamous

Boland Amendment, prohibiting certain U.S. agencies from giving aid to the Contras. Reagan, of course, was right. San Anisa government was a satellite of Cuba and hence of the USSR, instigating revolution all over Central America in particular.

And the regime then created the Iran-Contra scandal, complete with no reference to the fact that this was an entirely Israeli operation. relative to the Iran-Iraq war. So you have to ask yourself the crap that Reagan took for trying to support the Contras

against Cuban revolutionaries in the early 80s and the fact that there really is no opposition to the support of the fourth world Ukrainian state which is a colony of the U.S. against Russia. They are night and day. And I'm saying

that's the reason for it. It's ideology. Ideology has always been the dominant issue with the regime because ideology, I mean, the regime is a leftist force, more or less, an oligarchy versus some kind of a Soviet top-down thing. Of course, this is also a top-down thing. I have another paper on the similarities at the fundamental level between Marxism, not socialism, but Marxism and postmodern capitalism. it's based on the same set of assumptions. So that's the first thing back in 22, the first thing, or even years earlier, that struck me. And even I have something on Joe Biden back in, I think it was either 72 or 74,

went over to the USSR with Richard Lugar of Indiana and the respect that he showed Soviet leaders versus what he, how he talks about Putin today. In other words, the U.S. was far more sympathetic to the USSR than has been, if the Cold War was a real thing, that would have been going on then. The only time he had some traction was when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, but that was late in their career. The difference between the Contra issue and the Ukraine issue, the difference has to be explained. I'm the only one who's explaining it. And the difference is in ideology. One was an anti-rightist thing.

The other is an anti-leftist thing. when you really start nailing down. I was thinking about when you were talking about how they supported the USSR, it was the joke they came out a bunch of years ago about how the left really hated Russia now because they gave up on communism. Let's take it in this direction. Okay, so the USSR falls, you know, choices were made. You know, Pap Buchanan was like, hey, we just got to concentrate on.

being that shining city on a hill now, but no, the neoconservatives wanted to go in a, you know, wanted to keep it going. We need to find a new enemy to slay. And obviously, the first one was Iraq. But this is, and, you know, we've talked about this before. You've talked about it on the show, is this is a Jewish operation. And the ideology, the ideology there is that if it's going to be anti-right-wing, It's usually going to come from them from World War II, the authoritarian personality by the Frankfurt School, all of these things that just destroy the right. Anything that's the right needs to be destroyed. Well, Hitler's defeat was the approximate cause of all this, where nationalism and its various guises, not fascism as such, but nationalism and its various guises, now was considered irrelevant. the world was divided between Truman and Stalin and that's simply how the planet was was governed.

USSR was internationalist. It was materialist. It was obviously secular. It put its faith in production and science. It used a politicized psychiatry. It was at war with nationalism. The regime cross-border. orders back then. It was essentially one in the same empire. Now, of course, at the fringes, when the

Soviet empire got way too big, especially over the Chinese issue, you did have some warfare, but it was highly limited and nothing like we're looking at today. But today's Russian Federation, under Vladimir Putin, starting in 2001, started preaching something very different. That was a nationalist and in many cases, a royalist, so-called Eurasianist world order, something that undercut the very foundational ontology of Western capitalism. Capitalism, Marxism, had the same foundation. They were, you know, essentially brother and sister. Any empire that grew as large as a communist one was going to be opposed.

I don't care what ideology it had. The ideology wasn't the problem there. It was the fact that they may get into a position where they can cut out the U.S. from trade deals. But that's exactly what the Russian Federation today is preaching. And this is why there's this huge difference in the treatment of, say, the contrary is in the 80s and Ukraine today. The fact that the Americans are willing to go so far as to totally undercut their own ability to defend themselves and even get the U.S. involved in a major war, not just in Middle East, but East Africa and Central Asia over Israel. all of Eastern Europe as far as Ukraine is concerned taking on a country that's much better off economically and culturally than the U.S. is in the Russian Federation. Going that far, wanting to go that far to undercut the room to spend money they don't have, to continue to demand that the Ukrainians, you know, that the democracy fight to the last Ukrainian, that they're depopulating.

that entire country, which is a tragedy. You just want to bring in the Jewish element. Jews hated Ukraine as much as they hated Russia. And for very similar reason, they hated the Cossacks of Ukraine. They hated the monarchy of Russia. They win either way here. Russian casualties have been very low. That's a matter of deliberate choice.

But the descendants of the Cossacks get depopulated. Anti-Jewish ideas are mainstream, both in Russia and in and in Ukraine, especially in Ukraine. Making matters more obnoxious. You have a Jewish president installed. No one ever heard of him before. He gets installed in power and starts shutting down any. I mean, he's an internationalist.

These aren't neo-Nazis or fascists. They wouldn't be supporting this. If they were really that, they wouldn't be supporting this regime. And they are serving its interests. You know, we're going to fight the Russians to become a part of the European Union. I mean, no real nationalist group is going to talk like that. But that's exactly what we're supposed to believe is, it's going on here. And it irritates me when they call them neo-Nazis or something like that.

Now, if they were neo-Nazi, they wouldn't be doing what they were doing. It's a Jewish regime shutting down the churches that have any connection with Russia, which is all of them, except for, you know, the nationally based so-called auto. But even the autocephalists were consecrated by Russians in many respects. And that that line doesn't really exist in Ukraine for the most part anyway. So he shuts down all of the opposition politicians, closes the doors of all the parties, all the think tanks that opposed them, shut down thousands of churches and monasteries, says out loud that he's going to create a new Israel in Ukraine. We're going to borrow that kind of garrison mentality that they have in Tel Aviv. and we're going to do the same here the state

the state now controls everything this forcible conscription now of women and old people sometimes you're doing it you know violently just dragging anybody training them very poorly and getting them killed

and which is why the desertion issue is so huge and calling all of that democracy and of course the very same simple answer is yes, it is. That is perfectly consistent with how the regime defines democracy. And that is liberalism. It's just an armed liberalism. It's liberalism and power. That's exactly

what the Soviets are trying to do. It's exactly what the U.S. is doing now in a different way, but using the same kind of institutions, all this top-down stuff. And in the meantime, and the media totally controlled. Pro-Russian sources are totally banned in Europe. I'm I think you know. You can't get RT in Europe now, or including in sympathetic states like Bulgaria. The U.S. is, you ever wonder where the anti-war movement went? Remember the anti-nuke movements in the 80s? Where are they? The U.S. is now bringing nuclear weapons and has been into Romania, another place, Poland, without a peep of protest. But if this happened 45 years ago, you would have had all these leftists blocking traffic. All of this stuff has to be explained. I can't do everything.

everything by myself, but apparently it, you know, I have to do it. That these two things are so radically different, or so, you know, they're radically different in terms of American policy and why that is the case. And to support this man who has a popularity rating of zero, if you could have it in negative numbers, he would have it. No one trusts him. No one likes him. He doesn't know anything about politics.

He went in as a comedian and just does what he's told. Ukraine is governed through the American embassy. Things have to be, everything that Ukraine does is rubber stamp to prove by the U.S., whether military or civilian. There's no independent Ukrainian policy because there's no independent Ukraine. There are economic strength within the East, which is now completely gone. And all of this, terror attacks against civilians in Crimea. And in the East, all of it perfectly consistent with liberalism. It is the esoteria.

This is liberalism totally exposed to the world. They said the same thing about Israel, the world's greatest democracy in the Middle East. Forgetting Lebanon and Turkey, of course, the only democracy down there that would say. But this, and he says, I'm going to build Israel here. I'm going to build a garrison state where there are soldiers in every shopping mall and every supermarket. It's going to be a totally militarized state. He has completely separated from reality. I think he believes his own press, but he went into this extremely ignorant.

He was the perfect frontman. He's like Joe Biden, who no one elected, who doesn't know where he is most of the time. It was like Yeltsin in Russia in the 90s. You could tell him anything. The perfect front leadership. And of course, that means domestically tons of money being spent there, despite the fact that no one wants it spent there. and they want control of the border, which is never going to happen. The American economy at the elite levels is heavily dependent on that cheap non-union labor coming in.

So that's just, and that hasn't changed for a long time now. This war is just to get one more step. But the fact that the U.S. is willing to go this far is something that the Russians can't understand. They're sacrificing their own security for the same. sake of supporting this clearly lost war and the only thing that they're getting out of it is a total depopulation of a one of the most educated um and high tech countries in in in europe up until the 1990 not to mention the most fertile and it's the outrage and the ignorance of people who don't know the first thing about this stuff bill crystal's new new organization this is just

um russia's coming for us how to How many times I've, why would Russia be coming for us unless, of course, the U.S. are making it so. People with no knowledge of international affairs, let alone knowledge of Eastern Europe, are making policy. And I guess, I'm not sure of this, but I guess they believe that Russia is getting ready to invade with the Chinese. That's really the Republican line now. They're going to come for us unless we stop them here. Well, we're not stopping them anywhere. He's Ukrainian 15-year-old.

But they're not. There's massive desertion at the front there. They know that this war is over. Russians are traveling outside of their turrets. They don't have to worry about a sniper fire. There's no supplies. There's no ammunition. There's no train crews anymore.

And just sending weapons is just a symbolic move. It's like sanctions. You could send Patriot missile batteries to Ghana if you want. That doesn't mean that they're going to integrate it with their own military and have train crews ready and willing to use it. It doesn't work that way. It represents a certain culture. There is no ability to integrate any of that stuff.

And it gets destroyed the minute it gets off the boat. Anyway, they don't have the pilots. They haven't trained pilots to fly these advanced military American pieces of hardware. You can imagine rookie pilots here. They'd be slaughtered. And that's exactly the point. Anything to create a war with the Russian Federation as the only thing standing in the way of the Great Reset. If it wasn't all of the loss of life, it would be comical when they make statements like, oh, Ukraine, you know, Ukraine's going to win this because, you know, Russia is a paper tiger.

But then in the same breath, they'll be like Russia's going to invade, you know, Europe and take over Europe. And they make no sense whatsoever. why they have to bring the China thing into this. And what is China's going to invade Europe? What are these people even talking about? I don't think that they're just relying upon the ignorance of the people anymore to believe this stuff. I think that they have some brainwashed people out there who are going to repeat whatever line they say. And then I think they just don't care anymore.

They just don't care. I said in a little substack yesterday, But, you know, when I was growing up, there was this term that was applied to, quote, neo-Nazis and white supremacists and these patriot groups. And now with everything that we've seen, where you can get the Speaker of the House of the representatives of the United States to go to some college on the upper west side of New York City, of Manhattan, and repeat lies, repeat Hasbara that's been. debunked, you know, three, four months ago that we, we live in that term that was so demonized back then. We are a Zionist-occupied government. And there is, to argue against that is just foolishness at this point. I'm not even going to take you seriously because you're not in the game. Well, you know what projection is as a psychological term. It's a neurotic defense mechanism.

Of course, you're unaware of doing it where you can't handle and you can't even deal with the evil that you find in yourself. So you project it, transfer it onto others. And it's no accident that every single thing that the West says about Russia and China or both is 10 times more applicable to the United States. This goes for every conflict. and it's so perfect. There's such a one-to-one correlation that it can't be an accident. So I've come to, especially my favorite, every few weeks there was one of the financial papers would say the Russian or the Chinese economy is going to collapse any day. They've been saying that for 15 years.

No one gets in trouble for this. No one's fired. All their predictions are wrong about this kind of thing. And it's because their own economies are on the verge of, of collapsing. And somehow this notion that the world depends on the United States and that sanctions not only aren't hurting

Russia, but helping them is not something the American can comprehend. But the evils of the regime are being removed from itself and projected onto an other, you know, in quotes,

whether it be the Chinese or the Russians, which very few people know about, so then you could construct, them in any way you want. And that's how projection is working here. Because you're dealing with public ignorance, they can absolve themselves of their own sins by claiming

that other countries, especially their enemies, are doing the are doing the same thing. And it's such a bizarre thing to watch. There has to be a psychological analysis of it. You know, there's no legitimacy to these governments. Well, you could say that about the West. They've lost contact

with their people. Well, if anything is true about the West, it's that. On and on and on. And that can't be an accident. This is a way that, I mean, plenty of people in the regime are sociopathic. They don't have a problem. They don't have to project because they don't care. They have no connection either with good or evil. It's all the same to them. But for semi-normal people in that position, projection allows them to deal with the fact that their policies are causing the deaths from Iraq to now of tens of millions. millions of people in the name of democracy. That has to be papered over in their brain in one way or another, and projection allows them to do it. It's a very common thing, and it can be collective as well as personal. And that kind of answers your question about what else other than public ignorance is being used here. And to the point where every new article says something about Russia or China that I just

finish arguing about the U.S. There's no freedom of speech there, they would say, as Ukraine shuts down all opposition, no matter what they are, you know, et cetera, et cetera. And that's one of the ways that the regime can continue to function mentally speaking. And there's not enough work done in that regard. But it is too close a correlation for it to be anything else. It is a collective psychosis. As far as on the ground goes in Ukraine, where does this go?

You mentioned that they don't even have snipers, that Russians can come out of their tanks and walk around. I mean, what is it at this point? What's Russia's goal at this point? I guess that's probably a better question. Where do you think Russia's goal? What's Putin's goal at this point? Russia's goal hasn't changed at all in a decade and a half.

There was never any attempt to overthrow the Ukrainian government, which is not really Ukrainian and is certainly not independent. To get Russian-speaking areas out of that hellhole, you have no functional economy, you have a worthless currency. The entire budget, all government offices are paid by American aid. It's like a real big Albanian. you know, that's, that's the main situation now. Salaries are being paid by the American taxpayer. The goal is to protect Russian-speaking areas from this backwater with 90% unemployment, whatever it is, to make sure that Kiev, matter what happens, does not join NATO

and maintains a neutral point of view in terms of, of foreign policy and of course the previously very brisk and profitable trading in many things i mean russian economy domestically maybe 10% of it uh is based on oil and gas that's far less than norway or even canada um but but that's really been the goal from the beginning of course the media said that he wants to conquer ukraine and every other place these are russian speakers for the most part in the eastern half of the country, who even if they weren't particularly pro-Russian before, the economy that Kiev oversaw up until the start of this war made it impossible for them to function. And to maintain the rather constructive Russian presence in the east

of Ukraine and in Crimea, at the same time, American Ukrainian terrorist cells are blowing up dams, are destroying sources of clean water. In other words, they're trying to slaughter them. If they were able to take Crimea back, which of course is impossible, what would they do? No one wants them there. There's a huge language barrier. If they're already engaging in terrorist acts against a civilian population in eastern Ukraine and Crimea, what would they do if they actually occupied a place where these places are voting 97% to join the Russian Federation? Even if there was no war, they would have had. have very similar margins of victory because Ukraine doesn't have a functional economy. It did at one point. And as you know, Black Rock, who is one of the great pillars of the world rule, assuming some kind of a Kiev in victory, which of course they can't assume anymore, has all the contracts ready to go for rebuilding Ukraine for their profit. Ukrainians will have zero to do with any of this. And this is why you have thousands of guys risk. risking death to cross the river into into Romania and many other places. You know, this is just, the T's a river, I should say, in particular. Mukchevo border, places like this, this is why these young guys are going to pay $10,000,

which is something where the average wage is like $250 a month to get the heck out of the country. being dragged off the street, you're 60 years old and you're dragged off the street and handed a rifle. That's precisely what's going on. You send all the tanks you want, but if you don't have trained and experienced crews and a rational command structure,

you don't have anything. So what? They're destroyed the minute they come down. So that's Russia's goals and that's the situation on the ground. Supplies, ammunition is down to almost nothing. Fuel has been a problem for a long time. of course, Russia has total air power, air supremacy.

And the Russians have been very careful. You know, some of the Ukrainian army tended to concentrate themselves in eastern cities, which, of course, Russians could not dislodge them from without killing a lot of civilians. And that's not an accident. But even that, you know, these guys don't want to be where they are. Elite units are long gone. The volunteers are long gone. You have some stragglers.

What Russia is doing now is essentially a mop-up operation. and the U.S. just scuttled another peace deal, which would have given into two Russian demands, which are very reasonable ones. And the U.S. said, no, you will never, you'll never surrender. So every death of this is on blood on the hands of the American politician, the banking and the elite arms dealers from Boeing on down. the only part of the American economy except porn that's growing. I haven't talked to you since this happened. So let me get your take on this because, I mean, this was, I mean, just the insanity of it. The shooting in Moscow, the mass slaughter.

What was your take on it? What do you know about it? What can you tell us? Because it's already out of the news. They made sure that it's out of the news. That was a Ukrainian hit team using a group of people. It's been a little while since I even considered them from Tajikistan, I think. Well, it was Central Asia somewhere.

Yes, it was Tajik's probably trained in Afghanistan. And the use of ISIS, you know, I have several lengthy papers proving without doubt what ISIS is. It's an arm of the U.S. and Israeli military. And the proof of that is that they only attack targets that are enemies of Israel or the U.S. the U.S., Russia included. There's no Palestinian group that believes that ISIS is a real organization, or, you know, they're a real organization, but that they're anything other than a Mossad and CIA front. Have they assisted the, here's an army that fought the Syrian, advanced Syrian Arab army

to a standstill 10 years ago. Are they doing anything against the Israelis? No, they had a fleet of oil tankers overnight. You know, so for them to say this is ISIS. Well, I suppose if there's one target that ISIS would want to hit, it would be the Russians, since they were the only ones who destroyed them and pushed them out of Syria years ago with the Russian intervention there. The Russians were invited. The Americans are illegal occupiers. The Americans have no right to be in Ukraine either since they were involved in overthrowing the previous government, who the while highly imperfect, was actually seeing some positive economic indicators for the first time.

in a long time. So it's an act of terror because this is all Ukraine and the U.S. have now. And of course, when this happens, governments say, oh, the Russians are terrorist organization. You know, the Revolutionary Guard Corps should be called the terrorist organization. Well, of course, the Americans and the Israelis have been murdering their nuclear sciences for a decade. again whatever whatever they accuse russia of their doing or you know syria whatever whatever they accuse them of they're doing themselves

um the attacks on crimea the bridge power water going to to crimea parts of you know flooding parts of eastern ukraine this isn't exactly designed to win back hearts and minds they have no they have no chance of that ever happening it would be a massive genocide if they were ever able to take over, which was the point of the 2022 invasion in the first place. Had the Russians waited a few more days, the Ukrainian army would have invaded Nova Russia and Dombas and absorbed that capital at the Black Rock's behest, the Americans

be hence back into Ukraine and hence the western orbit. But beyond that, the Russian economy is doing so well, about 300,000. billion that and it's very unclear who owns at 300 billion that the western world stole and wants to use for the Ukraine war I talk about that at some length elsewhere that's a rounding error as far as the Russian economy goes I'm not sure are these they never make it clear are these state funds or their oligarchs who you know it doesn't seem to bother the Russians very much at all that's actually kind of hard to do I think it's more symbolic than anything else.

But now, as far as the third world is concerned, which is growing by leaps and bounds, thanks to bricks, no one's going to trust any of their money in an American-backed or NATO-EU-backed account because the minute you irritate them, they could take all your cancer to the Russians. And that just did that, you know, so that dissuades them from that as the Russians are actively, with the Chinese, recreating the world order based on, regional nationalism, ethnic nationalism, civilizational forms, rather than one abstract global economy.

Internationalism in the best sense of the word, meaning interlocking nations that are presumed to exist and are good things versus globalism, which is just abstract cosmopolitanism, which is acultural and essentially the zomification of everyone. It's no accident that the Israelis always like to beam pornography into

both the Gaza's trip in the West Bank. They've been doing that for a very long time. Now, why would they be doing that? It's not to liberate these people from the shackles of their Islamic religion. It's to render them the lackadaisical, to keep them

addicted to anti-Islamic things that, of course, they have to pay for in order to keep them from fighting, to keep them from building a separate identity. That's why the Israelis are always doing that. it's it's it's not an uncommon thing

and look at what russia's doing they're getting rid of porn hub they got rid of burger king oh my god getting rid of mcdonalds how would that culture ever going to ever going to survive their health just went through the roof by comparison to americans no one needs any of these things but as the russian economy continues to do very well building new trading blocks the u.s is looking worse and worse every foreign policy gambit of theirs has been a failure. I think the last success was what, Grenada or no, Panama. That was about the last success. Everything else has been a miserable failure from Iraq to God knows Afghanistan, Somalia, the Israeli morass right now, and now, of course, the extreme unpopularity of liberalism

and liberal economies in the Western world, especially in the Central European world. So, and these sanctions are now going to be aimed at third countries. In other words, if you assist a country in evading sanctions, you yourself will be sanctioned. Now, you don't hear that many court cases about people who've been arrested for breaking sanctions. It's very curious. I've never seen, you know, IBM or Chevrolet getting dragged before a judge because they did something you weren't supposed to. No, the U.S. still buys things from Russia. Britain says it won't

It won't import Russian oil and gas We're just going to get it from the French But where do the French get it? You know, it's hilarious You know, how we're doing some of these people are So that's kind of a very, very rough thumbnail sketch Of what's going on The shooting specifically

Yeah, it's just one more terrorist attack out of many And many more to come Because that's all the West has left Well, you mentioned them just not caring about hearts and minds and public opinion anymore. So can you, what's your opinion on, I mean, Israel's bombing Syria, Israel's bombing Lebanon, Israel's, you know, just turning the Gaza strip into dust. What's the purpose of all this? I mean, it seems, it just seems so like they're basically just trying to destroy everything.

They're trying to destroy themselves. they're trying to destroy their own people. They're trying to, there just seems to be a nihilism associated with this that I can't quite, some people are jumping straight to like eschatological end times things. What are they doing? Well, if these aren't the end times,

then there is no such thing as the end times. Especially because it's global and scope. And for some of the things that we suffer today, you didn't even have the vocabulary for in Greek, for example, millennia ago. So they can only describe it in very vague terms. Now, the machinery of Armageddon

is a completely different issue. I spoke about that last week on the concept of the Kabbalistic concept of Adam Cadman. The broader point is that the U.S. is simply losing everywhere it goes. It believes it has this authority to throw its weight around anywhere.

You know, it's like that episode of the Simpsons where the old man in the nuclear plant lost all of his money in power but still walked around Springfield like he, Mr. Burns, still walked around Springfield like he had all that money. And people were, I haven't had it. That's how the U.S. appears now,

which is why they have to rig elections, which is why they have to use acts of terrorism, and simply use genocide as a means of force. foreign policy, whether it be in Ukraine or in, because that's the only thing you can consider Gaza to be. And Israel's good with that. So if Israel's going to kill babies, which they do, and toddlers, and those who survive

are going to have PTSD for the rest of their lives, if you're going to attack hospitals and then, of course, accuse the Russians of doing the exact same thing, of course, almost in the same breath, then you can't take, you know, their main pillar in the U.S. is the, the Republican evangelical. It's now part of the Protestant creed that there's only one group that's saved by their race and that's these Khazar Jews and the level of ignorance that goes into that is astounding. We don't even have a common vocabulary anymore, but you can't be pro-life, for example, and support Israeli operations in Gaza. You can't do it because you're killing babies there. You're preventing them from being born and God knows what kind of a level. And it's,

mass slaughter. So either there has to be a total revaluation of values on some Nietzschean foundation or simply the Jews cashing in with, you know, we are the superior race and therefore the laws don't apply to us. Normal public opinion doesn't apply to us. And a complete, of course, there was also the whole question of new Khazdia in Crimea, but that's not going to happen now. I have a few papers out on that. This very old concept, Jews mostly know that they're Khazars and have no connection with the people of the Old Testament. So I want to rebuild the Qazadi, which is roughly where Crimean and the Black Sea are. And the Caspia on the other side, that was pretty much the foundation of the Khazar Empire.

But Russia had to lose for that to be the case. So now Israel's in serious trouble. They didn't win this war like they thought. They're grinding it out in a war of attrition. you have almost the entire world against them you have the Turks threatening to intervene in any given moment you imagine that the Iranians have been extremely restrained and intelligent their counter strike as we all as we all know and now that the US is completely bereft of military equipment they're sending what they have left to to the Israelis and their their performance

even in the Israeli side has been pretty poor compared to their opposition. The Houthis, the, you know, Hezbollah has defeated Israel in the past in 2000. They took South Lebanon. And worse, as far as the Western world is concerned, any Islamic state run by moderates who wants to actually talk to Tel Aviv are going to be overthrown. So you're radicalizing people who may not have been radical before. Don't forget, Iran is a first world economy.

They have a first world scientific and educational establishment. The best mental health on the planet. I think the lowest suicide rate in the world. I think they're in the bottom five. Something like that. A highly motivated group of people who now realize who's the cause for their problems. Sanctions to the extent that they've done anything in Iran are blamed on the West, the people where it should be blamed.

And it hopes that they want to weaken their opposition just enough so they can continue their strip mining of the world's assets. I don't even think that's going to work out. We're living in wonderful times in many ways. My audience would want me to ask this question because I don't think we've spoken since the interview with Tucker and Putin. When Putin brings up denazification,

what is he talking about? Well, we've already covered it. I didn't watch it. I had little interest in it. Nothing new was said. I have a book out on the political philosophy of Vladimir Putin, which came out in 2012, called Russian populist. And really, his agenda hasn't changed. My big criticism, though, I was the very first pro-Putin guy in the nationalist right in 2001, 2002, when I was at the Barnes Review.

Everything that came after follows on me. And, of course, the publications in the Barns Review and elsewhere are proof of that. the one thing I disagree with Putin on is this notion that these neo-Nazis, this glorification of World War II and the defeat of the German army. And I get it from a Russian point of view, but not necessarily from an ideological point of view, where somehow the Soviet banners should be put in the temple of the army that they have in Petersburg right next to Orthodox ones. that's a very common pro-Soviet ideologically pro-Soviet but non-leftist approach to history and Putin is still hung up on this World War II victory and it's the ultimate and the high point in Russian life and in fact it wasn't Russian at all it was Soviet which was largely a foreign internationalist body which at the time was ruled by a Georgian in an army of Jews Putin of course has

brought into this neo-Nazis-run Ukraine thing, despite the fact that they don't have a single policy that an actual neo-Nazi movement would engage in, against the power that in many ways can be considered somewhat social nationalist in Russia, like you have in Syria and Belarus, and elsewhere in a very vague sense. I mean, that's what Russia is.

I vehement disagree with him. And he uses that, I think. I mean, he does believe it. He's passed laws where if in a non-scholarly way, you question the great patriotic war victory. Again, non-scholarly that's gone to the courts already and scholars have been perfectly exonerated. I've actually covered that in the past. This is for non-scholars. That somehow that was a pinnacle of Soviet and hence Russian life, I can't agree.

I can't accept it. There's millions of Russians who agree with me. Putin is a great man and he saved Russia from utter dissolution by 1999. But as far as that is concerned, he's dead wrong. And I mean, the policy can end up being the same. But he says that over and over again, that this is the neo-nazi regime in Kiev, despite the fact that their specific agenda is to be a part of NATO, be a part of the EU, and be a liberal power.

in all definitions of that term. So there's a little cognitive dissonance there. It's irritating, but not a huge issue for me. We've already mentioned that the people who are financing Ukraine have said that they're willing to fight Russia down to the very last Ukrainian when you examine everything that's happening right now and you look at everything. In your opinion, how does this end?

I think, and I'm not making a hard and fast prediction here. It's going to be like how the U.S. surrendered in Afghanistan. You don't have people who really know what's going on over there. So you could say we won and we're getting out. And that's it. And the media doesn't talk about it anymore. And no one even knows what's going on. And they're going to do the same here.

You have a whole Ukrainian units refusing to fight. shootouts between people being forcibly drafted and all that. There's been a lot of violence in Ukraine. It's going to get to the point where, you know, Ukraine is going to refuse to fight. This Zelensky is never going to put himself in front of elections. They'd be rigged anyway. But, you know, I don't think he's dumb enough to do that. My God, the Americans had an election right in the middle of the Civil War.

The Syrians did it during their war. It's not, you know, the problem is he has no, he has no support in the nationalist population, let alone anyone else. So I think it ends with with the U.S. pulling out and just dropping it, declaring victory, so long as there's no follow-up questions, and the media move on to something else. That's certainly depressing and demoralizing just all the loss of life. what are you figuring Ukrainian

600,000 at this point? Oh yeah, did you read my paper on that? I think I published 600. Are you talking about military deaths? Military, I think. The last one I saw that was like 500,000, but another 100,000 in civilians maybe.

Oh, yeah. I had come up there was a study some months ago on obituaries appearing in Ukrainian newspapers. That was a guy who put it at 600,000 military casualties, not just deaths. Casualties in general. Deaths, you know, all countries lie about their casualties.

The U.S. does it all the time. There is no Ukrainian official number. They would never release that. It would be ridiculous anyway. Whatever your view is going to be much higher than that. there's very now you civilians it's really hard to tell um it's not as compact as gaza is you know there you can keep track but this is a much bigger place um and this you know so yeah i said 600 000 like three months ago uh the intensity of the war has has gone down and um there's simply

no resources or manpower to engage in any kind of offensive and the Russians are not going to fall for the let's talk peace while retooling and regrouping, which has happened twice in the past. It happened at the Istanbul conference a few months into the war. And of course, it happened at the Minsk, too, concerning East Ukraine. They're not going to fall for it a third time. I think Russia will get its goals. And at a minimum, there'll be a cold peace between the two-thewths.

sides the rump Ukrainian state with the, I don't know, the eastern quarter already a part of Russia. They're Russian speaking anyway and actually being a part of a functional economy for once. China's already heavily involved in rebuilding Crimea. You know, the Ukrainian administration kept the infrastructure in a shockingly bad state of disrepair. So they have to rebuild a lot of this stuff from from zero But there's no resources in the West Certainly nothing in Kiev that they could use to fight Whether they they go to a purely ISIS style terrorist group

That they'll invent again Whole cloth that you know that's a separate issue But um This loss of life Now I don't know maybe 700,000 and total casualties for absolutely nothing. I've also heard reports of tens of thousands of fighting men who could be buried in unmarked graves

while their commanding officers continue to collect their paychecks. Have you heard anything about that? I have heard about that. I don't remember where. I've been on a couple of Russian language blogs from former military officers who've spoken of this. There's been many reports from 2014. of Ukrainian officers fleeing the scene, leaving their men stranded. It's a source of a lot of desertion.

And Putin has made it very easy for these boys. Of course, it's all boys. There's no girls. For these boys, young men to become Russian citizens. And there's been a big explosion there, let alone those that have fled the border, paid the money and simply left. The rich are certainly long gone from there. The western part of the country is not entirely industrialized. It's an agrarian population.

It still may be viable. The eastern part, of course, is very pro-Russian and highly industrialized and urbanized, but it could never function as a part of the Ukrainian economy. Now, for the first time, it can function. What Ukraine is going to do to replenish its numbers, that's, again, a separate issue. And the whole thing is extremely depressing. Well, let's end it right there. I'm going to make sure to put in all the links that I normally do.

Why don't you remind people where they can find your work and support your work? Well, if you search for my full name, I'm the only one in the world. It should bring you to rustjournal.org. And it should also, importantly, bring you to Radio Albion, which is my home base. And on all of my lectures, the hour-long ones and the half-hour ones that I do on Thursdays. All the links to my, my Patreon,

to direct donations, all the books, anything you can spend your money on would be appreciated. I know you have a tremendous audience. I'm extremely impressed by it. And I've gained a lot of new readers and listeners because of it. I appreciate you putting the links there. You know,

the WordPress link and everything else. I even have a Bitcoin wallet. which is on my page on Radio Albin. Searching for me is fairly easy, and it should bring you right there. Direct donations are through Stripe. It's called the Russian Orthodox medievalists like my website is. And you could use that as well as Patreon,

where I published about two lengthy articles a month on all kinds of topics. The U.S. military situation in Ukraine situation in Israel, everything from Marilyn Monroe to tattoos, all that kind of stuff. I cover everything there. And it's been very successful. Great. Thank you, Dr. Johnson.

Can't wait to talk to you the next time. You take care, all right? Hey, I appreciate you, my friend. Talk to you soon. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pete Cagnonez show. It's been a while. I've been looking forward to this. Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson.

How are you doing, my friend? Hey, Peter. It's a pleasure to be on. it always is. You have a great audience. I hear from them once in a while, and our topic today is definitely going to interest them. All right. Let's get into it. Yeah, this is, it's not rare that somebody in the audience asks for a subject and I do it, but it's not every day that I do it. But this was definitely the topic of the Cossacks and the Jewish question and Poland. was brought up and your name was mentioned as the only person they wanted to hear from. So I will follow you along with this and you can start wherever you want and I'll interrupt whenever I have a question or need clarification on something.

Does that sound good? No problem. Let me get started here. The first thing we ought to do is define what the Kossak is. It comes from the Turkic word Kazakh, which means fruit. Buddha, something like the bikers of the era, although very religious. They were a free communal body of full-time warriors. They were semi-nomadic, well, they had their own camp.

You had to be Orthodox to be a member. Generally speaking, it was Slavs from Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, its formation, had a lot of sources running, people running from serfdom, people who didn't have families, people who were in trouble somewhere. And so long as they could maintain

the rigors of the COSAC life, they were considered a member. Southern Russia has this very long step, this prairie, very difficult to control, especially without air power. And this is where the

also came into their own. They essentially were an Orthodox force against Poland or Turkey. They eventually come under the Polish Empire. And generally speaking, worked for the Russians, although certainly not all of them, after a certain time. They were the biggest headache that the Polish Empire ever had to deal with. The Polish Empire is interesting because it was an oligarchy. It was an oligarchy. It was an oligal. In the true sense, the emperor, the king, had very little power, although there were some very rare exception. The only thing that these nobles cared about was the maintenance of their lands and the maintenance of their power. And they'll throw a war if they had to to keep the crown from getting any credit for. And they didn't have a standing army, but they had something called confederations, where groups of landowners would get together for a common purpose and bring together a regular force. And they would do this on a regular basis, whether it be, well, especially against the cost of that.

The other thing that makes Poland interesting is the Jewish issue. It used to be that Poland, the Polish Empire, was called the Paradise of the Jews. In fact, you had some extreme, quite a number of Orthodox rabbis claiming that the Messiah is going to come because of the privileges that the Polish elite gave them. The Polish elite were landed. They were often illiterate. They didn't have, again, they didn't want a strong monarch. So rather than allow any centralization of finance, they imported the 13th, 14th century, Jews to handle the commerce of the cities.

The situation was always tense because of them. You had a whole army of intermediaries between the landowners on one hand and their subjects on the other. The Jews were granted rights over taverns, trade duties, mills, fishing rights, bridge tolls, dams. and unfortunately even Orthodox churches. And because the Polish forces would protect them, they had no obligation, no desire to even understand the language of their servants. And they behaved, as you might expect. And this, by the way, even the mainstream academic literature is forced to concede this.

But their arrogance was so intense that it's a miracle that the rebel. which did explode several times, most famous of which is Kimmnyetsky in 1648, didn't happen sooner. They were very inventive in their exploitation. One of the big areas, I said taverns, meaning the distilling of alcohol, which they had a monopoly. And they could call upon Polish local landlords militia to protect them if necessary because these people, were to for lack of the better laundering the cash of the money of the Polish nobility. The only reason they were able to function there is because of this very same nobility. So the anti-colonialist fight of the Cossacks, who of course were Orthodox, very free, anti-surfdom, and Poland, who was Roman Catholic, and had the harshest kind of serfdom at the time.

So the anti-clonial movement took aim at the Jews as well. And the popular, for lack of a better term, again, the popular press, the Dumi or the series of poetic cycles about Jewish oppression was popular. This was the voice of the common person. And the great Ukrainian historian Gutyshevsky went through them in some detail, which I've read. There was nothing that any peasant, you know, I mean they were the townsmen, but that any peasant could have that wasn't subject to confiscation. Even travelers were sometimes stripped of their goods. Anything that, you know, that they would use alcohol to trick people into doing things. And this continued, even after Poland seeks to exist, even at the expense of, you know,

the average man or the Cossack's wife and children, I think the Jews very much feared them. Don't forget, one of the original purposes of the Cossack host was to free Christian slaves from the island of Kaffa in Black Sea, which is a Jewish island and is where the main slave mart was. so their contempt for the Jews at the time knew no bounds and that goes back to their very they're very founded and often you know there were a lot of Jews there I think at one point 80% of the world's Jewish population was living in the Polish Empire straight up until the early 20th century

so who could be talking about Zionism in a place like this but probably the most obnoxious thing I mean they were the agents of monetization and as the explosion in Western demand for grain grew 16th 17th century Polish landlords needed to intensify serfdom and the only hope they had were the cost of coasts

but probably the most obnoxious thing is their control over physical church We have plenty of firsthand accounts of this. Their entire villages were seen as assets that the Jews can use, including the local church. The great Ukrainian historian custom-motiv talks about this also at some length. Now I have a book out called Ukrainian nationalism. My editor had, that was Russia Insider, helped me put that together. And I go into this in some detail.

But it's, even mainstream writers have to admit that the rebellions against these Jews were earned. But the rebellions that continue to occur from the 16th century right up until the 18th, you have letters being written all over the place talking about how important it is to realize that the Jews run things financially speaking there's a merchant from Moscow in 1648 who was there at the time of the rebellion

says the Jews robbed and abused the Ukrainians as soon as they distilled vodka brew beer without telling a Jew did not take off his hat in front of one the Jews assaulted him robbed and ruined him taking his property forcibly and his wives and children to work for him. Many Poles, especially in the church, were well aware of this, this unbearable oppression, as they would say.

And there was a Catholic canon, Yuzovovic, in Western Ukraine, at the time part of the Polish empire, who says that there was no sacraments available to these very Orthodox people unless they paid a toll to the Jews. And in his writings, Yusufovic said, you have suffered your troubles as you deserve, talking both about the Poles and the Jews. So we talked about not just a financial and political degradation,

but a moral one too, constantly having to endure injustice, 24 hours a day. And what did they expect to happen? Did they overestimate? Because, you know, ultimately, by 1648, by the time the Kimunitsky-Kosak rebellion exploded, it was mainstream opinion that we don't have to reign. The Jews are saying this. We don't have to rein in our arrogance because the Messiah is on its way and he's coming to Poland.

Because in no other way could we be permitted this level of aristocracy. Jews even had serfs in the name of the Polish landmower. so not only was they paying a vig every week but they had to work in the in the jews house and his field which he owned the name of Poland and there were taxes on whatever it was that he was being paid so it's clear that this was absolutely unbearable an unbearable situation that the Orthodox people and the only force they had against them was the cross-in. They were invited in, and that is the common refrain that you get when you're talking about Jewish history is, well, because Christians were against Eusirian Christians saw, look down upon money-changing things like that, they invited the Jews in, so they basically invited this upon themselves. and, you know, they had no right to fight back.

Precisely right. And it freed up the landlord to do whatever he wanted. That's why they were always in debt. But the Jews always had access to credit in any given moment. You know, they could undersell anybody. So they monopolized all of these fields. The collective term for the Polish nobility, the slatsha. And they didn't like the idea that a Catholic merchant class

were develop in the cities and give its loyalty to the crown as what happened in Britain and England. The Jews were organized into autonomous cahals, you know, fairly large, legally defined institutions and were given a totally free hand. So it was, you know, it was diabolical. It was brilliant because it kept the elites and noble power centers from everybody. being co-opted. So the anger of the peasantry, not to mention the Cossacks, who the Polish government was always trying to make serfs out of them, which is always so stupid. Cossack Rebellions is one of the reasons that Poland fell apart in the late 18th century.

But any indebted land, any indebted merchant group, and once they monopolized, money I know usury they jacked up interest rate they clearly didn't have the same this this is where the talmud became so essential to all of this they they made sure that everyone hated them they had no incentive to do anything else um and i know um heinrich greets who was a german jew who rejected the zohar in the talmud talks about not just the domination of jews but how dependent the Polish elites were on them. And whatever defects they had, the Jews were able to counterbalance it to them. The aristocracy was seen as ditty, unserious, extravagant, reckless, and so the Jews

were the perfect group of people to profit and keep them in power. But he was more than a financier. He was his help, whatever he got into trouble, a prudent advisor, they were the dominant cast and revolts were pretty continuous and they never learned their lesson. By 1648, the illegitimacy of this Polish lead became so vile that there is no defending it. And as Michael Jones said, one of my favorite lines of his, rather than the accession of the Messiah in Poland, given the privileged position of Jews in the Polish Empire, The Jews got Kimonitsky instead.

So, and the importation of Jews was made possible by the statute of Calais. And that's from there, it became the paradisian, the paradise of the Jews. And, you know, they never even learned the language of their people. And they also were involved in prostitution, the women who were impoverished. they had their own state within a state. And even the uprising, the Kossacks, under Kim Milynitsky, which removed the Jews from public life, however, temporarily, they were, and he's a key figure. In fact, they even signed treaties saying the Jews won't be taking your debt anymore. Because for the most part, what the Cossacks wanted, among many other things, was to be treated as the equal to any Polish noble.

So, and if you would like, I could get into the rebellion of Kimunitsky that year. Yeah, let's do that. We've talked about it before, but definitely we needed it in context for this episode. Well, Bogdan Kimmanyitsky was a Cossack who had so many. people appeal to him saying that, you know, he was high ranking and we need to do something about this. And this is where the idea of a Ukrainian or South Russian nation came into existence. Now, depending on who you read, what he wanted either was an independent state or to create

an autonomous unit within Poland or possibly the creation of an autonomous unit as part of the Moscow state. And Kim Onitsky really leaned towards the Russian side. But as I wrote it, my book, the Russian side became just as bad as the Poles, just minus the Jews. I mean, anything was better than what the Poles offered. And they kept, you know, demanding concessions. And rather than give it to them, they had to have huge casualties for them to do anything. So most people think, especially in Russia, that this uprising was a way to extend Russia's border.

And it seems to be almost in inevitability. The Cossack hosts, you know, having maybe 10,000 of the most, and there were several centers of it. The most famous is the Perosian, which is Russian for beyond the rapids, the rapids of the Deneper, a series of islands. in some of the most inhospitable parts of that river, which is where they had their sick or fortress. They tended to be a fairly radical egalitarian nationalist movement. But within the Polish Empire itself, or at least on its frontiers, the Hetman was the chief executive, usually an older warrior.

Everyone was a warrior, every man. but they tended to not be able to defend themselves yes of course they were ferocious fighters but against a regular force and this often didn't happen but they needed allies I mean Turkey at this point

was one of the greatest most powerful states in Europe and Ukraine Kim Militki realized he had to go somewhere and the only place that made any sense was to go to Moscow This is a time of great ferment in Western Europe. The glorious revolution in Britain, the front in France, the end of the 30 years war.

So Kimmnitsky started this war because people were absolutely exhausted. And we hear talk about the Russian or Rus' nation within the Polish Empire. and but besides going to Russia later he also went to the Crimean Khan because the Crimeans were dissatisfied with the Poles because the Poles used to pay them off to keep them from raiding Poles territory and they stopped doing that and so the Khan sent 4,000 men he you know he needed their assistance but because there were Muslims and other Hetmans like Doroshenko later we're going to have this bite them because the Tartars end up just plundering thing. And in fact, Kim Niski sent his son, Timofi, to the Connasa hostage, and vice versa, so that they could be assured of good behavior.

And that wasn't uncommon at the time. And it was also the possibility of the Poles bribing them, which is, damn, Kim Minnitki by 1640, 48 had 10,000 men that includes the Tartars. And the Poles were trying to placate him, but he said, no, this time has come. And he succeeded for a time of expelling, or the three forces are the Polish landlord class, as I mentioned, the Jews, and then the unions, the so-called Greek Catholics that the Polish government, along with the Vatican, imposed in the Orthodox, the attempt. to Catholicize them. Now, what Kimon-injki said is once he began his uprising, right at the moment it started,

the Poles had promised him all kinds of payments. But as they were promising, the negotiations took place, the Poles were gathering their army. And he, you know, pretty much figured this out pretty soon. You know, Count Pataki was one of the leaders of the Polish forces. who have the advanced guard of 4,000 men, usually mercenaries, and they tended to be, you know, they lost bad, but the Poles did.

And did you have pro-Polish cross-action? You had pro-Moscow. You even had a handful who supported Crimea, which was a subsidiary of Turkey, the Ottomans. And, but one of the things that happened in their defeat of these three forces was that many Jews were killed, at least the worst of them. So, of course, Jews today, with a few exceptions, you know, act like there was no reason to hate them. This was just jealousy or something stupid like that. The polls eventually, you think of Ukraine at the time, Ukraine meaning,

borderland rather than an actual country. The left bank of the Nieupper River, the eastern part of the country, and the right bank, or the Polish part of the country. Well, the left bank was completely evacuated. And

so the coalition of the polls were using is this, you know, the elites, Jewish tenants, Catholics and unions, and it was very hard for them if they were ever, ever captured. and you have like Rabbi Henover who is alive at the time who talked about all these atrocities that the Cossacks allegedly did

but you know is forced to to recognize why and why this happened there were what we might call pogromes but that was against that wasn't merely against the Jews and that was in the left bank in fact and they simply disappeared, Poles, Jews, Catholics, whatever. And many of them had to take refuge in South, because that's where, at least the one place

where the Polish state was able to maintain itself. And, you know, we'd have so many firsthand accounts because this was, I mean, Kimminski is, one of the most significant figures in Eastern European history ever. So what it comes down to is the struggle for independent South Ross, a Ukrainian Orthodox shirt with the Cossack host as their protectors. I mean, this is one of the defining issue of Ukrainian history. But, of course, it can't be separated from basic politics of that had been it.

But the Cossack saw themselves as having several functions to protect the Orthodox faith, to rescue Orthodox slaves, especially from the Jews, and then later on to fight for some autonomous entity where they can be treated as Poles, their own elite. So from the 16th to the 18th century, this was a non-stop thing. Infamously, the Hetman in Mazepa, during the reign of Peter I, Peter I, First, went to the Swedes. and the Hetman state as an actual government was founded after the rebellion of Kimonitsky but the Sikh was always independent and sometimes the Poles or the Russians would try to buy off

your better off cost of officers with grants of land and guarantees of political power but you know sometimes that worked and sometimes it didn't As I say, Poland was a federation of small, noble states, each with some law, courts, and financial policy. Yeah, it was ethnically Polish, but there was no political center that could unify people. The elite, the slotja, viewed the nation as them. And certainly, peasants, the Jews, your trunks, were never a part of this nation, but they could help it or hinder it. So I guess starting in the 1620s and 30s, the constant uprisings against Polish and Jewish rule began. And what made matters worse were the nature of the reprisals.

It wasn't like they were going to think about why these rebellions occurred and keep them from happening again. No, they would attempt to go in and slaughter anyone who may be sympathetic to the revolt. And of course, they had to raise mercenaries because they would never trust an army under royal control. You know, in 1652, there was an invasion of the Polish nobility's hired army that would have destroyed the host, as not the Russians stepped in. So I will continue. In my book on Ukrainian nationalism, I say, Gimnizki is quite possibly the most important single person in Ukrainian history after St. Vladimir himself. Early on, he defeated the Poles en masse.

He destroyed their parasitism and their usury. And the independent Korsak state was able to stand at least for a while. And we can go all the way back to the Kuznicki revolt of 1591, 1592, all based on complex concern. the point of bringing the Jews in was to keep the crown or to have any countervailing power in the cities that could

be a mighty class and the fact that they were successful there, I don't know how many other places tried that and essentially was allowing the elite to have a passive income generated and maintained by

these Jews who became some of the most privileged people on the planet of the world. Yeah, it's a common story. Sombart's book on the Jews in Modern Capitalism, he goes through a lot of it where he talks about how, you know, in places like in Austria, they would, you know, a leader of a city would invite a couple of Jews in to help him with his finances,

to help him make money. Also, because of the underground network, being able to talk to other leaders around Europe. And inevitably, other Jews would follow in. And they would start doing business with the common folk. And they would immediately put them into debt. And, you know, after a decade or two, the common folk are like, we don't care about the leader of this city,

the mayor of this city, whatever they would be called at that time, making all this money. now we're enslaved to these people and we want them gone or we're going to kill them. And then obviously that is what would lead to one of the famous expulsions that we read about over the last, you know, 1,000 or 1,500 years. Oh, yeah, that's certainly an expulsion. But you had a number of power centers. I'm doth, Roman Catholic Church in Poland, the unions, even the Vatican to some extent,

the Kosak, at least while they were unified, and this Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which did exist, which came from the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and maybe the patriarch of Constantine, O'Pol, maybe another one by Constantine O'Pol at the time was under the Turks

and couldn't be of much assistance. There were a handful of loyal bishops at the time. But as far as the Cossacks were concerned, by, say, 1650, the confederations of these elite Catholics were the military problem, not Poland and certainly not the Polish monarchy, who tended to be very sympathetic to the Cossacks without supporting them directly.

And what eventually came out of his uprising was the Treaty of Pettoslav. and it was a treaty binding the Cossacks binding themselves to Moscow but in exchange for a tremendous amount of autonomy and that state that signed this treaty didn't have Catholics or Jews within it. Today in Ukraine, the Units are at the forefront of the national movement, despite it being a foreign creation, a Polish creation, and a creation of, to some extent, of the Vatican. But the only thing that could make a Cossack and what he is, and Ukraine or his state independent, is to be orthodox. So by the second half of the 17th century, very few people, unless I had an agenda, believe that the CM could be trusted with anything. Again, remember what Poland actually was.

Now, the Kinaniki uprising in 1648, there's been thousands of books and articles in Russia, Ukrainian, and Polish written about him. And the only thing the Cossacks didn't have prior to him was a talented leader. And the ideology of that uprising, which I wrote of in my book, it's an ethno-national ideal informed by the Orthodox faith, their own. Don't think that the Cossets were not religious, they very much were. And in fact, once the old believers had to escape Moscow, two decades later, they became Cossettes. So they even became, even today, or an old believer movement, but not solely. Cossacks were never unified under one person, Cimonytki being an exception.

So what that had been created was a centralized and authoritarian system because everyone knew that the Poles or someone else like the Turks was going to try to take a piece of them. And the same thing goes for the church. The church had to have the resources to fight the Roman Catholics in the one hand and Jews on the other. But the alliance between the Polish elite and Jewish merchants were so close that it's tough to separate them. The Polish elite needed Jewish networks. They needed their capital and they needed to develop urban trade. They didn't have to do anything, but they still got a cut. I guess the only thing they had to do was keep anyone from hurting of the Jews.

But as far as Jews are concerned, the Polish nobility was just convenient. But their insolence, their general parasitism made them what I called in my book, an unstable golem for the network's profits. The last thing in the world that any Cossack could do is engage in any kind of serfdom. and but they still needed an alliance and that that caused them a lot of trouble initially the

the early rebellions had maybe 1,000 or 3,000 but as the 17th century began that number started to grow and grow and grow and grow and grow and that's the important thing to

remember So, now I can continue after that, if you would like me to, or do you want me to stop? Well, no, definitely wants you to continue with that, with their history. But I did have one question. You know, if you look, say you go to Wikipedia on the Cossack page, they differentiate between Russian and Ukrainian Cossacks. So can you just talk about the difference historically what they're talking about there? They're not talking about ethnic groups.

They're talking about loyalties. Left bank, Ukraine, the eastern part of the country. I mean, they're all orthodox, of course, tended to be pro-Russian, although even the most fanatical pro-Russian had to turn on them. Because they were especially under Peter the Great, was extracting so much out of Ukraine. and the western side, the right bank of the Niebupper, is where the headman was the strongest. But you even had some Cossacks, Tataria, and a few others, who thought that if the treaty is right, working with Poland as a way to protect themselves from the Turks may be workable. They never became a part of Poland, of course.

and if someone was more, if a leader was more leaned too far to one side or another, there would be rebellion against them. So everybody, this was a huge balancing act for them. But after the Kimmolnikki uprising eventually fizzled down, Kimminski's lieutenants, and this is all in my book, by the way, the two big ones were Ivan Velhouski

and Paul Tataria. And unfortunately, that's where the class conflict in the Cossack Coast began. Ivan Fulhozki leaned towards Poland as a reaction to the Russian presence in part of Ukraine after Peroslav. But when he died in 1664, the Russians actually created their own Cossack noble class, complete with their own serfs. you had a Russianized noble class

at that point but Cossacks who leaned more towards Moscow fomented rebellions against Vajowski I know the great historian Doroshenko that he claims that Moscow was deliberately spreading myths to the effect that the Hedman is going to hand Ukraine over to the polls that probably was at least in part true so loyalties

split the Cossacks so-called Russian and Polish as well as class. Because the classic way of buying the Cossacks off was to go to the elite and said, listen, you stay loyal to us. You could keep your way of life, and we will guarantee your lands, and even get some surface of your own. Sometimes it worked.

Sometimes it didn't. So that's the difference there. All righty. So, yeah, you were talking about moving forward and moving forward. history, so go anywhere you'd like to go. Well, after the revolt, 1648, there was something called the Board of Agreement of 1649, 1650. And this, this was, this essentially was their demands that had Polish signatures, but no intent

of making it real. So, Cossack Ukraine, one was to include the areas of Kiev, Chernigov, and Brasso, law in areas under the cost of control, only Orthodox people could hold office. The units were dissolved and its property granted to the Orthodox Church. That the Metropolitan of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine had a guaranteed seat in the Polish Senate. Anybody involved in that rebellion had to be amnesty, which is not the Polish way of doing things, and that both Jews and Polish landlords will be prevented from ever returning. So that's what immediately came after the Kimminski Rebellion.

What came after that is what we talk about as the ruin. Now, the thing that made Hetman-Vajowski interesting was the proposal. called the Haidot Treaty, which said a lot of the same things as I just listed. So much of the Union Church was already destroyed. Many of them became Orthodox themselves, and that would be a continuous matter all the way right up into the 20th century. But the argument was even if Poland couldn't be trusted, the Treaty of Perislav was very strict on Cossack autonomy, which the Russians had completely violated 100 times over. There was something called the trilateralist solution to Ukrainian independence.

The Polish Empire was formerly called the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. What people like the Husky wanted was Polish-Lithuanian Russian Union with a great degree of independence and religious freedom as far as the Russian side was concerned. and this eventually became the Treaty of Perislav, or, you know, the Paraslav was the negation of the Haidac Treaty. Even Kimmelitsky's son Yuri, who was pretty hapless but well-meaning, thought that the Poles would be better, now that they've been defeated, better than the Russians would be. and he eventually became a puppet headman of the Turks. So, and again, amnesty was always a part of it because Polish reprisals were absolutely disastrous. The headman at this point, I don't know, 1665, something like that was Doroshenko.

The Zerdesky articles were with another treaty with the Russians promising local autonomy. If there were Russian troops in Cossack areas, they had to be under the command. of the Hetman and that Ukraine had to be totally unified and just as important that the Orthodox Church would have to come under Constance and Noble or at least Jerusalem. And much of that was ultimately rejected. But by 1665 or so, the position of the Cossack Coast was very poor. And one of the reasons and corruption had come in, especially under Moscow. and they would place very high taxes on them.

And this is why some people ended up going to Poland. But even very pro-Russian Hedmins in the east like Bruevetsky, who personally came under the Russian monarch's protection. And he had one demand. He had one single demand, and that was that Ukrainian common law. In other words, the traditional law, the Cossack host, would be respected. And because of that,

loyalty was promised to the Tsar and his interest. So what it comes down to is the retention of the Kosang tradition and in urban areas that they had the Magdeburg law from Germany.

The cities were essentially independent. And elections to urban offices, of course, had to be Orthodox. And any election for any of these offices had to be free and done according to local tradition. Yes, Russia promised it and then violated any time they got the chance.

So if one side of this got too strong, if the Turks became too strong, if the Poles became too strong, if the Russians became too strong, there was always a reaction to go elsewhere. One of the things that made Hedman-Mazepa unique is that he went to the Swedes, given the nature of the war that was already already going on. The great thing about that was Sweden was too far away to really administer the Cossack host. I mean, anyone wanted to get away from Peter the Great. He reduced the Cossack host to absolutely nothing. So ultimately, no one trusted anybody, not even internally.

And the only real stable point was the Duporosian insect, always the most radical of the of the of the Cossack groups and that wasn't shut down until until Catherine the Great so you know you had uprisings all over the place and the worst thing that happened we'll talk about this here in a minute something called the Treaty of Andrew Solon

in 1667 which will negate the Cossack State entirely and divide Ukraine between Poland and Russia which was a tremendous betrayal since that's the one time where the Poles returned to that part that was promised to them and the Jewish usurers returned. So Poland and Russia were now bound by treaty as equals at the expense of Ukraine and the Cossacks. And those who fell within the Polish sector were right back to where they were before. So Poland essentially took the right bank, Russia took the left bank, and that condemned. those on the right bank was an insult and condemned thousands of orthodox Russians to expropriation and exploitation.

And I guess part of the point of Andrew Chauvel was to combine Polish and Russian forces against Turkey. Why don't you keep going? I don't really have a question on anything there. Okay. Yeah, I want to pause from time to time just in case you do. Absolutely. Thank you. But that, yeah, that treaty was an absolute disaster.

And it created another, I would talk about here in a little bit, created another massive rebellion, probably the last one, the Hadamak rebellion. We'll get to that here in a second. Because of Andrew Sovo and the subsequent treaties, Poland and Russia divided the area of the host. Free trade was proclaimed, but that was a code for Polish colonization and dispossession. it meant massive interest rates and Jewish rule without any countervailing power. Now, Russia had a tough time dealing with that because Jewish capital structure in Poland was far more experienced and far wealthier than the relatively small merchant class in Russia. So any kind of cost-tech independence was nullified.

And 1672, something called the Comtap Articles, imposed a headman on Ukraine that had absolutely no independence. whatsoever. And this is why Russia is unpopular in certain, certain Ukrainian circles, historically speaking. I want to talk about someone else. One of my favorite people at the time, and that is the military leader of the Cossack, so Ivan Circle. He is the unsung hero of this era. We're talking about 1670, something like that.

He was from the Sikh, the Porosian. He backed rebellions against Moscow. I'm thinking of Razine in particular. He unified Ukraine to the defeat of both Polish and Turkish forces. He was eventually arrested and sent to Siberia, but once the Turks began to advance, they had to call them back. In 1674, there was a massive Turkish invasion. That circle had defeated. The Russian Hetman on their side, Semulovic, didn't do a thing.

A year later, 15,000 elite janissary, not to mention regular forces, invaded Ukraine. Serco again defeated the cream of the Ottoman army. 1678, another huge Turkish invasion. Russia didn't do anything. Semelovic wouldn't do anything, but Serco repelled them a third time. The coalition force under Serco grew to very large numbers. And a fourth time a Turkish invading force was defeated. Ivan Serco was watching the Turkish Empire at this point.

Its best fighting men were destroyed, and the road seemed open for the Cossacks to take this Turkish capital of Istanbul. Rather than the Russians and Samuilob, it's taking this as a serious way to completely take Constantinople, they ended up destroying the Cossack Sikh for a ton. Serco who saw the possibility of destroying Turkey forever was forced to retreat and he died a broken man what ended up happening is that the Hetman Dorshenko and the Russians negated everything that he did the bizarre thing it's that right after Circle's death

Russia then went on to found the Holy League as a military force against Turkey Serco could have easily destroyed Turkey and maybe even Poland to Russian Ukraine was an oligris. Both Cossack and Russian nobles that 1% owned about half the land. It wasn't the Jews, but the Cossack elites who controlled the cities and that part of Ukraine.

And the claim is that the Russians, their colonial governors, corrupted the Cossack elite. They went out of their way to save Turkey. by sending Circle away. So that's, and throughout all of this, Circle tried to enlist the assistance of Semmelovich on the left bank. After a while, Circle did endorse the pro-Moscow. But even said in a letter of 1677 that we aren't going to separate from you.

They do talk about Ukrainian fatherland, but it's hard to tell whether they're talking about a nation or just the fact that this is the Russian borderlands or the Polish borderlands for that matter. So Circa was just the absolute perfection of the Cossack history and he was destroyed by his own allies. So this was an absolute, absolute disaster. And many of the offers by the Cossack host to Poland were completely defeated. And had this occurred, had this treaty been accepted, that would have been a Ukrainian orthodox identity outside of the Russian fold and outside of anything Polish. and possibly could have brought old believers into the Ukrainian communion as a way to control

Russian incursion. The Austrians would do the same thing a little bit later. But that's not just the left bank and the right bank too. The Vajowski alienated poor Cossacks because he was constantly negotiating with the polls and the terrible fear was that the Jews were going to come back. And so Vajowski was seen as pro-Polish.

Others were seen as pro-Russia and had Mazepa seen as pro-Turkish. But once Russia had corrupted the left bank Ukraine, Poland was viewed by a lot of his allies as a lesser evil relative to Russia. Vajovki was a lawyer ultimately. I mean, he created a balanced budget, laid the groundwork for institutions, created financial reserves without Jewish assistance. And we're getting into an era that's called the ruin, where the gains and victories of both Serco and Kimmonezky were completely negated.

All previous treaties were null and void, and the one thing that dominated everything was class rule. And the rank and file revolted on both banks of Ukraine. And these men, Teteria, or Bahoski, these were all lieutenants of of Kim Onitsky's and part of his campaigns against Poland. The ruin, it negated everything, it didn't destroy the ideas. And then you have the interesting case of Peter Doroshenko. I mentioned already.

He blamed the upper classes, the Cossack host, on both banks, especially the left bank, for this ruin, this period of utter powerlessness, but thought that there were resources is to continue the state building as Zidotchnine had done. And Dorochenko is one of the few who was able to centralize the country to himself, both banks. Unfortunately, he had to go to the Turks to do that. Dorshenko was as anti-Polish as he was anti-Russian. The Russian state is the one who elected Tammolovich to the left bank. And this was seen not just as an ethnic distinction, but also as a class.

distinction. If the Jews were going to be out, monetization had to come from somewhere. And it's very easy to buy some of these people off. I mean, the Cossack ideal is a little nomadic. The Sikh didn't know anything. But the landed Cossacks in Ukraine proper, not on the island.

Dorda Shango had no choice but to go to Turkey. And just like in Kimoninsky's case, he did go to the Crimean. The Turks, despite signing treaty, saying we're not going to plunder anything, that's all they did. And Circle predicted that. Dorochenko became very unpopular because now we have Islamic plundering and the Jews right behind them, of course. And using the Turks was his undoing. And one thing other than that that he was known for is that he created a personal guard,

Praetorian guard, completely loyal to him and appointed by him alone. This was a way that he thought he could break the class status. both sides of both banks. So he rules from 1665, I want to say 1676. He did briefly unite both banks. And he was a typical headman in all other respects. But because Kimunitsky had initially asked for the assistance of Crimea, going to the Muslims now was okay, or at least that's what he thought.

And then this unified Ukraine would play Poland and Russia off against each other and to a lesser extent. The Turks. So Russia then started to rule Ukrainian lands directly in 1666, 1667. In 1665, there were the so-called Moscow articles, which was a complete domination of Russia over Ukraine. Ukraine. But there was a Kossack that had nothing to do with Ukraine as an ethnicity, although they probably recognized it. They're all Orthodox Slavs. Turkey was seen as the main enemy at this point and that justified them going to Turkey. But Kimoninsky considered it as well as a way to balance Poland. So even the most pro-Moscow of the Kro-Moscow of the Khrushk,

Cossack rulers would eventually turn on Russia's heavy-handedness. You know, Brujavetsky was as pro-Russia as you can get, but every promise that they made, they broke. And, of course, no one was worse than Peter. Remember, St. Petersburg was built on the bones of Cossacks, who, because of the rebellion of Mazepa, were worked to death. The city is literally, you know, it's a gnostic. The city is literally built on the bones of old Russia, that is to say,

the remnants of the of the Cossack hosts. So even pro-Russian and now the only reason that the polls were slightly more reasonable is because they were much weaker. They even promised an independent church but that was

constantly being violated. That's why Ivan Mizepa was going to defect and went to the um um went to the Swedes because the Russo

Swedish war was going on. Mazepa brought the Baroque from Poland. He stressed the ethnic connection of all of those within the head minute. He needed to create his own ruling class. And he fully admits that the Treaty of Androzovo was the worst thing that could have happened to Ukraine. A lot of excellent writers had said the same thing. So on Maseppa's time, the last hope was Sweden. Everyone else had been tried.

And not to mention the fact that the Russians at the time were under Peter the Great. Peter the Great was a Freemason. He was an occultist. I have an article about his drunken synod where he was a Satanist. He created his own make-believe church centered around alcohol. And given the Orthodox point of view, he had no political legitimacy. Not to mention, he moved the capital at some point. And the fact that so many Cossacks perished in the, it was a White Sea building project, the foundation of St. Petersburg.

But of course, we'll know what happened. Mazepa went to Charles X.12, and they were both destroyed. So, beginning of the 18th century, Ukraine had become part of the Russian Empire after the defeat of Edmund Mzeppa. and he fled to Turkey along with the Swedish king. So, you know, but that's the basic structure of the Cossack. And I'm saving to the end the last rebellion, the Kulivashina, or the Hadamak rebellion in 1760. But I want to pause right here and see if you have anything to say. Well, yeah, I was going to say if you're going to finish up with that, that would be great.

And then, you know, maybe we can do a follow-up on a follow-up one day and get into more modern times, talk about Pallas Settlement and up through the revolution because there were still Cossacks. Cossacks still existed in 1917. So let's finish up this period and then we'll work on another period another time. All right. Well, remember, the Cossacks still exists today, usually pro-Russian, and the war of Ukraine, of course, destroyed anything, any concern with Ukraine. But the last true rebellion was in 1768, Captain the 2nd was in Petersburg. And just like before, Poland was divided between, I'm sorry, Ukraine was divided between Poland and Moscow.

and those under Poland were yet again under the Jews. And now those in Poland had the even worse treatment than they had in the past. And the uprising, the Kulivisina uprising was one of the reasons the Polish Empire collapsed. The arrogance of the Jews never went anywhere. They behaved in the exact same way, including after the Polish Empire, fell apart. They created something called the Bar Confederation. This was the Polish military alliance, a few landlords against the Polish king, Stanislaus, Augustus, also against Russian troops in parts of Poland. And yes, Russian wanted to weaken the Polish Empire, but not necessarily in power a sort of a Cossack force because they were a shadow of their former self by 1768.

In 1768, there was specifically an incident based on the oppression of Polish lords and Jews against enforcing them to join the Catholic Church, to join the Union. And as time went on, the rights of the Orthodox were whittled away to absolutely nothing. And making matters worse, that very same year, Prince Nikolai Rapinin had to proclaim the equality of Orthodox and Protestants with Catholics, including the right to hold government positions, being on top. And that caused indignation not just amongst the Ukrainian, but the Polish elite too. And the result of all that was the Bar Confederation. And the Bar Confederation, this was the only unified institutions Poland had. And they did engage in pogroms against the Orthodox.

And that was a reprisal for this rebellion. It was started in May of 1768, Abbott de Melchizedek of the Mokronitsky Monaster, the southern part of Kiev. Zaporosian had at the time was Maxim Zalizniak, who initially only had 18 people, but given the arrogance of the Jews, it grew tremendously. And it engulfed almost the entire southeastern part of Kiev and even expanded west. Now, it wasn't all Cossacks in this case, but you did have the core of it was Zaporosian once. you still had plenty of runaway peasants and everything else soldiers from russia who participated in all of this the assumption was that once the russians realized that we're we can do it they will go to st petersburg for assistance because they figured well they want to they want to

weaken Poland and yet it didn't happen it was a systematic rebellion the lisniak sent attachments all over the place And there was something, is a fictitious document called the Golden Charter of Catherine II, which allegedly permitted the extermination of Jews and Poles and independence for the Cossacks. This was not a real document, but many of the rebels thought it was real. So they engaged in an uprising based on this alleged golden charter of Catherine II. But this uprising led to mass exodus of both Polish elites and Jews. And it ended up being Zelisniak's movement was very large.

And he restored Cossack independent. He really, in this case, you had peasant Cossack attachments. Heidemach was a peasant rebel. It engulfed most of Kiev, Galicia. and no one was spared. The Hadimak detachment destroyed everybody. Their traditional enemies because the confederation

ultimately left the civilian population unprotected once they had to go in retreat. The Haidemaks actually hanged a Polish nobleman, a uniate priest, and a Jew on the same tree and had the inscription a pole, a Jew, and a dog, the same faith. I don't know if they killed a dog for that or not, but it happened all the time. But by this point, the anger had reached tremendous levels.

Yes, some of these rebels didn't think every Jew needed to be eliminated, but many of them were. They learned nothing from Kim Ilitsky. And this was the last real uprising of the Cossacks, really, until the Russian Civil War, most of the Catherine 2nd as well as the polls had tribes of Lisniak and others there is a book

the Kodinskaya Niga the protocols of some of the court hearings there most of these guys were tortured to death between 1769 17700 people were executed and this is what finally

allowed Catherine II to destroy as a Perosian Cossack hosts, which never really returned. They weren't military rebels. They were simply criminals. In other words, the Russians, even though Catherine the Great was not Russian, and the 18th century and in Russia itself was an absolute disaster politically, they fought for Poland, which was a huge shot. to everyone involved. Not only that, but rounded the rebels up for not just their own,

but for Polish interests. How Russia can be served by supporting Polish interests is a mystery, very much like Doroshenko with the Turks. But she actually wrote these men be punished

with the most severe execution, used only with the greatest of criminals. And he included the entire population of the Seperosian sheep. at the same time. So, you know, we've covered a lot of ground here.

But the Jews were in that top three enemies of the Cossacks, Polish landlords, Jews, and the Greek Catholics, so-called, and I guess Catholics in general, because they look to Poland rather than anyone else. Catherine then purged the church yet again, Abbott-Mukhizek was transferred and the Greek Catholic metropolitan in Kiev at the time, Philip Volokovitch instigated even worse persecutions of the Orthodox and in the new Polish confederations that were being formed. So that was the last major uprising and the destruction of anything approaching Cossack independence. And it wasn't until the Russian revolution, so-called the Russian Civil War, that the Cossacks again showed themselves in spaces like Tarek, on the dawn, even on the Volga, rose up against the communists and consistently did so right up until the German and

Asia. Well, that's fantastic. Yeah, I want to follow this up with another episode where we can pick up there and go forward and come into the modern day. That would be great. Just like always, I'm going to link to all the places where people can donate to you, can subscribe to your work. Right. And yeah, it's always a pleasure. And I made sure last time I have all of the places. where people can can support your work because I know this is what you do this is what you do full-time and like like many other people right you there aren't any universities knocking down your door knocking down your door to ask you to come at work for coming to each rather yeah I think the only place I could be comfortable would be in parts of Russia itself Belarus

especially who knows maybe even Iran these are highly literate places but yeah the university was my life for a long time I was a professor for years really until until COVID I didn't want to do online I need an audience

I need to scare freshmen I can't do that online although I do want to note that my PO box the one entire hill no longer functions I will be opening a new one soon and when that happens I'll give the number and

city to you and to anybody else so donations and stuff either come through my Patreon or direct donations through my the link it's not PayPal because I got kicked off there but I've got one of their competitors

to do it and you know they'll see when they click what you have here because yeah this is full time I'm completely independent But to maintain my independence, I have to have my own source of income. And I have plenty of generous donors because I've been around for so long. I've been doing the same things for so long that they know I'm not fly by night and that they can trust me. Your listeners tend to be very generous.

And it's so difficult to try to summarize something like the Cossackian Jews through history. in, you know, 50 minutes. That's very, very difficult. And hopefully I was coherent. But, yeah, your listeners are excellent. And I appreciate whatever they can do to assist me and to keep me independent. Yep. I will definitely make sure that they have access to that,

to that information so that they can do that. And, yeah, I do. The people who listen to this show, I don't tell them often enough how much how great they are and how much I love them, but each and every one. And, you know, one more thing before we leave this, you talked about how you've been doing this for a long time. And I think now we're starting to see that the kind of things that you've been talking about for forever, you know, for as long as you have, starting to crack the mainstream. And Normies are starting to ask questions.

I have noticed that. And as things get worse and worse and worse, more of our people are going to be radicalized. And they're going to be looking for answers. I don't want to trust the media. They're going to be looking elsewhere. And I hope that they start looking at people like me and you and others. Thank you, Dr. Johnson. I appreciate it.

Always. All right. You're welcome, my friend. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekingana show. While this is different, we're not here to read 200 years. together. You're here to talk about something else. How are you doing, Dr. Johnson? You know, at Willis Cardo, when I used to work for him, he would occasionally say, you know, all these other people, how come no one's approaching me? Some government or a

social body wanted to give me money to say something. How come no one has ever done that? No one's ever tried to buy me. No one's ever trying. I wasn't sure if he was feeling left out or if he was if he was being complimented. And I feel that. the same way. You know, no one has ever approached me. I'm starting to wonder, maybe I need to up my game here. You know, no, you know, so I, I'm not guitar or anybody else. Yeah, this is in reference to, apparently Dr. Johnson didn't know about the whole Qatari meme where, uh, where all the, the new, the Hasbro for the last six months to a year has been that, um, no, it's actually Qatar and not Israel and not Jew. It's Qatar.

and not Jews who control the United States government because, you know, the ACPAC is the biggest, you know, has a babysitter for every congressman. And, you know, the Qataris control Hollywood and the porn industry and banking and the press. So, yeah, yeah. So. Yeah. Yes, I'm proud to have been unaware of that. Yeah. Yeah.

All right. Well, the reason I asked you to come on today was about a month ago, you did an article and then you talked about it on your show about Carl Marx's, how do you pronounce it, Judenfraga? On the Jewish question. Yeah. On the Jewish question. Yeah. And I think when the Jewish question is discussed mostly in our circles, it's discussed from the right. And, you know, when you read what Marx is talking about in the Jewish question and then the reactions to it afterwards, I think it's important to see exactly how it was coming from the far left.

So, you know, you can start anywhere you want, Dr. Johnson. Well, I don't know why it took me so long. You know, a lot of our people, you know, really don't have the capacity. It's not an easy, it's not an easy article. it's very early. It's what five years before the Communist Manifesto was published. His whole philosophy hadn't fully come together yet. And we don't have a lot of people who can properly interpret it.

Because I know, you know, I spent decades on Hegel. But the relationship between Hegel and Marx is minimal. but it's more Feuerbach and Marx, but the Jewish question was written in response to Bruno Bauer, who for years I thought was Jewish, and he's not. He's one of these weirdo-aphaist types,

but talking about what we've been talking about on with the Solzhenitsyn stuff, the nature of assimilation. So this is a very, young Karl Marx. And most Marxists try to pretend that he never wrote this.

But as I say at the very end of this paper, most of the founders, you know, Bakunin, Prudhon, several others, founders of leftist movements, all were vehemently opposed to the

capital, the domination the Jews had over Europe. The statements that Karl Marx makes here are only made by us anymore. So this kind of sticks out, even though, you know, I first came across it as a young man in his early manuscripts. And it's funny because the early manuscripts is what the Frankfurt School

was trying to stress with the exception of that one. And as I say in the very beginning of this paper, and I knew this was going to be a hit. I know people are going to be talking about this. I've got a lot of emails about it because we kind of vaguely know it's there that he wrote on this, how harsh he was,

but his purpose, that's, you know, that's a separate matter. And I do note that so much of the literary literature on this has been written by Jews. In fact, it's very hard to come across either academic or popular, you know, intellectual popular.

That's not a Jewish name. or someone obviously Jewish. So, you know, it gets very distorted. And obviously, they're never going to ask if it's true what Marx is saying. But calling Marx and anti-Semite is very strange. You know, because I say, you know, Marxism is one of the official ideologies of the American university, the Western University. So how could we possibly have this, you know, I don't know how many anarchists in the streets know about Prudhon or Bakunans

views on the Jews. But it does bear some connection to what we're talking about in Solzhenitsyn. Because the debates in Germany well, what was soon to be Germany at this point, very similar to what we've been talking about.

Now, assimilation, we don't have a full definition of this. We're going to remain Jews. And this is the whole question that Bauer brings up. And this is in response to Bauer's paper of the same name. And of course, the whole assimilation idea is strange, since Jews never considered themselves Russians or Germans.

Generally speaking, didn't speak the language. And we know what they thought of the people around them. So the whole concept of emancipation was really something created for a Gentile audience. What it comes down to is that because, they're Machiavellians and they're better organized and they have more money. Any sense of emancipation from the various restrictions that they had would mean, and I quote Moses Hess in this paper saying the same thing,

that it would turn, you know, trying to turn them into, they would dominate the society totally turning the Gentiles into Jews. Now, allegedly, Bauer made the argument that Jews had to give up their Jews, Judaism, if they were to become worthy of equal rights. And I'm quoting Hal Draper there. He's kind of a big name, Jewish intellectual, but even there. And Karl Marx actually deals with this. What does Judaism mean here? It's not really descriptive by itself. It could refer to a culture, an ethnicity, a religion. It doesn't say much. Some of the naive, Gentile boomers still think that you're talking about, you know, they just go to a different church than we do. But Bauer still was operative. under the assumption that Judaism primarily is a religion, not an ethnicity, or even a way of thought. Now, Karl Marx, again, Marxism hadn't fully been developed yet, but some of the outlines can be found.

Marx criticizes Bauer by saying that he doesn't make the distinction between political and what he calls human emancipation. human emancipation, of course, is revolution. Political emancipation is just a matter of tinkering reforms. So the political side, the civic side, doesn't require Jews to renounce anything. It just removes formal restrictions on, you know, like the numerous clauses and things like that. Now, technically, the human emancipation would involve the disappearance of religion and ethnicity altogether. but within the hitherto existing world order, as Marx says, it's not possible.

But we all know what that will mean in practice. So that's what, that's the Marx's essential criticism. There's no need to abolish any kind of religion with political emancipation. And so, you know, you have to talk about Hegel a little bit to get this right. In his political theory, there's a, in the philosophy of right, the central distinction is between civil society and the state. The fact that those are two different things are, both Hegel and Marx thought were a matter of alienation. The state also refers to the nation, not just the government.

Civil society refers to the private sector. And Hegel being a nationalist didn't like the idea. And of course, they were going to be synthesized. the family, civil society, that dialectic leads to the state, which uses both. It's a very profound aspect of nationalist political thought. Marx's early view, you know, the party would absorb civil society, and that's where human emancipation would take place. So that's how he begins.

So let me quote Marx here early on in the Jewish question. He says, the decomposition of man into Jew and citizen, Protestant and citizen, religious man and citizen, is neither a deception directed against citizenship nor is at a circumvention of political emancipation. It's political emancipation itself, the political method of emancipating oneself from religion. Of course, in periods where the political state, as such, is born violently out of civil society, when political liberation is a form in which man strive to achieve their liberation, the state can and must go so far as to abolish religion, the destruction of religion, but can only do so in the same way that it proceeds to the abolition of private property,

to the maximum, to confiscation, progressive taxation, just as it goes so far, the abolition of life and the guillotine. And he has certain words, the guillotine is italicized in the original. Abolition of religion is italicized. But Marx is well aware, political emancipation. ultimately turns Gentiles into Jews because once restrictions on Jewish behavior are lifted, they will come to dominate the economy and civil society as a whole, both through their money and through their ethnic cohesion.

That means, when I take this to the final conclusion, there wouldn't be a Jewish community, really. There wouldn't be a Christian one. They all would think this. There would be a Jewish community, but in terms of thought, in terms of basic attitudes they'd all be thinking the same way. The Jewish community would just be on top.

Now, religion, you know, if anyone, you know, Hegel was not a, he was an influence on Marx, but he didn't, you know, Marx was 13 when Hangel died. Someone who was far closer was Ludwig Foribach, who I read, started reading many years ago. He was an atheist, and religion essentially is a human construct that reflects human suffering.

It's a expression of suffering and a protest against it. And even earlier than this, Marx wrote the critique of Hegel's philosophy of right, really distancing himself from Hegel in general. But, you know, you can't, so Karl Marx couldn't, can't really be talking about religion, unless you're talking about the social foundation on which it expresses itself. So Marx wrote, and I think most of us know this, religious suffering is at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions, it is the opium of the people. Which is another way of saying that after the revolution, religion would wither away. and I'm always worried about the use of, whenever someone uses religion, be very careful. They're usually just talking about Christianity. But what this means in actual practice is, you know, it's going to be a violent abolition of religion because it's strictly illusory,

although it's justified given capitalism. But it doesn't matter if they're opposed to it because religion is actually a demand for the conditions that gave rise to religion to go away. That gives socialism its mandate. they may not know this, but they all want to give up their illusions, and we're going to make sure that that happens. Now, beyond that, there is a question of free trade. Everyone knows that you have, you know, primitive communism, feudalism, capitalism, capitalism, socialism, that's the linear basic simplistic description of how history goes in the Marxist system. generally speaking, not all the time, but generally speaking, Marx realized that capitalism was an absolutely essential step. He knew that it was revolutionary. It is revolutionary. It continues to be revolutionary today.

Capitalism is important not just because it creates these huge methods of production and money and everything else that the socials will use, but even more than that, it destroys national boundaries. And as we've also discussed before, it creates an alienated proletariat, which according to them, Marx's, doesn't have an identity. So Karl Marx was vehemently opposed to any, like, you know, List and others, of Ficta, who was, of course, earlier, who wanted any tariffs on Prussia, later Germany. and he talked about sovereignty to Marx was backwards.

The French and the British revolutions, we've got to keep this in mind. I mean, capitalism is revolutionary for, among other things, it abolishes the church's control over man's passions. It justifies oligarchy. E. Michael Jones wrote in one of my favorite books of his back in 2014. When we say bourgeois revolution, we mean, you know, the French Revolution, English Revolution before it. 1848, etc. Anything but what happened in 1917. Bourgeois revolutions allowed the rapacious capitalist to gain the upper hand and oppress the poor in a way unknown when Christianity was the source of the social order.

So at the time this was written, or throughout Marx's lifetime, the evils of capitalism, especially in the factory system and especially in the Western world, no one could ignore how evil they were. at the time it was the right wing it was you Catholics it was a certain Lutheran certain Anglicans that were they advocated the abolition of capitalism Karl Marx made believe that this was his was the first scientific method of doing it

but where'd Marx come from he kind of exploded onto the scene as Bakunin will say he had Rothschild money to do it only the only the international version of socialism is called socialism today

not all the other, you know, left nationalism, medievalism, everything else, national socialism. And I come across people, whether it be in person or in, like, comments, social media, they hear about, you know, the rapaciousness of the oligarchy. And, well, you know, I guess we have to dust off our copy of capital or something. And they really believe that capitalism and Marxism are opposites, which they are not. What did the proletariat mean to Marx? Marx says here, and in many other places, that it's the proletariat because they have no identity, according to him. That's the agent to bring about the end of the existing social order.

And he needed to mobilize them, and I say in here, against what we would call, you know, essentially national socialists, you know, List, Herder, Mueller, Fixed in Germany, the Slavophiles in Russia, all of them striving to preserve their nation against. against predatory, ultimately British capitalism through a free trade. Now, we talked about this with Soltonitian, but the proletariat is this group of people, sociologically speaking, who had to leave the village to go to the cities to find work in the new factories during and after the Industrial Revolution. Usually they were alone. The families were back, but that means that they were subject to new temptations.

They were cut off from the village. They owned nothing at all. That's the foundation of Marxism. The proletariat has to rent out his own body for 20 hours a day as a worker. That level, that sort of person is what's needed for the socialist revolution to come later on. And I write here, men with a strong sense of ethnicity and religion don't fight for socialism. Remember, there is nothing conservative about. capitalism, not at its foundation and not its vicious postmodern variant that we live under

today. And Marx and Engels realized that this abstraction, the proletarian, you know, none of them had any real connection to them. We talked about with the Jews in Russia. None of these guys had any connection with a working man. None of them. Engels was a factory owner of all things who took advantage, who had mistresses who worked in his factories.

But it's precisely because they were in such a vulnerable state that the party can kind of project whatever they want onto them. That kind of alienation made them perfect for this. And as Jones and many others said, because of Marx in the Rothschild money that went into him, the reaction against British free trade, which was, you know, Marxian socialism, was Jewish. And that changed everything.

We talked about, you know, Werner Sombart and how the Jews completely altered how economies function. Things like advertising, underselling, saying bad things about your competition. That was unknown in Europe up until, you know, the late 18th century, 19th century, middle of the 19th century. Jewish emancipation would mean that that would, the opposite of that, those evils would become the, the norm for society. And this is central. It makes Jews out of everybody. So this is what Marx says here. And this is what gets them into trouble. And we'll go into detail here in a little bit. What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Huckstring. What is his worldly God? Money. Now Marx just don't talk like that. Marx did. As did all the founders have left this movement. Engels was very much aware, given his position, that Jewish emancipation would mean the almost a Darwinian rule of Jews over everyone else, or at least the total exploitation of the poor by the rich. Emancipation also meant that they no longer had any of these revolutions,

especially in the French Revolution. There was no duty, as you had in the feudal era, no duty of capital owners to those working for them. Marx argues in this that the so-called Jewish, religion, and it's always in quotes, and he means it that way, is a reflection, so to speak, of not just Jewish life, Jewish economic life. And it's true. The religious elements are always secondary to the ethnic element. Now, his argument from here on in is fairly complex, but he does say that there was a historical choice that the Jew made as a huckster, a particularly financially competent one, and he makes it very plain. I could picture these young leftists coming across. Is he allowed to say that special connection between Judaism as a religion and today's economy,

whether it be 1845 or 2025. Free trade is extremely important for Karl Marx. And he made his free trade in speech in Brussels in 1848. And he says this. He says, generally speaking, the protective system, he means tariffs, in these days is conservative. While the free trade system works destructively, it breaks up all nationalities

and carries antagonism of proletarian and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. In the revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of free trade. So in order to bring about so-called human emancipation,

Marx had to destroy everything about the social order that had at one time protected them. Private property, family, religion, and most importantly, other races and ethnicities, other than Jew. Now, I talked about projecting whatever they want into this abstract proletarian. Here's what Engels says.

I quoted this actually from Barron Medal, from 2014. The great mass of proletarians are, by the very nature, free from national prejudices. and their whole dispensation and movement is essentially humanitarian, anti-nationalist. Only the proletarians can destroy nationality. Only the awakening proletariat can bring about fraternization between different nations. This is what I mean when I say that there's projecting whatever they want. He has no evidence for that.

Jews, the biggest problem we have, that Jews monopolize the writing on this and many other issues concerning Jews. They're blinded by ethnic self-interest. Now, let me quote Hal Draper. I think I mentioned him already. and these Jews have such a tough time with this. They're not really sure what to do with it. Not only because Marx was the founder of socials,

but he was a Jew. He says this. Now he's talking about Bruno Bauer. Bauer's court argument that as long as dues remain Jewish, they are too consumed with Jewish self-interest and communalism to be worthy of full citizenship. In effect, Bauer was calling for opposition

to the nation movement for Jewish emancipation in Germany. His long essay was replete with anti-Semitic themes. If Jews were ill-treated in the Christian world, they provoked this mistreatment by their obstinacy. Jews were not hated because they were misunderstood, since true understanding ought to not ultimately the hatred, Jews had lost interest in the progress of man and concentrated entirely on personal advantage. Jews had evolved no moral principle from their suffering, et cetera. Now, of course, that's true. Bauer doesn't even mention if this, or, you know,

Draper has even wonder if this is true or false. It's just anti-Semitic. It's as an argument in and of itself. We all know why Jews were treated poorly from time to time in Christians and scientists and scientists. Now, I think Draper, again, one of these Jews who, you know, you can't ignore this essay

so you have to reinterpret it and mutilate it. And Draper goes on. He says, well, Bauer echoed the general presidential representation of the Jew as merchant and money man, March propels was that in the modern world, money had become a world power, and the practical spirit of the Jews has become the practical spirit of Christian peoples.

In other words, why have become the Jews? The practical spirit of Judaism is money-making, as Bauer suggests, this hardly distinguishes Jews from the great array of non-Jewish entrepreneurs, merchants, bankers, who have risen to ascendancy in temporary society. The idea that the Jew is fundamentally more rooted in money-making than a Christian is wrong-headed.

It's as wrong-headed is the idea the Jew is less eligible for civil or political rights. Historically, it's true that many Jews played a significant role as middlemen between landowners and tenants, state and taxpayers, capital and consumers, not a few Jews like the Rothschild family, played a significant role as international bankers. But Marx insisted that this progressive role played by Jews in the development of capitalism was coming to an end. The practical spirit of money-making was as general as a growth of nation-states,

national banks, and national capital. Now, I'm saying that Draper speaks for most Jews. This is a very common way to approach this. The one thing he can't handle is that Jews created the modern commercial state. No matter where we're analyzing, Jews come to control a huge share of its mercantile trade, using debt to take huge amounts of property to themselves from debtors who go under. This isn't prejudicial. This has been the direct experience of millions all over Europe.

International banking was the Rosstile family. In other words, if you're a socialist and you believe that these kind of concentrations of capital in a few hands are wrong, why are you ignoring the Jews? It's all special pleading. But because socialism, you know, thanks to Marx, socialism early on, was very Jewish, they couldn't. Jewish religion, so to speak, which Karl Marx always kind of says,

tongue and cheek. Of course, it doesn't need to disappear. Bauer still thinks of it as a theology. No, Marx sees it as a natural part of a bourgeois society. In other words, by religion, he means the economic and experience existence of predatory Jews, the Talmudists. Because Marx knew that practical Judaism was huckstring, money,

and profit seeking, rent seeking. Hence, Christians have become Jews. And ultimately, it's mankind, both, that needs to emancipate itself from this practical Judaism. Now, what does he mean by that? It's another way of saying that Jews have leveraged their financial power to alter the basic moral code of the societies in which they live. They were the revolutionary core.

It didn't matter if it was capitalist or socialist. You know, in poor Russia, they were the core of the Bolsheviks in 1917. They were the core of the oligarchs in 1992. You know, when you introduce dishonest fraudulent business tactics into society, well, Gentiles just can't sit there. They have to respond. It's not a prejudice. This is why Jews get kicked out.

So Draper says something like, there is no longer any economic basis for distinguishing between Jew and Gentile, hence no room for legal discrimination between them. Now, Draper thinks that that's Marx's argument for emancipation. He means something a little bit more than that. Society has been Judaized. It didn't just happen. Revolution, you know, the bourgeois revolution just put a stamp on it.

The key element is that the influence of the Jews created what we call capitalism, economic modernism. although I do note here that some persecution, as we talked about with Solzhen, some persecution is necessary for the Jews. They need it. Not too much of it. We saw what their very distorted view of the pogroms meant in Russia. It created a unified Jewish body that didn't exist before, or not nearly to that extent. So persecution, to exaggerate it, it's absolutely essential.

Remember, all the things, all the restrictions in Russia, that we've spoken out came from very specific reasons. It didn't just happen. They didn't just write them in there for fun. Firstly, it was because of their dishonest business practices. Then, later, it was their revolutionary violence. The concept of commerce changed at this period of time. Marx is looking at the Jews here. But in a good way, you know, Jews could charge interest to the strangers,

that is, you know, William, whoever, but not to each other. Sambart says that the entire modern conception of ego-driven profit-seeking comes from the Jewish idea of how they treat non-Jews. Jews see the entire world as hostile, and their influence would then loosen the bonds of any kind of futile duties and replace them with simple individualism. And that was totally foreign to Christian Europe. but Jews can't be talking like that today. I also cite Hayam Makubi, another Jew. It's hard to find Gentile writers on this. I think a lot of them just don't understand it.

Because it is, you know, it's, you have to spend a lot of time putting it together in your brain. And this is just an example, he says, of Marx's early anti-Semitism. Marx argues that the modern commercialized world is a triumph of Judaism. A pseudo-religion whose God is money. Well, that's true. It's exactly what he's saying here. But then he says, well, Marx was embarrassed by his Jewish background and used Jews as a yardstick of evil.

Now, he doesn't give any evidence of this. But that's, again, another very common theme in these articles written on this paper. If you're anti-capitalist, how do you avoid looking at the Jews? they clearly are in charge of huge chunks of capital, way out of proportion to their numbers. So the only way out is a special pleading, pretending it's not there, cognitive dissonance.

Now, Sombard did teach me something in the Jews in modern capitalism, which he wrote in 1911, the wealthiest Jews going back, not only either were Talmudic scholars themselves or financed them. And he says, in page 133, the most learned Talmudists were also the cleverest financiers, medical men, jewelers, merchants. We're told that some of the Spanish ministers of finance, bankers, and court physicians,

that they devoted to the study of the Holy Rit, meaning the Talmud, not only on the Sabbath day, but also at least two nights of each week. Now, I went to a handful of writers like Jones have ever bothered to even talk about this. Jones mentions it once or twice, not too much. talking about it systematically is you know but sometimes it's kind of hard to see how this trajectory is going to go how do you go from anti-Semite at the same time as being a Jewish revolutionary and we have spoken of in the Solzhenits and stuff the nature of the Enlightenment

whether the Jewish Enlightenment or the Enlightenment in general and we know the purpose to dissolve tradition overthrow the monarchy to destroy religion. So then when you apply it to Christianity, it makes them Jews. Judaism, and I agree with E. Michael Jones, it's their essence is a rejection of logos. And that culminates by definition in revolution, the healing of the world. The German Enlightenment gave birth the Jewish revolutionary mentality. We talked about in Shultzhenitsin how these shuttles very quickly, once they were abolished, became revolutionary communist cells,

bringing about the state in the USSR. And I love that E. Michael Jones says, you know, when the German Enlightenment affected the Jews, it led to assimilation in the first generation and socialism in the second. Christianity didn't dissolve into universal human consciousness, as Bauer thought it might, but a Christian who is placed in this environment

becomes a Jew. Thus, in Marx's world, they're capable of becoming emancipated. They all were entitled, egoistic, alienated individuals. Both would attain true freedom. Only a society liberated from Judaism, Karl Marx says, using the phrase the preconditions of huckstering. Again, it's the same thing.

This is a nice way of saying the Jews took over the morals of society and perverted it in their direction. Let me quote Marx again in the Jewish question. The Christian state can behave towards the Jew only in a way characteristic of the Christian state. That is, by granting privileges, by permitting the separation of the Jew from the other subject, making him feel the pressure of all the other separate spirits of society, and feel all the more intensely because he's a religious opposition to the dominant religion.

But the Jew, too, can behave towards a state only in a Jewish way. That is, by treating him as something alien to him, by counterposing his imaginary nationality to the real nationality, by counterposing his illusory law to the real one, by dimming himself justified and separating himself from mankind, by abstaining on principle from taking part in any historical movement by putting his trust in a future

which has nothing in common the future of mankind in general by seeing himself as a member of the Jewish people the Jewish people as a chosen people Quake that goes away though when you make Jews out of everybody which you know if free masonry was supposed to do

the Jewish way of course is we all know we all know how they view Goim at best they're there to be led to the Enlightenment you know or push to the Enlightenment, sometimes by force, or at worst, there to be neutralized entirely. Of course, here we're talking about, you know, proto-Germany, for the most part, Lutheran.

The Jews saw themselves both as separate and superior. They can't be given abstract rights. They're only granted privileges. Now, Marx goes on to talk about the French Revolution and what a right might be. The French Revolutionary Doctrine says in the Rights of Man, Article 6, Liberty is the power which man has to do everything that does not harm the rights of others, which is quite a defective view of what freedom is.

But we take it for granted. I mean, Americans take it for granted today. It's the absence of restraint. The truth is that that's the removal of Christian principles. That's the restraint. and that permitted the explosion of greed that empowered a new class of capitalist oligarchs and hence Jewish wealth. Political emancipation to him

means he's writing about the French Revolution. Is the overthrow of the French monarchy and of course the church that went with it. And he writes about the French Revolution. He also means not just the church and the state, but also the guilds and the estates. What's left? the ego, the individual. That leads to materialism, but that's a needed step on a road to capitalist revolution. And then, at some point, the socialist one. The rights of man are abstract. They're not universals. They're abstractions. Now, socialism is a different story. They have to destroy religion. It always interested me. You know, Russia of all places had functioning.

in a broad definition of the term socialist institution, the commune itself, the artel, the monastery, the Brotherhood of the Holy Cross, all of these kind of things, that was the first thing to be destroyed. The Jewish element of it added something different. This is what Prudhon had such a problem with it. It adds this hate-filled element to it. Now, the revolution, of course,

ultimately you really can't talk about the state at all and certainly can't talk about abstractions like rights. And obviously, free trade is wondering, free trade affects less, not just commodities. It affects labor prices too. Labor then competes with one another. So that means for the libertarians, the highest degree of general competition

leads by the same necessity to drive the workers' wages down to the lowest possible level. That ultimately is a goal of free trade. It leads to misery, and according to Marx, that's absolutely necessary for revolution. So what does freedom mean, then? to the proletarian, this imaginary body, imaginary unit who lacks the resources

to do much of anything. How can he approach the... What is freedom mean to a man like this? When he signs a contract, are they equal parties? Neighbor unions were destroyed, the guilds were destroyed, the estates were destroyed. Now, I'm going to get to the heart of the matter here. this is what this is what people either pro or con take out of the Jewish question here's what Mark says and they kind of summarize what we've been saying so far let's consider the actual worldly Jew not the religious Jew the Sabbath Jew as Bauer does but the everyday Jew let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion but let us look for the secret of his religion in the Jew

what's the secular basis of Judaism practical needs self-interest. What's the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering? His God is money. An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for Huckstring and therefore the possibility of Huxring would make the Jew impossible. We recognize in Judaism therefore a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development to which this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed, has been brought to the present level at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism. The Jew has

emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he's acquired financial power, but also because through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power. And the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews. That sentence is the core of the book, or of the essay. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews. So Marx is very clear. Judaism cares about that.

Not the mystifications of the synagogue. He doesn't care about that. The real Jew, he lives in service to Mamun. Jews have poisoned Christian life. So Christians are most of them have become material. realists. Christians have become Jews. Emancipation, because it's just an abstraction, that would unleash total huckstring. It's a dominant norm.

Rights are abstract, but the real Jew was not. Let me continue. This is what Mark says, again, in the same essay. The monotheism of the Jew, therefore, is in reality the polytheism of the many physical needs, a polytheism which makes even the lavatory an object of divine law. Of course, you talk about the Talmud. practical need, egoism, its principle of civil society, and as such appears in pure form,

as soon as civil society has fully given birth to the political state. Money is a jealous God of Israel. The face of which no other God may exist, money degrades all the gods of man, turn them into commodities. Money is a universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore, robbed the whole world, both the world of men and nature,

of a specific value. Money is the estranged essence of man's work and man's existence, and this alien essence dominates the Jew and he worships it. The God of the Jews has become secularized and has become the God of the world. The Bill of Exchange is a real God of the Jew. His God is only the illusory bill of exchange. The view of nature attained under the domination of private property and money is a real contempt for and practical debasement of nature.

In the Jewish religion, nature exists. It's true, but it exists only in their imagination. Now, those two quotes that I just, when anyone talks about it kind of from our side, that's what they bring up. Because they're pretty surprised to hear stuff like that. But what Marx is saying is that, you know, Judaism is not a religion. It's almost a cover for everything. It's a revolutionary doctrine. You know, people like Draper, it's a dynamic spirit of the present.

The spirit of practical rationality in private gain, which is just another word for British free trade, oligarchy, imperialism. A lot of people don't realize. It isn't just, you know, even right up until almost the 20th century, the concept of competition in the way that we think of the term in the economic marketplace was something very foreign to European cities. I want to quote Werner Sombard here, to take away your neighbor's customers was contemptible, un-Christian and immoral. A rule for merchants who trade in commodities was,

turn no man's customers away from him either by word of mouth or by letter and do not another what you would not have another do to you. It was however more than a rule. It became an ordinance. It's met with over and over again. In Mayence, the wording is as follows. No one shall prevent another from buying or by offering a higher price, make a commodity dearer for more expensive.

On pain of losing his purchase, no one shall interfere in another's business undertaking or carry out his own on so large a scale as to ruin the other traders. In Saxony, it's the same thing. No shopkeeper can call away the customers from another shop, nor shall he be signed

by signs or emotions, keep them from buying. Even having a sign outside your shop was out of the question. Advertising was out of the question. It was stability, not profit. That was the ideal of European commerce. advertising was vulgar.

That was something also brought in by Jewish traders. And Sombard cites a huge number of local laws and ordinances from 17th century, 18th century in Europe. But wherever the Jews became more numerous, more powerful, more wealthy, they were able to uproot that system. That was Mark's response to Bauer. the feudal must give way to the mercantile or the capitalist. That's a necessary step to revolution before socialism could even be considered. And Jews were a central element to both transitions. Essentially, it was a non-inquisitive society, almost impossible for us to really understand.

I mean, isn't that just because we've been completely Judaized, as he said? I mean, there's, you can say what you want about Marx. his analysis is correct in in much of this and sombart's book jews and modern capitalism is important to understand this that there is nothing we do in finance or in business that that isn't jewish we take it for granted it all comes from them and we praise it because we've been told that people in the middle ages or people um people 500 years ago well you know they had no happiness. They were slaves. They were slaves on the land. They didn't own their land. Yada yada. You had to have the black plague in order to have private ownership of property. And I mean,

you can find just as many historians to say this is complete nonsense. Yeah, I don't even think they know how to conceive of it. It took me a while to be able to put it together in my, in my brain. Because we remember conservatives, you know, when I was, you know, 17, 18, I got into the conservative movement, capitalist competition was a wonderful thing. We had to read Adam Smith. You know, this was a great thing, not realizing just how viciously revolutionary was.

Yeah, it might work in a small town where everyone knows everybody, which is really the perfect capitalist hypothetical situation that Adam Smith has in mind. But now we're talking about national and supernational scales. Sambart says a peasant had his land, the town dweller, his customers. In either case, there were the source when sprang his livelihood. In either case, they were of a size sufficient for his purpose. Hence, the trader had to be short of his custom, and many were the ordinances which guarded him against competition. It was basically commercial etiquette.

He says, competition was therefore out of the question. Even look in your neighbor's direction was a problem. It was stability. Marx, and that's why I bring up Sambard in this paper. I knew I had to. Otherwise, you can't really make sense out of it. What does Karl Marx mean where Christians have become Jews? And you see how people like Hal Draper have tried to reverse it.

Like, this is perfectly normal for Christians. They're rich and inquisitive Christians, too, right? And either he doesn't know or he doesn't care. That wasn't the case. by and large, not that long ago. So what Karl Marx generally says, along right with Sombard, many years later, profit seeking at the expense of another

was a Jewish practice that spreads to the rest of society. And that's what Sombard has shown. Let me quote Marx again from, you know, part two of Zerudane Fraga or Jewish question. Christianity is a sublime thought of Judaism. Judaism is a common practical application of Christianity. But this application can only become general after Christianity as a developed religion

had completed theoretically the estrangement of man from himself and from nature. Only then could Judaism achieve universal dominance and make alienated man and alienated nature into endable, vendable, sellable objects subject to slavery of egoistic need and to trading.

Selling is a practical aspect of alienation. Just as man, as long as he's in a grip of religion, is able to objectify his essential nature, only by turning it into something alien, something fantastic. So under the dominion of egoistic need, he could be active practically

and produce objects in practice, only by putting his products and his activity under the dominion of an alien being, bestowing the significance of an alien entity money on them. Religion for Marx is alienating because it involves transferring the essence of man, which came from Foribok

onto some entity. For Jews, though, they did the same thing. instead that entity was money. So when their power reaches a certain critical mass, you know, you have the reformation, especially Calvinism, money making becomes almost a commandment, the scientific revolution coming from alchemy and the Kabbalah. You know, a positive man as ruling nature, not as a part of it.

Judaism took a huge, you know, in Calvin and the Puritans. this is Judeanized semi-Christianity. And Marx continues, and its perfected practice, Christian egoism of heavenly bliss is necessarily transformed into corporeal egoism of the Jew. Heavenly need is turned into world need, subjectivism into self-interest.

We explain the tenacity of the Jew, not by his religion, but on the contrary, by the human basis of his religion, practical need, egotism. Since in civil society, the real nature of the Jew has been universally realized and secularized,

civil society could not convince the Jew of the unreality of his religious nature, which is indeed just the ideal aspect of his practical need. But people still stubbornly see it as a theology. Once the Jew comes out of his, you know, not nonsense and totally dominates the society, it creates the conditions for what he calls a miseration for Gentile workers. A miseration, meaning bringing them to such a point of misery that they can't function anymore. and revolution is almost as short. What came to my mind right there is,

the Gentiles that brag about working 16 hours a day and how hard they work. Where did that come from? Oh, that's, is that the Protestant work ethic? Oh, okay. Maybe think about that. Then out of that came masonry. And out of that came the scientific revolution,

and then the industrial revolution. You know, I think the reason that Jews, or a socialist of all types, can't handle this document is because it is an accurate portrayal of the Machiavellian economic thought and action of the Jews at the time, and among Gentiles in general. That's why the secondary literature is almost overwhelmingly in the hands of Jewish authors. Usually they can't even contain their emotion. The Jew changed the moral economy of Christian Europe.

This is part of Marx's whole philosophy of history. Let me quote Sambard again, and this is why it's so important to quote him relative to Karl Marx on the Jews. He says, Now, in a community where quality was regulated, the only effective means of achieving this end, economic dominance, was price-cutting. You shall therefore not be surprised to find Jews availing themselves of this weapon. We shall see that it was just this that made them so disliked among Christian traders. whose economic outlook was all for maintaining prices.

The Jew undersells. The Jew spoils prices. The Jew tries to attract customers by low prices, artificially low prices. That was the burden of the complaints heard in the 17th and 18th centuries, wherever Jews did business. That concept was completely foreign to Christian society. Then by the time Charles Darwin built the survival of the fittest, that was music to the years of these people.

Charles Darwin had far more significance than Adam Smith on capitalism. And of course, Carl Marx was a huge devotee of Darwin. So I bring Sambard into this only because he just piles on the evidence that through most of Christian European history, what we take for granted, the competition and advertising and underselling and stuff like that was not just not the norm. It was a horrible thing to do to somebody. Poland, he talks about the Swedish part.

He has so many examples here. There's no denying it. Brandenburg, Frankfurt, Magiburred. You know, it's the exact same thing over and over again. And he quotes so many people in the supplication of Augsburg in the 19th century. Wholesale merchants against the admission of the Jews, It says that the Jews understand how to derive advantages from the general depression of trade. They obtain goods from people who need money badly at shameful prices, then spoil the market by selling them at a cheaper rate.

That seems kind of, well, most people, is not what you do. Evil drove out the good because, while being good is difficult, and evil was very well organized. It was a moral economy and it gave way to capitalism and free trade. the stages of revolution and of course Bolivism the Jewish left took over entirely that's because the ego was set free that couldn't have come into existence

had the enlightenment and British free trade not become the norm and it's interesting we said well how did the Jews how could they be underselling all the time well one they were taken often by dishonest means how many times did I say in Russia the Jews functioned as a mafia organization they rarely paid taxes.

They hid from the census. Second, cheap goods came from the fire sales. You know, once a debtor is liquidated. And three, inferior quality. People were talking about the inferior quality

of their products they tried to hide using advertising and PR to manipulate the buyer. The mafia concept, that's how they operate. And Russia became a science. And the only thing that keeps that from becoming known is their control over the

press in the legal profession, all brought about by what Marx calls political emancipation. Now, we have to stop here. The rest of my paper on this is not necessarily connected with some Jewish question, Marxist Jewish question. My point is that even leftists, you know, here's what Bakunin says. And again, the founder of anarchism, Russia. Yeah, well, I shouldn't say. Prudhon Prakken, Bakunin, there were the three founders of anarchism. Bakunin writes on the study of the German Jews, he said,

the Jewish sect constitutes a veritable power in Europe. It reigns despotically in commerce and banking. Has invaded three quarters of German journalism and a very significant part of the journalism of other countries. Then woe to him, who makes the mistake of displeasing it. Now, that actually was quoted disapprovingly by Draper and his article. and Bakunin said that Marx and Engels were on the Rothschildo payroll. He said it many times.

That's why he got kicked out of the first international. But now you have a man of Karl Marx's stature, Bakunin's stature, as far as the left is concerned, saying this kind of thing. He's up at Coonan says, himself a Jew, Marx has around him in London and France, but especially in Germany,

a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews everywhere. commercial banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers, one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement. Now this entire Jewish world which forms a single profiteering sect of people of bloodsuckers, a single

gluttonous parasite, closely and intimately united not only across national borders, but across all differences of political opinion. The Jewish world today stands at the most part of the disposal of Marx, and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. That may seem strange, but Coonan asked.

but there can be in common between communism and the large banks. The communism of Marx seeks enormous centralization in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and when such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail. Now, Bakunin is not a nobody. He's one of the major names in early anarchism.

You come across, you know, and the antiphon, claims to be anarchists, generally speaking. I don't think they came across this. But leftist anti-Jewish thinking terrifies the Jews. In fact, most of the founders of the main Jewish-leftist

schools in this era talk like this. Leftist anti-Semitism is a Jewish nightmare. PJ Prudan, I will end here. PJ Prudhomme, who actually came up with the word anarchism to describe his movement. I always like them. He's an atheist, but everything else seems pretty solid. He also created the phrase

property is theft. Now, this was only a note to himself, December 26, 1847. He's saying, you know, this is like a note. He says, write an article. He's talked to himself. Write an article against the race that poisons everything by sticking its nose into everything without ever mixing with any other people. Demand his expulsion from France. Abolished synagogues. Don't let them into any employment, demand of expulsion, pursue the abolition of this religion. It's not without cause that the Christians call them deosines. The Jews, the enemy of man. The Jew must disappear by steel or by fusion or by expulsion. The hatred of the Jew, the hatred of the English, should be our first article of political faith. I don't think anarchists know this about their

founders. This means that the founders of the socialist left in the 19th century, Prudhomme, Marx, and Bakunen, all have come to the same conclusions. Even Moses has, despite, you know, he says the exact same thing. I have him, so we don't have time, but he wrote an essay in 1945, same time Marx wrote his, or a year after, called the essence of money. He says pretty much the same thing. The main minds, the 19th century that created what we call the left, all say the same thing. regarding the role of Jews in capitalism, their takeover public morals.

So when we say those things, but we're just saying what you said, you know, 100 or so years ago, maybe 150 years ago. Yet for people like Hess and Marx, the way ahead was to increase the power of the, what did they call money, wolves, to reduce the proletariat to hopeless poverty, and then take advantage of their alienation to take over the mass of animals because that's what Hess said entirely. and call it a labor paradise. Pruton didn't give a damn about emancipation. In fact, he came very close to defining anarchism,

and he's the one who came up with the word, as freedom from usury. And Bakunan was very close. And I bring this up because this is exactly what Marx was talking about. All of this, in his mind, is a positive thing, though. I guess the only big difference. don't pretend the Jew isn't anything than what he is.

But without the Jew, of course, future revolution is impossible. Capitalism is revolutionary. Free trade is meant to destroy national about borders, meaning ethnicity, mix everyone up. The Jewish element is very important, as we know, that Rothschild is in Britain. And then once the proletariat becomes the norm, and their miserable condition, then at some point, you'll have bolshevism.

You know, one of the things that people listening to this will say, because this is all coming from the left, is that, well, you know, that undercutting of prices and making things cheaper, that just made people on the ground wealthier. That just made the average man. The average man now could have things that only wealthy people could have before, without asking at what cost. Because you're just, it's, when you take that route, it's purely materialistic.

When the metaphysical disappears, family disappears, a coherent society and culture disappears. Because all you have to do is look around. I mean, where's the coherent, where's the coherent society? where is the love of family and caring about where you came from when, you know, if you inherit your family land, you're willing to sell it to the highest bidder so you can go and live in the best zip code, you know, that you're told on TV is where you want to live, then people will, you know, admire you. People just don't take into consideration.

They think that what I'm saying right now is completely. like socialism and leftism. They think that there's a black and a white, that there's socialism and there's capitalism and that there's absolutely no in between. Well, no, it's both of them need to be able. There's another way. There are many other ways,

but you just don't understand it because this is what you've been taught. And you've been taught by this group. I mean, you know, to say that they control everything is, it's a bad argument. And it's an argument that your enemies make against you that they'll use, that Jews will use against you. They'll be like, oh, you say we control everything. We don't control everything. You don't have to control.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You don't have to control everything if you have people. if if you're overrepresented in certain places, no one's saying that, you know, the average Jew who's just going to work back and forth and is watching Seinfeld reruns at night is controlling is controlling anything. They may vote poorly or, you know, whatever. But this is if you don't understand, if you don't read like what Sombart wrote and what, and even what Marx wrote,

quote here, you don't understand what your predicament is right now and where we are and why you're fighting so hard to keep the status quo or basically you're trying to make their system better. Socialism in general, up until Marx and even afterwards, socialism was a right-wing phenomenon. Capitalism was revolutionary. There was nothing. you know, if we can picture the factory in 1850 in London, I don't think people comprehend the evil. How many kids were killed there?

Because they were, you know, I trial labor and everything else. This is a cost of modernity. It was Thomas Carlyle. It was the royalists, the social monarchists. You had national social, social nationals of all stripes, going back even before the industrial revolution, opposing the scientific revolution, opposing the rule of money as time went on.

The industrial revolution, the time this was written, no one could deny that the factory system was evil. No one could possibly see that system and think that this is good. And the agrarian movement, the royalists, the monastic, all of this, Russia produced so much of it. I've talked about it at great length. The Brotherhood of the Holy Cross is one of my favorites. But because of a certain level of control over academic life,

well, I don't like capitalism, therefore I have to become a Marxist or maybe an anarchist because there's nothing else. And that's wrong on two levels. Number one, there are not opposites. And number two, I mean, no one exploited. The same factory system existed in, in the Soviet Union with far greater levels of exploitation, far greater levels. You'd had no days off in the late Leninists in the Stalinist era.

It was absolutely vicious. And they tried to turn in the collective system in this countryside to make even the farm life a factory. That's what the collective farm was. Everything was to be mechanized. everything was to be a big robotic machine. That's not, you know, nothing changed in that regard. So there are certainly non-opposite. The other reason is that there are so many other options that you have no access to.

There's so many great, right. Thomas Carlyle just comes to mind because he was, you know, I spent a lot of time talking about them, both east and the west, so many great writers condemning this system. Chesterton for that matter. Didn't Spengler compare the city to the Army barracks

where you're just you're just go there, you live in this barracks and then you go to work and good luck getting home. Well, yeah, that was their life of the proletarian, yeah.

Yeah, you're just as liable to die on the job as you would on the battlefield. Yeah, it's called human sacrifice. Yeah. Yeah. And that's the cost of all this. Yeah.

And if people don't realize that that is what, that Marx was right and that was going to lead to what he wanted in the end, well, look around you. Just because you can still own a house and go on vacation, doesn't mean we're not, you know, headlong, heading, you know, going right into exactly what Marx wanted because we're, you know, Mark said that capitalism was needed to be there, needed to exist to completely de-rassonate people from their families, from their religions, from everything. And here we are. And that, and that was, that was, you know, Marx's point. That's why he was so in favor of free trade.

And, I mean, he knew he was a Jew. of course, but he acts like he's, you know, above it all. And he, he says, you know, the Jews are absolutely necessary because, you know, and he's, of course, he's making fun of them. He's trying to, he's trying to show that, you know, they're not who they say they are, obviously. But you recall, this is really, and he mentions it in a few other places, but not many. And there is simply no way to be honest and not noticed the fact that capitalism,

that huge chunks of financial, even industrial capital, whatever that's left in the West, is in the hands of Jewish financiers. You know, 2% of the population. There's no getting out of that. Here's the last sentence of my paper on this. And I say, today's Jews and leftist professors in general have become intellectually soft because they never have to even answer a question as to whether or not any of this is true. screaming anti-Semitism is an argument in and of itself.

In the EU, the law is clear. One goes to prison for even mentioning these issues. In the mainstream economic world, Jewish academics, and public intellectuals never have to worry about refuting these charges or anything else like this, because they never hear them. They know them only through caricature. But this means they're not only intellectually lazy, hiding behind walls of law enforcement and censorship,

but they also have a very narrow view of the world, around them. Then soon they assume their ideology is incontrovertible fact since they have access to nothing else. Unfortunately, historical reality doesn't bend that easily. So the Jewish question ultimately is a Jewish role not so much in the socialist revolution, but in the capitalist one. Judaism is not a religion. Get rid of that concept, he says. Bauer makes that huge mistake. Judaism is about the revolutionizing of the entire society. That's what free trade and capitalism is.

That's why I had to talk about Sambar. And it took me a while to put the two together. Wait, this is exactly what Sambart's talking about. I'm pretty sure I'm the first one to ever bring those together in that regard. Because in the Jewish question, that's exactly what Marx is saying. They've turned the moral economy into a Jewish one. They've turned Christians into Jews. And that's really the point.

Now, of course, you know, there is nothing non-socialist about the Bolsheviks. Lennon was a Marxist. He knew Marx very well, intellectually speaking. There's no reason to believe that it wasn't real socialism. I hate that argument. And if you ever hear it, you just say, well, this is a real capitalism then. Anyone can say that. Now, it's exactly what Marx wanted.

as Bakunin said, total centralization. But to think that Marxism and postmodern capitalism are opposites is absolutely absurd. They're the same enlightenment ideology. I think the Soviets spent more time physically punishing people while in the West psychologically do it. I'm not sure which is worse. well, the physical part is getting worse as time goes on. And I think the psychological part may last longer. So that's my understanding of Karl Marx's on the Jewish question, its purpose,

and why I think we have to bring people like Sombard into it to explain Marx's statement that Christians have become Jews. And that's exactly what Marx means by the Jews. that. All right. Well, we will be back to our regular programming in a couple of days of recording 200 years together. But in the meantime, as I always do, go to the show notes on this and to the video of the video descriptions of 200 years together. And yeah, support Dr. Johnson's work. He's not only, only is this an incredible essay that he he shared with us today. But, you know, the continuing 200 years together series is a, you know, it has been described to me by numerous people.

It is the college course that they wish they would have gotten on history and how we got here. and a, you know, a certain group that holds sway over power and wealth and influence and propaganda and everything, you know, they have their, their hands are in all the pies. It's impossible to, it's impossible at this point not to see it. In order to, in order to not see it now, you just have to be such a good person, and I'm using air quotes there, that it is unseemly to mention it or you think you're benefiting by it and you actually, you actually celebrate it. And my paper, you can upload my paper so that anyone could just download it too, right?

Absolutely. I will. Okay. All right. So go support Dr. Johnson's work. And we'll be back in a couple of days with the next episode of two and you years together. See you then.

I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekignano show. Dr. Jay is here and we'll put aside Solzheneson for a day. And Dr. Johnson, how did a Jewish woman get elected Mexican president? Well, the shock is why no one's really talking about it. She isn't just a Jew, you know, with a blatantly Jewish name. You know, she comes from a communist background. And, you know, she's a feminist. Her opponent was a feminist.

Not a Jew, but she might as well have been one. How does that happen? You know, it was a bizarre situation. And I found, I think, one article from Lou Rockwell on the topic. I think maybe one on like the American conservative. And that's about it. And I think when I did this on Radio Albi, and I said, why is no one talking about her? The question is, how does a Roman Catholic country with men in the millions known for their machismo come to elect a woman like this, where her big issues are, you know, fags and drag queens, and claim that it's a fair election?

How many Jews are there in Mexico? there's about 40,000, 150 million population. I remember hearing about her for the first time. And I said, how is this even possible? And I figured what the fixes got to be in? And of course, it was true. And one of the ways I knew it was the media referring to her early on as a winner. Not only that, she's going to win by a landslide.

This is long before they knew anything about the election. and every newspaper article uses the word historic and that she is the first female or first woman president and the first Jew in some combination of that. They all say the exact same thing. Now being the first woman doesn't mean anything. Being the first Jew does mean something. So in other words, a huge, in the landslide, mind you,

a huge number of Mexicans voted a Jew left us to be to be president of their country. And she comes from, you know, this is, she comes from, she's pure-blooded as well. And I actually, you know, I'm going to go into her family background, which is very, very depressing. Her family comes from the Communist Party, not just in Mexico, but also Cuba. the USSR. Now the one thing interesting about the way these elections go, this happens a lot in Latin America.

There's a lot of parties in Mexico. And they have a first round and then there's a runoff and, you know. But the first round, she got less than 40% of the vote, which still is massive. She was also mayor of Mexico City and in a suburb, Lapaan. for that she won not quite 30%. It was in 2015.

It was a suburban town. The very first round for Actually, the first round for Mexico City was 15%. What am I saying? For Tlappon, it was just under 30. And of course, won both elections massively afterwards. So it's a runoff system given the large number of parties.

So given preferences in the system, she's about 15% 20% of the population at most. But given the runoff system, somehow she wins. I don't think it's a system. I think there's a lot more going on here. Remember the Biden fraud. We see a lot of the same things here,

but it's not nearly as blatant. Now, I don't claim to have the expertise in Mexico like I do elsewhere. but I certainly know comparative politics, international relations, and I certainly know fraud and deceit where I see it. Now this was last year, 24.

The media declared her the winner long before the voting ended. This is a very bad thing to do. It means people aren't going to go. In fact, they were talking about landslide victory. Why would you vote if the media keeps saying she's going to win in the landslide if you're opposed to her?

the press was 100% behind her. And despite the laws, which semi-forbid this, there was a massive amount of Jewish and leftist money flooded into Mexico from abroad. And some of these articles about her, remember it's like in 92, 93 about Hillary, Hillary Clinton. They were just, they were gushing. They were so absurd about her. You know, she's glowing.

She's this almost goddess, you know. She represents the National Regeneration Movement, Marina. And not only did she get elected president, but both houses of the legislature, they have even supermajorities. And, of course, she's trying to stifle the courts. We'll talk about that in a little bit if we get to it. I find that interesting that she is a climate scientist. I mean, could you get any more convenient here?

That guarantees her tons of NGOs. support. Now, the claim, the National Electoral Institute, which he's trying to get rid of now, said that she won almost 60% of the vote in runoff, which is over 30 percentage points ahead of her rival, so cheat Galvez. I don't know how they get so cheap out of X-O-C-H-I-T-L, which is a woman's name down there, but that's how it's pronounced. I've been told. But still, even Al Jazeera said that the landslide, even though local media was claiming this, international media wasn't. And the landslide, although they were saying it, was much larger than people had expected. Remember they were saying that Biden had the most votes of anyone in American history?

Even more than Obama's second term? Same thing goes here. The largest percentage of votes of any candidate in recent history of Mexico. She's allegedly the follower of Lopez Obrador, the former president, who himself is iffy about this. And it just doesn't make any political sense to me. She said, I will become the first woman president of Mexico, she declared. And that was before the elections and claims of a landslide. Now, they keep referring to this.

She's the first woman. I don't, what difference does that make? female leaders have not been different in a lot of ways than male leaders have. Being Jewish, that certainly does matter. I guess she gets more NGO backing that way. Her ethnicity explains quite a bit. Of course, they were both feminists. Both of these candidates, somehow in Mexico, those are the two choices.

And even beyond that, the Mexican right wing, which was very disarray right now, started its campaign very confident in victory. but neither candidate was on the right whatsoever. So it's not just until, you know, it's deeper than just her winning the presidency. But I have a book out on Latin American dictators, so-called military dictators during the Cold War. And there's a huge information block on the right wing, even the church supports the left in many places down there. and military leaders in so many Latin American countries

have this been condemned without any conception of why they're there, what they were doing, and it turns out that the majority of them were very good men that the U.S. did not support. I go through a lot of them. I can't, of course, can't go through all of them. There are so many. But the left has such a tight control of information coming out of Latin America.

Any Spanish speaker, Portuguese-speaking country, that it's really tough to get to the heart of the matter. So one of these really bad articles I found was from Jocobin, you know, the French Revolutionary movement. The name of the magazine came out in 2024 written by Noah Manzer, romanticizing this woman beyond belief. Menser. Is that, what's that Irish? Yeah, M-A-Z-E-R, yeah. Yeah, yeah, that's hit that.

Yeah, it may be from, maybe Sikh, yeah. from Bangladesh. Anyway, I like, you know, Jacobin and Wikipedia, these places, I go to them to see what the regime is thinking about something. Wikipedia is very good for that. Now, the two people who matter in her family history, these are the people who founded Marxism in Latin America,

or at least, you know, Mexico and Cuba. Her father and her uncle. her grandfather and her uncle Shane, although this is spelled C-H-O-N-E somehow and Solomon Shinebaum They're born in the Russian Empire, of course, Lithuania.

They migrated to Mexico in the early 20th century. That's grandfather and great-uncle. He's a communist. And of course, Manzer, of course, romanticizes them beyond belief. I couldn't even read it after a while. And this gives a huge a lot of information about her background and ideology. You know, they were born and raised

around the time we're talking about with the Shultzhenitsyn thing. They left in, I think it was in 1913, they left to the U.S. They returned to Europe a year later. They went to Poland, 1914. Then again, Lithuanian, 1920. You know, going back and forth, we've talked about that with the Shultzhenits.

thing. Tronsky did it. A lot of these revolutionaries were moved from place to place mobilizing Jewish opinion. But given that there were Jewish, you know, Jews living in Lithuania, going back to Lithuania was a problem. The Communist Party was outlawed as after the fall of of the monarchy, after the Lithuanian Soviet war. There was a very short-lived Lithuanian People's Republic. And the leadership, there's a bunch of Jews in it. But the entire leadership, but the Jewish or not, were from the land. They were either landowners or very powerful merchants, the upper crust of the society. So they're trying to get to the United States again, and apparently their way was blocked or so, Manzer tells us.

They wound up, they wound up in Cuba. Can I ask a question here? Okay, so my great grandparents on my mom's side, where my grandmother came here from the Galicia area in like 1910 and 1911, respectively. They never went back. They couldn't afford to go back if they wanted to. They didn't send money back.

They couldn't afford to send money back if they wanted to. How the hell are these people. going from from Russia to New York to Lithuania to Cuba, eventually to Mexico. Exactly. How the hell? And these aren't huge names in like the communist movement. These are just probably foot soldiers. How the hell are they doing this?

Yeah, they were not from a poor family to begin with. They're obviously not an oppressed minority as they love for you to believe. Jacobin likes you to believe that, but doesn't explain where the money came from. and at some point one of them becomes a jewelry merchant like you can't just become a jewelry merchant he doesn't ask where this money comes from you know Trotsky went wherever he wanted but all these Jews go back and forth because they're mobilizing people

they're bringing money back they're bringing men back Trotsky was known for that so the Scheinbram brothers landed in Cuba instead of the UN and helped form the Communist Party of Cuba immediately. I don't know how they didn't even speak Spanish. It's like there's chunks missing here that these guys can do this.

The party even had a Jewish section. Brand new party in Cuba in 1914, in 1917, with a Jewish section. They didn't know no Spanish. But somehow Jews had to, strong presence in the PC, the Communist Party of Cuba. Four of the parties, 13 members, founding members were Jewish. I think it's more than that.

There were a few Chinese there, too, somehow. There was a large Chinese presence in Cuba. But why would the party have a Jewish section at all? Now, the party was outlawed in Cuba under Gerardo Machado. Military government made necessary by Jewish revolutionary violence, including two attempts to assassinate him. They act like these people just took over because they love power. He was a liberal at one time, Machado was.

But he moved to the right once the communist was trying to kill him. The left became more brazenly violent. Their aliases were, and they stuck with him. And it kind of makes me laugh. Shane became Arturo Ramirez, and Solomon took the name Garcia Blanco. And eventually, Machado had them deported to Mexico. They did the same thing in Mexico.

land there, joined the fairly new Mexican Communist Party. I've been outlawed at the time for

terrorism, but its leadership wasn't Mexican. There was an Indian guy, Manabendra,

Roy, Indian leftist, Japanese journalist Kattyama, Sen Katayama, and an American,

who was a newspaper editor, which I mentioned, Bertram Wolf, also Jewish. Bertram Wolf is interesting

because he became a supporter of Trotsky and is one of the founders of the neoconservative movement. And I say that because, and his intellectual trajectory is precisely where the neocons came from. Once he perceived the solemnness completely taking over, once Trotsky was axed, he became so anti-Soviet that he became an anti-communist altogether. In fact, there were so many emigrates from Cuba that they had their own organization in Mexico. Again, there's all these missing pieces. The brothers became members of the Central Committee in the Mexico City branch.

Solomon became the head of the party finances somehow. And then it's propaganda section. He was editor of El Soviet, the party newspaper. I love this. You just put Elle in front of something in Spanish. And apparently there was a, even though there was a tiny handful of Jews in Mexico, they were one of the most politically dominant elements of the country at the time. A leftist, of course.

The rise of Mexico's Jewish left, Manzer says. Like this is a normal thing to talk about. The party was the Jewish left. And the ridiculousness, they created the Radical Workers Center to organize Jewish workers, Jewish workers in Mexico, as if there were any such a thing. The Radical Workers Center was another. one. There were no Jewish workers. There was no Jewish proletariat. There was a bunch of a proletariat in Mexico at all. And the

exact same behavior occurred in Mexico as it had in Cuba. Emilio Gil, as he was leaving office, they tried to kill him a few times, broke off relations with the Soviet Union. He arrested the leaders of the Communist Party in Mexico. It was rioting that paralyzed parts of the capital, especially the university. The left tried to kill him on the inauguration day, of the new president, Pascal Rubio. So all the foreign communists, the Italian Tina Modati, Yorio Rossovsky, of course, a Jew from Ukraine,

and Mexican ones were imprisoned. But Shane, though, somehow passed himself off as a Mexican. Solomon didn't. I'm not sure how that happened. Shane may have looked less Jewish than Solomon did. but Shane rejoined the Central Committee of the party's

Mexico City unit he eventually became leader of the party in the 7th Congress in 1939 and then of course under the president of Lazaro Kardanas who was a leftist but not a communist

he allowed the party to be legalized but they were not part of his coalition Leon Trotsky was still alive and apparently there was a huge amount of debate as to what to do with this guy here. You know, there was a, there was an interest, great interest in Latin America in the Communist International.

But even the left forbade immigration by Africans, non-Japanese Asians, Soviet citizens, gypsies, and Jews under Cardin, Ah. So even the left had enough of this. But under Stalinism, you know, these two brothers, grandparents of, well, uncle and great-grandfather of the current Mexican president, they kind of went with the flow. Whoever was dominant they went with. They were not theoreticians.

They needed to unify the party under Stalinism. They even formed a purging commission. Trotsky condemned them. He said that they were running a show trial on Moscow's behalf. That was in March. 139, Trotsky was air. axed in November. Eventually, they even turned their guns on shame.

Solomon was released from prison, went to the Soviet Union, no problem, joined the Communist Party, and because he was in Latin America for so long, he was part of the Common Turn's executive committee there. He was expelled from the party again in 1936. So both brothers have been purged in two different places. That's when Shane, after his expulsion, moved to Ulyssesco and began. came a jewelry merchant somehow. Somehow the cash was there. But, you know, most of these, most of these communist leaders were very wealthy men, even if they weren't wealthy before.

So then, and I said they just went with whoever, whoever was in power. Shane wrote a very sniveling confession in 1954. You know, I had to do that. Please don't kill me. I'm wrong. I did everything wrong. I'm so sorry, please. And they accepted them in 1950. But then Manzer is very sad because, let me quote indirectly, the Jewish left in Mexico was experiencing a steep decline. Communists and Bundes fought bitterly throughout the 1940s, their movements weakening in Zionism becoming the community's dominant expression of ethnic activism by the 1950s. The fact that Claudia Shinebaum today appears to be neutral on Zionism might come from this,

but this is uncertain. Now, Shane didn't die until 1989. the party eventually dissolved. It became the Party of the Democratic Revolution in 1987. His granddaughter Claudia, who was well aware of all of this, was married to one of the founders of the Party of the Democratic Revolution. So she clearly is in line here. And like Marxism itself was financed by the wealthy, the big banks,

and the Mexican Party as well as a Cuban Party to a great extent was founded and dominated by foreigners, Jews, among others. Now, as far as Claudia's concerned, she was well aware of this. She's proud of this background, which is why this article came out in the first place. She became a climate scientist. In other words, she, and this wasn't her initial academic purpose. It happened quite suddenly. She went to California for this.

And climate change apparently is her, that's going to be the mechanism by which what's left of Western civilization can be brought under control. Now, something else happened, though, and it was a few years ago, the Colombian president, this was at a climate change conference at the University of Mexico, said that Claudia was a militant in an activist of the Colombian guerrilla MS-19. Now, she didn't deny it. She didn't sue him for swander or anything. That was the April 19 movement there.

and this would make sense because this would this would follow her family trajectory. So I don't know how could she be doing that and getting a doctorate degree in Berkeley at the same time. But that's, you know, that was the claim. And it's probably true. She wasn't just an intellectual, you know. MS-19 started from 1974 and allegedly ended in 1994. And that was not just in Columbia, but throughout Latin America. I think her connections there, as well as in the cartels,

helped get her the presidency in 2024. So that leads up to our situation. It was a very bizarre situation. June 2024, two leftist women. That was a choice Mexico had. Neither one representing Mexico in the slightest and all receiving foreign money. It's funny because Shinebaum actually tried to pass herself off

as somewhat of a conservative, roughly until 2021. And then when she got more and more political, she became a socialist, meaning she was just lying before. And So Cheat Galvez, her opponent, was educated at the World Economic Forum. In fact, they both were. They both were part of the Davos system. And it's hard to find, and so cheat,

it's hard to find a lot of solid background information on her, despite her very unique name. but they came out of nowhere. They were heavily scarred by scandal. There was all kinds of ethics violations. But people like, you know, and the handful of people who write on this, simply ask the question. 90% Catholic Mexico, what are the odds that either of these socially liberal, secular candidates, have garnered votes huge enough to not only become candidates, but to muscle everybody out.

And one of them, one in the landslide. And I guess, and Lou Rockwell, I agree with him here in my book on military dictators of Latin America. I used the word banana republic, sort of as an insult. But a banana republic refers to a weak democracy that simply does what they're told, dominated by foreign capital, but usually American capital. And it's simply not strong enough to. really fight back. But under republics, usually when they fall apart, is when militaries take over.

And their only job is to export raw materials. So they're always going to be in debt. And of course, drugs. So it didn't really matter which woman won. But the sign bomb thing just made it all the more blatant. She's clearly backed by at least one of the cartels. And in 20 just one year before the election, 2003, Supreme Court out of nowhere legalized abortion at the federal level.

The states had decided these things. It's quite an unpopular thing. Same thing for the, for fag marriage. Fag marriage. But the point is these are two, you know, jet setters, at least Seimbaum with these communist background. Seymour was in California or Columbia most of the time in the 90s. She's in her 60s now, I think. I think she got her doctorate at Berkeley. She finished it. Then she got a job at the intergovernmental panel and climate change at the UN. And when you see these color revolutionary types, even though this wasn't really a color revolution, they go from elitist job to elitist job without a problem worldwide. They get whatever they want. This is the both coming from Davos. They have all the connections in the world. But the last thing she knows about is Mexico.

she served as Secretary of the Environment in 2015 and then out of nowhere she was nominated to run for Mexico City from the Marina Party as I mentioned she received very low percentage of the vote and has many controversies a lot of ethical problems there and a lot of electoral irregularities so how would have this name could she ever have been elected

in Mexico City maybe but across the country? country in a landslide, that electoral interference is impossible. The Open Society Foundation has a huge office in the city, which she was a part of, as does Davos. Now, there's more technical elements of voter fraud. There was one study that I quote, and it was only taken from one polling place, section 4279, Biddingo Juarez, just that one section. that votes for Sochit were given to Shinebaum.

And for that, they use a preliminary election results program. And what they do is when the voting is finished and accounting is done, they put a poster out front so people can see it. And the PREP data and the poster data are very different. And so the fraud, someone moved a, numbers there. This is, and the electoral commission was upset about this, although they, they, they,

uh, eventually came to claim she was a legitimate winner. But both her and her predecessor want to, not eliminate the electoral commission, but weaken it. They're trying to, they're trying to make, um, they're trying to disallow the electoral

commission to having much power to look over these things. Oh, and don't forget, so cheat was the mayor of Mexico City before Scheinbaum. She was a, a senator too. She was recognized for her leadership by the World Economic Forum. She was invited by Brazil's Lula, the leftist, you know, to participate in globalization summit of Davos. That means her job, and both of them did, of course, that they're going to impose a great reset onto Mexico.

And we're supposed to believe that they were the only two electable candidates. So Devos and BlackRock are moving in. Neither one has any real international experience. they really don't have any political experience except for this army there are 200 NGOs functioning in Mexico so someone has to guide

whoever won you know associate or shineball and the irregularities within the two-party nominations that was far more severe but it was NGO money that permitted Shinebaum to get that because no one really in Marina

thought she was all that electable and the national level But they exist because of NGO funding. Now, under Mexican law, a foreign government can't make donations to a political group. Sovereignty issues, of course. But an NGO, by definition, that's what an NGO is, non-governmental organizations. They're corporate entities. At one point, President Obador complained to, at that time, VP Kamala,

that USAID has to suspend funding to Mexico because they're interfering too much in elections. Open government partnership in 2011. They had a global southern Mexico in 2015. And that was the same, almost a coup, the group that put Sochid in Mexico City and then, of course, Seinfeldm a little bit later. The partnership is funded by the UN, Open Society.

Seulet Foundation and the British government. And I say that they're going to make Mexico just a raw materials exporter is that their agenda is to implement the sustainable goals as set forth by the W.EF, the World Economic Forum, which is who trained them and who had them elected. So she was a pre-selected winner. Remember her first husband, Seinfeldon's first husband went to jail for electoral fraud. Claudia's entire platform was abortion, faggotry, all that. She pressured the university, a big university to give her daughter a free run. And of course, it may not, you know, again, I mentioned turnout was very low. Now, the other big issue.

This was the most violent election in recent Mexican history, especially at the local level, especially down south. threats, abductions, assault, assassinations. Mexico was a violent place. So during the 2021 elections, 102 politicians were killed. It doesn't necessarily people who are holding office or running for office, but people who are, you know, big, bigwigs and parties and all this.

36 were nominees or candidates for public office. So before the campaigning period started, in January, that number shot up. So the government tried to, they provided security guards to 560 candidates. And also 27,000 armed forces and National Guard personnel were deployed to secure the electoral process. By May, just one month before the election, the death toll went up to 37. That's actual candidates running for office. And it will increase after that.

And not just politicians. Now, so from 2018 to March of 2024. People running for office. The number of murders and attacks is 1,709. And very few of these are ever prosecuted. Now, here's what Breitbart had to say about it. And again, this is one of the few. Breitbart didn't really challenge the election,

but they did say that by the time this was published, 26 candidates have been killed throughout the electoral process, culminating with the elections, according to Mexican government. Now, that's a low number because there's a local consulting agency. Integralia, who said it was 34, candidates for office murdered before the election took place, but 231 were murdered when factoring in officials, former officials, politicians, former politicians, family members, etc. And that's probably a low number.

So what does that mean? First, it keeps turnout very low. It creates a sense of instability. It gives a sense that the government can't protect them, which it can't. Who wants to volunteer as a poll watcher? A lot of these acts of violence in this past election as well as in decades ago. They destroyed voting machines, especially in the southern states. Mexico has lost all control of its territory.

So the only people who can possibly benefit from this violence are those who are beneficial to the cartels, including the current president. And all these are the threats, these are very underreported. So it didn't matter if there were 27,000. men, it didn't stop any of it. There's a tremendous psychological pressure exerted on candidates far greater than what the data showed. The left is the primary beneficiary of this. Although, to be fair, there were a couple of Marine candidates who were killed, but overwhelmingly, it was their opposition.

So that creates a totally different story. I'm not sure you can have an election when you have a slaughter of candidates in politicians and they're timed connected with elections I didn't even realize that until fairly recently I knew it was violent but I did something on I did a show not too long ago on

why the Mexican army has lost the lost the fight against the cartels but at this level these assassinations are not just a lot of abductions kidnappings you know that kind of thing apparently Shinebaum had a lot of protection. She's connected with Jewish real estate tycoon, Daniel Kabas, close ally who financer. Now, I should note, and a lot of people noticed this at the time when she was in Mexico City, this was a huge scandal.

She hired a crew to demolish a building. I don't know why, but it just so happens that it was a wall next to a church and accidentally destroyed the church. The parish priest said that he wasn't even given notification of the demolition. I think it was a test seeing how far she can go. And that was elected to the landslide? This doesn't make any sense to me. She, of course, is being part of the Party of the Democratic Revolution, which was part of the Communist Party that her family founded.

touted by the Wilson Center, Politico, Bloomberg. Now, I think the election of Trump was bad for her. But when you have the former, I just wonder how close she was to the former president, who was a leftist. But not like her. He wants the NGOs to be tightly limited. But Putin is done in Russia. There's two in particular. Mexicans against corruption and impunity in a group called Article 19.

they're a MacArthur Foundation, Bill Gates, NED, USAID, and they made sure that only left as females, vetted by Davos, would be selected as candidates. His position has always been, you know, very strange. He's not quite, he's not a communist. As I said before, he and Scheinbaum want to destroy the National Electoral Institute. In other words, they want to make sure that they stay in power. They could stuff ballot boxes and have no one.

looking over their shoulder. Well, Mexico is really the best place to do that. I mean, it's a narco state. It's pretty well known that she, either she has a lot of influence over the cartels or the cartels own her. I would think it's probably the second one or a combination of both. The murder rate in Mexico City went down incredibly, mostly because, Because, one, when the cartels killed people, they would get rid of the bodies instead of leaving them.

And two, they just stopped recording the crime. And apparently that was from the cartels were basically running that. So I think the reason she's there is to keep the narco state going. And pretty much that's it. Yeah, the minute she was elected, and I have to go around here. because of the super majorities. No, no. You got me thinking now.

She clearly is in the cartel's pocket. Because, you know, especially once Trump was elected, she wants changes to the country's constitution that will block any investigation or any action by a foreign that is American law enforcement agency. And anyone who assists them in Mexico would be criminally liable. Now that was right after This was, you know, and it came a little bit later, but when Trump designated the six cartels as foreign terrorist organizations,

which of course they are, not entirely so, but they are, and wanted to eradicate them. All of a sudden, Seinfomb is outraged. And she justified this in public. She tried to see suddenly as a nationalist now. We don't negotiate sovereignty, she said. We don't want the U.S. to invade our sovereignty over and over again. And her critics, I wish now there are many,

are claiming she is shielding the cartels. That would be Article 40, adding wording to the Mexican Constitution, that there will be no interference, intervention, or any other foreign act. That would, quote, damage the nation's sovereignty, which says any prosecution of a legislative, criminals in our country, Mexico, the express authorization and collaboration of the Mexican state. That was right after Trump said what he said, which is obviously not a coincidence. Now, you talked about the cartels.

On April 21st, it was a Sunday, Claudia Steinbaum in her motorcade was stopped by men in hoods at a checkpoint during her campaign tour in Chiapas. and this is one of the southern states, extremely violent. They belonged to the Sinaloa cartel because they had patches and tattoos and stuff that clearly pointed to that. One even had an image of Ismail Zambata, the head of it. And it was filmed and recorded. They asked her to remember them if you were elected into office.

They knew. And the audio goes, I'm reading it directly here. It says, you just want to tell you to remember the mountains down here and the poor people when you're in power. We're not against the government. Keep that in mind. We're not against you. You don't want any more problems. We want you. Your president, do us a favor of cleaning up down here because we can't travel down here. And what, of course, they meant was getting rid of the military. They tear us to little pieces if we pass through a certain section.

Now, she remained in the vehicle throughout the entire thing. She made eye contact. She just nodded along with these guys. guy and her critics went nuts. How did these guys get so close to the motorcade? Why was nothing done as they're speaking to her? This was a conversation. It was very obvious who they were. They were in a very violent place.

I don't know if Chippeas has, Chippas has the highest rate. I'm not sure 100%, but they didn't mention it in breaking bad, so I don't know. So clearly, the fact that they could do this, they could speak to her, they're requesting to get rid of law enforcement, that she wants this in the Constitution now. And on top of all that, the extreme violence throughout the campaign. You had a mayoral candidate shot in the middle of a campaign rally. Right in the back of the head, a point-blank range.

It was Alfredo Cabrera and Guerrero. Again, another southern state. Nothing ever came of it. No one was ever arrested. Most of the murdered down there. And the number is far higher than reported. We're usually running for town councils or mayor. They're easier to assassinate, of course.

They don't have security around them. And they're important for the cartels, taking advantage of small towns rather than cities. So clearly there's a connection here. You can't convince me otherwise. Now, because they were both candidates trained at Davos, she's a climate scientist, which I just can't get enough, you know, it's so bizarre of all things. It's the most trendiest thing you could possibly be. And suddenly, very suddenly, she decides to do this.

She wants to turn Mexico into a green society of windmills and solar panels. And if you know anything about that, they could never provide the energy needed. for a country as large as Mexico. There's massive blackouts all over the country sometimes for weeks, the putrid water, the dirt roads. That's not important to her. No one voted for her unless they were

lied to or told to. Media was talking about her being a feminist in a mostly macho country. Well, that means that they didn't vote for her. And isn't it the case that Mexico's female voters tend to be more Catholic than the men?

So who is she appealing to exactly? cartels are in alignment with the NGOs. And as I mentioned before, you had 100 million eligible voters in Mexico. The previous election had a turnout of 63%. In her election, it was 60%. So very low. No, I don't know if that's had a fear or what, just as no one represented them. Now, the opposition parties, which apparently were nowhere to be found,

the National Action Party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party, the Citizens Movement, all of these, 240 challenges against the election results. They allege widespread fraud, very much as Trump did, not just for president, also for the legislative elections.

They exceeded campaign spending limits. They have evidence of vote buying, voter intimidation, most certainly, and irregularities that we've mentioned already. And so it's not just a matter of recounting the votes. It's the system itself. So this is why both the previous president and her want to destroy the electoral commission.

Now, I want to give you a quote from So Cheat. It really is a weirdo. You know, it's trained by Davos, but it's all over the place, depending on who she's talking to. She condemns the results of the elections, not just because she lost. This is a tweet from her. I know the results surprise us and we have to analyze what happened. Well, how could they be surprising

if the polls showed her, you know, as everyone said, polls showed her winning a landslide election. Then she said, we all knew we were facing an unequal competition against the entire state apparatus dedicated to its favorite candidate. We all noticed how much organized crime was present,

threatening and killing dozens of candidates. It doesn't end here. Yes. will present challenges that prove what I'm saying and what we all know to be true. And we'll do it because we can't allow another election like this ever. Today, more than ever, to defend our republic. Checks and balances, the separation of powers remain at risk. Now, it's a strange way to speak.

She's being very careful, not to mention any names or any groups. she's very vague but she keeps saying that you guys know what I'm talking about it's very guarded and the fact that she mentions organized crime this is something that we know and that was supporting her we know the U.S. supports Sinaloa

there's no question about that the Sinaloa cartel probably the largest I think in Mexico backed by the U.S they come in through Arizona New Mexico, Laredo, Texas. And one of their source points is the Philippines, which is why I'm very interested, you know, years ago in Duterte's presidency there.

I was a big fan of his. Wherever a government like his smashes the drug trade, and he was very successful, the U.S. condemns it. Same thing for El Salvador. He has smashed the gangs. The U.S. wants him, sanctioned, at least under, underbund. Biden wants them sanctioned and destroyed. The Philippines, of course, has been under CIA control since the 40s, and Manila is really its Southeast Asia headquarters.

So there's a connection between Southeast Asia and Mexico. And showing this, as if things couldn't get any worse, the Morena Party, and they're supposed to be, you know, they want austerity. They want the IMF to come in and, you know, balance the budget and cut everything. And yet their leadership, like Ricardo Monreal, who was a coordinator of the deputies, the Chamber of Deputies. He was in Madrid, five-star hotel. Mario Delgado, Secretary of Public Education, the most exclusive hotel in Lisbonne in Portugal. Five-star, no doubt. Enrique Navarro, the youngest deputy in Mexican history, was in Leo, the very high-end nightclub at Abiza.

Very expensive, and the hotel connected to it is very expensive. Arena's secretary of organization was at the Hotel Akura in Tokyo, five-star property, a whole bunch of congressmen there with him. They showed him with a bottle of champagne that was 2,000 euros. and it was a place called Conce del Sogno later on, a place only accessible by sea. And yet, Shinebaum, who now is bizarrely very wealthy, I don't know where the money came from, she demands austerity. It will be imposed on the country through the IMO. It doesn't even matter that these displays of arrogance and opulence undermine the party's image.

It doesn't matter. But it also shows money from the outside sources like Carnival. tells. They don't deny it happen, but they say that, well, they were privately funded. In other words, they're trying to deflect saying, well, the state didn't pay for it, but that's exactly the problem. No one was never saying it was because government funds. Who did pay for it? And how did you get so wealthy all of a sudden? So the party has been exposed as a fake. Like the Sandinises, when they took power, first thing they did is move in to the mansions in the wealthiest areas of the capital. all these people in the left they demand austerity

for everyone else and the left takes over they live the high life but I think I think when she was stopped by these men down in Chiapas I think that showed something

she didn't seem to be scared I saw I saw a part of the video on um rumble I didn't see it on YouTube. I don't remember now.

And it was only, they didn't have a translation. It would shock me. I'm watching this. Why is, she has a substantial security force. These are cartel guys. Why? Why? They're not doing anything. It's like walked up to the truck. So you have people in her own party now,

all over the place, saying she's a cartel president. And, you know, is she a puppet of the cartels? you had the Colombian president saying that she was yeah of course she was she was part of the narco-revolutionary movement down here that's why I spent so much time talking about her family wealthy communists is like the rest of them the agenda is the same and the Jews are at the center of it even in a place like

early 20th century Cuba my lord and this is what gets elected by a massive landslide I don't need the technicalities of vote fraud there's no way that could happen of course there's vote fraud you know

there's no way this could you know you would have to I don't know how this could possibly be and I don't know why no one's talking about it I see the name

shineball Mexican president I start laughing that's a Mexican name they voted for someone with the most blatantly non-mexican name no problem how can that possibly be

as the country gets poorer and poorer the only thing is you know Trump's election was a disaster for her. And that's why these new constitutional changes, we're not going to cooperate. In the Constitution, we're not going to cooperate with any American law enforcement acts against the cartels in this country. Well, we know what the Hooded Men said.

Don't forget us down here. And I guess she didn't. So that means you have the alliance of, at least, you know, back then, this is June of 24. that administration, the NGOs, pretty much all of them, Davos, the cartels and the media, all working together to make sure that she is worshipped as a deity and she gets elected. Clearly, it was a coalition. And parties like the National Action Party were nowhere to be found.

But filing 240 challenges, they can't do that without reason. They don't want to make fools of themselves. It's not making stuff up. Now, I don't speak Spanish. I haven't read the initial filings. All I know is that they allege widespread fraud at all levels. And that this is connected with the extreme violence.

Violence is one of the ways that they stuff ballot boxes. They keep people from voting. They know exactly what they're doing. And it benefits Morena. It benefits Seimbaum and her. That's how she got the numbers that she had. And I think I'm just crashing the surface here. I'm not an expert in Mexican politics by any means.

But we have some people, I'm pretty sure, who might be, who could really take this intro and expand it. I think there's a lot more going in here than we realize. The low turnout is only a part of it. And the fact that no one is talking about her, that Shinebaum becomes president of Mexico, and I'm all my right-wing bookmarks, I'm looking for, who, how? It's me and Lou Rockwell. Isn't it weird?

Why is no one talking about her? It's hard to get information. You know, if her background was if her, you know, one side of the family was like diamond merchants or something like that, you know, that sent money to Palis, you know, they sent money to Palestine. to get the new Jewish state up and running. Sure. The fact that she just comes from revolutionaries is just like, you know, chef's kiss. It's so perfect.

It's like you couldn't, if you wrote this, people would say it was anti-Semitic. Yeah, I think I mentioned, when I first mentioned this issue to you, I said, it sounds like I wrote it. Like I'm writing, it's my first attempt to, a fiction. It's a new protocol. It's so low. you know, it's so, yeah, there are a lot of people who don't like the term below IQ anti-Semitism anymore, but come on, it is. It's just, it's like this kind of fiction where, you know, at the end, someone rips a wig off and there's horns. Yeah, I mean, it's, yeah, I mean, these ties, her going to, her being a climate scientist, all of this. I mean, it's just, and none of this would be concerning if it wasn't on our southern border.

If we didn't have a narco state on our southern border that is now being run by somebody who is obviously in the, if not in the employ, but of the same ilk as the Soros and the W.EFs of the world. I mean, it's just, you said, we couldn't, Julius Stryker couldn't have come up with this. It's so blatant. you know, her family founded the communist parties of two of Mexico and Cuba, or at least were right there when it was founded.

And she comes from this long line. And the Colombian president's comment was never refuted by anybody. She was a part of this, too. And not just as a politician or intellectual. She was part of the MS-19, very different organization down there. And he said this at a climate change conference right after she spoke. He said, oh, by the way, people, I have some news for you. And how much did you really get her doctorate in climate science?

I don't know. I don't know if climate science is an actual thing. I don't know what that would actually be called, academically speaking. Did she really do it? Is they saying she did it? So what they're saying, what it says on Wikipedia, if you want to believe anything on Wikipedia, she earned an undergraduate degree in physics at the UNAM. That's the United. And what is that the, looking for her education.

National Autonomous University or something. Yeah, National Autonomous University or something like that. And then it says she completed the work for a PhD thesis between 91 and 94 at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. While working for the laboratory, she analyzed energy for use in the Mexican transportation sector and published studies on the trends in Mexican building energy. So she came to the United States, worked at a national laboratory in California so she could analyze energy use in the Mexican transportation sector. I assume she's using the resources of taxpayers to do this so that she can go back and what make Mexico their energy, their transportation sector more streamlined or better. Yeah, I mean, that's pretty much exactly what it is. In other words, non-existent into the point where, yeah, and of course, Mexico runs by soil industry.

she has to be at war with them and being a climate scientist by definition she's a huge part of the global warming thing and now she was promoted in that by the Devoz group Black Rock was already investing down there but again you know I don't care if they coat the place with panels

you can't that won't create enough energy to you know for industry maybe a small percentage of it. That's good for small applications, but it's simply not possible. So it's, and the sustainability goals that she's personally dedicated to essentially reduce Mexico to just as a raw materials exporter. So fourth world. It doesn't have to be that way. And they're all cutting in the NAFTA. Very quickly what South Africa is turning into because it's always been a raw material,

you know, a raw metals kind of place, precious metals. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It didn't, you know, but at one time, it was industrial. But once another group of people took over in the 90s, early 90s, now that's all they do. And they don't even do that well. Well, but what is it? They say that there is no black sub-Saharan nation in Africa that has a word for maintenance in their language. I think that's actually true. So there's this guy, Mr. Beast, who goes and he raises all this money to go and build wells in Africa. And within a year and a half, two years, the wells don't work anymore because they leave there.

And when the white people leave, there's no word for maintenance. They don't know what maintenance is. Yeah. Yeah, this was a problem also with Shell. Now, I'm no fan of the oil firms for a whole bunch of reasons. but Shell invested massively in Nigeria. Nigeria swimming in oil. Why are they dirt poor?

And the violence and the total lack of personnel, it wasn't profitable for them. They left. It didn't make any difference. You know, there could be another, I know, you can't really compare them to Saudi Arabia. There's a hell of a lot more people there. But all the warfare and the ignorance, low IQ,

what are you going to do? They, you know, Shell couldn't, control the, they needed some local input. And so they pulled out. And now the equipment has fallen apart and is flooding the area. And now, and this was a few years ago, Nigeria wants to sue, sell in a British court. This is their fault. Like, they want to destroy their own investments and make no money.

I'm not up on that. I don't know what came of that. But yeah, same thing. Why isn't Nigeria a much wealthier place? and with all of that, and not just oil too, they have many minerals, they have gold, a huge, you know, a huge river. There's so much that they could, but now the tribal warfare,

the corruption, and when Shell says, okay, we can't do it anymore, we're leaving, and they dump everything, that's a pretty serious thing. The Beyondfins has something to do with that, too, I know. that's how I found out about it in the first place. So it's the same kind of thing. And this is what's, you know, and she's turning Mexico. Again, it also has a lot of oil,

which she can't possibly be in favor of, into what will be a fourth world. One party state controlled by Marina. Even she has a Supreme Court because she has these alleged supermajorities. in both houses. The Supreme Court she says she's going to make sure the Supreme Court can't challenge any of these.

The court can't challenge any amendments that they promote for the Constitution or any law of hers. Kind of like Netanyahu did in Israel prior to the war. And that's being talked about much less than things like the violence or anything else. So she really wants to create what Zulensky

he did in Ukraine, slowly but surely. And then you have even leftist NGOs saying this is outrageous. So you can't do this. You can do it so blatantly. And yet the media is so tight up there. We're getting no alternative information. The right wing either doesn't exist or they're so divided. They can't do anything.

We have two leftist candidates. and whether it be Spanish or English language media, all saying the same thing. She's a woman. She's a Jew. Everything could be wonderful in Mexico. That's a perfect thing to end on because I know you have personal stuff to do it in 18. Yeah.

Just a perfect sentence to end on. All right. Let me remind everybody I'm going to put in the show notes, just like I do at the end of all the 200 years together episodes. Links to Dr. Johnson's where you can donate to him, the Patreon and there's a bunch of other places, one-offs and places like that. So please go donate to Dr. Johnson and we'll be back in a couple days with the next 200 years together episode.

Thank you, Dr. Johnson. Yes, thank you. Thank you, then.