Secret History #27: Empire of Evil

We've discussed transnational capital and the British Empire. We've also discussed the Sabbatean-Frankists. Today, we will put the two ideas together and show how the alliance between these two different forces has created modernity, or the ideas that underpin our society today, including Marxism, Darwinism, individualism, liberalism, and Freudian psychology.

We will talk a lot about Jews today, but as a caveat, it's important for us to remember that it's easy to see a Jewish conspiracy everywhere. But things are actually much more complicated than that. The argument I want to make to you today is that the Jews are a construct and tool of empire. In other words, they're really the middle managers who helped manage the empire. If the Jews weren't around, then it would be the Indians or some other group. An empire needs scapegoats. It needs middle managers. And for the past few hundred years, the Jews have served that purpose.

Something else I will show you today is that the empire, which is transnational capital, takes all the profit. They hide behind the scenes, they're the shadows, and they make all the money. And it's really the Jews who get all the blame.

The Grand Strategy of the British Empire

The British Empire is unique in human history in that it controlled the entire world. It's just a small island with very little resources, and it was able to control the entire world because it controlled global trade. It had the world's greatest navy. It also had the Bank of England, which is really transnational capital, and English became the lingua franca of the world, with colonies throughout the world as well.

For the British Empire, the way they controlled the world was a very simple concept. As long as the British Empire was able to control the seaways, then it controlled the world. The great crisis, the great problem, the great threat, is that an empire will emerge within the Eurasian continent. It's called the Heartland. This could be Germany, it could be Russia, it could be China. But if it's able to emerge, eventually like the Mongol Empire, it could conquer the entire Eurasian continent. Through railways, it would be able to link up Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and Asia all together into one trading bloc, and then you wouldn't need the seaways anymore.

If that were to happen, then the British Empire would go bankrupt. Remember, the British Empire, with the Bank of England and transnational capital, is really a Ponzi scheme. It needs people to keep on buying into the empire for it to continue to succeed. The greatest threat is a great power emerging in the heartland, and throughout history, that was either the French, the Ottoman Empire, the Germans, or the Russians. So the grand strategy of the British is to create as much chaos and conflict in Europe as much as possible. You always want your enemies to fight each other. That's just the core strategy of the British.

The British could not seem as though they were interfering in European politics, because all that would do is anger the Europeans and unite them against the British. They had to do it sub rosa, secretly, using intelligence operatives. They developed different strategies in order to divide and conquer Europe:

• They would promote revolutionary movements using transnational capital.
• They also industrialized Japan because they saw Japan as a natural ally. You know that in Japan, they underwent the Meiji Restoration, and in only a few decades, they were able to industrialize so much so that they defeated Russia in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. You may not know this, but British and American capital financed a great deal of Japan's industrialization because the Anglo-American Empire wanted Japan as an ally.
• They would also establish resource colonies. So Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa—these are all resource colonies. The idea is that you can now use manpower to fund your armies.
• The last strategy is to, wherever you can, steal as many resources as possible as fast as you can. This was true in India and China and Africa as well.

They needed agents to help them in these endeavors, and the Sabbatean-Frankists made the most sense.

A Natural Alliance: The Empire and the Frankists

The advantages that the Sabbatean-Frankist empire offered were four-fold.

1. The first is that they already had a diaspora, and they were also crypto-Jews who could disguise their identity. As a network, they were able to conduct intelligence, do blackmail, and subvert governments.
2. They also had access to a lot of transnational capital. They themselves were extremely wealthy.
3. The last major advantage, and the most important, is that they had revolutionary cells and networks. Remember, the Frankists believed that they were saving the world. They believed they had to destroy the world in order to save it. And these made perfect revolutionaries.
4. The last reason is the idea of eschatology, where the British Empire's elite, being Christians, believed that they must use Jews as a pawn in order to force the return of Jesus.

It made sense for the British to align themselves with the Sabbatean-Frankists because the way they saw the world was the same. As an empire, as transnational capital, you're focused on extracting as much energy as possible from your workers, so you're very materialistic. Well, the Frankists were also very materialistic; they believed that the body was more important than the spirit. Second, both the Frankists and the British wanted to obtain power through chaos, instability, and regime change. And both were very focused on the pursuit of wealth and power. So these were natural allies.

Case Study: The Dismantling of the Ottoman Empire

Let's use an example of how the British Empire worked. The most obvious example is the Ottoman Empire. For the longest time, the Ottoman Empire was the most powerful force in Eurasia. This was the Ottoman Empire at its height in 1683. Remember, 1666 is when Sabbatai Zevi declared himself the Messiah. And remember that Zevi had to convert to Islam, and the people who followed him into Islam are called the Dönmeh. The Dönmeh are very important people.

Over time, empires will decay. In 1853, Russia attacked the Ottoman Empire, and this led to the Crimean War. The British and the French feared Russian expansionism, and so they supported the Ottomans, who were able to defend themselves. But this alliance came at a cost to the Ottomans. The British and the French made the Ottomans seek out loans in order to finance the war. Over time, because of interest, these loans started to overwhelm the Ottoman financial system. So what happened was the British and the French bankers came and established their own tax administration. From now on, a third of all tax revenue that the Ottoman Empire generated would go directly to the French and British bankers. This caused the Ottoman Empire to decline rapidly over time.

The French and the British set up a central bank controlled by foreigners, and not only that, but they set up their own tax administration. They had their own tax agents, and that's why these bankers became very wealthy. Guess what? These bankers had a natural ally in the Dönmeh, the Sabbatean-Frankists, who also became very wealthy.

The Ottoman Sultan didn't really like this relationship. He didn't like being bossed around by these bankers, so he went to the Germans. Now the Germans were financing the Ottoman Empire, and they were allies. The British and the French didn't like this, so what they did was start to finance a revolutionary group called the Young Turks. The Young Turks believed in three things: secularism (no religion), liberalism, and individualism—basically, the basic ideas of modernity.

Eventually, the Young Turks were able to overwhelm the Ottoman Empire and establish something called the Republic of Turkey, which is still around today. If you go to Turkey, it's the Dönmeh that control Turkey. Remember, the Dönmeh come from Sabbatai Zevi. They are crypto-Jews. They pretend to be Muslim, but they're in fact Jews. And these three Dönmeh helped to found the Republic of Turkey, and they still control Turkey.

The Rothschild Banking Dynasty

Another example of an alliance is, of course, the Rothschild banking dynasty. This alliance goes back hundreds of years, and the Rothschild family is one of the most powerful banking families in the world. There's a story of how they got rich. In 1815, Napoleon and the British fought the Battle of Waterloo, and this would determine who controlled Europe. In the battle, the British and the Germans together were able to defeat the French.

When this news happened, an agent of the Rothschilds got into a corvette, which is a fast boat, and they sailed all the way back to London to tell the Rothschilds the news. The Rothschilds controlled the media at that point, and so the media told everyone, "Oh my god, we lost the Battle of Waterloo." So, as you can imagine, people started to panic. There was a stock market crash, and then the Rothschilds bought up all the assets. That's how they became extremely wealthy, and this is a strategy that they continue to use throughout their history.

Forging a New Philosophy

Where the Sabbatean-Frankists and the British Empire collaborated the most was in philosophy, developing an understanding of the world that allowed them to amass more power. British philosophy at this time was controlled by Freemasons. The main purpose was to really deny God and truth, and there were three major strands of this philosophy.

1. Empiricism: The most famous proponent of this is John Locke. Locke argued that we are born with a tabula rasa, a blank mind, a blank slate. So whatever information comes into us is through experience, only through experience—not through reasoning, not because of God, not because of imagination or inspiration, not because of a divine spark in us, but through just experience and only experience.
2. Skepticism: David Hume proposed a new idea called skepticism, and he goes even further than John Locke. The entire basis of science is the idea called induction. If I see a white swan a thousand times, I can then infer that all swans are white. This idea of induction is what underlies science. Well, with the idea of induction, you can never access truth. What David Hume says is induction does not work. You cannot prove that just because you've never seen a black swan, black swans don't exist. You could have seen 10 million white swans; it does not prove that all swans are white and can only be white. And he's right, because there are black swans. So what he's saying is the very project of truth-seeking, the very project of epistemology, of philosophy, it's all nonsense. Not only that, but we don't really know things. All we do is remember things. So when we say that Rome is the capital of Italy, we think we know it, but we don't know it. It's all just convention. It's all just that we agree to call a place in Italy Rome. We agree that that's the capital. It's all agreement, but there's no basis for truth here.
3. Utilitarianism: This raises the problem: if God doesn't exist, if truth doesn't exist, if there's no way for us to reach truth, then what can we do? Jeremy Bentham proposed the idea of utilitarianism. The way we understand the world is just through utility. If it is good for the majority of people, then it must be good. If it causes pleasure for the majority of people, then that policy must be good. If people want to eat candy all the time and it makes them feel happy, then we should allow them to eat candy, and that is inherently good.

Then what his disciple, John Stuart Mill, will do is he'll take the basis of this idea of utility as the basis of good and evil to create liberalism. The very idea of liberalism today is based on utilitarianism. For example, homosexuality. Why is homosexuality good? Because first of all, homosexuals want to be homosexuals. If you force them not to be homosexuals, they'll feel bad. But also, what's more important is they're not doing any harm to anyone. So if you just do the mathematics and you recognize that allowing homosexuality is a positive and brings more pleasure to the world, then you should allow it. And this religious talk of it going against the will of God, it's against the Bible, it's just nonsense. We should just focus on first principles and just focus on utility. Does it bring benefit to people? This is the very basis of British philosophy, and as you can appreciate, this aligns very much with the Sabbatean-Frankist idea of the world.

Once this philosophy is in place, they are now going to promote certain scientists that agree with this philosophy or whose findings support this philosophy. The most famous, of course, is Charles Darwin. When his book On the Origin of Species came out, it was an instant bestseller. And within 20 years, it became the mainstream understanding of how we originated. Even though if you actually read the book, even though you actually look at the science, it's still very problematic. This is very strange, how science is supposed to be a field of rigorous debate, but the evidence supporting evolution is limited. It doesn't explain to us how we come to think. It explains to us how we got our bodies, sure, from apes we get humans, that makes sense. But intellectually, we're a lot more imaginative than apes. How to explain that? And he doesn't explain that. And you're not even allowed to ask this question.

The World According to Disraeli's Coningsby

As this alliance between the Sabbatean-Frankists and the British Empire was growing, there were certain individuals that became these meeting points of these two different groups. The first is Benjamin Disraeli, and he's important because he became the first and only Jewish prime minister of the British Empire. The second person is Lionel de Rothschild, who was heir to the Rothschild banking family. They were best friends, and you can argue the Rothschild banking family financed Benjamin Disraeli's political career.

In 1844, Benjamin Disraeli published a book called Coningsby. It's a novel, not a memoir, but if you read it, people will say that the characters are very much based on people that Disraeli knew. Disraeli is very explicit in telling us why he wrote the book: to tell the British people more about Jews, because Jews at that time in Britain were an exotic species, and also to establish how Jews think. What's amazing about this novel is that you read it and it's really strange, but it conforms to every single anti-Semitic stereotype that we say today. Today, if you say that Jews rule the world, that Jews work together, they conspire together, you say that Jews think that they're superior to everyone else, you are labeled an anti-Semite. But if you read this novel, this is exactly what Disraeli says about the Jewish people.

This is from the introduction to the book:

In asserting the paramount character of the ecclesiastical polity and the majesty of the theocratic principle, it became necessary to ascend to the origin of the Christian Church; and to meet, in a spirit worthy of a critical and comparatively enlightened age, the position of the descendants of that race who were the founders of Christianity. The modern Jews had long laboured under the odium and stigma of medieval malevolence... In the dark ages, when history was unknown, the passions of societies, undisturbed by traditionary experience, were strong, and their convictions, unmitigated by criticism, were necessarily fanatical. The Jews were looked upon in the middle ages as an accursed race, the enemies of God and man, the special foes of Christianity. No one in those days paused to reflect that Christianity was founded by the Jews; that its Divine Author, in his human capacity, was a descendant of King David; that his doctrines avowedly were the completion, not the change, of Judaism; that the Apostles and the Evangelists, whose names men daily invoked, and whose volumes they embraced with reverence, were all Jews; that the infallible throne of Rome itself was established by a Jew; and that a Jew was the founder of the Christian Churches of Asia.

Disraeli is not just saying that Jews are important, but he's also saying that Jews are superior because they're the ones who created Christianity. What he will say later on is Jews created everything because Jews are the most intellectually creative people in the world. Remember, Disraeli is a Jew, and he's one of the Jewish elite.

In the novel, the major character is Sidonia, a wealthy Jewish person based on the Rothschild family, and he's going to explain to us how Jews control the world.

Sidonia was descended from a very ancient and noble family of Aragon, that, in the course of ages, had given to the state many distinguished citizens. In the priesthood its members had been peculiarly eminent. Besides several prelates, they counted among their number an Archbishop of Toledo; and a Sidonia, in a season of great danger and difficulty, had exercised for a series of years the paramount office of Grand Inquisitor... Yet, strange as it may sound, it is nevertheless a fact, of which there is no lack of evidence, that this illustrious family during all this period, in common with two-thirds of the Arragonese nobility, secretly adhered to the ancient faith and ceremonies of their fathers; a belief in the unity of the God of Sinai, and the rights and observances of the laws of Moses.

So even after the Christians reconquered Spain and after some Jews converted to Catholicism, these Jews kept their faith secret. They were crypto-Jews. But much more importantly, these Jews rose to supreme power within the Catholic Church in Spain. The irony is that the Spanish Inquisition, where Catholics were looking for Jews who were pretending to be Christians, the leadership were Jews. The leadership were crypto-Jews. This is what Disraeli is saying. I'm not saying this is true, but this is what Disraeli is saying. Two-thirds of the nobility in Spain were crypto-Jews.

The Sidonias of Aragon were Nuevos Christianos. Some of them, no doubt, were burned alive at the end of the fifteenth century under the system of Torquemada... but they kept their titles and estates, and in time reached those great offices to which we have referred. During the long disorders of the Peninsular war, when so many openings were offered to talent, and so many opportunities seized by the adventurous, a younger branch of this family made a large fortune by military contracts, and supplying the commissariat of the different armies. At the peace, prescient of the great financial future of Europe, confident in the fertility of his own genius, in his original views of fiscal subjects, and his knowledge of national resources, this Sidonia, feeling that Madrid, or even Cadiz, could never be a base on which the monetary transactions of the world could be regulated, resolved to emigrate to England, with which he had, in the course of years, formed considerable commercial connections. He arrived here after the peace of Paris, with his large capital. He staked all that he was worth on the Waterloo loan; and the event made him one of the greatest capitalists in Europe.

These crypto-Jews had a lot of money, but not only that, they had an information network because they had relatives and friends all throughout Europe. They knew how history would develop, and they saw a great money-making opportunity in war. So when these wars came out, what these Jews did is they supported both sides, so they couldn't possibly lose. They have no national loyalty. They don't see themselves as belonging to a certain group of people, a certain nation. They see themselves as first and foremost Jews. So when the time presented itself properly, these Sidonias migrated from Spain into continental Europe and up to England because they saw England as the future. And of course, from England, they would also migrate to the United States of America.

The father goes to England and establishes the banking dynasty, and his son will now inherit everything. This is about the son:

The only human quality that interested Sidonia was intellect. He cared not whence it came, where it was to be found. Creed, country, class, character, in this respect, were alike indifferent to him... The author, the artist, the man of science, never appealed to him in vain. Often he anticipated their wrongs and wishes. He encouraged their society; was as frank in his conversation as he was generous in his contributions. But the instant they ceased to be authors, artists, or philosophers, and their communications arose from anything but the intellectual quality which had originally interested him... he saw them no more.

This is a very anti-Semitic trope where Jews don't like the idea of nation or culture or religion; they like the idea of ideas. One anti-Semitic trope is that Jews have a conspiracy to degrade religion, culture, society, and the nation-state in order to advance their own interests.

Over time, because he is in contact with so many different groups, he's so intellectual, he's always reading history, he becomes convinced that the superior race, the greatest race of humanity, are the Jews. Why? Because unlike other races, the Jews refuse to intermarry. They refuse to breed with other cultures. And so as a result, the Jews are first and foremost pure. They are Aryan. This is really ironic because the Nazis will use this idea 100 years later to justify the Holocaust. But at this time in history, the Jews think that they are the superior race because they are the most pure.

Sidonia continues:

‘In this country,’ said Sidonia, ‘since the peace, there has been an attempt to advocate a reconstruction of society on a purely rational basis. The principle of utility has been powerfully developed... I speak not with lightness of the labours of the disciples of that school. I bow to intellect in every form... There has been an attempt to reconstruct society on a basis of material motives and calculations. It has failed. It must ultimately have failed under any circumstances... How limited is human reason, the profoundest inquirers are most conscious. We are not indebted to the reason of man for any of the great achievements which are the landmarks of human action and human progress. It was not reason that besieged Troy; it was not reason that sent forth the Saracen from the desert to conquer the world; that inspired the Crusades; that instituted the monastic orders; it was not reason that produced the Jesuits; above all, it was not reason that created the French Revolution. Man is only truly great when he acts from the passions; never irresistible but when he appeals to the imagination. Even Mormon counts more votaries than Bentham... Man is made to adore and to obey: but if you will not command him, if you give him nothing to worship, he will fashion his own divinities, and find a chieftain in his own passions.’

Sidonia is emphasizing the limitations of British philosophy—Locke, Hume, Bentham. They're all limited. And so what the British need is for the Jews, with their imagination, with their religion, to save the British, to lead the British, to guide the British. This is trying to establish Jewish supremacy.

What he's really saying is: listen, we Jews, we want to be part of society. We are naturally conservative, but we also want to practice our religion. So if you, the British, at any point try to restrain us, if you try to take away our religious rights, we will rebel against you. We are cohesive. We will stand up for liberalism, we will stand up for secularism, we will stand up for individualism, because these three philosophies are what most protect us from religious overreach.

‘You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate. The first Jesuits were Jews. That mysterious Russian diplomacy which so alarms Western Europe is organised and principally carried on by Jews. That mighty revolution which is at this moment preparing in Germany, and which will be in fact a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is as yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews, who almost monopolise the professorial chairs of Germany. Neander, the founder of Spiritual Christianity, and who is Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Berlin, is a Jew.’

This doesn't happen yet. He's saying this in 1844. He's saying the revolution you will see later on in Germany, we organized it. We Jews organized it. Why? Because we control the academies, we control the professorships of Germany. What's amazing is, again, this came out in 1844, and in 1848, there were revolutions throughout Europe, throughout Germany. So how did Disraeli know about this? Well, possibly because the British were helping to finance all this through the alliance between the British and the Frankists.

‘A few years back we were applied to by Russia. Now there has been no friendship between the Court of St. Petersburg and my family. It has Dutch connections which have generally supplied it; and our representations in favour of the Polish Hebrews, a numerous race, but the most suffering and degraded of all the tribes, have not been very agreeable to the Czar... However, circumstances drew to an approximation between the Romanoffs and the Sidonias. I resolved to go myself to St. Petersburg. I had on my arrival an interview with the Russian Minister of Finance, Count Cancrin; I beheld the son of a Lithuanian Jew. The loan was connected with the affairs of Spain. I resolved on repairing to Spain from Russia. I travelled without intermission. I had an audience on my arrival with the Spanish minister, Senor Mendizabal; I beheld one like myself, the son of a Nuevo Christiano, a Jew of Aragon. In consequence of what transpired at Madrid, I went straight to Paris to consult the President of the French Council; I beheld the son of a French Jew, a hero, an imperial marshal, and very appropriately so, for who should be military heroes if not those who worship the Lord of Hosts? And is Soult a Hebrew? Yes, and others of the French marshals, and the most famous, Massena, for example; his real name was Manasseh. But to my anecdote. The consequence of our consultations was that some northern power should be applied to in a friendly and mediative capacity. We fixed on Prussia, and the President of the Council made an application to the Prussian minister, who attended a few days after our conference. Count Arnim entered the cabinet, and I beheld a Prussian Jew. So you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.’

So it's Jews who control the world because only Jews get along together. If Jews didn't exist, the world couldn't get along. And Jews hide everywhere. And that's how the world works, guys. You think the person in charge is in charge, but actually, it's a secret society of Jews. Now, again, I'm not saying this is true. I just find it really weird that Benjamin Disraeli is writing about this, and he's getting a lot of this information from the Rothschild banking family. So, the Rothschilds, for whatever reason, think they control the world. I don't think this is true. Actually, there's evidence it's true, but I do not think this is true. Why Disraeli is writing about this, we will discuss later, but it's all part of a secret plan.

The Bolshevik Revolution: A Tool of Transnational Capital

First, let's look at the evidence that this may be true. Again, I'm not saying this is true, but there is evidence that this is true. The major piece of evidence is the Communist Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 that overthrew the government of Russia to create a communist government.

There are four elements you need in order for a revolution to be successful:

1. You need a really charismatic leader.
2. You need broad mass appeal, usually land for the peasants, freeing debt, and an end to war.
3. You need organizational discipline. Everyone has to get along; it has to be a cohesive group.
4. The last element, of course, is you need incompetent opposition.

The classic example of this is Mao Zedong versus Chiang Kai-shek. Mao was a charismatic leader who had a very strong organization, and Chiang, even though he had a huge army and the American army, was incompetent, and that's why he lost.

The same is true for the Russian Revolution. This is Vladimir Lenin. He's not charismatic, but he is extremely focused; he's fanatical. And this is Leon Trotsky, who is very charismatic. He's a great speaker, and he's a Jew. In 1917, he helped lead the revolution, but before that, he was actually in the United States. He had an apartment in New York City paid for by wealthy Jewish bankers. His uncle was a very wealthy Jewish industrialist in Ukraine. So, he's part of this transnational capital network, and even though he himself is a revolutionary who hates capitalism, if someone gives you money, you cannot help but be influenced by that person.

In October 1917, the Bolsheviks launched a revolution and seized power. A month later, they organized an election, and they were not the most popular party in Russia. They only had about 23% of the votes. The Socialist Revolutionaries actually had much more popularity; they had 37%. And then you have all these different groups: the Ukrainians, the Cadets who are liberals, the Mensheviks, the Cossacks. At this point in history, Russia was divided into so many different groups. This is what launched the great civil war.

At this time, the Bolsheviks only controlled a certain part of Russia. They were the official government, but they only controlled a small part. The White Army, which was a combination of the liberals and monarchists, had a much stronger military. At the same time, you had all these different ethnic groups, like the Ukrainians, rebelling against the Bolsheviks, including the Polish. But over the next five years, slowly, the Bolsheviks obtained absolute power. So the question is, how did they do that?

Well, the first tool is terror. This is called the Red Terror, where they went around and killed anyone who opposed them. Now, what you don't understand is there's actually a strategy behind the Red Terror. The very idea is to steal as much money as possible from wealthy people. So, you're an aristocrat, you have a lot of wealth hidden. I need your money. So you either give me your money, or I will kill your daughter, and I will kill your son, and then I will kill your wife. It's your choice. Give me all your money, or I'll kill everyone in your family. The Bolsheviks were fanatical about this, and that's why they won the war.

Leon Trotsky organized the Red Army in the war against the White Army. There were also the Greens, which were peasants. So, how did the Bolsheviks, the Red Army, win the war? They had a lot of help. They had a lot of mercenaries coming to the country, tens of thousands of mercenaries to help them, especially the Chinese mercenaries, the Latvians, the Hungarians. How did they get all this money? Transnational capital. Wall Street and the City of London were bankrolling the Soviets.

Also, we have to remember that at this time in history, during the revolution, Britain, France, the United States, and Japan sent armies into Russia. Now, what you learn in class is, oh, it's because they are capitalists and they fear the communists. That's not true. Why were the armies there? Because the Bolsheviks reneged on debt. Russia owed a lot of money to Britain, Japan, the United States, and France. And so these armies were sent in order to threaten the Bolsheviks. So what the Bolsheviks did was they stole as much money as they could from the peasants, from the nobility, from the treasury, and paid off these armies. And then these armies helped them in the war against the Whites.

Let's summarize.

• Argument: America and Britain needed Russia in the war against Germany, and the Germans controlled the Bolsheviks. That's why Britain and America would not support the Bolsheviks.
• Counter-argument: No, it's transnational capital that has influence over Anglo-American foreign policy. It's not to serve national interests; it's to serve private capital.
• Argument: The Bolsheviks are communists, so they're a threat to capitalism.
• Counter-argument: Actually, transnational capital cares about profit. They don't care about ideology. What drives them is money, not ideas.
• Argument: The Bolsheviks hated imperialism and capitalism, so they would refuse to work with Wall Street and the City of London.
• Counter-argument: They believed that the ends justify the means. We just have to do what we need in order to obtain power, then we can create our socialist paradise.

This is from a book called Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by Richard Spence. He spent a lot of time collecting documents that show that, in fact, transnational capital was helping the Bolsheviks win power in Russia. Why? Because they believed in the Bolsheviks? No. Because transnational capital, first and foremost, steals. They like revolution because revolution is an opportunity to steal as much as you can. You can buy things really cheaply during a revolution. This is his argument. Let's read a couple of passages from his book.

The pro-Bolshevik faction on Wall Street had a most outspoken pitchman in the aforementioned William Boyce Thompson. Departing Petrograd, he arrived back in the States on Christmas Day 1917. On January 18, he sat for an interview with a representative of Dow Jones and Company, published in the Wall Street Journal. Despite the fact that the Bolsheviks had proclaimed an armistice on the Eastern Front and opened peace negotiations with Berlin, Thompson insisted that the Russians would never conclude a separate peace... He pooh-poohed reports that there was anarchy in Russia and said that the Russian people were trying to adopt socialism as the basis of their government. If they were allowed to succeed, an extremely democratic, well-managed country will emerge. In other words, an excellent business environment.

So, what the Bolsheviks basically did was they took all the gold they had to bribe Wall Street so that Wall Street would go and brainwash the American people. That's the strategy here.

For those on Wall Street and elsewhere who dreamed of putting the brakes on Russia’s economic development and seeing its riches and resources up for grabs under a regime willing to sell anything, that dream had basically come true. From 1918 through early 1921, “War Communism” reduced Russia to an economy based on barter and robbery. Besides the abolition of private trade and the destruction of the monetary system, the Red regime embarked on a massive looting campaign, ransacking palaces, bank vaults, churches, and museums. They expropriated every valuable they could get their hands on and stashed it all in a new state treasury... By the close of 1921, an estimated $450 million in valuables had been sequestered there, with more to come. Much of it was destined to be fenced abroad for a fraction of its value in capitalist hard currency.

This is how empire works, guys. They destroy nations in order to steal as much as they can. What happens afterwards? They don't care. It's that simple.

After the Bolsheviks consolidated power, after they won the civil war, everyone assumed that Trotsky would be the new leader. But it's Stalin that becomes the new leader. Why? Because after the war ended, there was an expectation among the Bolsheviks: we helped transnational capital so much, they're going to help us rebuild our nation. They're going to give us loans, they will give us technology. And guess what happened? Transnational capital said, "No, you guys are good. We're good. We made our money." And so now what's happening is that Leon Trotsky, who is a Jew, gets blamed, right? Because Trotsky is the one who brought in transnational capital. He's the one who facilitated this exchange. And now the thinking is, "Oh, this is a Jewish conspiracy. You Jews were planning this all along to steal everything from us and then screw us over in the end." That's why Stalin won.

Leon Trotsky did not work for transnational capital. He was first and foremost a revolutionary who was interested in global revolution. He had a messianic calling to transform and save the world. But he was accused of being an agent of transnational capital, and because he was a Jew, it was just assumed that he was a spy. He also had a personality which was arrogant and aloof. Stalin had his own issues, but he benefited from the fact that Trotsky was a Jew and he was able to slowly amass power for himself. He also had a background as a police informant, but being a spy for the capitalists was a much worse crime. That's why Joseph Stalin won in the end. And this was terrible for the Bolshevik Jews who believed in the revolution because they all got killed by Joseph Stalin. Trotsky was killed along with all his children.

Karl Marx and the Goals of Empire

It's not just that transnational capital supported the Bolsheviks; they also supported Karl Marx. Karl Marx has an interesting background. He actually comes from many generations of rabbis, so he's basically a Jewish aristocrat. He was German, but then he moved to England and he wrote many books to promote communism. These books didn't sell well, so he was poor all his life. But what's interesting is he lived a very nice life. He lived in England and he lived a basic middle-class life. So where did he get all his money from? He got all his money from Frederick Engels, who was a friend of his and whose father was an industrialist, a Jewish industrialist. So why would a Jewish capitalist support Karl Marx? The answer is because communism benefits transnational capital.

In The German Ideology, Marx writes:

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

The problem with capitalism is that it degrades our individuality. We as individuals want freedom to enjoy ourselves. This is a very Frankist idea. We want to be free to enjoy the pleasures of life. The problem of capitalism is the idea of specialization, where you're forced to do one thing, one thing only, according to the needs of the capitalist.

In his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx describes an ideal form of production:

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

What he's saying here is that before, each of us were craftspeople. So I might make a vase. And when I make a vase, then this vase is an expression of my individuality, an expression of my creativity. And by looking at this vase, it becomes an objective symbol of my existence. I can look at this vase and my own individuality will be reflected back at me.

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

Then I give you this vase, and I see this vase at your home. You put flowers in it, and you're very happy with this vase, and then I can see my impact in the world.

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

So this vase now shapes your reality, and I know that this vase has given you meaning and it has shaped your reality, and therefore I find meaning in that. This is a very Frankist attitude, where you can project your imagination onto people and it can shape the way he or she sees reality.

In such a situation our products would be like so many mirrors, each one reflecting our essence. Thus in this relationship what occurred on my side would also occur on yours... My work would be a free expression of my life and therefore a free enjoyment of my life. In work the peculiarity of my individuality would have been affirmed since it is my individual life. Work would thus be genuine, active property. Presupposing private property, my individuality is so far externalized that I hate my activity, it is a torment to me and only the appearance of an activity and thus also merely a forced activity that is laid upon me through an external, arbitrary need, not an inner and necessary one.

This is a really important metaphor. He's saying that objects become mirrors where we can see our own individuality reflected. This goes against the religious concept where our humanity is reflected in each of us. So what he's doing is creating a material outlook. He's denying the existence of God, he's denying the existence of spirituality, but he's taking the concept of religion and applying it to a material world. He recognizes that we have these spiritual, religious needs, and what he's saying is that we don't need God to achieve these needs. We can have materialism achieve these needs, which again is a very Frankist concept.

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

Marx is correct in analyzing the problems of capitalism, but his problem is that he believes the solution is to make capital public, and as a result, this will create a workers' paradise. But there are problems with this.

• Marx believes that history is linear progress. So capitalism will lead to socialism, which will lead to communism.
• Second is the problem that history is teleological, meaning things go the way they should.
• Marx also believes that what matters is class struggle between the rich and the poor, as opposed to between spirit and flesh.
• The last thing that's most problematic is Marx believes you need a vanguard in order to lead the proletariat into a socialist paradise. You need an elite in order to lead us into paradise.

This eschatology is all Frankist. This is something that we learned before. This is something that Frank proposed, where his group is a new people which will lead people into a material paradise. So all Marx is doing is taking Jacob Frank's ideas and systemizing it. Now, I'm not saying that Marx was a Frankist. He's probably not a Frankist. But what I'm saying is that there are people around him, like Frederick Engels, who could have been a Frankist, and they used their money to influence Marx in a way. We can suspect this because there are some ideas that don't make sense. If you are a socialist, you believe in democracy. But Marx believed in a dictatorship. That makes no sense.

Bakunin's Critique: Freedom Through Others

Mikhail Bakunin was a socialist and an anarchist. He agreed with most of Marx's analysis, but where they disagreed is this: Marx believed you need a vanguard, like Jacob Frank believed. But Bakunin says, "No, no, no. If you have a vanguard, they'll just become a new capitalist class. What's the difference, man? If you are a socialist, you have to believe in democracy. You have to believe that everyone has the capacity to make his or her own decisions. And that must be the basis of your new society. Otherwise, we're just going to go back to the way things were before. It'll just be another empire. Before it was the British Empire, now it's a Russian Empire. Who cares? What's the difference?"

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

This is really important. This may seem the same as Marx, but they're really saying different things. Marx says no, the object is a reflection. And what Bakunin says is, no, no, no, the other person is a reflection. This goes back to Dante, Zoroaster, Jesus—the divine spark in us. And when we love someone else, when we care about someone else, our divine spark is reflected in that person's divine spark as well. The object gets in the way. That is a crucial distinction. It sounds the same, but these are two radically opposing ideas. Marx says, "No, it's the object that matters." Bakunin says, "No, no, what matters is our relationship with each other. We don't need the object."

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

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

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

What he's saying is this: the ultimate project of Marxism, when you have an elite vanguard in charge—which is no different, by the way, from transnational capital or the British Empire—it would lead to slavery. And quite honestly, he was right.

Sigmund Freud and the Invention of Gaslighting

Sigmund Freud, like Marx, is also extremely influential. He practiced medicine in Vienna. He was a psychologist, and so there were a lot of young women who came to him as patients. Freud would ask them, "What's wrong with you?" And the women would say, "I'm hysterical." At that time, hysterical just meant depressed or anxious. "I can't control my emotions. If a man talks to me, I stutter and I run away. I can't have personal relationships. I can't sleep. I'm sweating. I'm anxious." And then Freud would ask them, "Why is this happening to you?" And then the women would say, "Because when I was younger, when I was a little girl, my father raped me." Incest.

Freud was like, "Wow, this sounds really strange." But then he looked at the literature, he talked to many patients, and he recognized that everyone was telling him the same thing. And it's true. I mean, it's just pure logic. If you are abused as a young girl by your father, you have a lot of social problems when you get older, especially with men. So he collected all this research and he published a paper which was very good, called "The Aetiology of Hysteria."

Above all, my previously communicated assumption that a trauma, specifically a sexual trauma, cannot be stressed enough as a pathogenic agent was confirmed anew. Even children of respected, high-minded, puritanical families fall victim to real rape much more frequently than one had dared to suspect... Either their parents themselves seek substitution for their lack of sexual satisfaction in this pathological manner, or else trusted persons such as relatives (uncles, aunts, grandparents), tutors, servants, abuse the ignorance and innocence of children. The obvious objection that we are dealing with sexual fantasies of the child himself, that is, with hysterical lies, unfortunately is weakened by the multitude of confessions of this kind on the part of patients in analysis to assaults on children.

So what he's saying is, first of all, rape is a very common phenomenon, and these children are saying the same thing.

If you try... to induce the symptoms of hysteria to make themselves heard as witnesses to the history of the origin of the illness, we must take our start from Josef Breuer’s momentous discovery: the symptoms of hysteria (apart from the stigmata) are determined by certain experiences of the patient’s which have operated in a traumatic fashion and which are being reproduced in his psychical life in the form of mnemic symbols.

The idea is simple. These women, when they're being hysterical, when they're being anxious, depressed, it's because they suffered real trauma when they were younger. They're not making this up. They're not imagining this. A lot of people were accusing them, like, "You're just fantasizing this." And he said, "No, no, no. The science tells us, the research tells us you can only have these symptoms if you yourself experienced it." You cannot imagine a leg injury; you have to be hit by a car to have a leg injury. And this is what he's saying. You have to be raped by your father or a trusted friend or a relative in order to have these symptoms. Otherwise, they can't exist.

Why does this seem more frequent in the upper class?

You know what? That's a good question. The answer is, if you are an upper-class woman, you're much more likely to report this than if you are from the lower class. So, we're not saying that this occurs only among the rich. It could also occur among the poor. But it's the rich who have money to send their daughters to psychiatrists. The rich are educated, and therefore they will report this. They understand this is a bad thing. So we don't have evidence to suggest that this is more common among the rich. But what this is telling us is that among Frankists, this is very common.

The problem, of course, is that the fathers who are doing this are extremely powerful men. These are Frankists. Remember, Frankists practiced father-daughter incest. This is part of their religion. If you do it over generations, it just becomes multigenerational trauma. You just do it because you're addicted to it. And this is screwing up a lot of these young women. It's making them miserable.

After this happened, after Freud was reporting this, the Frankists were getting angry at him. What happened now is an alliance between Freud and the Frankists. In fact, you could argue that Freud now joined the Frankists. And so now what we'll see is a radical change in how Freud perceived these patients.

This is from a book by Jeffrey Masson, who for the longest time was a follower of Freud. He looked at Freud's personal letters and discovered a sharp break. Early Freud was very scientific; he believed the women who were his patients. But then later on, for a reason, he changed everything.

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

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

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

So, what he's saying is, is it possible there's a conspiracy among these patients? Possibly. But they're giving me these details, and these details make a lot of sense. So, he doesn't believe it's a conspiracy, but he does not discount the possibility because he's a scientist. He wants to be rigorous.

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

He says that one thing about this trauma is disassociation. So these patients will reveal details that would shock anyone else, but she says it indifferently, which means that she was disassociated from the experience when it happened.

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

One major objection is, is it possible you are implanting false memories in your patient? And what he's saying is, "Okay, well, I've tried this and it doesn't work." He doesn't deny that it's possible, but he's saying, "I myself have tried this and it has not worked." So he's being a very rigorous scientist. He's looking at all different possibilities, and he's discovering that no, there's only one possibility, which is that they are telling the truth. So he's advocating for his patients.

But then, he changes his mind completely.

Since childhood masturbation is such a general occurrence and is at the same time so poorly remembered, it must have an equivalent in psychic life. And in fact it is found in the fantasy encountered in most female patients, namely that the father seduced her in childhood. This is the later reworking which is designed to cover up the recollection of infantile sexual activity and represents an excuse and an extenuation thereof. The grain of truth contained in this fantasy lies in the fact that the father, by way of his innocent caresses in earliest childhood, has actually awakened the little girl’s sexuality. The same thing applies to the little boy and his mother. It is these same affectionate fathers that are the ones who then endeavor to break the child of the habit of masturbation of which they themselves had by that time become the unwitting cause. And thus the motives mingle in the most successful fashion to form this fantasy which often dominates a woman’s entire life: seduction fantasy. One part truth, one part gratification of love, and one part revenge.

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

The motives for illness often begin to stir in childhood. The love-hungry little girl, unhappy at having to share her parents’ affection with her brothers and sisters, realizes that all that tenderness comes flowing back when her parents are made anxious by her illness. The girl now knows a way of calling forth her parents’ love and will use this as soon as she has at her disposal the psychical material necessary to produce a morbid state. Once the child has become a woman and, in contradiction of the demands of childhood, has married an inattentive man who suppresses her will, unstintingly exploits her work, and expends neither affection nor money upon her, illness becomes the only weapon with which she can assert herself in life. It gives her the rest she craves; it forces the man to make sacrifices of money and care that he would not have made to the healthy woman; and it requires him to treat her with care if she recovers, because otherwise a relapse would be waiting in the wings. Her illness is apparently objective and involuntary... and it enables her to employ without conscious self-reproach this useful application of a means that she found effective during childhood.

So why is a woman being hysterical later in life? Because it allows them to control people. It draws attention to them, but it also makes people obey her whims. This is gaslighting. This is pure and utter gaslighting. And guys, this is what psychology is: just pure and utter gaslighting.

The problem, of course, is how do you convince your patient that this is true? He developed a mind-control technique called dream analysis. This is from his book, The Interpretation of Dreams. It's all just mind-control crap where the patient is trying to recall dreams and you're brainwashing that patient. Because if you've discussed memory, the person is like, "I know what I saw." But with dreams, then you can implant false memories. Then you can make suggestions. You can hypnotize that person. And so psychology becomes now mind control.

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

So, when the person is talking about his dream, you can now make suggestions, and that person will believe whatever crap you tell him. And that's the secret of mind control. And guess what, guys? We still use this crap today.

Freud is, of course, gaslighting everyone because he has to protect his patrons, the Frankists. And the Frankists will allow him to become very famous. He'll get a lot of awards. When the Nazis come to power, he'll go to England, where he's well-treated. He joins the Royal Academy. The British protect him, and the British will then spread his views. He has a disciple, Carl Jung, who will take his ideas and turn them into a systematic understanding of how the mind works, and from this will develop neuroscience. The problem with all this, as Bakunin tells us, is it's all self-directed inwards, which gets us nowhere. It's just you looking into yourself. It's navel-gazing, and from that, you learn no truth at all. But that's the entire basis of our society.

This understanding of the mind becomes reflected in popular culture. Bakunin tells us that to be truly free, we all have to be free. We have to be free together. In each other, we find meaning, purpose, and love. Not in ourselves, but in each other. That's the difference.

This leads us to a question. And this is a question I don't know the answer to today. It's all speculation. The question I want to leave with you today is: is Marxism, liberalism, individualism, Darwinism, and psychology a psyop meant to turn us into slaves? That's a question that you have to carry with you. I don't know the answer to that. I'm just providing you with a theory, and these connections, we don't know how close they are. It may just be random coincidence. It could be cause and effect. We don't know. But this is something that you will have to ask yourself as you continue your study.

This shows us an alliance between the Sabbatean-Frankists and the British Empire. Next, we'll talk about the Pax Judaica, which is a culmination of all these trends.